Im an athiest and im proud and yes reading the bible made me an athiest that and i dont get why people worship a random person who they have NEVER met. Its silly and i think "god" is dumb for hating gay people....he is a jerk. Im not gay but i love gay people and it pains me to see people being shunned for it....alittle off topic? yes. True? yes. Haters gonna hate? shoosh yea.
Reading the Bible DID NOT make you an atheist. Your decision to not believe in the God of the Bible is what made you an atheist. Your lack of faith in the God who created you is what made you an atheist. Your love of your own personal sin is what made you an atheist. Your choice of debased sin and lies over the forgiveness of Jesus Christ is what made you an atheist. When you meet God on Judgment Day you will no longer be an atheist, but it will be too late at that time, to save you.
Who are you to say that anyone has not met God? How can you rationally make that claim? I've met the God of the Bible. Definitely not a handshake type of introduction, but His Holy Spirit possessed my heart, and He threw open the doors to understanding His Bible. I will meet Him face to face soon enough, but until that time, my relationship is based on personal faith, given to me by Him.
He doesn't hate gays, he hates their immoral, detestable behavior. He loves them, and wants them to repent, but if they don't, his fatherly love will have to punish them. He doesn't like it, but the cold hard hearts have to turn to Him for forgiveness. Deal with it. It's the same for murderers, adulterers, thieves, degenerates, idolaters, etc etc etc. Sin is sin, repentance and faith clears that sin, and puts it on Christ's shoulders on the cross. He gives you his righteousness b/c of the faith you express in Him. Simple, but too complicated for those who love their sinful ways.
A HA HA HA HA HA HA! TYo realise that grown people in the 21st century are so prone to believe this crappola is rediculous and sad! I am an atheist and no it is not from reading the Bible, that just made my conviction stronger. Yes I have no faith in God, then again I think "blind" faith is ignorant and harmful. Take your blind faith, close your eyes and walk in the middle of the highway. Your blind faith that you will not be hit will most likely still get you killed!
As for sin, again an invention of humanity. All humans are animals. We all require the same things, love, food, water, shelter and air to name a few. To think that humanity is so unique and special in this world is once again childish and ignorant. Also people who do not believe in God are not necessarily sinful. i know many an atheist who do not drink, swear,smoke,cheat on their spouses, kill abuse or any of that. They live their lives moraly but do not believe in a GOD.
You are right GOD does NOT hates gays. How can something that does not exsist hate anything? But his followers do. If they decide to remain ignorant that homosexuality is a choice despite the exhaustive scientific research proving the opposite then so be it. Live in your imaginary, ignorant World and do not join the rest of us in the 21st century!
Nope, did not say anything about a disorder, not everything genetic is a disorder or disease. Do you think they will find a cure for eye color, height, etc.?
Walk By faith not by sight, the fact that you can even say that people live morally attests to the existence of immorality, erego sin. Furthermore not drinking, smoking, murder etc. Is not the Christian definition of morality, we seek perfection.
P.S. All men are guilty of adultery, as Jesus said " When you look upon a woman with lust you have already committed adultery in your heart."
Do not read the Bible if you plan to use logic instead of satisfying fear or insecurity while reading the Bible, you might become an Atheist, or non-Christian.
How do you become a athiest or non christian when you read the Bible? I read the Bible and I am a Christian and look at me I am not a athiest or a non christian. In fact I will never turn away frome God
That's because you don't think. Besides, the Bible is like a wall for past ages graffiti, kings and the like changed it to serve their needs, like slavery, killing infidels, and the like. ((My first post ever, imma give myself a pat on the back.))
It's awfully presumptuous and judgmental of you to tell the poster that he/she doesn't think. Honestly, have you read the Bible in full, Bobbeh? The Bible is not a "wall for past ages' graffiti." First of all, the original source, the Bible itself, claims to be the words of God (i.e. 2 Timothy 3:16; James 1:21-23; Psalm 40:7; Isaiah 34:16, etc etc etc), therefore, it is up to you to prove the Bible fallible and errant with verifiable evidence, as opposed to lies from Godhaters. God did use men to write His Scriptures, because that is how He chose to go about it, but He "inspired" them by breathing into them the words He wanted mankind to read (2 Peter 1:19-21) and believe (1 Thessalonians 2:13).
Fair question, and thanks for asking. God exposes all false prophets, and the Bible texts have gone through the ringer of public trial for thousands of years without being proven wrong, by human witness, science, or anything else. If a supposed prophet ever had as much as one proven erroneous statement he was branded a false prophet. The conglomerate whole of Scripture perfectly tells the history of God and creation which God wanted revealed. Errors would prove the authors as false prophets, which God stated many times he detests (Jeremiah 8:1,2; 2 Peter 2:1 for examples).
Well, there is a human account, the Mosaic Genesis account, which states it as fact. And, Jesus Christ, who is eternal, and thus another eye witness, confirms Adam and Eve as the first humans in Mark 10:6 and Matthew 9:4. So, if you're willing to publicly announce that both Christ and Moses are full of lies, then, go right ahead, but I wouldn't advise it. And, there is no biblical account of Eve's knockers, but factoring the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics along with degenerating genetics, I would venture to guess that she was ONE EXTREMELY HOT MOMMA. WOW, wish I could've been there!! :-)
The Bible doesn't give direct indication of Mary's hotness level. However, indirectly, her offspring was Jesus and we do have an account of his appearance, found in Isaiah 53:2, "There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance, nothing to attract us to him." Now, not all hot women have gorgeous kids, nor plain women have all homely kids, so this definitely isn't conclusive evidence. But, factor in that God the Holy Spirit was the biological father of Jesus, and we have to assume he is a stud. Jesus's dad is handsome, Jesus isn't, therefore, Mary must not be a hottie. So, that's probably all we can say about that.
There is no biblical record of Jesus performing miracles before his public ministry started at roughly 30 yrs of age. I would doubt that he performed miracles before that, because normally when miracles are performed the Holy Spirit has descended upon the person, and we are only aware of that happening starting at Jesus' baptism. In merciful conclusion, I would say that Jesus wasn't German or English, so he wouldn't have chosen to turn his mommy's breast milk into beer. I think, being Jewish, he would have turned it into pomegranate juice, or goat's milk, or something.
Well, not after his birth as the God/Man, but of course, in his preincarnate state he created the world and all things in it, so I guess that constitutes as a miracle. :-)
I'm wracking my mind trying to remember any miracles of his prior to his public ministry, but not coming up with any. Now, come to think of it, the Catholic bible (I'm not Catholic and don't agree with their later added ruling to include the Apocrypha to back their belief in Mary adoration and purgatory, etc), with the latter day added Apocrypha may have some accounts of miracles of Jesus, the boy? Maybe, but not sure, but I wouldn't believe that anyway because the Apocrypha documents aren't proven reliable by the earlier Catholic church councils.
Okay, so this thread we're discussing takes me about 20 minutes to scroll down and find the latest post. Is there ANY way, whatsoever, of "Showing All Replies" without so much scrolling? I'm new to this particular board, and I really like it, so help me out if you will.
How do you become a athiest or non christian when you read the Bible?
As Penn points out, I think what happens, is that what you are told about the bible and what the bible actually says, are two different things. There are certain things within the bible that most churches and preachers don't talk about, and when you read them for the first time it really makes you think.
For me personally I think it was difficult to pinpoint exactly what it was that caused me to become a disbeliever, but one thought that always laid heavy on my mind was "How do I know I am in the correct religion"?
I remember being church when i was every young thinking i wish it was the olden days when Jesus was alive cause apparently magic was possible then, i was agnotic by the time i was 13, militant athiest by the time i hit 17, and panthiest by the time i hit 20.
See my post on the other side, because Penn is full of crap himself. He totally fabricated much of what he said about the Bible, like all Godhaters do. True believers in God and His Scriptures shy away from nothing in Scripture because we believe it is the inerrant, infallible written words from God Himself. In answer to your bottom question, you only know you're in the right religion when you have both full faith and full evidence in the original God/Person and His Words. Only Jesus Christ died for your sins, so, if Christ isn't your Lord you'll have to find some other way to deal with your sins after you take your last breath. Good luck. Know that Jesus will hear your repentant prayer and heart's desire if you call on Him.
Having full faith does not guarantee you are in the correct religion, remember that Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Jains, Wiccans and all other manner of religions also claim to have absolute faith in their beliefs as well. Therein lies the problem. Obviously they cannot all be correct and all of them assert faith, so it seems pretty naive to assert that your religion is the "one true religion".
As far as evidence, at least the kind of evidence we can confirm "empirical evidence" is not possible for supernatural or metaphysical claims. What claims religions do make about the physical world are often contradicted by science, thus this war between science and religion.
Sins are an invention of the Abrahamic faiths and don't exist outside of those religions. It is sometimes said that sin is a fictional disease, for which the fictional solution is to adhere to those religions. Most religions don't acknowledge the existence of "sins", so it would be senseless to look for the solution to it in other religions.
Not so much as we should choose that which is most internally consistent, leads to happiness, and best explains the facts of the world. If there truly is a Benevolent God he would not punish myself or anyone else for following where our reason leads us.
How do you become a athiest or non christian when you read the Bible? I read the Bible and I am a Christian and look at me I am not a athiest or a non christian. In fact I will never turn away frome God
Read the italics in my post. That's how.
And you really shouldn't be claiming you never would, I can think of at least one scenario where you would turn away from God, and one other possible one.
That is really not relevant because you have read the bible and are not atheist does not mean that others won't read it and become atheist. And every time you sin you turn away from God it's as simple as that.
This is such a horrid generalization. Obviously your world view is not a very educated one. Don't try to sound intelligent when you have no idea what you're talking about.
I definitely admit it was a bit of a generalization. That's because I was going for more of a wittier reply than a complete sincere one. I decided to go this route because the question sounded a bit absurd, so why not answer with a bit of an absurd answer?
Obviously your world view is not a very educated one. Don't try to sound intelligent when you have no idea what you're talking about.
1. Prove it, you've made three claims here. Prove them. Why so many assumptions? Where does this get you in the debate?
2. I am not trying to sound anything. I am simply myself.
When I submit a short comment, I get this red text above the "write your argument" text and below "You support this view: _____________ (insert view)":
"The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible."
Go ahaed read the Bible! Come over to the dark Side! LOL Actually as a child I was made to read the Bible and trust me it is one of the reasons I am an atheist now. Full of legend and morality tales but should not be taken a gospel!
As I young child I was forced to read Darwin's Origin of Species and trust me it is one of the reasons I am a creationist now! Full of humorous accounts of fake transformations, but should not be taken as a fact!
As opposed to silly accounts of a big invisible person who made the Wordl and everything in it? The concept of evolution eludes you because you are probably not bright enough to grasp the concept as opposed to believing fairy tales written in ancient texts that have been edited throughout the millenia. The bible is full of fake "transformations" and events as well. So I can forgive you your ignorance!
I read everything! Including the Bible. I keep up on current events, history, nature many many subjects. Guess what I am still an atheist. Why because I have a brain. Do not just read things written thousands of years ago and believe what is written there.
If you love the bible, and support it, then you love and support sexism, intolerance, slavery and lunacy, okay? I read it and it said that women have no power over men and that they are to be kept silent and obedient, and the bible tells you how to handle slaves and it says that it's okay to have slaves just as long as you don't beat them to death, because it's what God says. And it says when you can rape a female slave.
If you have read the bible and you still love the bible, you either aren't reading it clearly, or you are a sick, sick person!
I belive it is possible. Its possible to read some of the stories and think its impossible and not belive it. I dint watch the videos but Just answering the question.
That is not even possible. I am a Christan and I will never be a athiest at all. I will choose to follow Jesus Christ all my days of my life. I read the Bible most of time and I never became an athiest.
Did you see the video? I don't think you saw the video. If you saw the video then you would see that there's more to this debate than meets the eye. you should see the video ;)
Yes I watched the video it still doesnt make any sense. I have read the Bible many times and look at me I'm not a atheist. My parents have read the whole Bible many times and look there not atheists. Show some proof that there is evidence that tells us that this is true.
Christians don't believe based on evidence, they believe based on faith.
In other words, Religion is one big appeal to emotion.
So long as your dependent on a belief, you will hold on to it and defend it despite rationality.
What is your life without your religion?
If you can't imagine it being anything good or at least if you always imagine it being worst then with religion: then the evidence will likely never have an effect. Religion is emotional, not rational.
The common argument about evil existing because of freewill being the ultimate good either means that evil is the ultimate good or that god is limited. I can go into the Riddle of Epicurus, show pascal's wager to be dumb, etc and so forth but If I do, please don't just repeat yourself like most Christians do on such subjects. They have a tendency of doing this-->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion. I hope your not one of them.
Actually I as a Christian believe there is evidence that God existed. Look at how we got the USA it was because our Founding Fathers were Christian thats why. If you read America's God and Country by Willam J. Federer it has a encylopedia of all the people who were in our Founding Fathers age that were Christian and they quote the Bible. Its really interesting. Most of the archaeologists looked in the Bible to find stuff and they would go to the place and they would find it. Like they found where Solomon was and in the book called Left Behind and there was the Wailing Wall in Israel. In the Bible it states that there is a holy city called Israel that true. All of the Bible is true none of them are false.
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
Jefferson again:
"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."
More Jefferson:
"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill."
John Adams:
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"
Also Adams:
"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
Here's Thomas Paine:
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."
"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."
"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."
"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance."
And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."
Finally let's hear from James Madison:
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."
Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.
A lot of Jefferson's statements seem to be reflecting on the nature of the political controls that the catholic church instituted along with James Madison, yes they were deists so Christian principles are interwoven into their ideas, sure they appear to vehemently hate the clergy and the institutions that they supported. John Adams also remarks on the creeds oaths etc. These are truly fabricated by the Catholic Church, but that does not mean they are all bad. The majority of these quotes would be correct in the context however if we were to think about Christianity as actually only having a very small following. Those who " Pick up their Cross daily" then this is hardly true. However I do agree that the clergy and the institutions were extremely corrupt but that is not really a reflection on Christianity it is more likely a reflection on human nature.
Here are some quotes from our Founding Fathers that were Christian.
Thomas Jefferson
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.
"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.
John Adams
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence
"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
--Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.
"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever."
Benjamin Franklin
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Unites States Constitution
"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.
That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;
But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure."
--Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790.
Samuel Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Father of the American Revolution
"And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace."
--As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.
Forgoing the hypocrisy you show by requesting a response from me while leaving a few arguments unanswered yourself, I will point out the flaws in your information.
First off: In your message to me you say TRUE quotes, are you implying that my source lied?
Second: Thomas Jefferson was a deist. Never in my post did I claim him to be an atheist. He was not a christian in the sense we know it. In your first quote from Jefferson, he never mentions the god of the Bible(doing so is necessary, otherwise one must assume he is talking about the bible which given contradictory evidence, that assumption cannot be made).
On the second quote, "I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ", we see that he makes a point to separate Jesus from the Bible, and that is all good. He did after all believe the Bible to be a dunghill. The teachings of Jesus alone do not equal Christianity, it is obvious there wasn't common knowledge of a descriptive term.
3:Now to John Adams.
"Suppose a nation in some distant Region"
Distant region? Sounds alright to me, as we are talking about THIS region.
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"
""The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
These show Adam's belief that corruption is all throughout religion.
Also, you will have a hard time getting past this:
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
Notice he refers to "general" principles in Christianity. Not the entire ideology as a whole.
4:Good old Ben.
"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion God Almighty."
God Almighty? Seems to me that that covers almost all possible forms of a monotheistic god.
"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped."
More simple theism?
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see"
Notice, HE left. JESUS left. To my knowledge, Jesus didn't fuck over Christianity. The over 40 authors of the Bible did.
5:Samuel Adams
"our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace"
And yet again, no mention of validity of the Bible.
6:I'm not letting this fact be forgotten: only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.
In conclusion, you acted as though I was implying the founding fathers were atheist. For the most part, evidence points towards an overall deistic view on god. They didn't exactly have the terms to describe positions on faith as we do now, and your attempts to take advantage of that goes to no avail. Not only did your quotes fail to surpass my own in terms of relevant, they also didn't fully contradict my quotes, the most vital objective your counter information needed to meet. Believing in the teachings of Jesus alone does not constitute Christianity as a whole. You attempt to thrive in the non specifics in faith: the less specific you are about a view the easier it is to defend. I will not let you set that trap. Try again if you must.
Here are some quotes from our Founding Fathers that were Christian.
Thomas Jefferson
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.
"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.
John Adams
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence
"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
--Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.
"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever."
Benjamin Franklin
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Unites States Constitution
"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.
That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;
But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure."
--Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790.
Samuel Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Father of the American Revolution
"And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace."
--As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.
John Quincy Adams
6th U.S. President
"The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made 'bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God' (Isaiah 52:10)."
--Life of John Quincy Adams, p. 248.
Roger Sherman
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution
"I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance equal in power and glory. That the scriptures of the old and new testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him. That God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, so as thereby he is not the author or approver of sin. That he creates all things, and preserves and governs all creatures and all their actions, in a manner perfectly consistent with the freedom of will in moral agents, and the usefulness of means. That he made man at first perfectly holy, that the first man sinned, and as he was the public head of his posterity, they all became sinners in consequence of his first transgression, are wholly indisposed to that which is good and inclined to evil, and on account of sin are liable to all the miseries of this life, to death, and to the pains of hell forever.
I believe that God having elected some of mankind to eternal life, did send his own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind, so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the gospel offer: also by his special grace and spirit, to regenerate, sanctify and enable to persevere in holiness, all who shall be saved; and to procure in consequence of their repentance and faith in himself their justification by virtue of his atonement as the only meritorious cause.
I believe a visible church to be a congregation of those who make a credible profession of their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, joined by the bond of the covenant.
I believe that the souls of believers are at their death made perfectly holy, and immediately taken to glory: that at the end of this world there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a final judgement of all mankind, when the righteous shall be publicly acquitted by Christ the Judge and admitted to everlasting life and glory, and the wicked be sentenced to everlasting punishment."
--The Life of Roger Sherman, pp. 272-273.
You were saying that the Founding Fathers werent Christian well look at all theses quotes I got and the prove they are Christains.
Just for future reference, it's spelled atheist. For this word, the e becomes for the i.
EDIT: In case you do not see the replies below to this post, I want you to know that this is simply a friendly tip. I don't mean to be an ass in any sense, I just wanted to be helpful. :)
Since when does someone make an argument only to correct someone's spelling of one word? Honestly, it's people like you that really need to get a life.
Not everything has to be some type of aggressive argument. I was simply trying to provide a friendly tip. And yes, I was bored. Do I need to have a life every second?
Couldn't someone make the argument that dwelling on an internet debate site means you need to get a life as well? People have various limits.
I happen to enjoy debate, so I do not believe it's a waste of time so long as the other options are not far more important. And that includes giving someone a friendly tip.
To be honest, I would send a message, but it's a bit creepy that it's publicly known who sends who a message. Maybe that's because I'm new and still haven't adjusted to such "unprivated"-private-messages.
The last person someone would go to for a friendly tip is a stranger on an internet debate site. And life is generally something one does or does not maintain.
The last person someone would go to for a friendly tip is a stranger on an internet debate site.
And how are you willing to prove this claim?
I am not here to rip the throat out of every opponent I have, I can and do be friendly with those I debate with. I do not have a need to be vicious to anyone who opposes my views or simply think they're undeserving of a kinder tip.
And life is generally something one does or does not maintain.
Then I reinforce my argument that one could say simply being on this site is a waste of your life, therefore you do not have one as well. In which case, where do you have room to bitch about my "lack of life"?
I am not here to rip the throat out of every opponent I have, I can and do be friendly with those I debate with. I do not have a need to be vicious to anyone who opposes my views or simply think they're undeserving of a kinder tip.
You're new so you probably don't know any better, but correcting the spelling of someone usually isn't necessary or called for. If someone cares about their spelling of a word, they would use the given spell check option.
Unless it's about claim you are going to enforce on a stranger over the internet that directly claims something about that stranger to be true. Then it becomes "yes, that may be generally a rule, but if you're going to assume it of someone, you gotta prove it".
You're new so you probably don't know any better, but correcting the spelling of someone usually isn't necessary or called for.
I notice the word usually. And I do not believe it was necessary or called for. However it was something I decided to do as a friendly tip. Friendly isn't always necessary or called for.
If someone cares about their spelling of a word, they would use the given spell check option.
That is not always applicable on a browser, so if someone thought they were spelling a word correctly and did not have a built in spell checker, they may believe they've been spelling the word correctly.
Unless it's about claim you are going to enforce on a stranger over the internet that directly claims something about that stranger to be true. Then it becomes "yes, that may be generally a rule, but if you're going to assume it of someone, you gotta prove it".
Says you.
I notice the word usually. And I do not believe it was necessary or called for. However it was something I decided to do as a friendly tip. Friendly isn't always necessary or called for.
Stop pretending to be a self-righteous good Samaritan. Your screams of martyrdom have little effect.
That is not always applicable on a browser, so if someone thought they were spelling a word correctly and did not have a built in spell checker, they may believe they've been spelling the word correctly.
So you decided it was your prerogative to correct this hypothetical someone?
Says logic. You make a claim and enforce it, you prove it.
Stop pretending to be a self-righteous good Samaritan. Your screams of martyrdom have little effect.
Prove I am these things you claim.
So you decided it was your prerogative to correct this hypothetical someone?
Not my prerogative, that implies it was exclusive to me. Which it's not. I merely noticed his consistent misspelling of the word and was on the site to debate some posts, and decided why not give a little friendly tip.
This is what you appear to be. What makes perception any less valid in terms of reality then truth that is not perceived?
Not my prerogative, that implies it was exclusive to me. Which it's not. I merely noticed his consistent misspelling of the word and was on the site to debate some posts, and decided why not give a little friendly tip.
If it wasn't exclusive to you, why were you the only individual to correct the spelling? Obviously no one else felt obligated to do it.
Prove this is what I appear to be. What of my post makes your claim valid?
What makes perception any less valid in terms of reality then truth that is not perceived?
What you claimed is not of perception or varying by mind, what you have claimed can be demonstrably proven. (Specifically that I am pretending something).
If it wasn't exclusive to you, why were you the only individual to correct the spelling?
Non sequitur. Simply because I am the only one to do something does not automatically conclude I am the only one able to do it.
Prove this is what I appear to be. What of my post makes your claim valid?
I don't need to prove my perception of reality to you.
What you claimed is not of perception or varying by mind, what you have claimed can be demonstrably proven. (Specifically that I am pretending something).
So that which can be demonstrably proven cannot be perception, and vice versa?
Non sequitur. Simply because I am the only one to do something does not automatically conclude I am the only one able to do it.
Everyone would be able to do it. Yet you were the only one to assume the obligation of doing it.
I didn't feel obligated to do it either.
Obviously no one else felt obligated to do it.
You don't act based on what you feel obligated to do?
Read my response to Troy8, it's the same response I have to you, with the following additions:
This had nothing to do with my supposed ego.
And the rule is i before e except after c or when sounding like a. Another exception is a long "e" sound will also be an exception to this rule, which is where the word "atheist" fits in, with a long "e" sound.
Though I think English has the most complicated rules, it quite frankly should be "athiest" (in my opinion), but it's not.
No there a rule for that as well it just can't be fitted nicely into the ryhme i.e. i before e except after c or the combination is being pronounced as an 'A', in which case it is ei
"I refuse to agree with anything you ever say even if you're right."
Wow, i think thats the definition of ignorance right there, i mean seriously you call yourself a debator yet you openly admit that you'll never conceed anything even if you're wrong. Small mindedness like yours is the reason this world will never change my friend.
So how did you do in English grammar and spelling in school?
Just wanted to break the ice there, I haven't watched either of Joe's videos because I am sure I have seen enough of those on Youtube and other sources before... The point of the video is probably that after the gentleman read the bible in depth, whilst using logical reasoning, he realized that after reading the unbelievably amazing and extraordinary happenstances that Christianity or Catholocism or whatever his specific denomination happened to be; he decided it was all rediculous.
Your experience is not the same for everybody. If you take away from a reading of the Bible a different set of beliefs and/or values than others, than that may be considered a fluke. Just as I may enjoy the works of Stephen King and others find him revolting, so can you enjoy the Bible, which others may find revolting. It is all in the eye of the beholder.
Penn Jillette, like so many Godhaters fabricates lies from God's word. First of all, God was absolutely NOT okay with Lot's daughters being raped, because they were NOT raped. Lot offered them to the angry mob that wanted to seduce the visiting angels, but that was Lot, NOT God. Anyway, the mob refused Lot's daughters because they were homosexual, and they wanted to have sex with the male angels. The two daughters later seduced Lot because they truly believed all men were destroyed when God rained fire and brimstone down upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. You see, God hated the immoral homosexuals so badly that He destroyed their cities after giving them ample opportunity to repent. They refused, and they died for their sins. So, Penn, you're a liar like all the authors you quoted along the way: Bertrand Russell, your rock singers, and the other hyperbiased deuschbag Godhaters. Read for yourself in Genesis 19. Penn has so many lies in this little vignette. I've read through the Bible five times, and many times in various studies, with a keen eye on errors, contradictions, and fairy tales, and truthfully, there are none. The liberal theologians and biased scientists like Dawkins, etc, who the magic wolfman Penn references are hyperbiased and full of vitriol and verbiage against the loving God of the Bible. He misrepresents God throughout his diatribe, too, so many times I can't address them all.
Penn Jillette, like so many Godhaters fabricates lies from God's word. First of all, God was absolutely NOT okay with Lot's daughters being raped, because they were NOT raped. Lot offered them to the angry mob that wanted to seduce the visiting angels, but that was Lot, NOT God. Anyway, the mob refused Lot's daughters because they were homosexual, and they wanted to have sex with the male angels. The two daughters later seduced Lot because they truly believed all men were destroyed when God rained fire and brimstone down upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Now I like the logical reasoning you had, it was in fact absolutely outstanding.
My only issue is all of the support for your argument sounds completely and wholly insane. You backed your argument with what you believe to be true and you did use logic to back yourself, it is just what you are defending. The specific story that is, the bible isn't wholly rediculous all the time... just a solid chunk of the time.
What you're saying is that you don't believe the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis, but have NO PROOF that it didn't occur. I happen to believe in the biblical account b/c of the human witness account. Do you have evidence it didn't occur? Any human witness accounts that the biblical narrative was fabricated? No, you don't. Do I have evidence it did occur? NO. So, please respect my right and ability to believe in the God of the Bible, and I'll respect your right and ability to disbelieve the God of the Bible. So, I'm glad you appreciate my logic, but it's only your simple disbelief against my simple belief about the rest of the matter.
OK...., so...., what you are saying...., if I may be so bold as to say back to you what I understood you to have said, is that....., not only do you NOT have proof that certain biblical accounts did NOT occur but you also lack proof that the Galactic Battle of Invisible Moon Bears NEVER happened. Does that about sum it up? I bet that you don't EVEN believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster...., do you? Well...., do you? What's the matter? Cat got your key board ;)
It's not terrible "reasoning." It may not suffice in your view, but that's only your view. There is a biblical claim that those things, like Sodom & Gomorrah, occurred. One can believe it, or one can choose to disbelieve it.
But, why wouldn't one believe that the accounts happened? Many, many people believe in the literal Genesis account of God's creation, and btw, the intelligent design scientists are offering all kinds of new evidence in support of it (www.icr.org); and if one believes in the Genesis account, what the heck is so hard to believe about God raining fire and brimstone from heaven down upon the immoral towns? That act is way too simple for the God of the Bible. Dang, I mean he created all matter, all immaterial, as well, ex nihilio. Get with it, Bohemian. If you want to wreck people's faith you really need to offer infallible and conclusive evidence against the stated claims of the belief.
The problem is that the burden proof rests on the person making the affirmative claim (i.e. you). There are a potentially infinite number of claims which cannot be disproven, this does not give them good reason to be believed. In my example, we have yet to disprove the existence of invisible moon bears, so would you say we should believe that invisible moon bears exist?
But, why wouldn't one believe that the accounts happened?
In regards to how true it may be, it doesn't really matter why someone does or doesn't believe in something. This is an appeal to motive.
Many, many people believe in the literal Genesis account of God's creation
Many people also think Justin Beiber is a good singer. Many people once believed that the earth was flat.
btw, the intelligent design scientists are offering all kinds of new evidence in support of it (www.icr.org)
The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is not a scientific organization. Setting out to prove what they have stated that they already believe, is in direction opposition to the scientific method. Their doctrine prevents them from finding any evidence that would contradict their 'mission'. Most of their "research" was conducted in their own libraries, and most of these researchers are not scientists but christian apologists. If you can find any ICR researcher that has an accredited degree in biology, geology or astronomy I would be very surprised. Those wishing to join ICR must sign a statement of faith.
and if one believes in the Genesis account, what the heck is so hard to believe about God raining fire and brimstone from heaven down upon the immoral towns?
Noting, if you believe in the Genesis account.
If you want to wreck people's faith you really need to offer infallible and conclusive evidence against the stated claims of the belief.
Infallible evidence is neither possible nor necessary, in fact no evidence at all is necessary until the affirmative claim first provides supporting evidence and then and only then can counter-evidence be requested. What is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.
However my intention is not to "wreck" anyone's faith, I am merely making arguments and your argument was particularly fallacious.
Sorry for the delay, but didn't notice your response. Your quotes are in quotations since I can't find a bold text option anywhere. I tried moving your quote to Word and bolding it, but it doesn't translate back to the forum.
"It is terrible reasoning because you are claiming that something is true because there is no disproof."
That's not the extent of my claim. My claim is that I believe what I read in the Scriptures based on faith FIRST, but if someone would provide evidence against what the Bible teaches/claims, then I would disbelieve the circumstance in question. You, on the other hand, when it comes to the Bible, but undoubtedly not many other writings, including news reports, etc., feel a need to initially disbelieve it's accounts because there is no way for it to be proven? What is proof to you anyway? Eyewitness? Well, Jesus Christ was an eyewitness, and the writers were eyewitnesses, so that doesn't suffice for you. Fine. But, what does? Tell us what evidence could possibly be presented to you about creation? About the global flood, and Noah's Ark, and the parting of the Red Sea, and such, exactly WHAT evidence would you personally require, since all people have differing requirements on what and how they believe? Would you have to touch God to believe He exists? Just because you haven't experienced God's spirit, does that mean you don't believe Him? Some of us have experienced the Holy Spirit of God in our lives, so we have evidence that He exists, and that His word is true. Your lack of evidence doesn't negate the reality of God. Do you believe that Abraham Lincoln existed? Why? Eyewitness reports, records, pictures, a monument? But, you didn't experience him in the flesh, and touch him, and talk to him, nor did you hear his voice. "Abraham Lincoln" could be a deceptive ploy carried out by some world organization meant to bring down slavery. I'll submit, right now, that "Abraham Lincoln" is totally fabricated. Bohemian, please prove to me that the person Abraham Lincoln was a real human.
Tell me how you believe any news report from around the world? Do tell us, please.
"The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is not a scientific organization. Setting out to prove what they have stated that they already believe, is in direction opposition to the scientific method. Their doctrine prevents them from finding any evidence that would contradict their 'mission'."
LOL. So, what you're saying is that there are perfectly unbiased scientists who study creation/big bang/evolution, etc? LOL. Your science gods who believe in the big bang and evolution are some of the biggest Godhating people on this earth, and they are full of deceptive scientific practices, leading to fabricated conclusions. LOL. Nice try, Bohemian.
"Infallible evidence is neither possible nor necessary, in fact no evidence at all is necessary until the affirmative claim first provides supporting evidence and then and only then can counter-evidence be requested. What is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence."
So tell us, what is possible to prove, under your personal system? You're good at using your little personal rule book to doubt "certain" things that you don't believe; but, truly, what is possible to prove? Is there a Natural Law of Evidence that provides humans a guide for believing any and everything? Please guide us into perfect truth, and belief.
"However my intention is not to "wreck" anyone's faith, I am merely making arguments and your argument was particularly fallacious."
Granted. Sorry. Your argument against evidence and ultimate truth and belief is totally fallacious, as well.
Yes it is. You've asked me to present evidence that something didn't happen.
My claim is that I believe what I read in the Scriptures based on faith FIRST, but if someone would provide evidence against what the Bible teaches/claims, then I would disbelieve the circumstance in question.
First of all, that you have faith in no way supports the veracity of your belief, nor would it constitute a good reason for others to believe it. One may have faith in literally any unfalsifiable implausible claim, and it would still be no better or worse than any other faith claim. There is no relationship between what is believed upon faith and what is actually true. None whatsoever.
Second of all, that you believe it on faith tells me that you WOULDN'T disbelieve if evidence were actually presented, because faith is not an evidence-based belief.
You, on the other hand, when it comes to the Bible, but undoubtedly not many other writings, including news reports, etc., feel a need to initially disbelieve it's accounts because there is no way for it to be proven?
Because of the extraordinary and supernatural nature of biblical claims, the burden of proof would be much higher than for non-extraordinary and non-supernatural claims. Nevertheless good reporting and journalism often contains an evidential source. Not to say I have never believed in a news story without examining the evidence, I am quite certain that I probably have rushed to conclusions without first examining the evidence, and I am quite certain you have as well. Having said that I am arguing that this is what you have done in regards to the Bible.
What is proof to you anyway?
This is a very good question. While proof and evidence are used interchangeably in colloquial usage I am more or less just referring to evidence and I think there is an important distinction to be made between proof and evidence. The simplest explanation is that evidence unequivocally supports one explanation over another and evidence can range from being very poor evidence to very strong evidence, whereas proof conclusively rules out all contrary explanations.
So to answer your question, what in my mind would constitute good evidence would be independent reliable sources which corroborate each other.
Eyewitness? Well, Jesus Christ was an eyewitness, and the writers were eyewitnesses, so that doesn't suffice for you.
The eyewitnesses are only spoken of through the bible itself and do not exist independently from biblical texts. To date no independent accounts or testimonies have been found except for the biblical texts themselves. Why not, if said events were as miraculous as claimed?
The first writings about the life of Jesus do not appear until some 70 to 80 years after the fact, this alone should raise some serious doubts. What other historical personage or historical event relies on uncorroborated texts written almost a century after the fact? Jesus himself didn't write a single word of the bible. Why is that? Are we to believe the son of God is illiterate?
Tell us what evidence could possibly be presented to you about creation? About the global flood, and Noah's Ark, and the parting of the Red Sea, and such, exactly WHAT evidence would you personally require, since all people have differing requirements on what and how they believe?
Different claims have differing burdens of proof depending on the extent of their claims.
If I claimed to have a friend with heterochromia (Two different colored eyes) the burden of proof would certainly be lower than if I said I had a friend with natural glowing red eyes. Perhaps just submitting a picture of my heterochromia friend, but if I sent in a picture of my friend with glowing red eyes, you would be more inclined to say it was a photoshop and would demand more evidence...perhaps seeing this person face to face.
I have often insisted that finding a universal layer of silt across the globe within the geologic would constitute evidence of a global flood. Egyptian records corroborating the red sea splitting, since they would not be motivated to corroborate a story that makes them look bad, I think would offer decent evidence of such an event. But by no means is evidence limited to my imagination.
Just because you haven't experienced God's spirit, does that mean you don't believe Him?
I am not in a habit of believing things which are impossible to see, hear, taste, touch, smell or measure in some way.
Some of us have experienced the Holy Spirit of God in our lives
And for you this may be compelling reason to believe, but for others it is not. Personal anecdotes of things which cannot be objectively tested or verified, are incredibly susceptible to cognitive and social biases and thus are incredibly unreliable. People often overestimate their own objectivity.
Your lack of evidence doesn't negate the reality of God.
The "reality" of God has not yet been established, only presumed.
Do you believe that Abraham Lincoln existed? Why? Eyewitness reports, records, pictures, a monument? But, you didn't experience him in the flesh, and touch him, and talk to him, nor did you hear his voice. "Abraham Lincoln" could be a deceptive ploy carried out by some world organization meant to bring down slavery.
If the existence of Abe Lincoln was just part of a massive international cover-up, this claim would require even greater evidence than if it weren't true and he was a real person. In that sense it is diss-analogous to the statement that some of the claims of the bible may be false or exaggerated.
LOL. So, what you're saying is that there are perfectly unbiased scientists who study creation/big bang/evolution, etc?
I never claimed that. However the scientific method if followed properly is designed to filter out biases, this is why we have double-blind studies for precisely this reason. When religious doctrine prevents you from accepting or investigating evidence which may contradict that doctrine, then you fail to follow the scientific method.
ICR says "This is true, I will try to prove it"
Science says "This might be true, I will try to refute it"
Your science gods who believe in the big bang and evolution are some of the biggest Godhating people on this earth, and they are full of deceptive scientific practices, leading to fabricated conclusions.
I emphatically disagree. There are many scientists who believe in God, but in a God more consistent with scientific findings. Dr. Ken Miller, for example. Even for the scientists who don't believe in God, it can hardly be said that they hate something that they personally don't believe exists. Even if they did, that would not in any way refute any scientific discovery made by them.
This is an ad hominem. Argue the science not the scientists.
Granted. Sorry. Your argument against evidence and ultimate truth and belief is totally fallacious, as well.
You nor anyone else posses "ultimate truth" and to insist that you do is very naive. Also would you mind pointing out specifically what fallacy I have committed?
You, Sir, are a pure rationalist. You have chosen to not believe in spiritual things, nor in miracles of any kind unless they can be proven to your specifications. Like the scientists who are Christians (and there are MANY more beyond ICR) whose work and conclusions don't suit you because you are biased towards them because of their belief in God, you will not believe in any type of miracle totally because you don't believe they are possible. You are a rationalist, plain and simple. You strictly operate within the narrow bounds of your five senses. You hide behind the veils of logic and science, so you don't have to disclose the proof criterion for belief in anything, much less the Bible's claims.
You want an Egyptian account of the Red Sea parting, but the Bible is clear that every single Egyptian soldier was wiped out in the massacre. Tell me this, what if Noah's Ark was found atop Mount Ararat? And it measured out at exactly the size of the biblical account - would you then believe in the global flood? Hint - it's where the dinosaurs died - God didn't allow them on the Ark.
Why do you believe in carbon dating when it is a known faulty system?
Oh my, as a Rationalist you have so much to explain. There is no way you can believe human accounts, nor anyway to believe any form of evidence that is presented to you, because that said evidence could have been altered in some way , by someone with ulterior motives. Hey, the two or more "independent reliable sources" that you would accept as "good evidence" could 1) be part of a secret conspiracy, and conjure up similar accounts; 2) offer accounts that don't quite jibe because they viewed, or heard, or smelled, or tasted, or felt the same exact thing, but from a different perspective. Unless you can actually personally witness something, anything, everything, and verify with any or all of your own senses, as a pure Rationalist, you cannot believe it. Period. If you do, you are being untrue to your Rationalist foundational beliefs.
You think incorrectly when you state God doesn't prove himself to people. He does, physically, to many. With me, though, He changed me from the inside out. When he entered my heart, he burnt the hell right out my soul. You think I didn't "feel" that, Mr Rationalist? Sorry to disappoint you, I did, and I will never forget it.
You operate on this theoretical plane for these important parts of life, such as what we're discussing. In theory, the things you say sound reasonable, but you are an incredibly biased person, who chooses to not believe in God and will accept no evidence from any person who does, because you consider them solely faith-based, unscientific, illogical head-in-the-clouds nutjobs, who should stay out of laboratories and all things that have anything to do with intelligence.
Do you believe in the Big Bang? If so, tell us exactly what Big Bang process you have personally witnessed, or any the 2 or more of your independent reliable sources have witnessed.
Do you believe in evolution? If so, tell us exactly what evolutionary process you have personally witnessed, or any the 2 or more of your independent reliable sources have witnessed.
I could extend this line of questioning, but I think I've blown enough holes in your philosophy of "belief."
I've recently realized that including terms like douchebag probably doesn't help "Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear" Ephesians 4:29. Well not realized rather chose to stop ignoring how bout that.
You're absolutely correct. My apologies to God, and the viewers. I was trying to relate by speaking in the vernacular, which was wrong. I need to rise above and be salt and light, and purify my tongue with burning coals. I'm feeling like Isaiah, a man of unclean lips (Isaiah 6): "Woe is me." Thanks for the correction.
In the words of C.S. Lewis " A young Atheist can never be too careful of what he reads." The opposite very well may happen as it has with a number of people in my Church.
The only way one would become an atheist if they read the Bible, is if they were not intelligent enough to understand it. The Bible contains many parables and metaphors, one must think beyond that of a three year old. "The truth will set you free."
You have to have some degree of intelligence, but it takes faith and God opening the heart to fully believing the Bible. "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of God." Acts 16: 14, "Lydia. . . worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul." So, it's a combination of God working in a person's heart, and that person's faith and intelligence kicking in and leading the person to belief.
Honestly you're right except for one thing, any degree of intelligence that any person has been given is sufficient to believe in God because otherwise God would be depriving them of something they require to believe.
Alright, but does an off-the-chart intelligent human, like Adolph Hitler have a better chance of being saved then someone else who is of a lower IQ level? God will save those who are unable to intelligently enough understand the gospel message, and make a heart's commitment to it. God is perfectly able to save those whom he chose, and his grace covers all matters involved.
I do understand what you're saying, but I've seen mentally retarded people on both ends of the spectrum of faith, some Godlovers, some Godhaters. It's the heart's bent towards God, but, the heart includes one's mind, which is at the center of our brain. Great stuff to discuss.
Well actually I would say that intelligence, especially in today's world, ( or percieved intelligence) Tends to push people towards atheism, they believe they are too "Smart" For God.
I would say that those without faith are blinded, that is why debates like this get nowhere, nonbelievers refuse to believe and believers refuse to disbelieve.
Exactly, but the interesting thing is that: Believers lived as Disbelievers before conversion, so they are the only ones who have been on both sides, and understand the horrible and hopeless emptiness in the lives of Disbelievers. After meeting God, I can't fathom going back to a meaningless life.
I have had the opposite experience and have both heard of, and know, numerous people who read the Bible as atheists and became believers. The argument that actually reading the Bible causes atheism is absurd and only true in a tiny minority of readers. Christianity would have ceased to exist if reading the Bible really caused more atheism than belief.
After I began to study the Bible again, I read it carefully and reached the profound conclusion that this was a book about one Hebrew thunder god who, throughout the past 5,700 years since Adam, has managed to conquer and destroy all the other gods who have stood in His way. His intellectual power is unparalleled and the Bible shows this to be the case.