Open Discussion: So, Why IS Atheism Better Than Christianity?


Just avoid or **** out the profanities.

(Clarification: By atheism, I refer to liberal/humanist/naturalist/existentialist atheism that rejects all forms of supernaturalism and religion. By this definition, Buddhism is exempted.)


Tags: , , , , ,

67 Responses to “Open Discussion: So, Why IS Atheism Better Than Christianity?”

  1. jonolan Says:

    I wouldn’t say that Atheism is “better,” buts adherents seem to prefer not having any outside force govern their ethics or behaviors. After all, no Gods means by extrapolation no Right or Wrong, so anything that is desirable is OK.

  2. wits0 Says:

    “..anything that is desirable is OK.

    Unfortunately not everything desirable is harmless(especially to others). The entire Human history seem to have difficulty recognizing a simple basic fact like this.

    I think the entire difficulty with mankind is that it tends towards unkindness from lack of apathy wrt the understanding of the Golden Rule of Mankind which some creeds tend to abrogate to their own and others’ detriments out of cocksure self-righteousness and disguised arrogance over the certitude of their own presumed infallible dogmas. This is the actual doctrinal problem that transcends the athests – theist divide.

  3. wordyrappinghood Says:

    I call myself an Atheist which is not strictly correct. I believe that there maybe some kind of force behind life. In that respect I am more of an Agnostic. But I certainly do not believe in any god of the bible/koran etc.
    My view is that religion is just politics with a god as party leader.
    Always avoid the ‘Men in Black’. Theism just shackles our souls to dogma and false belief. Atheism releases and expands our minds.

  4. scatheist Says:

    Asking why is Atheism better than Christianity is like asking why is a round earth better than a flat earth. The answer would be it’s not better or worse, it just is round.

  5. matkilat Says:

    It would depend on what sort of “atheism” you were talking about (just like Christianity, there are many kinds!). Militant atheism is nearly as bad as Christianity and for some, atheism makes them almost as zealous as religion.

    But anyway, here are my reasons why its obsolete.

    1) Basing your life on a piece of literature written 2000 years ago is just stupid. You wouldn’t use a 5 yr old computer, nor would you read a month old newspaper or magazine, but hey, basing life around sayings and practices from 2,000 years ago makes perfect sense. (Islam, though, is even worse in this respect with its ultra-restrictive Sh’aria but Christianity isn’t much better either).

    2) The God depicted in the Bible has deep character flaws more befitting the likes of Mao or Stalin than some supreme “just” and “loving” being. Free Choice doesn’t exist, satire (by children!) is punished with bear maulings, the unforgivable Sin is “grieving the Holy Spirit”!! Hellloo……murder is ok if you ‘repent’, but oh noes, NEVER “grieve the Holy Spirit”.

    3) Creationism. And the body of evidence that says otherwise.

    4) The creator paradox. If everything has to have a creator, then who created the Creator? And should we not then worship Him/Her/It instead?

    5) All the dogma in organized religion, especially the Church (and not just in Anglican/Catholic churches).

    6) No unified stand on controversial issues (the church can’t even agree on Women priestess’/ministers, much less more controversial issues like homosexuality).

    7) Some of Paul’s teachings have discriminative tendencies (similar to Islam’s Us vs the Infidels mindsets, although admittedly nowhere near as bad). The teaching of “do not be unequally yoked” – where Christians are instructed to only marry and consort with other Christians comes to mind.

    We could go on and on, but work beckons.

  6. matkilat Says:

    And just one more, couldn’t resist…….

    Pushy evangelicals who can’t accept the fact that someone wouldn’t feel the same way as them and try to cram their religion down your throat are incredibly annoying.

  7. wellwateredgarden Says:

    Actually, regarding the 5 year old computer comparison … you (and everyone else) would keep your five year old computer if all the computers they were now selling weren’t as good as your five year old one!

  8. matkilat Says:

    “you (and everyone else) would keep your five year old computer if all the computers they were now selling weren’t as good as your five year old one!”

    Yup. You are right.

    The problem is……………….they aren’t. And even if it were somehow implausibly better designed, and still ran, it still wouldn’t be worth much.

    Simply because it wouldn’t run any of today’s software, hence making it obsolete and useless.

    In the same way, even if we assumed (big assumption) that your book, written in the dusty desert some 2,000 years ago was a “better” manual on how to live life, it still wouldn’t be worth the paper it was printed on, simply because, in the same way a circa-1998 PC couldn’t run Windows XP, a guy who lived 2,000 years ago wouldn’t even be able to COMPREHEND our lives today, much less write a book on how a 21st century person should live life!!!!

    Sensible people want to move forward, not stay stuck in a time warp following rules laid down 2,000 years ago.

    If you want a good example of what happens when you do that, all you have to do is look at Europe during the Dark Ages, or even better, parts of the Middle East today. Their religion resists change, clinging to the mindset of Muhammad 1,500 years ago, and hence, they live almost like he did, riding on camels, marrying 4 wives, ekeing out a living in poverty.

    Lest you gloat that your religion is “different”, Europe would still be that way without the transformation of the Industrial Revolution and more importantly Reformation, which questioned the stranglehold of the Church on Intelligentsia and evolved the humanist/existentialist movement.

  9. wits0 Says:

    “..the stranglehold of the Church on Intelligentsia and evolved the humanist/existentialist movement.”

    This wasn’t something that came from the churchmen themselves for they have had too much political self interests at stake then. The lessening of this stranglehold had to evolve slowly over time. First it has to emerge as something like the Deism of Thomas Paine and his work, ‘The Age of Reason’ :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason

    I’m sure that even the Thongs here certainly don’t believe that ALL Knowledge is/was/must be revealed on/at a one-time basis.😀

    When Darwin(and his proponents) came to the scene, however, he seemed to have thrown the baby out with the bath water. It’s like as if he effectively and similarly started his own, “Church of Darwin”, imposing his Evolutionary Theory(which is still a theory, btw) as a compulsory bedrock of Science and Academia.

    In the early days of Science and crude instruments, after a voyage to the Galapagos on HMS Beagle and a collection of fossils and dry bones, he seemed to have discovered/divined(in the name of Science) the origin of man. I believe this “achievement” is farfetched, just as we wouldn’t admire starch beard as the perfect fashion thing today. It was a revolutionary idea that removed the stricture placed on thinking but by no means a fail-safe proposition at all.

    The so-called Progressives and Post Modernists are examples of such mutants.

  10. wellwateredgarden Says:

    Let me put this another way … the Western world bases its laws on the principals of the Judean/Christian teachings, namely the Bible. Increasingly, because our society wants less and less to do with Chritianity, there is a watering down of these ideals and the concept of right and wrong judicially gets grayer and murkier.

    Upon what principals would Atheism enact laws so as to maintain a civilization that cares and looks out for one another?

  11. Matt Says:

    the Western world bases its laws on the principals of the Judean/Christian teachings, namely the Bible.

    I would disagree with that statement. Instead, I’d say our laws are based on a huge amount of minuscule tweaking of older laws … which come from the more ancient civilisations such as the Greeks and Romans.

    And they got those laws from older traditions which came from older ideas from people who worked out that your chances of survival are a lot better if you don’t go around killing, stealing, etc.

  12. Scott Thong Says:

    Hmm, so far a much tamer discussion than it could have become.

    I’ll begin with standard responses to some of the standard criticisms of Christianity.

    1) Basing your life on a piece of literature written 2000 years ago is just stupid. – matkilat

    Yet the majority of our ‘secular’ laws are based on a mishmash of societal norms dating from far before 1 A.D., such as the Laws of Hammurabi and Athenian democracy. Perhaps you could better phrase it as, “Basing your life on 6000 years of human civilizational experience, without adaptation to the times and the situation, is stupid.”

    The God depicted in the Bible has deep character flaws more befitting the likes of Mao or Stalin than some supreme “just” and “loving” being. Free Choice doesn’t exist, satire (by children!) is punished with bear maulings, the unforgivable Sin is “grieving the Holy Spirit”!! Hellloo……murder is ok if you ‘repent’, but oh noes, NEVER “grieve the Holy Spirit”.

    I contend that Mao and Stalin never let anyone off the hook by the mere intention of the person to repent.

    The ‘satire by children’ is a common misunderstanding – the Hebrew word used is more accurately describes youths. You know, like the ‘youths’ the media reports are rioting and burning cars in Paris and the Netherlands… Hardly elementary schoolkids. Note also that none of the youths were reported to have died from the mauling.

    The only ‘unforgiveable sin’ is grieving the Holy Spirit is clarified by a matter of definition. The standard understanding is that this refers to a total rejection and refusal of God’s offer of forgiveness and, which means one is not forgiven (duh). Basically, any other sin still has the chance of repentance, but a permanent rejection of God’s forgiveness is – by definition – the last straw.

    Creationism. And the body of evidence that says otherwise.

    A common misconception is that all Creationists believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. The correct term for such a belief is ‘Young Earth Creationism’. While it is true that most Christians believe God is responsible for creation, they have widely differing opinions on how that was accomplished and how long the process took.

    To cite one example, the Roman Catholic Church officially accepts evolution, with the understanding that it is simply the method by which God created life (as the Big Bang was the method by which God created the universe).

    The creator paradox. If everything has to have a creator, then who created the Creator? And should we not then worship Him/Her/It instead?

    This is a false dilemma. Everything that is created needs a Creator, but the Creator does not need to be created.

    God exists outside of space and time. Though everything in this universe had a beginning (indeed, even the universe itself), God is not a part of this universe.

    Even in physics, the notion that there must be a Cause before the Effect is ignored… The cyclic model conjectures that the universe(s) continually Big Bang and Big Crunch, producing the next universe(s), without a thought as to where the first universe came from.

    And for the flip side, if there is no Creator, no outside force that exists apart from space-time… Then how did this universe come into being?

    As the trope goes, without God then: Everything was created by nothing, out of nothing, for no reason.

    All the dogma in organized religion, especially the Church (and not just in Anglican/Catholic churches).

    You’ll have to be more specific.

    No unified stand on controversial issues (the church can’t even agree on Women priestess’/ministers, much less more controversial issues like homosexuality).

    Wait, didn’t you just diss dogma? Dogma is adherence to a set of beliefs without question. But in the very next sentence, you diss freedom of thought and belief!

    Some of Paul’s teachings have discriminative tendencies (similar to Islam’s Us vs the Infidels mindsets, although admittedly nowhere near as bad). The teaching of “do not be unequally yoked” – where Christians are instructed to only marry and consort with other Christians comes to mind.

    I’d have thought you’d cite the verses on women, but very well…

    It is common sense that devoted Christians do not marry non-Christians (or casual Christians for that matter). Their loyalties, beliefs, convictions, worldviews and priorities are completely at odds.

    To put it simply: The non-Christian would think that the Bible is full of crock and that Christian dogma and life rules should be tossed in the trash heap, while the Christian would think the exact opposite. To illustrate this, just look at you and me discussing this topic.

    Another example is someone who believes that eating meat is murder marrying a Back to Roots type who insists on only eating meat that he shoots and butchers with his own hands. Does anyone see any potential problems there?

    While it may be ultimately workable, such matchups are simply asking for trouble.

    Pushy evangelicals who can’t accept the fact that someone wouldn’t feel the same way as them and try to cram their religion down your throat are incredibly annoying.

    I’ll have to agree with you, that is simply a bad testimony on their part. If people do not want to hear the message, that is totally their pregorative.

    If anyone who does this is reading this comment, try imagining this scenario: Homosexuals barge into church and kiss and fondle one another in front of your kids, or an abortion clinic opening across the road from your house. How would you feel?

    (Note: The above two examples are cited from actual real life events –here and here. So I guess you don’t need to imagine it.)

    ——————-

    I hope this quick lesson in standard Christian apologetics has enlightened you somewhat.

  13. Scott Thong Says:

    In the same way, even if we assumed (big assumption) that your book, written in the dusty desert some 2,000 years ago was a “better” manual on how to live life, it still wouldn’t be worth the paper it was printed on, simply because, in the same way a circa-1998 PC couldn’t run Windows XP, a guy who lived 2,000 years ago wouldn’t even be able to COMPREHEND our lives today, much less write a book on how a 21st century person should live life!!!!

    But how exactly are the fundamentals of human relationships and societal civilization any different from when humanity first began (or, if you prefer, evolved)? You seem to be confusing technological progress with a complete reboot of what it means to be human.

    To give some overarching examples: Humans 6000, 4000 and 2000 years ago did not like being murdered. Do any humans today like to be murdered as a result of ‘progress’? Do they like to have their belongings stolen? Their wives cheat on them? Being slandered? Being conspired against? Being ignored and left to rot in a homeless shelter by their children once their usefulness has expired?

    I’ve just paraphrased the latter six of the Ten Commandments. Can you say that they are obsolete simply because they are more than 2000 years old?

    While Islam and even the Old Testament may have painstakingly exact details for various rituals and rules, Christians adhere to the spirit of those laws rather than the minute letter.

    But perhaps you are not familiar with the accepted Christian differentiation between cultural practices of the early church founders and actual Biblical dogma.

  14. matkilat Says:

    Hmm, so far a much tamer discussion than it could have become.

    Yet the majority of our ’secular’ laws are based on a mishmash of societal norms dating from far before 1 A.D., such as the Laws of Hammurabi and Athenian democracy.

    Perhaps you could better phrase it as, “Basing your life on 6000 years of human civilizational experience, without adaptation to the times and the situation, is stupid.”

    I contend that Mao and Stalin never let anyone off the hook by the mere intention of the person to repent.

    The ’satire by children’ is a common misunderstanding – the Hebrew word used is more accurately describes youths. You know, like the ‘youths’ the media reports are rioting and burning cars in Paris and the Netherlands… Hardly elementary schoolkids. Note also that none of the youths were reported to have died from the mauling.

    The standard understanding is that this refers to a total rejection and refusal of God’s offer of forgiveness and, which means one is not forgiven (duh). Basically, any other sin still has the chance of repentance, but a permanent rejection of God’s forgiveness is – by definition – the last straw.

    To cite one example, the Roman Catholic Church officially accepts evolution, with the understanding that it is simply the method by which God created life (as the Big Bang was the method by which God created the universe).

    This is a false dilemma. Everything that is created needs a Creator, but the Creator does not need to be created.

    God exists outside of space and time. Though everything in this universe had a beginning (indeed, even the universe itself), God is not a part of this universe.

    Even in physics, the notion that there must be a Cause before the Effect is ignored… The cyclic model conjectures that the universe(s) continually Big Bang and Big Crunch, producing the next universe(s), without a thought as to where the first universe came from.

    You’ll have to be more specific.

    I’d have thought you’d cite the verses on women, but very well…

    It is common sense that devoted Christians do not marry non-Christians (or casual Christians for that matter). Their loyalties, beliefs, convictions, worldviews and priorities are completely at odds.

    To put it simply: The non-Christian would think that the Bible is full of crock and that Christian dogma and life rules should be tossed in the trash heap, while the Christian would think the exact opposite. To illustrate this, just look at you and me discussing this topic.

    If anyone who does this is reading this comment, try imagining this scenario: Homosexuals barge into church and kiss and fondle one another in front of your kids, or an abortion clinic opening across the road from your house. How would you feel? I hope this quick lesson in standard Christian apologetics has enlightened you somewhat.

    Yes, its strengthened my belief that no christians can answer the tough questions.😉

  15. matkilat Says:

    Bah, the quotes came out all wrong. Damn html……..

  16. Scott Thong Says:

    I’ll fix it.

    There, hope that’s okay.

    Are my answers unsatisfactory?

  17. matkilat Says:

    argh…….i actually wrote a long ass post to rebut, but it ate up all my comments!!!

    I’ll repost……………..damn you wordpress.🙂

  18. Scott Thong Says:

    I feel for you man… The host of the blog (me) can delete an entire comment with but a single misclick of the mouse. The comment that was deleted was my long a$$ one, and comments by the host do not have a copy sent to the email.

    Try writing it in Notepad then pasting it in.

  19. matkilat Says:

    “Yet the majority of our ’secular’ laws are based on a mishmash of societal norms dating from far before 1 A.D., such as the Laws of Hammurabi and Athenian democracy.”

    Based on, maybe, but so loosely that it rivals comparing a chimpanzee or a neanderthal to a 21st century human being.

    Our secular laws are based on thousands of years of human experience – we realize they’re not perfect (and probably will never be), but they have the advantage of NOT being “God’s Laws” which are religiously infallible. Hence secular laws -> amenable to fit the times, Religious laws -> not.

    “Perhaps you could better phrase it as, “Basing your life on 6000 years of human civilizational experience, without adaptation to the times and the situation, is stupid.””

    Thanks for agreeing with me.

    However, this doesn’t sit with the religious view. Hebrews 13:8 for context.

    “I contend that Mao and Stalin never let anyone off the hook by the mere intention of the person to repent.”

    No, but they also never threw someone into a gulag for eternity to be tortured according to the biblical version of Hell. Even the Stalin “bullet to the back of the head” special seems much more merciful than that.

    “The ’satire by children’ is a common misunderstanding – the Hebrew word used is more accurately describes youths. You know, like the ‘youths’ the media reports are rioting and burning cars in Paris and the Netherlands… Hardly elementary schoolkids. Note also that none of the youths were reported to have died from the mauling.”

    So getting maimed by a beast is an appropriate response? Oh do give me a break. Even the Iraqi shoe thrower doesn’t deserve that. And knowing they “were not reported to have died” is SO comforting. Truly a benevolent being, allowing them to live for such a transgression🙄

    “The standard understanding is that this refers to a total rejection and refusal of God’s offer of forgiveness and, which means one is not forgiven (duh). Basically, any other sin still has the chance of repentance, but a permanent rejection of God’s forgiveness is – by definition – the last straw.”

    Thats YOUR definition. So far, there’s not a standard definition agreed upon by the church for that one. Who knows if that’s even Your “God’s” definition – not you I’ll bet. If “grieving” Elisha earns one a mauling by a bear, and lieing about tithes to Paul = death, allow me to just say I’m not entirely convinced by your interpretation.

    “To cite one example, the Roman Catholic Church officially accepts evolution, with the understanding that it is simply the method by which God created life (as the Big Bang was the method by which God created the universe).”

    Again, this doesn’t really jive with the creationist myth. Maimonides for instance is not universally accepted by Christians.

    “This is a false dilemma. Everything that is created needs a Creator, but the Creator does not need to be created.”

    Logical fallacy and a huuuuuge cop-out.

    “God exists outside of space and time. Though everything in this universe had a beginning (indeed, even the universe itself), God is not a part of this universe.”

    And we are supposed to believe that why? Because it fits your argument? Or because the Bible says so? Ok, thats me convinced there.

    “Even in physics, the notion that there must be a Cause before the Effect is ignored… The cyclic model conjectures that the universe(s) continually Big Bang and Big Crunch, producing the next universe(s), without a thought as to where the first universe came from.”

    Cyclic model is only one of several universal models.

    Also, the cyclic model has its flaws, and even proponents of the theory would be the first to admit it isn’t anything more than a theory – certainly no fact.

    “You’ll have to be more specific.”

    What I meant is, Christian dogma centres more around the religiousity and traditions than addressing the actual, pressing controversial issues facing Christians today.

    Perhaps it would be because the Bible is notoriously silent on many of this issues (due to the fact they didn’t exist 2000 years ago!), or the attitudes in the Bible (towards Gays and Women) wouldn’t be very popular today is my guess.

    “I’d have thought you’d cite the verses on women, but very well…”

    Oh, that’s for later.😉

    “It is common sense that devoted Christians do not marry non-Christians (or casual Christians for that matter). Their loyalties, beliefs, convictions, worldviews and priorities are completely at odds.

    To put it simply: The non-Christian would think that the Bible is full of crock and that Christian dogma and life rules should be tossed in the trash heap, while the Christian would think the exact opposite. To illustrate this, just look at you and me discussing this topic.’

    Not ALL non-christians “think the Bible is full of crock etc etc”. Many wouldn’t give a toss either way. And for those who do, most wouldn’t dream of shoving their beliefs and ideals down their partners’ throat.

    Yet Paul tars all with the same broad brush. Why is that? Probably to keep the stock “pure” and foster an Us vs Them environment. Breeding intolerance which fueled events like the Inquisition and the Spanish scourge of Pagan South America.

    “If anyone who does this is reading this comment, try imagining this scenario: Homosexuals barge into church and kiss and fondle one another in front of your kids, or an abortion clinic opening across the road from your house. How would you feel?”

    The difference? Homosexuality isn’t a religion and homosexuals don’t claim to be holier-than-thou.

    This is the 2nd time I’m reposting this, and I really hope it gets through…..

  20. matkilat Says:

    “But how exactly are the fundamentals of human relationships and societal civilization any different from when humanity first began (or, if you prefer, evolved)?”

    They’ve changed so much as to be almost unrecognizable.

    Even between NT and OT, by the time of the Gospels and St. Paul, human relationships and societal civilization had changed SO much that Jesus/Paul had to repeal many of the “laws” found in the OT to appeal to the crowd at the time. That was a period of about 4-500 years?

    Imagine the difference in 2000 years!

    “You seem to be confusing technological progress with a complete reboot of what it means to be human.”

    Ermmm no I’m not. You are perhaps – and you keep using the term “complete reboot”, even when it doesn’t mean anything in this case!

    We’ve come a long, long, long way socially since 2000 years ago. Just compare us with some of the socially unnacceptable behavior found in the Middle East. And remember – thats rather similar to how Jesus used to behave all those years back…….

    “To give some overarching examples: Humans 6000, 4000 and 2000 years ago did not like being murdered. Do any humans today like to be murdered as a result of ‘progress’? Do they like to have their belongings stolen? Their wives cheat on them? Being slandered? Being conspired against? Being ignored and left to rot in a homeless shelter by their children once their usefulness has expired?

    I’ve just paraphrased the latter six of the Ten Commandments. Can you say that they are obsolete simply because they are more than 2000 years old?”

    Thankfully, our secular code of law is much longer than 10 simple commandments with so many loopholes you could drive an aircraft carrier through it.

    Also, Deuteronomy contains many, errrr shall we say “embarrassing” and unciviilized (for 21st century) laws with regard to rape, prisoners of war, homosexuality, periods(!) etc etc etc.

    If you think the 10 commandments are still valid, then you definitely have to accept those. They were, after all, written around the same time!

  21. Scott Thong Says:

    Based on, maybe, but so loosely that it rivals comparing a chimpanzee or a neanderthal to a 21st century human being.

    I think chimps and neanderthals don’t like getting killed or robbed either.

    Our secular laws are based on thousands of years of human experience – we realize they’re not perfect (and probably will never be), but they have the advantage of NOT being “God’s Laws” which are religiously infallible. Hence secular laws -> amenable to fit the times, Religious laws -> not.

    What specific laws are you talking about? As Christianity does not adhere to finely detailed legislature in the manner of Mosaic Law or Sharia.

    However, this doesn’t sit with the religious view. Hebrews 13:8 for context.

    Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. – Hebrews 13:8

    Note that this passage is speaking about Jesus, not religious law or even dogmatic tradition. This passage rather speaks about the fact that God (i.e. Jesus) is eternal, immortal and unchanging.

    No, but they also never threw someone into a gulag for eternity to be tortured according to the biblical version of Hell. Even the Stalin “bullet to the back of the head” special seems much more merciful than that.

    The whole ‘hell is bad so God is evil’ discussion is large enough to have its own forum, so I’ll abjure on that for now.

    So getting maimed by a beast is an appropriate response? Oh do give me a break. Even the Iraqi shoe thrower doesn’t deserve that. And knowing they “were not reported to have died” is SO comforting. Truly a benevolent being, allowing them to live for such a transgression🙄

    To put it in a modern context: A mob of youths surrounds a nun, taunting and threatening her with violence. The police react with tasers. Painful but nonlethal. Although I suspect you might not look kindly upon the fascist police either…

    Thats YOUR definition. So far, there’s not a standard definition agreed upon by the church for that one. Who knows if that’s even Your “God’s” definition – not you I’ll bet. If “grieving” Elisha earns one a mauling by a bear, and lieing about tithes to Paul = death, allow me to just say I’m not entirely convinced by your interpretation.

    I think you mean lying to Peter, as Paul wasn’t around when Ananias and Sapphira told their fib. But in any case, they were trying to cheat God, not men.

    Besides, if God creates and gives life and we pay absolutely zilcho for it – and instead give Him the finger – can we honestly complain when He cancels our free subscription?

    Again, this doesn’t really jive with the creationist myth. Maimonides for instance is not universally accepted by Christians.

    You really need to start defining what you mean instead of citing terms, which may we likely have different understandings of.

    So Christians believe God created everything. How is that any worse than other Christian beliefs?

    Logical fallacy and a huuuuuge cop-out.

    And yet, you fail to derail my explanation, which is the standard apologetic answer.

    “God exists outside of space and time. Though everything in this universe had a beginning (indeed, even the universe itself), God is not a part of this universe.”

    And we are supposed to believe that why? Because it fits your argument? Or because the Bible says so? Ok, thats me convinced there.

    Well duh, if God created the first space and time, He couldn’t very well be made of space and time, now could He? (Given that this relies on several presuppositions, including 1) That God exists at all, and 2) That He revealed information about Himself in the Bible)

    Again, where did the universe come from if no matter or time or space existed before the Big Bang?

    What I meant is, Christian dogma centres more around the religiousity and traditions than addressing the actual, pressing controversial issues facing Christians today.

    Perhaps it would be because the Bible is notoriously silent on many of this issues (due to the fact they didn’t exist 2000 years ago!), or the attitudes in the Bible (towards Gays and Women) wouldn’t be very popular today is my guess.

    Hmm, good point.

    So when is progressive society going to legalize bestiality and incest, since the Biblical prejudices against those things are unpopular with zoophiles and sibling lovers?

    Yet Paul tars all with the same broad brush. Why is that? Probably to keep the stock “pure” and foster an Us vs Them environment. Breeding intolerance which fueled events like the Inquisition and the Spanish scourge of Pagan South America.

    1) The Spanish Inquisition was actually very mild and controlled, contrary to popular misconception. We can blame Protestant England wanting to gain political points over Catholic Spain for that. It actually prevented the Witch Hunt Hysteria that raged across Europe from taking hold in Spain, since there was a system to judge individual cases and dismiss most as gain-motivated. At just 3000-5000 executions over 350 years, it’s a kindergarten exercise compared to [insert name of any dictator who is an avowed atheist here].

    2) I’d like to see you argue how the pagan conquest and human sacrifice of other pagans was so much more desirable than the Conquistador purge ;>

    The difference? Homosexuality isn’t a religion and homosexuals don’t claim to be holier-than-thou.

    Another difference is that Christians (and Mormons) actually respect the democratic ballot. And by calling supporters of Proposition 8 ‘bigots’, ‘intolerant’ and ‘hatemongers’, they kind of strike me as thinking they’re better than those who disagree with them.

  22. Grace56 Says:

    Atheism is *not* better. One only has to live in a former communist country to see that. Crime and corruption are rampant. And why shouldn’t it be there is no reason to behave in a moral fashion.

  23. matkilat Says:

    “I think chimps and neanderthals don’t like getting killed or robbed either.”

    Perhaps not, but they do murder and rape with little remorse later.

    “What specific laws are you talking about? As Christianity does not adhere to finely detailed legislature in the manner of Mosaic Law or Sharia.”

    In this respect you are (partially) correct, however, there are still numerous “teachings” in the NT, especially Paul’s letters that are practiced to this day, although the Church is no longer obliged to strictly adhere to it.

    “Note that this passage is speaking about Jesus, not religious law or even dogmatic tradition. This passage rather speaks about the fact that God (i.e. Jesus) is eternal, immortal and unchanging.”

    Yes, and if he is unchanging, what he spoke 2,000 or 3,000 years ago, equally must be similar or in line with what he speaks today.

    This does mean all the laws of the Old Testament are still valid. Unless, of course you are suggesting God was wrong when he laid them down…..

    “The whole ‘hell is bad so God is evil’ discussion is large enough to have its own forum, so I’ll abjure on that for now.”

    Or because you can’t answer on it………? Heh.😉

    Anyway, the point is not Hell is bad (eventhough it is) its that people get sent there for such minor indiscretions (or you could even call it noble actions) as practising their right to free will, which was (laughably) supposed to be a gift from God.

    “To put it in a modern context: A mob of youths surrounds a nun, taunting and threatening her with violence. The police react with tasers. Painful but nonlethal. Although I suspect you might not look kindly upon the fascist police either…”

    You compare the unlasting non-lethal damage of a Taser to a mauling by a bear? And where was violence threatened?

    Whatever you’re smoking, I’ll have some. Thx.🙂

    “I think you mean lying to Peter, as Paul wasn’t around when Ananias and Sapphira told their fib. But in any case, they were trying to cheat God, not men.

    Besides, if God creates and gives life and we pay absolutely zilcho for it – and instead give Him the finger – can we honestly complain when He cancels our free subscription?”

    No, they were using religion to try and glean some extra credit, which, if is an offence punishable by death, then almost every American politician in the last 50 years ought to have been “struck down” by your God.

    And such actions are neither the actions of a “Just” or “Loving” God, more of a megalomaniacal tyrant. The State too, technically has the power of life and death over you, so I’m guessing you’d be OK if Obama lined up people who didn’t vote for him (“gave him the finger”) and shot them once he becomes Prez. Just so, y’know, like God, he can show them Who’s the Boss!

    “So Christians believe God created everything. How is that any worse than other Christian beliefs?”

    2 ways. It allows some fringe groups to pursue their fanatical agenda against science by, lets say, pushing to teach creationism in schools.
    The other way is that it pre-supposes that everything created is somehow “God’s” and humans “owe it” to God not to experiment with the natural order of things (ie, not “play God”). This sets the stage for the “ethics” rubbish of the creationist crowd, which are a small but vocal minority.

    Their complaining and attention whoring over some fantastical “ethics” has driven opposition against scientific advances which could improve the way human life tenfold – things like cloning and stem cell research.

    “And yet, you fail to derail my explanation, which is the standard apologetic answer. ”

    You just admitted your explanation is a logical fallacy!!!! Do I need to do anymore derailing?

    “Given that this relies on several presuppositions, including 1) That God exists at all, and 2) That He revealed information about Himself in the Bible”

    And there is no basis in fact on those presuppositions.

    Wouldn’t you agree? So to support your (wrong) theories, you’re asking us to swallow those 2 presuppositions WITHOUT the backing of any sort of evidence? Ok then……

    “So when is progressive society going to legalize bestiality and incest, since the Biblical prejudices against those things are unpopular with zoophiles and sibling lovers?”

    Bestiality is legal in Wales. Where the men are men and the sheep are scared.😉

    Anyway, incest exists a lot in the Bible! Lot and his daughters. Abraham (Israel’s greatest hero!) and Sarah, which he admits was his sister (read about it in Gen 21, bet you didn’t know that did you!

    Anyway if you believe the Adam and Eve fantasy, then we’re all a product of sibling incest. Yay for the Bible. LOL.

    “The Spanish Inquisition was actually very mild and controlled, contrary to popular misconception. We can blame Protestant England wanting to gain political points over Catholic Spain for that.”

    Oh you are absolutely right, that it was a political ploy, for those at the top.

    For those at the bottom though, it was actually believable – as they were ignorant little christians easily misled and riled up – by exactly the Us vs Them attitude propagated by the likes of Paul.

    The ignorance and simplemindedness of the believers make them so dangerous.

    Thats why such an event could no longer take place today, because Europe today is far far far less “Christian” than it used to be.

    “I’d like to see you argue how the pagan conquest and human sacrifice of other pagans was so much more desirable than the Conquistador purge”

    It wasn’t much better. Perhaps thats the reason why those pagan religions don’t exist today.

    But I take it you agree with me that Christianity, then, isn’t worth much more than a bunch of obsolete paganistic nonsense? Congratulations on seeing the light. Heh.

    “Another difference is that Christians (and Mormons) actually respect the democratic ballot. And by calling supporters of Proposition 8 ‘bigots’, ‘intolerant’ and ‘hatemongers’, they kind of strike me as thinking they’re better than those who disagree with them.”

    And this is relevant how…..? No one here thinks people should abandon Christianity and start joining the ranks of the pro-gay rights…

  24. Scott Thong Says:

    “Note that this passage is speaking about Jesus, not religious law or even dogmatic tradition. This passage rather speaks about the fact that God (i.e. Jesus) is eternal, immortal and unchanging.”

    Yes, and if he is unchanging, what he spoke 2,000 or 3,000 years ago, equally must be similar or in line with what he speaks today.

    This does mean all the laws of the Old Testament are still valid. Unless, of course you are suggesting God was wrong when he laid them down…..

    In that case, Jesus actually gave very little ‘legislature’, dealing more in overall guidelines – such as the two overarching laws, “Love God” and “Love mankind”. I believe these two still apply in full.

    With regards to the OT laws, first of all most Christians are not Jews. We don’t even get circumsized on the 8th day after birth, man.

    But Jesus did day that not one dot would be removed from the Law. He also said that He did not come to abolish it, but to fulfill it. Jesus’ sacrificial and intercessory death on the cross fulfilled all OT demands for atonement sacrifice, which is why we are not held to the strict OT laws such as how to throw out moldy clothes.

    The Ten Commandments are various other OT-derived rules are still adhered to because Jesus mentioned them in particular, such as monotheism, being an overall nice person, and marriage being between a husband and a wife.

    Any other points of contention regarding OT law?

    Or because you can’t answer on it………? Heh.

    Yeah, taunting. Stay classy, dude.

    Real Life Metaphors for Hell

    Hell, If I Know

    You compare the unlasting non-lethal damage of a Taser to a mauling by a bear? And where was violence threatened?

    It is implied. The Bible often needs some lateral thinking to get, especially the parts where the speaker is being sarcastic (no such thing as sarcastic font in ancient Hebrew).

    No, they were using religion to try and glean some extra credit, which, if is an offence punishable by death, then almost every American politician in the last 50 years ought to have been “struck down” by your God.

    And such actions are neither the actions of a “Just” or “Loving” God, more of a megalomaniacal tyrant. The State too, technically has the power of life and death over you, so I’m guessing you’d be OK if Obama lined up people who didn’t vote for him (”gave him the finger”) and shot them once he becomes Prez. Just so, y’know, like God, he can show them Who’s the Boss!

    It is explicitly stated by Peter that Ananias and Sapphira were not lying to men, but to the Holy Spirit.

    God creates life and sustains it, therefore He is the owner of it – we’re all on a lease here. Obama just votes against laws that protect babies that survive attempted abortions.

    You might as well curse God for letting people die of old age.

    2 ways. It allows some fringe groups to pursue their fanatical agenda against science by, lets say, pushing to teach creationism in schools.
    The other way is that it pre-supposes that everything created is somehow “God’s” and humans “owe it” to God not to experiment with the natural order of things (ie, not “play God”). This sets the stage for the “ethics” rubbish of the creationist crowd, which are a small but vocal minority.

    Their complaining and attention whoring over some fantastical “ethics” has driven opposition against scientific advances which could improve the way human life tenfold – things like cloning and stem cell research.

    If we’re talking fringe groups make the whole bad, then atheism, liberalism, humanism and overall irreligiousness have it big time!

    Exactly what useful benefits does cloning bring? Copies of ourselves we can send to live on an Island so we can harvest their organs when we’re running down? (Yes, it’s a snark.) And note that we have no gripe about adult stem cells, which have actually proven to be effective in treatment – unlike embryonic stem cells which continues to be harped on about.

    While we’re at it, it’s usually not the religious types who burn labs and fields in protest of animal research and genetic modification trials, but environmentalists and animal rights zealots.

    You just admitted your explanation is a logical fallacy!!!! Do I need to do anymore derailing?

    Nice attempt at liguistic acrobatics, but I’m still waiting for a proper explanation. If you want to assume you win already, that’s fine with me, because I continue to assume you are avoiding adressing the issue.

    And there is no basis in fact on those presuppositions.

    Wouldn’t you agree? So to support your (wrong) theories, you’re asking us to swallow those 2 presuppositions WITHOUT the backing of any sort of evidence? Ok then……

    Then you shouldn’t be attacking the Bible or Christian beliefs at all. Instead, you should limit your focus to solely the question of whether God exists or not. Anything else are just attempts to look clever and be snarky. No?

    Bestiality is legal in Wales. Where the men are men and the sheep are scared.

    It is really legal in many countries, such as the super-liberal Netherlands.

    So do you agree that incest and bestiality are moral? It is, after all, the progressive thing to stand for.

    Anyway, incest exists a lot in the Bible! Lot and his daughters. Abraham (Israel’s greatest hero!) and Sarah, which he admits was his sister (read about it in Gen 21, bet you didn’t know that did you!

    Anyway if you believe the Adam and Eve fantasy, then we’re all a product of sibling incest. Yay for the Bible. LOL.

    Polemics always cite Lot, but never include the facts that:

    1) He got drunk
    2) It is not approved, merely recorded down

    Add to that the fact that the result of the immoral relation (they weren’t married either, btw) was the beginning of the tribes of the Moabites and the Ammonites – constant aggressors against God’s chosen people Israel. Bet you didn’t know that.

    On Sarah, I think you’re off on your Bible citations. Maybe you should try actually opening the Bible to attack it, or at least a simple Google search. It’s actually in Genesis 20, and she is his half-sister.

    That said, this was hundreds of years before the laws on sexual relations were codified by Moses. Nor is it explicitly condoned in the Bible, if you want to nitpick about it.

    On Adam and Eve, I fail to see how Darwinian evolution is any better – when a new species evolves, tell me – where does that first individual of the news species find mates to propagate its unique genes?

    That aside, it is not stated that God did not create additional humans after the Fall. Another explanation is that the purity of the genetic stock right after the Fall was still sufficient for interbreeding to occur without any negative effects – and if it has no negative result, isn’t it supposed to be moral according to humanism?

    Oh you are absolutely right, that it was a political ploy, for those at the top.

    For those at the bottom though, it was actually believable – as they were ignorant little christians easily misled and riled up – by exactly the Us vs Them attitude propagated by the likes of Paul.

    The ignorance and simplemindedness of the believers make them so dangerous.

    Thats why such an event could no longer take place today, because Europe today is far far far less “Christian” than it used to be.

    You oversimplify the history of the Spanish Crusades. It was not merely a matter of doctrinal heresy, but the rulership of the head of state as well – as the monarch of a country was also its religious head, barring Rome’s papal authority.

    And I reiterate that only around ten people died per year as a result of the Spanish Inquisition. That is amateur night compared to just one day of the atheist Stalin’s gulag collection.

    And you forget that it DID happen in recent history, many times over, where innocent commoners were tortured and put to death for alleged disloyalty to the supreme deity. I believe they were called Stalin’s, Mao’s, Castro’s, Kim’s and Pol Pot’s purges. Strangely, the rule of atheism somehow made baseless persecution worse rather than better…

    But I take it you agree with me that Christianity, then, isn’t worth much more than a bunch of obsolete paganistic nonsense? Congratulations on seeing the light. Heh.

    Your snark does not stick. The simple fact is, Catholic Latin America today does not, and never did, cut the still beating hearts out of hundreds of war prisoners a day. If the Conquistadors had not demolished the pagan empire, and for that matter had not even discovered South America, I do believe that would still be going on today.

    And this is relevant how…..? No one here thinks people should abandon Christianity and start joining the ranks of the pro-gay rights…

    Then what exactly did you mean by bringing homosexuality into the discussion?

    ————————————–

    So far, you’ve mostly been bashing Christianity, with very little in the way of showing why atheism, of all things, is better. Think you have any meat on that argument?

  25. sing lau Says:

    jonolan Says:December 22, 08 at
    “After all, no Gods means by extrapolation no Right or Wrong, so anything that is desirable is OK.”

    It is not true that no gods means no right or wrong.

    The undeniable fact is that man is a MORAL creature – no matter how man wants to deny or denounce this fact. The faculty of right and wrong is part of his being as man. A man cannot escape from his own morality, though his sense of morality may be twisted and perverted by his sinful nature.

    What ‘no gods’ does mean is that man has made himself god, in that EACH man crowns himself as THE authority and determiner of what is right and wrong for him.

    Atheism is really man’s barefaced unilateral declaration of AUTONOMY – which is nothing but rebellion against his God and Creator.

    The devil told the female man, “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

  26. sing lau Says:

    # jonolan Says: December 22, 08
    “… so anything that is desirable is OK.”

    Evil may be very desirable to one man, but it is obnoxious to another.
    Righteousness may be very sweet to a man, but to another it is bitterness.

    What is OK to one is KO to another? Atheism inherently lead to chaos.
    When every man is his own king, there can only be chaos.

    In nearly all cases, a man’s way is nearly always right in his own eyes.

    “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”

  27. sing lau Says:

    # matkilat Says:December 22, 08 at

    “And just one more, couldn’t resist……. Pushy evangelicals who can’t accept the fact that someone wouldn’t feel the same way as them and try to cram their religion down your throat are incredibly annoying.”

    There are lots of pushy evangelicals who are absolutely MISGUIDED about what they are doing. These pushy evangelicals have great zeal, but zeal WITHOUT knowledge. Why do I say so? They are like those ignorant fools who would zealously force dead men to eat their delicious char koay teow! How impossible

    No, char koay teow is for the living. Only the living – who are born again from above by the supernatural act of the Spirit of God – would be able to hear and believe the good news of Jesus Christ in saving them.

    All others, as you correctly observe, are incredibly annoyed… because “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

    Jesus did warn his disciples, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Dogs cannot appreciate that which is holy, nor the swine pearls.

    The bright sunlight is refreshing to the living, but the same life-nourishing warmth hasn’t the decomposition of the dead corpse.

  28. sing lau Says:

    “The bright sunlight is refreshing to the living, but the same life-nourishing warmth HASTENS the decomposition of the dead corpses.”

  29. Frank Says:

    Atheism will be the godless religion of the future.
    The priests are the scientists. The sacred books and documents are Scientific books and reports.

    All churches, mosques and temples will be like the ruins in Rome, and Greece.

    Judaism, Islam and Christianity will studied as one of those ridiculous belief systems as we do to Roman’s and the Greeks’ pantheons of gods, Zeus, Apolo etc.

    Scientific evidence makes all those silly views of the world and the heavens in Islam and Christianity as superstitions.

    Mankind in years to come will wonder how could this generation of humanity can be so dumb and stupid to believe in an Imaginary Friend in the Sky who is believed to get into the brains and hearts of every human being and who is talked to in churches and mosques and temples but never bothered to give a back.

    Prayers will be studied as a psychiatric tool for the emotionally demented soul who cannot adjust to the pressures of life.

    Highly intelligent individuals who believed in their Imaginary Sky Friend to swish them to heaven when they die, will be case studied for a new form of schizophrenia.

    People will wonder how could intelligent and well-educated individuals of today could manage the dissonance of information from science such as evolutionary evidence and the superstititions in their stone-age books of faith.

    Atheism will pronounce that God did not die, He/She did not exist in the first place. God only exist in the space between the ears and not between the stars in the sky.

    Unfortunately it is hard for Muslims and Christians and Hindus to accept the fact that their religion will now run into a blind alley as science continues to debunk almost every page of the Bible and the Quran.

  30. Scott Thong Says:

    Lol, and in the future, atheists will wage religious wars against one another over issues of doctrinal authenticity!

    Not that, like, the USSR and Mao’s China weren’t totally based on science (see Lysenkoism), evidence (see rampant corruption) and intelligence (see collapse of centralized economy).

  31. sing lau Says:

    “Atheism will be the godless religion of the future.”

    Atheism has been the godless religion for a long time… since the day man believed the lie that he could become like gods, determining what is good and evil.
    Man worships himself as gods long time ago! He declared himself the determiner of what right and what’s wrong.

    Atheism was already confronted long long ago in these words:
    “Psalm 2:
    1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
    2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
    3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
    4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
    5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
    6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.”

    10 ¶ Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
    11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
    12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.”

    Atheism seems right to a man because he is his own god. He is his own king, ruler, and judge.

    But blessed be those who honor and glory in their God, and in not themselves.

  32. wits0 Says:

    “But blessed be those who honor and glory in their God, and in not themselves.”

    Doesn’t that require a grasping of a God Concept lofty enough instead of aimlessly clinging to some dogmatic and non-user friendly one such as which suggests a a fearful and petulant tribal war deity Sort? It all depends on the quality of of that Conception of God.

    The aforesaid line isn’t exactly a bad one but some may tend to read it as preaching forever a state of no self trust and self responsibilty, without which there can hardly be any betterment of the human conditions. One may even cease to think in the worst case scenario out of the superstitious fear factor from doctrinal writings peddled by unenlightened fundamentalists.

  33. wits0 Says:

    BTW, between a rootless atheist like Bubba Clinton and a Christian Bush, who has been more dishonest?

  34. Yahya Says:

    I need to disagree with the points made on Islam. Why is it that Islam is unanimously affiliated with Saudi Arabia(or any Middle Eastern country for that matter)? Most “Muslim” countries use fragments of the Sharia law(which is Islamic-ally unacceptable. Either you accept Sharia or you don’t). So if those countries seem barbaric to you(this is all about perception. Being a native of South-East Asia, I think Scandinavian countries are pretty barbaric with their “liberal” views and all), you should not deduce that Sharia is barbaric too. Try studying the subject rather than people’s perception of the subject.

    @Frank- lol you bear an uncanny resemblance to militant theists.

    Matkilat:”Anyway, the point is not Hell is bad (eventhough it is) its that people get sent there for such minor indiscretions (or you could even call it noble actions) as practising their right to free will, which was (laughably) supposed to be a gift from God.”

    Bin Laden exercised his “free will” to destroy WTC. So why is the US so hell-bent on catching him? If Laden is caught, he’ll be sent to prison right? Won’t that be a bruise on “free will”? Specify what you mean by “minor indiscretion”. For all we know, rape can be one and if that’s the case- I’d rather be a woman in Taliban Iraq than a woman in a “progressive” society where rapists are granted prison at best.

    “Basing your life on a piece of literature written 2000 years ago is just stupid. You wouldn’t use a 5 yr old computer, nor would you read a month old newspaper or magazine, but hey, basing life around sayings and practices from 2,000 years ago makes perfect sense. (Islam, though, is even worse in this respect with its ultra-restrictive Sh’aria but Christianity isn’t much better either).”

    A Dual-core processor has strings attached to your 5 year old computer. If your 5 year old computer didn’t exist in the first place, I don’t think we would have had dual-core processors now. All processors, no matter how modern they are, stand on foundations shared by your 5 year old computer’s processor.

    The idea of atom was first infused by Democritus 400 years before the birth of Christ. Since atoms have been discovered such a long time ago, why make today’s children study them in school? Democritus’ idea of atoms may have been wrong but atoms are atoms. They have been there since the birth of material world regardless of who says what, they will be there until Doomsday. Religious values are the same. Christianity and Islam might be wrong about these values but that doesn’t assert the absence of a supernatural being which takes an interest in human affairs.

    Invent a new religion if you will, but I find the absence of God to be utter rubbish and a lame excuse for self-righteousness. Just like how a state needs to be governed, the people also needs to be governed. What you’re asking for is a macro-anarchy.

  35. D-zul Says:

    There should be no Aethist in these days.
    Science and Technology have proven that there is THE CREATOR (GOD)..

    Albert Einstein, the Greatest Genius of our age..He also stated ” I cannot conceive of a genuine sceintist without that profound faith. Meaning ” Science without religion is lame”.
    Answer a simple question: What made you? Look at all the Creation (e.g: the creation of the universe,animals, plants etc.)

    TO FIND ANSWERS, VISIT : http://www.harunyahya.com..www.youtubeislam.com…www.edawa.com…www.shareislam.com
    Learn the differences from the religion scholars (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism)..(e.g. Sjoberg, Clark, Yusof Estes, Ahmad Deedat, Zakir Naik, Swaggart etc.)

    if any doubt, please email me : Dzul_3my@yahoo.com

  36. Scott Thong Says:

    Indeed… See also Physicists Believe in God (or At Least A Creator): A Collection of Quotes.

  37. salvage Says:

    “better” is not the issue, it’s what is true.

    There are no such things as gods.

    It’s that simple.

  38. icor Says:

    “I’d rather be a woman in Taliban Iraq than a woman in a “progressive” society where rapists are granted prison at best.” – yahya

    If only wishes would come true, you could have yours.

  39. icor Says:

    PREACHER of hate Omar Bakri is boldly going where no imam has gone before — ordering followers to convert ALIENS to Islam.

    Bakri, acting like a character from sci-fi film Mars Attacks, said Muslims must not only spread the word worldwide but also across the galaxy.

    He issued the decree during a bizarre rant which has been posted on an extremist website.

    Bakri, 50, declared: “We are obliged as Muslims to make the whole galaxy subservient to almighty Allah. Allah has created all living beings in order to obey him and worship him.”

    Last night a security source quipped: “Perhaps he could show his people the way — it would give everyone a break if he was beamed up.”

    Where are Captain Kirk and the Federation when you need them?

  40. wits0 Says:

    salvage:
    “better” is not the issue, it’s what is true.

    There are no such things as gods.

    It’s that simple.

    —-

    ‘Better’ is still the issue as it has always featured. The problem with man is that tendency to think that what he believes is true (and others are all wrong)for various “reasons”, few of which can stand up to sound reasoning and deep contemplation. This is the rooted fatal flaw and fallacy in not understanding the NATURE of life. The mother of all egoistic idiocy and intolerance, often merely serving a political end, no less.

    That saying that there are no gods is an assertion that offend those who think otherwise. You cannot prove that can you? But you choose to offend nevertheless because your Creed says so.

    It’s not that simple as your Creed says so, never was. A clear example of pointing out the speck of dust in others’ eyes but missing the log in your own.

  41. ratbait Says:

    Even Boehm’s cremation urn, which sat near a chest labeled “Davy Jones’ Locker,” spoke of his attitude toward death. Open the lid, and one would find a miniature ship’s cabin, replete with a bunk and a sea bag.

    “My ashes are going into the sea bag,” Boehm had said in a 1997 interview. “How many people can hardly wait to get where they’re going?”

    http://www.sunnewspapers.net/articles/tsnews.aspx?ArticleID=429300&pubdate=1/3/2009

  42. Scott Thong Says:

    If the Republicans ruled the world, you’d have women letting their hair fly freely and men who try and rape them facing down the twin barrels of their constitutionally owned shotguns. Before being sentenced to life in prison.

  43. aredvoice Says:

    Wow, what an interesting discussion. As I read the comments, & thought about this – basically I have come to this conclusion.

    Atheists always try so hard to point out that we religious folks cannot prove that there is a God. However, they ALSO canNOT prove that there ISN”T a God. They cannot prove all their evolution theories are true either. So it all boils down to faith. Faith is believing without seeing (i.e. proof). We have faith in God and Christ. … AND They have faith that there is no GOD nor Christ or faith that there is nothing out there (however -since they can’t prove it – it is merely “their faith” as well).

    Why is Christianity better than Atheism? One answer is hope. Having faith in God who is all knowing, all powerful – who loves and cares for us and having faith that there is purpose in this life, and by having faith that there is truly a better way and that there is immortality and eternal life and by following Christ’s way, it will ultimately bring us eternal happiness – This gives us Christians hope. No, I can’t prove this – but from the experiences in my life, I have no doubts that these principles are true. Here’s a story I recently read, to explain this concept of knowing God to an atheist.

    “I said to the atheist, “Let me ask if you know what salt tastes like.”

    “Of course I do,” was his reply.

    “When did you taste salt last?”

    “I just had dinner on the plane.”

    “You just think you know what salt tastes like,” I said.

    He insisted, “I know what salt tastes like as well as I know anything.”

    “If I gave you a cup of salt and a cup of sugar and let you taste them both, could you tell the salt from the sugar?”

    “Now you are getting juvenile,” was his reply. “Of course I could tell the difference. I know what salt tastes like. It is an everyday experience—I know it as well as I know anything.”

    “Then,” I said, “assuming that I have never tasted salt, explain to me just what it tastes like.”

    After some thought, he ventured, “Well-I-uh, it is not sweet and it is not sour.”

    “You’ve told me what it isn’t, not what it is.”

    After several attempts, of course, he could not do it. He could not convey, in words alone, so ordinary an experience as tasting salt. I bore testimony to him once again and said, “I know there is a God. You ridiculed that testimony and said that if I did know, I would be able to tell you exactly how I know. My friend, spiritually speaking, I have tasted salt. I am no more able to convey to you in words how this knowledge has come than you are to tell me what salt tastes like. But I say to you again, there is a God! He does live! And just because you don’t know, don’t try to tell me that I don’t know, for I do!”

    “We speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”

    “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor. 2:13–14.)

    WHY is this Christian view better than having faith that world just came together on its own and that there really is no purpose in life – you live – eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die – anything you desire is justifiable. Atheism has no law, that does not mean that atheists can’t be good moral people, but the morality isn’t intrinsic with their faith like it is with Christianity. Instead of seeing the hand of God in all things, atheists see only chance and nature. There is no hope of a better eternal world. — The atheist Bertrand Russell adds his testament: “No fire, no heroism, no integrity of thought and feeling can preserve an individual life beyond the grave.” And Schopenhauer, the German philosopher and pessimist, was even more bitter. He wrote: “To desire immortality is to desire the eternal perpetuation of a great mistake.”

    Atheists look first to science and government for solutions to the problems of men. They are inclined to trust in their own power, the arm of flesh, in dealing with the world and in providing for their own. Sadly, answers to all of life’s questions cannot be answered by men. I challenge anyone to give better answers or better solutions to life’s problems or to give sounder doctrines than are found in the scriptures and the revelations of God through his prophets. The best-trained mind in the world and the keenest student of science will never be able to answer or explain the relationship of man to God.

    Any scientist acknowledges that science does not have all the answers and that there must have been some organizing intelligence, and further, more and more scientists are reconciling science and religion. No one has ever been able to refute the testimonies of all the recorded instances where prophets, individuals, and groups have testified of hearing and seeing the Savior himself, and often under miraculous circumstances, giving further evidence of his power and glory.

    This faith and hope of Christians may not be the “proof” atheist want, but it is one of the reasons that Christianity is better.

  44. wits0 Says:

    aredvoice, there are many types of atheists. Basically if an atheist disbelieve in the God Concept, it does not follow that he’s obliged to prove that God does not exist. That’s a misconception and not a very honest argument.

    It’s apparent enough that believing without proof carries its own inherent hazard as well. One monotheist faith has within its scriptures that Jews and Christians are monkeys and enemies of theirs who must be destroyed.

    Does the atheists assorted cacophony of disbelief today carry this sort of mainstream but hidden venom like a card up the sleeve in poker game?

    If one atheist chose to belief in Nazism, e.g., another is not bound to have to follow his ways by the compulsion of any religious doctrine, no?

  45. aredvoice Says:

    So if I believe in God, I am obliged to prove it, but if an atheist does not believe that God concept – he is not obliged to prove it??? Is this what you are saying? If I am understanding you correctly, that seems like a double standard.

    I understand that atheists can all believe all different philosophies – anything they want -or for that matter disbelief anything they want – but disbelieving without proof that something is actually not true, is also a form of “believing” in an idea without proof. no? No one can prove there isn’t a God – so why should I accept that belief?

    How is my faith in God any different than an atheist faith in no God?

    And written records from several people testifying of single fact would be proof in a Court of Law. But yet the written record of Christ is not proof enough for atheists. Atheist dismiss the Bible as fiction, however, no one has ever been able to refute the testimonies of all the recorded instances where prophets, individuals, and groups have testified of hearing and seeing the Savior himself, is that not proof? I have also had my own personal experiences that provide me with the proof I need – there’s other ways to know God is real without me personally seeing him.

    Those that are truly religious and truly Christian believe in free will and choice and do not believe that all must be bound to believe in the same religious doctrine. I was not stating everyone must believe in God, because I do. I was merely stating that a disbelief with no proof is the same thing as a belief with “no proof” – (even though atheist believe Christians have “no proof”. I don’t believe that though -There is ample proof God is real, even though atheists do not accept any of these explanations because they cannot understand it. Science does not have all the answers and it cannot explain everything in life.)

  46. Scott Thong Says:

    Well said aredvoice… See my snarky posts, I am an A-atheist (Because Atheism is an Unproveable Faith) and Atheists Are God!

    See also my more serious discussions of the proof for Christianity. Ones in bold are especially recommended:

    Historically Corroborated: Jesus Fulfilled 129 Messianic Prophecies Made in Isaiah 335 Years Earlier

    Atheists: Can You Discount Every Single Testimony of Miracles and Answered Prayers?

    The Cyrus Cylinder – Not Isolated and Not Vague Verification of the Bible’s Historical Account

    Easy 3 Steps to Why We Can Believe The Bible About Spirituality and Metaphysics

    Physicists Believe in God (Or At Least a Creator or Designer): A Collection of Quotes

    Christianity – The Faith of Famously Intellectual, Logical, Reasonable Thinkers

    The Trinity: Examples in Real Life

  47. Scott Thong Says:

    Oh, and on the subject of hope… See my snarky spoof song, Tears in Heaven – Atheist Despair Version.

    (No offense meant to atheists who also subscribe to religious beliefs.)

  48. wits0 Says:

    Essentially, aredvoice, what have you proved wrt God apart from quoting scriptures, and apart from affirming from the belief angle? God remains a Concept ; different people have different ones and when it comes down to the different monotheistic faiths, His ascribed nature can be in real contradiction with one another.

    Another pertinent matter is whether a belief in God necessarily makes a person a better one. The jihadists naturally believe they’re the best! Your natural enemies are not necessarily from the Godless fold but from within. Ethics and morality are not the sole preserve of people claiming God. The God people demonstrably can’t get their acts together, hence the jihads and then the crusades.

  49. aredvoice Says:

    wits0, I wasn’t trying to prove to Atheists (or to you or to anyone else) that God was real. I was stating that even though Atheists believe we have no proof, I don’t buy that – I have plenty proof in my life to be converted to God – true religion does not convert by signs and wonders, but by the testimony of the Holy Ghost. However, I wasn’t trying to prove or convert anyone- my point was:
    Atheists always try so hard to point out that we religious folks cannot prove that there is a God. However, they ALSO canNOT prove that there ISN”T a God. They cannot prove all their evolution – big bang theories are true either. A disbelief with no proof is the same thing as a belief with “no proof” (I quote “no proof” – because atheists think we have no proof even though we do – but let’s suppose we don’t for argument sake)
    My questions which you haven’t answered is:
    How is my faith in God any different than an atheist faith in no God? and
    Why if I believe in God, I am obliged to prove it, but if an atheist does not believe in God – why is he not obliged to prove it???

    I also never stated that “people” that believe in a God are better than those that don’t. There are good and evil people from every religion and non-religion – basically all walks of life. I was stating that why I believed a Christian belief was better than an atheist belief in nothing. I believed it was better because it offers one hope of an eternal world and guidance of a better way here in life by following Christ, and this will ultimately bring us eternal happiness – This gives us Christians hope.
    Atheists do not have this hope – they see only chance and nature. There is no hope of a better eternal world. You’re born, you live, you die – that’s the end. -and in my view that’s pretty hopeless. Science does not have all the answers – there are many instances where scientist and doctors do not have the answers – they don’t know how science and natural laws are defied. This faith in only science and nature and only in trusting man’s own power, the arm of flesh, in dealing with the world instead of trusting in a higher power is also in my view pretty hopeless too.

    Thanks you Scott for all your references – I plan on reading all of your posts next week. Your posts are always very thoroughly researched and very interesting and informative – thank you for all your work.

  50. aredvoice Says:

    sorry for the typo (hate those)– should be My questions which you haven’t answered are: (not is) sorry I added one more question and forgot to change the is…

  51. hutchrun Says:

    “Atheists do not have this hope – they see only chance and nature. There is no hope of a better eternal world.”

    Are we talking here of some kind of “salvation” and that negates the “I wasn’t trying to prove to Atheists (or to you or to anyone else) that God was real”. I doubt atheists need nor want that “do not have this hope”. Therein lies the rub.

  52. Matt Says:

    So if I believe in God, I am obliged to prove it, but if an atheist does not believe that God concept – he is not obliged to prove it???

    Yes. It’s called the standards of the Burden of Proof. Just like people don’t have to prove things like unicorns or leprechauns or fairies or whatever else you care to name don’t exist. If there is no credible evidence for something to exist, then the logical conclusion has to be that it does not.

  53. hutchrun Says:

    Fear of the elements and of death created the necessity for a God, but when too many gods became cumbersome the 1 god became fashionable. Philosopher Immanuel Kant also put it to “a moral necessity” i.e. no thieving, lusting, etc.
    An agnostic hedges his bets.

  54. wits0 Says:

    “Atheists do not have this hope – they see only chance and nature. There is no hope of a better eternal world.”

    A moral and ethical person has no fear of Hell. He knows he won’t end up there, now or hereafter.

  55. wits0 Says:

    aredvoice : “Atheists do not have this hope – they see only chance and nature. There is no hope of a better eternal world.”

    Not quite. If you regard Buddhist as atheists(through no acknowledgement of a Creator Deity) does not mean they have no Concept/Idea of better world(Realm).

    Mahayana Pure Land Buddhism teaches of such a better Realm:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism

    Hutchrun is right in saying that, “Fear of the elements and of death created the necessity for a God,” with primitive cultures but these were war-“gods”. Later came the one God Concept. But this did not stop people from fighting one another on the basis that “My G_d is better than yours” basis to this day. This remains a compulsion with some people many of whom cannot conceive beyond an utterly lustful “Paradise”.

  56. wits0 Says:

    “Religion per se, however, is always the external facade of inner reality.”
    Session 587, Page 336

    “Christ spoke in terms of the father and son…the story he told to explain the relationship between the inner self and the physically alive individual.”
    Session 587, Page 337

    “Seth Speaks”
    by Jane Roberts
    Amber Allen © 1994, Softcover

  57. Scott Thong Says:

    Which is why whenever I use the term ‘atheist’ without any disclaimers, you can assume I mean non-religious, humanist, naturalist atheists.

  58. aredvoice Says:

    Sorry, I haven’t been able to reply sooner – busy weekend…

    Matt states: “Yes. It’s called the standards of the Burden of Proof. Just like people don’t have to prove things like unicorns or leprechauns or fairies or whatever else you care to name don’t exist. If there is no credible evidence for something to exist, then the logical conclusion has to be that it does not.”

    & Yet the evolution theory has NOT been proven. Evolutionist believe “that some form of energy converted simple molecules into more complex molecules. The only forms of energy that would have been available on their hypothetical primitive Earth would have been energy from the Sun, electrical discharges (lightning), radioactive decay, and heat. Most of the available energy would be that from the Sun. All raw forms of energy are destructive. The raw, unshielded ultraviolet light coming from the Sun is deadly, destroying rapidly the biological molecules required for life, such as amino acids, proteins, DNA, and RNA. UV light rapidly kills bacteria by disrupting molecules. All forms of life from bacteria to man are killed by UV light, and you know that if you are hit by lightning you would not become more complex—you would be severely injured or killed”
    … and the most widely accepted theory on the origin of the universe technically known as the inflation theory, (generally referred to as the Big Bang theory) has NOT been proven. In fact, “this theory is clearly a violation of natural law, namely the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to this law an isolated system can never increase in order and complexity, transforming itself to higher and higher levels of organization. An isolated system will inevitably, with time, run down, becoming more and more disorderly. There are no exceptions. Contrary to this natural law, evolutionists believe the universe is an isolated system which transformed itself from the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases into the incredibly complex universe we have today. This is a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If natural laws are natural laws, the universe could not have created itself.” (for more info see: http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-not-based-natural-laws/)

    And yet many Atheists believe in these theories… There are many other theories that Atheists subscribe to, but actually they have no proof in these theories, and/or these theories go against the laws of nature. So really the “logical conclusion” has to be that these theories are not true; they are simply just beliefs according to “the standard of burden of proof.” There is” no credible evidence” for these theories, and “the logical conclusion” has to be that it did not happen.

    So how are beliefs in these theories any different than a Christians belief in God?

    There are many other facts I could reference that disprove theories that many Atheists believe in, and many other facts I could reference to back up the Christian belief -as no one has ever been able to refute the testimonies of all the recorded instances where prophets, individuals, and groups have testified of hearing and seeing Christ as well as archeological finds to back up Biblical History – but that was not the point I was trying to make in my comments, thus that is why I stated “I wasn’t trying to prove to Atheists (or to you or to anyone else) that God was real”. I was trying to point out…. (again)

    How is a belief in theories that have not been proven (and in no God) any different than a Christians belief in God?

    Atheist choose what they want to have faith in & believe in too. Atheism is its own “religion”. Which is ironic since Atheists do the very same thing that they criticize and “preach” against.

    Wits0 states: “I doubt atheists need nor want that “do not have this hope”. Therein lies the rub”…. “A moral and ethical person has no fear of Hell. He knows he won’t end up there, now or hereafter.” “If you regard Buddhist….”

    First of all, in my comments I am specifically talking about Christianity vs. Atheism (non-religious, humanist, naturalist atheists – thank you Scott). so to answer the questions (again): Why is Atheism better than Christianity?

    In my opinion, a life without hope of being with family and loved ones again in a better world -would be hopeless. A life where you live and die and that was it (nothing else with no higher purpose) -would be hopeless. A life without guidance and help from a higher power -would be hopeless. And maybe Atheists do not want this hope and do not desire to see and be with loved ones and family again in a better world, and Atheist do not need a higher purpose in life or guidance or help from a higher power as they are satisfied with all that man offers.

    But Sadly, answers to all of life’s questions cannot be answered by men. Any scientist acknowledges that science does not have all the answers and that there must have been some organizing intelligence, and further, more and more scientists are reconciling science and religion.
    Instead of seeing the hand of God in all things, Atheists choose to see only chance and nature. ….and in my opinion this is a pretty hopeless way to go through life, and these are some of the reasons why I believe Christianity is better than Atheism.

  59. Matt Says:

    Oh dear, here we go again…

    Yet the evolution theory has NOT been proven.

    Actually, it has been proven as much as any other Scientific Theory has been. Oddly enough, however, we really don’t hear much about creationists arguing against the theories about gravity or germs causing disease or mental illness not being caused by demons…

    (snip stuff which is ignorant and shows a complete lack of research into the matter and actually has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution anyhow, it’s dealt with by the Theory of Abiogenesis (which is also backed up by quite a lot of evidence)).

    … and the most widely accepted theory on the origin of the universe technically known as the inflation theory, (generally referred to as the Big Bang theory) has NOT been proven.

    Again it has. A very quick run down of the evidence includes: Doppler shift, observed movements of Galaxies from a central point, background radiation left over from the Big Bang, Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String theory, the existence of Dark Matter and then there’s all the mathematics which fully supports it.

    I don’t know for sure where you’re copy/pasting your text from but it seems rather obvious they’ve never done any actual research.

    In fact, “this theory is clearly a violation of natural law, namely the Second Law of Thermodynamics…

    This bit always makes me laugh. Not only is it amusing that creationists will accept one scientific concept but not another but continue to try to completely misuse it, thus doing nothing but displaying their own ignorance.

    There are no exceptions. Contrary to this natural law, evolutionists believe the universe is an isolated system which transformed itself from the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases into the incredibly complex universe we have today. This is a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Actually, it’s not. You need to understand the difference between open and closed systems. For example, look at the planet Earth (the only confirmed place in the Universe with life on it at this stage). Creationists often argue that the Second Law of Thermodynamics completely forbids the formation of life on the planet which is silly for at least two big reasons.
    A) Earth is not a closed system, it constantly receives energy from the the big ball of fire in the sky that some call ‘The Sun’.
    B) Entropy (as stated in the Second Law) can decrease in a localised area as long as it increases on a grander scale (I know I’ve phrased this reason poorly but I’m trying to keep it simple).
    C) Obviously life did form as can be shown by looking in a mirror.

    (snip a whole lot of stuff based on logical fallacies)

    In my opinion, a life without hope of being with family and loved ones again in a better world -would be hopeless.

    It is a good thing, then, that your opinion counts for nothing. Indeed, your opinion reveals a lot about your character. I feel, at this stage, somewhat sorry for you.

    Any scientist acknowledges that science does not have all the answers

    That is correct.

    and that there must have been some organizing intelligence, and further, more and more scientists are reconciling science and religion.

    The first part of that sentence is false. And … yep, the second part is as well.

  60. aredvoice Says:

    Actually, everything I quoted was fact. Evolution and the Big Bang theory haven’t been proven. A belief in these theories requires faith, actually more faith is required to retain Atheism than to become a Christian. In order to maintain Atheism one needs to deny evidence. There is an overwhelmingly abundant evidence for the Bible and the Messiahship of Jesus. (read Scott’s post for more info on evidence: https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/easy-3-steps-to-why-we-can-believe-the-bible-about-spirituality-and-metaphysics/) – and this is just a snippet of the evidence out there, and since you are already on his site – it is easy to find. Do you want more evidence? I could get you more if needed.

    I actually feel sorry for you too “If atheism is correct, then life is just a rollercoaster of suffering and despair, ending in an oblivion of non-existence. But at least it won’t matter to us, since we won’t exist anymore.” right?? and since your at Scott site, read this post from him for more insights into the “hopeful” perspective of Atheists: https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/tears-in-heaven-atheist-despair-version/ Wow, that really depresses me that my life is not as “hopeful” as Atheists. (not)

    ….and I know you want to have the last word – but since you claim you are so well versed and I’m so “ignorant” go back and read all of the posts Scott referenced especially this one:
    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/physicists-believe-in-god-or-at-least-a-creator-or-designer-a-collection-of-quotes/ and you will find that both parts of this sentence are true: “Any scientist acknowledges that science does not have all the answers AND that there must have been some organizing intelligence, and further, more and more scientists are reconciling science and religion.” as the quotes in the post are from actual quotes from actual scientists, not philosophers and their statements and studies have reinforce this fact.
    The more I learn and study – I find that the events of the Bible and science do not conflict, but support each other. Real Science does not contradict the Bible’s claims, but rather strengthens them.

  61. Scott Thong Says:

    Actually, it has been proven as much as any other Scientific Theory has been. Oddly enough, however, we really don’t hear much about creationists arguing against the theories about gravity or germs causing disease or mental illness not being caused by demons… – Matt

    Um, well, to be honest… I do believe that demonic forces can influence illness and mental problems. I think it may even be standard Christian doctrine. Just that those ailments is not exclusively caused by demons.

  62. Matt Says:

    Actually, everything I quoted was fact. Evolution and the Big Bang theory haven’t been proven.

    Again, they have been proven as much as any other Scientific Theory has been hence the almost universal acceptance of said theories by the scientific community. If you have evidence which shows that the scientific community does not accept these theories, then please present it.

    (snip stuff which is just repeating falsehoods)

    The idea that Atheism is ‘just a rollercoaster of suffering and despair’ is silly since … well, look at me. I’m an atheist and have been one for … ooh, at least fifteen years now. Am I experiencing suffering and despair? Certainly no more than anyone else I can think of. In fact, I generally feel quite happy and satisfied with life.
    It’s safe to say that the quoted text stems from a horrible misunderstanding of atheism.

  63. a red voice Says:

    Great, I’m glad you’re happy, but life is not always a bowl full of cherries, sometimes tradgedy hits and you may one day look for more answers and help and strength, you may reject God, but know that He will never reject you.

  64. wits0 Says:

    For Scott:
    (Why I don’t belief in an Anthropomorphic nature of G-d)

    http://www.nirvikalpa.com/dbcontnt.php?page=faith😉

    Excerpt from “The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher”, by Jane Roberts
    q/
    “Yet what is it that our traveler can find to have faith in? He might well feel that science and religion have each betrayed him. He may not for the life of him be able to believe in a conventional personified God, white beard flowing in the clouds above and blessed finger pointing out heavenly directions. In fact, on ever seeing such an apparition, our modern man might fall into an instant faint, certain that the psychologist’s demon, schizophrenia, had descended upon him. For the voice that once was considered the utterance of God speaking through mortals has become the most dreadful of self-deluding monologues, and if God spoke to a modern Moses through the branches of a bush and then set fire to it, our prophet would first call a psychologist and then the fire department.” u/q

  65. wits0 Says:

    Matt, thanks for pointing out various contemporary Scientific views and angle.

    Just because I believe not Darwinian viewpoint does not mean the Anthropomorphic Creator G-d is acceptable. Any belief system that convey any degree of (even though sublime) Fear Factor is not user friendly. In fact, Deism is more friendly than plain fundamental Monotheism.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

    aredvoice is driven by fervor and is not well researched and has not contemplated things outside the box. The Burden of Truth also eludes him.😉

    The String Theory, while not yet accepted by the Scientific Community, is one of the most intriguing explanation of Everything. It may well give credence to what the Seth entity of Jane Roberts has said. That Existence and the Universe is MultiDimensional. A Reality that has been expounded by the Buddha.

  66. carl Says:

    Not too long ago I formed a hatred towards religions.i thought faith was a natural human response for to idiodic and weak individuals who found it easier to have an escape goat when it came to lifes problems. I was an atheist who would enjoy telling a believer how wrong and stupid they were… My life was great! I became successful in most aspects of life and was very contempt with myself and the hard work i had done. Everything I achieved I was proud of – this only confirmed my athestic beliefs… after some time I started studying different religions so I could pick out their flaws to debate with them to prove them even more wrong…. thats when I discovered the Christian bible respected and challenged readers to objectively research the legitimacy of the bible. I was amazed when I found the historyorical, scientific and archeological evidence in this 2000 year old book. But more surprised the mathematical chance of all the prophecy’s coming true. For eg: there are over 220 scientific, over 300 prophecys of Jesus coming to the earth. The bible is the only holy book and scientific book that has stood the test of time against the advances in technology – the more people look into it the more they prove its reliability… atheism on the other hand has failed to satisfy this. In history people have dedicated their life to disprove the bible and have only proved it further or have started to believe in Jesus bcoz the proof is overwhelming. So I started looking into christianity
    However ‘re ligion are evil. They combined a particular cultural with the bible

  67. carl Says:

    Most Christians are not a true representation of Christianity – the judging hypocrisy, fuelled with hate and unforgiveness is a disgrace. But, Bible believers and doers and the Jesus followers who keep His commandments are how Christian should be. But due to the typical analysis of lukewarm church goers most atheists have an incorrect view of what the God of the bible is all about. An atheist will claim that believers are looking to an imaginary friend from a fairy tale for help because they cant handle life’s problems… but its quite the opposite!! God created us so we can have a relationship with Him. He wants to know us personally and be there for us. As a sign of His love and commitment He sends His Son Jesus to bear the weight of world’s sin so that his children can access heaven here in earth and then for eternity. He challenges readers to objectively look at his Word and try to prove Him wrong but it always stands the test of time. There is a reason academics who have dedicated their whole lives to disprove the bible have failed – some even converting as the proof is too overwhelming. Mathematically, scientifically, archeologically, historically only proves the bible more and more. So atheism doesn’t even compare because their hope is a blind faith that allows no reasoning, provides no certain answers, no fact or truth and offers no hope in a world that desperately needs it!! Jesus offers all of these and has giving us the gift of free will to decide for ourselves what he want… Christianity is the only way if you consider the facts – facts that the atheists and the scientists over time cant disprove…. to answer you; Christianity is better than atheism because of the facts and because it wont leave you guessing or confused and purpose . Do your own research my atheist brothers and sisters because denying Jesus as your Lord is the reason that you feel like there’s a hole in your hole and that denial of Him will cause a horrible life after death… Horrible!! What harm will it do if you gave Him a chance and acknowledged Him.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: