Poll: Do you believe in atheism?
No
Yes
Not sure (agnostic)
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 7 Votes - 1.57 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2014, 07:53 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(16-08-2014 07:51 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 07:48 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Good thing I've never claimed somethings impossible then huh?

It's impossible for group hallucinations to occur, and it's impossible for people to willingly die for what they know is a lie.

This is God's proof.

[Image: september-9-11-attacks-anniversary-groun...00x450.jpg]

This proves Islam, then?

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like diddo97's post
16-08-2014, 07:54 PM
Re: RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(16-08-2014 07:51 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 07:48 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Good thing I've never claimed somethings impossible then huh?

It's impossible for group hallucinations to occur, and it's impossible for people to willingly die for what they know is a lie.

This is God's proof.

Dodging acquisitions you were at fault of now?

Proof of what?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 07:55 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(16-08-2014 07:51 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 07:48 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Good thing I've never claimed somethings impossible then huh?

It's impossible for group hallucinations to occur, and it's impossible for people to willingly die for what they know is a lie.

This is God's proof.

You still have not answered an earlier question.

Have you discovered the magic of friendship yet?





My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shadow Fox's post
16-08-2014, 08:11 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(16-08-2014 07:55 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  friendship

Do you understand why Jesus is the friend of sinners?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 08:23 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 08:27 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(16-08-2014 06:44 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 03:10 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE)

Your dates are impossible because the Apostles died in the Neronian persecutions around 65 AD so they were written before then. Transmission of their experiences is best done while they are alive to impart their experiences.

Luke identifies himself as the writer of Acts, "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach" (Acts 1.1). He is referring to his former work which was the gospel of Luke. Therein he says, "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1.3).

Since Luke didn't mention Paul's death in Acts it is because at the time of writing it hadn't happened yet. Therefore, Acts was written around 50-55 AD. Luke's former work the gospel of Luke, therefore was written before then around 40-45 AD. But since Luke took from Mark in part that places Mark around 35 AD just 2 years after the cross. Peter was also with Mark so 1 & 2 Peter were written a few years after the cross.

There is no reason for people to consider your late dating. You need a reason. You haven't given any. So we can be confident in this evidence I have provided.

There are two other important points to consider. The earliest known still surviving papyri is dated late 1st century, and you can quote all the verses of the NT from the early church fathers in the late 1st and 2nd centuries. Therefore, the books of the NT had to have been written a considerable time before then.

Hope that helps.

Let me say it slower...they...didn't...write...those...books.....PSEUDIPIGRAPHA. Those aren't my dates HBL, they come from historical evidence...see once again, you need to take some classes in theology, may I recommend the history of christianity, or christian spirituality vision,.... both would teach you a lot.

oooops i forgot Jude Laughat

Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.


how about daniel?

Pseudepigrapha (also Anglicized as "pseudepigraph" or "pseudepigraphs") are falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed author is represented by a separate author, or a work "whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past."

Let’s look at how this happens, lets pick one and take a closer look at it, how about Daniel?

Background: (I used wiki because it is an easily understood format, you can scroll down to the bottom of wiki and click one of the many source hyperlinks and validate the info, but I used it here as a foundation to help the readers.)

Traditionally ascribed to Daniel himself, modern scholarly consensus considers the book pseudonymous, the stories of the first half legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BCE). Its exclusion from the Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve) was probably because it appeared after the canon for those books had closed, and the dominant view among scholars is that Daniel is not in any case a prophetic book but an apocalypse.

Daniel is one of a large number of Jewish apocalypses, all of them pseudonymous. Although the entire book is traditionally ascribed to Daniel the seer, chapters 1–6 are in the voice of an anonymous narrator, except for chapter 4 which is in the form of a letter from king Nebuchadnezzar; only the second half (chapters 7–12) is presented by Daniel himself, introduced by the anonymous narrator in chapters 7 and 10. The real author/editor of Daniel was probably an educated Jew, knowledgeable in Greek learning, and of high standing in his own community. It is possible that the name of Daniel was chosen for the hero of the book because of his reputation as a wise seer in Hebrew tradition.

Daniel's exclusion from the Hebrew bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BCE, suggests it was not known at that time, and the Wisdom of Sirach, from around 180 BCE, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted by the author of a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BCE, and was popular at Qumran beginning at much the same time, suggesting that it was known and revered from the middle of that century.

The actual historical setting of the book is clear from chapter 11, where the prophecy is accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author knows about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BCE), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he knows nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or the actual circumstances of the death of Antiochus in late 164. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BCE. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again. (Wiki)

Now the good stuff:

Today the consensus of scholars understands the whole book of Daniel to be put together by an author editor who first collected traditional stories in chapters 1-6 about the boy hero Daniel showing his courage during the persecutions of exile, and added to them the visions of chapters 7 – 12 that predicted the coming end of Antiochus Epiphanes and his persecution. This kind of writing is called a Vaticinium ex eventu, a “prediction after the fact,” in which an author creates a character of long ago and puts into his mouth as predictions all the important events that have already happened right to the author’s own time and place. The language is often coded with symbolic animals and colors and dates to protect its message from the persecuting authorities. Its focus is not on predicting the future, but getting some meaning to present happenings by explaining the past events that led up to this terrible situation (Boadt 1984, p509).

To achieve such an important purpose, the authors mixed historical facts with older religious traditions and even pagan myths (Boadt 1984, p509).

It is important to note that the entire book claims to take place in the sixth century BC and to report a series of visions that come to the boy Daniel, who is remarkable for his great wisdom and his ability to receive divine revelation about the future. Very few scholars today, however, believe that this book originated in any way during the days of the Babylonian exile. And the ones who do usually have a very difficult time explaining the references to historical people and places which seem to be grossly wrong.

Darius the Mede is called the son of Xerxes in 5:31 and 9:11, both are wrong:

Darius was not a Mede but a Persian and the father of Xerxes. Belshazzar is called the king of Babylon in chapter 7 and the son of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 5. He was neither: he was only crown prince under his father Nabonidus.

In chapter 6 Cyrus succeeds Darius as King of the Persians. This too has history backward, since Cyrus was the founder of the Persian dynasty. The author seems to be quite confused about his facts and either lived long afterward or else intended the giant bloopers to warn the audience that what follows is not intended as history but a story of faith; similar to the approach of the book of Judith (Boadt 1984, p508).

Although the book of Daniel was supposed to have been written during the Babylonian exile by an official of King Nebuchadnezzar, modern scholars date its writings to the second century BCE. The reasons for this include:

• It is listed in the writings of the Jewish canon, rather than the Prophets. This indicates that Daniel was written after the collection of prophetic books had been closed (sometime after 300 B.C.E.)
• Parts of the book (2.4 – 7.28) were written in Aramaic, which suggest a later date when Aramaic had become the common language.
• The author of Daniel used Persian and Greek words that would not have been known to residents Babylon in the sixth century BCE.
• The book contains numerous historical inaccuracies when dealing with sixth century B.C.E. Babylonian history. Such mistakes would not have been made by an important official of King Nebuchadnezzar.
• Daniel is the only book in the Old Testament in which angels are given names (such as Gabriel in 8.16 and 9.21 and Michael and 10.13, 10.21, and 12.1). Elsewhere in the Bible, names for angels only appear in the Apocrypha and the New Testament.
• The absence of Daniel’s name in the list of Israel’s great men in Ecclesiasticus.
• Nebuchadrezzar is spelled Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel, which is the way the king’s name was spelled, under Greek influence, at a later time.
• In 2.2 the Kings wise men are called “Chaldeans.” But at the time of Nebuchadrezzar, “Chaldean” would have referred to the nationality. It was only centuries later that this word came to mean sorcerer or astrologer. (Wells 2013, p 1109)

Now do you see how these magical books were put together not by whom you think, not when you think and how they are allegorical writings based on parables, meant to drive a message and purposely designed in a hubris attempt to give them credibility.

Read, think, evolve.

Works cited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel

Boadt, L. (1984) Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction. New York. Paulist Press.

Wells, S. (2013) The skeptics annotated Bible. New York. SAB Books, LLC

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
16-08-2014, 08:32 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(16-08-2014 08:11 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 07:55 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  friendship

Do you understand why Jesus is the friend of sinners?

That is not the question I asked and you know it...stop avoiding it...ANSWER IN THE NAME OF CELESTIA!


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 08:34 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(16-08-2014 08:11 PM)hbl Wrote:  Do you understand why Jesus is the friend of sinners?

Friends don't let friends grovel and call themselves names like "worthless sinner" or "filthy rags"; they lift them up to be equals rather than holding an ancient "gift" over them like a bloody sword dangling from a frayed thread.

Jesus is no one's friend.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Astreja's post
16-08-2014, 08:37 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(16-08-2014 08:34 PM)Astreja Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 08:11 PM)hbl Wrote:  Do you understand why Jesus is the friend of sinners?

Friends don't let friends grovel and call themselves names like "worthless sinner" or "filthy rags"; they lift them up to be equals rather than holding an ancient "gift" over them like a bloody sword dangling from a frayed thread.

Jesus is no one's friend.

That's right, Pinkie Pie would never call me unworthy! Twilight Sparkle would never hurt me and Celestia would never have me tortured forever and ever for all eternity just because we have a disagreement. Her punishments are nothing compared to Jesus.

He obviously has not known the true magic of friendship.





My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 09:04 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(16-08-2014 08:23 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Jude
Daniel's

Jude was clearly the brother of Jesus and Jude wrote his book before he was martyred so he wrote this material before 65 AD. There is nothing to suggest otherwise. Now gain from the spiritual message he provides in his book. There are 66 books of the Bible. Without Jude it is not complete. Without Daniel it is not complete.

Dan. 9.24-27 tells us that there is one final seven lasting 2,520 days (7 x 360) at the end of this age. It says from the declaration to rebuild Jerusalem there would be 7 sets of 7 then another 62 sets of 7 after which the Messiah would be cut off.

That comes to 69 x 7 x 360 or 173,880 days. The declaration was Neh. 2.1 444 BC March 5. The 173,880th day is exactly Nisan 10, March 28, 33 AD, a Monday. The 4 day inspection of the Lamb was Nisan 10, 11, 12, 13 or March 28, 29, 30, 31. Passover was Nisan 14, Friday, April 1, 33 AD (Gregorian) or April 3 (Julian). Satan even mocks Jesus' death claiming it is April Fool's day. We are fools for Christ meaning that God uses the foolishness of the cross to bring down the wise.

Satan can't work in that which is dead. Christians have died to our old man on the cross. That's why Rev. 6.1 has the rider on the white horse with a bow without an arrow, that looks like a cross, because the arrow has been shot giving Satan a deadly wound.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 09:45 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
It's all about the Minimal Facts Approach.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: