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
08-08-2014, 11:05 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(08-08-2014 12:36 AM)hbl Wrote:  
(07-08-2014 11:58 PM)kim Wrote:  Multiple eyewitness testimony of Bigfoot sightings in various group settings has no naturalistic explanations, therefore Bigfoot sightings must be true.

So where's your sources for multiple eyewitness testimony in various group settings that has no naturalistic explanation? There is a medical condition of a human being having hair all over his body so that would be a fair naturalistic explanation or it could just be individual hallucinations or an illusion off in the distance like clouds in the shape of objects or bodily figures but not up close and personal of an actual person.

We have the 26 books of the NT written around 40 AD and Revelation 95 AD that defy any naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead.

You asked for the best proof God could provide of His existence. There it is in all His glory!

Still going on with the eyewitness testimony? No, there were no eyewitnesses to any of this and NT scholars know it. Some divinity students realize this if they truly study the ancient texts and the history behind it and the ones who don't drop out because of this don't say much about it to their flock because it kinda ruins the story. You've been fed a load of crap.

Look, sir or madam, people worship all kinds of stuff. People whose native land is heavily wooded or forested tend to believe in many gods since they can't see distances and simplicity. People who live in deserts tend to believe in one or two gods because of the opposite condition. Again, people will worship just about anything and find a compelling reason to do it. There are people who worship Prince Philip on the island of Tanna. People started worshiping airplanes during WWII when the natives saw american planes dropping supplies on their island. They then created a whole storyline to explain the planes.

So here's the story you believe is true. You believe a god created everything and created us in his own image. Now, you can't say in one breath that he created everything and then in the next breath say well, he created everything.....except for sin. He blames that on us. He either creates everything or he doesn't.

But anyway, here's the rest of your story. He then sends himself down to fix things, rapes a virgin girl (the consenting age at the time was 13 or 14) then sacrifices himself to himself for sins which he himself created to begin because, well..... he created everything.

And how is this a sacrifice? He knows in advance that he's going to be resurrected ('cause he's god and all that rot) so what did he sacrifice. Nothing.

What a load of crap this whole story is. It's a repulsive, revolting religion. It's sick. It's disgusting anyway way you look at it and I want nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Not only that but what you have is a sadistic god and you, my good man or women, are either sadistic too or you fill the masochist role. Either way, it's religion at it's worst. I'd rather worship Prince Philip.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like dancefortwo's post
08-08-2014, 11:10 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
Why are people still arguing with this guy? He has said literally the same thing since the beginning. Let this thread die.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
08-08-2014, 11:11 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
hbl, here is a little history of the christian church since you seem to be so lost on this subject...

another paper I wrote, enjoy..

Eric ########
Professor #################
Christian Spirituality Vision REL 123
March 19 2014

The development of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity

For a church to be considered a New Testament church it shall accept the biblical New Testament as its sole authority for all matters of faith. A “true” biblical church shall not accept any authority for its faith and daily practice, outside of the New Testament Scriptures. This does not discard the importance of the Old Testament Scriptures by any means. The church is not based on the biblical Old Testament because that is the record of God’s dealing with Israel. In the New Testament you will find a specific pattern and instructions from God concerning the church. The followers of the New Testament church model believe in the irrefutable word of God, that the Bible is complete as written, and it is, “… Given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

New Testament church parishioners believe that any hierarchy outside of the local church, is unsupported by Scripture. They think that Christ is the head, and that the New Testament Scriptures are the “true” churches only sole authority. I always find it amusing that with all the religions in the world, multiple versions of God or gods, and various holy books and ideologies of creation, that the believer of each religion thinks the believers of other religions are wrong, and that their own belief is the truth, the will and the way of the one “true” God. Even within Christianity, if every Christian who ever called another Christian, not a “true” Christian was removed from earth, there would be no Christians.

The Congregational style of a New Testament church is basically a biblical form of church government. Final authority in a New Testament church rests with the delegation. Each member has an equal democratic vote. They believe that the Bible, specifically the New Testament teaches that churches are to be governed by their own congregation following strict biblical guidelines.

In Trinitarian theology, the father gives everything he has, his very being, as a free gift to his son. Since the Son has everything that the father has, then they are in fact equal (Albl 139). In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit is closely associated with God’s gift of prophecy. For example, “the Lord took some of the spirit from Moses and gave it to the elders, and they were able to prophesy also (Num 11:25). In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit is closely associated with the creation of God’s son in human form. For example, Mary conceived Jesus not through ordinary human means, but “through the Holy Spirit” (Matt1:20). In essence, just as Jesus comes in the father’s name, so the Holy Spirit comes in Jesus’ name (Albl 150). I define the Holy Spirit as God’s breath, his very soul, that of which he can giveth away to create life itself.

The church understands such self-emptying on the part of God as simultaneously the fulfillment of human existence, whose transformative effects are extended in the church in the world through the work of the Holy Spirit (Mueller 44). As such, parishioners of the New Testament church believe that they can follow this example by sharing the Holy Spirit with others. This is “living through Christ” by spreading the good word, in line with strict interpretation of biblical reference.
In the New Testament, outside of the story of Christ in his teachings, is the insistent belief through Scripture that the end times or transition into the new world in the second coming of Christ to take his place as king of the world would occur at any moment. “That Christ would come soon is an expectation which appears even in the latter writings of the New Testament. It is present in almost every stratum” (Moule 141). A rationalist may posit that today things are going on exactly as they were before, and thus there will never be an end to the world. Believers in the New Testament think that the real mistake here is to make time the determining standard at all. A good analogy of this is that the Christian hope is not measured in terms of time, but in terms of the journey continuing to its completion; the incarnation. The question should not be when is the end of the world, but what can I do to be ready for it? (Moule 148).

Now let’s go back in time to the very formation, fabrication of the Christian faith, the Trinity concept and successful establishment of the Christian religion. We must begin with the immeasurable impact that Emperor Constantine had on the spread of Christianity, and successful suppression of incumbent Roman pagan beliefs. Legend has it that Emperor Constantine saw two stars cross in the sky, in which he took to be a sign from God that Christianity was the only true faith. While his conversion to Christianity in 312 was not truly the moment Christianity came to be the official religion of the Roman Empire, it definitely was one of the major contributing factors for its subsequent acceptance.

Emperor Constantine conducted a religious-based crusade against Licinius in a war to rescue Christians on the east from further persecution. In the years 312 to 313 Emperor Constantine began a systematic policy in which he gave honors, privileges and financial donations to the Christian church and their clergy. In 324, at the unchallenged controller of the East, he prohibited by Royal decree any cultic activities which until then fell under the traditional religions of the Roman Empire, and this is when the status of Christianity as the official religion of the state and its rulers was affirmed (Lieu 7).

Religious scholars concede that Emperor Constantine not only convened important council’s sessions, but also either presided over them, or appointed a Royal official to preside in his place. This reduced the very role of bishops and councils such as Nicaea and Tyre to utter insignificance by assimilating them to members of the Imperial consilium, whose advice was not binding on the Emperor. All decisions taken at the Nicene Council were made by Emperor Constantine alone, since he could completely disregard the advisory opinions of the bishops whom he had summoned to the Council (Lieu 8).

Some scholars contend that Emperor Constantine’s influence was minimal, and merely sat in on the councils out of personal interest. However, when we look at the Council of Nicaea of 359, we see that Emperor Constantine again took a prominent role of control in the theological debate. Once the foundation of Christianity as a predominant religion of the Empire had been successfully established, Emperor Constantine later relinquished some of his control and influence by putting a seal of approval on the rulings of bishops declared at councils. The governors of provinces were not even allowed to rescind what they had decided, for he said the priests of God were more trustworthy than any magistrate (Lieu 10).

We can trace back the very beginning of the entitlement mentality by church hierarchy to Emperor Constantine and his enabling policies. No matter what his crime, a bishop could only be deposed and exiled, not legally tortured and executed (Lieu 17). I am sure this was fundamental in developing the culture within the church of dealing with any indiscretions internally, and not invoking the authority of the legal system. This of course has led to much abuse throughout history. One has only to watch the news these days to see on a routine basis, some priest or other has been exposed for having performed a plethora of transgressions, hidden by the church by simply moving the clergy member to a new area. This mentality just exposes more people to being victimized.

On the basis of Christian faith and the Trinity concept; the father, the son and the Holy Spirit, the first Council of Nicaea in 325 called together by Emperor Constantine, worked to establish a settlement of the issue of the relationship between father and the son. The focus primarily was on defining Jesus Christ as a deity. Establishment of the Holy Spirit was largely unaddressed until after the father and son relationship was settled in 362. After Nicaea, some bishops continued to prefer a term which had been discussed and rejected by the Council: homoiousios, in the sense of the son ‘being of like substance’ with the father. There were other bishops who were antagonistic to the term homoiousios because it was not biblical (O’Collins 184). Seven years later, the Trinitarian terminology was officially adopted after first Council Constantinople.

In its letter to Pope Damascus, a post conciliar synod confessed ‘one divinity, power, or substance’ in ‘three most perfect hypostasesin’ (O’Collins 185). At the Trinitarian level, Constantinople I reaffirmed the Nicene Council confession of faith that the son was ’of one substance’ with the father, as well as teaching the divinity of the Holy Spirit (O’Collins 186). Thus, the official establishment of Christian doctrine regarding the Trinity of the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit was initiated.

Works Cited:

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Moule, C. F. D., The birth of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Print

Lieu, Samuel N. C., and Montserrat, Dominic, Constantine: History, Historiography, and Legend. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

O'Collins, Gerald, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.


no worries hbl, we are here to educate you on your faith, stick around

"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
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
08-08-2014, 12:23 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
So HBL, you feel that you are making progress on this forum and achieving what you intended?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
08-08-2014, 12:41 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
So my little brother apparently is gonna be a good little atheist. He comes running in today .. "Hey Bucky, two mice knock on Mr. Mouse's door. 'Hello, we'd like to talk to you about cheesus ' ". Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
08-08-2014, 12:41 PM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2014 12:46 PM by hbl.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(08-08-2014 11:05 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  there were no eyewitnesses to any of this and NT scholars know it

The 4 gospels cite 12 different eyewitness accounts in various group settings.

You can find them all right here, very well attested and corroborated,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/12groups.htm

And the Minimal Facts Approach is that using the minimal amount of data from skeptical scholars that they concede to derive a conclusion.

Almost all scholars concede Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2. In these 3 chapters he gave the gospel message and cited a few resurrection appearances of Jesus. He even said if he was not telling the truth people alive that he is referring to could come back and correct him, but they never did.

He received this message from Peter whom he spent 15 days with he said. And spent time with James and John also. So this goes all the way back to the cross from the original eyewitnesses. Paul was converted about 2 years after the cross and his eyewitness testimony agreed with the same Jesus resurrected from the dead that the original Apostles experienced over those 40 from Sunday.

Since there exists no naturalistic explanation to explain this away we can be confident it is true, that Jesus is God and the only way to be saved is through Him otherwise you are going to Hell.

God has given you the free choice so you are without excuse. How you respond to Jesus in this life determines were you spend the next in eternity future.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2014, 12:51 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(08-08-2014 11:00 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  hbl wrote: It's true we have exhausted all naturalistic theories to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles. Therefore, logically, it is true, Jesus is God, raised Himself from the grave, and salvation is only possible through Him. There is no other name under heaven by which one can be saved. Consequently, since you reject your Creator's mercy, He rejects you by sending you to Hell

hell? sweet! You do know that hell isn't the fiery fantasy you Xians invented to sell fear to the non believers right? hell in accordance with original christian doctrine is a place devoid of god, sounds like heaven to me, a place devoid of a made up egocentric murderous immature diety, sign me up!

The hell you are talking about doesn't even exist in that capacity under Christian doctrine. hell is allegedly a place devoid of god, thus devoid of good, no fire, no pitchforks, no little demons running around, no eternity in pain...get some education you ignorant, misinformed delusional believer. Because I pity you, I will educate you on your own faith.

Source is Reason, Faith and Tradition by Martin C. Albl, Chapter 7 page 188 – describing hell.

"We begin with a reminder of limitations of our language. Since hell, according to Christian doctrine, is a supernatural reality, it can only be described in analogies. Holy Scripture teaches us the essence of hell in images. When it speaks of the fire of hell, it is not to be understood in a grossly realistic sense. The images of fire and pain were ways of expressing the essential Christian understanding of hell – that it is a separation from God. We may define heaven as simply being with God, and hell, in contrast, is simply being without God. It is thus an existence without goodness and without meaning."

So save your made up twisted image of hell for someone a bit less educated on theology than I. Funny how an Atheist knows more than you about your own faith isn't it? I know the abrahamic myth inside and out, and that is WHY I am an atheist.

Evil_monster

hbl also said: You know that old saying 'Good intentions pave the way to Hell.' A human being who thinks he can earn his way to salvation is self-righteous and arrogant since nobody can do so. That would never satisfy an infinitely great God.


who seeks to earn salvation? That is fool's gold. A made up fantasy, like god for example. Who is this infinitely great god? which god by the way?

Psalms 82.1 (kjv) God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

note plural..gods.

Lets look at atonement and incarnation Rolleyes

here is a paper I wrote on this very subject, enjoy..

Eric #######
Professor #############
Christian Spirituality Vision REL 123
April 12 2014

The relationship between incarnation and atonement

To contemplate the relationship between incarnation and atonement, with special emphasis on Anselm’s idea of satisfaction, we must first look at what incarnation and atonement means to those of the Christian faith. Incarnation is continual in that our redemption depends on the reality that the eternal son of God came to us as a man. If he did not come fully down, then we are not fully saved (Dawson 5-6). Since Jesus became what we are, accepting our very humanity and God crossed the gap between human and deity, and he overcame our sin and came to live on our behalf. He chose to leave a faithful life that was beyond our capacity, but required by the Father.

The very obedience of Jesus led him to die on the cross as penalty for human sin. Not only did he die for us, but he gave us new life for salvation, and salvation depends on our continuing union with him. The Incarnation is basically a fundamental theological teaching of Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. The Incarnation represents the Christian belief that Jesus, who is the second part of the triune, God, took on a human body and became both man and deity. This can be seen in the Bible in John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (Bible – King James version – John). The Christians worldview is rooted in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the belief that Jesus is God in human in one person (Mueller 141).

Atonement is a theological theory which describes human being’s reconciliation with God. This atonement is basically the forgiveness of sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus. This voluntary sacrifice by Jesus made possible the reconciliation between man and God. “God so loved the world, and gave his only begotten son” (Bible – King James version – John 3:16). This Scripture verse highlights the source of atonement by the very provision of God’s love. It is the love of God the father that Paul has in view when he speaks of him who “spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all” (Bible – King James version – Romans 8:32). Surely God could have saved man by other means then allowing his only son to die, since God is all-powerful, other ways of forgiving sin were available to him. Some view the very necessity of his great self-sacrifice magnified his glory and enhanced the precise character of the salvation bestowed (Murray 12). Salvation requires not only the forgiveness of sin but also justification. Sin is the contradiction of God he must react against it with holy wrath demonstration of Christ on the cross is the ultimate demonstration of the love of God. The very nature of the atonement requires that it contains obedience, sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption.

Obedience is a compilation of motive, purpose, direction and intention, of which Christ was the epitome of obedience discharge of God’s will in its increasing demands leading up to his inevitable sacrificial death. Sacrifice is the removal of sin liability via the transference of liability itself. Propitiation; to pacify, and Christ’s propitiation to God was to deal with the wrath so that those loved would no longer be the objects of wrath, and God’s love would be eternal. Reconciliation is concerned with our alienation from God, and the inherent need to have that alienation removed. Redemption by Jesus’ blood, “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Bible – King James version – revelations 5:9).

This atonement can be broken down into various theories, one of which is the satisfaction theory of atonement, developed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1109). Anselm posited that sin unbalanced the order of justice in the universe. Once a sin has been performed, something good must be done in order to restore the balance. For example, a sin is incurrence of debt to God, the source of order, and that debt must be paid through true repentance (Albl 271). The work of Christ is to repair the breach human sin introduced into the relationship between humanity and God. Anselm argued in Cur Deus Homo that this work can be accomplished only by a God-man; one person equally divine and human. This doctrine of Christ is commonly called “Chalcedonian Christology” because it was created by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE (Visser 213).

One cannot explain the incarnation by appeal to any supposed obligation on God’s part to respect the devil’s rights over humanity. Since the devil had no such rights, so it appears that God would not have been acting unjustly if he had just delivered human beings the power of the devil by fiat. What reason did God have to redeemed mankind and the way he did, given that he was not under any obligation to do so? Anselm suggests that since we know God’s will is never irrational, we can be confident that God had some reason for doing what he did, even if we do not see or understand what the reason is (Visser 214).

Anselm believed he could prove, by unavoidable logical steps, that Christ was removed from the case, as if there had never existed anything to do with him, is it possible that without him mankind could have been saved (Anselm 261 – 262). A foundation of Christianity is that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins (Bible – King James version –1 Cor 15:3). In this way he fulfilled the old covenant sacrificial system, reconciled us to God, and changed our lives forever. This is the doctrine of the atonement (Mattison 1). At this point the author makes a faith claim, or commonly known as a knowledge claim, by positing “its reality is not in dispute”. I must interject here the whole subject is in dispute, and has been the center of debate for centuries. The author’s mere assertion in a knowledge claim that the atonement “reality” is not in dispute does not make it true. It does however assert that the atonement theory is an essential foundation of Christian religious belief. The author goes on to say, “we know that the atonement works; but how it works is not as clear.” Again, a knowledge claim is made; we have zero proof that the atonement works, at best it is a comforting theory for the faithful to cling to in order to validate their faith to themselves.

“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Bible –King James version – Matthew 20:28). The statement suggests that Jesus gave his life as an extreme expression of love for mankind. Iranaeus of Lyons argued that Jesus was paid as the ransom to the devil free people’s souls. This view was known as the ransom or classic theory. The ransom theory was the dominant theological theory for centuries until dismantled by Anselm of Canterbury. He pointed out that this theory empowered the devil too much, and he posited that Jesus’s life was ransom paid to God, not the devil. Anselm viewed sin as dishonorable conduct that went against God. Since God cannot ignore this conduct, a debt or “satisfaction” is required. Since mankind is unable to make the requisite level of satisfaction, God became human to do it on our behalf. Thus, Jesus was payment to God, not the devil. But since Jesus was part of the triune god, did god merely appease himself?

The church leaders developed doctrine to reflect Jesus Christ’s fulfilling of God’s will through active obedience, vice his passive obedience through death. Basically, God requires mankind to obey and live a life of perpetual obedience (Mattison 1). This endless cycle of perpetual intellectual and spiritual slavery upon birth, where we continuously strive to bow and scrape in deference to our alleged creator’s self-centered will and ego, is hardly what a thinking person would presume a deity of such universe and life creating power, would be so obsessed with. What kind of immature supreme being would create all of this, create life, destroy life, send part of his own “body” down in the form of a man through immaculate conception, so he can die on our behalf to satisfy God’s ego requirement for sacrifice. I don’t purport to understand the consciousness of this alleged magical creature, but it is hard to conceive such childish, disingenuous manipulation of life for the entertainment of itself. This dramatic, over thought, contrite, anthropocentric theory must be the creation of man’s imagination. How could it be anything else?

In summary, this complex, dramatic Christian theological concept is obviously a fabrication of much thought, and introspective philosophy. Perhaps they could have put all that time and effort into something more constructive. Creating a subservient, subjugative crutch for people with low mental resilience, apparent inability to use reason and logic to comprehend the world around them, and wild imaginations seems unnecessary. In my opinion, religion and faith block the believer’s ability to utilize appropriate epistemological methods to process and gain knowledge. As apparent by the fact that a recent study showed that one fourth of America believed the sun revolved around the earth. This is the perfect example of how religious thought handicaps a person’s ability to learn.


Works Cited:

Mattison, Mark. “The Meaning of the Atonement.” Mark Mattison. 1987. Web. Retrieved from http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html

Anselm, Evans, G. R., The Major Works. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 1998. Print.

Visser, Sandra and Williams, Thomas, Anselm. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2009. Print.

Murray, John, The Atonement. Evansville: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1976. Print.

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Dawson, Gerrit S. Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation. New Jersey: P&R publishing, 2004. Print.

You might be interested in Martin Buber's book "Good and Evil" (part 2 especially). He dissects the Hebrew language of the "garden myth" and completely destroys any notion that (Christian) "salvation" makes any sense in the context of Hebrew culture, even though that was not his primary aim in writing the section), where he shows that "evil" was appropriated from the Babylonian idea of "chaos".
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ins?page=2

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
08-08-2014, 12:55 PM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2014 01:06 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(08-08-2014 12:41 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(08-08-2014 11:05 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  there were no eyewitnesses to any of this and NT scholars know it

The 4 gospels cite 12 different eyewitness accounts in various group settings.

You can find them all right here, very well attested and corroborated,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/12groups.htm

And the Minimal Facts Approach is that using the minimal amount of data from skeptical scholars that they concede to derive a conclusion.

Almost all scholars concede Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2. In these 3 chapters he gave the gospel message and cited a few resurrection appearances of Jesus. He even said if he was not telling the truth people alive that he is referring to could come back and correct him, but they never did.

He received this message from Peter whom he spent 15 days with he said. And spent time with James and John also. So this goes all the way back to the cross from the original eyewitnesses. Paul was converted about 2 years after the cross and his eyewitness testimony agreed with the same Jesus resurrected from the dead that the original Apostles experienced over those 40 from Sunday.

Since there exists no naturalistic explanation to explain this away we can be confident it is true, that Jesus is God and the only way to be saved is through Him otherwise you are going to Hell.

God has given you the free choice so you are without excuse. How you respond to Jesus in this life determines were you spend the next in eternity future.

The Gospel of Mark originally had no resurrection. At all. All scholars know that. Now all you have to do is prove that any gospel is reliable. They are "faith documents" written by believers about what they already believe. They are not history in any way. There is no reason to accept them as accurate. They have countless contradictions, and disagree about some very important things. Your "eyewitness" testimony is garbage.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
08-08-2014, 01:55 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(03-08-2014 08:40 PM)hbl Wrote:  The reason I don't believe in atheism is because something can't come from nothing. That which does not exist can't cause anything because it doesn't exist. For example, a square circle can't cause anything because it doesn't exist. Likewise, non-existence can't cause nature or the universe to come into being. Krauss would be wrong as well, because that which doesn't exist can't split into something. It doesn't exist.

And nature can't always have existed either, because if it did, you would by that definition have had an eternity to come into being before now in an infinite regression of cause and effects, so you should have already happened.

Moreover, infinite regress is inherently self-contradictory because if there was this past eternity of cause and effects as part of nature, the universe or universes, then a past eternity should continue to go on for eternity, never reaching this point in the here and now. Thus, past eternity is a man made construct, but doesn't exist in reality.

Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. Knowing this, we know, therefore, that nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God. If you ask me what I mean by the term God, the first thing I would tell you is that this is the 'uncreated Creator'.

Knowing that God exists, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself as only one faith can be true because God does not contradict Himself. He makes Himself known rather than unknown as we have already seen by this proof. What else does He reveal about Himself?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2014, 02:06 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
I think hbl has proven he..

a) Can not substantiate his faith
b) Can not answer solid contrary evidence to his faith
c) Is a troll in the sense that he does not wish to actually enter intellectual discourse on the subject, but wishes to instead prattle on like a 12 yo girl on her first date about how belief in jesus is the way to salvation. Rolleyes

I think I, and others have soundly taken hbl to the woodshed...next

[Image: acc1z.jpg]

"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
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: