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
10-08-2014, 08:34 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2014 08:54 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(10-08-2014 07:24 PM)hbl Wrote:  The Resurrection of Christ 1 Corinthians 15

1 Let me now remind you, dear brothers and sisters, [fn] of the Good News I preached to you before. You welcomed it then, and you still stand firm in it. 2 It is this Good News that saves you if you continue to believe the message I told you—unless, of course, you believed something that was never true in the first place. [fn]

3 I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. 4 He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. 5 He was seen by Peter [fn] and then by the Twelve. 6 After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers [fn] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.

Writing things in big letters does not make them true.

St. Jerome (a Church Father) thought Paul was a liar : ""I will only mention the Apostle Paul. [...] He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles'."
Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus

"We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result."
St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)

You don't know what the others saw that Paul wrote. They were not addressed to the apostles, , and there may or may not, have been copies they saw. You don't know. No one knows what they saw. They certainly never quoted his letters. So your "contested" point is crap.

He listed the CLAIMS of sightings. The "500" were never identified, and NOT ONE NON-BELIEVER EVER ONCE claimed to have seen him. That's pretty suspicious. At the end of Matthew, it says the "doubted, but they worshiped". Pretty lame evidence.

(10-08-2014 07:24 PM)hbl Wrote:  "Paul received was the same as the Apostles and he received it from them as well"

A lie. He specifically said he got his gospel "from no man".

(10-08-2014 07:24 PM)hbl Wrote:  It originated from Peter, John and James as well as the rest of the 12 Apostles and the other Apostles.[/i]

Another lie. He admitted he had hallucinated it and got it directly from Jebus. You should try reading your Babble once in a while.

All your "eyewitness" CLAIMS are merely insider CLAIMS, by believers who had good reasons to make up shit. Just like you do.

(10-08-2014 07:24 PM)hbl Wrote:  Altogether we have 45 sources for Jesus within 150 years of His death, 17 of which are from his detractors from non-Christian sources.

No they are not. You have named NOT ONE of them.

(10-08-2014 07:24 PM)hbl Wrote:  "This ancient document, the Scripture, has come from the proper repository, that is, it is has been in the hands of the persons of the Church for 2000 years almost and it bears on its face no evident marks of forgery, and therefore the law presumes it to be genuine, and those who would presume otherwise upon them devolves the responsibility of proving it to be false. We don't have to prove it to be true. They have to prove it to be false. That's what the law says.

What law ? The Church forged the interpolation in the 18th Chapter of Josephus, why couldn't the deceivers forge anything else, if that was their ethic. They were not trustworthy. They wrote books about the value of deception.

Bishop Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:
"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."

Eusebius is famously the author of many great falsehoods, yet at the same time he warns us:
"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2

Clement of Alexandria was one of the earliest of the Church Fathers to draw a distinction between "mere human truth" and the higher truth of faith:
"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)

John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople: "Do you see the advantage of deceit? [...] For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ... And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

These are the lying sons-of-bitches YOU claim had possession of your gospels, keeping them safe. What a joke that points is.

(10-08-2014 07:24 PM)hbl Wrote:  "It was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."

Nope. Many serious Christian scholars do not buy into a physical resurrection. It is not essential to Christianity. In fact an examination of the Greek language shows Paul did not mean "physically rose" but "exalted" (or "rased up") in the Jewish martyr-hero "exaltation" sense that became prevalent in the Apocalyptic period, which was proven when the Dead Sea Scrolls were read. (references upon request).

(10-08-2014 07:24 PM)hbl Wrote:  - over 3500 scholars, skeptics alike, almost all agree on these 12 facts.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

Prove it. Thanks for your list of old CLAIMS. You have provided no proof for any of them.

Name 50 of your 3500 scholars. Then tell us EXACTLY how you counted 3,500, you lying troll.

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
10-08-2014, 09:11 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
REMEMBER! IF IT'S POSTED IN EXTRA LARGE, BOLD AND COLOR FONT, IT MUST BE TRUE. YOU CANNOT DENY THE POWER OF EXTRA LARGE, BOLD AND COLOR FONT. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBear's post
10-08-2014, 09:17 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(10-08-2014 09:11 PM)TheBear Wrote:  REMEMBER! IF IT'S POSTED IN EXTRA LARGE, BOLD AND COLOR FONT, IT MUST BE TRUE. YOU CANNOT DENY THE POWER OF EXTRA LARGE, BOLD AND COLOR FONT. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

DUDE! Quit hurting my Virgin Ears with all your YELLING!!!Weeping
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2014, 09:18 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(10-08-2014 08:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope. Many serious Christian scholars do not buy into a physical resurrection. It is not essential to Christianity.

Resurrection always refers to bodily.

"Dying bodies have been transformed into bodies that will never die" (1 Cor. 15.14).

Body is body; soul is soul; and spirit is spirit. Heb. 4.12, 1 Thess. 5.23 make this distinction: "spirit, soul and body".

This is essential because with our bodies we can still do all the things we have done with our old bodies. We still have two hands, two feet, two eyes, etc.

John 20.27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing."

The bodily resurrection of Jesus was proclaimed at the earliest stages of Christianity (i.e., Paul and the Acts sermon summaries) and is multiply attested. Moreover, no first-century Christian writer presents a contrary view.

So if you don't accept this Jesus you would not be saved. Remember there are many false Christs. We are only saved by the true Jesus. Arianism is the teaching of a non-physical body what JW's teach and so they are not saved but going to Hell with atheists. As part of their teaching they also don't accept Jesus is God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2014, 09:22 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
Paul writes to the Philippians about himself as being “an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee” (Phil. 3.5). The Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection which is widely understood.

In Acts 23, Paul was taken by the Romans to prevent him from being killed. And Paul responds with saying: Why are you taking me, I believe in the resurrection of the dead? The Pharisees, agreeing with the resurrection of the dead, don’t have a problem with this statement. But the Sadducees don’t like it, because they don’t believe in the resurrection of the dead.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2014, 09:25 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
“That if possible I may attain the resurrection (ek exanastasis – the out-resurrection) from the dead” (Phil. 3.11). All Greek scholars translate this passage as the out-resurrection, for that which goes in must come out. Paul here is not concerned here with whether he is saved or not to be resurrected with the saints. He is thinking of the "out-resurrection" - the "first resurrection" (Rev. 20.4-6), connoting the "best" one, to be included in the marriage feast (see Matt. 25.1-13)-the reward given to overcomer believers to reign with Christ for 1000 years.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2014, 09:28 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
HBL I admire your courage for standing up for what you believe in for 92 pages, in the face of chronic insults and mockery. I think your God is a Ruthless, Sociopathic, irrational, Narcissistic, bloodthirsty, sadistic, and dishonest Cocksucker!

But Wether you are Jewish, Atheist, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Communist, New ager, Deist, or whatever, who courageously stands up for what you believe in when outnumbered 50-100 to 1, that is admirable!

It means you don't kiss ass for a good reputation and is a good sign that you don't front like your someone you're not. And a lot of people would be too pussy to go to an atheist forum and be mocked and antagonized and made to look like a dipshit!

I just as much admire if not even more greatly admire an atheist who goes to a Christian community to be belittled, judged, and condemned by a bunch of fanatic theists for defending their belief in evolution or perhaps their lack of belief.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2014, 09:30 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
“For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body (soma), that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body (soma)” (Phil. 3.20-21). First there is the body, then it is the body plus something else to fashion a glorious body.

Paul: (1) he is a Pharisee who believes in the physical resurrection, (2) believes in a resurrection from out among the dead (and the "first resurrection" reward), and (3) believes Jesus will change his body (soma) to be like His body (soma).

Antony Flew’s (most published atheist scholar turned theist) response is that a “spiritual body” is not a body at all since it is immaterial as implied by the word “spiritual.” John Ankerberg responds by asking, If the Bible is a spiritual book, does that mean it is not a physical book? However, this is an ontological question, not a behavioral question.

Phil. 3 is a commentary on 1 Cor. 15. Paul is not leaving any doubt this is a physical body glorified. Any talk about Paul thinking this referring to spirits is not to do Paul’s words justice. If Paul is clear in Phil. 3 this is not some wispy spirit, then we can’t have the problem of saying that this is non-physical because he is telling us what he means by it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2014, 09:32 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(10-08-2014 08:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-08-2014 07:24 PM)hbl Wrote:  The Resurrection of Christ 1 Corinthians 15

1 Let me now remind you, dear brothers and sisters, [fn] of the Good News I preached to you before. You welcomed it then, and you still stand firm in it. 2 It is this Good News that saves you if you continue to believe the message I told you—unless, of course, you believed something that was never true in the first place. [fn]

3 I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. 4 He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. 5 He was seen by Peter [fn] and then by the Twelve. 6 After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers [fn] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.

Writing things in big letters does not make them true.

St. Jerome (a Church Father) thought Paul was a liar : ""I will only mention the Apostle Paul. [...] He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles'."
Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus

"We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result."
St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)

You don't know what the others saw that Paul wrote. They were not addressed to the apostles, , and there may or may not, have been copies they saw. You don't know. No one knows what they saw. They certainly never quoted his letters. So your "contested" point is crap.

He listed the CLAIMS of sightings. The "500" were never identified, and NOT ONE NON-BELIEVER EVER ONCE claimed to have seen him. That's pretty suspicious. At the end of Matthew, it says the "doubted, but they worshiped". Pretty lame evidence.

(10-08-2014 07:24 PM)hbl Wrote:  "Paul received was the same as the Apostles and he received it from them as well"

A lie. He specifically said he got his gospel "from no man".

(10-08-2014 07:24 PM)hbl Wrote:  It originated from Peter, John and James as well as the rest of the 12 Apostles and the other Apostles.[/i]

Another lie. He admitted he had hallucinated it and got it directly from Jebus. You should try reading your Babble once in a while.

All your "eyewitness" CLAIMS are merely insider CLAIMS, by believers who had good reasons to make up shit. Just like you do.

(10-08-2014 07:24 PM)hbl Wrote:  Altogether we have 45 sources for Jesus within 150 years of His death, 17 of which are from his detractors from non-Christian sources.

No they are not. You have named NOT ONE of them.

(10-08-2014 07:24 PM)hbl Wrote:  "This ancient document, the Scripture, has come from the proper repository, that is, it is has been in the hands of the persons of the Church for 2000 years almost and it bears on its face no evident marks of forgery, and therefore the law presumes it to be genuine, and those who would presume otherwise upon them devolves the responsibility of proving it to be false. We don't have to prove it to be true. They have to prove it to be false. That's what the law says.

What law ? The Church forged the interpolation in the 18th Chapter of Josephus, why couldn't the deceivers forge anything else, if that was their ethic. They were not trustworthy. They wrote books about the value of deception.

Bishop Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:
"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."

Eusebius is famously the author of many great falsehoods, yet at the same time he warns us:
"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2

Clement of Alexandria was one of the earliest of the Church Fathers to draw a distinction between "mere human truth" and the higher truth of faith:
"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)

John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople: "Do you see the advantage of deceit? [...] For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ... And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

These are the lying sons-of-bitches YOU claim had possession of your gospels, keeping them safe. What a joke that points is.

(10-08-2014 07:24 PM)hbl Wrote:  "It was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."

Nope. Many serious Christian scholars do not buy into a physical resurrection. It is not essential to Christianity. In fact an examination of the Greek language shows Paul did not mean "physically rose" but "exalted" (or "rased up") in the Jewish martyr-hero "exaltation" sense that became prevalent in the Apocalyptic period, which was proven when the Dead Sea Scrolls were read. (references upon request).

(10-08-2014 07:24 PM)hbl Wrote:  - over 3500 scholars, skeptics alike, almost all agree on these 12 facts.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

Prove it. Thanks for your list of old CLAIMS. You have provided no proof for any of them.

Name 50 of your 3500 scholars. Then tell us EXACTLY how you counted 3,500, you lying troll.


The only thing more pathetic than lying for Jesus, is ignorantly lying for Jesus. This guy sounds like he's just regurgitating the bullshit that passes for 'knowledge' that his ignorant pastor spews forth. He's only defense is to repeat the same shit louder, entirely ignorant of that fact that everything he says is a lie. This is of course being generous and assuming he is just an ignorant shill, and not one of the for-profit liars in the vein of Rick Warren or Lee Strobel.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
10-08-2014, 09:37 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
I don't believe in atheism for several reasons:

1) I can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings and none of the atheists here have been able to either, and they can't find a greater proof than this of God.

2) There is no morality to atheism, since you will just cease to exist; what follows is it doesn't matter what you do in life the consequence is the same. The worst rapist and murderer who ever lived ends up ceasing to exist like the kindest most caring person who ever lived.

3) Something in nature can't come from non-existence, nor can it always have existed, because if it did, you would have happened already, having had an alleged eternity to do so. So nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This is the uncreated Creator.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: