# What do Athiest think about Believers?



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 8, 2009)

Just wondering what do you really think about us Believers???

DB BB


----------



## pnome (Jun 8, 2009)

Ok, on a more serious note, I see believers as people who, for the most part, have good intentions but who are essentially brainwashed by their religion.   That is not the same as saying I think they are "stupid" or "dumb" This is not true.  I know some VERY smart believers.  I just think most "put on their religious blinders" and refuse to see the world how it really is.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 8, 2009)

pnome said:


> I just think most "put on their religious blinders" and refuse to see the world how it really is.



In other-words...fanatics?

Sad to say, but several lumped themselves into that bucket with pride.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 8, 2009)

Think of how a Christian would look at someone that based their decisions on how to live life on the appearance of a goat's entrails.

As an "agnostic" (what do you call someone who doesn't care if God exists or not?) that is how I view Christians, and pagan indigenous tribesmen and rabbit foot rubbers...all the same.

How would you feel if someone told you that they voted to legalize abortion or illegalize this or that because of what they saw in some tea leaves?  I would feel the same...just I include y'all with them.


----------



## Lowjack (Jun 8, 2009)

I really don't care what they think.


----------



## earl (Jun 8, 2009)

If by atheist ,you mean those who do not believe as you do,count me in. If by believer ,you mean the christian God ,count me out.  There are too many types of christian believers to make a blanket statement. You have those who walk the talk ,that I respect. You have zealots and fanatics that I am leary of and some that are scary. You have your 24/7 s and your Sunday morning specials. 
I prefer to hold my opinion ,for the most part, until I see or hear something from an individual .That being said some conclusions can be drawn as a group with exceptions to every rule.


----------



## ToLog (Jun 8, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Think of how a Christian would look at someone that based their decisions on how to live life on the appearance of a goat's entrails.



this is just outrageous!  folks on here make fun of the snake-handler's all the time. now, we've just sunken to a new low.

disparaging folks who have rolled-out goat entrails on flat-rocks in the deep forests for nearly forever, with near impeccable results in fathoming the conditions of the coming Year, are now being vilified. 

as far as reading tea-leaves, well, i have no comment. but, if the pattern of Luzianne coffee-grounds in the bottom of a coffee cup can offer meaning, to those who can discern it, then why can't the OT or NT also offer great insights into the Human condition??


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 8, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> I really don't care what they think.



I feel the same way towards Christians (and rabbit foot rubbers, etc)...till they vote.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 8, 2009)

ToLog said:


> this is just outrageous!  folks on here make fun of the snake-handler's all the time. now, we've just sunken to a new low.
> 
> disparaging folks who have rolled-out goat entrails on flat-rocks in the deep forests for nearly forever, with near impeccable results in fathoming the conditions of the coming Year, are now being vilified.
> 
> as far as reading tea-leaves, well, i have no comment. but, if the pattern of Luzianne coffee-grounds in the bottom of a coffee cup can offer meaning, to those who can discern it, then why can't the OT or NT also offer great insights into the Human condition??



Who dat is?

The insight into the human condition that they offer is that we're still cavemen cowering at the lightning.


----------



## ToLog (Jun 8, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Who dat is?
> 
> The insight into the human condition that they offer is that we're still cavemen cowering at the lightning.



Man Alive! i've seen golfers out on the courses, being startled by a fast-arising thunderstorm, with much lightning crackling about. even knowing that the "tallest" trees had copper cabling and grounding attached, didn't seem to calm them all that much. 

which is to say, if'n there had been a cave nearby, they'd have probably jumped into it, using the cleats on their golf-shoes to help in the gaining of traction.

but, yes, until one has survived a nearly direct lightning strike, one finds it difficult to trust the lightning.


----------



## earl (Jun 8, 2009)

ToLog said:


> Man Alive! i've seen golfers out on the courses, being startled by a fast-arising thunderstorm, with much lightning crackling about. even knowing that the "tallest" trees had copper cabling and grounding attached, didn't seem to calm them all that much.
> 
> which is to say, if'n there had been a cave nearby, they'd have probably jumped into it, using the cleats on their golf-shoes to help in the gaining of traction.
> 
> but, yes, until one has survived a nearly direct lightning strike, one finds it difficult to trust the lightning.





This explains a lot.


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 8, 2009)

We think you're kinda cute, and will taste good with ketchup . . .


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jun 8, 2009)

Why do you care?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 9, 2009)

pnome said:


> Ok, on a more serious note, I see believers as people who, for the most part, have good intentions but who are essentially brainwashed by their religion.   That is not the same as saying I think they are "stupid" or "dumb" This is not true.  I know some VERY smart believers.  I just think most "put on their religious blinders" and refuse to see the world how it really is.[/QUOTE]
> 
> That's pretty nice...from you..:)
> 
> Oh we see the world as it really is, we just try not to participate....as in separating ourselves. I try to stay under my rock pretty much...I like it there. Oh and definately wear blinders, you should try that when going to walmart, might save a blood vessel or 3....LOL


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 9, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Think of how a Christian would look at someone that based their decisions on how to live life on the appearance of a goat's entrails.
> 
> As an "agnostic" (what do you call someone who doesn't care if God exists or not?) that is how I view Christians, and pagan indigenous tribesmen and rabbit foot rubbers...all the same.
> 
> How would you feel if someone told you that they voted to legalize abortion or illegalize this or that because of what they saw in some tea leaves?  I would feel the same...just I include y'all with them.



And I think the feeling is mutual.....LOL...that works out good. On a daily basis, we don't feel so bad seperating ourselves from people who don't care about diddly, except for what they think.
So you don't care if God exists or people kill unborn children or kill rabbits just to make a keyring...wow that's pretty uncaring...maybe it's careless....that's something to brag about?.... I don't care, I don't care, I don't care, brilliant!


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 9, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Why do you care?



I can see why that would be hard for you to fatham that someone cares....if you don't care, hard to imagine someone else might?....that's sad.

Considering...I'm not surprised.

That your guarddog in your avatar?


----------



## Madman (Jun 9, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> I feel the same way towards Christians (and rabbit foot rubbers, etc)...till they vote.



Only non-believers are smart enough to vote their conscience.


----------



## pnome (Jun 9, 2009)

Madman said:


> Only non-believers are smart enough to vote their conscience.



Yes, but when you vote as a "Christian" you are not voting _your conscience.   _You are voting what you have been lead to believe is "God's Will"


----------



## Madman (Jun 9, 2009)

pnome said:


> Yes, but when you vote as a "Christian" you are not voting _your conscience.   _You are voting what you have been lead to believe is "God's Will"



And non-believers have a better "plum line" to decern truth?

That is what got us in the mess we are in today.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jun 9, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> I can see why that would be hard for you to fatham that someone cares....if you don't care, hard to imagine someone else might?....that's sad.
> 
> Considering...I'm not surprised.
> 
> That your guarddog in your avatar?



It's a simple question.  I asked the original poster (note - that's not you) why he cares what atheists think of believers.  

Since we're asking questions - do they teach you to be so judgmental at church or is that something with which you were born?


----------



## pnome (Jun 9, 2009)

Madman said:


> And non-believers have a better "plum line" to decern truth?




Yes.  It's called rational thought.


----------



## footjunior (Jun 9, 2009)

pnome said:


> Yes.  It's called rational thought.





We are free to see things as they are, not through the distorting lens of dogma.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 9, 2009)

footjunior said:


> We are free to see things as they are, not through the distorting lens of dogma.



Or a meme...........


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

footjunior said:


> We are free to see things as they are, not through the distorting lens of dogma.



Pure and free thought....free from influence and "dogma" is an illusion....for all of us.


----------



## footjunior (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Pure and free thought....free from influence and "dogma" is an illusion....for all of us.



Yea you're right.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Yea you're right.



Mind if I print that off just so I can remind myself that it actually happened once?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 9, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Why do you care?


 

Was just curious... since I am not an athiest, I wouldn't know how you view believers..

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 9, 2009)

pnome said:


> Yes. It's called rational thought.


 


footjunior said:


> We are free to see things as they are, not through the distorting lens of dogma.


 

How do you know that your rational thought is correct?

DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

Because we are just foolish, emotionally driven and weak minded Christians DBBB....that's why.  We couldn't possibly have put any rational thought into our faith.  Otherwise we'd have come to the same conclusion that they did.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> And I think the feeling is mutual.....LOL...that works out good. On a daily basis, we don't feel so bad seperating ourselves from people who don't care about diddly, except for what they think.
> So you don't care if God exists or people kill unborn children or kill rabbits just to make a keyring...wow that's pretty uncaring...maybe it's careless....that's something to brag about?.... I don't care, I don't care, I don't care, brilliant!



I care about things as much as they warrant it. 

I care more about the reason that someone would kill an unborn child than I care why someone would kill a rabbit for their foot or a mink for their fur or a fighting dog for being non-aggressive, but I'm admittedly "specist", meaning I favor humans over animals.

There are things I care very strongly about: the welfare of my family, justice, etc...  The existence of God, not so much;  even less than the rabbits.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> How do you know that your rational thought is correct?
> 
> DB BB



You can test it.



Huntinfool said:


> Because we are just foolish, emotionally driven and weak minded Christians DBBB....that's why.  We couldn't possibly have put any rational thought into our faith.  Otherwise we'd have come to the same conclusion that they did.



Seeing as how faith itself is irrational, that may be true.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 9, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> You can test it.


 

Yes, but how do you know if it is right?  How do you know if "rational thought" was developed "rationally"?

DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

You can test it?  Really?  You can test for proof that God doesn't exist?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Yes, but how do you know if it is right?  How do you know if "rational thought" was developed "rationally"?
> 
> DB BB



You test it.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> You can test it?  Really?  You can test for proof that God doesn't exist?



Do you not accept the fact that you can't prove a negative?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

Of course....so then how do you test it?


I'm not saying I can prove to you that he DOES exist.  You made the claim that your rational thought was testable.  That's what I'm asking about.


Are you saying that simply not being able to prove the positive, requires that the negative must be assumed?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 9, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> You test it.


 

How do you know that "Rational Thought" developed the proper way?

DB BB


----------



## gtparts (Jun 9, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Do you not accept the fact that you can't prove a negative?



Perhaps this does not apply to you, as you seem undecided and unconcerned about the existence of a god or the lack thereof.

But the atheists on here seem rather concerned, if not for themselves, then at least for others. They seem very intent upon promoting the idea that God does not exist......even though they can not prove it. 

Why would I accept the premise that there is no god if they (the atheists) cannot provide evidence supporting that position? 

On the other hand, I have had personal experience with God. Yes, anecdotal, but never the less, personal testimony. Multiply that times the testimony of millions and there is, at a minimum, some indication that something is taking place, even though the occurrence is not universal. Such a repeated phenomenon deserves more than to be dismissed out of hand. If the atheist ever arrived at this point in his/her thinking, they immediately determine that scientific evidence is the only acceptable way in which one can come to understand that God is. Such a position would make faith unnecessary. Since God has placed faith as the prerequisite, it is much like coming to a fork in the road with the way to God clearly marked, yet insisting that, if there is a God, he will only be found by taking the other path.

All I can say is, "Welllll, duhhhhhhhh!"


The atheist can't even offer anecdotal evidence of their "non-experiences". In truth, all they have to offer is the "evidence" that they have had no encounter with God.


----------



## pnome (Jun 9, 2009)

gtparts said:


> The atheist can't even offer anecdotal evidence of their "non-experiences". In truth, all they have to offer is the "evidence" that they have had no encounter with God.



Come on gt.  

How many times have we covered this?  

#1 you cannot prove a negative.
#2 the burden of proof lies with the positive.


----------



## pnome (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> You can test for proof that God doesn't exist?




Ok gonna run a real quick test.

God, if you exist, make $100,000,000 appear in my bank account.


*goes to check*

Dang, looks like he's still not there.  Too bad, I was kinda hoping he'd pass this test.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 9, 2009)

pnome said:


> Come on gt.
> 
> How many times have we covered this?
> 
> ...


 

but isn't the opposite of a positive... negative? and vice versa...

That is common sense, and backed up by Science.... Math.

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 9, 2009)

pnome said:


> Ok gonna run a real quick test.
> 
> God, if you exist, make $100,000,000 appear in my bank account.
> 
> ...


 

God is not at yours, mine or anyone elses beck and call...

Even if you had that money deposited to your account... would you really believe in God, or would you just say... someone made a clerical mistake to your benefit...

DB BB


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 9, 2009)

It's not really positive vs. negative.
It is existance vs. non-existance.

Existance might not be positive.  It could be negative.  That's up to individual interpretation.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> It's not really positive vs. negative.
> It is existance vs. non-existance.
> 
> Existance might not be positive. It could be negative. That's up to individual interpretation.


 
Then what dictates if the "individual interpretation" is right?

DB BB


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 9, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> It's a simple question.  I asked the original poster (note - that's not you) why he cares what atheists think of believers.
> 
> Since we're asking questions - do they teach you to be so judgmental at church or is that something with which you were born?




Where did you learn to be so judgemental and condescending? I was born with it myself, and try to control it and do pretty well most of the time or I woulda been banned from this forum long ago.

It's the Jesus in us that cares.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 9, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> I care about things as much as they warrant it.
> 
> I care more about the reason that someone would kill an unborn child than I care why someone would kill a rabbit for their foot or a mink for their fur or a fighting dog for being non-aggressive, but I'm admittedly "specist", meaning I favor humans over animals.
> 
> There are things I care very strongly about: the welfare of my family, justice, etc...  The existence of God, not so much;  even less than the rabbits.



Well I hope, at least, for the love of your family that you give them the option to believe in God or not. Because if you are wrong you've led them down a path of eternal destruction.


----------



## pnome (Jun 9, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> God is not at yours, mine or anyone elses beck and call...




Well, we can certainly agree on that.



(and yes, I would have bought a Church and started preaching if the money had been there.)


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 9, 2009)

pnome said:


> Well, we can certainly agree on that.
> 
> (and yes, I would have bought a Church and started preaching if the money had been there.)


 
So it would take a huge sum of money to convince you...  who knows stranger things have happened....

DB BB


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 9, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Then what dictates if the "individual interpretation" is right?
> 
> DB BB



Who knows?  If Ra existed, it would not be interpreted as a positive by me.  How about you?


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 9, 2009)

pnome said:


> (and yes, I would have bought a Church and started preaching if the money had been there.)



Change the if/then order around and the money will come.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Since God has placed faith as the prerequisite, it is much like coming to a fork in the road with the way to God clearly marked, yet insisting that, if there is a God, he will only be found by taking the other path.



Where is it clearly marked? 
If faith is the prerequisite, than we are no longer dealing with logic.



Double Barrel BB said:


> but isn't the opposite of a positive... negative? and vice versa...
> 
> That is common sense, and backed up by Science.... Math.
> 
> DB BB



This is an issue of logic, not math.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

pnome said:


> Ok gonna run a real quick test.
> 
> God, if you exist, make $100,000,000 appear in my bank account.
> 
> ...



You're smarter than that....I'm honestly disappointed.  That might be the goofiest thing you've ever posted.


----------



## pnome (Jun 9, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> So it would take a huge sum of money to convince you...  who knows stranger things have happened....
> 
> DB BB



No, it would take the _miraculous appearance_ of a huge sum of money.   Not just a huge sum of money.


----------



## pnome (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> You're smarter than that....I'm honestly disappointed.  That might be the goofiest thing you've ever posted.




Ok.  I guess if you think my tests are goofy, then you can provide me with a good objective test for God's existence?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

How about the raising of someone who was dead for three days?  That work for ya?

I guess you would require that you actually see it happen though.  Historical record of it wouldn't be good enough.  Wait!  Did the holocaust happen?


----------



## pnome (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> How about the raising of someone who was dead for three days?  That work for ya?
> 
> I guess you would require that you actually see it happen though.  Historical record of it wouldn't be good enough.  Wait!  Did the holocaust happen?



People being butchered by their government is, unfortunately, not extraordinary.  In fact, there are plenty of episodes of genocide in the bible, and I don't question them.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> How about the raising of someone who was dead for three days?  That work for ya?




Some claimed to be eyewitness, according to the second hand reporting found in the holy book.  Even more have claimed to have seen Elvis after his death.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

so why, then, do you question whether Jesus was raised from the dead?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Some claimed to be eyewitness, according to the second hand reporting found in the holy book.  Even more have claimed to have seen Elvis after his death.



touche....



although, those reports in the Bible are also found in other historical docs.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> so why, then, do you question whether Jesus was raised from the dead?



Oh! Oh! Mr. Kotter!!  cause it's extraordinary?


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> so why, then, do you question whether Jesus was raised from the dead?



Because it is entirely outside the realm of normal human body condition.  It has not been duplicated since the claims of Lazarus or of Christ.  It can not be duplicated or repeated in experimentation.  It takes faith and faith only to believe it did happen.
That's OK for some.  Not OK for others.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> touche....
> 
> 
> 
> although, those reports in the Bible are also found in other historical docs.



Please state them.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I guess you would require that you actually see it happen though.  Historical record of it wouldn't be good enough.  Wait!  Did the holocaust happen?



I know personally a family member who assisted in the liberation of two camps.  Pictures, documentation, eyewitness accounts and physical evidence (buildings, fences, ovens, BODIES) provided more than adequate evidence for my belief.
No faith was necessary.

Later, I visited the same locations.  My eyes told me the descriptions given earlier were exact and enforced the belief.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

That's not good enough for a lot of people these days....


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> That's not good enough for a lot of people these days....



That is sad, I agree.

But going back to the original poster's question, I think many Atheists are curious as to just how a person can believe with all their being a deity's existance based solely on the use of faith.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Please state them.



Flavius Josephus:



> At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive;...



Cornelius Tacitus:



> Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...




Pliny the Younger:



> In the meantime, the method I have observed towards those who have been denounced to me as Christians is this: I interrogated them whether they were in fact Christians; if they confessed it, I repeated the question twice, adding the threat of capital punishment; if they still persevered, I ordered them to be executed.




All of these lived in the first century.  The second two don't explicitly deal with the resurrection.  However, they do talk about Christians who WERE alive at the time of Christ's crucifiction.  They do talk about the horrific things that were done to them and the do talk about the fact that those people were KILLED because they refused to say anything other than Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God and he DID rise from the dead.  They died because they refused to say anything to the contrary...and...they...were....there.


There are more.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 9, 2009)

Do you really want to do this HF?  Maybe it should be a different thread?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

You asked my man....I just answered.

I know you'll try to dispute them.  But they ARE historical docs that reference Jesus.  That's what you asked for.  That's what I gave you.

Was he REALLY that good of a liar?


----------



## gtparts (Jun 9, 2009)

pnome said:


> Come on gt.
> 
> How many times have we covered this?
> 
> ...




Actually, I am agreeing with you. Because it cannot be proven, the atheists has no solid basis for his/her belief. You bring absolutely nothing to support your contention that God does not exist, to the table.....just your doubts.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> You asked my man....I just answered.
> 
> I know you'll try to dispute them.  But they ARE historical docs that reference Jesus.  That's what you asked for.  That's what I gave you.
> 
> Was he REALLY that good of a liar?



Referencing what has been told, mostly second hand, a generation after the timeframe in question is far from providing evidence of or proof of.  I do not have to dispute them.  They are only relaying what they heard.
There is much more documentation out there.  None provides any proofs or evidence of a resurrection.


How many others have come and gone since then claiming to be of god?  Why have they not been given credence?
Could we in our avoidance of and disregard for them have missed the real one?  Who knows?


----------



## pnome (Jun 9, 2009)

gtparts said:


> You bring absolutely nothing to support your contention that God does not exist, to the table.....just your doubts.



Close.  
I do not contend that "God does not exist"  I contend that it is not proven that God exists.   It is not my burden to bring anything to the table but doubt.

Do you understand the difference?


----------



## gtparts (Jun 9, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Where is it clearly marked?



You have not been paying attention. Virtually every Christian on this forum has pointed the way to Jesus Christ for you and "whomsoever". 







ambush80 said:


> If faith is the prerequisite, then we are no longer dealing with logic.



Smart boy! Now, you are catching on.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Referencing what has been told, mostly second hand, a generation after the timeframe in question is far from providing evidence of or proof of.  I do not have to dispute them.  They are only relaying what they heard.
> There is much more documentation out there.  None provides any proofs or evidence of a resurrection.
> 
> 
> ...



The first guy was born in A.D. 36....that's a generation after it happened?  I always thought that was like.....3 years later.

I never said there was external proof of the resurrection.  What I said was that these people were less than a generation removed and recounted first hand stories of putting Christians to death who refused to give up their account that he DID die and that he DID rise from the dead.

Why do you think they would do such a thing?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> How many others have come and gone since then claiming to be of god?  Why have they not been given credence?



Those are two excellent questions!  

Many have come and gone claiming the same thing...why have they not stood?


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Why do you think they would do such a thing?



Why drink Jim Jones' kool aid in Jonestown?
Why put on a sweatsuit and sneakers, then take poison in San Diego?
Why set yourself on fire in the town square in Vietnam?
Why climb any mountain and jump?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

> Why drink Jim Jones' kool aid in Jonestown?



Because he forced most of them to...some at gunpoint.  That's why.

The others were small numbers.  We're talking thousands upon thousands of Christians dieing because of what they experienced first hand....and dieing deaths that were purposefully designed to be as excrutiating as possible...and they did it willingly.

You know those examples are weak at best.  Besides....there aren't too many Jim Jones followers running around these days are there?  And that happend just a few years ago comparatively speaking.

This "lie" has survived for thousands of years.  MAN...that Jesus sure was a good liar.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Because he forced most of them to...some at gunpoint.  That's why.
> 
> The others were small numbers.  We're talking thousands upon thousands of Christians dieing because of what they experienced first hand....and dieing deaths that were purposefully designed to be as excrutiating as possible...and they did it willingly.
> 
> ...



Thousands could not have witnessed with their own eyes.
They followed their faith.
Thousands of others have done the EXACT SAME THING FOR OTHER GODS AND RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEMS!

I doubt Jesus was a liar.  I'm pretty sure he believed everything he taught and stood for.
He was a student of Judiasm, and a follower of the God of Abraham.

Funny how followers of Christ put him above the God of Abraham, who he himself worshipped and followed.

But, it is easy to answer that by saying they are one in the same, isn't it?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> I doubt Jesus was a liar.  I'm pretty sure he believed everything he taught and stood for.
> He was a student of Judiasm, and a follower of the God of Abraham.



That's just the most ridiculous claim that non-believers make and you just perpetuated it.

He's either what he said he was or he was a liar.  Whether he believed it or not is irrelevant.

Jim Jones believed what he said...but he was a liar. 

He CANNOT have claimed that he was God and have also been a follower of God.  If he wasn't what he claimed, then he was the enemy of God.  You have to be able to understand that.

If there is one thing that drives me crazy, it's when somebody tries to tell me what a great guy Jesus was and what a good man he was....but he wasn't the son of God.

Are you kidding me?  That was the biggest claim he ever made!  It's what his entire ministry was based on.  If that one was a lie, then he was ANYTHING but a good man or a follower of God.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

Thousands didn't witness it.  But they were alive when it happened and got first hand accounts from those that did.

It would take a pretty convincing story for me to willingly march to my death for something that I got a second hand account of.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Thousands didn't witness it.  But they were alive when it happened and got first hand accounts from those that did.
> 
> It would take a pretty convincing story for me to willingly march to my death for something that I got a second hand account of.




Maybe their faith was greater.  Who knows?


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> That's just the most ridiculous claim that non-believers make and you just perpetuated it.
> 
> He's either what he said he was or he was a liar.  Whether he believed it or not is irrelevant.
> 
> ...




Jesus never stated he was the "God of Abraham."  It has been later theologists who have connected the trinity.

Jesus clearly stated he was the "Son of God" and proved the distinction by communicating with God.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Maybe their faith was greater.  Who knows?



Yeh...you're probably right.  That's what it is.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Jesus never stated he was the "God of Abraham."  It has been later theologists who have connected the trinity.
> 
> Jesus clearly stated he was the "Son of God" and proved the distinction by communicating with God.



OH BROTHER!!!


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 9, 2009)

Set aside the Trinity debate, if that is the issue here.
What is the bigger issue to address?  Are we into Arius and his rejected beliefs?


----------



## gtparts (Jun 9, 2009)

pnome said:


> Close.
> I do not contend that "God does not exist"  I contend that it is not proven that God exists.   It is not my burden to bring anything to the table but doubt.
> 
> Do you understand the difference?



That being the case, and in light of you setting the criteria for proof that will remove all doubt and negate the need for faith, I can only concede the point that, per your restrictive point of view, you are correct , sir. Given the limitations placed, by pnome, upon all who contend for the existence of God and by the lack of authority vested in me, I declare pnome to be the winner. He begs the question by framing the argument so that he can not be incorrect. As the grand eloquent  arbiter of fairness, pnome  is the undisputed champion of atheism. 

Well, that should put that silly argument to rest.

Be it known that unless God decides to reveal Himself in a more acceptable manner to pnome, he (pnome) intends to remain comfortably in doubt about the existence of God.

Seems to be a popular, albeit unwise, decision to make, but there you have it folks. 

If you can't play ...and win by your own rules, don't play.

Say pnome, what did you win?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

I think that, in some ways, we all come to the table like that though. 

If you've not been convinced that it's true and that he does exist, then the only reason you believe is indoctrination or brain-washing.

Believe me...if I wasn't convinced, I'd have walked away a long time ago.  Come to think of it, I did for a very long time.  Then I got...well...convinced.

The shame of it all is that the "prove the positive" requirement is what is required to simply win a debate.  This ain't a debate.  Depending on the truth, it's potentially a life and death question.

I don't want to get into a "razor" discussion.  But it's just a shame that people treat it so casually.  It's not just a debate to be won or lost.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Because he forced most of them to...some at gunpoint.  That's why.
> 
> The others were small numbers.  We're talking thousands upon thousands of Christians dieing because of what they experienced first hand....and dieing deaths that were purposefully designed to be as excrutiating as possible...and they did it willingly.
> 
> ...



But it's easy to call Siddhartha Gotama or Mohammed liars.  To the unbiased, all y'alls claims are given the same credence.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 9, 2009)

I'll say it again....Jesus sure was a good liar.

I'd just like you guys to admit that.  Either he told the truth or he was lieing about everything. 

The central message he brought was that he was the son of God.  You cannot claim he was just a follower of God or a "good guy" based on what he said.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I think that, in some ways, we all come to the table like that though.
> 
> If you've not been convinced that it's true and that he does exist, then the only reason you believe is indoctrination or brain-washing.
> 
> ...



It should be treated like you treat unicorns.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I'll say it again....Jesus sure was a good liar.
> 
> I'd just like you guys to admit that.  Either he told the truth or he was lieing about everything.
> 
> The central message he brought was that he was the son of God.  You cannot claim he was just a follower of God or a "good guy" based on what he said.



Its not "either or".  He could have lied about some things and not others like everyone else.  He could have been delusional.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 9, 2009)

How did Jesus come to the conclusion, in his human mind, that he was indeed the Son of God?

God must have told him, right?

Unless you follow Arius teachings, that Jesus was with God before his human birth and knew of everything that would transpire once he took human form.

But Constantine, and the Council, denounced such and destroyed those writings that furthered that teaching.
So, modern day believers follow that Jesus was told BY GOD of his place and standing.  And, he was informed of what would take place and happen to him.
Jesus performed miracles and taught of the God of Abraham.  I'd say he was a follower as well as a believer, as he had a direct line of communication with Him.

Was he a liar?  I can not say.  Maybe he had much more evidence and proof of the existance of a deity than I have been privy to.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2009)

gtparts said:


> That being the case, and in light of you setting the criteria for proof that will remove all doubt and negate the need for faith, I can only concede the point that, per your restrictive point of view, you are correct , sir. Given the limitations placed, by pnome, upon all who contend for the existence of God and by the lack of authority vested in me, I declare pnome to be the winner. He begs the question by framing the argument so that he can not be incorrect. As the grand eloquent  arbiter of fairness, pnome  is the undisputed champion of atheism.
> 
> Well, that should put that silly argument to rest.
> 
> ...



Messing with the rules of logic....Hmmm.  I've got one:  

How do you know its true?
Because it says so in the Bible......(you know the rest)


----------



## pnome (Jun 9, 2009)

gtparts said:


> *you are correct , sir*.







Now that we've established why I don't believe.   Let's discuss why you do.

Maybe that's a different thread.  I'll start one.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 9, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> This is an issue of logic, not math.


 
Math is pure logic!

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Who knows? If Ra existed, it would not be interpreted as a positive by me. How about you?


 
Maybe he did... maybe he was just a demon though most definately not a god...

DB BB


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Jun 9, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> God is not at yours, mine or anyone elses beck and call...



then why do christians always pray and ask for this and that and help for other people? seems a little odd to me. and if you people believe so strongly in "gods will" then why the heck even pray at all?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jun 9, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> Where did you learn to be so judgemental and condescending? I was born with it myself, and try to control it and do pretty well most of the time or I woulda been banned from this forum long ago.
> 
> It's the Jesus in us that cares.



Years of practice.  Frankly though, and I'm surprised you haven't observed already since you hang onto my every word here, it's clear I'm not much of the judgmental type.  Condescension though....I'll give you.

Are you familiar with the ignore feature?  Feel free to use it with my posts if you don't possess the self control to not read them on your own.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jun 9, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Was just curious... since I am not an athiest, I wouldn't know how you view believers..
> 
> DB BB



Fair enough.  

You want my honest opinion?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 10, 2009)

heavymetalhunter said:


> then why do christians always pray and ask for this and that and help for other people? seems a little odd to me. and if you people believe so strongly in "gods will" then why the heck even pray at all?


 
Because we are commanded to pray, and if you are Saved you will want to pray, to communicate with God, to have communion with Him.... and just because we ask things in Jesus name, doesn't mean that we are going to receive them... 

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 10, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> You want my honest opinion?


 
Honesty would be great! It is always the best policy...


DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 10, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Its not "either or".  He could have lied about some things and not others like everyone else.  He could have been delusional.



Then he wouldn't have been "good".  Then he wouldn't have been a "follower of God".

It is very much either or.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 10, 2009)

> Are there any other things you can be convinced about without proof? Honest question.



You assume I've not been given proof.  "Convinced" requires proof.  I've gotten it on a personal level.  That's what I need.  I wish I could pull it out and show it to you....then we wouldn't have to have any of these discussions...but I can't.  

I can point you on the way, but you have to go get your own proof.



> It should be treated like you treat unicorns.



Since I've never interacted with an actual unicorn, I'll continue to believe they don't exist until one forces himself into my life.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 10, 2009)

> How did Jesus come to the conclusion, in his human mind, that he was indeed the Son of God?
> 
> God must have told him, right?



Nope...he IS God.  Always has been.  Nobody needs to tell you that you are you do they?



> Unless you follow Arius teachings, that Jesus was with God before his human birth and knew of everything that would transpire once he took human form.



Actually, I follow the Bible's teachings....which say the same thing.



> But Constantine, and the Council, denounced such and destroyed those writings that furthered that teaching.
> So, modern day believers follow that Jesus was told BY GOD of his place and standing.



Man!  I TOLD you to stay away from that weed!  



> Was he a liar?  I can not say.  Maybe he had much more evidence and proof of the existance of a deity than I have been privy to.



He had proof...because he was.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 10, 2009)

So Jesus was and is God.
Of course you do not recognize anything outside the current Bible.  Arius' teachings and beliefs were destroyed by other men.  Do you understand the current accepted definition of "begotton?"
Just who did Jesus pray to during his days in the desert?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 10, 2009)

He prayed to God the father every time he prayed.  You assume that it is impossible for him to be Son and God simultaneously.


----------



## holton27596 (Jun 10, 2009)

I am more of an agnostic than an athiest. Some believers are very good people John Chick in valdosta is one of the most admirable men I know. And then a LOT of them are the most hypocritical people I have ever seen. I enjoy the first groups company, the second group I will interact with no more than I would a bunch of liberals (kind of funny that although they claim to be so different, they are both the most close minded people I have seen).


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 10, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> He prayed to God the father every time he prayed.  You assume that it is impossible for him to be Son and God simultaneously.



Assumption and non-belief are pretty different.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 10, 2009)

You're right about that.  


It is funny though, that you don't believe and you still think you understand things of Christianity better than Christians.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 10, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> You're right about that.
> 
> 
> It is funny though, that you don't believe and you still think you understand things of Christianity better than Christians.



Well over forty years of exposure has led to entirely too many unanswerable questions.
The average Christian today knows diddly.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 10, 2009)

Try another forty of surrender...you'll get entirely different results my friend.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 10, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> The average Christian today knows diddly.



I'll agree with you on that point.  


But that is the problem with American society today.  Everybody is content with average.  Don't be average...be like Daniel and his friends in Babylonian captivity....be above average.  Strive for Holiness.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 10, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Try another forty of surrender...you'll get entirely different results my friend.



I don't worry about another forty, or another twenty, or another day to be honest.  Of course, with good health, the more the better!

If there exists a deity, after all this, we will have much to discuss.  And if it is a one-way discussion only, I'll be an attentive listener and good student just like I have lived my life to this point.

I bear no ill will to followers of any religious belief system, unless they want to infringe on my freedom and life.  I do find it curious as to how people can skip the tough questions and replace answers with faith.  And, why these systems each push their exclusivity, but use dogma that is born of pagan stories and rituals.

OK for some, not OK for others.

It makes for interesting conversation.  Sometimes.  It most often depends on who is sitting at the campfire.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 10, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Everybody is content with average.  Don't be average...be like Daniel and his friends in Babylonian captivity....be above average.  Strive for Holiness.



I say strive for truth.  
I've never settled for average.  That's why I have dug deeply into some tough issues.  And I find religious belief systems seriously lacking in answers and truth.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 10, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> If there exists a deity, after all this, we will have much to discuss.  And if it is a one-way discussion only, I'll be an attentive listener and good student just like I have lived my life to this point.



I know you know this, but when you get to that time of listening, the test will already have been scored and the grade will have been handed down.  Unfortunately, there is no make-up or second chance when it comes to eternity.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 10, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> I know you know this, but when you get to that time of listening, the test will already have been scored and the grade will have been handed down.  Unfortunately, there is no make-up or second chance when it comes to eternity.



That's what your belief system promotes.
I'm pretty sure any omnipresent, omnipotent and omnicient deity will take the time to answer questions that were incorrect, not clearly worded or vague.

After all, eternity gives plenty of time to do that little task.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 10, 2009)

> I'm pretty sure any omnipresent, omnipotent and omnicient deity will take the time to answer questions that were incorrect, not clearly worded or vague.




...and with that...I'm


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 10, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> ...and with that...I'm



You know what, HF?  I think I'll join you!

Everyone take care, and continue to seek answers to those questions!


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 11, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> You want my honest opinion?


 
Still awaiting your Honest opinion....


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jun 12, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive;...



Third person... therein lies the problem.....



Huntinfool said:


> It would take a pretty convincing story for me to willingly march to my death for something that I got a second hand account of.



So... does that mean that you are not willing to die for your faith?  




Huntinfool said:


> He prayed to God the father every time he prayed.  You assume that it is impossible for him to be Son and God simultaneously.




Is it possible to be the creator and the creation at the same time?  

I ain't tryin' to pick on you HF, you just happened to have the posts that stood out to me the most


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jun 12, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Change the if/then order around and the money will come.



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ugZq9hiuCJo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ugZq9hiuCJo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 15, 2009)

Gtparts ignorantly, strangely, and condescendingly states: “Be it known that unless God decides to reveal Himself in a more acceptable manner to pnome, he (pnome) intends to remain comfortably in doubt about the existence of God. Seems to be a popular, albeit unwise, decision to make, but there you have it folks.  If you can't play ...and win by your own rules, don't play.”

Funny, but you folks also contend that your God, due to his infinite mystery available only and exclusively to you, also chose not to reveal himself to the vast bulk of his creation, and will not do so now.  A thinking person might reason that a God who is proud of himself and wishes us all to know him, and love him, and worship him, so that we can be ‘Saved’ by him from whatever hurdles he set up that we might need to be ‘Saved’ from, might have had the courtesy to reveal himself to all of us, rather than just to you, personally, and a very small number of your fellows.  If you can’t, personally, make the rules, you seem to say by your condescending sarcasm, then it is the rest of us who have failed?  

Seems like a pretty sadistic God who would only reveal himself and his ‘mysteries’ to power mad egomaniacs bent on making everyone believe and think as they do, and to folks who would condemn the rest of us in the name of that same God.  One might think that an infinite and all powerful deity wouldn’t choose his lesser lights as the instruments of his power, but might wish to speak for himself, rather than through such as you lot.  Seems pretty embarrassing, having fools speak for you, if you are God, I mean . . .              

Huntinfool, trying to defend his ‘historical’ references, states:  “The first guy was born in A.D. 36....that's a generation after it happened?”   Yes.  For purposes of recording, that is one full generation later.  Try this on, just for a thought – I was born in 1957.  By your argument, that is close enough for me to bear authoritative personal witness to the events of 1954.  So, by the time I reach a point of being able to consider, digest, and write of the events of three years before I was born, which I clearly didn’t witness, I’d have to be, what, maybe eighteen?  (And we all rely on the testimony of eighteen-year-olds concerning events that predated their birth – do we not?  That is a solid bit of historical testimony right there.)  At the time (and unfortunately even now), that eighteen-year-old would have had a child of his own.  Yikes!  A second generation is spawned, before the first one, at the time, was properly schooled even in the art of writing, let alone thinking or interpreting events that transpired before their own birth.  Go figure.  Infants can’t write, and can’t bear witness to things that happened three years before they were born.    

If you were a juror, would you accept the testimony of someone who was born a mere three years after the event under consideration as sufficient proof of their credibility as a witness?  If so, well, try to stay off jury duty . . .       

Then states: “If there is one thing that drives me crazy, it's when somebody tries to tell me what a great guy Jesus was and what a good man he was....but he wasn't the son of God.  Are you kidding me? That was the biggest claim he ever made! It's what his entire ministry was based on. If that one was a lie, then he was ANYTHING but a good man or a follower of God.”

Well, sir, those are your words . . . not mine.  Were I you, based on what I know of your claims to faith, I would retract them immediately.  There are no contemporaneous writings of any words that Jesus ever spoke or did not speak, only a record that a man by approximately that name existed.  There is not a single writing, by the man himself or by anyone who knew him, to corroborate whether or not he made any claims whatsoever, including the one you put forward as his ‘biggest claim.’  There is not a single bit of contemporaneous evidence or writing to verify whether or not the man had a ‘ministry,’ or was simply a gadfly and a thorn in the side of the establishment of the day.  So continuing to harp on whether this claim was a ‘lie’ or not is rather a moot and self-serving question.  If you wish to challenge questions, or to put forth assertions, then both must of needs be done from a basis of facts, and you have none in this case.  What you have is the full weight of the authority of someone who was born three years after a UFO sighting to testify to the veracity of that already odd claim.  Historically, rationally, and in every way invalid as evidence.

So, again back to the OP, what atheists think about believers is largely justified by what has transpired above – we think that you speak first, and too often, and think too rarely, if at all . . .


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 15, 2009)

> So... does that mean that you are not willing to die for your faith?



Dixie....I have a FIRST hand account my friend.  I've experienced him first hand.




> Is it possible to be the creator and the creation at the same time?



That's a good question girl!  I suppose my answer would be that I don't consider Jesus to have been "created".  I consider him to have been "sent".  There's a difference.




> I ain't tryin' to pick on you HF, you just happened to have the posts that stood out to me the most




I know it.  I ain't mad at ya!


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 15, 2009)

> There are no contemporaneous writings of any words that Jesus ever spoke or did not speak, only a record that a man by approximately that name existed. There is not a single writing, by the man himself or by anyone who knew him, to corroborate whether or not he made any claims whatsoever, including the one you put forward as his ‘biggest claim.’ There is not a single bit of contemporaneous evidence or writing to verify whether or not the man had a ‘ministry,’ or was simply a gadfly and a thorn in the side of the establishment of the day.



....except those contemporaneous writings and first hand accounts of what he said that are contained in the Bible, which you, for some reason, choose to reject as fiction.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 15, 2009)

> Yikes! A second generation is spawned, before the first one, at the time, was properly schooled even in the art of writing, let alone thinking or interpreting events that transpired before their own birth. Go figure. Infants can’t write, and can’t bear witness to things that happened three years before they were born.



So now you reject ALL historical writings that reference Jesus?  Excellent revisionist history sir. 

You'll be a welcome historian when it comes time to write the chronicals of "The Obama Years".


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 18, 2009)

Flavius Josephus:  Born 37 A.D in Jerusalem.  Not three years, sir.  37 years.  A.D.  Also known, by his parents, by his given name : Joseph ben Matthias.  Unfortunately, so far as history goes, the work you refer to was lost, and the references you refer to concerning Jesus are thought by most scholars to be insertions by later Christian translators of his writings, of which, you will note, there are only four writings that exist purporting to be authentic, and of those four none agree with each other.  The discrepancies are particularly vexing to serious historians, who see that the man changed not only his loyalties but also his name as the winds blew, and spent much of his writing time defending himself against his critics who saw him as a disloyal toady to whoever was in charge at the time.     

Cornelius Tacitus: Born 55 A.D in Italy. Again, only fragments of his writings exist.  Born into a wealthy family that depended on the largesse of the Roman State for their position, he was naturally a member of the priestly ‘colleges’ that were in charge of policing the official religion of Rome.  Having achieved a consulship, by virtue only of his family connections, he rose no higher, and devoted most of his time to legal rhetoric in the service of the Emperor who had passed him over for higher positions – in this pursuit of apology and royal bottom-kissing, he was aided by his friend:   

Pliny the Younger:  Born 61 A.D. in Italy.  Changed his name in 79 A.D. to Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, and entered the Roman magistracy in his twenties, as a lawyer for the emperor.  Historically, he was Roman bureaucrat, and a clever man, and little more.  

Huntinfool states:  “All of these lived in the first century. The second two don't explicitly deal with the resurrection. However, they do talk about Christians who WERE alive at the time of Christ's crucifiction. They do talk about the horrific things that were done to them and the do talk about the fact that those people were KILLED because they refused to say anything other than Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God and he DID rise from the dead. They died because they refused to say anything to the contrary...and...they...were....there.”     

Um?   NO . . . THEY . . . WERE . . . NOT there.   And NO . . . THEY . . . DIDN’T say anything of the sort.  Quote the specific passages you cite to back up those claims, if you wish to take that further . . . You cannot, because there aren’t any.  

THEN, the very man, huntinfool, who asserted unsupported and unsupportable drivel as ‘Historical’ fact, takes to his bully-pulpit, smug in his false assertions, and states: “So now you reject ALL historical writings that reference Jesus? Excellent revisionist history sir.  You'll be a welcome historian when it comes time to write the chronicals (sic)  of "The Obama Years".       

Sir, if you are not ashamed of yourself, we are all ashamed for you.  By your standards, which have just been demonstrated to be shockingly low, this very thread counts as an ‘historical writing that reference(s) Jesus.’  You do worse than revise history, you invent it out of thin air.  And the fact that you dare to follow that performance with an assumptive challenge and an insult is breathtaking.

Once again I will ask if you have anything to say that you can back up with something other than your own assertions.  Thus far, everything you have put forward as fact is easily demonstrated to be false, and time and again you have fallen back on insult rather than intellect.  Sooner or later, even those who you think you can snow through sheer force of will come to realize that the Sun actually rises in the East, no matter how often or how forcefully you say otherwise . . .


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 18, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Gtparts ignorantly, strangely, and condescendingly states: “Be it known that unless God decides to reveal Himself in a more acceptable manner to pnome, he (pnome) intends to remain comfortably in doubt about the existence of God. Seems to be a popular, albeit unwise, decision to make, but there you have it folks.  If you can't play ...and win by your own rules, don't play.”
> 
> Funny, but you folks also contend that your God, due to his infinite mystery available only and exclusively to you, also chose not to reveal himself to the vast bulk of his creation, and will not do so now.  A thinking person might reason that a God who is proud of himself and wishes us all to know him, and love him, and worship him, so that we can be ‘Saved’ by him from whatever hurdles he set up that we might need to be ‘Saved’ from, might have had the courtesy to reveal himself to all of us, rather than just to you, personally, and a very small number of your fellows.  If you can’t, personally, make the rules, you seem to say by your condescending sarcasm, then it is the rest of us who have failed?
> 
> ...



And my posts are senseless....


How about a shorter version? The first sentence pretty much explains the state of mind you're coming from.
For God's sake don't offend a homosexual, but heck with the Christians, we can offend them and call them names all we want.....how hypocrytical.  Glad I'm delivered from having that personality type. Obviously you are so clueless that you can't even fathom that other people have you pegged from 'whence' you come...
I think people post to you, trying to give you a clue....it isn't working.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 18, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> So, again back to the OP, what atheists think about believers is largely justified by what has transpired above – we think that you speak first, and too often, and think too rarely, if at all . . .



The feeling is mutual...

At least we have a plan for the future


----------



## formula1 (Jun 18, 2009)

*Re:*

HuntingFool and MtnWoman:

You might want to add Diogenes to your ignore list as I have done.  Of course, if you enjoy reading his futile empty tirades and getting a chuckle every time he opens his mouth, that's fine.  But every time he writes, he proves the scriptures with every evil word from his keyboard.  The spirit of the antichrist is alive and well.  But soon enough, the voices of evil will be no more.

For most athiests on here, you get the sense that they are reasonable people and there is hope that they will open their hearts to the spirit of God.  I hope the same happens for Diogenes and as long as there is still breath in him there is still possibility. 

But I will admit that I am fearful that the pale horse is already riding for him and it is a dreadful thought.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 18, 2009)

> Flavius Josephus: Born 37 A.D in Jerusalem. Not three years, sir. 37 years. A.D.





Are you kidding?  You don't know what Anno Domini means?  Seriously?

He was born in 37 A.D.  Tell me....what year was Jesus crucified in?  1 A.D.?



AD does not mean "After Death" my man.  You should do a little research before you post things like this.  They do not strengthen your position as a "great debater".

Go back and re-think when AD37 was in relation to the death of Christ and get back to me.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 18, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Are you kidding? You don't know what Anno Domini means? Seriously?
> 
> He was born in 37 A.D. Tell me....what year was Jesus crucified in? 1 A.D.?
> 
> ...


 

better what out they will start the BCE and ACE crud here pretty quick...

DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 18, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Sir, if you are not ashamed of yourself, we are all ashamed for you.  You do worse than revise history, you invent it out of thin air.  And the fact that you dare to follow that performance with an assumptive challenge and an insult is breathtaking.
> 
> Once again I will ask if you have anything to say that you can back up with something other than your own assertions.  Thus far, everything you have put forward as fact is easily demonstrated to be false, and time and again you have fallen back on insult rather than intellect.  Sooner or later, even those who you think you can snow through sheer force of will come to realize that the Sun actually rises in the East, no matter how often or how forcefully you say otherwise . . .



I'm just poking fun at you.  I'm not ashamed at that.  You just need to get some thicker skin.  If you can't handle someone disagreeing with you, then you might want to find another place to post.

I've posted plenty of facts and evidence in many threads.  You somehow seem to have a deft ability to ignore them and claim that your thoughts or opinions are facts....with little to nothing to back them up...which is just very curious to me.  

I'll be here as long as I need to and, BTW, the term "bully pulpit" means that someone has power to make claims that other do not.  It has nothing to do with what you're using it for.  You have the same opportunity to state your claims as I do...I'm just doing it better.  I guess that makes me a bully? 

I'm off to invent some more history!


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 18, 2009)

formula1 said:


> HuntingFool and MtnWoman:
> 
> You might want to add Diogenes to your ignore list as I have done.



Nah....it's too much fun.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jun 18, 2009)

I try not to judge a large group of people united by a single common thread.  I prefer to judge the individual.  Content of their character, as Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr suggested would be appropriate.  Works for me.


----------



## formula1 (Jun 18, 2009)

*Re:*



Huntinfool said:


> Nah....it's too much fun.



I do understand how much fun it can be!  Enjoy!


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 18, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> I try not to judge a large group of people united by a single common thread. I prefer to judge the individual. Content of their character, as Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr suggested would be appropriate. Works for me.


 
I wonder where MLK, Jr came to that conclusion....

DB BB


----------



## Madman (Jun 18, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I wonder where MLK, Jr came to that conclusion....
> 
> DB BB



I wish the people I hear quoting MLK believed that.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jun 18, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I wonder where MLK, Jr came to that conclusion....
> 
> DB BB



Between some monuments.  Next question.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 19, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Between some monuments. Next question.


 

BBBBUUUUUUUZZZZZZZZ!!!!  Wrong.... Try again?

DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 19, 2009)

DBBB,

Perhaps, since Ham chooses to be perfectly literal in his responses, you should ask him from what source he came up with that idea.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 19, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> DBBB,
> 
> Perhaps, since Ham chooses to be perfectly literal in his responses, you should ask him from what source he came up with that idea.


 

Now, now.... Ham is smart enough to figure that out... 

DB BB


----------



## pnome (Jun 19, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> BBBBUUUUUUUZZZZZZZZ!!!!  Wrong.... Try again?
> 
> DB BB




I'll give you a hint at what he's getting at Ham, it starts with a C and ends with hurch.  MLK was a Christian.  

DB BB's point is a little bit off though.  The Christian religion has no commandments against slavery.  Further, there were plenty of other Christians who did not get the same message about racism while at church.  That would tend to suggest that the MLK's "idea" did not come from Christianity.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 19, 2009)

pnome said:


> I'll give you a hint at what he's getting at Ham, it starts with a C and ends with hurch.


 
BBBUUUUZZZZ!!!  Wrong!!!!  Try again?

Just because someone goes to Church doesn't mean they actualy learn anything...



pnome said:


> MLK was a Christian.


 
Yes I do believe this!



pnome said:


> DB BB's point is a little bit off though. The Christian religion has no commandments against slavery. Further, there were plenty of other Christians who did not get the same message about racism while at church. That would tend to suggest that the MLK's "idea" did not come from Christianity.


 
How is it off?

There may not be any commandments against Salvery but I can promise you this... If you are a Christian, you can't believe in Slavery, if you do, then you have a very warped since about being a Christian.

I find it kind of funny that Slavery gets brought up... When MLK, Jr. fought for Equal Rights... His fight wasn't about Slavery it was about different races having the same equal worth as the whites.

Much like how Salvation from God through Jesus was only for the Jews in the OT and was extended to the Gentiles(the Non-jews) in the NT.... Equality of mankind by God.

DB BB


----------



## pnome (Jun 19, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> There may not be any commandments against Salvery but I can promise you this... If you are a Christian, you can't believe in Slavery, if you do, then you have a very warped since about being a Christian.



Yes, of course.... No true Christian would ever do such a thing...


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jun 19, 2009)

pnome said:


> Yes, of course.... No true Christian would ever do such a thing...


 
Your sense of what a Christian is seems to be alittle warped...

If you think everyone that says they are a Christian is a Christian then I can see how you have come to your conclusion...

Sad to say... there are those that Say and then there are those that actually ARE.

DB BB


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 20, 2009)

Your sense of what a human is seems to be a bit warped.

Ah, the niggling never stops, and even fifteen hundred years of debate is settled right here by the advanced intellect of the chosen . . . If, as one camp holds, the Catholic Church set the common modern calendar at the birth of Christ, even though nobody knows for sure when that was,  then Anno Domini (meaning, literally, ‘in the year of the Lord’) ought to be used as originally intended, and placed before the date in question.  But another camp considers the ‘year of the Lord’ to be the date of his death, even though nobody knows for sure when that was either . . .   and so most place the appellation A.D. after the date.  A bit of confusion must of needs exist when one bends the very measuring of time to ones own will . . .   

But since one person here knows for sure which of the interpretations is surely correct, and wishes to use that surety as a ‘Gotcha!’ to prove that all others must be wrong, then I suppose that the matter is settled.  Somebody call Harvard and the Vatican, and tell them some fella in Georgia has it all figured out.  Pointing out that the Chinese measure time rather differently, as do the Hebrews and a number of others would hardly break through to a closed mind.  So, if I stipulate to your ignorance of historical methodology and of the existence of other thoughts, and agree that you must certainly be correct while all the actual scholars still disagree, does the difference in the dates in any fashion demonstrate that a person who was born, by any measure, after an event transpired was a witness to those events?  Whether those events predated the birth of the ‘witness’ by three years, ten years, thirty seven years, or five hundred years seems to make no difference to the point --  The fella wasn’t there.  Pretty simple.  Hardly matters how many years you wish to argue that he missed it by – he still wasn’t there.   Empty argument.

Thoughtful folks grow quite weary of the quick-on-the-draw mob mentality that will distract from the pure paucity of actual thought in favor of trying to find a cheap ‘Gotcha!’  At no point and in no fashion have any of the actual points been taken up and actually discussed in any honest way, and the primitive and idiotic stand-by fall-back tactic of insulting other points of view and asserting ancient texts as all that needs to be known marginalizes your arguments as absurdly superstitious.   You argue against yourself, in other words, by using a modern computer, and electricity, and satellite connections, and all of the other easily demonstrated creations of MAN, to argue against the creations of man while claiming the primacy of the invisible.  

Worse, you not only avail yourselves of these creations, but dare to argue that they are logical extensions of your superstitions, and change your rhetoric and your rationalizations with every new discovery, and have done so throughout history.  So the history of this ‘religious’ thought has become little more than a catalogue of weaseling and reacting and trying desperately to defend a view that is indefensible.  (“Well, okay, all things really are made up of atoms organized in different ways, but it had to have been GOD who did that . . . “)  Get over it.  If your God foresaw quad-core processors, high-speed internet connections, and the failure of the public school system, then He certainly forgot to tell us.  Might have been a bit more on the ball, what with being omnipotent and all, and saved us all the trouble of being condemned to eternal suffering just because he forgot to tell most of us what was on His mind.

Your Bible bears no contemporaneous witness, and does not dare assert such a thing in any way.  It tells stories well after the fact, mostly as allegories spoken by people who heard stories about stories about stories.  Valid enough as teachings from the Elders, but in no way valid as an historical record of facts.  

And as to your ‘Christian Virtues’ we have this:  mtnwoman: “For God's sake don't offend a homosexual, but heck with the Christians, we can offend them and call them names all we want.....how hypocrytical. Glad I'm delivered from having that personality type. Obviously you are so clueless that you can't even fathom that other people have you pegged from 'whence' you come...”  

Um?  Spelling notwithstanding, but this random stuff about homosexuals that keeps coming out of deep left field is rather disturbing, and I can’t remember having tried to offend them either.  If disagreement is offense, in your view, then you offend by your own, do you not?  And by what qualification do you judge my ‘personality type,’ and by what knowledge do you judge ‘whence’ I come?  Perhaps you agree with formula1, who claims to ignore me, but then threatens me with eternity – “The spirit of the antichrist is alive and well. But soon enough, the voices of evil will be no more.”  And by the way, you misspelled ‘hypocritical’.   

Are you folks serious?  Do you actually believe that anything short of total agreement with you is the actual definition of ‘EVIL’?   If so, you begin to frighten the reasonable folks in this world, and ought not spend a moment wondering why.  Zealots, of any stripe, bear watching.

And this: huntinfool: “I've posted plenty of facts and evidence in many threads.”   And I have pointed out, as have others, that your evidence and facts are neither.  Then (!), “You somehow seem to have a deft ability to ignore them and claim that your thoughts or opinions are facts....with little to nothing to back them up...which is just very curious to me.”    Indeed.  But I do not post my opinions and superstitions as facts – I merely point out that yours are not.  

And one of the best: Double Barrel BB: “There may not be any commandments against Salvery but I can promise you this... If you are a Christian, you can't believe in Slavery, if you do, then you have a very warped since about being a Christian.”   Now, aside, again, from the spelling and syntax errors, what we have here is revision writ large.  The Bible is riddled with examples of slavery, and suddenly a new line was drawn, by the infallible God who wrote that Book?  Um?  God changed his mind?  Yet again?  Rather indecisive, this God fella, what with organizing all of the atoms and such . . .

If you don’t want to think about, or honestly consider alternate points of view, and if you are completely sure that your own view is the only view required for all humans who populate the entire planet, then folks, it is a fine thing that you have built Churches devoted only to your own thoughts.  But if you wish to speak of history, and make up your own to suit you, then I suggest that you study the actual history of Jerusalem, ancient to modern.


----------



## Israel (Jun 20, 2009)

If I were to own someone, I am instructed to treat them fairly and without rancor.


----------



## tell sackett (Jun 20, 2009)

Diogenes, even in the face of your unbelief, Jesus Christ loved you enough to lay down his life for you. Please don't reject the precious gift he offers you.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 20, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> If you don’t want to think about, or honestly consider alternate points of view, and if you are completely sure that your own view is the only view required for all humans who populate the entire planet, then folks, it is a fine thing that you have built Churches devoted only to your own thoughts.  But if you wish to speak of history, and make up your own to suit you, then I suggest that you study the actual history of Jerusalem, ancient to modern.



There's some meat on that bone.


----------



## pnome (Jun 20, 2009)

Israel said:


> If I were to own someone, I am instructed to treat them fairly and without rancor.



The only way to treat someone you "own" fairly is to release them immediately.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> The only way to treat someone you "own" fairly is to release them immediately.



Correct.
The entire concept of forced servititude and ownership of fellow humans is contrary to the comcepts of equality, free will, forgiveness, compassion and respect of fellow man.

Big time contradictions to be found here.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 21, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Correct.
> The entire concept of forced servititude and ownership of fellow humans is contrary to the comcepts of equality, free will, forgiveness, compassion and respect of fellow man.
> 
> Big time contradictions to be found here.



Yeah I agree.
I was forced against my will to be shackled and chained to Bellsouth for nearly 30 yrs. Did I get something out of it...sure I did, I got food and shelter. I had a child so I had no choice...or I could've gone on welfare and been free from that servitude, but chose not to...my bad.
Even though I think welfare is another form of enslavement, people just don't know it, because it appears to be free....entitlement comes into play. It still keeps them in poverty and controlled by the government....like the Indian Reservations...they are a kept people and I hate that for them.
Sometimes freedom is only what you perceive it to be.


----------



## Israel (Jun 21, 2009)

pnome said:


> The only way to treat someone you "own" fairly is to release them immediately.



Ahhh, you come wonderfully close to understanding this:
Whom the son sets free, is free indeed.
But first you must understand you are owned.
Bought with a price.
Then you are free.
Free to serve the truth no longer as a slave, but as a friend.
Till then your bondage...even to the compelling and the need to utterly refute the third and fourth line from above, does nothing but serve the truth...but without your willing compliance.
The carnal man cannot do anything but speak against the truth, he is totally locked in to a cell of his own devising.
The free man inherits all things, despite his appearance of servitude to what this present age calls folly.
No man is free till he is free of his own fear of appearing foolish.
Even and especially, to himself.


----------



## earl (Jun 21, 2009)

''There may not be any commandments against Salvery but I can promise you this... If you are a Christian, you can't believe in Slavery, if you do, then you have a very warped since about being a Christian.''





> This has to be the most profound statement  I have seen in ages. Please explain all the bondage in the bible. Can you imagine the numbers of people that have owned slaves down through the ages who are going to be surprised when they land in Hades ? I wonder now how many great men of faith owned slaves ?
> Please ,please elaborate or tell me you got your dates mixed up and thought this was April first.
> Israel, even with your attempted reasoning , I must say I am surprised. However I do agree with your last two lines. Depending on how you see foolish.


----------



## Israel (Jun 21, 2009)

I think almost all the Patriarchs had slaves.
Onesimus appeared to be a slave of a believer.
Lotsa slaves in the Bible.
Lotsa slaves freed because of the testimonies also contained in the Bible.
The world's slave is the Lord's freeman, the Lord's slave is a free man indeed.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 21, 2009)

Israel said:


> Lotsa slaves in the Bible.
> Lotsa slaves freed because of the testimonies also contained in the Bible.




That in and of itself makes it right?
And some people think the world is getting worse not better?


----------



## Israel (Jun 21, 2009)

A slave is as near to everlasting joy as the CEO of Microsoft.
And even if everyone woke up tomorrow with a million dollars in the bank, full health, a full refrigerator and larder, the world would be no better a place...and the hostility that is inherent in the heart of man due to his alienation from God would rear its ugly head with the same ferocity and ubiquity as ever it has.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 21, 2009)

Israel said:


> A slave is as near to everlasting joy as the CEO of Microsoft.
> And even if everyone woke up tomorrow with a million dollars in the bank, full health, a full refrigerator and larder, the world would be no better a place...and the hostility that is inherent in the heart of man due to his alienation from God would rear its ugly head with the same ferocity and ubiquity as ever it has.



Someone needs to get their head out of the clouds.


----------



## pnome (Jun 21, 2009)

Israel said:


> Ahhh, you come wonderfully close to understanding this:
> Whom the son sets free, is free indeed.
> But first you must understand you are owned.
> Bought with a price.
> ...




So, you're saying that because we are all born slaves to your god, it's OK for people to own other people so long as they are nice to them?


----------



## Israel (Jun 21, 2009)

pnome said:


> So, you're saying that because we are all born slaves to your god, it's OK for people to own other people so long as they are nice to them?



No, not really.
But that notwithstanding, far better to treat the people you may own with compassion than to disdain those you don't.


----------



## earl (Jun 21, 2009)

This thread is getting really weird. Pro and anti slavery within the same religion.And an atheist with no ''morals'' being the voice of reason.


----------



## Israel (Jun 21, 2009)

I don't know that anyone is pro slavery, simply that if you do find yourself owning someone, you need to treat him with the same compassion with which the Lord treats you.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 21, 2009)

I don't know anyone who ever owned anyone.

I do believe we can enslave our ownselves to drugs, alcohol, poverty, etc. Not even saying it's by choice...but by circumstance. No one is going to say they wanna be a drug user when they grow up nor do they choose to live in poverty.

I do believe that we can be freed, and that freedom can be received thru Jesus. He sets us free.
I'm poor, but I'm free. I'm sick, but I'm free. I'm free from the grips of satan, and that's probably what made me be poor and sick, being enslaved to his lies.  Lies that stole my wages, lies that stole my health, lies that said I couldn't feel better without this or that.

Anyway besides all that....well...I'm free and I have peace of mind...more than I deserve and all I need.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 21, 2009)

pnome said:


> So, you're saying that because we are all born slaves to your god, it's OK for people to own other people so long as they are nice to them?



No one is born a slave to our God. We're born into the slavery of sin/poverty/hunger/war/etc.

No here said it was ok to own someone.

I'd rather be a slave and treated kindly to someone in this country, than to be a slave born into a country who watches their children starve in the shadow of a cow.

We are all in servitude to someone if we work. If you love your job, well you're lucky. If you don't and you work for benefits, or a good wage but hate your job, you are in servitude, but still should be treated nicely.


----------



## earl (Jun 21, 2009)

I refuse to allow myself to be a slave.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 21, 2009)

earl said:


> I refuse to allow myself to be a slave.



Well that's good.

I wasn't born rich, so I have to be a slave to something/someone to get money to pay my lightbill, or to buy food. I'm not totally free and independant of serving someone for a buck. Being a slave is when you do what someone tells you to do or else, for money. I've rarely had freedom from that.

And when I'm talking servatude, I'm talking I sit with an elderly mean old witch that talks down to me because she is always on some kind of drug cocktail. She is confined to a wheelchair. Her husband pays me well and it's close to where I live and not too physical, I am limited to where I can work.  I'm a slave for the money, but not in my spirit...I don't have the choice or luxury of not working. And besides, I do for her what most other people wouldn't do, that's where the compassion of Christ works thru me, and I feel like I'm doing the right thing by helping her.

Lucky you that you don't have to do that.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 21, 2009)

Israel said:


> I don't know that anyone is pro slavery, simply that if you do find yourself owning someone, you need to treat him with the same compassion with which the Lord treats you.




If you find yourself owning someone, you are pro-slavery.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 21, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> If you find yourself owning someone, you are pro-slavery.



Does that work with prochoice, too. If you find yourself having an abortion, does that make you pro-abortion? Guess it would.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 21, 2009)

That's a professional level non sequitur.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 21, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That's a professional level non sequitur.



Oh, ok...whatever works to the good.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 21, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> Oh, ok...whatever works to the good.



You are a funny gal!

I hope things continue to get better and better for you, as it sounds like you deserve some good things to happen!


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 21, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> You are a funny gal!
> 
> I hope things continue to get better and better for you, as it sounds like you deserve some good things to happen!



Thanks! 
Same to ya.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 21, 2009)

This might be off topic, and might have been covered by you guys in the past, but doesn't it take just as much faith NOT to believe in God as it does to believe?

Scientists named it Big Bang Theory, not Big Bang Fact because it cannot be proved.  Exactly what non-believers say about believers.  God's existence cannot be proved.   We have to have faith to believe in God. We also must have faith to believe in theories.  As hard as intellectuals have tried, they still can only suppose how the Earth was formed.  They have faith in their intellect.  Scientists get caught all the time interpreting test results in a manner to support the opinion they have already formed.  I'm not saying all scientists do this, but it proves they are fallible.  Athiests choose to have faith in a system that is based on guesses.  Well thought out guesses, but guesses none the same.

So, what we have at the end of the day is two different bases of faith pitted against each other, pointing their fingers and swearing the other is wrong.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 21, 2009)

Right on!...evolution is still a theory...even after all this time.

Can't be proven either way....can't prove there is a God or there isn't. Except in our hearts....you either have it or you don't.  I didn't for a long time and I do know the difference.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 21, 2009)

Wow! Just realized I read only the 1st page of this thread.  All this slavery talk.... Guess my post above is alittle out of place.  Sorry.  You are right Earl.  This thread has seemed to take a turn into the bizarre.


----------



## footjunior (Jun 22, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> Can't be proven either way....can't prove there is a God or there isn't. Except in our hearts....you either have it or you don't.  I didn't for a long time and I do know the difference.



How do you prove that what you feel in your heart is God?

You said you can't prove there is a God or isn't, "except in our hearts".


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 22, 2009)

Um?  Back to the OP: â€œJust wondering what do you really think about us Believers???â€�

Well, if you have read the whole of this thread then you have seen your fellow believers in action --  they have spent their words ducking and dodging serious questions; changing the subject at random; accusing and condemning anything other than agreement; preaching their beliefs as factual, and quoting those beliefs as the facts they rely upon; freely insulting and attempting to shout down others; rationalizing atrocities as justified; engaging in wholesale hypocrisy; attributing virtue (theirs) to the unknown while judging evil (everyone elseâ€™s) by that same unknown; attempting to parlay the hopelessness and the hardship of their own personal situation into a universal that must then be true for all;  suggesting parallels that are so far away from their own thoughts as to be farcical; pointing out â€˜scientificâ€™ contradictions that display less than a third-grade level of scientific knowledge; and settling finally on the emotional appeal that if they feel something in their â€˜hearts,â€™ then it must be irrefutably true.

That is quite a catalogue of â€˜belief.â€™  What, then, would you expect any thinking person to conclude?  

Would we be so wrong as to think that we ought not sign up for this idea that we can purchase a long-term mortgage on our lives, held by an Almighty,  by the simple sacrifice of our intellect, and nothing else?

Once again, I do not think the question was properly posed â€“ You see, we do not think very much about the believers, largely because the total depth of the thought we see displayed is as written above.  It is no thought at all, but merely a constant regurgitation of your indoctrination, and we do not blame you for that.  Offense is only taken, and response required, when that sort of â€˜thinkingâ€™ seeks to convert thinking folks into similarly thoughtless robots made subservient to the invisible.  Or rather, another manâ€™s explanation of that which he wishes you to believe to be so.  Face it folks â€“ God never spoke to you.  Some Preacher did, and he was another man, same as you.   

Knowing that you have been taught no differently, and realizing that you have made no effort to learn anything else, we view you as victims.  Unfortunately, as seldom as we regard the â€˜believersâ€™ in any serious fashion, they seem to be outraged by anything that does not conform to their belief, and feel that it is a mission and an obligation to â€˜informâ€™ the rest of us, by force of righteousness.  Patiently, and almost parentally, we continue to ask the same questions, and, predictably, we continue to receive the same nonsense in the absence of answers.  But here is where we part company.  By the best count, there are approximately 6.5 billion humans on this planet.

Does anyone want to make any bets on just how many of those are Protestants?  

You see, the problem with being entirely right about a subject that has so very many aspects is that the vast majority of humans will always think differently.  If that wasnâ€™t so, then there would be only two or three things in the supermarket, because, geez, if we all know that one thing is good, and another is not, then why do we need more than the one thing?  Unfortunately, this is the thinking that â€˜believersâ€™ present â€“ they seek to enforce the thought that Thou Shalt Have their Belief, and they disregard all others.  Look around.  So does the Taliban.  Are you so different, in seeking to make your own belief the only one that is valid?  

And, in the realm of the â€˜unknown,â€™ can you honestly say that you can disprove another, opposite set of beliefs?  Are you that naïve?  Will you argue that because your belief cannot be definitively â€˜disprovedâ€™ then it must be true?  Can you disprove the existence of dragons, elves, or the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?  You waste our time with childish argumentativeness.  We do not need to disprove the troll under your bridge -  you need to prove your position if you wish to assert it to be true, and you cannot.  Faith, it has been said, is the antithesis of proof.  

Do not turn the argument backwards and dare to assert that your inability to think places some sort of responsibility upon others.  It does not.  If you assert your God to be real and true, then place him front and center, and allow him to speak for himself.  Do not weasel your way around a thousand apologies and a thousand allegories and a thousand interpretations of words made only by men and for men.  Demonstrate, or do not.  And if you cannot, which you know well that you cannot, then give it a rest.  Your foundation is built upon shifting sands, and you know that as well as we do.

So what do we think about believers?  The same as you think about yourselves, it appears.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 22, 2009)

Diogenes, Well your location is appropriate.  I'd call that last bit an eruption for sure!  Why the anger?  And before you say you aren't angery,  it certainly reads as anger.  If you are certain in your belief why does it matter what others try to sell you?  If others seem content to be "lambs to the slaughter", and mindless boobs brainwashed by doctrine, why should that anger you so?  You should be happy that you are smart enough to see past the silliness, and comfortable in the fact that you have it figured out!

Or, are you driven by your own set of convictions to expose what you perceive to be a lie, for the good of all humanity?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 22, 2009)

For a Christian to deal with an athiest is a serious matter.  Their soul is at stake.  If the athiest has turned their atheism into a political platform they are certainly not going to be swade by anything a Christian might try to present to them.
Possibly, the best thing is to have no dialogue with them at all.
I pray that God would allow them to become seekers.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 22, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> For a Christian to deal with an athiest is a serious matter.  Their soul is at stake.  If the athiest has turned their atheism into a political platform they are certainly not going to be swade by anything a Christian might try to present to them.
> Possibly, the best thing is to have no dialogue with them at all.
> I pray that God would allow them to become seekers.




So, you are saying a Christian can lose their ticket to salvation by "dealing" with an Atheist?

Why not defend your belief to everyone?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 22, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> So, you are saying a Christian can lose their ticket to salvation by "dealing" with an Atheist?




No, that's not at all what I was saying.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 22, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> If the athiest has turned their atheism into a political platform they are certainly not going to be swade by anything a Christian might try to present to them.
> Possibly, the best thing is to have no dialogue with them at all.
> I pray that God would allow them to become seekers.



If the Christian has turned their Christianity into a political platform they are certainly not going to be swayed by anything a non-believer might try to present to them.

Possibly, the best thing to do is to keep attempting open dialogue with them so that they can become a part of a productive free society that shows a respect and concern for each other's well being.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jun 22, 2009)

footjunior said:


> How do you prove that what you feel in your heart is God?
> 
> You said you can't prove there is a God or isn't, "except in our hearts".



Has anyone been able to prove it to you? No one could ever prove it to me either, I've been there.
But I know there is a God in my own heart, mind, soul and spirit....I can't prove that to you. Even if I were the nicest, sweetest person on earth and never hurt a flea, I still couldn't prove it to you, unless you were at least willing to be open to believing it.

I can't prove anything in my heart, can you? Especially not to someone I barely know. Maybe to my children and grandchildren and spouse and close friends and family, they know what is in my heart...other than that can't prove a thing.


----------



## footjunior (Jun 23, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> Has anyone been able to prove it to you? No one could ever prove it to me either, I've been there.
> But I know there is a God in my own heart, mind, soul and spirit....I can't prove that to you. Even if I were the nicest, sweetest person on earth and never hurt a flea, I still couldn't prove it to you, unless you were at least willing to be open to believing it.



I am open to believing it. I'm open to believing anything if given adequate evidence for it. So you say that you can prove it to me, as long as I "were at least willing to be open to believing it." I'm asking you: How you would prove that what's in your heart is in fact God?



> I can't prove anything in my heart, can you? Especially not to someone I barely know. Maybe to my children and grandchildren and spouse and close friends and family, they know what is in my heart...other than that can't prove a thing.



So you can or cannot prove that what's in your heart is God? First you say you can prove what's in your heart if I'm open to believing it. Then you say, "I can't prove anything in my heart." Then you say that I need to be someone close to you to see it. Which is it?

I think you're suggesting that people can somehow see God in your heart if they hang around you enough. A few years ago when I went to my old church, people would come up to me and say, "Ah footjunior, I'm so glad to have people like you in church. It's so good to see a young man who's fired up for God and so ready to serve Him. I can really see your love for God in everything you do." In fact, I had some lady come up after church one day and told me I was going to become an evangelist in a few years. She said she could sense my "love for God." Even my family (and it's a close family) thought I was a "good Christian guy". Not long ago one of my good friends found out I was an atheist. He couldn't believe it. It was actually quite humorous to me. I thought I had told him a long time ago. He said, "Well I just assumed you were a Christian. You don't act like an atheist. You don't really do anything wrong." 

All these people thought they saw God in my heart. That all happened while I was an atheist. Talk about a faulty sense of discernment. Or is that a "gift" of discernment?

People who want to see God in other people will truly believe they see God in people. No doubt if I were an atheist who grew up in Iran or Iraq the local clerics might say that they see Allah working in my life or some nonsense like that.

Being a good person does not mean you have God in your heart. It means you're a good person. You do not know you have God "in your heart". You believe you have God "in your heart". And just like my family who _thought_ they knew what was in my heart, your family does not know what's in your heart. They believe that God's in your heart (and they might indeed be correct). But they don't know.

I would still like to hear your answer about how you would prove that God is in your heart. Being around someone and seeing them do good things is not proof that God is in their heart.


----------

