Dear Christian, I am an atheist…

An interesting article I found.

Dear Christian, I am an atheist…

By Alegria –

Dear Christian,

I am an atheist, that is, from Greek, ‘a-theos’, meaning, ‘without a God’. I do not believe in your God, nor do I believe in the Son/Younger God, or the Holy Spirit/Deceased God(?). I do not believe in Hell, nor do I believe in Heaven. So I ask you, why can’t you put forward a nice argument for believing in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit without resorting to ‘but you’ll burn in Hell’ and ‘but you won’t go to Heaven’. I repeat, I do not believe in these two metaphysical places and therefore threatening me with eternal damnation is like threatening a mature, intelligent, grown man by telling him that Santa won’t bring him presents.

Furthermore; your continued attempts to tell me that ‘atheism is a religion’ are laughable at best, weepable at worst. Can you remember what ‘atheism’ meant, that’s right; ‘without a God’, from Greek ‘a-theos’. This simply means I don’t believe in a God, an Allah, a Yahweh, or an entire menagerie of Gods and Goddesses. It implies no other beliefs apart from that one. Atheism is a word created simply to define lack of belief in a God, just as bald is a word created simply to define lack of hair on the head. To put it as someone whom I can’t remember said, ‘saying that atheism is a religion is like saying that bald is a hair colour’. Just as ‘empty’ is a word created to explain the absence of, well, anything, atheism is a word created to explain the absence of belief in God. Empty isn’t a thing, a place can’t be ‘full of empty’, (unless you’re trying to be poetic, silly, or are genuinely stupid), so is atheism not a religion.

Well I think we’ve made progress, my dear Christian. But we’re not finished yet. Your kind but ridiculous talk of how, ‘you respect my atheism but why don’t I just leave Christianity alone since it’s not doing anything to me’ is next on my little waltz through your arguments.

you know what I hate most about your – loving – religion? I hate it because it demeans Humanity. Why can’t I just leave Christians alone since they aren’t doing anything to me? Well, I’m surprised this is even a question. I will leave Christianity alone when it stops telling people that they’re worthless, that they must be show the ‘love’ of God; I will leave Christianity alone when it stops coming round my neighbourhood, knocking on my door and telling me I must repent, that I am a sinful wicked person because I dare to think for myself and not donate to the upkeep of big useless churches, I will leave Christianity alone when I am no longer demanded to ‘respect’ it and other religions, all while they preach that homosexuals are abominations and must be killed, that non-believers must be shown the light or else, that any non-believer who doesn’t repent will suffer eternal torture at the hands of a loving Father; I will leave Christianity alone when it stops claiming to have a monopoly on morality, saying that people cannot be good without religion, and, even despite this monopoly on ‘morality’, still preaches hatred towards gays, unequal rights towards women, and non-believers, I would argue that Christians are less moral that most, since they require an incentive to be kind, in this case, Heaven.

But you want to know why I hate Christianity, dear Christian? You want to know why I loathe your ‘religion of love’? I hate it because it has started some of the deadliest conflicts in history; the Crusades, the Huguenot Wars, the French Wars of Religion, the Taiping Rebellion, the Thirty Years War. I hate your religion because it tells us that any of the billions of Humans in the past who didn’t believe in God are burning in Hell, even if they lived in the most remote jungle village and had no way of even knowing about God. I hate your religion because it claims that people like me are evil and incapable of kindness, and then goes and spends millions on mega-churches rather than aiding the poor and starving. I hate your religion because it keeps society back, because it stifles creativity and holds back science due to its archaic laws. I hate your religion because you claim God answered your prayer to let there be beef on the menu at lunch today, while on the news we hear of mass-starvation in Africa, or that a plane has crashed and everyone died, or that a man has shot several people dead, and yet God is loving because beef was on your pathetic menu for lunch; where were their prayers? Being ignored so you could have your beef, no doubt.

But you know what I hate most about your – loving – religion? I hate it because it demeans Humanity. I hate it because it claims that Humanity is nothing unless worshipping and serving God in some way. I hate it because it treats people as nothing but God’s possessions. I hate it because it insists that we are nothing but a slave-race, destined to pander to the whims of a certifiably megalomaniacal, angry, vengeful and sadistic Man-in-the-Sky. I hate your religion because you try to spread this shit, you try to force everyone else to recognise that they can never be anything else but slaves, when really, Humanity has the potential to be so beautiful. When really, so many people create wonderful things, write, draw, paint, compose, say, sing, dance, make, wonderful things. Everybody has that potential to be so beautiful, and yet your archaic religion insists that they are nothing but a slave-race, that they mustn’t be beautiful because God doesn’t care for Human potential, he only wants their adoration to satisfy his ego-complex. How can you honestly stand there and tell me that homosexuality is wrong and should be illegal, or even punishable by death? Have you ever been in love? You can’t choose who you fall in love with! How can you say that such as beautiful, cherished and heart-warming thing such as love can ever be wrong and evil? How can you claim that two people of the same-sex will be forever tortured by a ‘loving’ God because they fell in love, they didn’t choose to fall in love, no one can choose who they love.

I hate your religion, dear Christian, because it stands as nothing more than a way of trying to attack what you cannot understand. It has nothing to do with me being ‘narrow-minded’, nothing to do with me being ‘controlled by the Devil’, nothing to do with me being ‘a hate-filled person’; I hate your religion because it does not understand the beauty that is the Human race; the depths of our emotions, the breadths of our minds; the fiery love that sweeps us up and takes us to the arms of another; that passion under the oak tree as two men kiss. It doesn’t understand that moment of silence in the universe as two female lovers stare into each others eyes, that infinite wonder as we create our own salvation; as we, instead of depending upon others telling us what to do, create our own purpose and shape our universe. The great beauty of the Human race is and always will be our emotions, our curiosity; we see something we don’t understand and we try to comprehend it, we try to see how it works, we experiment, we learn, we grow, we think and we question. Your religion doesn’t understand these things, it never has.

  1. Andre
    September 7th, 2010 at 12:38
    Reply | Quote | #1

    To all non-christian-yet-still-religious folk reading this: Replace any reference to christianity with a reference to your religion or even a generic term to encompass all religions before you post any comments, as this applies across the board.

  2. September 7th, 2010 at 17:41
    Reply | Quote | #2

    This is without a doubt, one of the most beautiful pieces of writing I have ever come across on the face of the Internet. Besides the flawed grammar, the message is carried out solidly. If I was a Christian, and I came upon reading this, you bet your ass I would de-convert in an instant. There is no way you can ever justify the violence and bigotry of this sadistic cult known as Christianity. However, this can also apply to other primitive religions such as Islam, for example.

    • Andre
      September 7th, 2010 at 19:00
      Reply | Quote | #3

      Oh but wait…. it’s a test…..

      • September 7th, 2010 at 21:46
        Reply | Quote | #4

        Ah, so Yahweh is a cruel scientist performing sadistic experiments on our bodies like we’re his lab mice? How loving!

    • November 14th, 2010 at 13:33
      Reply | Quote | #5

      You’re right on the money. It never ceases to amaze me how supposedly intelligent people in this era of the space age can believe in some imaginary , invisible, immaterial, indescribable Cosmic Santa Claus or Space Ghost and consider themselves to be intelligent. I must say that Islam now precedes Christianity when it comes to hate ( especially terror ). I guess I will be accused of being a product of the devil (you know , that red man that lives underground with the horns growing out of his head with a long arrow tipped tail and a pitchfork ). Yeah–right !!! It’s mind-boggling how intelligent people allow themselves to be so brainwashed , bamboozled, and hoodwinked. This proves how gullible the human mind can really be !!!!

  3. Fred
    September 8th, 2010 at 00:16
    Reply | Quote | #6

    This is just the kind of thing someone being controlled by the devil would write.

    • Andre
      September 8th, 2010 at 00:19
      Reply | Quote | #7

      I completely agree.

    • September 8th, 2010 at 20:37
      Reply | Quote | #8

      He is so going to Hell for writing that. What kind of person would be so honest?

  4. Victor
    September 8th, 2010 at 18:51
    Reply | Quote | #9

    Tell me, with so much hate within you, (you used the word hate so many times I lost count) how do you turn off your hate, and then truly find it within yourself to love, you know the oak tree and the universe and all that stuff. You talk about the beauty of the human race, but you can not find it within your own heart to have mercy on a fellow human who believes he or she needs a god in their life.

    • September 8th, 2010 at 20:30

      “Hate” is the word that the writer expresses in this stunning essay, to show how much terror religion has caused. If you are a woman and your husband beat you and treated you like trash, wouldn’t you think the same way as the writer when expressing yourself? Anger is a common human emotion, to be used as a way of battling our oppressors in life. Religion is the lethal mind-fucking oppressor of it all.

      You ask what the writer uses to put off his hate? Well, life is what everyone makes it out to be individually. Because really, what good would it do to necessarily believe in a war criminal like Yahweh or Allah? Sure, there are people who believe because they want “spiritual comfort”, but have they fully read their books, or are they modifying their own ideal “God” that they grew up having faith over?

      You can believe what you want, but that doesn’t necessarily say that your beliefs go hand-in-hand with science and human logic. Why would there be a need to believe in the first place, if one believes just to “comfort” themselves, omitting the existence of Hell from their checklist of things to believe.

      Here are a few things that can soothe our hearts without the need for any deity: art, music, writing, poetry, dancing, drama/acting, comedy, sexual attraction, video games, etc.

      Why would it seem to “put off the hate” better with an imperfect deity than any of the secular examples listed above? I don’t understand what you mean.

  5. Victor
    September 9th, 2010 at 00:50

    I understand the meaning of the word hate, my question to the writer was, how does one turn hate on one minute and express love the next? How can someone with such hate really appreciate art, music, poetry, drama – that enhances one’s being if hate permeates his thinking, much less create such wonderful things that benifits mankind. Hate and love cannot co-exist. (i’m not talking about moments of anger)

    I think what I’m writing about posses lojic.

    Many people do not turn to Christianity to prevent from going to hell – I think they find hope in the message of the Bible. I say christianity because it appears to be the religion that is in season for the kill.

    • Andre
      September 9th, 2010 at 06:29

      Love and hate don’t cancel each other out. I love pasta, I hate the typical chicken and potatoes dinner that you see a lot in North America. I love the courses I’m taking, yet I hate some of the professors. Your question is a bad one.

    • September 9th, 2010 at 19:32

      You seriously are overlooking the point the writer is trying to make here, and instead resorting to being appalled over how many times he has used the word “hate.” Does it matter? It’s a site for FORMER Christians to express themselves with absolutely NO limits to ways they can express themselves. He attacks Christianity because it causes overwhelming ignorance. And I’m inclined to agree.

      Because, think about it: religion is the main obstacle that continues to retard our human civilization‘s potentials. Most people give up on their favorite secular hobbies because of what religious dogma does to them. If you do some thorough research into religion’s history, you’ll see how religion has influenced bigotry, to convince higher authorities that the Bible is correct, and that any conflicting scientific theories, regardless of actually being proven true or not, got intelligent people like Galileo (claimed that Earth is not the center of the universe, but rather the Sun) and Darwin (started the theory of biological evolution, which conflicted with the Genesis creation account) coming under fire as “heretics.”

      On the other hand, the writer DID promise to leave Christianity alone if the following were to be reversed: preaching against homosexuals, bothering his house every Sunday, saying it’s wrong for women to equal rights as men, telling people they are worthless, etc. Honestly, I “hate” Christianity for those exact same reasons, so I guess I’m not one to really care about how many times the word “hate” is used. After all, that’s tough love for you; you wouldn’t truly know how we feel unless you’d been there to see it for yourself as well. In fact, if you HAVE went through what the majority of us former Christians have, then you’d be singing a totally different song by now; you wouldn’t be blaming the victim(s), but its perpetrator(s).

      Just imagine, if we didn’t have religion; this world could’ve been more peaceful, and we wouldn’t need some silly god to explain the story behind our excuses for being good to others, or stupid drivel over why we all suffer — why DO we suffer? No way, no how.

      Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you’re told, and religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right. Who are you to say the writer is wrong just for using “hate” a lot towards Christianity? Again, like I said, one of his reasons for hating it is because of how it limited mankind’s ability to be honest and free to think for himself due to divine ignorance; Yahweh doesn’t like seeing us reason, but rather have us trembling on our knees and begging him to spare our lives from suffering eternal torture in a horrible place called “Hell.” Seriously, you think that most Christians believe NOT because of Hell? They must be pseudo-Christians, since they most likely don’t even know much about what’s contained inside their Bibles; they rather focus on just believing in Christ like he’s some “fuzzy-wuzzy linen pillow” for them to lay their heads down, not realizing that the very same god they worship is not only a war criminal but a deity whose authors completely stole concepts from other previous mythological beings (Odin, Mithra, Osiris, Dionysus, Horus, and others) and APPLIED them to this Christ cartoon character.

      There you go; Christianity is false, as it is DANGEROUS.

    • September 9th, 2010 at 20:36

      “how does one turn hate on one minute and express love the next”

      As Andre has stated, it’s not necessary to purge yourself of love in order to hate. Your emotions are probably a bit screwy being a religious type. It does that to you, trying to believe in a “loving god” that would torture you for an infinite period for sins committed in a finite lifespan.

      “I think they find hope in the message of the Bible.”

      And, what hope is that? That mankind is doomed to imminent, complete and utter destruction at the hand of a loving god? That if they don’t find the exact permutation of things they’re supposed to be doing in order to access a positive afterlife they’ll end up tortured for all eternity? That life is meaningless? I’m afraid you don’t understand the meaning of the word “hope”.

      “I say christianity because it appears to be the religion that is in season for the kill.”

      No, it’s just the one mentioned by the author of this article. Please re-read the first comment after the article. We pretty much would love to see the extinction of all religions in our lifetime so folks can start living moral, productive lives.

      • Andre
        September 9th, 2010 at 21:52

        And if I may add: pointed out with the worst example EVER. And still the point gets across.
        Bazinga.

  6. Derby
    September 10th, 2010 at 16:11

    I find no problem with the use of the word “hate”, as there are very few degrees in the English language for disapproval. I mean, people “dislike”, “hate”, “despise”, “abhor” and very few others. So big deal, the author chose to use “hate” a lot. There is plenty to “hate” about organized religion. But the fact remains- this is an OPINION PIECE. If you don’t like the choice of words made by the author, write something every bit as insightful as they did using words you choose. But be forewarned- someone else will be every bit as critical of you as you were of them. Deal with it. Overall, Bravo to the author.

  7. Ashley
    September 10th, 2010 at 21:04

    Victor, Hate and Love are not mutually exclusive…I think that they are both necessary in understanding each. We cannot know hate without knowing love.
    Actually, I’ve heard of christians using this exact rationale I’m describing in an attempt to explain the terrible things that happen to innocent people…senseless murder, stillborns, a toddler chasing a ball into the street and getting nailed by a car, a single mother losing her job, her lifeline…if these awful things didn’t happen, we wouldn’t fully be able to understand, or, even more, appreciate, the good things that do. And while I believe that sentiment (because I think that through those trials we learn not only to keep moving forward, but to appreciate what we do have), christians take it one step further by saying that it is their god who is teaching them this lesson (conveniently removing home-grown tenacity in the process). This letter is powerful and honest, and you getting all tangled up in the author’s word choice…well, you are just ignoring the substanc. You are ignoring what is being said, maybe because you don’t like it or maybe because you can’t understand it, or maybe, and most likely, because you don’t WANT to understand it because a godless life seems so terrifying. And that is an earned emotion, I think, because I can’t imagine relying on and believing in something so enitrely one day and then trying to stop…but open your eyes. It’s time to take off the training weels and be responsible for your life.

  8. Ashley
    September 10th, 2010 at 22:30

    right, right…substance and wheels, respectively.

  9. Hal
    September 11th, 2010 at 16:00

    Victor, your queries make no sense and are irrelevant.
    The hate and love expressed are for different things. I don’t see how you could have missed that.

    I thought it was a very good essay. Although I must be pedantic and point out that one could argue that a vacuum created in a chamber could be described as a place full of empty.

  10. manuel
    September 18th, 2010 at 11:15

    Hey Man, relax. Fuck a little, you will see things less tragically.

    • Andre
      September 18th, 2010 at 14:16

      You’re an idiot.

  11. Billy D.
    November 17th, 2010 at 16:57

    I have to agree with Victor. Why does this person hate Christianity so much? What has Christianity done to him to cause such anger? I’ve been a Christian for 10 years and NEVER, EVER, have I renounced my faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. I must ask: was this person ever brought up as a Christian? If so, then he was improperly educated about the Bible and Christ and he is taking all the Bible verses out of context. It IS possible to reverse your homosexuality

  12. Wade_Elementary
    November 25th, 2010 at 03:39

    The reason why So many Christians talk about all the crap the guy writing the letter to mentioned, is because those Christians are Oblivious and do not know crap about their own religion. I am a Christian, and what bothers me is when people shove God down other people’s throats. True Christians would just love one another with equal treatment, and equal respect for one another. I Love Atheists. Even though we have different beliefs, I still believe they are the same as me, everybody is equal to me. This is because the Bible says to treat each other of fair and equal rights, and I want people to be happy over the decisions I chose, and I made. Being a Christian is one of the decisions that I love the most, of making. I have fought with a lot of Atheists, but at the end, we seemed to become more closer, because this was one thing we did not intend to do. Basically what I am trying to say is, let people love their life, if someone decided to be Atheist, let them be Atheist. As a Christian, I try to change the person’s mind, by telling him, and showing him of how God, our Father, amazing Love works… If they do not accept that, then what else can you do ??? Do not shove God down people’s throats, go slow, if they do not accept, then that is their decision, do not think of them any less.

    One thing about Humankind is we have a tendency to rebuke and refuse each others opinions, sone opinions can be flat out stupid and useless. If we had some Self-knowledge, then we would be able to make the Enigma more explainable.

    I am 14, you may think I would not understand the feuds and fights and all of the opinions of Non-Believers and other Religions, but I do. I am not trying to sound arrogant, nor an I trying to sound boastful, but the way I see things, should be something Christians see. EQUAL.

    When will those oblivious Christians soon realize that the way they see is wrong? Hopefully very soon.

  13. Krie
    November 25th, 2010 at 15:26

    I think…. I love this. Very very good. Much respect to you, Alegria.

  14. J-Sea
    December 18th, 2010 at 21:58

    Hehehehe, Why not, What do I have to lose? I can have fun stirring a pot of God haters…

    All you atheist are doing nothing, but proving Biblical prophecy. You know that right? 3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers (That’s you, you all are scoffers), walking after their own lusts, 2 Peter 3:3.

    Allow me to ask. Have any of you ever actually read a Bible for yourselves to know what it says? I doubt it, because if you did, you’d know that there are more Scientific facts in it than any Science book. So, what grounds have you to stand on to make these claims if you’ve never read it for yourselves. The Bible has never been disproven. Not even the smallest part of it has. Not one sentence has ever been disproven, so why do you call it mythical? If you’ve read a Bible, you’d know of prophecy made long ago that have come true today. Like how the Bible declares that the Earth is round and that it hangs on nothing. At the time of which this part was written, common belief was that the Earth was flat and that it rested on the back of a turtle. Furthermore, the Bible tells us to was our hands through moving water before eating long before anyone had any idea of sanitation. Also, while I’m at it, there are many many prophecies that have come true and are coming true from the Bible. The last one for now is that God would spit Israel up and that He’d bring them back together again. Well, in 1948 Israel became a nation again. And not only that, but did you know that the only country that’s not represented in the UN is Israel? Interesting…

    So, where did we come from according to you all? O that’s right, you all believe in Evolution. Lol, there’s no evidence for evolution you fools. If there is, I’d like to see some (Unless that is if you are talking about Micro Evolution). Why would you believe that something can come from nothing if it can’t be done today? Likewise, how can you belief further and say that life came from non-life?

    But you guys like Science, so that must be mean that you’re intelligent, and intelligent people believe in such theories as Pangea. (Raises hand) What would you find if you removed the Oceans from the Earth? Wouldn’t you find land? So wouldn’t that mean that all the Continents are currently connected? Also, in the artistic drawing of Pangea, where’s Mexico and Central America? Doesn’t Africa seem a little smaller than usual to you? Or do you believe that Mexico and Central America and Africa just evolved while the continents were shifting? Right, and you say I believe in the power of my imagination…

    “Look, man, some people say that God ain’t real ’cause they don’t see how a good God can exsist with all this evil in the world. If God is real then He should stop all this evil, ’cause He’s all-powerful right? What is evil though man? It’s anything that’s against God. It’s anything morally bad or wrong. It’s murder, rape, stealing, lying, cheating. But if we want God to stop evil, do we want Him to stop it all or just a little bit of it? If He stops us from doing evil things, what about lying, or what about our evil thoughts? I mean, where do you stop, the murder level, the lying level, or the thinking level? If we want Him to stop evil, we gotta be consistent, we can’t just pick and choose. That means you and I would be eliminated right? Because we think evil stuff. If that’s true, we should be eliminated! But thanks be to God that Jesus stepped in to save us from our sin! Christ died for all evilness! Repent, turn to Jesus man!”

    I find it fascinating and amazingly astounding that atheist claim that if God is real, there wouldn’t be evil in the world, but in the same breathe, eliminate the very one who can bring justice to the world. So atheist, is there no justice? Do you cause evil in the world?

    Here’s another question, what is “real” anyways? If to you real is only what your five senses can observe, than isn’t your definition of real nothing more than electronic impulses going off in your brain. So how do you know what’s truly there or not?

    You all are laughable, you claim that Christians don’t know how to think for themselves, that they just go off of what they’ve been told. But I ask, how many of you have ever came up with your theories on your own, or do you just know what you were taught in school? Do you just blindly trust Darwin’s book, “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races In the Struggle for Life” And if you believe that book, then you believe that Humans and Bananas are related.

    “It’s a truly wonderful fact… that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other.” page 170

    So I just wanna be clear real quick, I’m the one who believes in a silly story? Ok, gotchya, just making sure.

    As for this letter. Geez, someone must have really been disgruntled to write such a literary piece. First correct me if I’m wrong, but I sensed a bit of animosity when the author of this said, “that any non-believer who doesn’t repent will suffer eternal torture at the hands of a loving Father;” This author has obviously never read a Bible, or else they would know that while being loving, my God is just. And the Bible says that the wages of sin is death. Which is why He died so that he could pay your fine as a perfect sacrifice. For instance, say you go to court for throwing a rock through a window. Well, it would be unjust to the owners of that window if you were let off scotch free. A righteous judge would at very least give you a fine. Well, if you were the judges kid, he might be willing to take off his robe and pay the fine for you. Which is exactly what Jesus did according to the Bible. Thus proving His “love.”

    So, you say that religion has a monopoly on morality. Question, where does morality come from then, what standard can you base morality on? If it sounds good than it’s good? That doesn’t sound logical. If you treat others the way that you would like to be treated? Didn’t Jesus say that? I forget… You see, whatever you define as good, I can show you someone who disagrees. So, what standard does humanity have to go on on good and evil? And God doesn’t hat gays, he hates homosexuality. You see, if God loves, then he must hate. For instance, I love my house, therefore I hate Hurricanes that do damage to my house.

    Define unequal rights? Isn’t that a matter of opinion? Men don’t have better roles than women, they have different roles than women. Case and point, women have kids, men help make them. That doesn’t mean one’s role is more important than the other, they work together. Well, God knew that certain responsibilities had to be completed in a society, and he told which gender to do what. He made man to be in charge, because Adam came first and Eve came from Adam and sinned first. For Adam was created in God’s image and women were created in man’s image. But don’t let that make you think that that’s not fair. For men are charged with greater responsibility than women, it’s our job to keep women safe and to make sure they have food. Besides, aren’t you the one demeaning women by saying that men have better roles according to the Bible?

    BTW, you can choose who you fall in love with. For instance, when you were going through a time in your life known as the teen years. You searched for and picked out an identity for yourself. Rock fans became rockers, sports players became jocks, etc. Now, were any of these people born a rocker or a jock. No, they gradually became one based on the influences that they had in their life. So, if you have an influence in your life that tells you it’s ok to be gay, you will most likely accept it and make that your identity, and from your identity, you’ll choose who you love. For instance, most intelligent people have criteria that their significant other must check off before they are attracted to them.

    I conclude that you all reject Christianity simply, because you don’t like it. You have no rhyme or reason to reject except that you don’t like what it teaches. So you tell yourselves lies, like, it’s a myth, so that you can go on living in your apostasy. The only argument that I’ve ever really heard against Christianity is that, I’m smart, and you all are idiots. Or, I don’t like your religion, cuz I disagree with it’s definitions of right and wrong.” Well, I come to tell you that my Jesus is offensive, and if you be wise and you disagree with something the Bible says, I tell you, change your opinion. For it is the Bible that brings life. But you have no idea how to begin to understand that. I can go on and on, but I’m going to bring this to a close.

    One last argument. If I hear one more ignorant person say that Christianity is a crutch, I’m going to ignore it. You see, you all say that Christianity is a crutch for those who can’t face reality by themselves. I say atheism is a crutch for those who don’t like God and can’t face the realities of Hell by themselves. How does that sit in your pipe?

    I respect you all as much as I respect someone who believes that the Moon is made of cheese. I hope that you’ve had as much fun reading this as I have writing it. O, and btw, lest you repent and believe, you will find yourself in a hot place called Hell. So when you get there, don’t say that I didn’t tell you. Thanks for reading and have a God blessed day! :)

    • December 19th, 2010 at 00:57

      This sounds like a total troll to me, but what the hell? I’m bored.

      All you atheist are doing nothing, but proving Biblical prophecy. You know that right? 3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers (That’s you, you all are scoffers), walking after their own lusts, 2 Peter 3:3.

      Maybe we’re proving the prophecies in the Qu’ran, instead…

      Allow me to ask. Have any of you ever actually read a Bible for yourselves to know what it says?

      Many of us have. Many of us were once believers.

      because if you did, you’d know that there are more Scientific facts in it than any Science book.

      So you believe an old man swam all across the world to gather up animals with his own two bare hands, whilst assembling his ark after cutting down numerous trees… all on his own? So you believe that a snake and a donkey could talk to humans? So you believe that sticks turned into snakes? And on and on and on… How does science even prove any of these claims to be true?

      The Bible has never been disproven. Not even the smallest part of it has. Not one sentence has ever been disproven, so why do you call it mythical?

      Negative. There are a plethora of logical contradictions within the texts and many of the books have been rewritten and altered to fit a certain doctrine. Which Bible and which edition should we trust?

      Like how the Bible declares that the Earth is round and that it hangs on nothing.

      Citation needed.

      Also, while I’m at it, there are many many prophecies that have come true and are coming true from the Bible.

      How do you know it’s *your* Bible that’s fulfiling these prophecies? What about the prophecies of other religions? Are you going to dismiss them as “mythical,” while backing your own? I don’t think the Muslims or Pagans would be very happy with this statement.

      So, where did we come from according to you all?

      I don’t know. I am not trying to prove anything to you; it is *you* who must provide evidence for your claims, which I to this day am not convinced of its alleged “harmony” with science and advanced logic.

      O that’s right, you all believe in Evolution. Lol, there’s no evidence for evolution you fools. If there is, I’d like to see some (Unless that is if you are talking about Micro Evolution).

      Saying that all atheists “believe” in evolution is a straw man. Not all atheists think alike — they have their own personal beliefs (just without “god” in the picture). And as far as there being no evidence for evolution, it is no less proven than creationism, which tells us that it took Yahweh 6 days to start and finish just the planet Earth… I thought he was omnipotent?

      Why would you believe that something can come from nothing if it can’t be done today?

      Where did Yahweh come from and how did he get here? How did he decide to just *one day* create the universe if all that existed was himself? And through that moment of no time flowing, it does not make sense that Yahweh just appears out of nowhere, if he even exists.

      “Look, man, some people say that God ain’t real ’cause they don’t see how a good God can exsist with all this evil in the world. If God is real then He should stop all this evil, ’cause He’s all-powerful right? What is evil though man? It’s anything that’s against God. It’s anything morally bad or wrong. It’s murder, rape, stealing, lying, cheating. But if we want God to stop evil, do we want Him to stop it all or just a little bit of it? If He stops us from doing evil things, what about lying, or what about our evil thoughts? I mean, where do you stop, the murder level, the lying level, or the thinking level? If we want Him to stop evil, we gotta be consistent, we can’t just pick and choose. That means you and I would be eliminated right? Because we think evil stuff. If that’s true, we should be eliminated! But thanks be to God that Jesus stepped in to save us from our sin! Christ died for all evilness! Repent, turn to Jesus man!”

      What you just wrote here is a total jumble of nonsense. You are saying that there is no other way around for a “perfect” deity like Yahweh to go around and protect us from evil but to send his son on a suicide mission, thus causing pathos to the sensitive audiences and converting to Christianity. If Yahweh can stop evil, then why not? And once evil is stopped, why can’t he make it so we don’t become “robots” as you fundies claim we’d be otherwise? Why does Yahweh just seem like a totally limited, useless, petty god?

      I find it fascinating and amazingly astounding that atheist claim that if God is real, there wouldn’t be evil in the world, but in the same breathe, eliminate the very one who can bring justice to the world. So atheist, is there no justice? Do you cause evil in the world?

      But then what would be the point of being a Christian if there is no “evil”? Christianity is a religion of fear; believe in Jesus or it’ll be too late.

      Here’s another question, what is “real” anyways? If to you real is only what your five senses can observe, than isn’t your definition of real nothing more than electronic impulses going off in your brain. So how do you know what’s truly there or not?

      Too bad Yahweh only exists in my “imaginary sense.”

      You all are laughable, you claim that Christians don’t know how to think for themselves, that they just go off of what they’ve been told.

      Irony.

      But I ask, how many of you have ever came up with your theories on your own, or do you just know what you were taught in school?

      I have my own theories, but I don’t go around pushing people or making threats on them if they don’t choose to think like myself. Your religion, however, is the opposite.

      Do you just blindly trust Darwin’s book, “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races In the Struggle for Life” And if you believe that book, then you believe that Humans and Bananas are related.

      I would rather “blindly” trust a book written by an honest thinker who didn’t dismiss certain theories if they contradicted religion than trust a book that contradicts itself (aka the Bible of Christianity). Also, do you even understand how evolution works?
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
      The only humans that have a thing in common with “bananas” are the religious fundamentalists.

      So I just wanna be clear real quick, I’m the one who believes in a silly story? Ok, gotchya, just making sure.

      Yep, you believe in all these extraordinary stories that lack extraordinary evidence. In no way do stories of sticks turning into snakes or an old man swimming all across the world (without any health abnormalities) to gather up animals for his ark which he made all by himself.

      As for this letter. Geez, someone must have really been disgruntled to write such a literary piece. First correct me if I’m wrong, but I sensed a bit of animosity when the author of this said, “that any non-believer who doesn’t repent will suffer eternal torture at the hands of a loving Father;” This author has obviously never read a Bible, or else they would know that while being loving, my God is just.

      I am pretty certain this person did read the Bible and was disgusted by its filthy words. Many people (including myself) left Christianity once we started reading the Bible more often. What does that say about yourself? More atheists are knowledgeable about the Bible itself than any Christian in existence.

      And as for the “just” claim, consider this (I love using this example to penetrate the illogical minds):
      Suppose there is a secular humanitarian who is helping out the children dying in most parts of the African continent. Now, suppose an angered fundamentalist Christian doesn’t like hearing what the humanitarian has to say about Jesus and the Bible, and goes on a murderous rampage. The humanitarian is shot dead, without a chance to repent. Eventually, this zealous Christian will realize what he had done was wrong, and beg Christ for forgiveness. OK, and assuming this murderer dies without any unforgiven sin, he will be welcomed to heaven by Yahweh — while the humanitarian is being repetitively roasted by Satan for the rest of eternity.

      Do you think Yahweh is “just,” even after all that had happened? How could you ever call this god a “just” god? Does he really value a sense of belonging to a submissive’s life over a secular charity worker who only wants to make this one (and only life anyone will ever have) better? If so, then your god is not “just” and instead is an arrogant, highly-jealous (jealousy leads to hatred) god.

      A righteous judge would at very least give you a fine. Well, if you were the judges kid, he might be willing to take off his robe and pay the fine for you. Which is exactly what Jesus did according to the Bible. Thus proving His “love.”

      But why all this need to send his own son to die on the cross (unless if it’s only for making the people in this day and age feel sympathetic and thus believe, just out of “pity”)? Yahweh is supposed to be “perfect”; certainly there could have been another way — because otherwise, Yahweh is not a “perfect” god that Christians make him out to be.

      So, you say that religion has a monopoly on morality. Question, where does morality come from then, what standard can you base morality on?

      That’s not the case. What the author writes is that the religion pushes people to become “moral,” out of fear. And as far as what standard we can base our morality on: we have to respect the rights of all other living beings, whether we agree with them or not. What religion tries to do is to *push* people into coming to their side by threatening them with things like “devils” and “hells” and all that manmade nonsense.

      And God doesn’t hat gays, he hates homosexuality. You see, if God loves, then he must hate.

      Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
      13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
      And he really is a hateful god. I don’t love him for hating the homosexuals. What’s wrong with a beautiful, refreshing thing called “love”? Why aren’t couples of the same sex allowed to express their feelings for each other? I am heterosexual myself, but I certainly respect their lifestyle. Christianity has none.

      BTW, you can choose who you fall in love with. For instance, when you were going through a time in your life known as the teen years. You searched for and picked out an identity for yourself. Rock fans became rockers, sports players became jocks, etc. Now, were any of these people born a rocker or a jock. No, they gradually became one based on the influences that they had in their life. So, if you have an influence in your life that tells you it’s ok to be gay, you will most likely accept it and make that your identity, and from your identity, you’ll choose who you love. For instance, most intelligent people have criteria that their significant other must check off before they are attracted to them.

      How can you even lump a certain sexuality with two human inventions? Plants can reproduce asexually and animals in nature have sex with whoever they like, regardless of their sexual organs. This has already been proven. Therefore, this block of text is just another big piece of turd you let out of your constipated bunghole.

      I conclude that you all reject Christianity simply, because you don’t like it. You have no rhyme or reason to reject except that you don’t like what it teaches. So you tell yourselves lies, like, it’s a myth, so that you can go on living in your apostasy. The only argument that I’ve ever really heard against Christianity is that, I’m smart, and you all are idiots. Or, I don’t like your religion, cuz I disagree with it’s definitions of right and wrong.” Well, I come to tell you that my Jesus is offensive, and if you be wise and you disagree with something the Bible says, I tell you, change your opinion. For it is the Bible that brings life. But you have no idea how to begin to understand that. I can go on and on, but I’m going to bring this to a close.

      *Yawn!*
      You need to get out more.

      One last argument. If I hear one more ignorant person say that Christianity is a crutch, I’m going to ignore it. You see, you all say that Christianity is a crutch for those who can’t face reality by themselves. I say atheism is a crutch for those who don’t like God and can’t face the realities of Hell by themselves. How does that sit in your pipe?

      If I hear one more ignorant comment from you saying that atheism is a “crutch,” I’m going to ignore it. And the threats of hell only add more to the hostility against religion. How does that sit in your pipe?

      I respect you all as much as I respect someone who believes that the Moon is made of cheese.

      You may not really believe that the moon is made of cheese, but your entire post is sure made of one.

      I hope that you’ve had as much fun reading this as I have writing it.

      I had fun picking your arguments and making you look even more like an idiot in public — I had a blast!!!

      O, and btw, lest you repent and believe, you will find yourself in a hot place called Hell. So when you get there, don’t say that I didn’t tell you.

      Bla bla bla…
      Fear Islamic and Hindu hells, bla bla bla…
      So when you get there, don’t say that I didn’t tell you.

      Thanks for reading and have a God blessed day! :)

      You too, my friend! Have a god-be-less day yourself! :)

    • NeuRoTiC
      December 22nd, 2010 at 02:54

      He’s climbin’ in your windows he’s snatching your people up
      Tryna make em stupid so y’all need to hide yo kids hide yo wife
      Hide yo kids hide yo wife hide yo kids hide yo wife
      And hide yo husband cause they’re makin’ errbody stupid

      You don’t have to come and confess we lookin’ for you
      We gon find you We gon find you
      So you can run and tell run and tell that
      Run and tell that, homeboy home, home, homeboy

      We got your comments you done left BS and all
      You are so dumb you are really dumb for real
      The man got away leaving behind evidence
      (and was attacked by some users of the blof)

      So dumb, so dumb, so dumb

      He’s climbin’ in your windows he’s makin’ your people dumb
      Tryna rape em so y’all need to hide yo kids hide yo wife
      Hide yo kids hide yo wife hide yo kids hide yo wife
      And hide yo husband cause they’re makin’ errbody stupid

      You don’t have to come and confess we lookin’ for you
      We gon find you We gon find you
      So you can run and tell run and tell that
      Run and tell that, homeboy home, home, homeboy

  15. J-Sea
    December 18th, 2010 at 22:04

    O what the hey, one more. You all claim that we’re being controlled and brainwashed by Christianity. That it’s controlling us and telling us what to think. That’s funny, cuz then you’d think that a government would try to use it. Isn’t it funny though that our government labels people that believe in the Constitution and are Christians as potential terrorist? Look that one up for yourselves…

  16. J-Sea
    December 18th, 2010 at 22:17

    Btw, if I were you, being as though you all don’t believe in an afterlife. I’d be more concerned with Muslims than I would Christians, because their Quran says that anyone who doesn’t believe in it is an infidel and they should die. Well friends, that would be you an me then. So why I just merely plead you to believe based on truth, these people threaten to take the only life you have. And you see, if you put the two of us together, they’ll take your life, and my belief will send you to Hell. Well, my belief has a way out of Hell, but you’re to good for that…

  17. 777truthbtold
    December 18th, 2010 at 22:50

    J-Sea, That was so well written, I think it would be the mature thing for any “intelligent” person to research the information you presented. I love our rights to freedom of speech. My fellow “Intelligent” friends, do yourself a favor and enlighten yourself by researching the information presented, it just might change your life.

    • December 19th, 2010 at 01:11

      meh.. we’re sick an tired of researching your crap. why don’t you take the time to research ours?

      • 777truthbtold
        December 20th, 2010 at 22:45

        I have, I came from your world, wasn’t convinced. I was also open minded and spent years in research.

  18. J-Sea
    December 18th, 2010 at 23:15

    Lots more where that came from :)

    • December 19th, 2010 at 01:08

      we don’t care. its the same refuted bullshit that could be easily refuted nowadays by linking you sheep to more detailed and in-depth blogs and articles, to save our keyboard some wear.

  19. J-Sea
    December 19th, 2010 at 00:01

    One more thing that I just had to share. You say that you don’t see anything wrong with homosexuality. Well, let’s take God out of this for a second. You claim atheism, which probably means you believe in Evolution. You claim their to be nothing wrong with homosexuality. What if everyone was a homo. Wouldn’t that be a “sin” against Evolution and humanity? We’d never have kids, and our race would die off of the face of the Earth. I’m sorry, but if it’s not ok for everyone to do, it’s not ok…

    • December 19th, 2010 at 01:12

      j-sea you’re a pathetic little xian troll aren’t u………………
      i made an account on ex-christian.net forums immediately after reading ur rubbish and posted under ur name, just to make u look like the douche that u are

    • Satan
      December 19th, 2010 at 01:32

      Animals do a 69 on another of the same sex. Was that productive? No. It’s just part of nature. This world is overpopulated the last thing we should worry about is the need to produce to keep our animal species alive. There is more than enough people wanting to settle down with families and kids, and worrying about human extinction at this time is pointless.

      There’s nothing wrong with homosexuality. They’re humans like the straight.

  20. Satan
    December 19th, 2010 at 01:26

    Not everyone on this site is an atheist. There’s a fact for you to ponder.

    • 777truthbtold
      December 20th, 2010 at 23:33

      Here is the deal. Everyone believes in natural law. This includes you “satan” wannabe. Although Satan himself would be pretty offended that someone would mock him by taking his name.

      So “satan” if you had a little daughter or son or sister or brother and some completely horrible stranger kidnaps them, rapes them and murders them would they bother you? It should if your a normal human being with a beating heart who loves and cares for your family.

      What do think this stranger deserves? What fine should he pay? And what would you want done to have peace in mind and also to prevent others from being harmed from this sicko?

      Most people would want justice to be paid. Although you personally could take this guy out by your own revenge and physical force you also have a family that cares about you and needs you that are alive and being that the law of the land would also punish you for punishing him the wise thing to do would be to seek justice through the legal way by the court system.

      You seek justice because whether you want to believe it or not your created in God’s image (who by the way also seeks justice to be paid for by a fine)

      This man who harmed your loved one deserves capital punishment (death).

      We all think we are a good person but in reality we aren’t. We want people to treat us nice but it all depends on how we treat them. You know the golden rule: “Do unto others as you would want them to do to you.”

      In reality we want others to treat us nice but we don’t treat them nice all the time.

      The world doesn’t revolve around us.

      The good person test:

      If I lie I am called a liar, If I stole something I am a thief, If I commit adulatory which Jesus took to a higher standard by saying “If you lust on a woman you have committed adulatory with her already in your heart.”

      Based on ones admission they would be a lying, thieving, adulterer and those are just three of the ten commandments.

      All major religions agree that it is wrong to lie, steal and commit adulatory.

      God has a higher standard.

      If you broke just one law you broke them all. It would be like if you were hanging on the side of a cliff with a chain preserving your life and someone comes up and cuts it (it doesn’t matter if they cut it in the middle, top or bottom, either way you are falling for your death) the chain snaps and you fall.

      Locally we have to follow the rules of the law of the land. For example by law we can’t speed and even though in our own free will we can choose to do what we want there is consequences for our actions.

      So if we just stole something from a convenient store, killed the owner and speed away we would suffer the consequences of our actions.

      When arrested and brought into court what would be our evidence to testify?

      That we were nice to people? That we helped habitat for humanity?

      Those things would be considered nothing when facing a judge.

      So if you say to the judge:

      “I did a lot of good things, I was nice to people, I volunteered for habitat for humanity.”

      Judge: “Your point is?”

      You: “I just want a second chance, I am really sorry.”

      Judge: “You should be sorry for what you did, but that doesn’t justify nor excuse what you have done, you must pay the fine!”

      Than there is an overall majority rule from the jury that you deserve death for murdering the owner.

      Your bail is way too much for anyone to afford.

      See this is how God looks at our situation and sin. He is the creator of the universe and the Holy Righteous Judge. We will face Him on the day of judgment and there is nothing we can do to escape it and His wrath to come. The same wrath you would have in the situation with your loved one.

      Say this local judge was your father, would this change the fact that he has to fulfill his duty as judge? Absolutely not!

      However as the judge being that he is your father and has compassion for you with grace and mercy he can take still fulfill his duty as judge but take off his robe (that identifies his position) and humble himself as your father to pay your fine.

      This is what God did for you in the person of Jesus Christ His only begotten Son.

      He loved you so much that He died for you on the Cross, bearing the impossible fine of the whole world including you.

      He rose on the third day and reigns as King of kings in Heaven on His throne.

      There are hundreds of thousands of prophecies about Him before He came to earth and He fulfilled them all. There is evidence inside and outside of the Bible for His existence.

      Also why do people keep dying throughout history for Jesus Christ?

      There are people over in China and India dying martyrs for their faith in Jesus Christ, He is real to them and real to me.

      The Bible is the only book that has been the most printed and read throughout history.

      No matter how hard no one can destroy it in this world.

      It prophesied over 2,000 years ago that Israel will become a nation again, its language will be restored, its military will have victory in war and so on. As you may know Israel was destroyed around 90 A.D. and the Jews were dispersed throughout the world. The land became desolate for over 1,000 years and the language died out.

      As a miracle over night in 1948 Israel became a nation again and the Jews returned to their land, the ancient language was restored and used, and they have won every battle.

      These are facts that can’t be ignored.

      There is a real Hell, an everlasting torment of weeping and gnashing of teeth, pain, fire and brimstone. What’s worse is you will want to die but will spend an eternity in this torment.

      Jesus said He will come like a thief in the night, when you least expect.

      You have a choice.

      Either chose to continue to live your short life and face a Holy God who will judge you, or repent and turn away from your sins and trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

      He is God in the flesh, God’s Son, who died for you on the cross and rose on the third day. One day every knee will bow.

      If you hate me for this you hated Him first.

      Someone on this website will read this and it will change their life.

      Whoever you are don’t be afraid of what everyone else on here thinks. When you die you won’t face them.

      Whoever calls me names, slanders me, or anything that is fine. You will not accomplish anything because it is already expected and will only make me stronger.

      I forgive you for you know not what you do.

      • December 21st, 2010 at 04:57

        Your post is chock full of fail but I will touch a few “points” you have put down:

        See this is how God looks at our situation and sin. He is the creator of the universe and the Holy Righteous Judge. We will face Him on the day of judgment and there is nothing we can do to escape it and His wrath to come. The same wrath you would have in the situation with your loved one.

        Ted Bundy raped and murdered women back when he was alive and at large. When they finally imprisoned him and sentenced him to death, he was given the chance to convert to Christianity (your religion) and he gladly took it to heart. So, he died and (according to Christianity) he went to “heaven” while his 18 or less murder victims are (again, according to Christianity) probably roasting in a place called “hell” as we speak. Now, was that a “fair” judgment carried out by Yahweh (assuming that only those who die with all their sins forgiven through Christ are allowed in)? Once someone seeks repentance, it doesn’t matter what they did in the past… but if you kill a secular humanitarian they will “burn in hell” as opposed to a sick piece of shit murderer getting the free pass to “heaven”? If I am “misunderstanding” your “point” of a “righteous” and “just” god then by all means, correct me. I have had experiences as a Christian and this was exactly the same garbage that was preached to me back in the days.

        There is a real Hell, an everlasting torment of weeping and gnashing of teeth, pain, fire and brimstone. What’s worse is you will want to die but will spend an eternity in this torment.

        That’s right, because if it wasn’t for this silly threat Christianity would have been long extinct by now. Also, it is this very *fear* that has tormented the lives of many and caused a great deal of stress and anxiety towards the people who believed/believe in this garbage. You know why so many people left Christianity? It’s because of the threats of “hell.” Finally, if such a place even exists then how are you certain that you, as a Christian, will end up there? What if Islam is the truth? What if Hinduism is the truth? Sure, you’ll dismiss them all as nothing more than “myths” or “false stories,” but the same could be said about your buybull. The burden of proof is on the ones making up these extraordinary claims. I would like to see proof of a “hell” existing and no, I don’t need more religious trolls spewing out more scriptural nonsense at this time of year when they’re celebrating a bastardized pagan holiday.

        Either chose to continue to live your short life and face a Holy God who will judge you, or repent and turn away from your sins and trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

        Who said anything about a short life? These days more and more people are alive, thanks to the advancements of science and technology. Christianity has done nothing but to put people living a life of fear. By the way, what if you’re wrong? And as far as the “what’s there to lose?” argument goes, go say that to a strict Muslim in the face.

        • 777truthbtold
          December 21st, 2010 at 15:07

          Greenworld, before I respond to your responses on my post I would like for you to come up with a rebuttal to something I said:

          “It prophesied over 2,000 years ago that Israel will become a nation again, its language will be restored, its military will have victory in war and so on. As you may know Israel was destroyed around 90 A.D. and the Jews were dispersed throughout the world. The land became desolate for over 1,000 years and the language died out.

          As a miracle over night in 1948 Israel became a nation again and the Jews returned to their land, the ancient language was restored and used, and they have won every battle.”

          Please explain this one away, that is if you can.

          • Andre
            December 21st, 2010 at 16:59

            Coincidence.
            Done.

          • Satan
            December 21st, 2010 at 17:03

            Not proof your retarded god exists. Many religions have their ancient prophecies fulfilled. It’s the sheep following the religions doing all the dirty work and their deity(ies) get all the credit for it.

            Come again?

          • December 21st, 2010 at 17:19

            Others beat me to it.
            Now answer mine.

          • Hal
            December 21st, 2010 at 20:10

            Actually, this is the reason your “prophecy” is being apparently fulfilled,

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917

            The location was chosen because of the scriptural references (in the torah, before the bible).

      • Satan
        December 21st, 2010 at 16:55

        A wannabe is a man not walking the walk he talks.

        • 777truthbtold
          December 21st, 2010 at 18:13

          You must not be talking about me considering you don’t know me and haven’t seen me so on what grounds would that evidence be? The true Satan isn’t Omnipresent anyway.

  21. Satan
    December 21st, 2010 at 17:20

    Satan has shown his true colors
    He is not “red” as most people would want to think
    Satan is a humanitarian and an environmentalist
    He helps the poor and cuts down on fuel
    A HUGE percentage of the money he is given goes straight to charities and other eco organizations
    Man, what an evil thing
    He’s not welcome in “heaven” because yahweh is jealous that satan doesn’t believe in him
    Yahweh is a JEALOUS god who cares about nothing but attention
    If you don’t believe in him then he’ll get mad
    He doesn’t like the fact that he can’t have it his way
    So he’ll go to great lengths and tell you that you are “worthless” and “deserve to burn in hell”
    He won’t accept you in “heaven,” which is a place of never-ending worship services
    Once you’re in “heaven,” “free will” is no longer allowed
    You will be a robot told what to do and how to do it
    Otherwise you will be cast out
    Because you can’t “sin” in “heaven”

    By: Greenworld

  22. 777truthbtold
    December 21st, 2010 at 18:06

    Andre :Coincidence.
    Done.

    Nice way to throw in the towel.

  23. 777truthbtold
    December 21st, 2010 at 18:08

    Satan :Not proof your retarded god exists. Many religions have their ancient prophecies fulfilled. It’s the sheep following the religions doing all the dirty work and their deity(ies) get all the credit for it.
    Come again?

    This isn’t about proof in the moment, this is whether you can agree with facts or not using logic. How do you explain that something was written over 2,000 years ago and becomes fulfilled?

    • Satan
      December 21st, 2010 at 20:30

      I just did.

  24. 777truthbtold
    December 21st, 2010 at 18:09

    Greenworld :Others beat me to it.
    Now answer mine.

    It is not a sufficient answer, its just a blanket statement, try again.

    • December 21st, 2010 at 19:03

      No thanks.
      Why don’t you answer my previous rebuttals instead of just ignoring them? I will not respond to any other TL;DR posts of yours until you respond to mine first.

  25. 777truthbtold
    December 21st, 2010 at 18:20

    “Christians are bad people”

    So called religious wars and atrocities that go against the teachings of Jesus:
    (These include the Crusades, Spanish inquisition and burning of witches)
    2,000,000 (best estimate)

    Wars and atrocities from just 2 atheist regimes:
    (Stalin & Mao)
    60,000,000 (recorded fact)

    Wars and atrocities having nothing to do with religion:
    (In just the 20th and 21st centuries since Darwinism was born)
    318,685,000 (recorded fact)

    I believe this statement by English Journalist, Steve Turner sums it up, sadly, all too well:

    We believe that all religions are basically the same-
    at least the one that we read was.
    They all believe in love and goodness.
    They only differ on matters of creation,
    sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

    “If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky, and when you hear
    State of Emergency! Sniper Kills Ten! Troops on Rampage! Whites go Looting! Bomb Blasts School!
    It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.”

  26. 777truthbtold
    December 21st, 2010 at 18:22

    Authority and authenticity of the Bible:

    The Jewish historian Josephus as well as the secular Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius all bear record of the person of Jesus. The Talmud and the Koran both attest to the person of Jesus. Historian Gary Habermas, has detailed 39 ancient sources outside of the bible that provide further corroboration for more than 100 facts about Jesus life, teachings, death and resurrection.

    The Bible is replete with evidence of the supernatural elements that were testable, and also of God’s pervading involvement with history past, present and future. In no other religion were the authors of the scriptures supernaturally confirmed with miracles. And no other religion than Christianity has a Savior that was foretold with unbelievable precision. Even the most liberal critics admit that the prophetic books were completed some 400 years before Christ, and the book of Daniel by about 167 B.C. The Old Testament contains scores of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah.

    Professor Peter Stoner, along with 600 students, calculated the mathematical probability of just 8 New Testament prophecies being fulfilled in any one person at one chance in a hundred million billion. No other book (religious or otherwise) offers anything that can compare with these supernatural predictions.

    Barton Payne’s Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy list 191 on them, while Oxford scholar Alfred Edersheim cites 400. Major predictions about the Messiah, all of which were fulfilled in Jesus, was that he would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), of the seed of Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 22:18), of the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10), of the house of David (II Sam 7:12-16), in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2); He would be heralded by the Lord’s messenger (Isaiah 40:3); He would cleanse the temple (Malachi 3:1); He would be “cut off” 483 years after the declaration to reconstruct Jerusalem in 444 B.C. (Daniel 9:24-27); He would be rejected (Psalm 118:22); He would have his hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16); He would be pierced in His side (Zechariah 12:10); He would rise from the dead (Psalm 16:10); He would ascend into Heaven (Psalm 68:18); and He would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1).

    —–

    There are over 25,000 pieces of archeology supporting the bible including:
    Biblical sites, cities, empires, artifacts, weapons, raw material and more on record which have been located and verified using the scriptures as a guide. In fact many biblical cites still exist today.
    
    Archaeology has corroborated the essential reliability of the New Testament. Time after time, when incidental details of the New Testament can be checked out, they emerge as being accurate. For instance, John 5:1-15 describes how Jesus healed an invalid by the pool at Bethesda, which John describes as having 5 porticoes. And recently the pool was excavated and scientists discovered 5 porticoes or colonnaded porches just as John described.

    Luke, who wrote one-quarter of the New Testament, has been found to be a scrupulously accurate historian, even in the smallest details. One archeologist carefully studied Luke’s references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands, finding not a single error. “The general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as an historian,” said archeologist John McRay. The authorship of Matthew and Mark was affirmed by Papias in 125 A.D. Then Irenaeus confirmed this in 180 A.D.

    The New Testament also features letters by the apostle Paul that are dated as early as A.D. 49. His high Christology – that Jesus is God and the Lord of Heaven and Earth – does not evolve through his various writings and thus “must have been largely completed before he began his great missionary journeys…that is, by A.D. 48,” stated J. P. Moreland, Professor at the Talbot School of Theology.

    Archaeologists have uncovered more than 5000 ancient New Testament Greek manuscripts, with fragments dating back as early as the 2nd century. Counting Latin Vulgate manuscripts and others, the total is 24,000 manuscripts in existence. Next to the New Testament, the greatest manuscript evidence for any other ancient work is for Homer’s Iliad, of which there are fewer than 650 copies that come a full thousand years after the original writing.

    Not only is 100% of all the major truth and the vast majority of minor truth of Scripture preserved in the manuscripts we have (and in the translations based on them), but more than 99% of the original text can be reconstructed from the manuscripts we posses. The reason is twofold: (1) we have thousands of manuscripts, and (2) we have early manuscripts. The proximity to the original text and the multiplicity of the manuscripts enable textual scholars to accurately reconstruct the original text with more than 99% accuracy. Renowned Greek scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon affirmed that all manuscripts agree on the essential correctness of 99% of the verses in the New Testament. Another noted Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, said the real concerns of textual criticism is on “a thousandth part of the entire text” making the New Testament 99.9 percent pure.

    —–

    Strictly speaking the gospels are anonymous. However, the uniform testimony of the early church was that Matthew, the tax collector and 1 of the 12 disciples, was the author of the first Gospel in the New testament: John Mark, a companion of the disciple Peter, wrote the Gospel we call Mark; and Luke, known as Paul’s “beloved physician,” wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. And there are no known competitors for these 3 gospels. While the name of the author of the fourth Gospel isn’t in doubt – it is certainly John – there was a question concerning whether this was John the apostle or a different John. Professor Craig Bloomberg stated that he is convinced that “a substantial majority of the material goes back to the apostle,” although someone closely associated with John may have acted as an editor, “putting the last verses into shape and potentially creating the stylistic uniformity of the entire document.” In any event, he emphasized, “the Gospel is obviously based on eyewitness material, as are the other 3 Gospels.”

    Significantly, there is no evidence from the first century that the authorship of the Gospels was ever in doubt. In fact, if authorship was going to be invented, certainly names of prominent apostles such as Peter or James would have been used in an attempt to bolster credibility rather than to attribute the Gospels to Mark and Luke, who weren’t even among the 12 disciples, and Matthew, who was formerly a hated tax collector.

    In reality, far from being contradictory, the Gospels are clearly complementary. Throughout the centuries, countless bible scholars have attested to the fact. Had all the Gospels writers said the same thing in the exact same way, they could have been legitimately questioned on the grounds of collusion. Paul’s writings in Galatians, where he describes meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem and confirming that his message of Christ’s deity was correct, coupled with an extremely early creed about the resurrection found in 1 Corinthians 15, demonstrate that belief in a divine, risen Jesus was in existence within just a few years after his death.

    “In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.” ~ Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum and author of The Palaeography of Greek Papyri.

    Former atheist skeptic Lee Strobel subjected the Gospels to 8 tests they might face in a court of law – the intention test, the character test, the consistency test, the bias test, the cover-up test, the corroboration test and the adverse witness test – to determine whether they could be considered trustworthy. His verdict was that their essential reliability is beyond serious doubt. As an example, just because the Gospels take a different perspective in describing events does not mean the are irreconcilable. Matthew say there was one angel at Jesus tomb, while John say there were two. Matthew did not say there was only one. John was providing more detail by saying there were two.

    After studying the consistency amount the four Gospels, Simon Greenleaf of Harvard Law School, the 19th centuries greatest expert on legal evidence, concluded: “There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction.”

    Even the once-doubting Sir Lionel Luckhoo, identified by the Guinness Book of World Records as the most successful attorney in the world, concluded after an exhaustive analysis of the evidence for Christ’s resurrection, “I say unequivocally that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leave absolutely no room for doubt.”

  27. 777truthbtold
    December 21st, 2010 at 18:22

    Faith and science p1:

    First one has to know that atheism in its classical sense in self-defeating. One cannot affirm a negative in the absolute. It is akin to saying that I have infinite knowledge in order to say that there is no one with infinite knowledge. Therefore God’s non-existence in unprovable thus the burden of proof that God does not exist rests with the atheists and not the theists. That being said there is innumerable evidence for the existence of God.

    If the only statements that are true are statements that can be verified empirically, then the principle of verification itself would fail the test because of it’s own premise, “only those statements that can be empirically verified have any meaning,” cannot be empirically verified.

    Where is the evidence that religious faith is not based on evidence?

    It is rather ironical that in the 16th century some people resisted advances in science because they seemed to threaten belief in God; whereas in the 20th century scientific ideas of a beginning have been resisted because they threatened to increase the plausibility of belief in God.

    Philosophers of science during the 2nd half of the 20th century came to realize that the whole scientific enterprise is based on certain assumptions that cannot be proved scientifically, but are guaranteed by the Christian worldview: for example, the laws of logic, the orderly nature of the external world, the reliability of our cognitive faculties in knowing the world, the validity of inductive reasoning and the objectivity of the moral values used in science. Science could not even exist without these assumptions, and yet these assumptions cannot be proved scientifically. They are philosophical assumptions, which, interestingly, are part and parcel of a Christian worldview. Thus, theology is an ally to science in that it can furnish a conceptual framework in which science can exist. More than that, the Christian religion historically furnished the conceptual framework in which modern science was born and nurtured.

    “It has to be admitted that of course science grew out of a religious tradition.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)

    “Science, the system of belief founded securely on publicly shared reproducible knowledge, emerged from religion.” ~ Peter Atkins Professor of Chemistry at Oxford (atheist)

    Nothing existed prior to the singularity, for it is the edge of physical space and time. It therefore represents the origin, not only of all matter and energy, but also of physical space and time themselves. Physicist John Barrow and Frank Tipler observed, “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the universe originated in such a singularity, we would truly have a creation out of nothing.”

    There can be no natural, physical cause of the Big Bang event, since, in Philosopher Quentin Smith’s words, “It belongs analytically to the concept of the cosmological singularity that it is not the effect of prior physical events. The definition of a singularity …entails that it is impossible to extend the space time manifold beyond the singularity….This rules out the idea that the singularity is an effect of some prior natural process.”

    The history of 20th century cosmology has been the history of the repeated falsification of such non-standard theories and the corroboration of the big bang theory. It has been the overwhelming verdict of the scientific community that none of these alternative theories are superior to the big bang theory. Again and again models aimed at averting the prediction of the standard model of an absolute beginning of the universe have been shown to be either untenable or not to avert the beginning after all. For example, in some such theories, like the oscillating universe or the chaotic inflationary universe, while the universes posited do have a potentially infinite future, they turn out to have only a finite past. Vacuum fluctuation universe theories cannot explain why, if the vacuum was eternal, we do not observe an infinity old universe.

    In regards to the “many worlds” hypothesis first we need to realize that it is no more scientific and no less metaphysical than a “cosmic designer” hypothesis. As quantum physicist John Polkinghorne stated, “People try to trick out a “many universe” account in sort of pseudo-scientific terms, but that is pseudo-science. It is a metaphysical guess that there might be many universes with different laws and circumstances.” But as a metaphysical hypothesis, that many worlds hypothesis is arguably inferior to the design hypothesis because the design hypothesis is simpler. According to Ockham’s Razor, we should not multiply causes beyond what is necessary to explain the effect. But it is simpler to postulate one cosmic designer to explain our universe that to postulate the infinitely bloated and contrived collection of universes required by the many worlds hypothesis. Therefore, the design hypothesis is to be preferred.

    Second, there is no known way of generating a world ensemble. No one has been able to explain how or why such a varied collection of universes should exist. Moreover, the attempts that have been made require fine-tuning themselves. For example, although some cosmologists appeal to so-called inflationary theories of the universe to generate a world ensemble, the only consistent inflationary model is Linde’s chaotic inflationary theory, and it requires fine-tuning to start the inflation.

    Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame University noted, that if every possible universe exists then there must be a universe in which God exists, since his existence is logically possible. It then follows that, since God is omnipotent, He must exist in every universe and hence there is only one universe, this universe, of which He is the Creator and Upholder.

    *****

    noun: loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person (“Keep the faith”)
    noun: complete confidence in a person or plan etc (“He cherished the faith of a good woman”)
    noun: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
    noun: institution to express belief in a divine power

    The word faith comes from the Latin fides (fee-days) from which we get fidelity. It’s basic meaning is belief, trust; that which produces belief evidence. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority. Thus the words faith, belief and trust mean essentially the same. Of course they are only justified if there is hard evidence to back it up.

    There seems to be a great misunderstanding about faith. First, faith that is not based on evidence is called blind faith and the Bible never asks for blind faith. There are many many question and answer sessions in the Bible. Second, in order to have faith in someone or something it must first exist. To have faith in a loved one that does not exist would be strange indeed.
    
    Naturalism is based on the faith that all phenomena can be explained naturalistically since it must of necessity use faith to postulate that it’s origin can be explained someday.

    At the heart of science lies the conviction that the universe has an inherent order that is intelligible.

    The irony of the atheistic position appears when we ask where our human faculty of reason comes from. It hold that our human cognitive faculties were produced by purely naturalistic mechanisms that were not concerned with truth but with survival. But if the thoughts in my mind are just the motions of atoms in my brain, a mechanism that has itself arisen by mindless unguided processes, why should I believe anything it tells me including the fact that it is made of atoms?

    “Reducing thought to Neurophysiology spells an end to rationality and truth.” ~ Dr John Lennox MA PhD DPhil Dsc Mathematics Professor at Oxford

    It’s a high price to pay for atheism.

    Therefore, atheism gives no logical justification for the conviction common to all scientists (atheists included) that science can even be done. It undermines the very rationality that we need to construct an argument or understand an argument of any kind. However, theism does provide the necessary basis. The rational intelligibility of the universe points to a rational creator. And it was that conviction that was the powerful motor that drove the rise of modern science in the 16th and 17th centuries.

    “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature. And they expected law in nature because they believed in a law giver.” ~ C.S. Lewis

    Belief in God, far from hindering the great pioneers of science, was their deepest motivation.

    Science did not put the universe in place. I hope you have noticed that. Nor does science explain how it came to be.
    To think that as the reach of our theories and instruments increases, the greatness of God the creator is somehow diminished is to make a childish mistake of confusing law and mechanism on the one hand with agency on the other.

    To say that we have to choose between God and science is like saying that we have to choose between the laws of internal combustion and Henry Ford. The existence of a mechanism is not itself an argument for the non-existence of an agent who designed the mechanism. As for an intelligent creator, a building does not emerge from the bricks nor the writing from the paper and ink without the injection of both energy and intelligent activity.

    God is not a God of the gaps invented to fill a space in our knowledge. The evidence for God lies mainly in the things we do understand, not in the things we don’t. So when Newton discovered his wonderful laws of motion he didn’t say I know how it works I don’t need God. What he did do was to write the most brilliant treatise in the history of science dedicating it to the thinking person in the hope that they would come to believe in a rational creator. Which is very different than the flavor which is presented to us today.

  28. 777truthbtold
    December 21st, 2010 at 18:23

    Faith and science p2:

    The present favored candidate for a GUT is superstring theory, but accepting its ideas depends upon believing that theorists, on the basis of mathematical considerations alone, can second-guess the character of nature at a level of detail more than ten thousand million million times smaller than anything of which we have direct empirical evidence.
    One may well feel that this act of faith by the physicists is a reflection of a trust, doubtless often unconsciously entertained, in the consistency of the one God whose will is the origin of the order of the created universe.

    “The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious, and there is no rational explanation for it… it is an article of faith.” ~ Eugene Wigner, Nobel Laureate in Physics

    “The belief that there are indeed dependable regularities [the sun will rise each day] of nature – is an act of faith, but one which is indispensable to the progress of science.” ~ Theoretical physicist Paul Davies

    “Science does not explain the mathematical intelligibility of the physical world, for it is part of science’s founding faith that this is so.” ~ John Polkinghorn, Professor of Quantum Physics at Cambridge

    “Physics is powerless to explain its faith in the mathematical intelligibility of the universe for the simple reason that you’ve got to believe in the intelligibility of the universe before you can do any physics at all.” ~ John Polkinghorn, Professor of Quantum Physics at Cambridge

    And Einstein said that he could not image a physicist who did not posses “such faith”.

    “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…” ~ Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin

    “It seems as though someone has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the universe… The impression of design is overwhelming.” ~ Theoretical physicist Paul Davies

    “Biology, is the study of complicated things which give the impression of having been designed for a purpose.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)

    “Living objects… look designed, they look overwhelmingly as though they’re designed.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)

    “We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully “designed” to have come into existence by chance.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)

    “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.” Palaeontologist Jun-Yuan Chen

    Atheists use evolution to extrapolate macro changes from micro changes. Yet in meaning and purpose they reverse the idea and postulate that there are only micro meanings with no meta-narrative.

    Advancements of science done on atheistic presuppositions will lead to the same results as advancements of science done on theistic presuppositions.

    *****

    What the blunder of Galileo was to the church, the Piltdown man was to evolution.

    {Biology & evolution}

    There is no genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.

    There is nothing in any precise concept of the gene that allows a set of biochemicals to create anything at all. If no precise concept of the gene is at issue, the idea that we are created by our genes, body and mind, represents a far less plausible thesis then the correlative doctrine that we are created by our Maker, body and mind.

    Natural selection is not creative. It is a “weeding out process” that leaves the stronger progeny. The stronger progeny must already be there; it is not produced by natural selection. Selection is made from already existing entities. It has no innovative capacity; it eliminates or maintains what exists. And natural selection does not cause a mutation. That occurs by chance.

    Biological evolution (whatever its extent) requires a fine-tuned universe in which to occur so that no arguments about the nature or status of evolution can undermine the arguments for an intelligent designer.

    The assertion that natural selection has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt must be judged for what it is: it is the ecclesiastical bull of a most peculiar church, a cousin in kind to an ecclesiastical bluff.

    Geneticist Michael Denton states that molecular biology has shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore, no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.
    This view is supported by Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod, whom Denton cites. “We have no idea what the structure of a primitive cell might have been. The simplest living system known to us, the bacterial cell…in its overall chemical plan is the same as that of all other living beings. It employs the same genetic code and the same mechanism of translation as do, for example, human cells. Thus the simplest cells available to us for study have nothing “primitive” about them…No vestiges of truly primitive structures are discernible.
    Robert Wesson, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, California put it this way, “Large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any.” By contrast, micro-evolutionary variations due to mutation and natural selection have been and are observed.

  29. 777truthbtold
    December 21st, 2010 at 18:23

    Faith and science p3:

    Molecular biologist Michael Denton stated that even the tiniest of bacterial cells, weighing less than a trillionth of a gram, is “a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of 100 thousand atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.”

    Many would say that micro-evolution cannot bear the weight that is often put on it. Recent work on the E coli bacterium back this up. In this research no real innovation changes were observed through 25,000 generations of E. coli bacteria. Biochemist Micheal Behe pointed out that now more than 30,000 generations of E. coli have been studied, equivalent to about 1 million human years, and the net result is that evolution has produced in his words, “Mostly devolution. Although some marginal details of some systems have changed during that thirty thousand generations, the bacterium has repeated thrown away chunks of its genetic patrimony, including the ability to make some of the building blocks of RNA. Apparently throwing away sophisticated but costly molecular machinery saves the bacterium energy. Nothing of remotely similar elegance has been built. The lesson of E. coli is that it’s easier for evolution to break things than to make things.”

    Since all species are in transition due to natural selection, the very term “transitional fossil” is essentially a misconception. But this also is a misconception as there is not even one complete transitional fossil record.

    The biological evolutionary facts that fall outside the margins of Darwin’s theory include, “the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of virus; archaea and bacteria, and the principle lineages within in each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla.” ~ Eugene Koonin – National Center for Biotechnology
    That is, pretty much everything.
    Koonin goes on to say, “In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principle ‘types’ seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate ‘grades’ or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”

    “The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” ~ Emile Zuckerkandl – biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution)
    The phrase eluded analysis conveys a current of intellectual optimism at odds with the facts. Something that has so far eluded analysis can hardly be assigned to a force that has so far eluded demonstration.

    “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology.” ~ Professor Stephen Jay Gould (atheist)

    “We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change] knowing all the while it does not.” ~ Niles Eldridge ~ American Museum of Natural History

    “I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil [a fossil which is ancestral or transitional] for which one could make a watertight argument.” ~ Colin Patterson, FRS

    “Evolution is accepted by zoologists, not because it is observed to occur or… can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” ~ Professor D.M.S Watson

    Robert Wesson, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, California put it this way, “Large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any.” By contrast, micro-evolutionary variations due to mutation and natural selection have been and are observed.

    A detailed and continuous record of transition between species is missing. Robert Carroll observed quite correctly that “most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account” of evolution. But a “ strictly gradualistic” account is precisely what Darwin’s theory demands: It is the heart and soul of the theory.

    *****

    “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason.” ~ Physicist Steven Hawking
    While Mr Hawking’s statement on religion is wrong, it is interesting to state that science is based on observation when evolution (macro) has never been observed.

    To use the anthropic principle against the inference of design is a false logic in two ways. All the anthropic principle does is to tell us that for life to exist, certain necessary conditions must be fulfilled. But what it does not tell us is why those necessary conditions are fulfilled, nor how, granted they are fulfilled, life arose. This would be to make an elementary mistake of thinking that necessary conditions are sufficient. But they are not; in order to get a first class degree at a university it is necessary to first get into the university; but, as many students know, it is certainly not sufficient. The anthropic principle far from giving an explanation of the origin of life, is an observation that gives rise to the need for such an explanation.

  30. 777truthbtold
    December 21st, 2010 at 18:24

    Jesus among other gods (rough draft):

    In the cross of Christ is presented the Christian counter-perspective to every other worldview. Only in the Christian world-view does love precede life. No other God has scares. No other God died and rose again to provide a way to life eternal in fellowship in heaven.

    The cross uniquely reveals not a God who is taciturn and disengaged from the human scene but a God who is right in the middle of our conflicts and struggles. This is not the Buddhist notion of retreating from the real world through monastic self-renunciation or of counteracting with good to offset the ever-present evil. This is not the Hindu notion of a pantheon of gods whose lives so transcend this earthly domain as to be wedded to myth inextricably. Nor is this the Islamic concept that endeavors to build an earthly kingdom by whatever means it takes, even the sword. This is the very incarnation, the embodiment of the Everlasting One, to communicate to a world that hungers for relational bliss and that yearns for a love so supreme that all else may be expelled – and yet a world that convulses with fractured kinships.

    The difference between man-made utopias and a God-made heaven is the cross.

    *******************

    Jesus never sought political office nor asked for money or fame. In fact He stated that “My kingdom is not of this world…”

    {Origins}

    Though there have been many gods throughout history they have all fallen by the wayside as there is no evidence for them. That is why only the Judea-Christian God remains the most evidence based. And though there are many other gods and religions they can only try to provide some of the answers for life’s questions of origin, meaning, morality, destiny and the origin of evil. Only in Christianity can all of these questions be answered. For example, Hindus and Buddhists have no answer for the origin of life as every birth is a rebirth. Not to mention that pantheism borders on panpsychism. They also have no answer for the origin of evil (no it is not Satan). And only in the God of the Bible has life been given intrinsic value, autonomy and free-will.

    {Prophecies}

    In no other religion were the authors of the scriptures supernaturally confirmed with miracles. And no other religion than Christianity has a Savior that was foretold with unbelievable precision. Even the most liberal critics admit that the prophetic books were completed some 400 years before Christ, and the book of Daniel by about 167 B.C.

    Professor Peter Stoner, along with 600 students, calculated the mathematical probability of just 8 New Testament prophecies being fulfilled in any one person at one chance in a hundred million billion. No other religious book offers anything that can compare with these supernatural predictions.

    The Old Testament contains scores of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Barton Payne’s Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy list 191 on them, while Oxford scholar Alfred Edersheim cites 400. Major predictions about the Messiah, all of which were fulfilled in Jesus, was that he would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), of the seed of Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 22:18), of the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10), of the house of David (II Sam 7:12-16), in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2); He would be heralded by the Lord’s messenger (Isaiah 40:3); He would cleanse the temple (Malachi 3:1); He would be “cut off” 483 years after the declaration to reconstruct Jerusalem in 444 B.C. (Daniel 9:24-27); He would be rejected (Psalm 118:22); He would have his hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16); He would be pierced in His side (Zechariah 12:10); He would rise from the dead (Psalm 16:10); He would ascend into Heaven (Psalm 68:18); and He would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1).

    The Jewish historian Josephus as well as the secular Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius all bear record of the person of Jesus. The Talmud and the Koran both attest to the person of Jesus. Historian Gary Habermas, has detailed 39 ancient sources outside of the bible that provide further corroboration for more than 100 facts about Jesus life, teachings, death and resurrection.

    {The Resurrection}

    1.) Buried by Joseph of Aramathea (member of the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus). Therefore the tomb was known by both Jew and Christian alike and it would have been impossible to proclaim the resurrection if the body was still in the tomb.
    2.) It is mentioned by both Paul, in Corinthians, and verified by Mark.
    3.) There are no other independent burial stories. If it was a legend one would expect competing legend accounts.
    4.) The disciples did not go the easy route and say that He would spiritually rise again. They went the hard route and said that He would bodily rise again.
    5.) The empty tomb was found by women. If the story was fabricated they would not use women as their testimonies were considered worthless back then.
    6.) The earliest Jewish polemic presupposed the empty tomb.
    7.) Jewish authorities said the disciples came and stole away the body showing that the tomb was empty.
    8.) Why would the apostles become martyrs for a character that they just made up?
    9.) Over 500 individuals, groups, skeptics and even enemies saw Jesus alive after His death in multiple locations. There is a list of eye-witnesses given by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians.
    10.) Appearance traditions (informations) are confirmed in the gospel accounts of the appearance stories so that again you have multiple attestations of these appearances.

    Thus, even the skeptical German New Testament critic Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”

    {Exclusivity}

    Christianity is not the only religion that makes exclusivistic claims.
    Hinduism has the caste system which excludes the lower class. Buddhism was born from rejecting the Vedas and the caste system. Islam rejects all other religions.

    ***********************************************************

    {The Apostles and disciples made up Jesus}

    The Jewish historian Josephus as well as the secular Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius all bear record of the person of Jesus. The Talmud and the Koran both attest to the person of Jesus. Historian Gary Habermas, has detailed 39 ancient sources outside of the bible that provide further corroboration for more than 100 facts about Jesus life, teachings, death and resurrection.

    If the Apostles and disciples made up Jesus, the question is why?

    To tell the world that God loves us?
    To tell the world that God wants everyone to go to heaven?
    To tell the world that God loves them so much that He sent His son to die for them?
    To tell the world that God provided a way to heaven?
    To tell the world that our lies, greed, betrayals and more can be forgiven through true repentance?
    To tell us that we should love our enemies?

    The Apostles and disciples would have all had to been born very close to 800 years after Isaiah’s prophecy in Isaiah 9:6
    The Apostles and disciples would have all had to been born very close to 483 years after the declaration to reconstruct Jerusalem in 444 B.C. (Daniel 9:24-27)
    The Apostles would have all had to have been willing to die a martyrs death for someone they made up.

    If Jesus never existed, who was the older brother of James?
    If Jesus never existed, who was James a skeptic of?
    If Jesus never existed, who did John the Baptist baptize?
    If Jesus never existed, who were the leaders asking questions to?
    If Jesus never existed, who taught in the synagogs?
    If Jesus never existed, who were the apostles following?
    If Jesus never existed, who were the disciples asking questions to?
    If Jesus never existed, who did the Jews want to stone?
    If Jesus never existed, who kept the people from stoning the adulteress woman?
    If Jesus never existed, who talked with the woman at the well?
    If Jesus never existed, who fed the 4000?
    If Jesus never existed, who fed the 5000?
    If Jesus never existed, who was Nicodemus talking to?
    If Jesus never existed, whose feet did Mary Magdalene wipe with her ointment?
    If Jesus never existed, who did satan tempt?
    If Jesus never existed, who cast out the demons that went into the swine?
    If Jesus never existed, who did the apostles have the last supper with?
    If Jesus never existed, who did Judas betray?
    If Jesus never existed, who did the disciples forsake and flee from?
    If Jesus never existed, who did Peter deny 3 times before the cock crew?
    If Jesus never existed, who was Pilot talking to at his “trial”?
    If Jesus never existed, of whom did Pilot wash his hands?
    If Jesus never existed, why did Pilot release Barabbas?
    If Jesus never existed, who was beaten publicly with the cat of 9 tales?
    If Jesus never existed, whose cross did Simon carry?
    If Jesus never existed, which of Mary’s sons was crucified with the 2 malefactors?
    If Jesus never existed, whose son was Mary crying for on the cross?
    If Jesus never existed, of whom did the centurion say, “Truly this was the Son of God.”?
    If Jesus never existed, whose tomb were the soldiers guarding?
    If Jesus never existed, who were the men talking to on the road to Emmaus?
    If Jesus never existed, who did Thomas doubt?
    Why did the apostles die a martyr’s death for someone who never existed?

    2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

  31. 777truthbtold
    December 21st, 2010 at 18:25

    slight addition to Jesus among other gods:

    Professor Peter Stoner, along with 600 students, calculated the mathematical probability of just 8 (of the more than 200) New Testament prophecies being fulfilled in any one person at one chance in a hundred million billion. No other religious book offers anything that can compare with these supernatural predictions.

  32. thinkingrational3
    December 21st, 2010 at 19:13

    Archaeology and History Attest to the Reliability of the Bible

    By Richard M. Fales, Ph.D.

    No other ancient book is questioned or maligned like the Bible. Critics looking for the flyspeck in the masterpiece allege that there was a long span between the time the events in the New Testament occurred and when they were recorded. They claim another gap exists archaeologically between the earliest copies made and the autographs of the New Testament. In reality, the alleged spaces and socalled gaps exist only in the minds of the critics. Manuscript Evidence.

    Aristotle’s Ode to Poetics was written between 384 and 322 B.C. The earliest copy of this work dates A.D. 1100, and there are only forty-nine extant manuscripts. The gap between the original writing and the earliest copy is 1,400 years. There are only seven extant manuscripts of Plato’s Tetralogies, written 427–347 B.C. The earliest copy is A.D. 900—a gap of over 1,200 years. What about the New Testament? Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30. The New Testament was written between A.D. 48 and 95. The oldest manuscripts date to the last quarter of the first century, and the second oldest A.D. 125. This gives us a narrow gap of thirty-five to forty years from the originals written by the apostles. From the early centuries, we have some 5,300 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Altogether, including Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic, we have a whopping 24,633 texts of the ancient New Testament to confirm the wording of the Scriptures. So the bottom line is, there was no great period between the events of the New Testament and the New Testament writings. Nor is there a great time lapse between the original writings and the oldest copies.

    With the great body of manuscript evidence, it can be proved, beyond a doubt, that the New Testament says exactly the same things today as it originally did nearly 2,000 years ago. Corroborating Writings. Critics also charge that there are no ancient writings about Jesus outside the New Testament. This is another ridiculous claim. Writings confirming His birth, ministry, death, and resurrection include Flavius Josephus (A.D. 93), the Babylonian Talmud (A.D. 70–200), Pliny the Younger’s letter to the Emperor Trajan (approx. A.D. 100), the Annals of Tacitus (A.D. 115–117), Mara Bar Serapion (sometime after A.D. 73), and Suetonius’ Life of Claudius and Life of Nero (A.D. 120).

    Another point of contention arises when Bible critics have knowingly or unknowingly misled people by implying that Old and New Testament books were either excluded from or added into the canon of Scripture at the great ecumenical councils of A.D. 336, 382, 397, and 419. In fact, one result of these gatherings was to confirm the Church’s belief that the books already in the Bible were divinely inspired. Therefore, the Church, at these meetings, neither added to nor took away from the books of the Bible. At that time, the thirty-nine Old Testament books had already been accepted, and the New Testament, as it was written, simply grew up with the ancient Church. Each document, being accepted as it was penned in the first century, was then passed on to Christians of the next century. So, this foolishness about the Roman Emperor Constantine dropping books from the Bible is simply uneducated rumor.

    Fulfilled Prophecies
    Prophecies from the Old and New Testaments that have been fulfilled also add credibility to the Bible. The Scriptures predicted the rise and fall of great empires like Greece and Rome (Daniel 2:39, 40), and foretold the destruction of cities like Tyre and Sidon (Isaiah 23). Tyre’s demise is recorded by ancient historians, who tell how Alexander the Great lay siege to the city for seven months. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had failed in a 13-year attempt to capture the seacoast city and completely destroy its inhabitants. During the siege of 573 B.C., much of the population of Tyre moved to its new island home approximately half a mile from the land city. Here it remained surrounded by walls as high as 150 feet until judgment fell in 332 B.C. with the arrival of Alexander the Great. In the seven-month siege, he fulfilled the remainder of the prophecies (Zechariah 9:4; Ezekiel 26:12) concerning the city at sea by completely destroying Tyre, killing 8,000 of its inhabitants and selling 30,000 of its population into slavery. To reach the island, he scraped up the dust and rubble of the old land city of Tyre, just like the Bible predicted, and cast them into the sea, building a 200-footwide causeway out to the island. Alexander’s death and the murder of his two sons was also foretold in the Scripture. Another startling prophecy was Jesus’ detailed prediction of Jerusalem’s destruction, and the further spreading of the Jewish diaspora throughout the world, which is recorded in Luke 21. In A.D. 70, not only was Jerusalem destroyed by Titus, the future emperor of Rome, but another prediction of Jesus Christ in Matthew 24:1,2 came to pass—the complete destruction of the temple of God.

    Messianic Prophecies
    In the Book of Daniel, the Bible prophesied the coming of the one and only Jewish Messiah prior to the temple’s demise. The Old Testament prophets declared He would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2) to a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12,13), die by crucifixion (Psalm 22), and be buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9). There was only one person who fits all of the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament who lived before A.D. 70: Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Mary. Yes, the Bible is an amazing book. (See also 1 Peter 1:25 footnote.)

  33. thinkingrational3
    December 21st, 2010 at 19:13

    The Dead Sea Scrolls
    “The greatest manuscript discovery of all times.”

    By William F. Albright

    The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) at Qumran in 1949 had significant effects in corroborating evidence for the Scriptures. The ancient texts, found hidden in pots in cliff-top caves by a monastic religious community, confirm the reliability of the Old Testament text. These texts, which were copied and studied by the Essenes, include one complete Old Testament book (Isaiah) and thousands of fragments, representing every Old Testament book except Esther. The manuscripts date from the third century B.C. to the first century A.D. and give the earliest window found so far into the texts of the Old Testament books and their predictive prophecies. The Qumran texts have become an important witness for the divine origin of the Bible, providing further evidence against the criticism of such crucial books as Daniel and Isaiah.

    Dating the Manuscripts
    Carbon-14 dating is a reliable form of scientific dating when applied to uncontaminated material several thousand years old. Results indicated an age of 1917 years with a 200-year (10 percent) variant. Paleography (ancient writing forms) and orthography (spelling) indicated that some manuscripts were inscribed before 100 B.C. Albright set the date of the complete Isaiah scroll to around 100 B.C.—”there can happily not be the slightest doubt in the world about the genuineness of the manuscript.”

    Archaeological Dating
    Collaborative evidence for an early date came from archaeology. Pottery accompanying the manuscripts was late Hellenistic (c. 150– 3 B.C.) and Early Roman (c. 63 B.C. to A.D. 100). Coins found in the monastery ruins proved by their inscriptions to have been minted between 135 B.C. and A.D. 135. The weave and pattern of the cloth supported an early date. There is no reasonable doubt that the Qumran manuscripts came from the century before Christ and the first century A.D. Significance of the Dating.

    Previous to the DSS, the earliest known manuscript of the Old Testament was the Masoretic Text (A.D. 900) and two others (dating about A.D. 1000) from which, for example, the King James version of the Old Testament derived its translation. Perhaps most would have considered the Masoretic text as a very late text and therefore questioned the reliability of the Old Testament wholesale. The Dead Sea Scrolls eclipse these texts by 1,000 years and provide little reason to question their reliability, and further, present only confidence for the text. The beauty of the Dead Sea Scrolls lies in the close match they have with the Masoretic text—demonstrable evidence of reliability and preservation of the authentic text through the centuries. So the discovery of the DSS provides evidence for the following:

    1) Confirmation of the Hebrew Text
    2) Support for the Masoretic Text
    3) Support for the Greek translation of the Hebrew Text (the Septuagint).

    Since the New Testament often quotes from the Greek Old Testament, the DSS furnish the reader with further confidence for the Masoretic texts in this area where it can be tested.

    (Generated from Norman Geisler, “Dead Sea Scrolls,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics)

  34. thinkingrational3
    December 21st, 2010 at 19:14

    “Missing Link” Still Missing

    Imaginations certainly took flight over Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis, a birdlike fossil with a meat-eater’s tail that was spirited out of northeastern China, ‘discovered’ at a Tucson, Arizona, gem and mineral show last year, and displayed at the National Geographic Society in Washington, D.C. Some 110,000 visitors saw the exhibit, which closed January 17; millions more read about the find in November’s National Geographic. Now, paleontologists are eating crow. Instead of ‘a true missing link’ connecting dinosaurs to birds, the specimen appears to be a composite, its unusual appendage likely tacked on by a Chinese farmer, not evolution.

    “Archaeoraptor is hardly the first ‘missing link’ to snap under scrutiny. In 1912, fossil remains of an ancient hominid were found in England’s Piltdown quarries and quickly dubbed man’s apelike ancestor. It took decades to reveal the hoax.” U.S. News & World Report, February 14, 2000

    “Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links,’ transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated.” Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God

    “There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist . . . denies that this is so. It is simply a fact. Darwin’s theory and the fossil record are in conflict.” David Berlinsky

    “Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record.” Time magazine, Nov. 7, 1977

    “The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing.” G. K. Chesterton

  35. thinkingrational3
    December 21st, 2010 at 19:14

    Questions for Evolutionists
    by Dr. Kent Hovind

    The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

    1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

    2. Where did matter come from?

    3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

    4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

    5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

    6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

    7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

    8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

    9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

    10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

    11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

    12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

    13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

    14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

    15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?

    • December 21st, 2010 at 19:18

      777truthbtold, you could just provide a URL for all these articles instead of clogging this page with a bunch of copied material unless YOU wrote them yourself.

  36. thinkingrational3
    December 21st, 2010 at 19:16

    Scientific Facts in the Bible

    1. Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the “things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

    2. Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.

    3. At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: “He…hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7).

    4. The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: “It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world (see Proverbs 3:6 footnote).

    5. God told Job in 1500 B.C.: “Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?” (Job 38:35). The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until 1864 when “British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing” (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).

    6. Job 38:19 asks, “Where is the way where light dwells?” Modern man has only recently discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a “way,” traveling at 186,000 miles per second.

    7. Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch. God mentioned this in Job 38:7: “When the morning stars sang together…”

    8. “Most cosmologists (scientists who study the structures and evolution of the universe) agree that the Genesis account of creation, in imagining an initial void, may be uncannily close to the truth” (Time, Dec. 1976).

    9. Solomon described a “cycle” of air currents two thousand years before scientists “discovered” them. “The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits” (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

    10. Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis 1:1,2 revealed such truths to the Hebrews in 1450 B.C.: “In the beginning [time] God created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter] . . . And the Spirit of God moved [motion] upon the face of the waters.” The first thing God tells man is that He controls of all aspects of the universe.

    11. The great biological truth concerning the importance of blood in our body’s mechanism has been fully comprehended only in recent years. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled,” and many died because of the practice. If you lose your blood, you lose your life. Yet Leviticus 17:11, written 3,000 years ago, declared that blood is the source of life: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.”

    12. All things were made by Him (see John 1:3), including dinosaurs. Why then did the dinosaur disappear? The answer may be in Job 40:15–24. In this passage, God speaks about a great creature called “behemoth.” Some commentators think this was a hippopotamus. However, the hippo’s tail isn’t like a large tree, but a small twig. Following are the characteristics of this huge animal: It was the largest of all the creatures God made; was plant-eating (herbivorous); had its strength in its hips and a tail like a large tree. It had very strong bones, lived among the trees, drank massive amounts of water, and was not disturbed by a raging river. He appears impervious to attack because his nose could pierce through snares, but Scripture says, “He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.” In other words, God caused this, the largest of all the creatures He had made, to become extinct.

    13. Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent. Look at the specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease: “And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean” (Leviticus 15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under “running water.”

    14. Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.

    15. “During the devastating Black Death of the fourteenth century, patients who were sick or dead were kept in the same rooms as the rest of the family. People often wondered why the disease was affecting so many people at one time. They attributed these epidemics to ‘bad air’ or ‘evil spirits.’ However, careful attention to the medical commands of God as revealed in Leviticus would have saved untold millions of lives. Arturo Castiglione wrote about the overwhelming importance of this biblical medical law: ‘The laws against leprosyin Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of sanitary legislation’ (A History of Medicine).” Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God With all these truths revealed in Scripture,how could a thinking person deny that the Bible is supernatural in origin? There is no other book in any of the world’s religions (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.) that contains scientific truth. In fact, they contain statements that are clearly unscientific. Hank Hanegraaff said, “Faith in Christ is not some blind leap into a dark chasm, but a faith based on established evidence.” (11:3 continued)

  37. thinkingrational3
    December 21st, 2010 at 19:16

    Science Confirms the Bible
    THE BIBLE
    (2,000–3,000 years ago)

    SCIENCE THEN

    SCIENCE NOW
    The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). The earth was a flat disk. The earth is a sphere.
    Innumerable stars (Jeremiah 33:22). Only 1,100 stars. Innumerable stars.
    Free float of earth in space (Job 26:7). Earth sat on a large animal. Free float of earth in space.
    Creation made of invisible elements (Hebrews11:3). Science was ignorant on the subject. Creation made of invisible elements (atoms).
    Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41). All stars were the same. Each star is different.
    Light moves (Job 38:19,20). Light was fixed in place. Light moves.
    Air has weight (Job 28:25). Air was weightless. Air has weight.
    Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6). Winds blew straight. Winds blow in cyclones.
    Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11). Sick people must be bled. Blood is the source of life and health.
    Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6). The ocean floor was flat. Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains.
    Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16). Ocean fed only by rivers and rain. Ocean contains springs.
    When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). Hands washed in still water. When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water.

    • December 21st, 2010 at 19:19

      If you copy and paste *one* more of these TL;DR articles here I will delete the others. Just because you’re putting it up here doesn’t mean they cannot be debunked.

      • thinkingrational3
        December 21st, 2010 at 19:26

        These are a collection of articles I kept for such an occasion. My friends have alerted me to this discussion so I decided to come in and feed you some information to chew on. Don’t be afraid of information as it is worth looking at and thinking over. Threatening to delete these post only shows that you fear to be enlightened to a real truth that can’t be argued. Try not to be so hostile, Obviously you harbor hatred towards Christians, weren’t you once a Christian? Well if you supposedly want to help people with your arguments how do you expect to persuade them with such hostility. What if one is genuinely concerned with questions. You will never win someone over with your approach.

        • December 21st, 2010 at 19:30

          Threatening to delete these post only shows that you fear to be enlightened to a real truth that can’t be argued.

          Thanks to you clogging this up, you didn’t even find my reason *why* I don’t want you spamming the comments section with huge blocks of text. Just provide the URLs and add your own words. Is it that hard for you?

          • 777truthbtold
            December 21st, 2010 at 19:37

            I would only these are collections of articles either I have written or someone has that I have stored in folders on my computer from Microsoft Word. I don’t have the URL for you, sorry. Besides it is easier to read in context right here so you can quote something from it when responding.

  38. 777truthbtold
    December 21st, 2010 at 19:36

    Ravi Zacharias Answers Atheists Part 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqbFxZ-3XA4

    Ravi Zacharias Answers Atheists Part 2

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge6rZBXAszI

    Ravi Zacharias Answers Atheists Part 3

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7PzZyQE7aE

    Ravi Zacharias Answers Atheists Part 4

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orsOx0LarJI

    Ravi Zacharias Answers Atheists Part 5

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XySP7VsAaUM

  39. thinkingrational3
    December 21st, 2010 at 19:40

    We have a group of friends who all share information with eachother and all love to get in on these discussions. Some of us don’t live to far away while our other friends live across the states. We enjoy this just as much as you do.

  40. December 21st, 2010 at 19:44

    777truthbtold :

    I would only these are collections of articles either I have written or someone has that I have stored in folders on my computer from Microsoft Word. I don’t have the URL for you, sorry. Besides it is easier to read in context right here so you can quote something from it when responding.

    No problem. I was only saying that it would be more convenient to link the visitors to the actual article(s). I don’t mind if you copy and paste some pieces of text, but I would appreciate it if you instead only copied a few excerpts from the articles you are presenting you feel are the highlights, so it is easier for people to find a comment to respond to.

    • thinkingrational3
      December 21st, 2010 at 22:23

      I can respect that :)

  41. thinkingrational3
    December 21st, 2010 at 19:46

    There are more of us where this came from, we are here for your entertainment :)

    • December 21st, 2010 at 20:00

      If you want, I can just add a “Christian Responses” section to this site’s menu and move all the articles posted here in the comments section there…

      • thinkingrational3
        December 21st, 2010 at 22:24

        You have the freedom to do what you want :) This is a free country after all due to our awesome Constitution. It would be a great idea for people to discuss and reason with each other.

      • thinkingrational3
        December 23rd, 2010 at 10:59

        thanks GreenWorld, that is actually mature of you, I commend you. You give me hope that there are people out there who actually are willing to discuss things. Question: How Do I post more articles on the “Christian Responses” section?

  42. eznight
    December 23rd, 2010 at 14:45

    This is one of the more obtuse and cursory postulations of an epistemological meta-narrative making metaphysical statements with presuppositions that show a cursory study of religion and God. Since the non-existence of God is unprovable, any hypothesis of a universe without God logically leads to a pathos of a telos of determinism.

    • thinkingrational3
      December 23rd, 2010 at 18:03

      eznight :This is one of the more obtuse and cursory postulations of an epistemological meta-narrative making metaphysical statements with presuppositions that show a cursory study of religion and God. Since the non-existence of God is unprovable, any hypothesis of a universe without God logically leads to a pathos of a telos of determinism.

      That was excellent :)

  43. thinkingrational3
    December 24th, 2010 at 02:13

    Hal :Actually, this is the reason your “prophecy” is being apparently fulfilled,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917
    The location was chosen because of the scriptural references (in the torah, before the bible).

    What God said in the Bible was recorded thousands of years before the Balfour Declaration. Also the Torah is part of the Bible.

    • thinkingrational3
      December 26th, 2010 at 15:12

      a self fulfilling prophecy :)

    • Hal
      December 30th, 2010 at 11:04

      thinkingrational3 :What God said in the Bible was recorded thousands of years before the Balfour Declaration. Also the Torah is part of the Bible.

      What you should have written here is “What the Hebrews wrote in the torah was incorporated into a new book around 1500 years later, coupled with writings and conjectures about a man (Jesus) who *may or may not have* lived a few generations before the new testament was compiled by other primitive men.”

      While we’re at it, we should also mention that the torah itself was almost certainly assimilated from various older sources. Here’s some reading:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

      As for the motivation behind the Balfour Agreement, it cannot be called a prophecy since the location was chosen by people who have read, and WANT to fulfil, the bible/torah.

      The problem with “prophecies” is that there are only 2 ways they can happen – Either by reading the stated prophecy and having a goal to aim for (as has happened with the Balfour Agreement) or, if they are vague enough, they can be applied to almost any scenario AFTER it has happened, using retroactive clairvoyance (as we often see with Nostradamus):

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_clairvoyance

      • eznight
        December 31st, 2010 at 00:51

        What you are missing is that the bible has specific prophecies. Please see specifically the reference below of Daniel 9:24-27

        The Jewish historian Josephus as well as the secular Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius all bear record of the person of Jesus. The Talmud and the Koran both attest to the person of Jesus. Historian Gary Habermas, has detailed 39 ancient sources outside of the bible that provide further corroboration for more than 100 facts about Jesus life, teachings, death and resurrection.

        {Prophecy}

        The Bible is replete with evidence of the supernatural elements that were testable, and also of God’s pervading involvement with history past, present and future. In no other religion were the authors of the scriptures supernaturally confirmed with miracles. And no other religion than Christianity has a Savior that was foretold with unbelievable precision. Even the most liberal critics admit that the prophetic books were completed some 400 years before Christ, and the book of Daniel by about 167 B.C. The Old Testament contains scores of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah.

        Professor Peter Stoner, along with 600 students, calculated the mathematical probability of just 8 (of the more than 200) New Testament prophecies being fulfilled in any one person at one chance in a hundred million billion. No other religious book offers anything that can compare with these supernatural predictions.

        Barton Payne’s Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy list 191 on them, while Oxford scholar Alfred Edersheim cites 400. Major predictions about the Messiah, all of which were fulfilled in Jesus, was that he would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), of the seed of Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 22:18), of the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10), of the house of David (II Sam 7:12-16), in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2); He would be heralded by the Lord’s messenger (Isaiah 40:3); He would cleanse the temple (Malachi 3:1); He would be “cut off” 483 years after the declaration to reconstruct Jerusalem in 444 B.C. (Daniel 9:24-27); He would be rejected (Psalm 118:22); He would have his hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16); He would be pierced in His side (Zechariah 12:10); He would rise from the dead (Psalm 16:10); He would ascend into Heaven (Psalm 68:18); and He would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1).

        • Hal
          December 31st, 2010 at 13:02

          Nice try but this won’t work here.
          I’ve previously read about some of the names you mentioned above, their references to Christ are all either disputed, refuted or too unreliable for various reasons.

          Primarily because all records that mention Jesus were produced way after his apparent lifetime or are suspected interpolations made by Christian redactors. There are no eye-witness accounts, no historians or scholars mentioned him while he was still alive.
          Roman/Judean records under the authority of Pilate, Herod, Tiberius and Nero all fail to document his deeds or significance, even though his supposed actions would have certainly got him noticed.

          I need to get ready to go out now but I’ll be back tomorrow or the next day to answer the problem with your definition of “prophecy”.

          Happy New Year Everyone.

  44. J-SEA
    December 26th, 2010 at 21:28

    I have answers for all of you. I can debate all day. You know what though, it’s vanity, because no matter what I say, you all won’t hear. So it’s useless, because you won’t hear me, and you all can’t convince me. I challenge anyone to show one true contradiction of the Bible and not point to something taken out of context. I challenge any man to show me a piece of scripture that has been proven wrong. As English speakers, I require that all submissions come from the KJV and NO other version. And being as though as I have witnesses for all things in the Bible that will testify to the events spoken of in it, I believe that means that the burden of proof falls on your shoulders. Some of you, have reluctantly already proven my point. Some have slandered me, which is cool, I don’t mind, but it just proves that truth is the last thing you guys or interested in, or you wouldn’t have lied about me, and if you all are so good, you wouldn’t have hated as you did… Again, it doesn’t hurt my feelings. I’m just merely pointing it out. Paul wrote in his first epistle to the church at Corinth in chapter one:

    18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
    19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
    20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
    21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
    22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
    23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
    24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

    Consider the Psalmests words in the 111th chapter

    The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.

    You all obviously have not this. So, it would be seemingly impossible to discuss the true things of the world with you. For while professing yourselves to be wise, you became fools.

    In Romans one it says

    16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
    17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
    18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
    19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
    20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
    24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
    26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
    28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
    30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
    31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
    32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    This sounds a lot like you all. Just saying and further emphasizing my point. You guys accept not, because you desire to have control of your lives. You desire to decide for yourselves what’s wrong and what’s right. Newsflash, in Hitler’s sight, he was good, so obviously man is incapable of making such decisions on their own. Furthermore, I can tell you that the day you die, you are going to be without excuse, and this won’t be so funny to you. You’re not going to be able to hide behind, o, well, that theory made so much more sense to me… It won’t work that way.

    1 Timothy 6:20
    O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

    Y’all think you have Science, but all you have theories that calm your consciousness. You all have no idea where we came from, how we got here, why there are so many completely different and complex languages, why us humans of all creatures have dominion over the world despite being some of the least ferocious creatures in ourselves on earth. Surely, if y’alls theory is true, other creatures would have developed many languages and have ability to create some for of technology on their own that is somewhat in proportion to what we have. If your theory is true, why are we the only creature that seeks comfort instead of living for the next meal?

    Consider the book of Job when God says in the 38th chapter

    4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

    So all you atheist and God haters declare if thou hast understanding. Where were you guys when the universe was formed?

    • Andre
      December 26th, 2010 at 22:25

      Do you even know what vanity means?

    • Andre
      December 26th, 2010 at 22:29

      This post describes christians well, not atheists.
      It shows a substantial misunderstanding of evolutionary concepts and science in general. Combining social evolution with genetic macro and micro evolution is just incredibly stupid, as the two ideas are, in fact, mutually exclusive. It would be a complete waste of time to even bother properly responding to this post. The very opening lines in your book have been proven false, let alone the rest of its ludicrous content.

    • centauri
      December 27th, 2010 at 14:07

      You might be taken more seriously if you would drop the facade that you have the “truth”.
      In order to convince me that you’re not just another in a long line of apologists that practices revisionist theology, provide answers to the following, without using special pleading or circular logic(using the New Testament to prove the New Testament is true).

      According to the law of God, what are some of the requirements for a valid sin sacrifice, specifically the use of humans in such sacrifices?

      Where do the Hebrew scriptures state that the law would be replaced by a new system requiring faith in a vicarious human sacrifice?

      Where do the Hebrew scriptures state that a king messiah would come once, be killed, rise from the dead in three days, and require a second coming thousands of years later to do what he didn’t do the first time?

  45. J-SEA
    December 26th, 2010 at 22:37

    A small answer to what some have written:

    1st off, you say that some of you were once believers. Did you know that there’s such thing as true and false conversion, there’s such thing as a false gospel out there which is running rampant especially in America. (Read Matthew 7 for starters on this and 2 Thessalonians chapter 2)

    “So you believe an old man swam all across the world to gather up animals with his own two bare hands, whilst assembling his ark after cutting down numerous trees… all on his own? So you believe that a snake and a donkey could talk to humans? So you believe that sticks turned into snakes? And on and on and on… How does science even prove any of these claims to be true?”

    Well, first of all, define “old man” Adam lived to be 930 and he wasn’t even the oldest man in the Bible. You see, preflood, the Bible teaches that there were giants in the Earth (Genesis 6), so it’s not really far fetched to believe that Noah was a giant and that an he made an ark 300 cubits long. Common belief is that back in the day, there was a lot more oxygen in the atmosphere than there is now, and post flood is what we have. This explains why we find fossils of giant humans and reptiles. In fact, side note, did you know that reptiles will grow for as long as they live. So considering there was more oxygen, they probably were able to live longer which might help to explain dinosaurs. But that’s another rabbit trail.

    You also sir, have just proved that you’ve never read your Bible, because if you did you would know that Noah didn’t go and get the animals, but God sent the animals to Noah. Have a look.

    Genesis 6:19-20
    19And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
    20Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

    And if I believe in a God that can do anything, than why would it be farfetched to think that he can use snakes and donkeys? It says that we have dominion over the animals. God can use anything He wants.

    “Like how the Bible declares that the Earth is round and that it hangs on nothing.

    Citation needed.”

    Job 26:7
    7He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

    “How do you know it’s *your* Bible that’s fulfiling these prophecies? What about the prophecies of other religions? Are you going to dismiss them as “mythical,” while backing your own? I don’t think the Muslims or Pagans would be very happy with this statement.”

    Please share a Muslim prophecy with me? I’ve never heard of one. In fact, did you know that Mohammed was a Catholic before leaving the Catholic church and starting his own religion which is greatly influenced by Catholicism? Which another topic for another day, but the Catholic church is incredibly corrupt if you ever get a chance to look into it. In fact, see Revelation 17 if you want to learn about Catholicism.

    Part if Islam comes from the Old Testament of the Bible, which is written in Hebrew, yet, they believe that the only true Quran is written in Arabic. Doesn’t that seem odd?

    “Saying that all atheists “believe” in evolution is a straw man. Not all atheists think alike — they have their own personal beliefs (just without “god” in the picture). And as far as there being no evidence for evolution, it is no less proven than creationism, which tells us that it took Yahweh 6 days to start and finish just the planet Earth… I thought he was omnipotent?”

    Evolution sir, has been proven wrong, if you’d like me to elaborate, I’ll share, but it’s a lot of typing, so I’ll spare you and me for now. And maybe there was symbolism in him taking six days… You might believe in the Big Bang, this is an excerpt of something I’ve written previously.
    One of many Scientific problems with this theory. Are you familiar with the term “The Conservation of Angular Momentum?” It disproves the big bang theory using physics. Basically it says that if you have an object attatched to another object that’s spinning, If the first object detatches, it will fly off spinning the same way until it encounters some kind of resistance. So why do we have planets in our solar system that spin opposite directions than Earth? Why do some planets like Jupiter have moons that orbit Jupiter both clockwise and counter clockwise? If we all came from the Big Bang, we should all be spinning the same way, and there’d be nothing to cause any resistance, because it all came from the same explosion.

    “Where did Yahweh come from and how did he get here? How did he decide to just *one day* create the universe if all that existed was himself? And through that moment of no time flowing, it does not make sense that Yahweh just appears out of nowhere, if he even exists.”

    Where’d did Yaweh come from? This is a good question with a bit of a complicated answer. You see, in this question, you’re making a few inaccurate assumptions. Entangled in the question is the question, what was there before God? Well you see, the word before implies a reference to time. God is outside of time and space. He created time. Which neither of us fully understand how there can be such thing as living outside of time, but He created it. Where did He come from? There again, where implies that there was a place before creation. But he created ‘places’ He created the Heavens and the Earth. Again, hard to understand, but easier to accept. Remember He’s eternal.

    “If Yahweh can stop evil, then why not?”

    Because, he’d have to eliminate it, and you see, we’re evil. We’ve all broken God’s commandments. So, he’d have to eliminate us, but He loves us. So here’s the scenerio. We’ve broken God’s commandments. So, we’re evil. The Bible says the wages of sin is death. So, in all justice, we owe death, but Jesus stepped in and died for us as a perfect sacrifice so that we can be justified. It’s kind of like God is giving us a second chance. The Bible says something along the lines of, if you have something someone needs, and you give not it, how can you call yourself a Christian. Well, here, God gave us something He had that we needed. But, in all cases, justice will be served.

    “But then what would be the point of being a Christian if there is no “evil”? Christianity is a religion of fear; believe in Jesus or it’ll be too late.”

    That’s a very very skewed way to look at Christianity. It is truly one of love. But in love is truth and justice. And God’s just telling us what we deserve and what He did about it. It’s better than something like Islam that says kill the infidel. Be happy I’m just telling you to repent.

    “I have my own theories, but I don’t go around pushing people or making threats on them if they don’t choose to think like myself. Your religion, however, is the opposite.”

    See Ezekiel 3:17-18

    “I would rather “blindly” trust a book written by an honest thinker”

    What do you know of Darwin? Did you know that he was going to be a preacher before he came up with his ridiculous theory. Have you ever read the book? How do you know that you can trust it? Darwin married his 1st cousin (Or someone in his family) and was a big eugenicist because of his theory, and this caused him to have 10 genetically messed up kids. He was also an extreme racist if you ever get a chance to read his stuff. Yes, any racist is an honest thinker…

    “Suppose there is a secular humanitarian who is helping out the children dying in most parts of the African continent. Now, suppose an angered fundamentalist Christian doesn’t like hearing what the humanitarian has to say about Jesus and the Bible, and goes on a murderous rampage. The humanitarian is shot dead, without a chance to repent. Eventually, this zealous Christian will realize what he had done was wrong, and beg Christ for forgiveness. OK, and assuming this murderer dies without any unforgiven sin, he will be welcomed to heaven by Yahweh — while the humanitarian is being repetitively roasted by Satan for the rest of eternity.

    Do you think Yahweh is “just,” even after all that had happened? How could you ever call this god a “just” god? Does he really value a sense of belonging to a submissive’s life over a secular charity worker who only wants to make this one (and only life anyone will ever have) better? If so, then your god is not “just” and instead is an arrogant, highly-jealous (jealousy leads to hatred) god.”

    YES YAWEH IS ALWAYS JUST! Because, you don’t go to Hell simply because you don’t believe, you go to Hell, because you have sinned against God and it’s what you deserve. Our good works are likened to filthy rags in the Bible, it’s nothing of our own doing that justifies us. And yes, I’m one who believes that Hitler himself could have been saved if he trusted in God. Furthermore, who are you to question Yaweh?

    “certainly there could have been another way”

    Jesus plead with God if there be any other way do it, but not my will, but thine be done.

    “Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
    13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
    And he really is a hateful god. I don’t love him for hating the homosexuals. What’s wrong with a beautiful, refreshing thing called “love”? Why aren’t couples of the same sex allowed to express their feelings for each other? I am heterosexual myself, but I certainly respect their lifestyle. Christianity has none.”

    God says it’s an abomination unto him, it contradicts his design. You sir have no idea of what love is, if you call that love. Here’s a question, if you were a parent, you would probably hold your young kids hand when they cross the road to try and stop them from getting hit by a car. Well, in the same way, love persuades towards good and would discourage bad. Well this gets back to our question, how does one define good and bad… And plus God will make sure justice is served in all of these.

    “Plants can reproduce asexually and animals in nature have sex with whoever they like, regardless of their sexual organs.”

    Show me a human that reproduces asexually…

    Well, this concludes my repsonse. Do what you want with it, rip it apart, burn it, whatever. Or you can do something wise and try to learn from it.

    • December 27th, 2010 at 06:29

      YES YAWEH IS ALWAYS JUST! Because, you don’t go to Hell simply because you don’t believe, you go to Hell, because you have sinned against God and it’s what you deserve. Our good works are likened to filthy rags in the Bible, it’s nothing of our own doing that justifies us. And yes, I’m one who believes that Hitler himself could have been saved if he trusted in God. Furthermore, who are you to question Yaweh?

      What’s the difference between simply not having a belief in Christ and committing a “sin” against Yahweh? Your Bible has made it clear that those who do not accept Christ will not be allowed in heaven.
      John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

      And who am I to question Yahweh? Someone looking for answers in life instead of trusting an outdated 2000-year-old book which was written, compiled, and modified by cavemen *thinking* how the world must have been formed and what our *purpose* must be. With Xianity, your purpose in life is to surrender yourself to Jesus because Yahweh simply either CANNOT or WILL NOT rid of the “source of evil” that gets under the believers’ spines. There is no logic to how it must be *logical* that a god who, while limitless in terms of capabilities and “love,” is not doing anything to stop one of his own creations (Lucifer/Satan) from doing his “evil deeds.” And if “Lucifer” is the one responsible for me writing the sentence right before this one, then I think he’s trying to tell us that he’s sick and tired of being blamed and wants to disappear already. Or, on the other hand, it is simply me calling nonsense on the “point” of becoming a Xian. What’s the point? I can assure you that if there was no *hell* in this religion (and yes, Xianity is a religion: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?qsrc=4059) then you wouldn’t be believing in Xianity today. Because let’s face it: there would be no point and you could find other ways to fill your lives, usually things that matter more.

      Think about what I’ve told you in that previous paragraph, because if your god gave you a *brain* then you wouldn’t be cowering off because of “fear” of “losing your faith” as most Xians have reacted when something that demonstrates a disagreeable position to their beliefs is presented.

      Because, he’d have to eliminate it, and you see, we’re evil. We’ve all broken God’s commandments. So, he’d have to eliminate us, but He loves us.

      If Yahweh is supposed to be “perfect” and “compassionate” towards human beings (as you Xians say) then there wouldn’t be a *need* to eliminate us BUT the alleged source of evil (i.e. Lucifer). And the rest of that paragraph was yet another failed attempt to convert me. Nice try.

      God says it’s an abomination unto him, it contradicts his design. You sir have no idea of what love is, if you call that love. Here’s a question, if you were a parent, you would probably hold your young kids hand when they cross the road to try and stop them from getting hit by a car. Well, in the same way, love persuades towards good and would discourage bad. Well this gets back to our question, how does one define good and bad… And plus God will make sure justice is served in all of these.

      You have no idea how much I have any idea what love is. And as for your parent-and-children analogy, I disagree entirely. If Yahweh is the most “loving” parent then he would still allow those who have died on earth to be forgiven from their sins, to prevent them from going to *hell* once “convinced” that he exists. If that’s the case, then I would respect him, but this is not supported in the Bible nor by most Xian groups. Therefore, I have no respect for a parent who just tosses their own children into the *lake of fire*, even if they simply lacked a *belief* in such a thing. I would NEVER toss my children away like trash, even if they were involved in gangs or drugs; rather, I would want to HELP them get their lives together because I want to show that I CARE and I WANT to help them, that I’ll LOVE them no matter what they do… They come from me so I should be there to help them in their lives…

      Show me a human that reproduces asexually…

      Where did I even mention that? I said “plants can reproduce asexually” because you think that the *only* way any living thing can ever reproduce would require a male and a female.

    • Phanta
      December 27th, 2010 at 14:09

      - Israel has been a member of the UN since very shortly after its inception.

      - Who believed the Earth rested on the back of a turtle, and when?

      - Why can’t we pick and choose?

      - I can refute my post, can you?

      - Why are you so angry?

      - Are you a closet homosexual?

    • Hal
      December 29th, 2010 at 16:46

      J-Sea? As in JC? Jesus Christ? A weak play on words if it was intended so.
      Anyway, I’ve only read this post from you as they are all too long to be worth the time.
      Everything you’ve written here shows that you harbour a horribly twisted perception of many scientific fields. I won’t waste too much time on you but one bit in particular warrants a response.

      J-SEA :Evolution sir, has been proven wrong… You might believe in the Big Bang, this is an excerpt of something I’ve written previously.
      One of many Scientific problems with this theory. Are you familiar with the term “The Conservation of Angular Momentum?” It disproves the big bang theory using physics. Basically it says that if you have an object attatched to another object that’s spinning, If the first object detatches, it will fly off spinning the same way until it encounters some kind of resistance. So why do we have planets in our solar system that spin opposite directions than Earth? Why do some planets like Jupiter have moons that orbit Jupiter both clockwise and counter clockwise? If we all came from the Big Bang, we should all be spinning the same way, and there’d be nothing to cause any resistance, because it all came from the same explosion.

      Evolution has not been proven wrong. It only appears that way to you fundies because you’re heavily indoctrinated, therefore you judge the value of “proof” and “fact” by biased criterion that must always place the primitive word of the bible as a higher authority than ANY alternative explanations; scientific, philosophical, cultural or otherwise.
      The theory of evolution is the best model we currently have at understanding the development of life of all animals (obviously that includes primates like you & I). There is no feasible alternative as far as we know. If a better explanation does come along, it would be a fine-tuned adjustment to this theory, not a radically different one like fucking creationism.

      My main grievance is with your laughable attempt to disprove the big bang with your straw man angular momentum analogy.
      First of all, the big bang wasn’t like bursting a bag of marbles (representing galaxies, stars, planets, etc), where all these objects flew out to a spot in space to orbit around.
      At the moment precisely after the big bang, there were NO stars, planets or anything like that. There was superheated, super-compressed space dust flying out at the speed of light on a canvas (space-time itself) that was also expanding at an enormous rate.
      The formation of all objects occurred separately, over the billions of years that followed.
      As matter drifted through space, it was drawn to more matter that it passed by, the mutual gravitational pull caused “blotches” to coalesce throughout space, that attracted more nearby matter and grew over time-scales that you just couldn’t comprehend. These clusters of matter formed the galaxies and everything they contain.

      This theatre, where all the material is clustering together is not neat and uniform. It is chaotic. Meteors and various objects are crashing into each other and being flung out into space in every possible trajectory at some time in some place in all of space. These rampaging rogue meteors and comets could eventually be captured by the gravitational pull of a large object like Jupiter (to remain with your example), and become “adopted” by it. Here, it could orbit peacefully, or crash around with more matter and form rings. The direction of the orbit is dependant on its trajectory and interaction with other objects, not some universal harmonic direction in which every object spins.

      Anyway, this is taking too long, there’s my input for now.

  46. J-SEA
    December 26th, 2010 at 22:39

    Andre, you have proven your statement real credible…

  47. J-SEA
    December 26th, 2010 at 22:41

    “Suppose there is a secular humanitarian who is helping out the children dying in most parts of the African continent. Now, suppose an angered fundamentalist Christian doesn’t like hearing what the humanitarian has to say about Jesus and the Bible, and goes on a murderous rampage. The humanitarian is shot dead, without a chance to repent. Eventually, this zealous Christian will realize what he had done was wrong, and beg Christ for forgiveness. OK, and assuming this murderer dies without any unforgiven sin, he will be welcomed to heaven by Yahweh — while the humanitarian is being repetitively roasted by Satan for the rest of eternity.”

    Furthermore, the Bible says

    11Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth.

    12But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.

    13For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

    14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

    15Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

  48. J-SEA
    December 26th, 2010 at 22:59

    20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

  49. Dediex
    December 29th, 2010 at 03:54

    :’)/:’(

  50. eznight
    December 29th, 2010 at 17:18

    @Greenworld:

    First let me say thank you for being congenial to the posts from the opposite worldviews. That being said there are a few assumptions that you (and some others) have that need to be cleared up.

    Sin and evil are not rooted in Satan. With the free-will that God has imparted to humankind we are the ones who choose sin and thus create evil. It is a mutation of what God wanted but He will not violate our freedom.

    Jeremiah17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

    Only in the Christian world-view, and not any other world-view, does love precede life.
    I John 4:19  We love him, because he first loved us.
    And hell was not made for us but for the devil and his angels and for sin.

    Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

    God does not send anyone to hell it is there free choice.

    Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

    God is not willing that any should perish. He wants everyone to have His gift of eternal life. He offers it freely to everyone. They have the choice to accept it or reject it.

    John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
    2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

    We are all headed for hell because of sin but because of God’s love for us Jesus paid the ultimate price with His death and resurrection thus conquering death and sin so that we would have a way to heaven.

    Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
    Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
    Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
    Romans 10:9  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
    10  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
    11  For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
    12 ¶  For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
    13  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

    • December 29th, 2010 at 20:28

      @ eznight
      1. I am afraid I will have to disagree with your statement that “evil and sin are not rooted in Satan” by showing you the following passages from Genesis 3:

      1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
      2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
      3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
      4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
      5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

      6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
      7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&version=KJV
      Nowhere in Genesis does it ever make any mention that Lucifer was the “spirit” controlling that talking snake; it is only until Revelations that you are then informed that it was this mythical creature in that talking snake. I don’t think you can really debate against this… If you do, then you are not a true Xian and you are cherry picking.

      2.

      God does not send anyone to hell it is there free choice.

      I don’t think it would make sense to call it a “free choice” if on one hand you have to submit your life to Yahweh just so you can get your treasures and mansions in “heaven” (which, to my understanding, seems really selfish of many people to do), and on the other there is the threat of “hell,” where there are endless screams of people in pain and agony (no matter how offensive the sin was — even stealing a measly chapter book from a library could send you down to “hell” and suffer no differently than non-Xian murderers, rapists, kidnappers, etc.) for an unlimited amount of time (which, to my understanding, seems to be what keeps dark religions like Xianity alive and well, because this is clearly more of a forced threat than something you can just choose and carry on with your life). Please, correct me if I am wrong on this point here, because I don’t believe this is a fair sort of “free will” or “free choice.” Many people use Xianity just as an incentive to be “kind” to others because, let’s face it, they don’t want to go to “hell.” Sometimes religions like Xianity DO make people better, but it really depends on the person. Unfortunately, more deaths have been caused in the name of god(s), so you can’t really argue against that except to just say that “well, God doesn’t have anything to do with this; it is MAN’s fault!” …And with that, it only helps further prove my point that religion makes more people WORSE than actually BETTER; it all depends on the person in order to see what kind of person they are. Organized religion is when you toss out the things you used to enjoy because they are “sinful” and now all you would want to do is read your holy books and watch Xian-friendly programming (because “the world is evil”) on television. This is the lifestyle you are now leading, while I make the best out of my existence here. Organized religion isn’t the only thing that can keep people away from doing drugs, you know? That’s kind of like asking a vegetarian or a vegan where he gets his *protein* from, since he doesn’t eat meat anymore!

      3.

      We are all headed for hell because of sin but because of God’s love for us Jesus paid the ultimate price with His death and resurrection thus conquering death and sin so that we would have a way to heaven.

      What I fail to understand is *why* couldn’t have he just prevent “sin” from further existence here, on Earth? If his only purpose for being born from a “virgin” woman (I have already read Matthew various times, so please don’t waste your time trying to convince me that it *is* possible because “Goddidit”) was to get nailed to a cross JUST so people could have a lesser chance of going to “hell,” then don’t you think that he could have raised it up a notch and completely OBLITERATED “sin” without having a bunch of mindless followers kiss his boot, so they can avoid “hell”? I think it would be safe to say that more people would respect him today if “sin” was no longer possible here, on Earth; we could have lived our lives the way your Yahweh wanted us to live and there would be no threats of “hell” to go around.

      Think about it.

      P.S. Reading back on Genesis, I don’t see what’s all the big fuss with “nudity” unless you’re going to use the tired, old “but you’re committing lust in your eyes!!!11″ argument. If we lived in a “sin”-free world then it would be OK for us all to dress naked (so long as we don’t “lust”). They were convinced as to what “evil” was and they felt ashamed of being nude; therefore, you can’t be punished simply for being nude (because otherwise “sin” would have already existed prior to the talking snake’s bribe).

      • eznight
        December 30th, 2010 at 01:06

        1.
        If you read the passage from Genesis that you used you will find no reference to Satan being the cause of evil, just as you will find no reference anywhere in the bible of Satan being the cause of it. The passage I used previously expressly pointed to the cause of sin.
        Jeremiah17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
        You see it is mans wrong choices that are sinful and thus lead to evil. Again, evil is not a creation but a mutation.

        2.

        First, the treasures in heaven are a secondary thought to a true believer. What we want is to love the God who first loved us; even before we were born.
        I John 4:19  We love him, because he first loved us.
        Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
        Jeremiah 1:5  Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee…

        Again, you seem to misunderstand hell. First, hell was never meant for humankind (as I showed in Matthew earlier). Second, there are “degrees” of hell as this passage shows:
        Matthew 18:6
        But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
        The meaning is, it would be better for him to have died before he had committed the sin. To injure, or to cause to sin, the feeblest Christian, will be regarded by Christ as a most serious offence, and will be punished accordingly.

        So called religious wars and atrocities that go against the teachings of Jesus:
        (These include the Crusades, Spanish inquisition and burning of witches)
        2,000,000 (best estimate)

        Wars and atrocities from only 2 atheist regimes:
        (Stalin & Mao)
        60,000,000 (recorded fact)

        Wars and atrocities having nothing to do with religion:
        (In just the last 2 centuries since Darwinism was born)
        318,685,000 (recorded fact)

        I believe this statement by English Journalist, Steve Turner sums it up, sadly, all too well:

        “If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky, and when you hear
        State of Emergency! Sniper Kills Ten! Troops on Rampage! Whites go Looting! Bomb Blasts School!
        It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.”

        3.

        Again, you seem to misunderstand free-will. God has given humankind freewill and if He were to take away all sin He would have to either wipe out all mankind or make us all automatons to always choose good. To take away the freewill that He has given would be to violate our freedom and to force His will on us. Forced love is not love. If He did this then no one would respect Him just as someone cannot force another to love them here on earth.
        There are actually several reasons that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. First, this was so that His lineage could be traced back to King David thus showing Jesus of royal birth. Second, we learn in the bible that sin passes through the male. Third, there is the miracle of the virgin birth itself. And of course there is the precision of timing to line up with Jesus fulfilling the more than 200 prophecies regarding Him.

        You see, taking all of these things into consideration God is like a father with an outstretched hand. He does not want you nor anyone to go to hell. The bible states that it is a gift of eternal life. And just like a gift can either be rejected or accepted He will not force Himself on anyone but instead He seeks to save.
        All of this is also referenced in my post about morals. You see, you are making moral judgments but any moral pronouncements can only be made if this is a moral universe. Please see that post again but here is a quick excerpt:
        Any statement about morals raises an assumption that this is a moral universe with a moral basis which is only possible if a transcendent being exists on which to have a moral basis. If atheism is true then there is no moral law reflective in this universe, and any moral pronouncement is either utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective or emotive. There is no moral law in this universe and anything that deals with good and evil is purely the product of your environment and your culture. Which logically lead to the fact that atheism has no moral point of reference as evolution does not tell someone what they can or cannot do just as it does not tell you what is good and what is evil. Therefore if atheism is true there is no moral foundation and thus anything can be justified with a moral pronouncement. Only with God do good and bad even have a moral point of reference.

        • eznight
          December 30th, 2010 at 01:07

          Sorry about the formatting. I’m not sure how that happened.

        • December 30th, 2010 at 02:24

          1. Nope. According to the book of Revelation, Lucifer was the one who deceived Eve:
          Revelation 12:9, 12:15, 20:2
          http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2012:9,%2012:15,%2020:2&version=KJV
          It is pretty crystal clear that according to that account of the Bible Lucifer is the one responsible for fooling Eve. If you still disagree with this, then you’re not a true believer of this religion.

          Also, neither Adam nor Eve were aware of the concept of a *lie*, so they pretty much fell for it. Of course, had Yahweh simply commanded them to distrust “the serpent,” then there would be no need for salvation or a Christ to go on a suicide mission.

          2. My point was that most people just wouldn’t care about Xianity if it wasn’t for the threat of “hell” placed up front. Seriously, hardly anyone would be motivated to do “good” if there was no “hell” to go to once dead. Lots of people believe because they don’t want to go to “hell,” simply out of fear of suffering “forever and ever and ever.” See what I mean?

          So called religious wars and atrocities that go against the teachings of Jesus:
          (These include the Crusades, Spanish inquisition and burning of witches)
          2,000,000 (best estimate)

          You can deny all you want the influence of religion on those wars, but the fact of the matter is that these were carried out in the name of God. Also, Hitler was a believer: http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm
          A sample from the page:

          Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:

          My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.” –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

          Also, while Stalin and Mao were horrible people (never said they weren’t), their reasons for fighting were political-based, not religious. It’s not like they committed these acts “in the name of atheism.” Simply put, atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). There are no instruction manuals, no churches/cults, no nothing… We simply do not believe. And we have nothing to prove to anyone.

          3. If I were to hold a gun to your head and say “you have free will to not give me your wallet, but if you attempt to defy me I will kill you.” Does it really feel as if you have a choice in the matter? Of course not. Free means to give or receive something with out an expectation of return. The whole free will concept is self defeating. Call it ‘circumstantial will’, for that is what it truly is.

          Which logically lead to the fact that atheism has no moral point of reference as evolution does not tell someone what they can or cannot do just as it does not tell you what is good and what is evil. Therefore if atheism is true there is no moral foundation and thus anything can be justified with a moral pronouncement. Only with God do good and bad even have a moral point of reference.

          Aah… gotta love that “No God, No Peace — Know God, Know Peace” slogan that the faithful love to spout. However, you are correct that atheism leads to evil… Yesterday at a coffee shop I murdered three — no, four evangelicals and raped a pregnant woman. I reached inside her uterus and pulled out the unborn child and decapitated it. Oh man it felt great!… I then ran away before the cops showed up and burned down a church (because that’s what atheism leads to). I GUARANTEED that NO ONE inside made it out alive. It was a busy Bible study session that night. I did it because I have an insane mind (powered by SIN) and I LOOOOOVE to see people suffer!!! Oh yes and then I ran over to a friend’s house and we called in a bunch of hookers over so we could drink illegally and have unprotected sex with them. We did it with them and then we shot them to death. We then proceeded to sniff cocaine (just because we don’t have a glorious guy like “gawd” in our lives because we’re so hopeless and sad.. waahh) and inject large doses of heroin. In fact I am still here with my other atheist/immoral friend, hacking Xian sites (because we’re evil people, remember?) and insulting the recently deceased on Internet forums and Facebook walls (because they’re dead; and just because we don’t believe, that means we can do whatever we want! Atheism is a one-way street to evil!).

          Oh man atheism is so evil. Even though we don’t worship any gods, we *only* worship The Great Atheos. He tells me to just live a life of “evil” and to automatically “lose hope” just because we no longer believe in any other gods. Whoopee!

          • eznight
            December 30th, 2010 at 17:00

            1.
            Once again you are misunderstanding on all points. God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree lest they should die. Satan told Eve the lie that they would not die. It was Eve’s choice to believe God or Satan and with her choice she chose to believe Satan. Anyone can tell a lie and deceive. And commanding them to distrust Satan would have made no difference as He commanded them not to eat of the tree and they disobeyed.
            2.

            This is a very true and dangerous statement. It is funny that you and others constantly try to usher in Hitler to the front of these statistics when he is not mentioned expressly. Though he is subsumed in them he himself was only responsible for around 10 million. Secondly, Hitler was no Christian as the bible clearly states
            Matthew 7:20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
            If you or anyone else could produce evidence of Christian “fruits” from Hitler then you would have more legs to stand on. Every action he performed was antithetical to the bible. Likewise, anyone can label themselves a Christian without truly being one. What you and I (and everyone else) should agree on is that a world-view should never be judged by its abuse.
            You are wrong about Stalin and Mao as their motivations were both political and anti-religious. Both Stalin and Mao did many terrible things in their quest to rid the world of religion. Stalin murdered many religious peoples and forced the closure of churches. Mao personally told the Dali-lama that “religion poisons everything” and subsequently killed 87,000 Tibetans as well as thousands of Buddhists monks. What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what Pol Pot did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing.

            3.
            Again you do not understand nature, character or message of God. The gun is being held to your head and it is in the hand of Satan. God is the one offering the way out. You seem to keep missing the point that hell was not made for us. But because of sin we are all already on our way to hell. God is the one with the hand outstretched with a lifeline saying please take my hand. This is why He sent His son to die on the cross to create the bridge the way to heaven.
            As to the moral point of reference you still have not provided one. I never stated, nor would any intelligent Christian, that to be atheist is to be immoral. I have many atheist friends who are very moral but this logically leads the quandary of moral based on what?
            This greatest problem with atheism is that unlike God who tells us “thou shalt not kill” atheism has no moral foundation to make any moral pronouncements. The moral framework is borrowed from God.

            “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice.  The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good.  Nothing but blind pitiless indifference.  DNA neither knows nor cares.  DNA just is, and we dance to its music.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)

            Not one proponent of evolutionary ethics has explained how an impersonal, amoral first cause through a nonmoral process has produced a moral basis of life – especially as they simultaneously deny any objective moral basis for good and evil.
            The denial of an objective moral law, based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God, results in the denial of evil itself.
            How can one possibly prescribe a moral principle, or the lack of one, without justifying the authority of the source?
            Can a moral precept be posited in abstraction without the value being intrinsic to the one doing the positing? Can humanity be worthless but the question of evil be worthy?

          • eznight
            December 30th, 2010 at 17:03

            This was your quote that was supposed to be showing for point 2:
            Seriously, hardly anyone would be motivated to do “good” if there was no “hell” to go to once dead.

          • December 30th, 2010 at 20:53

            1. Nonsense. In your book, Lucifer is still the source of the evil; he is the one who deceived Eve. After all, if it wasn’t for him, then there would be no “sin” and no purpose for a Christ.

            2. It doesn’t matter how “true” of a Xian Hitler was, but the fact that his actions were carried out in the name of Christ. You can deny all you want about how “true” he was as a Xian, but the hard evidence is there: he killed 6 million European Jews in the NAME of Christ.

            3.

            God is the one with the hand outstretched with a lifeline saying please take my hand.

            That’s nice, but I still find it sad that a “loving” and “just” god would send those who disbelieve in him to “hell,” regardless of kindness done to benefit the less fortunate. There is clearly no way out of this hole. Feel free to keep on rehashing that “but this is why Jesus came and died for us, so we could go to Heaven and not end up in Hell” argument, because it won’t work. You are only walking in circles inside the box, when you could just open it and explore its surroundings.

            The gun being held to someone’s head is held by Lucifer? You clearly failed to understand my analogy. I will not further elaborate because I would just be wasting my time trying to explain it to you again.

            This greatest problem with atheism is that unlike God who tells us “thou shalt not kill” atheism has no moral foundation to make any moral pronouncements. The moral framework is borrowed from God.

            That’s silly. It’s like saying you can’t get your proteins just because you’re a vegetarian/vegan. And you make a straw man argument that just because someone is an outsider to your religion then they’re “immoral” people. Nonsense. You can be a moral person with or without a belief in a divinity. I find your claims to be idiotic at best if you think that the only way to stop people from killing others is to convert to religion… Many times religion messes with peoples’ heads and they reject or disown whoever in their family doesn’t choose to live his or her lifestyle. Therefore, how dare you claim that just because someone lacks a belief in YOUR god that we would *automatically* find no “purpose” to life. That is just absurd, to be honest. I am quite happy with my life as a nonbeliever. I feel like I can have better confidence in myself in life without the need for religion. Also, for the record, you too are an atheist, with respect to Thor, Odin, Zeus, Dionysus, Mithras, Bacchus, Wodan, Baal, Isis & Osiris, etc. Your definition of an “atheist” is “somebody who doesn’t believe in Yahweh.” And with that, I would like you to read this neat and thorough article: http://www.xomba.com/the_morality_of_atheism

          • eznight
            December 31st, 2010 at 01:18

            1.
            Again you are still wrong on Lucifer being the source of evil. I have provided the verse that explicitly addresses where evil comes from (there are more). There is no verse in the bible that states that Satan is the source because he is not.
            Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

            2.
            By your analogy someone could claim that they were a follower of you and kill in your name and thus you would be labeled bad even if you never told them to carry out those killings. In fact you had told them not to carry out those killings but ah, too bad they used your name and now you are bad. Again, a world-view should never be judged by its abuse (including atheism).

            3.
            I guess we are at an impasse since I have shown you several times that hell was not meant for us. It is where all sin must go but it is not where God wants anyone to end up.

            I never made a straw man argument as you must not have read the last part of my last response as I precisely stated that being an atheist does not make one immoral. I am sure you are happy as a non-believer. Again, the unanswerable to atheism is; moral based on what?

            As to the article you provided I again submit my questions:

            Not one proponent of evolutionary ethics has explained how an impersonal, amoral first cause through a nonmoral process has produced a moral basis of life – especially as they simultaneously deny any objective moral basis for good and evil.
            The denial of an objective moral law, based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God, results in the denial of evil itself.
            How can one possibly prescribe a moral principle, or the lack of one, without justifying the authority of the source?
            Can a moral precept be posited in abstraction without the value being intrinsic to the one doing the positing? Can humanity be worthless but the question of evil be worthy?

  51. eznight
    December 29th, 2010 at 17:19

    When you say there is such a thing as evil you are assuming there is such a thing as good. When you say that there is such a thing as good and evil you are assuming an objective moral law on which to differentiate between good and evil. But if there is an objective moral law there must be a moral law giver. Because if there is no objective moral law giver there is no moral law. If there is no moral law there is no good. If there is no good there is no evil. What then is your problem with God not stopping the evil in this world if evil does not exist as a category?

    “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice.  The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good.  Nothing but blind pitiless indifference.  DNA neither knows nor cares.  DNA just is, and we dance to its music.” ~ Professor Richard Dawkins (atheist)

    Any statement about morals raises an assumption that this is a moral universe with a moral basis which is only possible if a transcendent being exists on which have a moral basis. If atheism is true then there is no moral law in this universe, and any moral pronouncement is either utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective or emotive. There is no moral law reflective in this universe and anything that deals with good and evil is purely the product of your environment and your culture. Which logically lead to the fact that atheism has no moral point of reference as evolution does not tell someone what they can or cannot do just as it does not tell you what is good and what is evil. Therefore if atheism is true there is no moral foundation and thus anything can be justified with a moral pronouncement. Only with God do good and bad even have a moral point of reference.

    Without God we are logically lead to the banality of evil. If God does not exist then humanity is the creator of God and religion. Thus humanity has justified the so-called religious killings which can then be added to the list of other atrocities that humanity has committed. Therefore the question still remains for humanism; why is there so much suffering in this world and what is the origin of evil? If humanity is all there is then how can humanity, which has created all the evil we see, be the answer to evil? To say nothing of the fact that, in humanism, there is no moral foundation.

    What is left to believe if we dispense with God and the miracle of life itself? We argue for the existence of things and continue to believe they exist, even though they are mathematically impossible. We default to the belief that ultimate cause is something physical, even though no physical entity, however sectioned, explains its own existence. We hunger for love and meaning, even though we believe they are constructs of the mind and of culture or conditioning. We believe that only the empirical world is true, yet we posit this belief in metaphysical terms. We believe that matter has produced the mind but that the mind transcends matter. We believe that everything that comes into being must have a cause, yet we believe the universe is causeless. We assume intelligence behind intelligibility – except for the universe. We believe in humanity’s ability to totally transcend the mind but are forced to concede that we are subject to an unbreakable determinism. We deny the absoluteness of good and evil, yet we fill our prisons with relativists who have believed this – often highly educated and successful citizens.

    The idea that only science can lead to truth is not itself deduced from science. It is not a scientific idea but rather a meta-scientific idea. The evaluation of philosophy, literature, art and music lies outside the scope of science. How could science tell us whether a poem is a bad poem or a work of genius? How could science possibly tell us whether a painting is a masterpiece or a confused smudge of colors? Certainly not by making chemical analysis of the paint and the canvas. The teaching of morality likewise lies outside science. Science can tell you that if you add strychnine to someones drink it will kill them, but science cannot tell you whether it is morally right or wrong.

    Malcolm Muggeridge stated that we have lost our moral point of reference because we have forgotten that most empirically verifiable (though most denied) part of human experience – the depravity of man. And Muggeridge was right. It is truth that has died, not God.

    - Not one proponent of evolutionary ethics has explained how an impersonal, amoral first cause through a nonmoral process has produced a moral basis of life – especially as they simultaneously deny any objective moral basis for good and evil.
    - The denial of an objective moral law, based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God, results in the denial of evil itself.
    - How can one possibly prescribe a moral principle, or the lack of one, without justifying the authority of the source?
    - Can a moral precept be posited in abstraction without the value being intrinsic to the one doing the positing? Can humanity be worthless but the question of evil be worthy?

    No amount of philosophizing about a world without God has brought hope. Academic degree after academic degree has not removed the haunting specter of the pointlessness of existence in a random universe. The momentary euphoria that may initially accompany a proclamation of liberation soon fades, and one finds oneself in the vise-like grip of despair in a life without ultimate purpose. A naturalistic framework offers no remedy from the sense of suffocation that ensues.

    A purpose for life apart from God makes the ethical battleground a free-for-all. Time and again it has been proven that it is not possible to establish a reasonable and coherent ethical theory without first establishing the telos. If life itself is purposeless, ethics fall into disarray. As Dostoevski said, if God is dead, everything is justifiable.

    The very sharp edge of pain and death is felt universally, and every religion or philosophy of life has to deal with it. A philosophy that espouses no belief in God cannot even justify the question, let alone provide an answer except for the hope for extinction.


    Evolutionary ethics

    Is cannibalism fine because polar bears do it? Is killing your brother or sister fine because nestlings of many bird species do it? Is murdering your children fine because mice sometimes eat their own pups? Is paedophilia fine because bonobo adults have sex with juveniles?

    Just about every kind of behaviour that most of us regard as “unnatural” turns out to be perfectly natural in some nook or cranny of the animal kingdom. No one can plausibly argue that this justifies humans behaving in the same way. Yet even though such examples expose the utter absurdity of appealing to what is “natural” to judge right from wrong – the naturalistic fallacy – there is a strange blind spot when it comes to evolution. Survival of the fittest has been claimed to justify all kinds of things, from free markets to eugenics. Such notions still have a powerful grip in some circles.
    However, natural selection is simply a description of what happens in the living world. It does not tell us how we should behave.

    “I cannot live as though ethical values were simply a matter of personal taste. I do not know the solution to this.” ~ Atheist Bertrand Russell

    “We might well argue that objective, intrinsically prescriptive features supervenient upon natural ones constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relationships that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events without an all-powerful God to create them.” ~ J.L. Mackie (atheist)

    “For several decades we psychologists have looked upon the whole matter of sin and moral accountability as a great incubus and we have acclaimed our freedom from it as epic making.  But at length we have discovered to be free in this sense to have the excuse of being sick rather than being sinful is to also court the danger of becoming lost.  In becoming amoral, ethically neutral and free, we have cut the very roots of our being, lost our deepest sense of selfhood and identity.  And with neurotics themselves, asking, “Who am I?  What is my deepest destiny?  And what does living really mean?” ~ psychologist Hobart Mauer (atheist)

    “For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.” ~ G.K. Chesterton

    “If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as a mere product of heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or, as the Nazis liked to say, ‘of blood and soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.” ~ Victor Frankl

    It is paradoxical that we (primarily the west) do not want the death penalty for a murderer but instead wish to rehabilitate them, yet are angered when they are told that God could forgive them and take them to heaven (through true repentance only).

  52. February 1st, 2013 at 05:04

    Consumers who may have excellent credit scores will surely gain
    from applying for charge cards with instantaneous approval payday loan Remaining
    overs are also the best idea for lunch