Why believe in god?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't really matter what theologians and novelists think about hell if there's no reason to believe in such a terrible place

That was in reply to a poster whi complained about the Christian God sending people to hell. It mattered enough to that poster, since he/she made an issue of it. If you don't care for it, no problem at all.

That was me. The statement stands. It wasn't a complaint about the Christian God, it was a statement. The punishment for not accepting Christ as your savior is hell - which is very well known in Christianity and the reason why missionaries try to spread the Word -- to give people the opportunity to accept Jesus as their savior, so they can avoid hell.

No, actually, a lot of Christians DON'T believe this. We love it, though, when atheists tell us what they think we "should" or "do" believe.

There is no mention above of what individual Christians believe -- that's all over the map, for sure. But the religion of Christianity teaches that Christ came to earth to save humans who would believe he was the son of god. Believers get eternal life and non-believers get eternal hell. That is very basic.

People do tend to cherry-pick what they believe, based on what suits them. It can change during their lifetime, depending on people's response to events and new information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why the OP just doesn't just point to his own existence as proof of the non-existence of God. Could any kind of God, no matter how cruel, create a being so desiring of being logical and yet so incapable of it?

Good point.

I also feel that OP should find a new ranting atheist site to get inspiration from. The supposed "evidence" that s/he picks up from the current ranting atheist site are incredibly lame and can be disposed of with a flick of a finger. It's not even much of a challenge to point out that Nicaea didn't invent monotheism, or that Horus and Mithras don't have much to do with Ddcember 25th. Hey, there are good reasons to question God's existence, if that's your game. But OP is incapable of making these complex arguments, and the current ranting atheist website she's apparently drawing from isn't doing her any favors.

talking to yourself again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Why believe in God"

That is an arrogant, human-centered, self-serving approach to an issue which, if believed, is supposedly faith-based.

On a discussion board inhabited by humans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why the OP just doesn't just point to his own existence as proof of the non-existence of God. Could any kind of God, no matter how cruel, create a being so desiring of being logical and yet so incapable of it?

Good point.

I also feel that OP should find a new ranting atheist site to get inspiration from. The supposed "evidence" that s/he picks up from the current ranting atheist site are incredibly lame and can be disposed of with a flick of a finger. It's not even much of a challenge to point out that Nicaea didn't invent monotheism, or that Horus and Mithras don't have much to do with Ddcember 25th. Hey, there are good reasons to question God's existence, if that's your game. But OP is incapable of making these complex arguments, and the current ranting atheist website she's apparently drawing from isn't doing her any favors.

talking to yourself again?

Nope, and the moderator can verify. Shouldn't you be studying for your GEDs?

[Anonymous]

Why believe in man?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why believe in man?

Good question, and one the atheists here still haven't answered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why the OP just doesn't just point to his own existence as proof of the non-existence of God. Could any kind of God, no matter how cruel, create a being so desiring of being logical and yet so incapable of it?

Good point.

I also feel that OP should find a new ranting atheist site to get inspiration from. The supposed "evidence" that s/he picks up from the current ranting atheist site are incredibly lame and can be disposed of with a flick of a finger. It's not even much of a challenge to point out that Nicaea didn't invent monotheism, or that Horus and Mithras don't have much to do with Ddcember 25th. Hey, there are good reasons to question God's existence, if that's your game. But OP is incapable of making these complex arguments, and the current ranting atheist website she's apparently drawing from isn't doing her any favors.

talking to yourself again?

Nope, and the moderator can verify. Shouldn't you be studying for your GEDs?

A refreshing interest in checking the evidence!

[Anonymous]

I also feel that OP should find a new ranting atheist site to get inspiration from. The supposed "evidence" that s/he picks up from the current ranting atheist site are incredibly lame and can be disposed of with a flick of a finger. It's not even much of a challenge to point out that Nicaea didn't invent monotheism, or that Horus and Mithras don't have much to do with Ddcember 25th. Hey, there are good reasons to question God's existence, if that's your game. But OP is incapable of making these complex arguments, and the current ranting atheist website she's apparently drawing from isn't doing her any favors.

First of all, no one said the council INVENTED monotheism. What an idiot! Who's the one who must work toward a GED? How about Reading 101 first?

The council - hundreds of years later - finalized the doctrine. Supposedly, your Christianity started the year Jesus died on the cross. He was 33, yes? It wasn't until 325 that Constantine was savvy enough to make Christianity "official" so that he could gain more and more power over the illiterate masses.

And how spectacular were those mystery plays? (fashioned after the Greek plays which were not only a form of entertainment - but a way to worship their gods!)

So the literate few were in charge. How convenient, eh? It allowed them to decide which stories from the bible to use in order to create the Christian faith.

Where's your PhD level reasoning that can argue against the evidence I've provided?

[Anonymous]

Wow. I have not read all 21 pages. Belief is often based on faith. But for some, belief needs to be based on more than just faith.

I have noticed that there are many atheists who are converting to belief because they had near death experiences. Surgeons are converting for the same reason and because their private conversations were heard and recollected by patients thought to be dead, sometimes often when they were no longer in the room.

Blind people who have near death experiences report vision.

I think near death experiences are changing people's beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm another person you've been arguing with, and I too am highly educated, including a graduate degree from one of the top three schools in the country. I, too, speak several languages fluently, although not quite as many as PP: I speak 2 languages fluently, one language near-fluently, and I have taken college-level courses in two additional languages.

I think some of the frustration with your posting style is the silliness of the arguments, which stems partly from ignorance about even the most basic tenets of Christianity. You also don't seem to know much about philosophy in general -- I'm the poster who quoted Berkeley at you, and you were unable to respond to it.

I have educated myself widely on my religion. I have read all of the New Testament, much of the Old, and many theologians including from the Jesus Seminar, and lots on the historical Jesus.

I still find Jesus' message of love, tolerance and peace compelling for all ages, including the 21st century when we're so interconnected and war is just a red button away. I don't find anything objectionable in the gospels about the treatment of minorities, women, or gays, except for a few passages in Paul and, of course, Paul was not Jesus. But most of all, the message to love your enemies is an extraordinarily powerful message, particularly today.

sounds like you've been arguing with at least two different people without realizing it. I am very familiar with the tenets of Christianity and the Jesus seminar and studies of the Historical Jesus. I understand how educated people could know all that and still have different takes on it. I also understand how Jesus' message of love, etc, is compelling. That doesn't make the Bible any less gruesome or dated or dubious and it certainly doesn't make Jesus divine or the son of god. It suggests that you have compartmentalized the parts of Christianity that appeal to you.

Show us where the New Testament is "gruesome." Thanks. That claim (among other claims you and the other atheist here have made) suggests that, despite your claims of familiarity with the Bible, you are actually pretty ignorant about it.

The slaughter of the innocents.

The Book of Revelation is quite a fine text that I often read to my young children as part of our bedtime routine.

Jezebel never had a chance in hell.

Is the accuser going to acknowledge these references, continue to defend the accusation or gloss over it or ignore it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I have not read all 21 pages. Belief is often based on faith. But for some, belief needs to be based on more than just faith.

I have noticed that there are many atheists who are converting to belief because they had near death experiences. Surgeons are converting for the same reason and because their private conversations were heard and recollected by patients thought to be dead, sometimes often when they were no longer in the room.

Blind people who have near death experiences report vision.

I think near death experiences are changing people's beliefs.

There is evidence gained from studies done on the brain to show that NDE are part of how the brain functions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/surge-of-brain-activity-may-explain-near-death-experience-study-says/2013/08/12/47026016-0105-11e3-9a3e-916de805f65d_story.html
Research is our friend.

[Anonymous]

Pp, not entirely true. Brain function doesn't explain how a dead patient heard a conversation down the hall.

[Anonymous]

Is the accuser going to acknowledge these references, continue to defend the accusation or gloss over it or ignore it?

New Testament - some good quotes:

1 Timothy 2:12New International Version (NIV)
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet.

Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
Psalm 137:9

Jeremiah 19:9
I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh because their enemies will press the siege so hard against them to destroy them.'

Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
1 Peter 2:18

23Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25He went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.
2 Kings 2:23

"'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 18:22

b/c this one preaches love your brother - as long as your brother stays in the closet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pp, not entirely true. Brain function doesn't explain how a dead patient heard a conversation down the hall.

Just as the world was once flat, my god-fearing friend, we'll soon understand more and more about the functions of the brain in the near future.

[Anonymous]

Let's all learn a new word today - monolatrous.