Atheists attack religion* because they are ignorant

[9-10ths_Penguin]

among those who approach that level.....one.....would be the Almighty

Why would the top level in each area necessarily be the same?

Among humans, there’s no single “best person;” the world’s best high jumper isn’t the world’s best hockey player, and the world’s best crossword solver isn’t the world’s best hunter.

Why would there be a single “Almighty” among gods?

 

[Thief]

Why would the top level in each area necessarily be the same?

Among humans, there’s no single “best person;” the world’s best high jumper isn’t the world’s best hockey player, and the world’s best crossword solver isn’t the world’s best hunter.

Why would there be a single “Almighty” among gods?

I suspect at some point....it becomes a matter of will

creation

Whose Word takes form

two creators?......
I don't think so

 

[Thief]

Hopefully God won't be distracting me - like S/He appears to do for others.

can't plead innocent here......

seems I've been awake at night as far back as I can remember
and never without thinking about God

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suspect at some point....it becomes a matter of will

creation

Whose Word takes form

two creators?......
I don't think so

Your god is incapable of working with another god?

 

[Thief]

Your god is incapable of working with another god?

working with......I might say yeah
working around an opposition.............no

 

[Mock Turtle]

can't plead innocent here......

seems I've been awake at night as far back as I can remember
and never without thinking about God

Snap for the staying awake but my thoughts are grounded in the here and now - seems to have worked so far.

 

[Thief]

Snap for the staying awake but my thoughts are grounded in the here and now - seems to have worked so far.

then we are not so different

two sides of the same coin

hmmmm....heads?....or tails?

 

[Mock Turtle]

then we are not so different

two sides of the same coin

hmmmm....heads?....or tails?

Don't mention tails - that might get one into the pervy category.

 

[JustWondering]

There may be legitimate reasons to leave a church, or a denomination, but leaving a religion is somewhat different. When you leave a religion, you leave "all" churches. That is a rather different and far more radical concept.

When you realize that Christianity is just mythology that was made up by ancient men like those surrounding the Greek, Celtic, and Egyptian gods for instance, yes, you leave ALL churches that treat that mythology as fact. What is so hard to understand about that concept?

I rather disagree. I think that its claims do mesh with reality. Are you see reality properly?

Science clearly shows earth formed after the Sun and stars, the bible mistakenly says otherwise. There was no global flood, the bible erroneously says otherwise. Science clearly shows that inbreeding causes horrible birth defects, if the world was repopulated by the people and animals on the ark, all land based life would be horribly crippled from inbreeding, which obviously isn't the case. Science can demonstrate the earth is millions of years old, the bible claims it is thousands of years old. There are no collaborating sources to back up events in the bible, the Egyptians were big on record keeping yet there are zero records about any plagues afflicting Egypt. There are passages in the bible that contradict each other. There are failed prophecies in the bible. The only way to remain a believer of Christianity in the 21st century is to knowingly refuse to apply critical thinking to your beliefs and willingly close your eyes and consciously remain ignorant of many things that rational people accept as common knowledge. That is not the behavior of a reasonable and honest person.

Ridiculous? Do you not even have a conscience? Do you disbelieve in the difference between right and wrong? Do you not have any fear that bad things happen to bad people, or if they don't it is because God is longsuffering with them not willing to destroy them immediately?

Yes, do you? The god of the bible indulged in genocide and infanticide primarily for petty reasons. Yet, you would have me believe his behavior is a solid foundation to base morals upon? You can't be serious. From god's example authority means everything, if you have authority over someone you can do whatever you want to them. How is that moral?

Secondly, a belief in a god is not a prerequisite for having a conscience. In fact, I think belief in a religion like Christianity can impair someone's ability to feel empathy for others.

The authority that the bible inculcates is not the authority of mere men but the authority of your creator. I think your creator has a somewhat higher claim to authority than another human being.

I am aware the bible makes many claims about a creator god. As I have said, the bible is just mythology, the god of the bible is no more real than Zeus, Ra, or Odin.

 

[JustWondering]

more like.....show your reason....
that you are not so blind

What is this?! You expect someone who makes extraordinary claims to back them up?! Funny how you think that standard shouldn't apply to you when you make extraordinary claims.

 

[gnostic]

Out of context? No, this is standard prophetical exegesis. You have to know that so much in the OT is prophetical of what is to come, without replicating exactly the facts which the words, or events, immediately relate to.

No, it isnt “standard” prophetical exegesis.

In standard exegesis of prophetical writings, you would expect any scholar worths their salt, to read and critically interpret the entire sign, which in Isaiah 7, start at 7:14, and at the last verse, 7:25 (total of 12 verses)...but the core sign relating to the child is the 4 verses 7:14-17.

The sign isn’t about the birth of Immanuel (7:14), but when Immanuel reach an age when Assyrian emperor (named Tiglath-pileser of Assyria, 2 Kings 15:29 & 2 Kings 16:5-9) intervene in the war, and taken Samaria and Damascus, and taken captives from these two lands - Isaiah 7:15-17.

That’s the real sign, not the gospel’s claim in Matthew 1:22-23.

The gospel Matthew 1:22-23 isn’t standard exegesis, it is merely a propaganda claim, meant to promote Jesus’s birth as a miracle, special birth. You are not critically interpreting the original context of the original sign; no, you are biasedly taking Isaiah’s sign out of context just as the gospel author did.

The sign is about the war in which Ahaz was besieged by the 2 kings, Pekah and Rezin, of which Isaiah was contemporary to, and that the sign would occurred in the current war and Assyrian intervention that Isaiah was contemporary to.

That Immanuel is mentioned again in 8:10, relating to the war against the 2 kings and to Assyria’s intervention, only demonstrated your exegesis is wrong.

 

[Thief]

What is this?! You expect someone who makes extraordinary claims to back them up?! Funny how you think that standard shouldn't apply to you when you make extraordinary claims.

your retort is out of context

I was answering to someone else and his stance had no support .....not even a reason

I always lay back to Cause and effect

Creator and creation

 

[JustWondering]

your retort is out of context

I was answering to someone else and his stance had no support .....not even a reason

I always lay back to Cause and effect

Creator and creation

*yawn* Who created the creator? Let me guess! No one, by your logic a creator doesn't need a creator itself. By your logic it is more likely for a completely automated watch factory to spontaneously exist than for a single watch to spontaneously exist. Which is the more complex item? The completely automated watch factory or the watch? Your unsupported claims about supernatural beings and events don't impress me. Especially when they lack any logical arguments and evidence to back them up.

 

[gnostic]

your retort is out of context

I was answering to someone else and his stance had no support .....not even a reason

I always lay back to Cause and effect

Creator and creation

You still don’t understand in science “cause-and-effect” required separate evidences for “cause” and evidences for “effect”, and then evidences of how “cause” is directly related to “effect”.

Science required verifiable and empirical evidences for the cause-and-effect argument to be valid.

In science, you cannot have evidences for “effect” alone, because evidences are required for “cause” too. Without direct evidences to the CAUSE, then your whole cause-and-effect argument falls apart.

You said itself in past threads, that you can’t put God on the petri-dish or observe under microscope, you can’t photograph God and you can’t get God’s fingerprints. Meaning there are no way to get evidences for God.


If the Creator created the creation, and if you think this cause and effect, then you should have evidences for the existence of creation and separate evidences for the existence of Creator.

But you have absolutely zero-evidence for Creator, because you said it yourself that you cannot fingerprint or photograph God. At best, your "cause" as imaginary...at worse, it is wishful thinking delusion.

The Intelligent Design analogy suffered from the same problem as the Christian creation myth: There are no evidences of the Designer ever existing.

If the Designer is the cause for design, then there should be direct evidences for Designer. But all ID advocates have to show, are just words, that the Design required Designer, so no evidences, just flawed logic and implying. That merely baseless sophistry.

Creationists also used sophistry to justify their blind faith in the Creator’s existence.

 

[Thief]

You still don’t understand

yeah I do

you keep thinking petri dish.....which can't be used
(the experiment won't fit)

and I just keep thinking
because that's all we can really do about God

the Cause will be there
and you know it's there because......
the effect is all around you

and you are part of it

 

[Kenny]

When you realize that Christianity is just mythology that was made up by ancient men like those surrounding the Greek, Celtic, and Egyptian gods for instance, yes, you leave ALL churches that treat that mythology as fact. What is so hard to understand about that concept?

.

Not hard to understand... just wrong.

 

[gnostic]

and I just keep thinking
because that's all we can really do about God

the Cause will be there
and you know it's there because......
the effect is all around you

and you are part of it

There are no evidences for any god. And the CAUSE required empirical evidences, which you clearly don’t have.

You have admitted that yourself that you cannot photograph god or fingerprint God.

All you are doing is using circular reasoning and wishful thinking to justify God’s existence.

You are basing your belief in God entirely on your personal opinions on Iron Age superstitions that you call bible.

 

[Thief]

There are no evidences for any god. And the CAUSE required empirical evidences, which you clearly don’t have.

You have admitted that yourself that you cannot photograph god or fingerprint God.

All you are doing is using circular reasoning and wishful thinking to justify God’s existence.

You are basing your belief in God entirely on your personal opinions on Iron Age superstitions that you call bible.

so....your reflection in a mirror.....is just your reflection

and you are not the design or intent of a Deity greater than you are

and substance ....at some 'point'.....became intelligent and proclaimed......

I AM!

 

[Thief]

BTW.....I have no religion

not superstitious
or dogmatic

 

[gnostic]

BTW.....I have no religion

not superstitious
or dogmatic

If you believe in god and Jesus, if you worship god and if you believe in the bible, THEN you most certainly have a religion.

A religion is not a place you worship or congregate or join, it is about acceptance (faith) of belief.

And since you believe in what the bible say, then you do have a religion.

And what is belief, if not superstition.

You believe that god created everything - humans, animals, plants, mountains, waters, sun, moon, planets, galaxies, universe, etc, and you believe that God everything (nature), BUT you have directly seen God, then you are most certainly “superstitious”.

And below is a perfect example of superstition:

and you are not the design or intent of a Deity greater than you are