• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Nonbelievers to Hell!

AxisMundi

E Pluribus Unum!!!
Thats such a beatable statement i'm amazed you actually put it forward.

You recognize and validate non-scientific, unprovable, UNPROVED-scribbles of darwin and the fact that he in his theoretical high, conjoined human ancestry with apes , and you have serious doubts regarding scriptures which are confirmed , were confirmed, and will keep on finding absolute confirmation till the end of times, I can bet you on that one if nothing else. What if science PROVES in the coming future that man did not evolve from apes?

The avoidance towards working for that proof really seems intentional now , because science could easily prove that, but its not going to, as it wont go down well for those who run the science show in only those instances where they are getting something out of it, and for those who run their Govts on THEIR 'self serving principles', and hence, 'religion MUST not take over the world, in any case, or it compromises their firm grip over the resources of the world!'.:devil:

Its true that most scriptures have been translated from their original languages, and some (do not even retain their original names today owing to human corruption) giving doubts to their originality, but that loss of 'some of the scripture's credibility', points strongly towards the 'Final word of God ' The Quran which stands unchanged, unfazed, and un-corrupted.
( But why would i buy another egg when the rest of them turned out rotten, stop eating eggs will you? great logic.)

It is ONLY the detail study of ALL scriptures which CLARIFY those doubts. But we will only stick to the detail study of science and waste our time whinning about lack of evidence to this or that, only few take the challenge sincerely and few want to go ahead with the truth.

You have to be an ardent examiner of the scriptures to be even able to identify whats wrong and where, you have to educate yourself thoroughly and it takes many to obtain that kind of knowledge, with a lot of patience, preserverence and faith.

It is scriptural science, it has a history of thousands of years, and is not comparable to a couple of 'hundreds of years' of study of scientific methods which still need to grow to give out any clues or evidences to match the wisdom of the scriptures, which it never is even going to come close to.

That said, God made it just so easy to understand and saved humans the trouble of going back ages to verify something on their own, He only asked humans to read the word of God with an open mind, and truth will reveal itself.

Just because the technology today has digital imagery devices to capture images, does not mean men did not exist before , lacked knowledge and all of them lived in caves. The Pyramids of Egypt ,(several other ancient civilizations, romans& persians) and the tall mountains engraved in a whole city in Mecca shout aloud about the presence of skilled civilizations with excellent designs of cities and immense resources to put that kind of effort across, even today its a wonder how such huge cities got built that way.

Do you really think all men of the past were some fools who never acquired any knowledge and lacked intelligence to cope with their climates? And they believed the Books from God as exactly that , because they lacked proof against them? How lame and how foolishly arrogant of one's superiority complex of intelligence.


What do you think is an effective way of giving a message across to people who will be born a thousands years later? And suppose there was a huge flood to drown all technology, earthquakes to destroy man made structures, nuclear bombs to destroy almost everything, and the space satellites destroyed too. Device a plausible way of conserving that message and make it damage -fool-proof.

What a load of codwholop.

Evolution is a proven fact. It has centuries of peer reviewed archival material and museums jambed packed to the rafters in hard physical evidences. The fact is we share a COMMON ANCESTOR with the modern apes, we are not decended from them.

What does your bible have?

Absolutely nothing. It has never been confirmed at all.

The planet is not flat, 6,000 years old, nor the center of the Universe. Genesis has creation bass ackwards to reality as well, not to mention the pure impossible fantasy of the entire human race startign from one amting couple. There isn't enough water on the planet to completely inundate the surface nor can tens of millions of animals, birds, fish, insects, etc, plus their food and water for over a year, plus tens of millions of tonnes of plant seed fit onto one boat. There is no evidence of a mass exodus, a historical Jesus, and even King David is in serious doubt. Despite the best efforst of biblical archaeologists for many centuries, Sodom and Ghamorrah, the ark, Eden, and all the other biblcial places that are not mentioned in non-biblical sources simply have not been found becasue they do not exist.

This does not include the plethora of self-contradictions, plain historical innacuracies, or the simple fact that none of the gospels can be proven to have been written by their supposed authors.

Your post above drips with willfull ignorance where science is concerned.

And before you try and sound clever with a "No You!" comeback, iw as raised Roman Catholic and read the bible through twice before elaving the relgiion in my mid-teens.

Left for a complete lack of evidence, or confirmation, of anything listed in your bible.
 

AxisMundi

E Pluribus Unum!!!
I suppose some people must be aware of this, but just have a look anyway.

It is about one of the Miracles of the Prophet Muhammad SAWW( pbuh) and though it has gotten confirmed scientifically, but there are better things to project in the media than the truth.

Crack on moon confirms Prophet Muhammad (S) had split it | Jafariya News Network


[youtube]rHaigjw21n0[/youtube]
YouTube - Moon-Splitting of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

Funny how you deride science when it disagrees with your scripture, but then are so quick to jump on science when it appears to prove your scriptures.

BTW, that is a stress crack, one of many, in the SURFACE of the moon, not a split.

Nor do they extend "the length of the moon" whatever that means. A globe has no "length"...

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Dec. 13. -- The discovery by Assistant Astronomer J.D. Perrine of the Lick Observatory, California, of a crack or rill which extends lengthwise on the face of the moon through the valley of the Alps for a distance of eighty miles is, according to Assistant Professor W.H. Pickering, Harvard's well-known authority on the moon, "old news."

I would catagorize you a bold faced liar, but you are merely the victim of liars repeating their lies.
 

Starsoul

Truth
Funny how you deride science when it disagrees with your scripture, but then are so quick to jump on science when it appears to prove your scriptures.

BTW, that is a stress crack, one of many, in the SURFACE of the moon, not a split.

Nor do they extend "the length of the moon" whatever that means. A globe has no "length"...

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Dec. 13. -- The discovery by Assistant Astronomer J.D. Perrine of the Lick Observatory, California, of a crack or rill which extends lengthwise on the face of the moon through the valley of the Alps for a distance of eighty miles is, according to Assistant Professor W.H. Pickering, Harvard's well-known authority on the moon, "old news."

I would catagorize you a bold faced liar, but you are merely the victim of liars repeating their lies.

uhh talk about resorting to bully when you got nothing better to say. Go ahead spit your anger out, show your real self, Ill pray for science to save you from the humiliation , don't burn so much really, you're loosing sanity.
 

Starsoul

Truth
And for your clear information, just because we use science as a tool of study and devising methods of study of the universe, we don't start worshipping it or abuse it to refute the creation.

Science NEVER says that there is no creator, it NEVER says there were no religions, It NEVER has any power over evil or good, it is JUST the mad NUTS who ASSIGN those attributes to science because they have screwed up personal lives and cant handle their relationships themselves and BLAME GOD for all the MAYHEM. Go do as you please, Its you and your kind who seem too upset over the lack of faith and spirit that you go through, wont do you much good really.

The next thing evolutionists will jump to (like apes?) is glorifying the common ancestory with apes, how INTELLIEGNT! Can imagine if they'll start protesting for marrying them too out of respect, (who knows, owing to the weird forms of Love people have started coming up with these days, that day does not seem far) How disgusting really, no wonder that those who relate to apes, start acting like them too, no wonder really. Please do jump a bit more so that everybody can see you .
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
So has it been decided that God will tolerate all who want to go to heaven?

Not believing is all fine and good...as you keep on breathing.

Then what?
Do you really think all of this life will fail to cross over?

6billion+ and no one will have life after death?

Really?

If there is life after death...Someone else will be in charge.

If there is no life after death...then life is in vain.
 

ninerbuff

godless wonder
Explain this:
Cromagnon man and Neanderthal:
We have proof of both through skeletal remains. Cromagnon is early human, Neanderthal isn't but a related cousin. Neanderthal doesn't look like an ape, or chimp but more human, yet isn't classified as human because of genetics. What more proof is needed?
 

ButTheCatCameBack

Active Member
I tend to think the idea of an afterlife cheapens life. But that is another discussion. Here is where we see the difference between the scientific method and dogma. Evidence does not support Christianity. To this the believer says no! it must! And fits the square peg of the natural universe into the circle hole of Christian supernaturalism.

The scientific method tests tests tests! To come to always tentative conclusions. Ready for new information to refine.

Science doesn't have to say "there is no creator!" It just has to show how such a nebulous thing is unnecessary. Logic and philosophy can take the rest. Saying science never said there are no religions doesn't even make sense. That sentence is gibberish. No such thing as "power over good and evil." A line of which seems to imply some sort of saturday morning cartoon version of good and evil that represent cosmic black hat/white hat forces vying for control of the universe. No thanks. The real petty human evils of the world are more real, more horrific, and more deserving of our attempts to solve the problems of evil.

Pointing out the erroneous false nature of religion is not to worship the universe. It's to point us in the direction of facts. Many of those facts change daily life. Providing new medical technology, new engineering techniques,etc. And no scientist or everyday person who utilizes technology. Which includes those religious folks who post here on their computers, owes religion ANYTHING. It's no ones fault the facts do not support the conclusions of the religious. It is the conclusions that must change, not the facts.

The facts of our genetic ancestry and the historical falsehoods of Christianity may anger the "believer". That anger is inconsequential and changes nothing. Including the genetic similarities you share with the common ancestors you and modern primates share.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
ButTheCatCameBack-

Is it belief in a Creator that is really harmful, or rather religious myths that have made a troubled world because such religions undermine belief in a Creator by perpetuating evils done in his name? Are evils done in God's name make God at fault?
Who would blame a car manufacturer for an accident caused by a drunk driver or a distracted driver using a cell phone?

Many religions cater to what is popular at the time. Catering to the people, the people want religious leaders 'tickling their ears' so to speak, all the while they are really condoning bad things condemned by Jesus teachings.

Also, can't 'No God' also mean No accountability?
What values or morals would anyone be obligated to respect?
If morality become relative with each determining his own standard, if any, then how is that going to be different from the bad religious climate in today's world?
So, will universal atheism really make for a better world?
Or, how can faith in atheism be more than just blind chance?
 

ButTheCatCameBack

Active Member
Is it belief in a Creator that is really harmful, or rather religious myths that have made a troubled world because such religions undermine belief in a Creator by perpetuating evils done in his name?

Redundant question. You're asking if a myth or myths are harmful.

Are evils done in God's name make God at fault?

Pro Tip:You are asking an atheist this question.

Who would blame a car manufacturer for an accident caused by a drunk driver or a distracted driver using a cell phone?

I wouldn't. Your analogies also don't apply.

Many religions cater to what is popular at the time. Catering to the people, the people want religious leaders 'tickling their ears' so to speak, all the while they are really condoning bad things condemned by Jesus teachings.

Historically context less post. Mention specific events then realize they must be contrasted against other events.

Also, can't 'No God' also mean No accountability?
What values or morals would anyone be obligated to respect?

Accountability and morality share something interesting in common. Neither require supernaturalism to exist as concepts.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Why is that?

Each of your five senses deliver to you some portion of this reality.
Your body is a teaching tool...and you're on the receiving of end of it.

What you learn...what you become...goes back to God.

Non-belief?...before God?

Why should spiritual life be granted to someone who did not believe?
How will you receive what you did not plan for?
 
Why should spiritual life be granted to someone who did not believe?

Why should spiritual life be connected to any god or belief?

How will you receive what you did not plan for?

The same way I receive every surprise in my life. I adapt.

We humans are good at that. Whether it's responding to the aftermath of a flood, an unexpected pregnancy or your offspring telling you they are engaged.
 
Last edited:
Are evils done in God's name make God at fault?
Who would blame a car manufacturer for an accident caused by a drunk driver or a distracted driver using a cell phone?
omniscient, omnipotent creators dont get to shed responsibility like car manufacturers do.

Also, can't 'No God' also mean No accountability?
What values or morals would anyone be obligated to respect?
(saying "cant" means that the sentence is entirely speculative and therefore mildly irrefutable, however if you were to have asked "doesn't 'no god' also mean no accountability?" i would respond with) NO. absolutely not. the values and morals that people would be obligated to respect are the ones set up by their societal structure, which is the exact same morals everyone is obligated to respect. religion really has very little to do with morality, it is the societies themselves that set up moral principles.
Or, how can faith in atheism be more than just blind chance?
this is being handled in another thread, and therefore i wont get too far into it. but you cant have faith in a lack of something.

6billion+ and no one will have life after death?
Really?
how does the number of people have anything to do with what happens after they die?

If there is life after death...Someone else will be in charge.

If there is no life after death...then life is in vain.
some would say life is in vain if there is some perpetuated existence after death. heaven nor hell gives this life meaning, we do.

And for your clear information, just because we use science as a tool of study and devising methods of study of the universe, we don't start worshipping it or abuse it to refute the creation.
you're right, nobody worships science. and how would you abuse science to refute the creation? if creation happened, we'd be learning about it through the scientific method. if it didn't happen, we'd be learning THAT through the scientific method. just because we're learning something you don't like doesn't mean we're "abusing" science.

Science NEVER says that there is no creator,
it doesn't have to, the data suggests it enough. and since it's probably not clear to you SCIENCE DOESN'T SAY THINGS!!! i dont know how many times i am going to have to explain this to people. the scientific method of skeptical inquiry is a MEANS of obtaining data, it's not a data generator. science doesn't say things any more than the english language says things.
it NEVER says there were no religions,
um... what?
It NEVER has any power over evil or good,
of course it doesn't what are you even talking about?
The next thing evolutionists will jump to (like apes?) is glorifying the common ancestory with apes, how INTELLIEGNT! Can imagine if they'll start protesting for marrying them too out of respect, (who knows, owing to the weird forms of Love people have started coming up with these days, that day does not seem far) How disgusting really, no wonder that those who relate to apes, start acting like them too, no wonder really. Please do jump a bit more so that everybody can see you .
what exactly are you getting at here? because if it's what i think you're getting at then i underestimated your density.

Each of your five senses deliver to you some portion of this reality.
Your body is a teaching tool...and you're on the receiving of end of it.
first of all, we dont only have five senses.
second, my body is not a teaching tool, it's a gene transporter. there's a difference.


How will you receive what you did not plan for?
people receive things that they didn't plan for all the time. gifts happen pretty frequently. and you'd think that an individual with an unlimited amount of kindness and grace, coupled with an unlimited amount of resources, would be even more generous than his lowly creations who actually have to work for the things they freely give away. i can just see god in a play-pen holding heaven while a non believer wants to play with it and he's just saying "MINE, MINE, MINE!"
 

Dan4reason

Facts not Faith
Each of your five senses deliver to you some portion of this reality.
Your body is a teaching tool...and you're on the receiving of end of it.

What you learn...what you become...goes back to God.

Non-belief?...before God?

Why should spiritual life be granted to someone who did not believe?
How will you receive what you did not plan for?

Completely unconvincing.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
That might be an issue for people who have seen any justifications... I certainly haven't; and I was a full-scale believer when I was young. I was certainly ready to receive anything to convince me to remain a believer. One time I took a book (I think it was called "Evolution in Action" but I don't recall the author) to the joint Presbytarian-Baptist church my family attended and pleaded for someone to show me how it didn't make sense -- it's shameful to me now that I was endeavoring indeed not to seek knowledge but to avoid accepting the possibility of anything outside my worldview.

I don't make those mistakes now. I'm quite open to evidence and justification for a god's existence. If God exists and is omniscient then He knows that. Maybe if that's the case the justification I'm seeking is still heading my way in the future, but for now I have to truly wonder -- where is it?
I guess I was on the opposite end of this. I was a full scale non-believer in college. I saw scientific opinions (hypothesis at best) go unchallenged in my anthropology class. They all seemed as drone-like as religious folks do (which is scarier IMO). It just became easier to accept with most everyone in the class was a non-believer (most of them despising religion). Now, I realize that particular professor was wrong and that science has a self-correcting element to it. However, it is still ran by an epistemology that is naturalized, that is to say, an epistemology (under the guise of scientism) that interprets not only that the universe can show no evidence for God but that it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God. How in holy batman is that science? It's hogwash! Men and women in science hold biases, have emotions, hold age-old propositions, and all sorts of human goodies that affects how we interpret things. No one is immune to this. The difference is that religious folks admit that they have it and try to explain it under perspective systematic theology. Anyways, I've managed to go off in a tangent and it's good to hear you are still open. That's all that can be asked of you at this point. You are still young. :)
 
Last edited:

fnord

Sorcerer
Someone said some religions aren't based on faith, which I'm assuming means they are based on reason since faith and reason are pretty dichotomous. So, I asked them for which ones they were talking about and for the justifications those religions use to support their claims (since they're not based on faith).

Satanism is not based on faith of any kind, nor does it make any claims that are beyond the scope of reason.

Sorry to jump in, just reading through the thread.

As for the OP, that's one of the lovely facets of christianity that sent me scrambling away from it.
 

AxisMundi

E Pluribus Unum!!!
uhh talk about resorting to bully when you got nothing better to say. Go ahead spit your anger out, show your real self, Ill pray for science to save you from the humiliation , don't burn so much really, you're loosing sanity.

I notice you did not address the meat of my reponse, ei that is no evidence of a split moon.

You and your source (especially your source) looses yet more credibility.

And for your clear information, just because we use science as a tool of study and devising methods of study of the universe, we don't start worshipping it or abuse it to refute the creation.

1. No one worships science, sorry. That is a lame response meant only to distract and an attempt to add validity to your religion by a non sequitur relationship between religion and science. Doesn't work in either case.
2. Science clearly refutes scriptural Creationism without even trying to, which I find quite eloquent.

Science NEVER says that there is no creator, it NEVER says there were no religions, It NEVER has any power over evil or good, it is JUST the mad NUTS who ASSIGN those attributes to science because they have screwed up personal lives and cant handle their relationships themselves and BLAME GOD for all the MAYHEM. Go do as you please, Its you and your kind who seem too upset over the lack of faith and spirit that you go through, wont do you much good really.

Science addresses measurable phenomina. Deities are purely a matter of faith. They are unmeasurable and untestable. Science has never made, doesn't make, nor will ever make any attempts to eliminate Deity.

Science most certainly can be applied to religion, however, and quite easily disproves each and every myth and miracle in the Abrahamic Scriptures.

It is amusing to watch people invent new "science" in their continuing struggle to validate and jsutify their religion. It is amusing simply because the effort Fails so hard.

The next thing evolutionists will jump to (like apes?) is glorifying the common ancestory with apes, how INTELLIEGNT! Can imagine if they'll start protesting for marrying them too out of respect, (who knows, owing to the weird forms of Love people have started coming up with these days, that day does not seem far) How disgusting really, no wonder that those who relate to apes, start acting like them too, no wonder really. Please do jump a bit more so that everybody can see you .

Are logic fallacies your only debate technique?
 

AxisMundi

E Pluribus Unum!!!
ButTheCatCameBack-

Is it belief in a Creator that is really harmful, or rather religious myths that have made a troubled world because such religions undermine belief in a Creator by perpetuating evils done in his name? Are evils done in God's name make God at fault?
Who would blame a car manufacturer for an accident caused by a drunk driver or a distracted driver using a cell phone?

Many religions cater to what is popular at the time. Catering to the people, the people want religious leaders 'tickling their ears' so to speak, all the while they are really condoning bad things condemned by Jesus teachings.

Also, can't 'No God' also mean No accountability?
What values or morals would anyone be obligated to respect?
If morality become relative with each determining his own standard, if any, then how is that going to be different from the bad religious climate in today's world?
So, will universal atheism really make for a better world?
Or, how can faith in atheism be more than just blind chance?

Who would blame the pipe bomb created by some bored teen blowing up and killing people?

That's how your "argument" sounds.

And you confuse morals with religious laws.

Yes, relgiion does indeed adopt morals into it's religious laws, since morals make sence.

However, morals are developed OUTSIDE of religious influences, they are social in nature.
 
Top