Gah, I was just about to go to sleep.

 

[hide=warri0r45]

 

1) I don't want god to do anything for me. I'm not demanding anything. I just wouldn't mind if he did show himself to me so I could know he exists.

 

 

 

2) I can accept that's what you/christians believe. The important thing I'm trying to get out of this is if you see hell as a place of misery and pain or merely an absence of god. If it's the former, I put forth a suggestion as to why it's unjeust for me to go to hell.

 

 

 

3) I know it wasn't meant for me. You ask for people not to generalise christians yet you don't reciprocate the gesture. You insinuated that atheists have selfish morals and deny god as if we somehow know deep down inside that he's real. Neither of these things are true for most atheists I know of.

[/hide]

 

1. Hmm...well, ok. I really can't claim to know how he works, but the only time that's happened that I know of is with Saul. Maybe you'll see him like that if he wants you to, but you probably won't. I won't make any argument out of this unless you want me to.

 

 

 

2. Absence of God, mainly. I'm not so sure about the whole thing of pain, although the Bible likes to mention it a lot. I think the importance of it is that it's an abscene of God though, if you want MY personal thoughts on it.

 

 

 

3. Whoops, really? Sorry, I retract the statement. Thanks for pointing that out and keeping it flame-free (ftw).

 

 

 

Goodnight.

Two things: that very statement contradicts itself, and more importantly, making a person and KNOWING all his choices doesn't mean that you make them for him. Besides, the Bible shows choices being available for the PEOPLE to make inside of time. Knowing does not equal causing.

 

 

 

 

Hypothetical.

 

 

 

1) God has a pair of dice and every time he rolls two sixes, a person dies.

 

 

 

2) He knows fully well that the chance of any outcome occuring is independant of his rolling of the dice.

 

 

 

3) He is all knowing and he forsees millions of people dieing.

 

 

 

4) He does nothing to stop this even though he is equally all powerful and could quite easily let the dice roll but go through an eternity of possibilities until he comes up with no double sixes. Ever.

 

 

 

Did god choose this eternity of no double six rolls to roll as they did?

 

 

 

If you say yes, how do you know you have free will? How do you know that god didn't go through all possibilities for all choices, ever, and come up with the one we call reality which is so seemingly free that we assume we are acting independantly of any predestination?

 

 

 

If you say no, how can you call god loving and forgiving?

 

 

 

So god is either manipulative or sadistic. Or, he's not all knowing and all powerful. Take your pick, and feel fre to poke holes in my argument, it's pretty ad hoc.

Gah, I was just about to go to sleep.

 

[hide=warri0r45]

 

1) I don't want god to do anything for me. I'm not demanding anything. I just wouldn't mind if he did show himself to me so I could know he exists.

 

 

 

2) I can accept that's what you/christians believe. The important thing I'm trying to get out of this is if you see hell as a place of misery and pain or merely an absence of god. If it's the former, I put forth a suggestion as to why it's unjeust for me to go to hell.

 

 

 

3) I know it wasn't meant for me. You ask for people not to generalise christians yet you don't reciprocate the gesture. You insinuated that atheists have selfish morals and deny god as if we somehow know deep down inside that he's real. Neither of these things are true for most atheists I know of.

[/hide]

 

1. Hmm...well, ok. I really can't claim to know how he works, but the only time that's happened that I know of is with Saul. Maybe you'll see him like that if he wants you to, but you probably won't. I won't make any argument out of this unless you want me to.

 

 

 

2. Absence of God, mainly. I'm not so sure about the whole thing of pain, although the Bible likes to mention it a lot. I think the importance of it is that it's an abscene of God though, if you want MY personal thoughts on it.

 

 

 

3. Whoops, really? Sorry, I retract the statement. Thanks for pointing that out and keeping it flame-free (ftw).

 

 

 

Goodnight.

 

 

 

I'm pretty happy with all that, thanks. As for (2) can you see the crux of my argument to why, if hell is a place of eternal misery, it's unjust for me to go there? Just a comment of understanding from you is fine. I'm not asking you to agree with me at all.

 

[hide=Hume]

I would agree, if that was the case. However we both know that is not true, your assumption that atheism is a rejection of God is incorrect and your reasoning that they can live life on their own and have no need for God is also incorrect. The lack of belief does not come from some selfish ideal. It comes from just a lack of faith, like you have a lack of faith in Scientology or Islam, and to reject something that something first must have to exist. Otherwise you're rejecting merley an idea of it.

 

 

 

What i find to be the main factor in this is that God seems not to want to be seen to exist. He's nothing more than a collection of contradictions we are led to beleive exist because he is infinite, beyond us, and beyond our intellect. If he exists he is the biggest paradox we can imagine. What does this point to? Surley the road to belief should be quite an easy one or as easy as a lack of belief. Not 100% dependant on faith, with no evidence and nothing even pointing to his existance. Only a book written two thousand years ago to tell us to believe and have faith, against logic through circular reasoning we are led to need to believe in God or we are to be without him. Yet this is a free choice to you? The scales are weighed equally in each direction for you?

[/hide]

 

 

 

Atheism - "No + God". Directly or indirectly, it seems to be a rejection of God. Lack of faith can be one factor, but selfish ideals are one of the things that can BLIND people to any such faith. Also, your "you need to reject something that is real" is correct, although to some atheists, Christianity IS just an idea.

 

 

 

You are assuming that atheists first accept that God is more than an idea, then reject it through selfish blindness. Can you tell me what makes a Christian less selfish than an atheist? Is it soley because the Christian is submissive? Is the fact that atheists are not submissive to God the reason why they are selfish? Or are you just assuming that atheists lack any sense of morality, or right and wrong because they lack a God, or to be more specific, lack your God?

 

 

 

I really don't think the Bible is the only factor. Assume that people really DO need God. Wouldn't this lead people to God anyways, if it IS a necessity for a soul?

 

 

 

 

Yes, the Bible is the only factor for determining if someone is Christian or not. How else would one become Christian if not through the Bible? Someone could become deist (without beleiving in a specific God) or agnostic without reading the Bible, but in order to find and beleive in specifically the Christian God it takes the Bible, and therefore also takes illogical circular reasoning.

It goes into the debate of Predestination and Free Will, so I highly doubt a straight answer could be given like you have provided.

 

I didn't just give a straight answer on predestination. I gave you the entire debate. You are welcome to point out flaws within the debate, but to say that I did not delve sufficiently into the debate is puzzling considering that I gave you the entire debate, from start to end, in the form in which it has been rehashed over and over again.

 

 

 

 

Sorry I just had to go and point out on this paragraph. Alot of people follow by the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have done unto you) as a general statement for their lives. If this is such a strong intensity, I would fear what you count as mild or strong. Also what kind of sacrificial methods are you asking for as a Christian? I personally haven't sacrificed anything like a blood offering. :lol: I may have sacrificed that "fun" weekend with the booze but thats more of a morality issue rather than something with a "Christian god".

 

 

 

You obviously did not read the last answer that you so deeply doubt. Both the intensity of conditioning and the sacrifice refer to the last answer about the majority serving as victims for the minority to witness. They have nothing to do with the Golden Rule or blood offering or whatever else you wish to fill in without first reading, in its entirety, what you are quoting.

 

You obviously did not read my first line, because you obviously did not quote me. I said you gave me a straight answer which all Christians answer but if I do not go with it, then how can that be an absolute truth as you basically have stated. There are as I have studied three parts to the debate. I don't know what kind of debate you have heard but mine have gone deeper than you have stated. :wink:

 

 

 

Oh and that second part just goes back to what I said, I do not believe what you have stated as truth for what a Christian would say. Why would you quote me with out quoting all that I said. You make it show that all Christians would answer in that way, but if I say I am a Christian, and I don't answer it that way, then the argument gets nullified. I'm sorry I've thought this going to go somewhere, but I guess not. :|

 

 

 

Oh fyi, I did read it and in its entirety. :P

I'll expand on those points I mentioned earlier.

 

 

 

1. Presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent and the credulous.

 

Fairly self-explanatory, but i'm sure we all know that as a child you're likely to believe in non-truths which a lot of people grow up to reject. Santa Claus, the tooth-fairy etc. Telling children that God made the world in 6 days in a particular order is just a such a fairy-tale. The only reason children brought up in a Christian environment often carry on accepting it well into their adult-hood is because it's so well imprinted on kids at an early age. If you told a rational 18 year old adult who's well versed in the scientific big-bang model and evolution, the creation story would sound silly, childlike. The same applies to me when I learnt about for example the Hindu or Sikh creation stories. They sound absurd, but in reality why are they any more absurd than the Biblical creation story? What gives either any more validity than the other? The religious creation stories are little more than folk myths passed down the generations, and to present them as fact to children who are too young to know otherwise is unfair and manipulative.

 

 

 

2. The doctrine of blood sacrifice.

 

There is one example of blood sacrfice which stands out as particularly awful to me. Abraham's wilingness to sacrifice his only son is a story common to all three monotheisms, and for some reason was always held up to me when I was a child as an example of perfect faith in God. If you step back and look at this story objectively, it's actually pretty repulsive. This story is held up as an example of what? God's mercifullness? God's testing nature? God's secret passion for blood sacrifice? Naturally, Abraham was praised from the clouds above for showing his willingness to murder an innocent child for his own crimes because a voice in his head told him to.

 

 

 

Some Christians do indeed still practice ritualised animal slaughter to celebrate Easter.

 

 

3. The doctrine of atonement.

 

The idea of vicarious atonement troubled even C.S. Lewis. Again, in the Christian doctrine we have a father subjecting his own son to death by torture, but this time the father is not trying to impress God. He is God, and is trying to impress humans.

 

 

 

Ask yourself, if you were told the following what would you think? 2000 years ago a human sacrifice took place against your wishing and under circumstanes so horrible and vicious that if you had been around at the time and able to, you most likely would have tried to stop it. In consequence of this murder your sins are forgiven and you may hope to enjoy everlasting life.

 

 

 

But, ignoring all the contradictions between the tellers of said story, let's assume it's basically true. It goes on, in order to actually gain the benefit of this generous offer you have to accept that you are in someway responsible for the flogging, torture and crucifixtion in which you had no say and no part. And everytime you decline this responsibility or sin in word or deed you intensifying the agony of it. You're also required to believe that the agony was actually necessary in order to compensate for an earlier crime in which you also had no part, the 'sin' of Adam (the thirst for knowledge, how dreadful).

 

 

 

Of course, if you really think about the original sin of Adam he was created by God with an insatiable discontent and curiosity and then forbidden to exercise it. Therefore, your own guilt in the matter is deemed original and inescapable. Of course, God generously gave us free will to allow us to refuse this offer, but should you exercise this choice you face an eternity of torture.

 

 

 

A central tennent on Christianity, Jesus dying for "our sins" is in fact a shallow charade, Jesus both needed and wished to die and came to Jerusalem at Passover in order to do so, and all who took part in this murder were actually doing God's will. There is also a passage in one of the Gospel's that the Jews who condemned Jesus asked for his blood to be on their heads for future generations. Odd as it seems, this is then what lead the Vatican to maitain their it was the Jews who had killed Christ, not just some or a few, but the Jews. The charge of deicide was only recently dropped by the Vatican. Jesus dying for "our sins" is scapegoating, plain and simple, the offer of offloading our sins onto someone else is supposed to be loving, but in reality it's just not right.

 

 

 

4. The doctrine of eternal reward and/or punishment.

 

False hope and children terrified of hell. Need I say more? I suppose I will. What else could drive a suicide bomber to blow themselves up except for the absolute conviction that there will be an afterlife with 72 virgins waiting for them. What else but the idea of pearly gates could lead people to be so flippant with this life, treating it like a temporary state, a borrowed body?

 

 

 

As for eternal punishment, that's fairly self explanatory, and i'll elaborate more on it in the next point.

 

 

 

5. The imposition of impossible tasks and rules.

 

 

 

The commandment at Sinai which forbade people to even think about coveting goods is the first clue. There's also a passage in the NT from Jesus saying that a man who even looks at a woman in the wrong way has committed adultery, as well as the Christian (now no longer used) and Muslim prohibition on charging interest on money. All these try and place restraints on basic human initiative and instinct (which God made in the first place). They are in effect, thought crimes.

 

 

 

This leads to two possible things, eternal guilt and feelings of sin about 'impure' thoughts. These in turn lead to hysterical confessions, false promises of improvement and loud and often violent denunciations of other 'sinners'. The other possibilty is that a large enough donation to the right religious authority and cleanse you of your sins. Or, you can bend the rules, the Dalai Lama tells us that you can visit a prostitute as long as someone else pays her, Shia Muslims offer a temporary marriage selling men the permission to take a woman as his wife for an hour or two with all the usual vows then divorce her straight afterwards. St. Peter's was financed by a similar arrangement.

 

 

 

Even some of the ordinarily cherished rules when examined under close scrutiny show elements of this impossibility. "Love thy neighbour", noble as it seems is mild and yet stern, a commandment of one's duty. But to love your neighbour as yourself is too extreme and strenuous to be obeyed, it is nearly impossible for humans to love all other people like themselves, we're not programmed that way. To find someone who you even truly love is rare enough. Love your enemy is by definition, impossible, and even dangerously immoral.

 

 

 

You can choose to be altruistic and generous, but you cannot be compelled into it. We are simply not hardwired to be that way, we cannot be compelled into loving those who have done wrong. Perhaps to strive towards it, to strive towards doing no harm is a noble effort, but to be threatened with eternal torture and hell if we don't try and do this is just morally reprehensible.

 

You obviously did not read my first line, because you obviously did not quote me. I said you gave me a straight answer which all Christians answer but if I do not go with it, then how can that be an absolute truth as you basically have stated. There are as I have studied three parts to the debate. I don't know what kind of debate you have heard but mine have gone deeper than you have stated. :wink:

 

As I said before, if you see problems with the debate I wrote, please criticize it or add to it. "I do not go with it" is not a valid argument.

 

 

 

 

but if I say I am a Christian, and I don't answer it that way, then the argument gets nullified.

 

 

 

Beyond the fact that you did not understand my post, which was about your specific ignorance of what I meant by intensity and sacrifice, I will now give you a chance to prove your "I do not go with it."

 

 

 

If you don't answer it "that way," how would you answer it? You may delete my last blue answer and write your own. Here is the red part that precedes it:

 

 

 

 

But God is the omnipotent creator. He created everyone's being, actions, and decisions. That means he created the series of decisions that led my grandfather to be a non-believer on his deathbed, just like how he created the series of decisions that led your grandfather to be a believer on his deathbed.

 

 

But God is the omnipotent creator. He created everyone's being, actions, and decisions. That means he created the series of decisions that led my grandfather to be a non-believer on his deathbed, just like how he created the series of decisions that led your grandfather to be a believer on his deathbed.

 

 

 

the answer on this is that god created us with free will... and we're not doing everything good... but instead, Lucifer is making us do bad things, for example lying, stealing, killing et cetera.

 

 

But God is the omnipotent creator. He created everyone's being, actions, and decisions. That means he created the series of decisions that led my grandfather to be a non-believer on his deathbed, just like how he created the series of decisions that led your grandfather to be a believer on his deathbed.

 

 

 

the answer on this is that god created us with free will... and we're not doing everything good... but instead, Lucifer is making us do bad things, for example lying, stealing, killing et cetera.

 

God made Lucifer to be part of the environment of evil, just like how he made non-believers to be part of the environment also. This environment is what creates "true love" and "true believers."

 

 

 

Simpler version: Lucifer provides the opportunities, but God is the one who decides for you whether or not to take Lucifer's opportunities.

well... the story about Adam and Eve... even though it's symbolistic, it kind of gives the point... the humans where given a choise, wherever to listen to God, or to not... but the point is that we have a free will to do whatever we want...

 

 

 

the problem is that that was probably the dumbest thing he did, seing how we're behaving... can't say that we have done it perfectly..

 

 

 

i've asked this question to myself though, and i find my answer in that in our free will, our personality lies.

 

 

 

(it's hard for me to make what i say 100% what i mean, as English is not my first language, so i've just used it in like 5 hours a week, for the last 10 years... not really much =/

well... the story about Adam and Eve... even though it's symbolistic, it kind of gives the point... the humans where given a choise, wherever to listen to God, or to not

 

Read before posting. God, the omnipotent creator, made Adam's future decision to take the fruit when he created Adam.

 

You obviously did not read my first line, because you obviously did not quote me. I said you gave me a straight answer which all Christians answer but if I do not go with it, then how can that be an absolute truth as you basically have stated. There are as I have studied three parts to the debate. I don't know what kind of debate you have heard but mine have gone deeper than you have stated. :wink:

 

As I said before, if you see problems with the debate I wrote, please criticize it or add to it. "I do not go with it" is not a valid argument.

 

 

As I said before, I dont want to press my beliefs, I am just stating my opinion that I do not agree to the points. I am not trying to have an argument, I am just stating my perceptions of what I think about what you have written. Do I have to debate what you wrote, I thought this was a discussion.... -.-

 

God made Lucifer to be part of the environment of evil, just like how he made non-believers to be part of the environment also. This environment is what creates "true love" and "true believers."

 

 

 

Simpler version: Lucifer provides the opportunities, but God is the one who decides for you whether or not to take Lucifer's opportunities.

 

 

 

The Christian God therefore sacrifices the majority of people so that a chosen few may spend eternity with him in heaven on purpose? I thought the sacrifices ended with Jesus Christ?

 

 

 

According to you, an atheist is predetermined to be atheist to create an "enviroment" so that faith can come about for these pre-chosen minority. How does someone being atheist create an enviroment for someone else to find faith, surley it would lead to the opposite?

 

 

 

So your theory leads God to be no better than someone who kills one million people so that a thousand can savour life a little more. How benevolent.

 

So your theory leads God to be no better than someone who kills one million people so that a thousand can savour life a little more. How benevolent.

 

 

 

One can say there is nothing loving about God, he knows our plans before we are born (psalms) so therefore he knows who is going to hell/heaven even before we are born. Therefore he makes people to go to hell intentionally because he did make them. If you say he doesn't know your limiting his ability;

 

 

 

Counter argument you may use is Jesus, that he died for our sins so that we the sinners may be saved, woopy doo who wouldn't? I'd die if it meant I saved the whole world and get to rule over the earth.

 

God made Lucifer to be part of the environment of evil, just like how he made non-believers to be part of the environment also. This environment is what creates "true love" and "true believers."

 

 

 

Simpler version: Lucifer provides the opportunities, but God is the one who decides for you whether or not to take Lucifer's opportunities.

 

 

 

The Christian God therefore sacrifices the majority of people so that a chosen few may spend eternity with him in heaven on purpose? I thought the sacrifices ended with Jesus Christ?

 

 

 

According to you, an atheist is predetermined to be atheist to create an "enviroment" so that faith can come about for these pre-chosen minority. How does someone being atheist create an enviroment for someone else to find faith, surley it would lead to the opposite?

 

 

 

http://www.allaboutgod.com/faq/one-more-time.htm

 

The answer is in that link. Just replace "Free Will" with "Predestination"

 

 

 

So your theory leads God to be no better than someone who kills one million people so that a thousand can savour life a little more. How benevolent.

 

 

 

Yeah, pretty much. But you got one part of that wrong. It's not so that they savor life more, but so that they can savor Him more.

 

http://www.allaboutgod.com/faq/one-more-time.htm

 

 

 

Which does not make sense in comparison to what you have written. You claim atheists are pre-destined to be atheists to create an enviroment so a chosen few may develop faith (which you still have not explained why atheism leads to others developing faith), which sounds exactly like the thing you are arguing against. You're saying that we need these robotic like atheists in order for Christians to develop their faith. You are basically saying that we need atheists in order to show faith as not a robotic action, but in reality you have made the atheists nothing more than robots.

 

 

 

So your theory leads God to be no better than someone who kills one million people so that a thousand can savour life a little more. How benevolent.

 

 

 

Yeah, pretty much. But you got one part of that wrong. It's not so that they savor life more, but so that they can savor Him more.

 

 

 

Well, that makes all the billions and billions of people throughout history who have died not beleiving, or believing in something else alright then. As long as these chosen few can savour God better, talk about selfishness?

You claim atheists are pre-destined to be atheists to create an enviroment so a chosen few may develop faith (which you still have not explained why atheism leads to others developing faith), which sounds exactly like the thing you are arguing against.

 

I'm not arguing against it. I support that viewpoint. You're actually repeating what I already wrote, which is alright since I made quite a lot of posts in these last few pages and you might have missed some.

 

 

 

which you still have not explained why atheism leads to others developing faith

 

I never used the word "atheist." I use the word "non-believer," which refers to anyone who is not a Christian.

 

 

 

 

You're saying that we need these robotic like atheists in order for Christians to develop their faith. You are basically saying that we need atheists in order to show faith as not a robotic action, but in reality you have made the atheists nothing more than robots.

 

Yup.

 

 

 

So your theory leads God to be no better than someone who kills one million people so that a thousand can savour life a little more. How benevolent.

 

 

 

Yeah, pretty much. But you got one part of that wrong. It's not so that they savor life more, but so that they can savor Him more.

 

 

 

Well, that makes all the billions and billions of people throughout history who have died not beleiving, or believing in something else alright then. As long as these chosen few can savour God better, talk about selfishness?

 

Your words, not mine. ;)

You are arguing against one type of belief being a robotic action, and promoting another type of belief as being robotic. Which to me seems like a complete contradiction, if someone believing in the Islamic God is a robotic belief, then someone believing in the Christian God is also a robotic belief.

 

 

 

Your theory comes down to sacrificing the majority for the minority, sacrificies ended with Jesus Christ. By saying athiests are pre-determined to be atheists you're saying God is sacrificing a huge amount of people so that some may experience him.

Fairly self-explanatory, but i'm sure we all know that as a child you're likely to believe in non-truths which a lot of people grow up to reject. Santa Claus, the tooth-fairy etc. Telling children that God made the world in 6 days in a particular order is just a such a fairy-tale. The only reason children brought up in a Christian environment often carry on accepting it well into their adult-hood is because it's so well imprinted on kids at an early age.

 

What about all those adults that join sects? Your idea has a point but it's not entirely valid. In my opinion Christianity (or any other religion) is for people that don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

Praise the lord for he is merciful? Praise yourself because you jumped from the road when that care was coming.

 

 

 

I am an atheÃÆÃâÃâïst. I am an one for 2 reasons:

 

 

 

1. Scientific: There is no evidence whatsoever of a god. There is evidence of the big bang theory and Darwins's theory of evolution. But not being able to prove it is not my main problem with god; it's the ethical reasoning behind it;

 

 

 

2. Morals: Humans are cruel. Children get abused, people get murdered, uncurable diseases, ... If a god exists, why does he allow these things to exist, or allow humans to do those horrible things to each other? In the middle ages people got burned for being protestant, a 'witch' or not agreeing with you. And if you do believe in god and live according to his rules (a book that dates from 2,000 years back probably written by a guy that needed an excuse to seize power) the chance that your child gets run over by a car doesn't become smaller. It won't cure cancer. You won't become a better person (child- molesting priests anyone?). Conservative America is against the Islam fanatics (aka terrorists) but are they any better? No they are not, they just happen to be richer.

You are arguing against one type of belief being a robotic action, and promoting another type of belief as being robotic. Which to me seems like a complete contradiction, if someone believing in the Islamic God is a robotic belief, then someone believing in the Christian God is also a robotic belief.

 

No one's belief is robotic. The believers have enhanced belief towards God's love because of the presence of non-believers, and the non-believers have enhanced belief away from God's love because of the presence of believers. As I have said repeatedly, true love cannot exist without evil and vice versa.

 

 

 

 

Your theory comes down to sacrificing the majority for the minority, sacrificies ended with Jesus Christ. By saying athiests are pre-determined to be atheists you're saying God is sacrificing a huge amount of people so that some may experience him.

 

Yes that is what I'm saying. How many times are you going to repeat what I already said? :P

You are arguing against one type of belief being a robotic action, and promoting another type of belief as being robotic. Which to me seems like a complete contradiction, if someone believing in the Islamic God is a robotic belief, then someone believing in the Christian God is also a robotic belief.

 

No one's belief is robotic. The believers have enhanced belief towards God's love because of the presence of non-believers, and the non-believers have enhanced belief away from God's love because of the presence of believers. As I have said repeatedly, true love cannot exist without evil and vice versa.

 

 

 

You are giving non-believers nothing more than a robotic purpose by saying that we are here so others can use us in order to develop their faith and go to heaven. We have been reduced from humans and equals to an object by your theory, an object in which for some reason enables the true selected few to believe.

 

 

 

Can you please actually explain why someone who believes in the Islamic God affects someone else to beleive in the Christian God, when both are already pre-destined to these choices? What relation do they have to one another? Please do not answer with "We need evil to know love" because it does not explain anything.

 

 

 

 

Your theory comes down to sacrificing the majority for the minority, sacrificies ended with Jesus Christ. By saying athiests are pre-determined to be atheists you're saying God is sacrificing a huge amount of people so that some may experience him.

 

Yes that is what I'm saying. How many times are you going to repeat what I already said? :P

 

 

 

You are not responding to the problem with that conclusion, that being "Sacrifices ended with Jesus Christ" and you saying that God continues to sacrifice non believers for other people.

You are arguing against one type of belief being a robotic action, and promoting another type of belief as being robotic. Which to me seems like a complete contradiction, if someone believing in the Islamic God is a robotic belief, then someone believing in the Christian God is also a robotic belief.

 

No one's belief is robotic. The believers have enhanced belief towards God's love because of the presence of non-believers, and the non-believers have enhanced belief away from God's love because of the presence of believers. As I have said repeatedly, true love cannot exist without evil and vice versa.

 

 

 

You are giving non-believers nothing more than a robotic purpose by saying that we are here so others can use us in order to develop their faith and go to heaven. We have been reduced from humans and equals to an object by your theory, an object in which for some reason enables the true selected few to believe.

 

Yeah, I think so too. In this concept, the non-believers are considered subpar.

 

 

 

 

Can you please actually explain why someone who believes in the Islamic God affects someone else to beleive in the Christian God, when both are already pre-destined to these choices? What relation do they have to one another? Please do not answer with "We need evil to know love" because it does not explain anything.

 

God sentences all non-believers, including Muslims, to hell as part of the environment for conditioning believers.

 

 

 

Allah sentences all non-believers, including Christians, to hell as part of the environment for conditioning believers.

 

 

 

I used Christianity in my self-debate instead of Islam because this thread is about Christianity.

 

 

 

"Sacrifices ended with Jesus Christ"

 

Are you God? If you aren't, then how do you know sacrifices ended with Jesus?

Err, double posting >_>.

You are arguing against one type of belief being a robotic action, and promoting another type of belief as being robotic. Which to me seems like a complete contradiction, if someone believing in the Islamic God is a robotic belief, then someone believing in the Christian God is also a robotic belief.

 

No one's belief is robotic. The believers have enhanced belief towards God's love because of the presence of non-believers, and the non-believers have enhanced belief away from God's love because of the presence of believers. As I have said repeatedly, true love cannot exist without evil and vice versa.

 

 

 

You are giving non-believers nothing more than a robotic purpose by saying that we are here so others can use us in order to develop their faith and go to heaven. We have been reduced from humans and equals to an object by your theory, an object in which for some reason enables the true selected few to believe.

 

Yeah, I think so too. In this concept, the non-believers are considered subpar.

 

 

 

I can not actually beleive you agree with this. You are saying Christians are worth more than non believers, thats called inequality. It's as bad as racism.

 

 

 

 

Can you please actually explain why someone who believes in the Islamic God affects someone else to beleive in the Christian God, when both are already pre-destined to these choices? What relation do they have to one another? Please do not answer with "We need evil to know love" because it does not explain anything.

 

God sentences all non-believers, including Muslims, to hell as part of the environment for conditioning believers.

 

 

 

Allah sentences all non-believers, including Christians, to hell as part of the environment for conditioning believers.

 

 

 

I used Christianity in my self-debate instead of Islam because this thread is about Christianity.

 

 

 

This thread assumes the existance of the Christian God. Please answer the question.

 

 

 

"Sacrifices ended with Jesus Christ"

 

Are you God? If you aren't, then how do you know sacrifices ended with Jesus?

 

 

 

It is one of the main outcomes of Jesus' death. The end of moasic sacrifices, because God sacrificed his son to atone us of our sins.

Uh, the Church is becoming pretty inclusive everyone :-s .

 

 

 

What about all those adults that join sects? Your idea has a point but it's not entirely valid. In my opinion Christianity (or any other religion) is for people that don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

Praise the lord for he is merciful? Praise yourself because you jumped from the road when that care was coming.

 

Cute. "Don't take responsibility for their actions"? Got any idea what the Church does for the world, what it's done for the world? Any idea what any other religion has done to the world? Look past the overused anti-religion Crusades argument, and see that moderately religious people have done a great deal for the world, especially in third world countries across the globe. What have you done for the world? Now, compare that to what the Church has, what true Christians have. Maybe that'll help ya examine the Church a little more realistically. At least, I hope so anyways.

 

 

 

Any and all True Christians that I have met are the most amazing, self-sacrificing, holy of people. They're more altruistic than I'll ever care to be. You all just don't notice that, 'cause you get all your information about priests from sensational TV news stories instead of actually going up to and talking to a priest.

 

 

 

Here's a good piece of info: stories about priests in their daily lives don't sell. Stories about priests messing up do. Try factoring that piece of information in when you examine the true goodness and holiness of the priesthood.

 

 

 

I am an atheÃÆÃâÃâïst. I am an one for 2 reasons:

 

 

 

1. Scientific: There is no evidence whatsoever of a god. There is evidence of the big bang theory and Darwins's theory of evolution. But not being able to prove it is not my main problem with god; it's the ethical reasoning behind it;

 

 

 

2. Morals: Humans are cruel. Children get abused, people get murdered, uncurable diseases, ... If a god exists, why does he allow these things to exist, or allow humans to do those horrible things to each other? In the middle ages people got burned for being protestant, a 'witch' or not agreeing with you. And if you do believe in god and live according to his rules (a book that dates from 2,000 years back probably written by a guy that needed an excuse to seize power) the chance that your child gets run over by a car doesn't become smaller. It won't cure cancer. You won't become a better person (child- molesting priests anyone?). Conservative America is against the Islam fanatics (aka terrorists) but are they any better? No they are not, they just happen to be richer.

 

That does not in any way disprove the idea of a god. Not even close.

 

 

 

There's a difference between disregarding fundamentalist Christianity and being an atheist.

 

 

 

And DEAR FRIKKIN' GOD, would everyone stop referencing the couple dozen priests who felt an unbearable need to compensate for chastity? Have you people ever met a priest in your lives? Try some time, they ain't exactly the bad people you seem to portray them to be.

 

 

 

Also..yes, conservative America is better than Islamic terrorism. Extremism and moderation in religion can not be put on equal grounds, especially considering the fact that there isn't much to speak of when you try and talk about "Christian terrorism".

 

 

 

I swear, 75% of anti-religious sentiment on this forum is just teenage rebellion. God that gets annoying.

 

 

 

[A belated sorry to all those annoyed by this outburst -_-".]