Only For Athesists

[thelawtman]

Ok well here on this site we have all theses threads for Christians so I thought us non belives and people with open minds need a thread so here it is. What I want to know is why did you come a Athesist and why do u think religon is fake OR whatever.

Like I have said in other areas I think religoin in jsut a explantaion for what was once unexplained. People did not know how to explain things so they made up religons and other ideas.

[CSLewisFan]

Well let’s start with you :) Why are you an atheist?

-Austin

[thelawtman]

Like I said above. I think the bible is jsut a made up stor to explain what WAS unexplained. People that take the bible seriosuly dont relize that there are mistakes and alot of it was roughly translated. I want hard proof and evidence that someting happened. I belive in science not religion.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

For "people with open minds", eh? Question, thelawtman - have you ever read Lewis' Mere Christianity? If so, I've got a couple questions for you - though, of course, we can discuss them elsewhere, since I'm only a guest here, and want to leave this thread for you "people with open minds".

[thelawtman]

No i have not read that and don't want to. I have as little to do with Chirstanity as possible beacuse it is compleley loony and unbleivable in the least.

[CSLewisFan]

Congratulations, you’re just like the large majority of atheists :)

1. You believe that the Bible is a lie. That people believe in "religions" because they have absolutely nothing better to do, or were fed lies as a child.

2. When you say you believe in science not religion you are claiming to be a naturalist (someone who believes only in the natural laws of this universe).

So I have two questions for you:

1. What made you initially believe the bible is inaccurate?

2. Why do you believe in the natural, but not the supernatural?

I like you; you’re to the point :)
-Austin

[thelawtman]

1) Becuase there is no possible way most of thoes things could have happend and the ones that did happen are proved to be natural occurances. Also they are still findind mistranslations in the bible to this day.

2) Becuase there is proof of the natural. That would be like saying that humans are the only life in the universe. It is not possible there are billions of stars and plants and to say that only ONE has life on it is unbelivable.

[CSLewisFan]

1) Becuase there is no possible way most of thoes things could have happend and the ones that did happen are proved to be natural occurances. Also they are still findind mistranslations in the bible to this day.

"Things" is a very general word.... could you maybe be more specific?

2) Becuase there is proof of the natural.

You only believe in what can be proved.
You cannot prove that God doesn’t exist.
How can you believe there is no God?

That would be like saying that humans are the only life in the universe. It is not possible there are billions of stars and plants and to say that only ONE has life on it is unbelivable.

There is a definite possibility of life on other planets, however this is a bit of a irrelevant discussion. Maybe in another thread?

-Austin

[Basilides]

thelawtman,

I'm actually very encouraged that you are an atheist. Two of the men who influenced me most, C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer, were solid atheists before turning to Christianity. It gives them both a unique perspective. Atheism, in my view, provides a person with an honest template with which to evaluate truth. The kind of Christianity (or any religion) that is all wish-fulfillment or fire-insurance or peer pressure or inherited only because of family or society can be very difficult to transform into the kind of Christianity our C.S. Lewis talks about...or the kind that Paul or James talk about. Remember that the Romans called the early Christians "atheists" because they were more interested in the kind of faith that comes from knowing the truth than they were the blind faith for the pantheons of the polytheists.

PrinceoftheWest's suggestion that you read Mere Christianity is worth considering on your part because (you may already know this) it was written by C.S. Lewis, the solid atheist as a young man and author of the Narnia series we all adore. He did not become a Christian because he wanted to live forever and was afraid of dying, or because his parents taught him to, or because he wanted to be reunited with loved ones and so on. In fact, for a time he believed in God without believing in the afterlife at all. The reason he became a Christian is because first, on a worldly level, he found that atheism was intellectually untenable (we can go into the exact reasons why this is so if you wish) and that among the various religions from which to choose, only Christianity explained the "whole story" in a way that was both valid and authentic. On a deeper level, he became a Christian because he was hunted down like quarry by the Hound of Heaven who, once He had a hold of Lewis, refused to shake him loose. But that last won't make sense to you until you meet Him.

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. If you never read it, you won't know some of the most cogent arguments in favor of Christianity. I've read lots by Bertrand Russell and other atheists for the same reason you ought to read Mere Christianity...it's no fair thinking someone is wrong unless you actually understand what they think.

[The half blood plinth]

Garg! I just wrote a really long reply and the computer totally hate's me and sent it off into oblivion - here, I'll try again:

C.S Lewis fan: He's like the large majority of athiests? Not any athiests I know - niether I, nor my friends are athiests because of holes in religious texts (Christian and otherwise), because "science is our religion" (of course science has holes too) or due to some sort of anti-religious sentiment - on the contrary, I'd love to feel that sense of security "believers" have : that there's justice after death, that existance continues forever and that there's some kind of force guiding me.

But I don't. I was raised a Roman Catholic, I've also attended Anglican and Baptist churches and studied and little of Hinduism and Buddhism - but ever since I was - ever since I can remember - I've never really felt that way.

I think my reasons for being athiest are much more drawn from the little I know of anthropology rather than science. Basically: people - as both individuals and whole societies - need faith/religion to fill that unknown void - kind of like what thelawtman said: to explain the unexplained but also to provide that sense of security, to create limits and boundaries and to create incentives for people to do good deeds/help society run smoothly (as in heavenly rewards/englightenment/etc). Thats not to say "believers" only do acts of goodness for future self reward, or that athiests are anarchists with no sense of moral duty or boundary.

It's like (and this is an absolutely horrible analogy but I can't think of another at the moment: it's like how a child creates an imaginary friend. The child need the imaginary friend for comfort and security, and so the friend exists to the child. Humans create god(s) and the like to fill a need, but god(s) and the like would not exist without humans being there to believe in them/it.

When you start looking at it in that way, it's hard to see it any other way, and like I said - i've felt like this since I can remember. If you can convince me otherwise or pick holes in my (rather confused) logic please do.


Two more notes: I write "believers" because even as an athiest i believe in the potential of humans to do good and great things, and I believe the world and universe is all the more beautiful because someone didn't ordian it - it got there all by itself.

Secondly, C.S Lewis fan, so we all know where we stand - I'm guessing your religous in some sense or another?

[The half blood plinth]

Basilides: I'd love to find out why he thought athiesm was intellectually untenable, do tell.

[Rhyanidd]

Like I said above. I think the bible is jsut a made up stor to explain what WAS unexplained. People that take the bible seriosuly dont relize that there are mistakes and alot of it was roughly translated. I want hard proof and evidence that someting happened. I belive in science not religion.

What mistakes are in the Bible??? And I bet ya there are other records from other people of events that happend in the bible!! And science is a religion, what you believe is your religion, weathder or not you go to church or dont, you have a religion, I find flaws in your logic! So if you would like to convince me then please try!!!Have you even read anny of the Bible???

[inkspot]

Welcome, Plinth! I trust you are a Narnia fan as well as an atheist?
Basically: people - as both individuals and whole societies - need faith/religion to fill that unknown void - kind of like what thelawtman said: to explain the unexplained but also to provide that sense of security, to create limits and boundaries and to create incentives for people to do good deeds/help society run smoothly (as in heavenly rewards/englightenment/etc).
Could this be because people really need a relationship with God to fill that unknown void? Why would we have that unknown void in us, if not for the fact that we are estranged from our Creator?

thelawtman, I am sure Basilides meant nothing but kindness in suggesting that you, like CS Lewis, might one day change your mind about atheism. He has not been privy to our previous discussions about that and is a nice, good, person who would not want to offend you at all. :)

[hanguk859]

Ok, first of all, don't ask him to try and convince you, because if you're firm in the faith, then he won't convince you, and you probably won't convince him! no argument in a forum is going to completely sway thelawtman...anyone could tell you that...and I'm also positive that he has very convincing arguments for his beliefs, even if others may view them as flawed, and I'm not saying that all beliefs lead in the same direction or anything, don't misinterpret me, but we can't exactly shove it down his throat!
However, after saying all of this, I do have some question/statements
,and I do apologize for opening my mouth on this thread, because I'm not at all an atheist, but I don't think you'll get a big turnout....
You say that the Bible is an excuse for things that WERE un-explained...
does this mean that they are explained now?
forgive me, but, knowing that science is learning and predicting from OBSERVATION, i am at a loss to see how there could possibly be a "scientific" if you will, explanation for: The Origin of Matter, The 'Creation' or 'Origin' if you prefer, of the Universe, etc.!
I'm sorry, deeply sorry, but you've got to have faith either side you choose! all these theories that claim to be 'scientific' are not, because they CAN'T BE! that's really not Good Science, for Science does have its boundaries, it shouldn't be made into this all-knowing ghastly creation of man that tries to expain the un-observed!
and personally (not trying to be rude) I think that the Atheistic View is an Escape, from: obligations, arguments (although you're not doing too well), and faith
I mean, it seems to me like they just drop the ball and say "that's it! I just don't believe in ANYTHING anymore, I'll just follow 'science' 'cause hey? that's always right isn't it?!"
again, I do apologize for writing on your beloved atheistic thread, but I'm interested in what you believe, because if on the off-chance it's the truth, then it's valuable I guess

[The half blood plinth]

I am a narnia fan, I just finished ummm.. thingy ... whatsname... The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Starting The Silver Chair next. And I loved the BBC show as a kid, and now am a big fan of the film.

And in reply to inkspot: But that's just it: I can see why I feel the need for a god/faith in something and because I can see why, I can also see why such a god/faith is just made up to fill that need, and therefore doesn't really exist, but is just a creation of my own (or my society).

Some athiests don't feel that need however - they're content with life as it is and thus they have no void to fill and thus they don't "need" a god/faith.

And to Hanguk859: dude, read my post at 1:27 in response to the whole "science as religion". I agree with some of what you said, but I think you've simplified it a little too much.

[Rhyanidd]

to Hanguk and Inkspot rock on!! Here here!!!

anyway I have not had my question answered would you please answer it? what flaws does the Bible have!!

[Rhyanidd]

Without God there are no morals, Here is a paper I wrote, please read it, and tell me what you think...

Ariana
Right vs. Wrong
To determine whether or not right and wrong change we must ask the questions: Who sets the standard? and Are the standards dependent on circumstance or society? My opinion is that the standard rests on an unchangeable God.
It is my belief that God sets the standards. I think this because He has revealed Himself to us through His word. In Exodus 20 He gives us a law that clearly defines what is expected of man.
Some think that society sets the standard, but what authority does society have? They have no more authority than we, the people, give them, and it can be taken away.
Society exists because we exist. It is dependent upon us, So the standard will change. But God is independent of people, He exists whether or not we believe in Him. Whether or not we exist. We are dependent on him, whether we know it or not.
Society changes, because people change. So one day what you are doing is socially acceptable and the next it is not, which confuses and frustrates people. God, however, is unchanging and His standard doesn't change either. Providing stability and regularity in life.

[Aslan the Wise one]

I'm a christian but i'm also open minded to other peolpes views and thoughts and faiths if they have one.

[Kai Tetsuki]

1) Becuase there is no possible way most of thoes things could have happend and the ones that did happen are proved to be natural occurances. Also they are still finding mistranslations in the bible to this day.
.

Sorry to make any one mad but he is so right the bible is mistranslated all over the place.. sorry but its true... now im not athiest i go to church i believe and all that but really there are things in the bible i believe where once explained but are not and other things that where left out on purpose. there are holes all over things left unexplained. i have studyed the bible for the last 6 years and i have some questions that only one religion cound answer ( i wont say which on to avoid any confertations) but still if you study it hard you could find the gaps your self.
And kudos to "thelawtman" for starting a thead like this.

[Basilides]

Basilides: I'd love to find out why he thought athiesm was intellectually untenable, do tell.


Certainly. He thought so for several reasons.

One is that if there were no supernatural Creator of Nature, then Nature would either
a. Have created itself, which is nonsense
b. Have never itself had a beginning, which is a supernatural quality, which of course requires a belief in the supernatural, which an atheist isn't allowed to do
Nature requires a cause by its own rules (otherwise its rules are contradictory). The thing caused cannot itself be the cause. Thus the cause of Nature must be outside of Nature.


Also
Human beings have a law of human behavior he sometimes call the Tao and sometimes The Law of Human Nature, which tells us which instinctive morals to use in various situations. Following this is what makes us human. But oddly, we keep breaking this Law. We know how we ought to behave but do not behave that way. In fact, we break it more often than we keep it. Nothing else in the universe acts this way so consistently. If atheism is true, humans should never have an "unkeepable" Law of Human Nature to begin with, or at least the incongruity should have killed us off or forced us to accept a new law everyone can keep. But it seems to be imbedded in human nature to break laws no matter what they are. No amount of complexity can possibly account for this...it is something novel in Nature and requires a supernatural explanation. In fact the Fall is the only logical explanation.

But most unique to Lewis
is his "argument by reason" first proposed formally inthe first edition of "Miracles", corrected in a debate by the brilliant Wittgensteinian philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe, and then tuned to a masterpiece as a result of Anscombe's corrections in the edition of "Miracles" we have today. It is an argument that I'd be doing grave injustice to by summarizing it, but it is quite a watertight argument against atheism, or more properly "Naturalism", which states that there is no supernature. It is pure genius, and is set forth in the chapter of "Miracles" titled "The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism".

In the "argument by reason" Lewis argues that the rules of logic require any argument to be grounded, not simply "caused". In fact, if an argument is caused (such as "You only argue against atheism that because you were beaten by an atheist uncle as a child) then it is invalidated. A valid argument must have grounds. Naturalism and atheism argue that arguments and in fact all of human reason, in the long view, are all caused by natural events. Thus, no arguments or propositions or theories can be logically valid...including the theory of Naturalism itself, if Naturalism is true. If it is true, it can't be true...it refutes itself. If all events are naturally caused, no science can be true, because the validity of science stands upon human reason, and human reason stands upon the logical assumption that valid statements must be grounded in a way that is free from a determined cause. The only way this can be is if human reason was not naturally caused at all, but is supernatural in origin.

Lewis takes pages and pages to carefully take you through this argument in Miracles and takes great pains (especially after the slightly embarrassing Anscombe debate) to answer every objection.*

There are lots of other arguments against the intellectual viability of atheism, but these are the three I know Lewis used. We can discuss the others if you like.











*An interesting side note: a myth has been circulated that Lewis' argument by reason was "disproven" by Anscombe and that Lewis was so crestfallen that he never wrote about theology again but wrote only Childrens' books. This mythis widely circulated. However, some careful historians have discovered this view of events to be invented. Anscombe herself said she didn't think Lewis was crestfallen in the least. Lewis wrote numerous articles on theology over the next several years even though he had some significant life events with his marriage and the failing health of his wife, Joy Gresham Lewis. Further, he spent ten years perfecting the argument by reason to take into account Anscobe's correction (it had to do with the different types of causation) and the result is a theological materpiece. Frankly, SkepticsAreUs uses the myth of the defeated Lewis to convince people that Lewis' argument was disproven so that people don't actually read it for themselves. Clever, isn;t it?

[The half blood plinth]

Kai: of course it's full of holes (not only mistranslations but misinterpretations and major, major edits), all religous texts are and I don't think anyone can really dispute that. I think the question there is whether you follow and believe in the institution (and it's texts) or the faith (the core teachings, as oppossed to quoting no-longer-relevant verses from all over the place).
And ditto, kudos to thelawtman - I can see the threads already v. popular (lets just hope all posts are thoughtfully written).

Reepicheepfan: sorry, but that's not an essay, it's an opinion article - you arguement is biased, not balanced. And to me, society did set the standard for morals, and moral standards do, thankfully, change - that's why past religously approved "standards" like Sutti (again, scuse spelling), slavery, womens roles and commonplace racism are no longer approved of.

[The half blood plinth]

Basilides: Wow. I'm confused. I think this calls for a lunch break, and I'm gonna have to google Mere Christianity and check out that chapter. And i'd always believed that Nature had created itself, though admittedly my knowledge of the Big Bang is pretty shallow.

Anyway, toodles for now.

[Basilides]

Kai: of course it's full of holes (not only mistranslations but misinterpretations and major, major edits), all religous texts are and I don't think anyone can really dispute that.

Full of major, major edits? Really? By whom, half blood plinth? Keep your facts together. I'm into amateur papyrology and textual criticism. I'm sure the world would love to know about these major, major edits and who did them!


I think the question there is whether you follow and believe in the institution (and it's texts) or the faith (the core teachings, as oppossed to quoting no-longer-relevant verses from all over the place).

Um, according to the texts, Christianity is not an institution at all. But I do get your point.

The problem is this...if believing in Christianity is simply a matter of people believing what they want, why go to all the trouble of trying to prove the texts have meaningfully changed? I don't see anyone doing this with the Bhavagad Gita, or I Ching, or even The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. If the Scriptures are irrelevent, why should it matter if they have been edited? I would think you should try to prove they are as antiquated as possible, if you really think Christianity is just a silly irrelevent religion. You know, put as much distance between the writing and more relevant times. But no one actually does this. The reason no one does this is that Christianity has the ring of truth about it. It strikes a chord - to some, a chord of joy, to others, one of resentment. Truth tends to elicit just such a response. So, what can a good atheist do but question the authenticity of the very texts which carry this world-shaking story? I don't envy you, as there is more textual evidence for the persistence of the Scriptures than there are for most of the Greek Poets that everyone takes for granted. It is a tough job. I wouldn;t want it. I have to respect your tenacity for your cause.

And ditto, kudos to thelawtman - I can see the threads already v. popular (lets just hope all posts are thoughtfully written).

How's it going so far?

[Basilides]

Basilides: Wow. I'm confused. I think this calls for a lunch break, and I'm gonna have to google Mere Christianity and check out that chapter. And i'd always believed that Nature had created itself, though admittedly my knowledge of the Big Bang is pretty shallow.

Anyway, toodles for now.


No no. Miracles, not Mere Christianity, although in the latter you will read about Lewis' argument from the Lawof Human Nature

[kirke]

No i have not read that and don't want to. I have as little to do with Chirstanity as possible beacuse it is compleley loony and unbleivable in the least.


being that i am just a guest and reading out of personal intrest i saw this on the first page about in response to reading an article about christianity... you said in other posts (well not in exact words) that christianity if false. Is it really possible for you to say its wrong if you refuse to have anything to do with it and have no knowllege about anything involving the religion?

[kirke]

I only say learn before you say its wrong because in my school newspaper every person plays a role and every role must be played by someone. by this i mean our paper requires if anything is said about being gay there has to be a gay person on staff who says print the article; there in tern must be a straight person to say the article is ok and have it printed. In my case i am the "religiously sound person" Anything about religion that is not Catholisism or Judaism (because there are others who keep those due to their beliefs) Any article that is written about religion must go through me before it is printed as well as an atheist.

Journalism is all about facts. If you remember Tom Brokauff (sp) lost his job because he had his facts wrong one time. I must research and research anything involving with whatever is being talked about and have spent hour upon hour learning everything from Atheism-Zoroastrianism. I enjoy it because it reassures me of my faith when i learn about others.

yeah, now that you have probably stopped reading my point is i dont think it could be possible to say that any religion is wrong until you havew thoroughly studied it.

[Parthian King]

Kirke, I think thelawtman is following what Lewis himself counseled. As he says in Surprised by Joy, Chapter 14 ("Checkmate"), "Really, a young Atheist cannot guard his faith too carefully. Dangers lie in wait for him on every side." And we can see Lewis, being well-read and informed on all sorts of subjects, fell prey to Christianity. It is better for people like thelawtman to remain as poorly read and closed as possible, so that his atheism can remain intact.

Kai Tetsuki, you reveal in another thread that you are a Mormon. Mormonism holds that the Bible is mistranslated and textually corrupt as a central tenet in order to justify the authority of the Book of Mormon. I challenge you or anyone to provide a single substantial incident of mistranslation (whatever that means, with all the translations we have floating around, and a great many people who can read the texts in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) or textual corruption that would cloud our understanding of Scripture. As I have stated elsewhere, classicists hold that we have, collectively, the orginal text of Homer's Iliad through the existence of only 40 copies of the same. In contrast, there are literally thousands of manuscripts of both Old and New Testament texts which enable us to sift through minor variants and get the true text. The accuracy of what the Church has had and used for centuries was confirmed through the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (in particular a scroll of the entire book of Isaiah) about 50 years ago. Textual experts in ancient manuscripts who are not even religious people conclude that any determination that the biblical text is corrupt or inaccurate is an ideological and not a scientific or scholarly conclusion. In other words, people who say that say it because they want to believe it.

Unless you come up with something other than a dogmatic statement of anti-faith, I'm sorry, but the Bible isn't corrupt and is reliable. If someone chooses to pitch it out the window (like thelawtman, as a choice of faith in atheism), that's their business. But don't make assertions just because you heard some elder say so.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

No i have not read that and don't want to. I have as little to do with Chirstanity as possible beacuse it is compleley loony and unbleivable in the least.Clearly a statement by a person "with an open mind". I think you've hit it dead on, Parthian King - if one is an atheist, one cannot be too careful what one allows within one's scope of concern. There are dangers on every side.

[Charn_Tim]

I would like to just quickly point out to all you atheists here that I (and others) am currently holding a discussion/debate with Jedi of Narnia-a reknowned atheist on these forums-in the creation vs. evolution (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?p=89664#post89664) thread (in the land of the Duffers), and I would welcome any of you over to the this thread as well (and so would Jedi of Narnia) to discuss the scientific validity of the Bible-either Biologically, astrophysically, or otherwise.

My claim is this: as one with a substantial scientific background, I have come to the conclusion that modern science beautifully and exactly meshes with the Bible, modern science supports the Bible, and we as Christians have absolutely no need whatsoever to feel ashamed, embarrassed, or change the subject when people bring up "evolutionary" arguments or "modern astrophysical arguments" against the Bible. If anyone is seeking honest answers to how science correlates with the Bible (does it support or contradict), I welcome any discussion. I am not an expert, but simply a fairly knowledgeable and informed Christian scientist who would like to discuss the validity of the Bible in light of modern science using well-reasoned arguments (not opinion or unsupported assertions).

I would like to say one last thing: to those Atheists who believe that it is a choice between belief in science or belief in the Bible, I empathize with your view, as I once thought similarly-that I could either be a logical thinker and believe in the "truth of science and reason" or I could have an irrational faith in the outdated, boring, and scientifically inaccurate Bible. But I have to say that the more I learn about the Bible and the more I learn about modern science, the more my beliefs in Christianity are strengthened.

[The half blood plinth]

Okay - it looks like out of all the posters on this board, thelawtman and I are the only actual athiests, and while it's great to hear your opinions, it'd be absolutely lovely if you'd actually read and try to comprehend ours. I'm directing that mainly at Charn Tim, for thier quote "I too feel sympathetic to your view, as I once thought very much like yourselves-that science was right and the Bible is wrong-until I correctly understood science and the Bible." 1. Please read my first post. 2. I'd rather you felt empathetic, not sympathetic, as there's nothing about athiesm to be pitied and your just coming across as patronizing. 3. What do you mean by "correctly understood science and the Bible"? Is there only one way to do so?

Furthermore, and unsurprisingly, I'm sensing people feel that we're "attacking" Christianity and the Bible. I'm not - I'm trying to cover all I know of faith/religion via my (admitedly still developing) understanding of how history works. When I say Christianity as an institution I'm refering generally to the Church - which is exactly what it was for centuries in regards to it's public role in modern and fuedal states - and as for the arguments of textual corruption... well, i guess I'm thinking primarily of the gnostic gospels and the supposed 80-something gospels the vatican apparently edited out (and while i take that claim with a grain of salt I do believe much was edited to suit the writers - especially in light of it being male writers with certain agendas (though not neccessarily "sinister" agendas)).
And I'm not saying the scriptures are entirely irrelevant - I feel like your putting words in my mouth. I do think much of the bible, especially the Old testament is 2000+ years out of date (and I don't appreciate people telling me I can't approach the alter if I've got a sight deficiency or I can't talk to a man because I've got my period, all because the Bible says so) and gets heavily misinterpreted due to modern vs ancient perceptions (such as the story of the rich man's camel fitting through the "eye of the needle", which in my understanding was a small doorway in Jerusalem where you had to get off your camel to get through - as opposed to, say, a sewing needle), but I do see the revelance of Jesus' core teachings. And to the Parthian King - I'd really like to hear who these classicists and textual experts are, and while the dead sea scrolls may verify certain translations, I'd like to know what kind of bible your talking about, as in, which denomination? It seems even all the current Christian groups can't agree on the correct translation/interpretation, hence the different types of bible available...

Oh honestly. Truth be told I'm still learning much about history and religion - all I can go on is what I've learnt from a Catholic education and my first year in Uni - so of course many of you who are so much better versed in the subject can argue much better about it than I can. But (and now I know I'm a hypocrite) I really, really, really didn't want to argue about the bible - or other religious texts (the bible was foremost 'cause it's what I'm - and most of you apparently - are familiar with).

This thread was originally about athiesm - I posted because I thought maybe I could give some none athiests an idea for why some of us are athiests and how we feel about religion etc - but it seems some people are too comfortable in their preconcieved notions, so they are being narrow minded and will not try to comprehend what we're (or at least what I'm) saying. And personally, I do read widely and allow much into my "scope of concern", all of which turns me further away from following any particular religion (though I still find it a facinating study). Except Buddhism, as a way-of-life (as oppossed to as a religion or philosophy), it's quite appealing.

P.S: Basilides: how's what going so far?

[Charn_Tim]

...while it's great to hear your opinions, it'd be absolutely lovely if you'd actually read and try to comprehend ours. I'm directing that mainly at Charn Tim, for thier quote "I too feel sympathetic to your view, as I once thought very much like yourselves-that science was right and the Bible is wrong-until I correctly understood science and the Bible." 1. Please read my first post. 2. I'd rather you felt empathetic, not sympathetic, as there's nothing about athiesm to be pitied and your just coming across as patronizing. 3. What do you mean by "correctly understood science and the Bible"? Is there only one way to do so?
The half blood plinth:

Excuse me...the word "sympathetic" is rather patronizing. I apologize and I will change it to empathize right now-which is what I meant. I in no way intend to be patronizing to you or the other atheists at all. It is kind of late over here; perhaps I should have replied to this thread in the morning when my thoughts are clearer so as not to mis-speak :).

First of all, I was really not intending my post to be directed at you at all, even though I see your confusion when I said "all you atheists." Again, I should have been more precise, and said "all you atheists who believe that the Bible is flawed for scientific reasons" which I did see some of in this thread.

Secondly, by "correctly understanding science and the Bible" I mean that I have misunderstood both scientific theories and the Bible in the past. For example, I have misunderstood what the Theory of General Relativity means (until I took a graduate course on this), what Quantum Mechanics is and means (before I took upper division courses on this as well), or what the Second Law of Thermodynamics means (before I took courses in Thermal Physics), for example. By the way, I still do not "fully understand these theories" after all, the famous nobel-prize winning physicist Richard Feynman himslef said, "I think I can safely say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics." I only understand these things better now. Perhaps I should have said, "Of what I understand, the Bible and science are perfectly compatible" which does not rule out the possibility that a new discovery in science could falsify Biblical claims. I'm sorry if I sounded like I was in possession of the full truth of science and the Bible. Of course I don't mean this :).

So then, I maintain that I would love to discuss science and the Bible with anyone who is interested, just not in this thread.

[The half blood plinth]

That's cool Charn_Tim, maybe I'll pop over and see if I can contibute anything useful.

And yeah, sorry everyone if my last post sounded stupid and a little arrogant - it sounds a bit stupid to me now that I come back to read it. Like I said - I'm in first year uni, so I really know only very little and I get a bit heated up about all this because I find it very important to have people understand me (though of course I'd be very bored if people actually agreed with me). So just, ignore all the stuff I said about the bible - it's not relevant to this board.

[Charn_Tim]

...so I really know only very little and I get a bit heated up about all this because I find it very important to have people understand me
haha, I'm right there with you!! I think we could all use a little dose of humility :).

[Krissy]

At this point, I believe that it just ravels(sp?) down to whether or not you have faith. Faith for some people is easily attained which is why religion is such a strong point for them, and they have no doubt whatsoever that it is their correct path. For others, faith is something that must build apon them. There are also those who can never grasp faith. I suppose it's because their mind does not allow them, which is why for them, the idea of God sounds far-fetched, while those who believe in God, find the ideas of the Big Bang and other scientific ideas not believable at all.

[The half blood plinth]

Krissy: nicely put. I like to think I'd be in the 2nd group, but I'm probably in the 3rd.

[Jay7]

Its amazing to me why atheist think they have 'open minds' :rolleyes:

Firstly, scientific proof of a prophecie of the coming of Jesus Christ dates back to 1000 years before Jesus was born, then he did come, and was exactly as predicted, also theres other historical documents that mention Jesus and proof he did exist, not to mention 350 prophecies that have came true in the bible just recently.

Oh, just some other interesting facts i thought i'd bring up is the bible says the earth floats in space upon nothing, and that the earth is sphere.

Now a question for atheists:

Why are you willing to throw away a chance of enternal life? Its plain ignorant.

[Gibby]

What is always interesting to me is how atheists spend so much energy and time trying to convince others (and I believe themselves) that there is no God. If there truly was no God, you would think that they would be at peace with that realization and would be indifferent about those who do believe in God. But they have a passion for trying to knock others who do believe and they "faithfully" try to push their agenda of removing any suggestion of God at all from society. It takes alot of self-convincing for atheists to keep this non-belief going, considering we were all hard-wired by God Himself to worship Him.


Psalm 53:1

1 The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."...

[FallOfFingolfin]

What is always interesting to me is how atheists spend so much energy and time trying to convince others (and I believe themselves) that there is no God. If there truly was no God, you would think that they would be at peace with that realization and would be indifferent about those who do believe in God. But they have a passion for trying to knock others who do believe and they "faithfully" try to push their agenda of removing any suggestion of God at all from society. It takes alot of self-convincing for atheists to keep this non-belief going, considering we were all hard-wired by God Himself to worship Him.


Psalm 53:1

1 The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."...

Although I do agree with you for most of that, as I believe in God, I'm not sure that we do inherently believe.

If you put a human on Earth in a completely neutral and empty environment, I don't think this human will instantly sing the praises of God, or believe in him.

I think it's something that must be taught.

[Parthian King]

half blood plinth: I like you. Not that you were looking to be liked, but one can hold a discussion with someone like you.

FallofFingolfin: Thanks for your respectful remarks. I respectfully disagree, though, for a numebr of reasons. First, our situation is not theoretical, but concrete. Second, people who have worked among stone age tribes testify that these people do in fact exhibit not just the moral codes Lewis refers to in Mere Christianity, but more complex concepts regarding God, the fall of humanity and the ensuing estrangement from God, and hope for reconciliation. It is true that missionary anthropologists will have a different tack on the this than secular anthropologists. Nevertheless, it is instructive to note that missionaries have in fact tied into these concepts to evangelize such tribes. I recommend a search for Don Richardson's books Peace Child, and Eternity in Their Hearts (regarding his work in Papua New Guinea), and Bruce Olson's Bruchko (about his work among the Motilones in Colombia). Special revelation (i.e., Jesus Christ is the Son of God) indeed does have to be taught, but the concept that there is a God and that God's relationship with humanity has been sundered is waiting for these missionaries when they arrive, and they never really have to start from scratch.

[Gibby]

I agree PK.


Romans 1: 18-20

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

[inkspot]

Hey, y'all. Maybe we should start a separate thread for "Veracity of the Bible" where people could post their proof that the Bible is flawed, and people could post their proof that the Bible is documented? It seems like everyone is saying it's wrong, it's right, but there's no documentation ...

(Or maybe y'all already did that while I wasn't looking, opened another thread?)

I think Krissy's about right ... some people have faith to believe in God, and some people have faith to believe there is no God. Maybe some more atheists will jump in here with thelawtman and Plinth and shore up their side ... For an athesists only thread, there are too many of us believers buzzing around!

[Gibby]

... For an athesists only thread, there are too many of us believers buzzing around!

Yeah, you're right Ink...
We kind of invaded, uninvited. I'm outa here. Sorry, unbelievers. :o

[inkspot]

Yeah, you're right Ink...
We kind of invaded, uninvited. I'm outa here. Sorry, unbelievers.http://www.narniafans.com/forum/images/icons/icon11.gif
No, no, no, I didn't mean believers should decamp, I meant maybe more atheists should come and join in the discussion!

[Jay7]

Lets start with some atheists proof the Bible is flawed. :)

May i mention before any of you bring it up the bible isnt believing what you want to here, its believing what there is to here. I mean think for a second, what if it was really true? What if it isnt a stupid 'myth' or 'flawed' bible? Also with the number of proofs in the bible its a bit silly to ignore and not even study it..

[thelawtman]

Well I am looking at sites right now that there is proof the bible is flawed. One thing I can say is that Christiantiy is so special than why the Hell does is discrimnate aginst everyone. It discriminates agisnt women and gays. If peopel here can call themselves christians they why do you hate other religons? Why do we treat mormans and Muslems like trash? Its what they belive in jsut like u belive in. Christainty only takes up 30% of the worlds religon. It may be the most common but ther are alot more people out ther that arent christian than are so you guys are not all the special.

here is a site that has almost 150 contradictions in the bible

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

[inkspot]

One thing I can say is that Christiantiy is so special than why the Hell does is discrimnate aginst everyone. It discriminates agisnt women and gays.
I think you have gotten the wrong impression of us. Christianity does not discriminate against anyone. Christian people may act in ways that are discriminatory, but then so may atheist people. Were we all true to the Scriptures, there would be no discrimination whatever, for the Bible teaches all have sinned and "fall short of the glory of God." That means what I regard as my petty sins of disrespecting my neighboors or muttering curses under my breath are as atrocious to God as theft and murder. People are all alike to God: all sinners. This is what the Bible says. There is no basis for discriminating against anyone in Christianity. I am heartily sorry if some Christian has practiced discrimination against you and wounded you, thelawtman. Please accept my apology on their behalf, and please forgive.

If peopel here can call themselves christians they why do you hate other religons? Why do we treat mormans and Muslems like trash? Its what they belive in jsut like u belive in.
Again, people who are living by the Scriptures will not treat anyone like trash, and if someone has treated you or someone you love like trash, in the name of religion, then I am very sorry for it, and ask you to accept my apologies on their behalf. it is a terrible thing to have someone mistreat you in the name of God, and that is not the way of Christianity at all. I am sorry that your opinion of Christ has been jaded by the actions of some of His followers who do not live by His example. For instance, in the Scriptures you see Jesus breaking all religious taboos by befriending a woman, and a Samaritan woman. These were traditionally people despised by the Jews, so society would have demanded He have nothing to do with such a one, and especially a woman like her ... but the longest recorded private conversation of Christ in the New Testament is with this woman that other religious people would have treated like trash. That was Jesus' way, a way of love and acceptance. I am sorry you have not experienced that from His followers.

Christainty only takes up 30% of the worlds religon. It may be the most common but ther are alot more people out ther that arent christian than are so you guys are not all the special.
We are only special because God has put His hands on us. But that touch is available to anyone!

It has been pointed out to me that discussing the veracity of the Bible might actually be counter-productive to our discussion, so I will not pursue that. We both know where we stand on the issue, so that's probably just as well. :)

[kirke]

Kirke, I think thelawtman is following what Lewis himself counseled. As he says in Surprised by Joy, Chapter 14 ("Checkmate"), "Really, a young Atheist cannot guard his faith too carefully. Dangers lie in wait for him on every side." And we can see Lewis, being well-read and informed on all sorts of subjects, fell prey to Christianity. It is better for people like thelawtman to remain as poorly read and closed as possible, so that his atheism can remain intact.

im sorry since im supposed to be a guest here i shouldnt be hanging around too much, but because this was addressed to me i must respond. Shouldnt you be open to changing your religion? If 1 thing in my church doesnt correspond to what the bible says i will quit being a baptist. If 1 thing in the bible is wrong i will quit being a christian. Should it not be the same for every religion? If there is something more logical should you not change? It makes no sense to make yourself ignorant and stupid just so that you can be ignorant and stupid! even if after learning about christianity or budism or hinduism you feel they are wrong (keeping in mind you learn with an open heart) it is far better than to make sure you stay away for fear that you find out you are wrong. i do not care so much that you guys convert because i know that i cant convert you. but to make sure you dont read anything that tells you that you are wrong, or that maybe something else is right is just saying "i want to be stupid and ignorant." if you learn about christianity than by all means if it seems illogical say why, you have no right to say that it is wrong if you refuse to know anything about it.

[CSLewisFan]

Yeah, you're right Ink...
We kind of invaded, uninvited. I'm outa here. Sorry, unbelievers. :o

I think it was an invitation considering this is the Christianity in Narnia section :rolleyes: :)

-Austin

[Gibby]

I think it was an invitation considering this is the Christianity in Narnia section :rolleyes: :)

-Austin

Or was it more like baiting instead of an invitation?http://www.narniafans.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Warrior-Poet51088]

here is a site that has almost 150 contradictions in the bible

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm


Uhh, dude, you just shot yourself in the foot--that list is a Christian's answer to supposed "contradictions" in the Bible, not just a list of problems in the Bible!




(Man, and here I was, chomping at the bit to get to refute these "contradictions"! Nuts!)

[Tweetsie]

My parents are Atheists. But they just don't like fantasy, so they don't care much about Narnia. I'm half Jewish, half Roman Catholic, so I can technically be neither. But I go to Episcopal chruch for choir. So I'm nothing at the moment. But I might be something later.

[Jay7]

Well I am looking at sites right now that there is proof the bible is flawed. One thing I can say is that Christiantiy is so special than why the Hell does is discrimnate aginst everyone. It discriminates agisnt women and gays. If peopel here can call themselves christians they why do you hate other religons? Why do we treat mormans and Muslems like trash? Its what they belive in jsut like u belive in. Christainty only takes up 30% of the worlds religon. It may be the most common but ther are alot more people out ther that arent christian than are so you guys are not all the special.

here is a site that has almost 150 contradictions in the bible

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

Hehe. :) Christians are actually special then other religions, i mean, theres religions where they think elephants hold the earth, and that the earth is flat! Christianity is obviously the real thing.

Oh, and sorry to spoil your beliefs, but those contradictions are not contradictions. Ive found many atheist claim are contradictions arent, if you go read the bible you'll find the passages arent even in it. For the ones that are, many of you read them wrong, an example of this is where one passage says there was two angels in the bomb, and another says one, but the other one was outside on the rock, the other two were inside, if you read the full text surounding those passages. There are also a few other little contradicitions due to translation issues, many of these have been fixed, because sometimes their arent words in english for some of the words it was originally written in. But its getting better, they are updating bibles all the time. so i suggest stop reading these stupid sites and look into it yourself, as these people are thinking for you and stating false claims and endangering your beliefs. I don't hate other religions, people who do arent real catholics, just like the muslims who spoil it for the good muslims.

Please look into things yourself, and study into things more.

[Parthian King]

Dear friend Kirke, what you said was my exact point. I was merely saying it "tongue in cheek," as was Lewis when he first wrote those words. An Atheist like Lewis, while Atheist, gloated and boasted of his superior knowledge. But he admitted that once he began to really read widely, he became a Christian. So, for Lewis, Atheism was a false intellectualism, and Christianity was the only reasonable way to approach life. He was so convinced of this that he turned things around from what people usually think: It isn't the Christian that needs to guard his faith most carefully, but rather the Atheist.

thelawtman, my tone right now is as gentle and concilitary as it could be, and I mean you no offense or harm. But it appears that your argument is with some Christians who have not been very good ones. In the end, I cannot know. But I will say that even our faith says that all will stand before God in the end, not before a bunch of religious people (thank God!). If you think we're bad guys, believe me, I understand. A lot of the time I think I'm a bad guy. But don't think God is a bad guy just because some who claim to have followed Him are bad. Take a look at Him, read some of what Lewis says about Him. If you don't like me, that's my loss. But if you reject Him because of me, that's your loss.

[Jay7]

Kai: of course it's full of holes (not only mistranslations but misinterpretations and major, major edits), all religous texts are and I don't think anyone can really dispute that. I think the question there is whether you follow and believe in the institution (and it's texts) or the faith (the core teachings, as oppossed to quoting no-longer-relevant verses from all over the place).
And ditto, kudos to thelawtman - I can see the threads already v. popular (lets just hope all posts are thoughtfully written).

Reepicheepfan: sorry, but that's not an essay, it's an opinion article - you arguement is biased, not balanced. And to me, society did set the standard for morals, and moral standards do, thankfully, change - that's why past religously approved "standards" like Sutti (again, scuse spelling), slavery, womens roles and commonplace racism are no longer approved of.

Heh.

Major edits? Not! They actually discovered one of the original copies from thousands of years ago and they were amazed at the simularities between two copies written about a thousand years apart. Plus, the people who translate the bible do not change it at all, wheres your proof of this?

and LOL. Society did not create morals. If your happy whos to say that happy is really sad? They cant, its been set so that happy is happy, happy is not a 'thing' in the universe, its not a form of matter/engery, nothing, it cannot be put into a jar! Wheres it come from? I think you know my answer to that question.

While im typing.. how did humans happen to have food around on the earth to eat? I mean, theres the earth ok, and theres food all over it, then theres little organisms that 'evolve' into species and humans, how did they evolve to be able to eat? And how did food just happen to come about for us? Its not like the organisms new that there was going to be food! And why do we have taste buds? Why do we smell things? Admit it, the whole planet has signs of intelligent design all OVER IT! And here i am laughing at the fact atheist call themselves people with open minds.

[CSLewisFan]

The title: "Countering Bible Contradictions" kind of gave it away :)

My parents are Atheists. But they just don't like fantasy, so they don't care much about Narnia. I'm half Jewish, half Roman Catholic, so I can technically be neither. But I go to Episcopal chruch for choir. So I'm nothing at the moment. But I might be something later.

I actually noticed that atheists don't seem to care for The Chronicles.

Phillip Pullman atheist and author of "His Dark Materials" trilogy.

"But Pullman said the Narnia books contained "a peevish blend of racist, misogynistic and reactionary prejudice" and "not a trace" of Christian charity.

"It's not the presence of Christian doctrine I object to so much as the absence of Christian virtue," he added.

"The highest virtue - we have on the authority of the New Testament itself - is love, and yet you find not a trace of that in the books."

Pullman's acclaimed His Dark Materials trilogy tells of a battle against the church and a fight to overthrow God."

Atheist, T.M. Wagner wrote:
The finale of The Last Battle is thus breathtakingly simple to understand thematically: yes, it gets very bad here, but you'll go to a better place soon. Depending upon your own beliefs or lack thereof, that may or may not seem like wishful thinking and naive emotionalism. But people don't always look at the horrors of the world rationally, and fear is a fundamental emotion rooted in our innate survival instincts. Does religion exploit that fear? In my opinion, absolutely. But as for this story, all Lewis means to do here is give his young readers reasons to fear the big bad world around them less. While I personally admit to finding most things about all religions, not just Christianity, both morally and intellectually disagreeable, it's hard to fault the avuncular Jack Lewis for trying to shed a little light on a world we know sadly now he saw as a very, very dark place indeed.

It seems like to the atheist, the most mind-blowing thing about Narnia\Followers of Jesus, is the glorification of death.

Figure that one out...
-Austin

[The half blood plinth]

Ok - the edited version:

Jay 7: dude, believe what you want, but don't dismiss other religions out right. It's like once you have one idea in your head, you won't question it, or explore other options. It's a willed closing of the mind - to me. And not as an athiest but as a student of history and archaeology I find that appalling - I can't ... I find it plain depressing. And I can't say I'm surprised.

Look, everyone, please read my first post (it seems a lot of you haven't) where I explain why I'm an athiest - and it's not due to science or the faults with religous texts. And please try to respect my beliefs, even though they don't involve the super natural. Since this board opened I feel like many of you are far too comfortable with the notion that athiesm is a state of mind in (apparently spiteful) reaction to religion - specifically your Christianity. It's not. Like I said, I never chose to be an athiest, it's what has always made sense to me, and I don't like people acting like I'm doing this to purposefully step on toes (ok, I didn't come to make friends but I certainly didn't come to aggravate people), or .... garg, there goes my bus, lateraters.

Toodles

[Basilides]

thelawtman,

I submit to you, just for you to think about, that atheism is not so much a "conclusion" about the existence of God by thinking people such as yourself, but that it is a philosophical framework by which most atheists seek to make sense of the universe and the problems in it. If there is no God, then the issue of suffering and the issue of conscience are quietly and firmly resolved. Sort of. Besides, there is a kind of stark beauty in chaos. I remember reading a part of a poem by C.S. Lewis written when he was an atheist - before his conversion - where he looked at a sunset and saw how beautiful it was. At the time, Lewis believed the main reason it was beautiful was because it was accidental. He was revolted at the idea that a "god" had designed it, removing the nobility of pure chance from the equation.

Later, he realized that he was only creating a new kind of god, a god of chaos...and that to credit all things to Nature is to completely misunderstand Nature. Instead of looking at Nature as a kind of universal womb in which humans have been randomly and accidentally conceived - Nature as a long-lived mother while we are mere specks of organic incongruities in the cosmic scheme of things - he faced the other possibility. The possibility that Nature is not our mother at all, but a created thing...not vastly more important than us, but a beauty to be treasured and cared for by we who are immortals. We should look upon her with the kind of affection one shows for a dear friend who is terminally ill. We know that we will go on long after the last nebula has faded, but she will pass away. We should and will miss her, even with all her imperfections.

But anyway...sorry for the digression...the point is that atheism resolves some of the big dilemmas. After all, you can't blame "chance" for human suffering. I suppose you could, but that would be like blaming photosynthesis for your being hungry. There's no point. You just have to accept it. I really do understand the attraction of atheism.

But unfortunately, atheism actually raises more dilemmas than it answers. In fact, as Lewis shows, since atheism makes human reason invalid, it sort of precludes itself from being true. Even ideas like "chance" and "nature" are really meaningless unless human reason can actually give them enough valid content that they refer to something true. It is a desperate, no-win situation for atheists philosophically. The only hope of a noble athiest is that the theists won't understand the arguments well enough to present them cogently, or that they will get on the defensive when specific beliefs are attacked. Most of the time this works well for an atheist, because a theist does not have to be a thinking person, just a believing person...while atheism must by its nature produce adherents that can intellectually explain away the natural inclination of the human soul (to believe). Thus, when debates (online or elsewhere) take place, it usually involves an atheist who is trained in logic and philosophy versus a theist armed with faith. Since debates are won or lost by strength of argument, the atheist usually shines.

All this changes when the theist is familiar with the arguments and equally trained in logic and philosophy. In fact, Lewis was just such a man. Schaeffer was also one. Ravvi Zacharias is a living example. These kinds of men "clean up" in such debates. There is a reason for that, and it isn;t because they are just lucky or clever...it is because they understand the questions, they know how the answers fit those questions, and they are outfitted with the confidence that there really is something called the Truth.

If you are curious about all this, please consider reading the works by Lewis described here. A brilliant atheist friend of mine, after having been subjected to the kinds of arguments I've only touched on here (and subjected to them for years...his fault - he started it!) has told me that yes, the theistic arguments are obviously logical and valid...he just doesn't believe them. He gets less fun out of belittling Christianity these days, I think, due to the fact that he knows when one follows the arguments logically to the very end of the game, theism (and Christianity most of all, but that is something more) stands on more solid ground than atheism.

I respect him and his beliefs all the more for his honesty.

[Jay7]

Jay 7: dude, believe what you want, but don't dismiss other religions out right - that's called rascism. And I understand what your saying but I totally disagree, and anyway, I'm honestly losing all interest in posting here, this board is too full of big headedness on both sides and yes - closed minds - to achieve anything. It's like once you have one idea in your head, you won't question it, or explore other options. It's a willed closing of the mind - to me. And not as an athiest but as a student of history and archaeology I find that appalling - I can't ... I find it plain depressing. And I can't say I'm surprised.

Toodles

Hey,

Sorry if it sounded that way to you, but i was no way being racist. I was trying to state why 'us' christians believe what we believe, well me anyway, because atheist always ask "why do you believe christianity out of all the other religions?" well its because of things like i said, other religions say the earths held up by elephants, which is why i don't believe them. And, i question my faith all the time, its normal, but i just know Gods real. Yeh, that sounds stupid to an atheists, but i do know. And im skeptical, i find things ahrd to believe unless i see it for myself, which is why i research things on the bible and ive found many proofs. Im convinced, and thats pretty hard for me to be.

[Basilides]

Half blood plinth,

I'm sorry you are leaving the discussion. You have an opportunity here to show people who are on the fence on this issue how atheists comport themselves with the facts, logic, and confidence...while people who believe in God are simply grasping at metaphysical straws to make themselves feel better. Not that you will convince any of us, but surely you can show us up for what we really are!

Jay 7: dude, believe what you want, but don't dismiss other religions out right - that's called rascism.

Actually, it is called the Law of Non-Contradiction. Two contradictory assertions cannot both be true. If one religion says "God is a ficus tree in a house on NW 2nd Street in Miami", and another religion says "er...no, actually, He's not" then they cannot both be true. Each religion (or any philosophy or opinion for that matter) must decide which, if any, assertion to agree with and then dismiss the one not agreed with. Otherwise, one has no religion, philosophy, or opinion whatsoever.

An atheist, for example, must dismiss the religions that claim there is a God/god/gods, because if the atheist did not dismiss them, he would no longer be an atheist. Mind you, he can consider their arguments, but in the end he must either accept or reject them.

In any case, none of this has anything to do with a person's race.

And I understand what your saying but I totally disagree, and anyway, I'm honestly losing all interest in posting here, this board is too full of big headedness on both sides and yes - closed minds - to achieve anything.

I'm not so sure about that. I'm quite interested in hearing and considering what you have to say, for example.



It's like once you have one idea in your head, you won't question it, or explore other options. It's a willed closing of the mind - to me.

In that case, don't leave. Let's you and I be an example to the rest :)


And not as an athiest but as a student of history and archaeology I find that appalling - I can't ... I find it plain depressing.

I love history and archaeology. Maybe we can begin with a discussion of those subjects.



And I can't say I'm surprised.

Well, I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean that neither theists or atheists will seriously consider the merits of the arguments of the other, you should not be surprised. As a student of anthropology too, you know how ingrained worldviews can become to people. The only possible remedy is patience and empathy mingled with sound arguments.

If you mean that you are not surprised that no one, in a thread of so far only a few posts, hasn't given up their faith in God by taking your word for it that He doesn't exist...well, then your lack of surprise is eminently logical.

[FallOfFingolfin]

half blood plinth: I like you. Not that you were looking to be liked, but one can hold a discussion with someone like you.

FallofFingolfin: Thanks for your respectful remarks. I respectfully disagree, though, for a numebr of reasons. First, our situation is not theoretical, but concrete. Second, people who have worked among stone age tribes testify that these people do in fact exhibit not just the moral codes Lewis refers to in Mere Christianity, but more complex concepts regarding God, the fall of humanity and the ensuing estrangement from God, and hope for reconciliation. It is true that missionary anthropologists will have a different tack on the this than secular anthropologists. Nevertheless, it is instructive to note that missionaries have in fact tied into these concepts to evangelize such tribes. I recommend a search for Don Richardson's books Peace Child, and Eternity in Their Hearts (regarding his work in Papua New Guinea), and Bruce Olson's Bruchko (about his work among the Motilones in Colombia). Special revelation (i.e., Jesus Christ is the Son of God) indeed does have to be taught, but the concept that there is a God and that God's relationship with humanity has been sundered is waiting for these missionaries when they arrive, and they never really have to start from scratch.

While perhaps it may be part of our natural instinct to believe that there is something higher than us, I don't think it can be argued that we inherently are aware of God in the way that we (meaning the people of this forum, among others) do, in the strict sense. Either way, I don't think that "hot-wired" is the proper term to use.

[Parthian King]

Perhaps I should be more precise. I agree that we don't spontaneously praise Him (as you pointed out). But I am merely relating the experiences of others as I have read them that primitive people, in contexts as close to "neutral" (as you put it) do indeed have a concept of a personal God, a Creator, and that there is an issue with their relationship to that God. It is a sense of a greater power, but it is more than that--it is a longing for contact with that has been lost. I'm not sure I would go with "hot-wired," since that phrase could be turned to mean other things, but I'll just say what I'm saying, and let it stand at that.

But I am just passing on what others have related. Perhaps if you cheked out the books you could come to your own conclusion after reading them.

Pax.

[Jay7]

While perhaps it may be part of our natural instinct to believe that there is something higher than us, I don't think it can be argued that we inherently are aware of God in the way that we (meaning the people of this forum, among others) do, in the strict sense. Either way, I don't think that "hot-wired" is the proper term to use.

Well why do you think the universe's nature makes it appear that it has been created by intelligent design? Because it has.

Picture this, your God, creater of the universe and your watching everybody, and theres somebody like you whos saying that humans just believe theres a God because its our nature to think theres something higher, but then you think to yourself as God that what this person said is not true. you see what i mean? Just because you think that you cant base your beliefs on it, at least christianity has something to base belief on, the bible.

And whats made us gave us that natrul instinct? Haven't you ever considered that may be God so that we one day end up believing in him and being with him after death?

As an ahtiest, have you ever felt soemthing weird? Like something missing or something out there continuesly getting your attention? Sometimes i imagine being an atheist and there being nothing higher then us, but i feel that there is something out there, its unexplainable.

[FallOfFingolfin]

Well why do you think the universe's nature makes it appear that it has been created by intelligent design? Because it has.

Picture this, your God, creater of the universe and your watching everybody, and theres somebody like you whos saying that humans just believe theres a God because its our nature to think theres something higher, but then you think to yourself as God that what this person said is not true. you see what i mean? Just because you think that you cant base your beliefs on it, at least christianity has something to base belief on, the bible.

And whats made us gave us that natrul instinct? Haven't you ever considered that may be God so that we one day end up believing in him and being with him after death?

You lost me somewhere there...

[Jay7]

You lost me somewhere there...

You said God is just something humans believe is becauses its their nature to think that there is a higher being, so i was giving an example, pretend your God when reading my post, btw i edited it.

[Basilides]

My parents are Atheists. But they just don't like fantasy, so they don't care much about Narnia. I'm half Jewish, half Roman Catholic, so I can technically be neither. But I go to Episcopal chruch for choir. So I'm nothing at the moment. But I might be something later.

Tweetsie, if you ever read this message, I really have to disagree with you. Imagine, for a moment that your favorite celebrity of the opposite sex got a huge crush on you. The celebrity starts sending you flowers, writing you love songs, offering to wait for you for 30 years if that's what it takes. One day, you are held up by a very cruel man with a gun, who then points at you and shoots...but your admiring celebrity jumps in from nowhere and takes the bullet. I think you would identify yourself proudly as a friend of that celebrity.

Now imagine the exact same thing happening, except instead of a celebrity it is the Creator of the Universe. This is, in fact, what happened and is happening.

You are something, for sure.

[Jay7]

Tweetsie, if you ever read this message, I really have to disagree with you. Imagine, for a moment that your favorite celebrity of the opposite sex got a huge crush on you. The celebrity starts sending you flowers, writing you love songs, offering to wait for you for 30 years if that's what it takes. One day, you are held up by a very cruel man with a gun, who then points at you and shoots...but your admiring celebrity jumps in from nowhere and takes the bullet. I think you would identify yourself proudly as a friend of that celebrity.

Now imagine the exact same thing happening, except instead of a celebrity it is the Creator of the Universe. This is, in fact, what happened and is happening.

You are something, for sure.
Wow, that was a awesome way to put it :D

[The half blood plinth]

Half blood plinth,

I'm sorry you are leaving the discussion. You have an opportunity here to show people who are on the fence on this issue how atheists comport themselves with the facts, logic, and confidence...while people who believe in God are simply grasping at metaphysical straws to make themselves feel better. Not that you will convince any of us

Dude - that's not what I want to do at all. I admire people of faith, and I don't plan, want or even think I ever could take someones faith from them. I just want to get my viewpoint across - I expect people to disagree (actually I expected more athiest posts so I expected to read a variety of reasons for people being athiest).
I find facts are always debatable and prone to change according to one's own perspective. I'm not a student of logic, and I think a lot of people I know who are athiests have flaws in thier reasoning for athiesm.My own logic makes sense to me but again - it's a matter of perspective. And I'm certainly not confident in my athiesm - not in the way I think you think I am - I'm sure of it but not about to burst into song on the subject, proclaim it to the sky or try and convert people.

Actually, it is called the Law of Non-Contradiction. Two contradictory assertions cannot both be true. If one religion says "God is a ficus tree in a house on NW 2nd Street in Miami", and another religion says "er...no, actually, He's not" then they cannot both be true. Each religion (or any philosophy or opinion for that matter) must decide which, if any, assertion to agree with and then dismiss the one not agreed with. Otherwise, one has no religion, philosophy, or opinion whatsoever.
I dont think that's exactly right - but again, it depends on perspective. I've had - oh, how bad of me, I've forgotten if it was Hinduism or Buddhism, I think it was Hinduism - in Hinduism you can combine gods and religions - you can worship Jesus alongside Shiva if you wanted, although Christians might not recognize you as a Christian, and some Hindus would of course disagree. Maybe that doesn't work with your laws and principles, but it seems to work for those worhippers.

[An atheist, for example, must dismiss the religions that claim there is a God/god/gods, because if the atheist did not dismiss them, he would no longer be an atheist. Mind you, he can consider their arguments, but in the end he must either accept or reject them.

Okay, maybe "dismiss" was a little too ambiguous. If you mean "dismiss" as in disagree and therefore reject - then yeah, I agree you there. I think I meant "dismiss" as in to be dismissive, or disrespectful, to consider those religions worthless or to belittle them, which is how the comment seemed at first reading. I've edited that post anyway - I was jumping on the defensive and I was wrong to say it was racist, I interpreted it wrongly.

In any case, none of this has anything to do with a person's race.

Sorry, I thought racism covered discrimination of one's religion, sexual preferance, ethnicity, nationality etc. If you can find a more suitable word please share it - my vocab could do with some excercise.

I'm not so sure about that. I'm quite interested in hearing and considering what you have to say, for example. In that case, don't leave. Let's you and I be an example to the rest :)

Aw shucks. Thankyou. And ditto. I'm learning a lot from you already, And I've only been on this board for 5 minutes. I'd love to talk about hisory and archaeology - but that might lead to the whole creationism vs evolution and that's scary territory. Maybe in that other thread... if I have the energy...


Well, I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean that neither theists or atheists will seriously consider the merits of the arguments of the other, you should not be surprised.
Yep, Thats what I meant :)

Hmmm... I didn't do a good job at leaving, did I? These boards are too addictive.

Oh, and Jay 7: Saying that you believe in god doesn't sound stupid at all - don't think for a moment that all athiests think that. And that religion with elephants holding up a flat earth - that sounds very much like the Discworld, a satire series written by fantasy author Terry Pratchett (the most successful modern fantasy writer in the UK until Rowling came long). I have no idea what religion he follows, but he certainly promotes people to believe in something, whether its the great god Om (v. similar to Allah/God) or the Veruca Gnome. It's a great series - v. funny with an interesting philosophy - check it out.

[Jay7]

Oh, and Jay 7: Saying that you believe in god doesn't sound stupid at all - don't think for a moment that all athiests think that. And that religion with elephants holding up a flat earth - that sounds very much like the Discworld, a satire series written by fantasy author Terry Pratchett (the most successful modern fantasy writer in the UK until Rowling came long). I have no idea what religion he follows, but he certainly promotes people to believe in something, whether its the great god Om (v. similar to Allah/God) or the Veruca Gnome. It's a great series - v. funny with an interesting philosophy - check it out.

Ok thats good too know.

i might checkout discworld. ;)

[Basilides]

Dude - that's not what I want to do at all. I admire people of faith, and I don't plan, want or even think I ever could take someones faith from them. I just want to get my viewpoint across - I expect people to disagree (actually I expected more athiest posts so I expected to read a variety of reasons for people being athiest).

There are a variety of reasons. Your own reasons, as stated in your first post on this thread, are fair enough. It does indeed seem to be the case that all human societies have had some kind of belief in the supernatural to fill a void and longng in their hearts. But this is not really an argument against the existence of the supernatural. If anything, it is a fact in favor of God's existence. As Lewis said about this very issue, the fact that a man is hungry does not prove that he will get bread...but it would be odd indeed for a man to be hungry in a universe in which there was no such thing as food or eating.

If there is a nearly universal hunger for God, as your studies in anthropology clearly show, it would indeed be odd if there were not some basis for that desire.

Your example of a child who invents an imaginary friend supports my case. For a lonely child to invent an imaginary friend would make no sense if there were no such things as real friends. Humans invent imaginary gods all the time...but only to take the place of Someone Real. Christianity (and Judaism, for that matter) is less just another attempt to fill the old longing, and more of an "Oh, I see now what it was I desired all along."

Christianity did not begin because of a desire for an afterlife. The roots of Christianity, early Judaism, barely gave any hints of an afterlife. It is as if God wanted His people to love Him before they had any hope of reward. Lewis himself, as I mentioned somewhere perhaps on this thread, believed in God before he believed in an afterlife.




I find facts are always debatable and prone to change according to one's own perspective.

Actually, the facts themselves are not subject to change. It is the interpretation of those facts that leads to trouble.


I'm not a student of logic, and I think a lot of people I know who are athiests have flaws in thier reasoning for athiesm.

Just as many Christians do. The question is, is atheism itself logically flawed?

My own logic makes sense to me but again - it's a matter of perspective. And I'm certainly not confident in my athiesm - not in the way I think you think I am - I'm sure of it but not about to burst into song on the subject, proclaim it to the sky or try and convert people.

You should be more confident before calling yourself an atheist. Have you ever heard of Pascal's wager?


I dont think that's exactly right - but again, it depends on perspective. I've had - oh, how bad of me, I've forgotten if it was Hinduism or Buddhism, I think it was Hinduism - in Hinduism you can combine gods and religions - you can worship Jesus alongside Shiva if you wanted, although Christians might not recognize you as a Christian, and some Hindus would of course disagree. Maybe that doesn't work with your laws and principles, but it seems to work for those worhippers.

Ravvi Zacharias, who I mentioned before, is from India and dispels this myth that Hindus do not have an "either or" kind of logic but rather a "both and" type of logic. This argument is a favorite of comparative religion professors in schools, but it is a misunderstanding. Certainly Hindus incorporate any old god at all they wish, including Jesus, into their worship...they just ignore or reject His claims of exclusivity...which of course means they are including an imaginary Jesus rather than the real one.

When in a lunchtime deiscussion with a Professor who was explaining why Western logic didn;t apply to Hindus, and therefore "either or" doesn't apply to them, Ravvi said,

"So what you are saying is "EITHER I accept that the Hindu both/and view of logic OR I don;t know what I'm talking about."

The professor was silent for a few minutes, and then finally said, "Yes, the either/or does seem to present itself."

In India, they do look both ways before crossing a busy road. They understand that BOTH they and a bus cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

Okay, maybe "dismiss" was a little too ambiguous. If you mean "dismiss" as in disagree and therefore reject - then yeah, I agree you there. I think I meant "dismiss" as in to be dismissive, or disrespectful, to consider those religions worthless or to belittle them, which is how the comment seemed at first reading. I've edited that post anyway - I was jumping on the defensive and I was wrong to say it was racist, I interpreted it wrongly.

I agree with you

Sorry, I thought racism covered discrimination of one's religion, sexual preferance, ethnicity, nationality etc. If you can find a more suitable word please share it - my vocab could do with some excercise.

Religious bigotry is maybe what you meant. But I don't think exclusivity is bigotry...it is logic.

I'd love to talk about hisory and archaeology - but that might lead to the whole creationism vs evolution and that's scary territory. Maybe in that other thread... if I have the energy...


Tell youwhat...if you want to discuss history and archaeology with me, I won't say anything bad about evolution. I'll discuss the issues as if evolution might be true. Fair enough?


Hmmm... I didn't do a good job at leaving, did I? These boards are too addictive.

I agree. It's a great board.

[thelawtman]

Ok well this is not exaclty the way I wanted this form to go but its working out ok.

Now I can't rember who said that there were no major changes but You obvilously haven't heard of the King James Version of the bible. It was written by King james Based offf the bible but he altereted it to his liking.

The main problem that I am having is that the christians are getting so uptight about people like us that are athesists and don't like the fact that we have differnt beliefs.

The bible does discrimanate from the very beging where that girl takes the apple. From the very first moments we have though women inferior becuase they "screwed" us over. Now We know that there is no such garden because there is no place in time that there is. If we Make a time line, Which smeone has already done. We see that Humans are only 6000 years old, If that is the truth than why do we have fossils of people that are over 1,000,000 years old? Also The story of the arc has been explained and we know that there was no "great flood".

I can say all this because I was once a devoted christian and i had an open mind. I have seen both sides of the table and I fully disagree. I am a historian and I don not dispute that events in the bible never happened. The peoplewere real and we know that some of the events did happpen.

We can explain the great flood, The plagues and also the mistranslation of Moses parting the red sea. We know know that is was the Reed sea. It has become accepted by most people but Many christians will not accetp it becuase it takes away the "Theory or Miralces". There is no miracles that can not be described in more than one LOGICAL theory. If there is such thing as miracles than people would belive in witches because it is along the same line.

Now I am galde I have at least one person here that is supporting me and understands what I am saying and I am glade that I have his support.
To the other people try to look out side what the bible says and look at it Scientificly and you will see that there is other explanations.

Also please dont tell me to read theose books about finding jesues and all that crap becaue they are written by christians and are extremely bias so it does no good. I dont want to hear about peoples jurney to finding god and all that jazz becaue it only means that they were looking for some way to make their pathetic lives a bit brighter.

[Gibby]

Ok well this is not exaclty the way I wanted this form to go but its working out ok.

I have noticed that they never seem to.http://www.narniafans.com/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif

Now I can't rember who said that there were no major changes but You obvilously haven't heard of the King James Version of the bible. It was written by King james Based offf the bible but he altereted it to his liking.

Where did you get this?


The main problem that I am having is that the christians are getting so uptight about people like us that are athesists and don't like the fact that we have differnt beliefs.

The truth of this is that when we, as Christians, are flooded with the love of Christ in our hearts, we don't want to see anyone perish but have eternal life. This was placed in our hearts by God Himself. This love is true love and is proclaimed unapologetically. True love sometimes has to confront; not out of judgement, but out of love. Consider when you were younger and your parents requested that you come home at a specified time. At the time, it did not seem popular, perhaps ridiculous, but your parents had your best interest in mind. They were not trying to win a popularity contest with you; they just wanted you to be safe, whether you liked it or not. So much more that our Father in Heaven knows what is best for us! It is not a popularity contest. It is tough proclaiming a message that is not popular in today's culture, but Christians do it out of love.

Galatians 1:10
10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

The bible does discrimanate from the very beging where that girl takes the apple. From the very first moments we have though women inferior becuase they "screwed" us over. Now We know that there is no such garden because there is no place in time that there is. If we Make a time line, Which smeone has already done. We see that Humans are only 6000 years old, If that is the truth than why do we have fossils of people that are over 1,000,000 years old? Also The story of the arc has been explained and we know that there was no "great flood".

Adam was just as much at fault as Eve. They were both given free choice, and they both knowingly and with intent, turned their backs on God and His goodness.

Maybe someone can help me here with the problems with carbon dating. I have read about it but I can't remember now.

I can say all this because I was once a devoted christian and i had an open mind. I have seen both sides of the table and I fully disagree. I am a historian and I don not dispute that events in the bible never happened. The peoplewere real and we know that some of the events did happpen.

What happened that caused you to turn your back on Christ?

We can explain the great flood, The plagues and also the mistranslation of Moses parting the red sea. We know know that is was the Reed sea. It has become accepted by most people but Many christians will not accetp it becuase it takes away the "Theory or Miralces". There is no miracles that can not be described in more than one LOGICAL theory. If there is such thing as miracles than people would belive in witches because it is along the same line.

The Red Sea is still being parted in our world today!



Also please dont tell me to read theose books about finding jesues and all that crap becaue they are written by christians and are extremely bias so it does no good. I dont want to hear about peoples jurney to finding god and all that jazz becaue it only means that they were looking for some way to make their pathetic lives a bit brighter.


I wouldn't say a little brighter, I would describe it as blinding light that fills our entire hearts with God's presence!

Don't want to hear it eh?

Matthew 13:14-15
14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=13&verse=13&end_verse=15&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-23555a)]

Lawtman, I appreciate your honesty in your feelings. You are closer to the truth than some of the people that go to church every Sunday! You remind me of Nathanial. Jesus revealed Himself to Nathanial and Nathanial turned to believe. He sees you under your "fig tree" right now also, Lawtman!



John 1:43-51

43The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, "Follow me."


44Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida. 45Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

46"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked.
"Come and see," said Philip.

47When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, "Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false."

48"How do you know me?" Nathanael asked.
Jesus answered, "I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you."

49Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel." 50Jesus said, "You believe[k (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-26085k)] because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater things than that." 51He then added, "I tell you[l (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-26086l)] the truth, you[m (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-26086m)] shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

[thelawtman]

That was the biggest load of rubbish that i have read, Why the hell would some stupid words make u all happy and devote ur life to someting like that? I did at one point and looking back i can't belive i was sucked into that cult.

[Warrior-Poet51088]

Because I know that I can trust Basilides, CSLewisFan, and others to answer your post, I will only address the parts which particularly enraged me.


1. The "Sea of Reeds" is just another name for the Red Sea.

2. Adam & Eve:

Actually, if you look at it from the perspective that both knew they shouldn't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, whereas Eve was simply tricked into doing so, Adam *deliberately* chose to do so (read Paradise Lost for a Romantic interpretation of it)


3. How do you propose to explain away the flood? I am particularly interested in this matter, because I wrote a paper on it 3 years ago. Which, barring the pathetic writing style, still proves that the flood occurred!

[Gibby]

That was the biggest load of rubbish that i have read, Why the hell would some stupid words make u all happy and devote ur life to someting like that? I did at one point and looking back i can't belive i was sucked into that cult.

LOL! Anyway, thelawtman, interesting thread I must say. I know this will cause some serious eye-rolling on your end, but I am going to pray for you anyway! http://www.narniafans.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Queen Swanwhite]

Like I said above. I think the bible is jsut a made up stor to explain what WAS unexplained. People that take the bible seriosuly dont relize that there are mistakes and alot of it was roughly translated. I want hard proof and evidence that someting happened. I belive in science not religion.

Hmmmm. Your're opinion is welcome, but I think you're going to get a shock when you're standing face to face with God. You're going to have to deal with the consequences and believe me, they won't be pretty.

Secondly, how do you know the bible is made up? It's not easy for Christians to tell other people about God, but like I said, face up to the consequences fo your decision.

[Makuta]

I hope that I am not too much interfering, but I wanted to express myself
on this particular subject. First, I must say that I am neither Atheist,
neither Christian, I have spiritual beliefs of my own.

Second I totally agree with some Atheists who say that Bible can be contraditory and extremly cruel and violent. The old testament alone has
rape, mass murder,tribal wars,genocides,and above all(sorry if I might insult
christians, but I really have no other words for it :( ) a arrogant, Tyrannical
God who murders anyone who dissagrees with him.

Although that does not mean that I dissagree with some criticism of Atheism comming from Christians. A lot of Atheists can be terribly dogmatic.
They think that Science is the only tool in learing about the universe, and that people who hold any other beliefs are either fools, or deluded persons.

A good example of this bogus guru stance, is the Sceptic's dictionary:http://www.skepdic.com/

The fellow claims he is a true scientific minded person, yet fails to mention
any proof that contradicts him.

I am really sorry if I have insulted anyone :( , but this is really how I think about it.

P.S sorry if my english is not that good, but I haven't practiced it in time.

[Queen Swanwhite]

a arrogant, Tyrannical
God who murders anyone who dissagrees with him.

Well, firstly God ABSOLUTELY NEVER kills anyone who disagrees with him. He died for ALL of us, aethiests and christians, muslims and buddists, everyone! If you read Matthew chp 25, you will find out why people go into heaven. God doesn't kill anyone how disagress with. Also, he is NOT arrogant! God is caring, loving. I mean HELLO! HE DIED for us! How has done that for you? GOD!

I'm getting quite annoyed now.
I'm sorry if I seem a bit mad, but God doesn't murder anyone. It's the devil who brings murder, hate, ignroance, pain and just plain sadness.
However, God brings happiness, joy, light, love and most of all eternal life! :)

[inkspot]

Your English is very good, Makuta. Welcome to the discussion. I am glad you believe there is a God, and sad that you think the I AM of the Bible is not the right one -- arrogant and murderous I think you beieve ... Let me say, in His behalf:

The Old Testament God was ruling a brutal people who had fallen from the perfection He intended for them, and His aim was to keep them alive and as uncorrupted as they could be in the state they were in. He wiped out a lot of wicked people to protect His own. What father wouldn't? He took the steps of separating Israel from other tribes involved in spurious pursuits and dengerous lifestyles in order to save a people that repeatedly forgot or denied Him ... and yet He went ahead and sent His own Son to die in their place and make a way to salvation for them and everyone else.

That is not a God I would call arrogant (although He if anyone has a right to be).

thelawtman, you have again expressed your opinion that Christians are uptight and narrow-minded, and I am sorry that you find us to be so. PK, Basilides and I have all -- I think -- tried to overcome that and invite you to an intellectual discussion ... please feel free to be part of it! (Dismissing our opinions as rubbish may not enhance the environment for free discussion ... I don't know, maybe that's just me.) :)

[Jay7]

Now I can't rember who said that there were no major changes but You obvilously haven't heard of the King James Version of the bible. It was written by King james Based offf the bible but he altereted it to his liking.

Good for him.

The main problem that I am having is that the christians are getting so uptight about people like us that are athesists and don't like the fact that we have differnt beliefs.

Not really, atheist are actually struggling to find more scientific theorys to disprove God when alot of them support his existence.

The bible does discrimanate from the very beging where that girl takes the apple. From the very first moments we have though women inferior becuase they "screwed" us over. Now We know that there is no such garden because there is no place in time that there is. If we Make a time line, Which smeone has already done. We see that Humans are only 6000 years old, If that is the truth than why do we have fossils of people that are over 1,000,000 years old? Also The story of the arc has been explained and we know that there was no "great flood".

:rolleyes: lol. Firstly, nobody knows there no such garden. Secondly, they didn't screw us over, it was symbolic that man has a sinful nature. Also, the great flood hasn't been explained that it didnt happen, where are you getting your stupid 'facts' from? There is actually evidence supporting it but i won't go into it here.

The peoplewere real and we know that some of the events did happpen.

Yep, especially the resurrection, that was a classic huh. ;)

Now I am galde I have at least one person here that is supporting me and understands what I am saying and I am glade that I have his support.
To the other people try to look out side what the bible says and look at it Scientificly and you will see that there is other explanations.

You want to look scientificly? Why didn't you say so.
Think of this, energy/matter is spining around until it gets too the point it explodes and causes the big bang, the universe continues getting bigger and randomly starts forming life :rolleyes: , and is still growing to this very second, and will end in a 'big crunch'. then start all over again, but, all patterns have a beginning, so for this universe too exist, it needed to be created from an outside source, a timeless, no beggining nor end source, sounds familiar? Yep, God.
Did i mention once i told an atheist this and the next day he comes up to me saying the bigbang never happened and that the universe is infinite?!

Also please dont tell me to read theose books about finding jesues and all that crap becaue they are written by christians and are extremely bias so it does no good. I dont want to hear about peoples jurney to finding god and all that jazz becaue it only means that they were looking for some way to make their pathetic lives a bit brighter.

I tell you what, i'd rather read about Jesus then read your post anyday.

[Jay7]

I hope that I am not too much interfering, but I wanted to express myself
on this particular subject. First, I must say that I am neither Atheist,
neither Christian, I have spiritual beliefs of my own.

Second I totally agree with some Atheists who say that Bible can be contraditory and extremly cruel and violent. The old testament alone has
rape, mass murder,tribal wars,genocides,and above all(sorry if I might insult
christians, but I really have no other words for it :( ) a arrogant, Tyrannical
God who murders anyone who dissagrees with him.

Although that does not mean that I dissagree with some criticism of Atheism comming from Christians. A lot of Atheists can be terribly dogmatic.
They think that Science is the only tool in learing about the universe, and that people who hold any other beliefs are either fools, or deluded persons.

A good example of this bogus guru stance, is the Sceptic's dictionary:http://www.skepdic.com/

The fellow claims he is a true scientific minded person, yet fails to mention
any proof that contradicts him.

I am really sorry if I have insulted anyone :( , but this is really how I think about it.

P.S sorry if my english is not that good, but I haven't practiced it in time.

Has the world really sunk this low? God help us.

read the bible for yourself and find out the meanings or study the hebrew language before reading sutpid internet lifers skeptic website.

[Makuta]

[QUOTE=Queen SwanwhiteWell, firstly God ABSOLUTELY NEVER kills anyone who disagrees with him. QUOTE]

Sorry, but I partialy dissagree with this one. I am pretty sure that the historical Joshua was kind and incredible man. But the old Testament god
is a tyrant who's personality has striking resemblance to Zeus.

I doubt that the histotical Joshua would have agreed with such a Hideous creature:

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Genocide
Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14


You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.

Murder of the Midianite children:
Numbers 31:1-18: "...And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded moses, and they slew all the [adult] males. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones...And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses...And Moses was angry with the officers of the host And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Ba'laam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

[Jay7]

[QUOTE=Queen SwanwhiteWell, firstly God ABSOLUTELY NEVER kills anyone who disagrees with him. QUOTE]

Sorry, but I partialy dissagree with this one. I am pretty sure that the historical Joshua was kind and incredible man. But the old Testament god
is a tyrant who's personality has striking resemblance to Zeus.

I doubt that the histotical Joshua would have agreed with such a Hideous creature:

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Genocide
Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14


You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.

Murder of the Midianite children:
Numbers 31:1-18: "...And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded moses, and they slew all the [adult] males. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones...And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses...And Moses was angry with the officers of the host And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Ba'laam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Read this: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html
and this: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/killergod.html
:)

and these:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/racism.html
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Quick question for you, Jay7 - why is murder bad? I mean, I know my reason for thinking so, but I want to know yours.

I'm not kidding, and I'm not baiting you. I'm seriously interested in your rationale.

[Jay7]

Quick question for you, Jay7 - why is murder bad? I mean, I know my reason for thinking so, but I want to know yours.

I'm not kidding, and I'm not baiting you. I'm seriously interested in your rationale.

Um, did i say murder was bad? I only think its bad if its unjust, killing for no reason. Its not good to take away someones life. But if its killing people for a bad thing such as terrorism, then i dont see why they shouldnt be killed in some way..

[Makuta]

Sorry but that doesn't make any sense :confused: How do we know that
the populations living before the "INVASIONS" were as bad as they are painted? It is a know fact in history that nations that are at war always
try to create a diabolical image of their enemy. La léyenda Négra comes to mind.And if they were so "evil"
why did god support the Hebrews who could just be as cruel? (Animal sacrifices and death by stonning dissapeared only a few hundred years later)

Not only that, but I find the idea that god would kill you if you aren't for dispicable. And yet there is still the tip of the iceberg with the death penalty for minor