Is this thread dead yet or did it reincarnate itself?

Oh never mind, looks like I resurrected it. There's your proof, I'm a forum god.

You would flip any thread you could find

I do not know why you would put this on a dating/marriage site. Or what the difference is between part I and part II.

Unless you only wanted to date/marry someone with the right answer.

I would like to point out that being an Agnostic is a lot more logical than being an Atheist.

As far as I know an atheist believes there is no god of any sort without any evidence.

Being an atheist is kind of like saying that unicorns do not exist without evidence. If you were in Alaska and did not see any unicorns, you still would not know that there are know unicorns in Africa. But if you could know and perceive all of everything in both Alaska and Africa you would still need to know about Australia. In fact in order to know that unicorns do not exist you would have to be all knowing and perceive everything because you would have to know that there are no unicorns in the entire universe. Not only would you have to have look everywhere but you would have to be able to look everywhere at the same time, because the unicorns could have traveled. So the only way to know there are no unicorns is to know what is in all of space and time. And if you knew all of space and time someone might call you a god. Therefor it seems to me atheism can never be proven true, unless you are god and have already proven it false.

Now there are many religions.

But Christianity, uses a set of multiple manuscripts approximately 66 written in different places and times by different people. These manuscripts often verify what is written by each other, from a historic point of view. And can show to some degree evidence that God may have predicted what would happen in history before it happened. If I remember correctly there is also historical evidence outside the Bible, that there were eyewitnesses for Jesus resurrection.

This is evidence that large portion of the Bible are true, but I would not call it absolute proof.

It is interesting to note that if you found a unicorn you could be reasonably sure they really exist, but you could not know they do not exist by not finding one. If 500 people saw a unicorn at the same time and would not renounce what they said, even to the point of torture and death would you believe them?

Anyway I do not remember even seeing any major religion that people claim to believe with less evidence for it than atheism, in my entire life, although I am young compared with some people.

It is my personal belief that people do not usually really believe in atheism, for they seem to spend an awful lot of time being angry at someone who they insist does not exist.

As far as I'm concerned everyone is truly agnostic whether they know it it or not. And this includes the most devout "believers" because even they are believing on pure faith, which if a person is honest with themselves is indeed agnosticism.



That's how I view the word as well, and therefore I cannot claim to be an atheist. In fact, I personally find atheism to be untennable.



That's actually a false notion. The manuscripts were selected and translated, etc, for the sole purpose of attempting to construct a case for the people who were doing the cannoizing.

Moreover, many of the stories give a false illusion that something had been predicticed when in fact it wasn't predicted at all. I personally don't buy Matthew's case in the New Testament when he tries to convinced the reader that Jesus fulfilled a bunch of prophecies that were in the OT. That's obvoiusly a matter of personal opinion, but I'm just saying, I don't find any of these so-called prophecies to be compelling.



I would disagree that anything in the Bible that is supposedly supernatural has any evidence at all to back it up. I have no problem with various events being true. We can even find evidence for events that were written into Greek Mythology, but that doesn't support it's "divine claims".



They're probably angry at the followers of a religion rather than being angry at the ficticious Gods. Imagine that some large group of people claimed to beleive in a God and they were constantly accusing you of being a sinner and heathen and in need of salvation. And also asking you to support their bigortry and rejection of science in the name of God. You'd probably get a little fed up with them too. And then when they threw that back in your face claiming that you're actually made at their "God" what would you do then? Just roll your eyes at them?

I'm not an atheist. I believe in mysticism. In other words, I believe in the supernatural. However, that's not going to cause me to go running off to worship Zeus, why should it send me running off to worship the God of the Hebrews?

I see you're new here by your post count. I personally don't reject the notion that a man named Jesus lived, taught, and was even crucified for blaspheme. On the contrary, I believe that this even was indeed what sparked the Christian religion.

However, based on all my studies, including what the gospels and Old Testament claim, it's my conclusion that Jesus could not possibly have been "The Christ" as the Christians claim. Even the gospels have Jesus renouncing the teachings of the Old Testament. Not that blatantly, but clearly in what he actually taught.

I've come to the conclusion that Jesus was most likely trying to teach the values of Mahayana Buddhism. If you read what Jesus stood for in the gospels it's perfectly in line with what Mahayana Buddhism stood for, and totally opposite of the principles that had been attributed to the teachings of Yahweh in the Old Testament.

Therefore, I feel that the most rational conclusion is that Jesus was indeed a Mahayana Buddhist and he was trying to save the people from the obviously violent and unhealthy religion.

I might also add, that it was indeed the very things that had been taught in the Old Testament that got Jesus crucified. The God of the Old Testament make it perfectly clear that his followers should kill anyone who disagrees with his teachings, and Jesus clearly disagreed with the teachings of the OT. He was crucified for blaspheme (he wasn't sacrificed to God).

Concerning atheists, I know atheists who are indeed convinced of atheism (at least as much as any religious person can be convinvced of their invisble gods).

I'm personally agnostic which simply means that I honestly don't know. That all I can ever be with any sincerity. I would need to be insincere to pretend otherwise. However, I also must confess that I lean toward a supernatural essence to reality. I even feel that Eastern Mysticism is the best explanation that mankind has come up with yet.

I personally feel that the Biblical account of a Zeus-like male God who is appeased by blood sacrifices and had supported male chauvinism in the OT among other things that I consider to be less than divine, can't possibly be a reflection of a genuine divine supernatural being. For this reason I must reject the Bible and all the Abrahamic Religions as being just as much nonsense as Greek Mythology.

If there is a mystical nature to our existence it is most likely best described by the Eastern mystics, and not by the Hebrews who portray a jealous egotistical God who throws temper tantrums, solves all his problems with violence, and is somehow appeased by blood sacrifices. I just personally feel that such a picture of a God is far too stupid to be taken seriously. And I say that with sincere honesty. It's just my honest assessment. If our true creator is like the Bible describes then I'm seriously disppointed. That's about all I can truly say. It's a very disppointing picture of God, IMHO. In all honesty, I would rather atheism be true. That would would actually be my preferred choice over the biblical picture of God.

Fortunately we don't need to restrict ourselves to only choosing either atheism or Yahweh. There are other, far more intelligent and more beautiful pictures of God available.

To know GOD is to seek him.
You have to seek GOD to know him.

You can't just sit there and say prove to me that there is a GOD.
If you really want to know him, you will have to do the work yourself.

Now with that said, what will you do today to seek him out?
Will you really try?
Will you do the work it takes to let GOD in your life?

Any one can walk outside at night and look up at the stars and say: Oh GOD, look at the stars. When you start to look around, you can see there is something going on..!

The real point here is, you have to prove to yourself he is real. No one can do it for you.

Just ask him to reveal himself to you, and he will.

Its that simple.

Note: It took me 47 year to find him, happy hunting..!

cya

thank you,, I love short, sweet, simple, and uplifting responses,,,

amen :D

think this explains best on what you just said...

“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you.” (James 4:7-8)

That's a cliche that never truly pans out for anyone. Even priests and preachers who have dedicated most of their lives to seeking God often give up at the end and become atheists.

So much for "Just asking". Clearly that doesn't work even for the most sincere and devout people.

God never reveal herself to anyone directly. This is why it is always a matter of faith to believe in God. In fact, to claim that God actually reveals him or herself to people flies in the very face that people need to have faith to believe in God.

Like you say, look around at the stars and awesome grandness of the universe and that's enough to convince YOU that there must be a God. But not everyone thinks that way. Carl Sagan and great astronomer and astrophysicist looked around plenty at the vastness of the universe, you can be sure that he had a far greater grasp of just how grand and awesome it truly is, than most people do.

His conclusion concerning "religion" was quite simple. In terms of the Abrahamic Religions he basically concluded the following, "The Stage is far too Grand for the Plot". The Biblical picture of a God who is appeased by blood sacrifices is far too petty in comparison with the grandness of the unvierse. So we can at least rule out one particular fable of God. Although, in truth, we've already ruled out most of the Blood Thirsty jealous Gods of the Mediterranean region, for some reason, (most likely the sword), one of them has survived to haunt us yet today.

The Pantheism of Eastern Mysticism is actually far more in-line with the awesome grand nature of the universe. Of course this is a picture of God that many westerners have difficulty with. They don't understand how they can be a facet of God. So they ruin the picture by trying to analyze it logically. Clearly if a "god" exists, that God is not going to be logical. Let's hope also, that he's not going to be a male-chauvinistic jealous Human-like God who is appeased by blood sacrifices either.

As far as people wanting proof of God, I personally don't blame them. If there is a conscious egotistical entity called "God" that actually has an individual persona an can communate with us, then I too would ask that this God quit playing silly hide-and-seek games and show himself with some genuine respect and maturity.

So asking for proof of God is not unrealistic, especially if God is being held out to have an ego like the Biblical picture of God.

People who claim that God is egotistical and has written commandments that he is demanding must be obeyed, are actually under an obligation to prove that this egotistical God they claim to exist, really does exist. Otherwise, there is every reason to believe that these people themselves have been brainwashed and deluded into believing that the bigoted predjudiced stories of men supposedly represent "God".

I'm with Carl Sagan all the way. When I look out into the universe, I see a universe that is so grand that the petty trivial egotistical picture of a God that is portrayed by the Bible clearly appears far too inferior for what's actually going on.

That of course, doesn't make me an atheist (except with repsect to these Mediterranean mythologies). I personally still believe in magick, and I believe the Eastern Mystics are onto something with their Eastern Mysticism.

However, I can understand (at least to some extent) why some people accept that atheism must necessarily be true. After all, what kind of a God would create a dog-eat-dog world (quite literally), and call that "GOOD". That pretty much rules out the Biblical picture of God right there since that God did call such a creation "Good".

It also brings into question any notion of a divine conscious being. After all, what kind of divine conscious being would purposely design a universe where animals eat each other? That very observation right there is probably the single greatest evidence that life may very well be based on atheism and just be one big accident. It's hard to imagine any divine being doing that on purpose.

Well this is precisely the kind of nonsense that is contained in these ancient books that clearly discredits them.

The idea is that if you're not aligned with "God" then you must be possessed by a demon. It requires that you not only believe in a "God" but that you also believe in "Demons".

We can know with absolute certainty that these kinds of verses are truly false, and hold no value whatsoever. There are simply too many atheists and agnostics who are happy well-meaning people. They clearly are not being lead by any evil demons. They live happy well-adjusted lives.

So this notoin that a person is either with God, or with the Demon, is baloney that doesn't hold up in the real world.

So we can take anything James wrote and flush it away as utter nonsense. He clearly has no clue what he's talking about. And this would hold for any other authors of the Bible who have written similar things as well.

Thats not what atheists believe - thats what 'strong atheists' believe.



Again, you are talking about 'strong atheism', not atheism.




Of course not - believing that unicorns exists just because five hundred people say they saw one (even under threat of death) is simply stupid. There are millions of people who jump to conclusions on insufficient evidence, who don't understand the ways they are deceived by their own senses and lack of reason - finding five hundred is no big deal.




I've met a handful of such people. I've even met people who claim to be atheist, who actually believe in a God, they just choose not to worship him. They were born into a Christian family and in a Christian community, and cannot conceive of the non-existence of a God. They think they are 'atheist' because they choose not to go to church, choose not to pray, choose not to accept the other teachings of the church.

What's a 'weak atheist' then? An agnostic?

Someone who isn't sure and admits they can't know?

Why not just confess to being agnostic and leave it at that?

Because "Agnostic" is an actually an adjective, and not a position. (Many people who are agnostic are actually atheist, just don't realize it.)

There are four "Major" divisions.

Strong Theism- the Gnostic Theist. "I believe there is a God, because I know there is a God"

Weak Theism- the Agnostic Theist. "I don't know if there is a God, but I believe there is a God"

Weak Atheism- the Agnostic Atheist. "I don't know if there is a god, and I don't believe there is a God. (This is where I sit, though I am VERY close to the line between AA and GA)

Strong Atheism- the Gnostic Atheist. "I don't believe in god because I know there is no god"

Who came up with this garbage?

Strong Theism- the Gnostic Theist. "I believe there is a God, because I know there is a God"
I don't think so. I think that would be arrogant delusion

Weak Theism- the Agnostic Theist. "I don't know if there is a God, but I believe there is a God"
That's called FAITH and is the basis of any HONEST religion

Weak Atheism- the Agnostic Atheist. "I don't know if there is a god, and I don't believe there is a God. (This is where I sit, though I am VERY close to the line between AA and GA)
No, that's just plain Agnostic. If a person believes that there is a God, they move up to having FAITH.


Strong Atheism- the Gnostic Atheist. "I don't believe in god because I know there is no god"
This is the other extreme of arrogant delusion

Let's face it, by these defintions we can rule out #1 and #4 because no one can possible know whether there is or isn't a god. That makes #1 and #4 nothing more than arrogant delusions. Why even give such arrogant delusions merit by giving them labels other than what they are - i.e. arrogant delusion.

A weak atheist is a person who lacks a belief in a deity - which is independent from whether or not 'they are unsure' or 'admit they can't know' - for example, it includes people who haven't heard of a deity.

As far as whether they label themselves as agnostic - this is not the historical/academic meaning of the word agnostic. Its true that people have abused the word agnostic, confusing it with 'weak atheism' - but sometimes there is advantage in using terms with care and precision. Agnostics generally make the positive assertion that knowledge of deity is definitely unknowable, which is different than a person lacking belief a belief in a deity.

For example, if you believe that one *might* be able to know that there is a diety, but don't currently believe in a diety, then you are a 'weak atheist' and definitely not agnostic.

I just saw this post by Quiteman on page one of the original thread. I've heard this sentiment often, but it's utterly meaningless to me.

For me, there is no difference at all between living my life as if there is a God, or living my life as if there isn't a God. I am who I am in both cases.

In fact, if I had to change who I am for the sake of a God what would that say about me? Not anything good to be sure!

Anyone who needs to change who they are for the sake of a God is already in a bad situation.

People who acknowledge that a few simple labels are not sufficient to express the granularity of beliefs that people have.

So what is it you call 'garbage'? The positions themselves - or the fact that people seek to refine their distinctions of there beliefs?



Well, I agree, a sensible person can rule those out - but if we want to have terms to describe the beliefs that people actually have, rather than the beliefs we feel they ought to have, then we need to distinguish 1 and 4 from the others.

I guess I see your point from a psychological perspective. People who have accepted delusions do, in a very real sense, believe them. So I guess from that perspective the definitions are valid.

I concede to your perspective.

He has been resurrected!!!!!

That reminds me of the whole resurrection thing. Matthew claims that a multitude of saints arose from their graves at the same time Jesus was resurrected. This seems to imply that "souls" are actually stored with in the dead bodies until it's time to ressurect them and then even when they are ressurected the physical body itself is somehow used as a vessel for the ressurection. Like zombies in The Night of the Living Dead.

Isn't that a strange?

I think most people would pass that kind of suggestion off as being unrealistic and that when a soul becomes a spirit there's no longer any need for a physical body.

But both Jesus and these saints obviously required their zombie bodies in order to be resurrected. Sounds pretty fishy to me.

I mean, I kid you not, this is actually written in Matthew:


Matthew 27:
[50] Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
[51] And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
[52] And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
[53] And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


The rocks rent, and a graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,..., and appeared unto many!

And appeared unto many? How come no one else ever mentioned this?
No other writer of the Bible knew of it, and no independent historical accounts exist of any such thing.

Also what happens to the poor souls of people who are creamated, or eaten by lions, or whatever? Do they lose their chance to be "resurrected" because they no longer have any zombie body to resurrect?

And this story is supposed to be more credible than Greek Mythology?

Says who?

Well it was a miracle.

(And besides, many people see UFO's too but still nobody writes about that as history or fact. They just write that those people were seeing things like swamp gas.)

I can see why someone who has been told that the Bible is truth would become very skeptical when they read these things.

A lot of things in the Bible actually read like dreams or hallucinations people are having. Maybe they were eating those funny mushrooms back then.