God of the Atheists

[2ruballa]

Since atheists don't believe in the existence of the Creator. I have come up with an oxymoronic God that they follow.

Their God is the dust from which they came. The Dust their God is the Alpha and Omega. The Dust is the beginning and the end. The father of life is non-life. Life is temporary and non-life is eternal. Life is an accident which has no true purpose. Morals are nice but not when taking revenge against your neighbor since no one else will vindicate you. Take advantage while you are alive. In the end it doesn't really matter. Listen to the desires of the material world calling out to you. Happiness is from the Dust.

[Confucius]

FOR me as an agnostic I personelly dont know what to believe. It seems hard to believe in a god who is supposdly all powerful, all merciful, all loving and all knowing and let atrocities that happen on this earth like the holocuast and the Rwanda Genocide.

Sorry back to the point. But I believe my friend that Athiests dont believe thier is a god so why are you making a god for them

[Craig]

Their God is the dust from which they came. The Dust their God is the Alpha and Omega. The Dust is the beginning and the end. The father of life is non-life. Life is temporary and non-life is eternal. Life is an accident which has no true purpose. Morals are nice but not when taking revenge against your neighbor since no one else will vindicate you. Take advantage while you are alive. In the end it doesn't really matter. Listen to the desires of the material world calling out to you. Happiness is from the Dust.

This must be a Christian post trying to imply things about our view even though it draws upon Christian allegory. We came from dust? Gee, my skin seems to be composed of organic compounds such as carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and it is quite different than dust.

Non-existence is the beginning and probably the end. Life arose through amino acids which underwent transformations such that it became living. Life is temporary, and non-life is eternal, or so we think. Life is an accident, but it has a true purpose if you search and strive for it. Morals are nice and taking revenge against your neighbour is wrong, not because God says it is wrong, but because it harms your neighbour, and ultimately, yourself. Take advantage, but not of other people, while you are alive. In the end, what matters is what you did with your life. Listen to your desires to do something with it, rather than just being caught up in materialism. The world of possibility is calling out to you. Happiness is from within.

[2ruballa]

Sorry back to the point. But I believe my friend that Athiests dont believe thier is a god so why are you making a god for them

The whole thing went over your head then. Yes, I know that atheists do not believe in any deity. I am not trying to say that they do. My point is the hopelessness of such a perspective.

[Craig]

My point is the hopelessness of such a perspective.

No, your point is that you cannot see the hope of such a perspective. It's actually your failing, and nothing to do with us.

[2ruballa]

This must be a Christian post trying to imply things about our view even though it draws upon Christian allegory. We came from dust? Gee, my skin seems to be composed of organic compounds such as carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and it is quite different than dust.

Dust contains all of those elements you have mentioned. Don't be so ignorant. Even atheist scientists agree we came from the dust.

[2ruballa]

No, your point is that you cannot see the hope of such a perspective. It's actually your failing, and nothing to do with us.

You are right. There is a hope. A very small one.

[2ruballa]

Non-existence is the beginning and probably the end. Life arose through amino acids which underwent transformations such that it became living. Life is temporary, and non-life is eternal, or so we think. Life is an accident, but it has a true purpose if you search and strive for it. Morals are nice and taking revenge against your neighbour is wrong, not because God says it is wrong, but because it harms your neighbour, and ultimately, yourself. Take advantage, but not of other people, while you are alive. In the end, what matters is what you did with your life. Listen to your desires to do something with it, rather than just being caught up in materialism. The world of possibility is calling out to you. Happiness is from within.

interesting perspective..

[Malone1234]

Morals are nice but not when taking revenge against your neighbor since no one else will vindicate you. Take advantage while you are alive. In the end it doesn't really matter. Listen to the desires of the material world calling out to you.

This here is a non-argument. Most athiests have morals that are very much in line with Christians. If one is an athiest, it does NOT follow that one is materially greedy or prone to veangance.

The father of life is non-life.

This is interesting. Science tells us (well Steven Hawking does anyway) that at first there was nothing, and then there was a Big Bang from which came matter and energy and eventually life. Ironically, your sarcastic remark makes a lot of sense in the real world.

[2ruballa]

This here is a non-argument. Most athiests have morals that are very much in line with Christians. If one is an athiest, it does NOT follow that one is materially greedy or prone to veangance.

That is true, but with atheism there is less reason to have morals. That is quite obvious.

[2ruballa]

Ironically, your sarcastic remark makes a lot of sense in the real world.

Which is undoubtedly unfortunate. I urge you to give God another chance. Sincerely ask God for a good reason to have faith in Him. God bless all truth seekers.

[cpwill]

"God of the Athiests"

:shrug: an athiests "god" is themself....

[eugene40]

I am very much an agnostic,,, but definetly a confirmed aethiest of christian lore.... what is there for me oh wise one? I await your knowledge,,,, please enlighten me.

[Duo_Maxwell]

God requires faith. Faith is the absence of proof. An Atheist doesn't believe in religion and God because there is no proof. So how can someone who denounces faith practice it themselves?

[cpwill]

faith is trust; a christian has more than enough proof for them in the nature, let along the existance of God.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Then prove to me that God exists.

God requires faith. Faith is the absence of proof. Atheism's beliefs reside on proof. Therefore Atheism cannot have faith, nor a God.

(scoff, points fingers and falls down laughing)

[cpwill]

i didn't say you have it, i say a christian has it.

God does require faith, but faith is living in trust, hardly the absense of proof.

on athiesm; define "god".

[Duo_Maxwell]

Whatever. I'm not going to bother aruging with someone who feels that changing the english language to suit their argument is a justifiable practice.

Remember:
Farm grown = wild!

on athiesm; define "god".

Even though I know you'll willingly change the english definition to suit your argument,

the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe

[cpwill]

Faith (n)
1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3.Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4.often "Faith Christianity" The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5.The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith
6.A set of principles or beliefs.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/f/f0018400.html

[ukperspective]

That is true, but with atheism there is less reason to have morals. That is quite obvious.


I'm not an atheist but that is rubbish

of course atheists have morals they just believe that man created God and not the other way round. Agreed many people take their inspiration for morals from christianity for example as our whole western society is based around them but that doesnt mean that they accept the God bit.

You could argue humanists have equally sound moral codes by which they live which similarly reject materialism and militarism

[cpwill]

he didn't say they had less morals; he said they had less reason to have morals.

basically, i think his point is; at the end of the day, the christian has more reason to act morally; both a sense of duty from the awesomeness of the personal sacrifice Christ made, and with a fear of eternal damnation etc.

the athiest has a sense of duty to people in general and a fear of possibly going to jail; hardly comparable.

[Secession]

That is true, but with atheism there is less reason to have morals. That is quite obvious.

No it isn't. Morals are part of the glue that makes society work. I rely on my fellows to be moral so I can predict their behaviour, thus having more control over resources - a major evolutionary advantage.

[Secession]

Dust contains all of those elements you have mentioned. Don't be so ignorant. Even atheist scientists agree we came from the dust.
We are all stardust.

[Secession]

God requires faith. Faith is the absence of proof. An Atheist doesn't believe in religion and God because there is no proof. So how can someone who denounces faith practice it themselves?

You can have faith that a chair will hold your weight without believing in magic spirits in the sky.

[ukperspective]

he didn't say they had less morals; he said they had less reason to have morals.

basically, i think his point is; at the end of the day, the christian has more reason to act morally; both a sense of duty from the awesomeness of the personal sacrifice Christ made, and with a fear of eternal damnation etc.

the athiest has a sense of duty to people in general and a fear of possibly going to jail; hardly comparable.


possibly but if one accepts the inevitablity of death and the need for giving it your best shot now while you live rather than believing as some beleivers do do that the life bit is a mere precursor to the everlasting afterlife then life becomes less important or rather the definitions become blurred. If its all 'Gods will' then that can be an excuse to do nothing to imporove the world


Atheists would argue that their imperatives for living their lives how they do are equally powerful and valid to that of the Christian

[TomAZ]

That is true, but with atheism there is less reason to have morals. That is quite obvious.


Wrong! This is quite obvious.....

Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%

....This U.S. Federal Prisons census is two years old, but I doubt much has changed. :sorry:

[2ruballa]

That just means there are more religious believers in the United States thats all.

I still look down on such an unfortunate belief. Yes, some atheists are good moral people.(Praise the LORD) But many are not.

I've seen it first hand how atheism leads people to sin. I've had atheist friends who demanded that God strike them with a lightening bolt to prove their point of God not being around. Then the next day they go out and steal something using stolen credit cards. As long as they didn't get caught by their parents or the authorities then everything is dandy! Bah.

[Secession]

We all know the United States is choked with religious people. That proves nothing. Atheism leads to sin? Sin is your invention, if I choose not to become riddled with self inflicted guilt over the rantings of some desert madman that's my choice.

You still haven't shown that atheists are inherently less moral, only that they don't obey the draconian rules of your cult.

[ukperspective]

That just means there are more religious believers in the United States thats all.

I still look down on such an unfortunate belief. Yes, some atheists are good moral people.(Praise the LORD) But many are not.

I've seen it first hand how atheism leads people to sin. I've had atheist friends who demanded that God strike them with a lightening bolt to prove their point of God not being around. Then the next day they go out and steal something using stolen credit cards. As long as they didn't get caught by their parents or the authorities then everything is dandy! Bah.


But that proves nothing

Its about individual responsibility motivated by whatever influences you chose to follow.

Id be really interested to see the crime figures for a so called atheist countrys (not many left but perhaps the old Soviet Union for example as against say the US a very very religious country or Spain) Id bet the crime figures relative to the population were fairly similar. Also compare the percentage of the population who go to church by state and then compare the crime rates there to do a comparison of 'evil doing' as your President would say the results would probably be interesting . Its probably more about poverty than belief systems.

Just a thought

Could it be that Christians simply think they are better and more upright still you are not formally a religious country

[2ruballa]

We all know the United States is choked with religious people. That proves nothing. Atheism leads to sin? Sin is your invention, if I choose not to become riddled with self inflicted guilt over the rantings of some desert madman that's my choice.

You still haven't shown that atheists are inherently less moral, only that they don't obey the draconian rules of your cult.

But I have showed you my disgust at such a belief. Which was the original purpose.

Yet I have to respect it only in the sense that nobody should be forced against their will in believing something.

:)

[2ruballa]

But that proves nothing

Its about individual responsibility motivated by whatever influences you chose to follow.

Id be really interested to see the crime figures for a so called atheist countrys (not many left but perhaps the old Soviet Union for example as against say the US a very very religious country or Spain) Id bet the crime figures relative to the population were fairly similar. Also compare the percentage of the population who go to church by state and then compare the crime rates there to do a comparison of 'evil doing' as your President would say the results would probably be interesting . Its probably more about poverty than belief systems.

Just a thought

Could it be that Christians simply think they are better and more upright still you are not formally a religious country


When have I begun to say that atheist commit more crimes? You're going on a tangent here. My point is the sadness of such a small hope, which is in man.

[Strel]

Morality cannot be quantified, but it can be qualified.

Atheists have better reasons to be moral than believers. Why?

Consider two boys, Chris and Anthony. These boys want candy, but have no money. An opportunity presents itself to steal some candy from a local grocer, but both boys decline - despite there being no chance of being caught. Good boys! But WHY did they not steal?

Chris, the Christian, did not steal because he had been told that stealing is a sin, and that he will be punished for his sins. Chris is motivated by extortion - the threat of punishment - or alternatively, reward for being good.

Anthony the atheist does not steal because he understands that this act will harm the grocer, and by extension, he will harm himself by becoming the kind of person that harms others. Anthony is not motivated by external threats of punishment of reward, but by simply decency and concern for his fellow man.

In both cases, the boys recognize stealing as inherently wrong, but the motivation to do the right thing comes from different sources. IMHO, Anthony's motivations are healthier and more pure. This can be illustrated by imagining these boys later in life facing a much more complex problem with no clear solution, and with no clear guidance from either the scripture or the law.

Faced with this complex, hypothetical moral dilemma (it doesn't really matter what it is, let's call it Problem X), the boys are going to fall back on their experience and upbringing to solve X. Christian will be more likely to analyze the situation in terms of whether he will be punished or rewarded, Anthony's analysis begins with understanding who could be hurt by his actions. Which one is going to make the more moral decision, regardless of what X is?

I understand that this is an extreme example. Most religious people are both Chris and Anthony in the sense that they are not solely motivated within punishment/reward model - but then there is that factor to consider, which is not present in Anthony.

Not doing something because you know it is wrong is much better than not doing something because you are afraid of getting caught.

[MikeD4o7]

he didn't say they had less morals; he said they had less reason to have morals.

basically, i think his point is; at the end of the day, the christian has more reason to act morally; both a sense of duty from the awesomeness of the personal sacrifice Christ made, and with a fear of eternal damnation etc.

the athiest has a sense of duty to people in general and a fear of possibly going to jail; hardly comparable.


To a Christian it may seem like you have greater reason to be moral... but you forget that even though you hold God in so much higher a regard than you do humanity, atheists value humanity far more than they value God... your logic is flawed. I think you incorrectly assume that your love for God must be greater than my love for humanity.

Anyone who does anything out of fear or punishment or hope of reward... be it earthly or heavenly... is doing it for the wrong reasons.


Morality cannot be quantified, but it can be qualified.

Atheists have better reasons to be moral than believers. Why?

Consider two boys, Chris and Anthony. These boys want candy, but have no money. An opportunity presents itself to steal some candy from a local grocer, but both boys decline - despite there being no chance of being caught. Good boys! But WHY did they not steal?

Chris, the Christian, did not steal because he had been told that stealing is a sin, and that he will be punished for his sins. Chris is motivated by extortion - the threat of punishment - or alternatively, reward for being good.

Anthony the atheist does not steal because he understands that this act will harm the grocer, and by extension, he will harm himself by becoming the kind of person that harms others. Anthony is not motivated by external threats of punishment of reward, but by simply decency and concern for his fellow man.

In both cases, the boys recognize stealing as inherently wrong, but the motivation to do the right thing comes from different sources. IMHO, Anthony's motivations are healthier and more pure. This can be illustrated by imagining these boys later in life facing a much more complex problem with no clear solution, and with no clear guidance from either the scripture or the law.

Faced with this complex, hypothetical moral dilemma (it doesn't really matter what it is, let's call it Problem X), the boys are going to fall back on their experience and upbringing to solve X. Christian will be more likely to analyze the situation in terms of whether he will be punished or rewarded, Anthony's analysis begins with understanding who could be hurt by his actions. Which one is going to make the more moral decision, regardless of what X is?

I understand that this is an extreme example. Most religious people are both Chris and Anthony in the sense that they are not solely motivated within punishment/reward model - but then there is that factor to consider, which is not present in Anthony.

Not doing something because you know it is wrong is much better than not doing something because you are afraid of getting caught.

:clap: :clap:

Right on.

[2ruballa]

Well at least you are an atheist who agrees with the golden rule. Right? Thats better than an atheist who doesn't give a damn about the golden rule.

As for all the rest, if God doesn't exist then there is no need to play fair. PERIOD. If there is no God then the golden rule is not really necessary. The strongest survive. The weak die out, whether they are good or bad. Why should anyone play by the rules?


:devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:

:rolleyes:

[MikeD4o7]

Well at least you are an atheist who agrees with the golden rule. Right? Thats better than an atheist who doesn't give a damn about the golden rule.

As for all the rest, if God doesn't exist then there is no need to play fair. PERIOD. If there is no God then the golden rule is not really necessary. The strongest survive. The weak die out, whether they are good or bad. Why should anyone play by the rules?


Because of empathy. We have it. We're intelligent beings that have the ability to understand what makes ourselves and others happy... and also because of our intelligence, we have the ability to make it happen. There's no need for God whatsoever unless your only reasons for being moral are for fear of punishment or hope of reward in a "be good and you get a cookie" sense on a grand scale.

[Craig]

Dust contains all of those elements you have mentioned. Don't be so ignorant. Even atheist scientists agree we came from the dust.

I know dust can contain all of those elements, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it does contain them. Scientists agree we came from dust? Direct me to a peer-reviewed scientific magazine (Creationist ones don't count), that claims this, and I will take a look.

[2ruballa]

I'm sure Secession, who mentioned stardust, could point one out for you.

[twoone]

As for all the rest, if God doesn't exist then there is no need to play fair. PERIOD
with that train of thought you make one scary person, especially if you lost your faith.

the athiest has a sense of duty to people in general and a fear of possibly going to jail; hardly comparable.
I am not a athiest but I am sure their own sense of right or wrong, their own pride and their love for themselves ensure good morals.

Amazing how there seems to be a sense of if you do not believe what I do then you must not have morals.

Funny how even when provided with statistics there can be no wrong with the religious faith.

[rex_b]

Well at least you are an atheist who agrees with the golden rule. Right? Thats better than an atheist who doesn't give a damn about the golden rule.

As for all the rest, if God doesn't exist then there is no need to play fair. PERIOD. If there is no God then the golden rule is not really necessary. The strongest survive. The weak die out, whether they are good or bad. Why should anyone play by the rules?


:devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:

:rolleyes:

Being an atheist has nothing to do with giving up your morals and ethics.

Atheism lacks a relegion but believes in a higher power, so I think you might have agnostic and atheist confused.

[Malone1234]

If there is no God then the golden rule is not really necessary. The strongest survive. The weak die out, whether they are good or bad. Why should anyone play by the rules?

There are a million reasons why we should play by the rules in the absense of a higher power. I point you to Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes as starting points. (I know Hobbes mentions God frequently, but God does not really figure into his theory of human nature in any meaningful way)

Atheism lacks a relegion but believes in a higher power, so I think you might have agnostic and atheist confused.

Just so we're clear.

Athiests deny the existence of God (or gods).
Agnostics admit that there might be a God (or gods) but generally have no specific beliefs regarding them.

[cpwill]

God Loves you:) he Told me so:)

[Secession]

I know dust can contain all of those elements, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it does contain them. Scientists agree we came from dust? Direct me to a peer-reviewed scientific magazine (Creationist ones don't count), that claims this, and I will take a look.
We came from the primordial ooze, the basic ingredients of this planet. They make up the dust around us. It is correct to say that the dust right here may not contain all the necessary elements but it's a little poetic licence. As for the stardust idea, this is commonly accepted now. Since our planet formed from the remnants of other exploding stars, we are all made of stardust.

[Secession]

Well at least you are an atheist who agrees with the golden rule. Right? Thats better than an atheist who doesn't give a damn about the golden rule.

As for all the rest, if God doesn't exist then there is no need to play fair. PERIOD. If there is no God then the golden rule is not really necessary. The strongest survive. The weak die out, whether they are good or bad. Why should anyone play by the rules?


:devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:

:rolleyes:

Wrong. Playing fair is for the benefit of all involved in the long term - in fact the most common situation is where a mainly play-fair population supports a certain element of those who don't. This can be quite stable. To say the strong survive while the weak die is an over-simplification. The strong and weak are largely interdependent in a human society.

[cpwill]

Wrong. Playing fair is for the benefit of all involved in the long term -

not if you're better thatn every one esle...

[Secession]

That would be a delusion and not relevant to a logical examination of the behaviour of populations. Anyway, as I said, the most common situation is that societies support an element who don't try to help their fellow man.

[cpwill]

not necessarily; my rooomate is better at economics thanany one i knkow or have ever met, were he to cheat at investing he'd never be caught (IQ upwards of 170 etc.)

[ukperspective]

Because of empathy. We have it. We're intelligent beings that have the ability to understand what makes ourselves and others happy... and also because of our intelligence, we have the ability to make it happen. There's no need for God whatsoever unless your only reasons for being moral are for fear of punishment or hope of reward in a "be good and you get a cookie" sense on a grand scale.


amen to that !

[cpwill]

:lol:;)

[Strel]

Well at least you are an atheist who agrees with the golden rule. Right? Thats better than an atheist who doesn't give a damn about the golden rule.

As for all the rest, if God doesn't exist then there is no need to play fair. PERIOD. If there is no God then the golden rule is not really necessary. The strongest survive. The weak die out, whether they are good or bad. Why should anyone play by the rules?


:devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:

:rolleyes:

Who is an atheist?

Atheism requires a level of faith that I cannot entertain.
It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. On those grounds I could never be an atheist.

I am just someone that thinks that religion does not have a monopoly on morality, and that better sources for morality can be found elsewhere.

[twoone]

It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. On those grounds I could never be an atheist.
not impossible and relating it to the topic involved you can neither prove the existence, that's what makes this conversation fun :)

[cpwill]

when one is dealing with proving the nonexistance of a being such as God; yes, it is impossible given today's level of advancement. personally, i do not forsee a day in human evolution where it ever will become possible.

[twoone]

when one is dealing with proving the nonexistance of a being such as God; yes, it is impossible given today's level of advancement. personally, i do not forsee a day in human evolution where it ever will become possible.
It is also impossible to prove his existence!

[mahayana]

"Buddhist 882 1.180%


....This U.S. Federal Prisons census"

Wow, I'm amazed there are so many of us who break laws. Are you sure these figures don't include those who found the Way after they were incarcerated???

At least I'll have someone to meditate with when they throw away the key.

[Slipped Mickey]

Since atheists don't believe in the existence of the Creator. I have come up with an oxymoronic God that they follow.

Their God is the dust from which they came. The Dust their God is the Alpha and Omega. The Dust is the beginning and the end. The father of life is non-life. Life is temporary and non-life is eternal. Life is an accident which has no true purpose. Morals are nice but not when taking revenge against your neighbor since no one else will vindicate you. Take advantage while you are alive. In the end it doesn't really matter. Listen to the desires of the material world calling out to you. Happiness is from the Dust.
Why does this matter to you?

[2ruballa]

Don't worry about it.

[Slipped Mickey]

That just means there are more religious believers in the United States thats all.

I still look down on such an unfortunate belief. Yes, some atheists are good moral people.(Praise the LORD) But many are not.

I've seen it first hand how atheism leads people to sin. I've had atheist friends who demanded that God strike them with a lightening bolt to prove their point of God not being around. Then the next day they go out and steal something using stolen credit cards. As long as they didn't get caught by their parents or the authorities then everything is dandy! Bah.
Can you comprehend your subjective point of view? Sin is not an atheist concept! Do you understand that? Your myopia does you no favors concerning your own religion. You are saying, "I can see how not being a Christian leads atheists to not following the tenets of Christianity." Well, duh! Ergo, I can see how not being a Pagan leads Christains to not follow the tenets of Paganism. I can see how not being a Hindu leads Jews to not follow the tenets of Hinduism. Hello! :rolleyes:

[cpwill]

It is also impossible to prove his existence!

if you have a best friend, it is also impossible for you to prove to me his friendship.

[Secession]

if you have a best friend, it is also impossible for you to prove to me his friendship.
I could cite examples of real situations in which my friend has shown his friendship. I could show tangible results of that friendship. That still does nothing for the argument that there is a magic monkey spirit in the sky watching over us.

[cpwill]

yeah, but i can't really accept your stories, now can i? i need scientifically testable proof.

[mahayana]

It's OK for you to have an invisible Friend, CP. Really. I believe you.

Maybe someday you can show Him to everybody!

[cpwill]

He'd love to meet you;)

[green lantern]

It's OK for you to have an invisible Friend, CP. Really. I believe you.

Maybe someday you can show Him to everybody!when that day comes, alot of jaws are gonna hit the floor.
:)

[mahayana]

Seriously, the athiests do serve a purpose in the larger scheme; they help to keep believers honest. Questioning isn't threatening to reflective people who've thought their beliefs through, it's helpful.

To a Christian, they are God's children, maybe lost sheep. To a Buddhist, they are god, too, on their individual paths to enlightenment.

[TomAZ]

"Buddhist 882 1.180%


....This U.S. Federal Prisons census"

Wow, I'm amazed there are so many of us who break laws. Are you sure these figures don't include those who found the Way after they were incarcerated???

At least I'll have someone to meditate with when they throw away the key.


Yes mahayana, I'm sure. You can ask anyone who has worked in the detention field. Personal info, including religious preference of detainees is taken UPON being recieved by the facility.

[mahayana]

I was just joking around. The more relevant statistic would be what percentage of each religion ( or of all agnostics, all athiests) is incarcerated. We may even have more bad apples than the Catholics, viewed that way.

[Secession]

God is Santa Claus for adults.

[cpwill]

not really; santa clause doesn't expect you to give anything in return; God, on the other hand, demands quite a bit.

[Strel]

not impossible and relating it to the topic involved you can neither prove the existence, that's what makes this conversation fun :)

In terms of pure logic, you cannot prove the non-existence of anything. It is just not logically possible. All you can do is to prove something does not exist in a particular context. You can do that all day but since there are infinite possible contexts you could never prove with 100% certainty that something does not exist over an infinite domain of possibilities.

To prove something does exist, you only need to prove that it exists in one context or show one occurrence. Proving the existence of God is possible logically (but may be impossible factually).

[Strel]

if you have a best friend, it is also impossible for you to prove to me his friendship.

Possibly, but it is certainly possible to prove his existence...

[Relient Halo]

When did God need to prove His own power and sovereignty? Are we to relate Him (or "IT" if you prefer) to a little kid jumping up and down screaming "Look what I can do?!"? Do we really expect Him to come down to this plane, do His little song and dance for us, and then introduce Himself personally? He's not running for office here. The simple question comes down to this; do you think it is more believable for the universe just to be a mistake and for everything you've ever cared about to be a cosmic hiccup that is only running on unfathomable odds, or that there is an intelligent design behind it all? Either there is, or there is not a God. Take your pick.

[MikeD4o7]

When did God need to prove His own power and sovereignty? Are we to relate Him (or "IT" if you prefer) to a little kid jumping up and down screaming "Look what I can do?!"? Do we really expect Him to come down to this plane, do His little song and dance for us, and then introduce Himself personally?


No, we shouldn't expect him to want to come down and do anything to prove his existence... unless of course for some reason human's belief in God is actually important to God. Since one of the key beliefs of Christianity is that belief is what keeps us out of the pit of fire when we die... then it would certainly be nice of God if he came down and did a little song and dance for us so we would know he existed, then we could still choose whether or not to follow.

The simple question comes down to this; do you think it is more believable for the universe just to be a mistake and for everything you've ever cared about to be a cosmic hiccup that is only running on unfathomable odds, or that there is an intelligent design behind it all? Either there is, or there is not a God. Take your pick.


I think it's far more believable that we are the produc of a "cosmic hiccup" so to speak... it explains far more than a theory which insists that the universe was created for humanity's sake alone. If there's one thing that seems blatantly obvious to me when we look at this world and especially at our universe as a whole, it's that the universe and nature are completely indifferent towards us. They do their thing, and that's it... they don't wish us good or bad fortune.

[cpwill]

Possibly, but it is certainly possible to prove his existence...

however, without the relationship he is nor your friend. you cannot prove to me the existance of your friend.

[MikeD4o7]

however, without the relationship he is nor your friend. you cannot prove to me the existance of your friend.


Isn't that irrelevant?

[Relient Halo]

No, we shouldn't expect him to want to come down and do anything to prove his existence... unless of course for some reason human's belief in God is actually important to God. Since one of the key beliefs of Christianity is that belief is what keeps us out of the pit of fire when we die... then it would certainly be nice of God if he came down and did a little song and dance for us so we would know he existed, then we could still choose whether or not to follow.

As I recall, God did come down and do His thing in the form of Jesus. Did I see it? No, I did not, but I have the accounts of the Bible, all backing up the same thing, while many of the books were written in different points of the globe, at different intervals. And while I do (at most times) wish to have met Jesus face to face, all I have (as well as any other believer) is the testimony of those who did. When has any other deity come down in such a way? None that I can think of. Now, does it make it undeniably true? No, of course not, but it's worth looking into.



I think it's far more believable that we are the produc of a "cosmic hiccup" so to speak... it explains far more than a theory which insists that the universe was created for humanity's sake alone. If there's one thing that seems blatantly obvious to me when we look at this world and especially at our universe as a whole, it's that the universe and nature are completely indifferent towards us. They do their thing, and that's it... they don't wish us good or bad fortune.

The universe was created for humanity's sake alone? I didn't know that. I, while being a Christian, do not believe that "theory" at all and have no vanity or arrogance in our own existence to believe such a statement. God seperated light and dark, not for it's own sake but because it was good. He formed the heavens and the earth, not for it's own sake but because it was good. He placed wonderous creatures on the world, not for their own sake but because they are good. And then man was made, in the image of God Himself, not for our own sake, but because it is good. How do I know it is good? Because being is better than non-being, and so just the existence of something, no matter how indifferent, is better than just the idea.

[MikeD4o7]

As I recall, God did come down and do His thing in the form of Jesus. Did I see it? No, I did not, but I have the accounts of the Bible, all backing up the same thing, while many of the books were written in different points of the globe, at different intervals. And while I do (at most times) wish to have met Jesus face to face, all I have (as well as any other believer) is the testimony of those who did. When has any other deity come down in such a way? None that I can think of. Now, does it make it undeniably true? No, of course not, but it's worth looking into.


I just have trouble buying it. For one, the accounts in the Gospel likely share the same source from oral tradition... none of the gospels were written by eye-witnesses of the events they describe. Also, even if we only take recorded history alone into account, that's approximately 33 years out of over 6,000 that God made any sort of physical appearance to anyone... and even in that 33 years, he was seen by an incredibly miniscule number of people that were alive even at that time. Hardly seems like a good showing.

The universe was created for humanity's sake alone? I didn't know that. I, while being a Christian, do not believe that "theory" at all and have no vanity or arrogance in our own existence to believe such a statement. God seperated light and dark, not for it's own sake but because it was good. He formed the heavens and the earth, not for it's own sake but because it was good. He placed wonderous creatures on the world, not for their own sake but because they are good. And then man was made, in the image of God Himself, not for our own sake, but because it is good. How do I know it is good? Because being is better than non-being, and so just the existence of something, no matter how indifferent, is better than just the idea.


Well Genesis certainly describes all of the animal and plantlife as being made for humanity's sake. It even says woman was created for man's sake, to be his helper.

It can't really be that God's reason for creation of us in particular is because existence is better than non-existence... because there are plenty of things that I can imagine that don't exist. Why create humans instead of some alternate entities. Genesis lays out that humans were made in God's image... and that the rest of the Earth was pretty much here just for us... it doesn't take it a step further to say that the entire universe is here for us, but that's understandable considering the people who wrote Genesis wouldn't really have had a concept of the universe beyond just Earth. I think the Bible definitely implies that creation was for our sake.

[Relient Halo]

I just have trouble buying it. For one, the accounts in the Gospel likely share the same source from oral tradition... none of the gospels were written by eye-witnesses of the events they describe.
What? The accounts in the gospels were written by the disciples, who were eyewitness to it all. At least, last time I checked.


Also, even if we only take recorded history alone into account, that's approximately 33 years out of over 6,000 that God made any sort of physical appearance to anyone... and even in that 33 years, he was seen by an incredibly miniscule number of people that were alive even at that time. Hardly seems like a good showing.
He's not Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny, making annual visits to malls and shopping centers. I mean, what choice do we have to then accept that He is God when that happens? I don't think that's what He's going for. There's no choice, there's no decision.



Well Genesis certainly describes all of the animal and plantlife as being made for humanity's sake. It even says woman was created for man's sake, to be his helper.

It can't really be that God's reason for creation of us in particular is because existence is better than non-existence... because there are plenty of things that I can imagine that don't exist. Why create humans instead of some alternate entities. Genesis lays out that humans were made in God's image... and that the rest of the Earth was pretty much here just for us... it doesn't take it a step further to say that the entire universe is here for us, but that's understandable considering the people who wrote Genesis wouldn't really have had a concept of the universe beyond just Earth. I think the Bible definitely implies that creation was for our sake.
God made all that there is, and all that there will be. In the beginning, He laid it all down for us and gave it as a gift almost, in that you are right. But then there is the betrayal of man, and we are banished from Eden, stripped of the gifts given and set for a life of physical toil. Here is the indifference showed to us by the rest of the world. Never in the Bible does it say He created for humanity's sake and for no other.

[Malone1234]

The accounts in the gospels were written by the disciples, who were eyewitness to it all. At least, last time I checked.

Most modern biblical scholars would disagree with you on this point. Two of the gospels are thought to have been written between 65 and 85 CE and the other two sometime after that. If you consider that the disciples would have been roughly the same age as Jesus or a bit younger even, it is highly unlikely that any, let alone all four, of the Gospels were written by them.

[Queshank]

That is true, but with atheism there is less reason to have morals. That is quite obvious.

Got a suggestion for ya.

Do some research. Find out how many atheists are in prison vs how many Christians are in prison.

Queshank

[Queshank]

That is true, but with atheism there is less reason to have morals. That is quite obvious.

You would be incorrect.

An atheist realizes he is responsible for his actions and accountable for them as well.

A christian has no need of morals. Behave however you want, pray for forgiveness on Sunday, voila. You're good to go.

Queshank

[Queshank]

Well at least you are an atheist who agrees with the golden rule. Right? Thats better than an atheist who doesn't give a damn about the golden rule.

As for all the rest, if God doesn't exist then there is no need to play fair. PERIOD. If there is no God then the golden rule is not really necessary. The strongest survive. The weak die out, whether they are good or bad. Why should anyone play by the rules?


:devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:

:rolleyes:

There are far too many who call themselves Christians who don't give a damn about the Golden Rule either.

Queshank

[2ruballa]

Got a suggestion for ya.

Do some research. Find out how many atheists are in prison vs how many Christians are in prison.

Queshank

Yeah once those 'atheists' are in prison, they open the bible.

[2ruballa]

A christian has no need of morals. Behave however you want, pray for forgiveness on Sunday, voila. You're good to go.

Thats your doctrine of Christianity and not mine. I get my doctrine from the Bible. And the Bible does not say that.

BTW, if people such as Christians truly believe in a place such as heaven and hell then they do have more reason to follow the good teachings of Jesus. We probably won't agree on this, but hey at least we both agree with the golden rule right? Speaking of morals, what do you think of Jesus' teachings?

[2ruballa]

There are far too many who call themselves Christians who don't give a damn about the Golden Rule either.

Queshank


Thats never good. :(

[MikeD4o7]

What? The accounts in the gospels were written by the disciples, who were eyewitness to it all. At least, last time I checked.


No, they definitely weren't. Not a single one of them was written by an apostle. This is agreed upon by even Christian scholars.

He's not Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny, making annual visits to malls and shopping centers. I mean, what choice do we have to then accept that He is God when that happens? I don't think that's what He's going for. There's no choice, there's no decision.


What's the objection to plainly showing himself to be God to each and every person? We could still have the choice of whether or not to follow his teachings? Why are we supposed to have to play a cosmic guessing game in order to be blessed?

God made all that there is, and all that there will be. In the beginning, He laid it all down for us and gave it as a gift almost, in that you are right. But then there is the betrayal of man, and we are banished from Eden, stripped of the gifts given and set for a life of physical toil. Here is the indifference showed to us by the rest of the world. Never in the Bible does it say He created for humanity's sake and for no other.


I see no reason to believe any of it though.

[Brad Tilford]

The whole thing went over your head then. Yes, I know that atheists do not believe in any deity. I am not trying to say that they do. My point is the hopelessness of such a perspective.

I don't FEEL hopeless.

[2ruballa]

I don't FEEL hopeless.

Did you read further? I changed my choice of words. I too was once an atheist/agnostic. I didn't feel hopeless either, but the hope I have now is alot greater and better than the hope I had before. I can guarantee you that. And it isn't a false hope either. God is true.

You are right. There is a hope. A very small one.

[Relient Halo]

No, they definitely weren't. Not a single one of them was written by an apostle. This is agreed upon by even Christian scholars.
So you're saying that nothing in the Bible was written by the disciples (apostle usually refers to a disciple after Jesus has come and gone; i.e.-the apostle Paul) or even the apostles? Hmmm... I'd like to see that backed up.


What's the objection to plainly showing himself to be God to each and every person? We could still have the choice of whether or not to follow his teachings? Why are we supposed to have to play a cosmic guessing game in order to be blessed?
So if you knew there was a god, for a fact as in it came down introduced itself to you and then proved it's position, and then you turn around and say "big deal", then how smart does that make you. "Hey, I know you're God and you can choose where I go after this all, but I'm still going to call your bluff". ?



I see no reason to believe any of it though.
Why do we believe in anything to begin with?

[MikeD4o7]

So you're saying that nothing in the Bible was written by the disciples (apostle usually refers to a disciple after Jesus has come and gone; i.e.-the apostle Paul) or even the apostles? Hmmm... I'd like to see that backed up.


Authorship of Mark...

"After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter."
Iraenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1

Mark was probably a disciple of Peter, but not one of Jesus' actual followers... we can tell this because Mark makes it apparent that he's not completely familiar with the area where Jesus' ministry would have taken place.

"Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' "
Randal Helms, Who Wrote the Gospels?

Also....

"of all the places suggested Rome has been by far the most popular, and, so far as the evidence permits of any conclusion, it is perhaps the most likely. The Gospel of Mark was clearly intended for a church consisting largely of Gentile members, and one which had known, or was expecting, persecution for faith; all this is compatible with Roman origin, and if the Gospel circulated from the beginning with the authority of the Roman church it is easier to explain how it so soon won an authoritative position."
Dennis Nineham, Saint Mark


Matthew and Luke are really simple to show as not being the disciples... they both rely very heavily on The Gospel of Mark for their material. It doesn't make sense that two disciples of Jesus would be so dependent on Mark (who was not an eye-witness).


John...

"If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness.

Kysar states that most scholars today see the historical setting of the Gospel of John in the expulsion of the community from the synagogue (op. cit., p. 918). The word aposynagogos is found three times in the gospel (9:22, 12:42, 16:2). The high claims made for Jesus and the response to them (5:18), the polemic against "the Jews" (9:18, 10:31, 18:12, 19:12), and the assertion of a superiority of Christian revelation to the Hebrew (1:18, 6:49-50, 8:58) show that "the Johannine community stood in opposition to the synagogue from which it had been expelled."


These arguments are all better stated and more fleshed out at this website if you want to check it out. www.earlychristianwritings.com

[MikeD4o7]

So if you knew there was a god, for a fact as in it came down introduced itself to you and then proved it's position, and then you turn around and say "big deal", then how smart does that make you. "Hey, I know you're God and you can choose where I go after this all, but I'm still going to call your bluff". ?


When my mom and dad taught me to respect them and the rules they made... they didn't hide cryptic messages around the house hoping I'd find them and put them together. They came right out and told me to my face what was wrong and was right and why that was so. They made it very clear to both myself and my sister that they were in fact our parents. I still had free will to obey or disobey, to respect or disrespect my parents.

I'm only asking the same of God. Yes, I want God to personally tell each one of us that he does in fact exist, but leave the choice of whether or not to follow him up to us. If that happens, then when you say "anybody who doesn't follow God is foolish", I'll agree. The Bible insists that I'm a fool regardless because of my disbelief... I object to that.

Why do we believe in anything to begin with?

Many reasons... for example, I believe that the sun will come up tomorrow. I believe it because it's come up everyday of my life and to my knowledge, everyday of anyone's life before that. I also have some grasp on the mechanics behind gravity that dictate our Earths orbit and rotation around the sun. Combine that with the fact that I have never seen any legitmate reason to indicate that the sun will not come up tomorrow, and you get my belief.

[Relient Halo]

Authorship of Mark...

"After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter."
Iraenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1

Mark was probably a disciple of Peter, but not one of Jesus' actual followers... we can tell this because Mark makes it apparent that he's not completely familiar with the area where Jesus' ministry would have taken place.

"Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' "
Randal Helms, Who Wrote the Gospels?

Also....

"of all the places suggested Rome has been by far the most popular, and, so far as the evidence permits of any conclusion, it is perhaps the most likely. The Gospel of Mark was clearly intended for a church consisting largely of Gentile members, and one which had known, or was expecting, persecution for faith; all this is compatible with Roman origin, and if the Gospel circulated from the beginning with the authority of the Roman church it is easier to explain how it so soon won an authoritative position."
Dennis Nineham, Saint Mark


Matthew and Luke are really simple to show as not being the disciples... they both rely very heavily on The Gospel of Mark for their material. It doesn't make sense that two disciples of Jesus would be so dependent on Mark (who was not an eye-witness).


John...

"If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness.

Kysar states that most scholars today see the historical setting of the Gospel of John in the expulsion of the community from the synagogue (op. cit., p. 918). The word aposynagogos is found three times in the gospel (9:22, 12:42, 16:2). The high claims made for Jesus and the response to them (5:18), the polemic against "the Jews" (9:18, 10:31, 18:12, 19:12), and the assertion of a superiority of Christian revelation to the Hebrew (1:18, 6:49-50, 8:58) show that "the Johannine community stood in opposition to the synagogue from which it had been expelled."


These arguments are all better stated and more fleshed out at this website if you want to check it out. www.earlychristianwritings.com

Dang... I have to hand it too you, you shot more info at me than I was expecting. A little too much to take in right now. I'm afraid to say that I have to pack for a little week long trip I'm about to take. Maybe it'll give me some time to go through the website and if I'm lucky, give a shout back at ya.

[MikeD4o7]

Dang... I have to hand it too you, you shot more info at me than I was expecting. A little too much to take in right now. I'm afraid to say that I have to pack for a little week long trip I'm about to take. Maybe it'll give me some time to go through the website and if I'm lucky, give a shout back at ya.


There's tons of information available on the subject... and there are some who believe contrary to what I posted. I've just always found the opposing arguments far weaker, but we can definitely debate it. Also keep in mind that even with the gospels not being written by any of Jesus' 12 closest followers, it doesn't actually technically "disprove" anything... the oral traditions that the gospels are based on had to come from somewhere, and we could still go on about whether those traditions are based on reality or myth... but that's a whole other debate.

The site I posted is not a "skeptic" website per se, it's more of a database of info and early christian literature. Either way though, you can find a lengthy version of the other side of the debate regarding the authorship of the gospels here. http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html

[cpwill]

tektonics is a great site; however, i'm not sure i agree with all of what he argues; particularly in the JDEP deconstructionalism.

[Queshank]

Yeah once those 'atheists' are in prison, they open the bible.

Considering the data regarding religious preference is recorded upon entrance into a retention facility your suggestion is an irrelevant spin.

Queshank

[Queshank]

Thats your doctrine of Christianity and not mine. I get my doctrine from the Bible. And the Bible does not say that.


That is the way it works and has worked for 2000 years and you are quite naive if you somehow believe your personal attitude towards religion is that shared by the 200 million "Christians" in this country.


BTW, if people such as Christians truly believe in a place such as heaven and hell then they do have more reason to follow the good teachings of Jesus.


Why? They've got the golden ticket. They've got a get out of jail free card. Jesus forgives all sins right? I can be a Christian, go have an affair on my wife, rob a bank, kill the neighbor for letting his dog crap on my lawn, say God Dammit all I want ... in general break any and all of the 10 commandments. Long as I say "I'm sorry Lord forgive me please" and pray like a good boy I'm good to go ain't I?


We probably won't agree on this, but hey at least we both agree with the golden rule right?


I'm betting we do.


Speaking of morals, what do you think of Jesus' teachings?

Just as with many philosophers throughout the centuries he makes a lot of sense.

Queshank

[2ruballa]

That is the way it works and has worked for 2000 years and you are quite naive if you somehow believe your personal attitude towards religion is that shared by the 200 million "Christians" in this country.

Are you saying that Christians have always agreed that living in sin was ok since God would forgive them anyway?

Why? They've got the golden ticket. They've got a get out of jail free card. Jesus forgives all sins right? I can be a Christian, go have an affair on my wife, rob a bank, kill the neighbor for letting his dog crap on my lawn, say God Dammit all I want ... in general break any and all of the 10 commandments. Long as I say "I'm sorry Lord forgive me please" and pray like a good boy I'm good to go ain't I?

As long as the prayer is sincere and the person's heart has truly changed for the good then they will be forgiven. If the person were to go back to doing such unjustified acts then I would say that the person was not as sincere as he/she could have been.

[2ruballa]

Just as with many philosophers throughout the centuries he makes a lot of sense.

I like how Jesus opens his sermon on the mount. The beatitudes portray God as caring and compassionate.

<<One day as the crowds were gathering, Jesus went up the mountainside with his disciples and sat down to teach them.

This is what he taught them:


"God blesses those who realize their need for him,
for the Kingdom of Heaven is given to them.

God blesses those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.

God blesses those who are gentle and lowly,
for the whole earth will belong to them.

God blesses those who are hungry and thirsty for justice,
for they will receive it in full.

God blesses those who are merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.

God blesses those whose hearts are pure,
for they will see God.

God blesses those who work for peace,
for they will be called the children of God.

God blesses those who are persecuted because they live for God,
for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs.

"God blesses you when you are mocked and persecuted and lied about because you are my followers. Be happy about it! Be very glad! For a great reward awaits you in heaven. And remember, the ancient prophets were persecuted, too.

"You are the salt of the earth. But what good is salt if it has lost its flavor? Can you make it useful again? It will be thrown out and trampled underfoot as worthless. You are the light of the world--like a city on a mountain, glowing in the night for all to see. Don't hide your light under a basket! Instead, put it on a stand and let it shine for all. In the same way, let your good deeds shine out for all to see, so that everyone will praise your heavenly Father.

"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them. I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved. So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
"But I warn you--unless you obey God better than the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees do, you can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven at all!

"You have heard that the law of Moses says, `Do not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.' But I say, if you are angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the high council. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.
"So if you are standing before the altar in the Temple, offering a sacrifice to God, and you suddenly remember that someone has something against you, leave your sacrifice there beside the altar. Go and be reconciled to that person. Then come and offer your sacrifice to God. Come to terms quickly with your enemy before it is too late and you are dragged into court, handed over to an officer, and thrown in jail. I assure you that you won't be free again until you have paid the last penny.

"You have heard that the law of Moses says, `Do not commit adultery.' But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart. So if your eye--even if it is your good eye --causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your hand--even if it is your stronger hand --causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

"You have heard that the law of Moses says, `A man can divorce his wife by merely giving her a letter of divorce.' But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

"Again, you have heard that the law of Moses says, `Do not break your vows; you must carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.' But I say, don't make any vows! If you say, `By heaven!' it is a sacred vow because heaven is God's throne. And if you say, `By the earth!' it is a sacred vow because the earth is his footstool. And don't swear, `By Jerusalem!' for Jerusalem is the city of the great King. Don't even swear, `By my head!' for you can't turn one hair white or black. Just say a simple, `Yes, I will,' or `No, I won't.' Your word is enough. To strengthen your promise with a vow shows that something is wrong.

"You have heard that the law of Moses says, `If an eye is injured, injure the eye of the person who did it. If a tooth gets knocked out, knock out the tooth of the person who did it.' But I say, don't resist an evil person! If you are slapped on the right cheek, turn the other, too. If you are ordered to court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too. If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles. Give to those who ask, and don't turn away from those who want to borrow.

"You have heard that the law of Moses says, `Love your neighbor' and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and on the unjust, too. If you love only those who love you, what good is that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that. But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.>>
(Matthew Ch 5 NLT)

[mahayana]

A hard teaching, but still thought-provoking after all these years.

[julierep]

[QUOTE=Craig]This must be a Christian post trying to imply things about our view even though it draws upon Christian allegory. We came from dust? Gee, my skin seems to be composed of organic compounds such as carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and it is quite different than dust.



If this is the case, why on earth cant scientists reproduce another human without the use of another human? I mean, as you say we are all just "composed of organinc compounds such as carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen." Seems to me that if these are elements that scientist study, seems that they could make another human. But they cant, and they cant because they are not the True Living God.

[Darwinist]

Dust contains all of those elements you have mentioned. Don't be so ignorant. Even atheist scientists agree we came from the dust.
You need to check your facts before making assertions. A simple survey of the elements found in the earth's crust (from which dust comes, after all) will show that the 3rd most abundant element is aluminum. Yet we humans have no aluminum in our chemical make-up. How is such an "oversight" possible?

[Craig]

[QUOTE=Craig]This must be a Christian post trying to imply things about our view even though it draws upon Christian allegory. We came from dust? Gee, my skin seems to be composed of organic compounds such as carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and it is quite different than dust.



If this is the case, why on earth cant scientists reproduce another human without the use of another human? I mean, as you say we are all just "composed of organinc compounds such as carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen." Seems to me that if these are elements that scientist study, seems that they could make another human. But they cant, and they cant because they are not the True Living God.

The fallacy here is that there's an assumption that because scientists are currently unable to do something it's because of the fact that they are not God. It may be that scientists will be able to produce life in the future. Five hundred years ago, how many people would have believed you if you asserted that man would walk on the moon? And yet just because doing so was not considered possible does not render it impossible. As Darwinist can tell you, there's been the systematic construction of viruses that existed once scientists "built" them. Viruses are somewhat like living entities, so we're moving in the right direction.

[julierep]

it seems fairly simple to me if you have all of the genetic information of humans, that scientists would be able to do this today. Your arguement seems irrelevent.

[Craig]

it seems fairly simple to me if you have all of the genetic information of humans, that scientists would be able to do this today. Your arguement seems irrelevent

Having all the genetic information is not the same thing as knowing what each gene codes for, and how to manipulate and alter the deoxyribonuclaic sequence to adjust and alter traits. Besides, the genetics is only part of it- there's still the organic chemistry necessary to create life. My argument is not irrelevent in the least.

[julierep]

Having all the genetic information is not the same thing as knowing what each gene codes for, and how to manipulate and alter the deoxyribonuclaic sequence to adjust and alter traits. Besides, the genetics is only part of it- there's still the organic chemistry necessary to create life. My argument is not irrelevent in the least.

You have to follow DNA. DNA will give you the codes for the genes. What else do you need besides the human body itself to come up with the organinc chemistry? Have they not been doing autopsies for years now? You can clone a sheep, because you have all the right DNA, but you cant clone a human...HMMMM!!

[mahayana]

Julie, I'm not following your apparent anger with science. Of Course a human can be cloned. There are lots of non-religious reasons why it's a bad idea. The reason people experiment with genetics is not to prove they are god-like, or to put down any religion. They do it because they can. This research may save your life someday.

[julierep]

I dont have an anger towards science. I am in fact in the science field. They cannot as of today make a human being out of nothing with the information (which is everything they need) they have. :sorry:

[mahayana]

Glad to hear you are not anti-science. I think most people combine their understanding of religion and science without a problem. Those claiming that everything is explainable by science, and those who believe that nothing can be discovered or learned because all truth has already been revealed, are both kinds of extremists.

As far as making a human out of elements, I think that's an unrealistic test for scientists. Life is made out of life (which is why our embryos start out looking like flatworms, develop gills, resemble other mammallian embryos, have blood plasma much like seawater, etc), so creating new plant and animal lifeforms is more the direction we're heading.

[Craig]

You have to follow DNA. DNA will give you the codes for the genes. What else do you need besides the human body itself to come up with the organinc chemistry? Have they not been doing autopsies for years now? You can clone a sheep, because you have all the right DNA, but you cant clone a human...HMMMM!!

First of all, as a person who claims to be in a science field, I find it surprising that you didn't know that humans can be cloned, as mahayana mentioned. I am doing a degree in Humanities and was aware of this fact; I should hope someone in science would know it too. The problem with cloning is that there are genetic issues that need to be researched further and solved before human cloning can begin. And even then, religious and other possible ethical problems remain.

Second of all, let me also clarify that the primary concern of biologists is not constructing a human from the ground up at this point. Not only is it immensely impractical when you can just have sex to produce another human, but it's also highly expensive. Rather, biologists are interested in trying to use the basic "building blocks" of life, amino acids, in an environment similar to ancient Earth and trying to see if life can arise from these conditions. You'll note that this is not the same thing as trying to construct a cell, since the former involves life occurring spontaneously, while the latter is deliberate.

Thirdly, you cannot just stick DNA into a constructed, living cell (which biologists are working on) and expect it to magically do it's job. Organisms, particularly more complex ones such as ourselves, have many genes that are expressed for a length of time in our life, and then become inactive. These are necessary to human development. As we do not necessarily know what causes these genes to be expressed and then stop, and as we do not know how to cause these genes to turn on and off, we cannot build a body from the ground up. Nor can we construct things like a working brain at this point- not only do we need to be able to construct living cells, something that has not been done at this point- but we also can't just slap the cells together as a tissue and expect them to function. We need a much better understanding of how the brain works in order to consturct it.

The above having been said, our inability to do certain things represents a lack of knowledge. While it may be true that creating a cell by this means is impossible, it may also not be true, so the argument is completely inconclusive. And based on the fact that scientists are making new discoveries all the time and refining theories, I would not count on our current knowledge as being representational of our capacity for understanding how life arises and functions.

[2ruballa]

You need to check your facts before making assertions. A simple survey of the elements found in the earth's crust (from which dust comes, after all) will show that the 3rd most abundant element is aluminum. Yet we humans have no aluminum in our chemical make-up. How is such an "oversight" possible?

What is your point? I stand by my statement scientifically and religiously. You are of the dust my friend.

[2ruballa]

"Fluoride and traces of aluminum form a complex, fluoroaluminate, which stimulates cellular heterotrimeric G proteins."

Heterotrimeric G proteins as fluoride targets in bone (review).

Susa M.

Research Bone Metabolism, Novartis Pharma AG, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9917518

Let me also add that yes I know that not every element in the periodic table is naturally found in our bodies.

__________________________________________________
Q. What Are the Elements in the Human Body?

A.
Most of the human body is made up of water, H2O, with cells consisting of 65-90% water by weight. Therefore, it isn't surprising that most of a human body's mass is oxygen. Carbon, the basic unit for organic molecules, comes in second. 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of just six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.

1. Oxygen (65%)
2. Carbon (18%)
3. Hydrogen (10%)
4. Nitrogen (3%)
5. Calcium (1.5%)
6. Phosphorus (1.0%)
7. Potassium (0.35%)
8. Sulfur (0.25%)
9. Sodium (0.15%)
10. Magnesium (0.05%)
11. Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
12. Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/f/blbodyelements.htm

[Redratio1]

Since atheists don't believe in the existence of the Creator. I have come up with an oxymoronic God that they follow.

Their God is the dust from which they came. The Dust their God is the Alpha and Omega. The Dust is the beginning and the end. The father of life is non-life. Life is temporary and non-life is eternal. Life is an accident which has no true purpose. Morals are nice but not when taking revenge against your neighbor since no one else will vindicate you. Take advantage while you are alive. In the end it doesn't really matter. Listen to the desires of the material world calling out to you. Happiness is from the Dust.

And here I thought mathematics was the athiest's God.

[mahayana]

Part of the confusion here is that some scientists are athiests, some athiests use a scientific viewpoint to attempt to disprove religion. And some fundamentalists conclude that science is anti-religious heresy. But most folks simply assimilate the two viewpoints and accept ambiguities.

Anyway, nobody worships dust (the elements) so the original premise was more an outcry than an accusation. We'll all experience death one day and see for ourselves who was right.

[Craig]

11. Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
12. Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/f/blbodyelements.htm

2ruballa,

You'll notice that the elements found listed under number eleven have a total amount of 0.70%. They account for less than one percent of all of the elements in the body. Aluminum comes next on the list, and it is stated that it appears in "trace amounts". So, without a doubt, we know that there is less aluminum in the human body than 0.70%, and judging that the word "trace amounts" was used rather than a figure, it's quite possible that we are looking at an amount of in the range of 0.05% to 0.001%. Whatever the case is, that's a tiny amount of aluminum, such that we could easily acquire all that we need from our diet. The human body doesn't naturally produce aluminum, and the only way we naturally acquire it is through eating. Therefore, not only is Darwinist's statement still factual, but you still have to contend with the fact that aluminum is the third most abundant element on the earth and yet it only appears in humans in "trace amounts". So much for dust.

[Darwinist]

Nice call, Craig. Beat me to the punch.

[julierep]

Read the thread "The Scientist Bluff Exposed". IT is pretty interesting and pertains to this argument.

[ukperspective]

[QUOTE=Craig]This must be a Christian post trying to imply things about our view even though it draws upon Christian allegory. We came from dust? Gee, my skin seems to be composed of organic compounds such as carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and it is quite different than dust.



If this is the case, why on earth cant scientists reproduce another human without the use of another human? I mean, as you say we are all just "composed of organinc compounds such as carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen." Seems to me that if these are elements that scientist study, seems that they could make another human. But they cant, and they cant because they are not the True Living God.


hello ???

ever heard of cloning ?

Yes it is or will be possible and yes its happening

and yes Nancy Reagan thinks its ok for stem cvell research at least

Im not suggesting we should start cloning all over the place merely that the scientific ability is there

[2ruballa]

2ruballa,

You'll notice that the elements found listed under number eleven have a total amount of 0.70%. They account for less than one percent of all of the elements in the body. Aluminum comes next on the list, and it is stated that it appears in "trace amounts". So, without a doubt, we know that there is less aluminum in the human body than 0.70%, and judging that the word "trace amounts" was used rather than a figure, it's quite possible that we are looking at an amount of in the range of 0.05% to 0.001%. Whatever the case is, that's a tiny amount of aluminum, such that we could easily acquire all that we need from our diet. The human body doesn't naturally produce aluminum, and the only way we naturally acquire it is through eating. Therefore, not only is Darwinist's statement still factual, but you still have to contend with the fact that aluminum is the third most abundant element on the earth and yet it only appears in humans in "trace amounts". So much for dust.

So an Almighty God could not have made man from the dust of the earth and choose the role of each element such as aluminum? He made us carbon based. That is why we do not have alot of aluminum inside of us. That is also why we have so much of other elements inside of us. Chemistry is a beautiful language. By God I Say By God

We are organic material + H20 + Spirit