Why do Atheists not believe? + OFF-TOPIC GOODNESS

[ronniechoate34]

Re: pragmatically not true

btw, Hitler was a Christian, and certainly not a very pragmatic person.

Statements like these are very revealing. In fact this tells me that satan has masqueraded himself around as a Christian for a very long time. And that people still can't see through his devices.


It's like people can't judge what's right anymore. Hitler was never a Christian he was just a liar.

 

[ronniechoate34]

Re: Why do Atheists not believe?

Atheists aren't atheists because they want to sin. Atheists are atheists because they do not believe there is a God. Their reasons vary, but in a nutshell, that's it.

There is no excuse. Your conscience, your life and all of the life here, your death, the majesty of the entirety of creation. Too many unexplainable things to mention here happen all of the time. There are many many mysteries. All of these things add up to one thing and that's GOD. There will be no excuse for disbelief, and no atheist to disagree on the day when the Lord makes His appearing.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

Re: geography

Actually there is a lot more evidence to support the fact that these things are manifestations of spiritual activity than there evidence is to disprove it.

This means nothing, there is more evidence for fairies than there is against them, having more evidence for than against doesn't instantly qualify it for belief. Care to share with us any of this evidence?

These things are much more substantial than you give them credit for. And whether you believe or not is irrelevant because you will still suffer under the curse of sin.

What's that I hear? My favorite Christian argument? (Well, not really an argument, more of a wild unsubstantiated assertion that presupposes the factuality of the Christian religion without proving it). "BELIEVE IN SANTA OR HE'LL SEND YOU TO BE SPANKED" isn't really an argument, it's more of a threat lol.

Furthermore, I don't sin. Well, except for that little blasphemy thing If you want to argue that Christians are more moral than other religions/non-believers then it's a fight I'd like to see, but one you'll surely lose.

You will still die and go to your judgment, and if you stick around long enough you might see the anti christ.

Pfft, I think it's pretty obvious that Obama is the anti-christ.

I'll guarantee you that your disbelief will not shield you from the reality of God or the fulfillment of prophecy. You know yourself that this could all be over in an instant, that's a given.

Ooh, I like this one Just because it could all be over in an instant isn't an argument for me to believe in God lol, even if it was, it'd just place Hinduism, Buddhism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the same level as your God. This reminds me of Pascal's Wager.

Basically he argued that if you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation). Therefore you should believe in God purely from a probabilistic standpoint.

It is, obviously, an incredibly flawed argument. Firstly, who's God exactly? If you want to distinguish Christianity from the rest you MUST provide some sort of evidence, you cannot escape this. There are more extensive arguments against the wager, but I can't be [insert profanity here] explaining them.

When God strikes your disbelief will fail you miserably.

Again, you've presupposed his existence, but I'll let that pass. God punishes people because they made the wrong guess amongst an almost infinite number of religions, not only that, he gives them an infinite punishment! What a loving God he is.

btw, Hitler was a Christian, and certainly not a very pragmatic person.

Statements like these are very revealing. In fact this tells me that satan has masqueraded himself around as a Christian for a very long time. And that people still can't see through his devices.


It's like people can't judge what's right anymore. Hitler was never a Christian he was just a liar.

And how exactly do you know what he believed? I'm just wondering what evidence you have for that assertion that he was lying.

Have you even read his book (Mein Kumph - My Struggle)? Hitler was a Christian for his early life, he then converted to his own self-centered "I am God" sort of religion conned on by a medicine man/psychic he was seeing (Who he later killed)

Why does it matter if he was Christian lol? He obviously didn't kill the Jews because of his Christianity so what does it matter, his faith was no more the cause of his misdeeds than Atheism was for Stalin or Christianity is for the 75% of inmates who are Christian, if it wasn't a result of his religious views then it wasn't the fault of the religion.

You do not see the air, but yet you trust that it is there. There are many things that the human body can not feel, taste, smell, hear, touch, or see.

Are you trying to prove something to toddlers? :crazy

No, he's trying to prove something to Christians.

 

[ronniechoate34]

Well sir since you know it all then you just go ahead and swallow your bitter lies down with your cyanide laced kool aid. I came here to tell you that God is true and all men are liars. You've got no reason to dispute me, all you have are your haughty words that will also fail you miserably. Because in that day you'll only be able to praise your one savior that you now so venomously reject. As for me and my house. I will serve the Lord and will stand without fail when I am taken away from this present life and blessed with eternity in the next.

 

[rEVOLVEr]

Well sir since you know it all then you just go ahead and swallow your bitter lies down with your cyanide laced kool aid. I came here to tell you that God is true and all men are liars. You've got no reason to dispute me, all you have are your haughty words that will also fail you miserably. Because in that day you'll only be able to praise your one savior that you now so venomously reject. As for me and my house. I will serve the Lord and will stand without fail when I am taken away from this present life and blessed with eternity in the next.

Just because you say "all men are liars" it doesn't make you telling the truth. In fact, you are telling a lie.

 

[Physicist]

Re: geography

In general, I am skeptical of spiritual experiences because they appear to be a phenomena that is geographically based. Muslims have spiritual experiences that are Islamic; Hindus that are Hindu; Christians that are Christian. I have never heard of a case where a Hindu claims that Allah spoke to him, for example.



THis suggest to me that spiritual experience is a biological phenomenon that is interpreted by the person using his/her cultural setting. The purely biological phenomenon appears to be explainable by natural forces, e.g. stress or drugs.

It's a spiritual hierarchy that exists in an invisible realm. There are principalities that rule certain geographical locations here. The way it works is very orderly and I'll tell you why. It's because order is important.

I guess I am back to Occam' razor (who, I agree, was a Christian). My hypothesis is that spiritual experiences are natural phenomena overlayed with cultural interpretations. This requires presuming no additional forces or entities. It can also be tested by, for example, administering drugs such as LSD to volunteers, or putting the same volunteers under extreme deprivation and stress conditions while monitoring their brain activity.

Your hypothesis, that spiritual experiences are caused by archons that have differing geographic control seems to me to have an unnecessary layer of complexity. Furthermore, I cannot see how to test your assumption. Perhaps, you have some ideas in this regard.

There are a lot of things that can't be explained by something as simple as natural forces and drugs, etc. In fact the atheists can't prove that any of these things cause these events. They have no real answers at all. It seems like atheists are simply taking an easy way out of answering tough questions. Even with the knowledge we have it's never enough and always leaves questions to be answered. I say, hallelujah.

See my suggestions above on how to test my hypothesis. I would disagree with you that simply assuming that spiritual experiences are completely natural phenomena is the easy way out. I would argue that is the rational way to attack the problem. One creates additional parameters only if necessary and only if they provide the better explanation. As an analogy, one doesn't start by assuming that UFO's are alien invasion spacecraft. They might be but first you need to look for natural explanations and require additional argument to justify why aliens are the preferred explanation.

 

[ronniechoate34]

Well sir since you know it all then you just go ahead and swallow your bitter lies down with your cyanide laced kool aid. I came here to tell you that God is true and all men are liars. You've got no reason to dispute me, all you have are your haughty words that will also fail you miserably. Because in that day you'll only be able to praise your one savior that you now so venomously reject. As for me and my house. I will serve the Lord and will stand without fail when I am taken away from this present life and blessed with eternity in the next.

Just because you say "all men are liars" it doesn't make you telling the truth. In fact, you are telling a lie.

Where?

 

[JoJo]

Re: Why do Atheists not believe?

I wouldn't say most people particularly want to sin. Although all of us are tempted to do things we know aren't good for us. The difference is that, as Christians, we can confess our sins to God and are forgiven. But I'm getting off topic...

Why don't atheists believe in God? They are blind. We must pray for them to see.

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Your explanation fails by default when you're trying to use the Bible to prove something to Atheists.
Why didn't you quote something from the Quran?

BTW, praying doesn't work.

That's your opinion.

And I'm not trying to "prove anything" to atheists. Obviously I wasn't speaking to atheists when I said, "They are blind. We must pray for them to see." I gave my answer to the question. You don't have to like it or accept it as truth.

 

[rEVOLVEr]

Re: Why do Atheists not believe?

That's your opinion.

And I'm not trying to "prove anything" to atheists. Obviously I wasn't speaking to atheists when I said, "They are blind. We must pray for them to see." I gave my answer to the question. You don't have to like it or accept it as truth.

It's rather hard to engage in a discussion if you're only talking and listening to yourself.

 

[JoJo]

I wasn't writing a diary entry. I was talking to Christians about the need to pray for the blind.

As for listening, I've done plenty of that. Just because I don't agree with something or accept it doesn't mean I'm not listening. Perhaps you feel the same way.

 

[rEVOLVEr]

I wasn't writing a diary entry. I was talking to Christians about the need to pray for the blind.

As for listening, I've done plenty of that. Just because I don't agree with something or accept it doesn't mean I'm not listening. Perhaps you feel the same way.

OK, let me try this way... One question at the time.
So, you're "talking to Christians about the need to pray for the blind". Would you consider me (as an Atheist) "blind"?

 

[JoJo]

Would you consider me (as an Atheist) "blind"?

Not "blind" in general. But blind to the truth of Christ, yes.

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Don't like my reference to the Bible? Don't think it is a valid argument to support my opinion? Sorry I can't change your mind.

 

[rEVOLVEr]

Would you consider me (as an Atheist) "blind"?

Not "blind" in general. But blind to the truth of Christ, yes.

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Don't like my reference to the Bible? Don't think it is a valid argument to support my opinion? Sorry I can't change your mind.

OK, so you're calling Athiests "blind to the truth of Christ". I asked about myself, not in general. However, I'll take your answer as a Yes.
So, if I'm blind to the truth, you need the feel to pray for me?

 

[JudaicChristian]

Let's cut through all the garbage. Statistically life could not have evolved in this universe. It is a mathematical impossibility. All life is dependent on other life forms. And as for the fossils in the rock strata, while one group died out another suddenly sprang into existence. And why haven't the most primitive life forms today not evolved? How is it that life is patterned and not random? Why are all the missing links missing? Saying one species became another is pure speculation and not a fact. The theory of evolution is full of holes. Life is to complex and does not support spontaneous random convergence.

 

[rEVOLVEr]

Let's cut through all the garbage. Statistically life could not have evolved in this universe. It is a mathematical impossibility. All life is dependent on other life forms. And as for the fossils in the rock strata, while one group died out another suddenly sprang into existence. And why haven't the most primitive life forms today not evolved? How is it that life is patterned and not random? Why are all the missing links missing? Saying one species became another is pure speculation and not a fact. The theory of evolution is full of holes. Life is to complex and does not support spontaneous random convergence.

OK, let's cut through all the garbage.
You're making a number of statements but I'd like to go one by one, if you don't mind.
First one: "Statistically life could not have evolved in this universe."
Where did you get your statistics? Please provide link(s). Thank you.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Let's cut through all the garbage. Statistically life could not have evolved in this universe. It is a mathematical impossibility. All life is dependent on other life forms. And as for the fossils in the rock strata, while one group died out another suddenly sprang into existence. And why haven't the most primitive life forms today not evolved? How is it that life is patterned and not random? Why are all the missing links missing? Saying one species became another is pure speculation and not a fact. The theory of evolution is full of holes. Life is to complex and does not support spontaneous random convergence.

OK, let's cut through all the garbage.
You're making a number of statements but I'd like to go one by one, if you don't mind.
First one: "Statistically life could not have evolved in this universe."
Where did you get your statistics? Please provide link(s). Thank you.

Here: Chew on this a while. http://www.reasons.org/

 

[rEVOLVEr]

Let's cut through all the garbage. Statistically life could not have evolved in this universe. It is a mathematical impossibility. All life is dependent on other life forms. And as for the fossils in the rock strata, while one group died out another suddenly sprang into existence. And why haven't the most primitive life forms today not evolved? How is it that life is patterned and not random? Why are all the missing links missing? Saying one species became another is pure speculation and not a fact. The theory of evolution is full of holes. Life is to complex and does not support spontaneous random convergence.

OK, let's cut through all the garbage.
You're making a number of statements but I'd like to go one by one, if you don't mind.
First one: "Statistically life could not have evolved in this universe."
Where did you get your statistics? Please provide link(s). Thank you.

Here: Chew on this a while. http://www.reasons.org/

:biglol hahaha.........
How did I know that you'd send me a Christian web site? :biglol
So, you're proving Creationism with Creationism... Nice. :biglaugh :biglaugh :biglaugh

 

[Physicist]

Perhaps a trip to the library

Let's cut through all the garbage. Statistically life could not have evolved in this universe. It is a mathematical impossibility. All life is dependent on other life forms. And as for the fossils in the rock strata, while one group died out another suddenly sprang into existence. And why haven't the most primitive life forms today not evolved? How is it that life is patterned and not random? Why are all the missing links missing? Saying one species became another is pure speculation and not a fact. The theory of evolution is full of holes. Life is to complex and does not support spontaneous random convergence.

Your conclusions are in disagreement with the world's scientific community. Why is that? These men and women have spent their lives researching and studying the natural world. Do you think they are stupid and don't see what you claim to be true? Is there some secret research that you have done that shows that the vast majority of the world's scientists are wrong and you are right? If you have such research, I encourage you to submit it to one of the more prestigious scientific journals.

If this is not the case, and I suspect that it is not, I suggest you go to your library and perhaps read up on modern science and what the vast majority of experts think about the origins of life on this planet.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

Well sir since you know it all then you just go ahead and swallow your bitter lies down with your cyanide laced kool aid.

Thanks for the nice Christian words, I'm sure that's exactly what Jesus would say.

I came here to tell you that God is true and all men are liars. You've got no reason to dispute me, all you have are your haughty words that will also fail you miserably. Because in that day you'll only be able to praise your one savior that you now so venomously reject.

I reject Christianity, yes, but not venomously lol. I just don't see the evidence, if there was sufficient evidence (I need to buy a tape recorder....) then I'd accept it.

As for me and my house. I will serve the Lord and will stand without fail when I am taken away from this present life and blessed with eternity in the next.

Well good for you If Christianity is true then I'm being blessed with eternity too.....

Just a different kind

Just because you say "all men are liars" it doesn't make you telling the truth. In fact, you are telling a lie.

Where?

You said all men are liars, I'm sure there has been a male baby who has died before being able to speak and therefore hasn't lied.

@Physicist: You don't know if he believes that every man has lied so you can's say he's lying. PS: It's good to have someone else on here lol

And I'm not trying to "prove anything" to atheists. Obviously I wasn't speaking to atheists when I said, "They are blind. We must pray for them to see." I gave my answer to the question. You don't have to like it or accept it as truth.

Seems like if you believe that I'm going to be horribly tortured for all eternity that you'd have to be a monster to not try to prove Christianity to me.

Let's cut through all the garbage. Statistically life could not have evolved in this universe. It is a mathematical impossibility.

I'd be glad to cut through your garbage for you.

Care to give us some statistics? There are several problems with these probability calcuations:

1) Creationists try to use numbers.

2) They all seem to calculate the probability of a fully evolved modern bacterium (With lots of proteins) just springing up out of nowhere.

3) They assume a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein that are required for life.

4) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, not simultaneous trials.

And why haven't the most primitive life forms today not evolved?

Double negative anyone? "Why have the most primitive life forms today evolved?" It still doesn't make sense lol. There are no 'primitve' life forms, we're all evolved to the same extent, just in different directions. Please rephrase if I misinterpreted your question.

How is it that life is patterned and not random?

Life isn't random, but it's certainly diverse. We all have the same goal (survival) and the same mechanism (evolution) so what did you expect lol.

Please elaborate on some examples of patterns in life, I didn't quite get what you meant by that.

Why are all the missing links missing?

They're not missing. Insanely small Wikipedia list - Pretty small list of transitional fossils. The main problem is that the animal has to die in an area that will preserve the fossil (Not very common), the vast majority of fossils are destroyed.

Technically every animal that has ever lived is a transitional fossil.

Saying one species became another is pure speculation and not a fact.

Then so is gravity. There is literally more evidence for evolution than there is for the theory of gravity.

The theory of evolution is full of holes.

Sharing is caring

Life is to complex and does not support spontaneous random convergence.

See first segment of this reply to you.

Here: Chew on this a while. http://www.reasons.org/

"Did you know that evidence argues against a primordial soup? This soup, a supposed mixture of chemicals, has been considered the basis for evolution—but it never existed!"

When you have something this ignorant on the front page you just know it's gonna be good. The "primordial soup" as you call it (really just the early conditions on Earth) is concerned with abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution deals with life once it's already here. Plus it's all a load of [insert profanity here].

 

[rEVOLVEr]

Thank you , Sir.
I was going to do the same but he didn't answer, so...