What atheists actually think

[Yrost]

Your source seems to prove that Jesus never actually said he was God, but that he done things that alluded it.

So, he never actually said "I am your god". Interesting that.

We haven't given computers feelings, volition, intuition, communion, conscience, ability to procreate, self-consciousness and God-consciousness.

Since we are very much part of nature, it is neither lesser nor greater than us. Therefore no mind is required for our creation.

Electromagnetism is responsible for practically all the phenomena encountered in daily life, with the exception of gravity. Ordinary matter takes its form as a result of intermolecular forces between individual molecules in matter.
When I pick up a rock it is due to the chemistry inside my brain that controls my body to do so and also because of the forces in place where my flesh and muscles interact with each other and the rock. These are all mostly due to electromagnetism, but strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and gravity also play a role.

Quantum Thermodynamics (see link) is a scientific theory, not mine, and has nothing to do with my hostility to anything.

The article on Wikipedia states "Radioactive decay is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy by emitting ionizing particles or radiation. The emission is spontaneous in that the nucleus decays without collision with another particle."

The article about Document Q states:
"The gospels often recount the same stories, usually in the same order, sometimes using the same words. Scholars note that the similarities between Mark, Matthew, and Luke are too great to be accounted for by mere coincidence". This is evidence that they were copied from each other.

I don't mind or really care why you're Christian. I'm actually only curious as to how you can argue a point in the same fashion as can be made for almost any other religion and believe it is different?

Muslim scholars and leaders such as Ghawth Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, Imam an-Nawawi, Muhyideen Ibn Arabi, Sidi Abdul Aziz ad-Dabbagh and Ahmad ibn Idris al-Fasi. Ibn 'Ata' Allah in Lata'if al-Minan all claimed to have met Al-Khidr, the immortal. However it's still their job to prove that Al-Khidr exists or existed rather than mine to prove that he didn't before I disbelieve them. So Paul claims to have met the disciples, the question is can he prove it?

[everstill]

Your source seems to prove that Jesus never actually said he was God, but that he done things that alluded it.

Did you watch it? The very first verse given was John 8, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I AM HE, ye shall die in your sins" (v.24). The verse before that, Jesus said, "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world" (v.23). Just like the Father said in the Old Testament, He is the great I AM. It's amazing how you overlook this, but that is the power of your flesh, to block reality out of your head with your selfish self.

So, he never actually said "I am your god". Interesting that.

Why would He say He is some god? He treats Himself as the uncreated Creator.

We haven't given computers feelings, volition, intuition, communion, conscience, ability to procreate, self-consciousness and God-consciousness.

Amen. Inanimate objects don't have that ability. Only God can give this ability to His creation.

Since we are very much part of nature, it is neither lesser nor greater than us. Therefore no mind is required for our creation.

Since nature can't produce a mind, necessarily a mind would be greater and needed to create a mind.

Electromagnetism is responsible for practically all the phenomena encountered in daily life, with the exception of gravity. Ordinary matter takes its form as a result of intermolecular forces between individual molecules in matter.

Electromagnetism and gravity can't account for the resurrection of Jesus, nor self-consciousness, God-consciousness, feelings, intuition, communion, conscience and volition.

When I pick up a rock it is due to the chemistry inside my brain that controls my body to do so and also because of the forces in place where my flesh and muscles interact with each other and the rock. These are all mostly due to electromagnetism, but strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and gravity also play a role.

These are just the conduits. They don't explain why you picked up the rock, why you freely chose to do so or resist doing so, felt like you needed to or didn't feel like it, reasoned why you would or would not, and so forth. God "formed man of the dust" (Gen. 2.7), using these laws of nature, but He is the giver of life.

Quantum Thermodynamics (see link) is a scientific theory, not mine, and has nothing to do with my hostility to anything.

Your hostility is in the misuse of these scientific theories, not the theories themselves.

The article on Wikipedia states "Radioactive decay is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy by emitting ionizing particles or radiation. The emission is spontaneous in that the nucleus decays without collision with another particle."

So you can't see the causation. It would be highly arrogant since you can't prove non-causation to assume it was uncaused. We often say something is "spontaneous" because it may have a statistical distribution, but we can't say what the specific cause was. And that's ok. Humble yourself. What counts here is you can't prove non-causation, nor overturn the trillions of causes we observe in nature.

The article about Document Q states:
"The gospels often recount the same stories, usually in the same order, sometimes using the same words. Scholars note that the similarities between Mark, Matthew, and Luke are too great to be accounted for by mere coincidence". This is evidence that they were copied from each other.

There is nothing wrong with saying a papyri or oral tradition of the 10 virgins in Matthew 25.1-3 was being circulated around, copied over and over, with variations, and Matthew gets his hand on one copy as well as remembering what he could of what Jesus told him about this illustration. This is how information is transmitted. The differences are so great, we are dealing with independent accounts. That can't be chalked up as mere copying errors. The similarities are not verbatim, so that blows your theory. If there is an error it will be born out in a contradiction. There are no contradictions. God's word is kept. One's petty self must be kept in check. And you need not even worry about periphery issues, since the Minimal Facts Approach focuses on just what most scholars agree upon which leads us inextricably to the resurrection proving Jesus is God.

I don't mind or really care why you're Christian. I'm actually only curious as to how you can argue a point in the same fashion as can be made for almost any other religion and believe it is different?

I don't see how any other faith has what Christianity has. Where do you see such well testified appearances in various group settings? Where do you see in any religion in the world where the person in the flesh said He was God and said He died for the sins of the world to save whosoever is willing?

You should also be curious about how people come to Christ. People come to Christ when they search God out with all their heart and soul; then surely they will find Him. The fact that you are not interested how people come to Christ shows where you erect an insurmountable wall between you and God that not even God can scale it. You're in your head, not your heart. In a split second the person realizes all things sum up in Christ and so they are saved. That belief, feeling, knowledge, repentance, submission never leaves us. We know it like we know our own two hands.

Muslim scholars and leaders such as Ghawth Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, Imam an-Nawawi, Muhyideen Ibn Arabi, Sidi Abdul Aziz ad-Dabbagh and Ahmad ibn Idris al-Fasi. Ibn 'Ata' Allah in Lata'if al-Minan all claimed to have met Al-Khidr, the immortal. However it's still their job to prove that Al-Khidr exists or existed rather than mine to prove that he didn't before I disbelieve them. So Paul claims to have met the disciples, the question is can he prove it?

You seem to think they were unable to prove their Muslim claim, so why should anyone be interested? Paul was martyred in the Neronian persecutions for his testimony having seen Jesus ascended, so he truly believed it, along with testimony he spent time with specific Apostles who testified to having seen Jesus alive from the dead.

Peter said, "And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you" 2 Pet. 3.15). There is also the arguments between Paul and James and Peter. Luke records various encounters with Peter and other Apostles. You've got Luke's report, you have Peter's report. Most of the disciples could not write. They're mingling, they're working. Since the churches were founded on the resurrection, that is the foundation of the eyewitnesses. There is no way around it. You're trying hard, but failing at each juncture. You will have this state of mind forever and lock yourself in Hell from the inside. Think about it. You're wrong every time. Do you really think after being wrong 10,000 times, you will finally be right one day? Of course not. Only Hell could satisfy you. So I encourage you to be honest with yourself and just come out and admit it, that you want to be in Hell forever. It is more exciting to you than to be with your Creator.

[Churchwork]

Yrost,

You may think the writings of the New Testament are sparse, but however sparse you think they are, they far exceed anything in antiquity by leaps and bounds, so the highest standard is held. While you are searching hard for a loophole, God keeps preventing you from having one. I love that! Praise the Lord!