Atheistic Thoughts

[bluewater2]

Actually, Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism. Not a belief that anything could be god. So, the question, "Why assume first god does not exist?" My opinion is that we are all born with no knowledge of the concept of god and that the concept of god, sin, the resurection, the virgin birth, are all things that must be taught. Since these things are taught it is incumbant on the one being taught to "assume" this is true. Someone who is not taught something cannot assume it does not exist. Only those who have been taught and choose not to follow the teachings are able to assume first god does not exist.

[Churchwork]

In other words, an agnostic shuts his mind down to the evidence which is not difficult to understand at all. An agnostic is really a cynic, thus allowing for anything to be God which is quite unreasonable a view to take because of the evidence for God. Most skeptical scholars at least accept some things:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

So you can't call yourself a skeptic technically speaking.

It is not incumbent on anyone to assume anything is true. That is a fallacy for you to assume that people should assume anything. Whether you are taught something or not, don't assume. Those should be words to live by. Choosing not to follow a teaching first by assuming God does not exist is quite untenable, because it is an assumption rather than considering what the evidence points to.

Also, you make yet another mistake. Step 3 of the Proof says don't argue against some god, for we are talking about God of the Bible. Small g is some god; it is not the name of God of the Bible. So while you argue against some god, it has no bearing on any attempt of disproof against God of the Bible.

[bluewater2]

Let me start out by making sure you understand that I am not an agnostic. I was merely pointing our the erroneous definition for agnostic at the top of the page. I believe that I was born an agnostic, not knowing one way or the other about god, having not been taught about god or religion. Of course, as I grew older, I was exposed to religion, the bible, and began a journey to try to understand what it all meant. I in no way closed my mind to these things and sought out a balanced understanding of all of the religious beliefs that I could absorb and developed a very healthy historical perspective of god, religion and spirituality. All of my studies, the use of common sense and through the reading of historical data have led me to the conclusion that I am atheist. I also believe, through my studies, that Jesus did live, was a nice and loving person, tolerant, wise and led by example. Not traits practiced by most of christianity today.

It also must be pointed out that by numbers alone, christianity is practiced by a minority of people on earth and is not the fastest growing religion on the planet. It is also not the oldest, or the most tolerant.

In order to join the christian club it is necessary to read and understand a book. If god is real, he certainly would not require idolizing a man. God would only require that you do good works, as Jesus did.

I will now take the time to go through your list, item by item:


Jesus died by crucifixion. So did thousands of others at the time.
2. He was buried.
Most people are after they DIE.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
When anyone dies, those close to him are sad.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
Allegedly
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
There is no scientific evidence to support that although resurrections in
Mythology are commonplace. Elvis is still seen from time to time.
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
So?
7. The resurrection was the central message.
I thought that love, tolerance and accepting that Jesus died for your sins was.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
So?
9. The Church was born and grew.
The Mosques are growing faster.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
No Orthodox Jew believes that Jesus is the Messiah. Period.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
Already mentioned in #6.
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
Paul was unstable and so burdened with guilt he would say anything.

So you can't call yourself a skeptic technically speaking.
I never called myself a skeptic. I definitely know I am an atheist, that god does not exist, I am not a sinner and Jesus was just another guy who died on the cross. I used to be a skeptic.

I see no evidence that god exists and do not need to assume anything. I definitely do not assume that the bible is the word of god because I see no reason to think so. It is a book of parables which can be used to entertain, instruct and inform. The old testament is a butchery of the Jewish Bible, twisted to justify the Messiahship of Jesus. The new testament is a compilation created to prop up this Messiahship.

There is a reason that the Jews do not have the new testament in their homes.

[Churchwork]

The definition for agnostic remains true since they say they are unsure of anything, they assume anything can be God. Quite ludicrous, but that is their choice to be crazy. One of the most famous atheists, Antony Flew, is no longer an atheist. Time for you to up level.

You're not born agnostic, but you are born in God's image with a spirit of God-consciousness, that is, with an ability to choose rightly for the cross of salvation and be drawn by God if you are receptive.

I don't think it is a very nice person who says of himself he is God and is not, yet Jesus said He is God because He is. And His traits exhibited that you see in Christians is most wonderful. You may be jealous of us, but that is your choice. It doesn't change the fact that we have been regenerated with God's life.

It is not a healthy perspective to be an atheist, nor is it logical since God is proven in the Proof for God of the Bible. To not know your purpose given by God is most uneventful and dull.

You may be able to mindlessly self-declare things on other forums, but here you will continue to get infractions for your self-declarations which you never back up. That's why they are of self not needing reason. Such infractions will include statements like, "Not traits practiced by most of christianity today" even though you have no evidence for your claim given, and "The old testament is a butchery of the Jewish Bible, twisted to justify the Messiahship of Jesus" even though you have no evidence presented. Since we have 62 prophecies that point to Christ and you can't overturn them, then what do you have but self-declarations? This is not a forum for that kind of selfish behavior.

Once you realize Jesus walked on earth, you'll also need to account for the writers of the Bible reporting Jesus' words Jesus saying He is God, and seeing Him resurrected.

Try to use words properly. Christianity is all that is true in Christ. Christendom is all that reported to be of Christ but may not necessarily be so. There are the saved wheat as well as the unsaved tares that say they believe in Christ in Christendom, but do not. This is a very special teaching and helps clarify one's perspective of God's working.

It would be unrighteous to be the most tolerant or to be the majority, for they are the most worldly, and Satan is the god of this world. However, 1 in 3 people at least call themselves Christians, which speaks volumes of the prolific essence of Christianity. You don't need to be the oldest religion to be the right one, for many false religions have been operating such as the one that built the pyramids or the one that says you can come back as a chicken in Hinduism with always another chance to come back as a human. This does not deal with sin righteously if you know you can stay in sin to be redeemed later. God will never save such a person.

God does not require you join a Christian club, but to receive salvation through His only begotten Son. You don't even have to understand the Bible to be saved, nor is it possible until regeneration takes place to understand with an ability to to understand by eternal life. The reason why one reads the Bible is because they have a relationship with Christ already.

Aren't you idolizing man but placing faith in works instead of the giver of salvation who is God?

If God is real, he would not expect you, a sinner, to try to save yourself, for you don't know what you are doing (otherwise you would have not sinned in the first place) with good works. He would first require you to be cleansed before Him His way so as to be able to do good works authentically, not by self-interest.

The hope that the disciples lost was in the teachings of Christ which stood as quite unique among the people. They were convinced He was the Messiah, so how could their Messiah die they thought.

The Tomb was not allegedly empty, but documented as being empty by those who it was remembered who went to the Tomb to see that it was empty. No alternative could explain it away reasonably. Though the empty tomb does not prove Jesus is God, it does account for the fact that He was seen resurrected. Note this type of resurrection is powerful because Jesus' body was mutilated down to the bone on his backside and elsewhere but on the third day, minimal marks were found to show it was Him.

If you go to the grave of Elvis Presley are you saying his bones won't be there? Why don't you go dig up his grave then and prove these Elvis sitings?

Elvis sitings are better explained by mistaken identify, since there are many Elvis impersonators. Maybe Elvis faked his death. All such explanations of Jesus' resurrection fail.

There is also a religio-historical context to the resurrection of Jesus which is not present with Elvis. Elvis never claimed divinity; Jesus did. Elvis did not perform miracles that appeared miraculous; Jesus did. Elvis never predicted his resurrection: Jesus did.

The accounts of resurrections in other religions are unclear. Today's scholars would not regard those stories as parallels, since the details of the accounts are vague and are not similar to Jesus' resurrection.

a) Aesculapius was struck by lightening and ascended to heaven.
b) Baccus and Hercules and a few other sons rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus, having died violent deaths.

First clear parallel is 100+ years after Jesus' death.

That a resurrection was reported in earlier accounts of these pagan deities is questionable.
a) No clear death or resurrection of Marduk.
b) In the earliest versions of Adonis, no death or a resurrection is reported.
c) In no version is there a clear account of Orisis rising form the dead.

Accounts of rising gods in other religions lack evidence and can easily be accounted for by opposing theories.

Opposing theories cannot explain the evidence that exists for Jesus' resurrection.

Don't you ask yourself why the disciples were transformed? They were dejected, then they were changed to bold proclaimers because they saw the risen Jesus.

If all there is is forgiveness of sins, then this does not offer eternal life, but it is through resurrection that life is given, so resurrection is the central message. The purpose of forgiveness is to make one presentable to God to receive His life. Through this new life comes the fruit of the Spirit.

The preaching of the resurrection in Jerusalem would have been a sure death sentence to them because their leader was just killed in Jerusalem.

There are about 2 billion today who say they are Christians and only about 1 billion that say they are Muslims, so the growth of Christendom has been greater.

Orthodox Jews did not receive Christ just as predicted in the OT, but many Jews received Christ. The 12 disciples were all practicing Jews.

James, brother of Jesus, is not one of the original 12 disciples. He did not believe during Jesus' life that Jesus was God. Not until the resurrection did he believe the truth.

There was no reason for Paul to feel guilty. He was doing the good work of rounding up Christians for his faith. He had one of the strongest foundations in Judaism, so for him to feel guilty, then why don't orthodox Jews feel guilty, since there was none more orthodox that Paul? He was doing a most honorable work.

But something happened. And the people with Paul on the road to Damascus saw the same the flash of light, and heard the same words, but they didn't understand it. Paul though saw the man Jesus in His resurrected bodily form.

So since you can't account for Paul to be lying, you will have to try for another approach. Most scholars believe of the whole Bible, Paul's testimony is the most trustworthy and shown by his fruit and good works. They truly believe that Paul really believed he saw Jesus resurrected and would not be lying about it, for there would be no reason to. Why would Paul who is well set up in Judaism doing his god's work, all of a sudden convert to a faith that sure death would occur in martyrdom? He was going places in Judaism. That would be like today being a rising start in a company to leave the company to start up the smallest of companies that was guaranteed to fail as was Paul's martyrdom virtually guaranteed. It doesn't make sense unless Paul really was being truthful. He couldn't have hallucinated because others present saw something also. He met with the apostles within 5 years of Jesus' death, and they agreed they saw Jesus resurrected too. Since you found nothing unstable about Paul, then it looks like you don't have anything for your view.

Since you said you are not a sinner, that means you think you have never done anything wrong. Sounds arrogant. You have never told a lie, never stole, never cheated, never divorced, never ate too much at a meal, never drank too much, never felt jealousy, never felt anger in hostility, obsession, lust, never argued, never exalted yourself before others, never were lazy, never was impatient or hurtful, because you were perfected already. Nor did you even ever have a tear. In the new city there are no more tears we will shed for the unsaved such as yourself.

How do you resolve the fact that you can't find anything wrong with the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible, yet can still be an atheist? Isn't that a contradiction? So you would be assuming something is wrong with the Proof even though you don't know what it is. You do admit you need no evidence, even though it exists. This is the finding that atheists need no evidence to reject the Proof for God. Since the Proof for God is the reason and therefore, God would not leave His creation unattended or unexplained in darkness, then aren't you really just admitting you want to go to hell? Be honest with yourself. That you like your sin nature, contradictions, doubletongue and selfishnesses. It gives you a rush. You get off on a little evil; and you're curious to see how much more you can take it with such corrupted thoughts.

As you read the Bible claims of actual things happening and not as parables, aren't you just being belligerent that it is all parables? They are real events. Paul really traveled from one place to the next. He really did meet with James, Peter and John. How is the OT shown to be different than the Jewish Bible? You don't say. The OT exalts the Messiah and so does the NT. They are in harmony.

The reason why unsaved Jews don't have the NT in their homes is simply for the same reason the Jewish Pharisees killed Jesus. They reject their Messiah who fulfills 62 prophecies of the OT, some very specific. Their own writings predicted their problems.

I am glad you don't assume the Bible is the Word of God because Christians don't assume it either. We proved it. God proved it. Since it is proven, accept it, for it is the Word of life!

Praise the Lord!

[bluewater2]

I will get great pleasure out of posting the message string and your "reprimands" to me on FactNet. You obviously do not mean what the topic explanation says, "A forum for all religions and world-views outside the kingdom of heaven, including unorthodox and heterodox liberal theology" if it touches a nerve because of the truth in what I say. You use circular reasoning to make your points and have no defense for the truth as it is historically presented. You only have 11 members here. Why is that? Because you shut down all opposing points of view out of fear. You create definitions for words, for instance agnostic, to fit your needs regardless of the true meaning of the word as accepted by society. People can only sit around and blabber about Jesus and the bible for so long because, ultimately, there is little substance there and "inquiring minds want to know." You obviously fear inquiring minds and your member count shows that. I will now leave you. You had an opportunity for personal growth but fear of the unknown has again held you back on your journey. Please remove me from your database.

[Churchwork]

Why take great pleasure in behavior that is not cordial? You are welcome to post on these forums, just don't self-declare this and that, for that of course, is mindless. Put some work into your posts. Try to put some substance behind your thoughts. Yes, it is true there are other religions and people believe in those religions, but surely you can abide in the Board Etiquette to give a reason for your faith rather than just blindly claim it. It would make for very dull discussion otherwise. You might not be use to a forum that operates more ethically. It will take some time getting use to.

Since you can post, your posts are not being shut down as you say. So, don't be afraid to try to give some reasoning behind your thoughts instead of just self-declaring. It is out fear that you don't do so, and don't accuse this and that if you don't have an reason behind, some evidence, something with basis, however wrong it may be.

Whether there a dozen members or a thousand dozens, does not change this proper way of behaving. If you continue to act this way, you'll move into moderation and further, into the banned Que for consideration to be permanently removed. This is your doing as infractions increase and as your infractions decrease over time, you can come out of this status.

Don't say "there is little substance" by self-declaring it, but show it if that is what you believe. You don't come across as an inquiring mind, since you didn't ask any questions, but merely went on a self-declaring rampage. Where is the growth in that?

As you requested, your account is removed, but the posts will remain for you to review at your leisure. Next time you claim personal growth, but fail to inquire without a question regarding the reason for Christ, realize you are just being disingenuous, not growing, have already made up your mind and need no reason. Satan needs no reason either.

I can understand your desire to disassociate yourself from your user name here as it is embarrassing how you have acted.

It's also interesting to note the reason you are removed is because you requested. This is quite often the case which keeps the membership low, because as your behavior is exposed, you have little ground to continue your self-exaltation here, your removal is requested by yourself. Interesting eh?