What atheists actually think

[Faith is a fail]

Christians keep trying to define atheists as people who claim there is no god. But if you actually talk to atheists that's often not their position. It may well be something more along the lines of the claims theists are making for the existence of a deity are unjustified or justifications that theists cobble together are unsound.

[Yrost]

Although I disagree with your username, I agree with your message. You must understand though, you'll see by the members here that they only wish to vilify atheists because the existence and spread of atheism threatens the fantastical world they believe in. The mind does tend to lean towards logical reason, so they have to shield their beliefs with violent delusions which range from atheism being simple misguidance inspired by evil incarnations like Satan or atheism actually being satanism and atheists being evil people that intentionally wish to go to hell secretly. They have to convince themselves that they are right and the only way to do that is to demonise non-believers. I used to be a believer, I know the process. I used to believe the same things they did once, but I realised I was simply deluding myself and here I am.

[everstill]

People who call themselves atheists but are really agnostics should stop calling themselves atheists. You shouldn't blame theists for saying you don't believe in God when you call yourself an atheist for that is what atheism means. That's the word for it in the English language, otherwise there is no such word, and that's plain silly. You shouldn't expect people to think otherwise and be mind readers when you use a word improperly and don't really mean what it says.

The reason why Christians speak the truth about atheists and other unsaved souls is because we don't want you to go to Hell. We do this out of love. We want you to come to the truth and be saved by grace through faith in Christ. We think it is fantastical the universe always existed when mankind would not still be sinning to the extent we still do, having had more than enough time to not still be doing so. Or, how fantastical it is something can come from nothing! What crazy ideas to reject God!

Violent delusions? Where was Jesus ever violent? He spoke on Hell more than anyone. Remember it was non-Christians who put Jesus to death.

Very simply atheists want to be eternally separated from God. Don't blame Christians for pointing this desire of yours out. That place Jesus calls Hell is where you are going and He explains why.

"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved" (John 3.15-20).

It would be a mistaken to say you were a Christian once before, for the Bible clearly teaches, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand" (John 10.28). You were plucked out so you were never born-again to begin with. You were fake from the get go!

Logic stands to reason since you want to be eternally separated from God whether you think He exists or not, that is what you want. So you shall have it as you wish. Really you send yourself to Hell but to you they are pearly gates.

The proof for God is clearly given to you over and over, but you keep shutting your mind down to it. Realize there is a reason you can't overturn the proof for God and who God is, because it is a perfect proof. We should expect nothing less from God,

http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476

[Yrost]

Everstill, I'm sorry if I offended you with what I said. You may not have been offended, but I'm genuinely sorry if I did.

I once believed, but I realised they were just delusions of my mind that were sustained with the idea of self-importance and fantasies. I have family that believe, when I do not, I would like to believe again and be in connection with them once more, but I simply do not.

You say your god is proven, but the first and second premise fail because there is no proof that everything has a cause, nor is infinite regress a problem when everything breaks down to elementary particles, because then the actually reality of time blooms. A time with no beginning nor end.

Also, athesim simply means that a person does not believe in god. They can be an agnostic atheist who says that he is not convinced that god exists, but does not state that god does not exist or they can be a strong atheist who claims that god does not exist.

I'm an agnostic atheist. I am not convinced, but I do not say that there is no god.

[Faith is a fail]

It would be a mistaken to say you were a Christian once before, for the Bible clearly teaches, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand" (John 10.28). You were plucked out so you were never born-again to begin with. You were fake from the get go!

I'm sorry to break it to you but your statement is invalid. You are commiting a No True Scotsman Fallacy. Born again Christians deconvert all the time, you're just presenting evidence that your understanding of John 10:28 is incorrect or that John 10:28 is incorrect.

"No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy) by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

[everstill]

Realize your "once believed" was according to the Bible not genuine belief for genuine salvation since the Bible teaches those who are born-again "shall never perish". You may not appreciate this because you are not sensitive to it, but that is the truth. Just as you were in a fantasy when you thought you were saved, you carry on in the same mode in fantasy rejecting Christ when God is prove and who God is. Before you could ever truly be saved you must first accept than you were never saved to begin with. Is that something you are willing to do? This self-importance and self-exaltation is not so dissimilar to that of Lucifer when he became Satan.

I am not sure what first and second premise you are referring to since you don't state them and I have no premises, as the evidence just leads us where it may. Since we see trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence for something coming from nothing, we can be confident the universe did not always exist, because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Since you can't show anything on the quantum level breaks down so there is no cause and effect, realize you are delusional. The reality of time does bloom. It's most wonderful God's creation. So what you got is an assumption with time existing without a cause, but nothing comes into existence from nothing, for that which does not exist can't produce anything.

Saying you are agnostic contradicts when you say you are atheist. An agnostic says he is not sure either way. That's the word in the English language to say you are not sure either way. Whereas an atheist says God does not exist whether he thinks he has evidence or not. This notion of strong atheist or weak atheist really is the same thing, since all atheists says God does not exist. So clearly that's a contradiction when you say "atheism means that a person does not believe in god" and then do a 180 and say agnostic atheism "does not state that god does not exist". That's like saying you are going to draw a square circle.

You're contradicting yourself calling yourself an agnostic atheist. When you say there is no God, then you are atheist not agnostic. Please stop contradicting yourself. That's dishonest.

[everstill]

I'm sorry to break it to you but your statement is invalid. You are commiting a No True Scotsman Fallacy. Born again Christians deconvert all the time, you're just presenting evidence that your understanding of John 10:28 is incorrect or that John 10:28 is incorrect.

"No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy) by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman
"No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy) by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing."

I am not claiming you were never born-again because of my feelings but because the word objectively declares a person who was truly born-again "shall never perish".

So no Christians deconverts because God says He keeps those who are saved. We whom are are saved never gave our lives a God we can keep ourselves saved, but we gave our lives to a God who keeps us saved because we know we could not keep ourselves saved. This is humility. The Bible says no man shall be saved by works, lest any man should boast. You boasted, now look at you. You are exhibiting No True Scotsman because it is too painful for you to accept you were too selfish to ever give your life to Christ in the first place.

Jesus said these words and there are dozens of passages throughout God's word to the same effect, nothing to the contrary, so though you may want to exclude John 10.18 from God's word, you would have to throw out all the other passages, then you would have to create new verses 2000 years later, but then that wouldn't be Christianity now would it?

Since you could not find another way to interpret John 10.28 and all options are exhausted, then you got nothing. Just asserting I misread it, doesn't count. You got to show it, like I showed you what it says, that those who are born-again "shall never perish". Roman Church is wrong. And so are you.

Pray on this.

[Yrost]

You seem to believe that the world revolves around your god. I never ever thought I was saved... You're making assumptions about me that simply aren't true.

Again, your two arguments fail. We do not see trillions of causes in nature. You can't prove that. You think you can, because you don't understand how things actually work, but you can't. There are only 4 forces in nature that cause things. Not trillions. Also everything has not been proven to have a cause, therefore the assumption that everything is caused is unproven. Radioactive Decay is considered by scientists to be completely spontaneous and therefore causeless.

Furthermore, time breaks down at the quantum level and becomes almost spatial, there is no beginning or end and it can go backwards and forwards.

If you truly understood how the world works, you would no think these are good arguments, but just as your friends did, you'll likely shut your mind off to the reality of things, just so as to feed this illusion of self-importance.

An agnostic is a person that thinks that the existence of god is unknown or unknowable. I do believe that. An agnostic may believe god exists, whilst at the same time believing that there is no evidence to support it. If the agnostic believes in god, he is a agnostic theist. If he is not an agnostic theist, then he is an agnostic atheist.

You either believe in god or you don't. There is no in between. You can't both believe in god and not.

I did not say there is no god, I said I didn't believe in god.

I suppose the question here is. Do agnostics believe in god?

[everstill]

Where did I say you said you were saved like Faith is fail said he once was?

You're misunderstanding how I am using the term causation. Anything that exhibited a cause is included. For example, if you were to spill over your drink it was because you were careless, but also because you were born, for if you weren't born, you would never have spilled over your drink.

There are constants and variables of the universe and you might be right there are these four immutable laws, but that does not infringe on the way I am using the term causation that we clearly see taking place in time with trillions and trillions of cause and effects.

I don't know any scientists who claims radioactive decay happens all by itself from nothing, for that is just silly, since that which does not exist can't cause anything. They keep studying and looking for causation to better understand. I don't see them closing up shop, so clearly you are delusional.

You don't need to be all-knowing like God to know the universe always has a cause, for the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is beyond a shadow of a doubt with trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing.

There is nothing in quantum mechanics that says time goes backward instead of forward or that causation no longer exists. Never seen any credible scientists who think that so clearly you are delusional. Remember if time had no beginning or end, still you would have happened already, so that blows your theory. You would still need to account for how this no beginning or end of time came into being in nature, since all things in nature need a cause.

This may pride you in thinking time has no beginning or end to reject God so that we would just come around to this point in time again, but remember, there is no evidence for this silly claim, but it might make a good movie. Let's just stick with what we do know and see where it leads us. We know nature always observes cause and effect.

Agnosticism is believing there is no evidence either way so can't be sure either way, and atheism is believing that God does exist. So you can't be agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. The correct description of a theist or atheist without evidence is simply they are delusional just like you. The word in the English language to say you are not sure either way is called agnosticism. You can't believe in God and not believe in God, but you can say you are not sure either way. This is agnosticism.

Agnosticism is claiming to not have evidence either way so not sure either way. Therefore, an agnostic can never be atheist or theist. Atheism is saying you don't believe in God because you don't believe He exists as it wouldn't make much sense not to believe in God when you know He exists.

Here is the definition of atheism: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Ps. 53.1).

[Yrost]

Where did I say you said you were saved like Faith is fail said he once was?You said "when you thought you were saved":

"Realize your "once believed" was according to the Bible not genuine belief for genuine salvation since the Bible teaches those who are born-again "shall never perish". You may not appreciate this because you are not sensitive to it, but that is the truth. Just as you were in a fantasy when you thought you were saved, you carry on in the same mode in fantasy rejecting Christ when God is prove and who God is."

I find that Christians are so inconsistent within their own speech that it's no wonder that they're fine with the inconsistencies of the Bible.

You have no knowledge of the real world. You're a delusional religious fundie that only wants to see the world from within your own bubble. You're likely uneducated and ignorant to the true aspects of reality and completely unschooled in science.

Your understanding of cause-effect and time is infantile. Scientists DO say that radioactive decay is uncaused. It's because you don't understand this why you're able to make such ridiculously weak arguments for god as you've presented. At a quantum level we realise that time doesn't cause anything and is just a dimension just like the 3 dimensions of space. You can go backwards and forwards along it. Cause and effect are not caused by it, the causes of things are caused by the four fundamental forces. Not trillions of random ****.

Your argument fails. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of science, a complete lack of understanding of time and a complete lack of understanding of logic.

Do more research before you make arguments.

You failed to answer my question. Do agnostics believe in god?

[everstill]

You said "when you thought you were saved":

Ah yes, you did say that, for you said of yourself, "I once believed." You are guilty of a doubletongue when you also said, "I never ever thought I was saved..." The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8).


I find that Christians are so inconsistent within their own speech that it's no wonder that they're fine with the inconsistencies of the Bible.I don't. I am glad you can't show it.


You have no knowledge of the real world. You're a delusional religious fundie that only wants to see the world from within your own bubble. You're likely uneducated and ignorant to the true aspects of reality and completely unschooled in science.This is what I think of you.


Your understanding of cause-effect and time is infantile. Scientists DO say that radioactive decay is uncaused. It's because you don't understand this why you're able to make such ridiculously weak arguments for god as you've presented. At a quantum level we realise that time doesn't cause anything and is just a dimension just like the 3 dimensions of space. You can go backwards and forwards along it. Cause and effect are not caused by it, the causes of things are caused by the four fundamental forces. Not trillions of random ****.I don't know any credible scientists who thinks radioactive decay comes from nothing. That's infantile. Something doesn't come from nothing, that which does not exist. How absurd! It's because you are delusional you can't see something can't come from nothing. That's why you make ridiculous claims something can come from nothing. Of course time is a dimension, but that doesn't exclude causation. How absurd! Time is integral to the process. You can't go back in time. Once something has happened it has happened. You're watching too many sci-fi movies. Time allows for causation in nature along the spans of time. There are trillions and trillions of causes and effects in nature. Try it out yourself, you could list a hundred fairly quickly. You're typing right now because your fingers are pressing the keypads, you are typing because you want to rationalize you are not going to Hell, and you are doing this because of your evil heart and this is the way you want to be. And on and on and on. Cause and effect. Quadrillions and Quadrillions. Time to grow up!


Your argument fails. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of science, a complete lack of understanding of time and a complete lack of understanding of logic.

Do more research before you make arguments.

You failed to answer my question. Do agnostics believe in god?I am glad you can't show your accusations but only assert them. I already said agnostics are not sure either way; they are not atheists, for atheists claim God does not exist and don't believe in Him. You've got to stop asking me the same question over and over when it was already answered. If you can't find the quote, I'll find it for you.

[Yrost]

Wrong...

I said I once believed. I did. I was once very religious... I simply have never believed in the Christian god, nor do I know very much about it.

Also, I'm typing because of electromagnetic forces inside my mind instruct my body to do so. As my fingers strike the keyboard electromagnetic forces come into play which moves the keys downwards and more of the same forces send the information across the world. These forces are consistent because of nuclear forces and gravity that hold me into the composition that I am. This is what real science tells us. Which basically means:

Everything is due to gravity, electromagnetic and nuclear forces.

I'm not trying to rationalise that I'm not going to hell, because such a place is not proven to exist. Even if there was a god, hell need not exist. But what is happening here is that you are desperately trying to hold on to middle eastern myths about a fantastical fun house that you will go to after you die.

[everstill]

Saying you once believed and were religions yet not in the Christian context I was discussing is deceptive at best.

Real science doesn't limit itself to the means, but also can infer the purpose, since nature can't always have existed, then there must be a Creator outside of time and space, and since there is a Creator, there is purpose. Your striking the keys has purpose behind it, it doesn't just happen because electromagnetism exists.

Hell is proven to exist, since God is proven to exist and Jesus is proven to be God who spoke on Hell more than anyone. So really deep down inside you are just not being honest with yourself that you really want to go to Hell.

Hell is necessary since obviously you can't cease to exist and you can't be with God's people.

I don't think of the New City as a fanciful fun house. I see it more as a place of enjoyable work, sinlessness and wonders God has for us, for He said nobody knows all the things He has planned for us who love Him.

[Yrost]

Saying you once believed and were religions yet not in the Christian context I was discussing is deceptive at best.

Assuming that belief is tantamount to Christianity shows how much you believe everything revolves around your god.

Ceasing to exist is actually the most obvious end.

There is nothing to say that my striking of these keys has any other reason than the existence of the 4 fundamental forces. Electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and gravity.

Real science is limited to our knowledge. We have no scientific knowledge of god, we have no scientific knowledge of how the first atoms formed. To explain these two things with each other is circular and fallacious.

There is no reason to believe that nature did not always exist.

[everstill]

When one person is arguing for belief in Christianity and then you say you once believed too when you actually didn't, you're giving the false impression you believed in Christ also, since it would be oddly out of context to be referring to some other faith.

Obviously you can't cease to exist since you are made in God's image, which never ceases to exist. Just like when an image of something is taken. So since you will never cease to exist, but you don't want to saved, you can be certain you will go to Hell.

While these 4 forces are in play, your striking the keys can be seen because you have fingers, a brain, and because you want to rationalize your flesh you are not going to Hell. These are the causes I am referring to, not the constants and variables of nature that allow for the fingers and brain to exist.

The basic scientific knowledge we have we always had of God is that there are trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, so we know nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. This is whom we call God. We would not need to know all things to know this, for it is sufficient to have an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt like in a court of law.

To try to explain where atoms came from naturalistically when you don't know the natural cause would be circular and fallacious, but we do know they ultimate originate from the source, which is the uncreated Creator as described and whom we know to be Jesus who created all things, because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. Amen.

As we have discussed, you know nature did not always exist, because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

[Yrost]

You were talking about God, whom I once believed in.

We aren't obviously made in god's image.

I have fingers because of electromagnetism, controlling the communication of the atoms; strong and weak nuclear force, holding my structure together; and gravity keeping me in the safe confines of the earth. Nothing more. My thoughts are also based on those forces.

Trillions of causes are not god and therefore can not be knowledge of him.

There is no evidence to support the assumption that nothing comes from nothing. On the contrary there is phenomenon that scientists know to be spontaneous and causeless.

The disciples actions can be explained as an elaborate work of fiction.

Time breaks down in quantum mechanics. Physicists explain it as traversal dimension with no beginning nor end, which means that time is naturally eternal.

[everstill]

You gave the false impression it was the Christian God. What you believed in was what you called God but certainly not God of the Bible whom is the only One True God. You could go further and admit you believed in Satan because he was not God of the Bible. You could still go further and say, you still believe in the Devil and bow to him, because you still reject God of the Bible.

We are obviously made in God's image since we are (a) quite unlike any other creature in the universe; (b) Jesus proved He is God by His resurrection; (c) He died to save us from our sins; (d) He testified to us that He was as our Creator, made in the image of God; and (e) He said we would be resurrected as He was.

Your thoughts can't exist by nature alone, for nature alone can't produce thoughts, sentience, life, will, feelings, intuition. You prove this because you can't empirically can't make your case.

That the trillions of causes are not God IS knowledge of Him, since this proves nature always needs a cause, yet you would have happened already. So nature can't always have exist but must have a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. This is whom we call God. I, therefore, have knowledge of God, firstly, that He exists and secondly, that He created this universe. Hence, Romans 1.20.

The laws of thermodynamics tell us something can't come from nothing. Energy always has a source of energy. There is no energy in that which does not exist. A billion pound gorilla can't lift you upon onto a mountain because it has no energy and doesn't exist. Trillions of causes in nature additionally show causation is always necessary, so nothing always comes from nothing. Scientists have no evidence for anything spontaneous and causeless which is why you could only assert it, but were unable to show it. Just because you don't know the cause to something doesn't mean it is causeless. Presumptuous indeed! You're special pleading. Where's your humility? How do you overturn the trillions of causes in nature? You can't even come up with one artifact of evidence something comes from nothing. You sure like playing a losing game, possibly the worst lottery every known to man with odds against you more than a trillion to one.

Even if time breaks down at singularity, Hawking said it still needs a cause. Your always existing traversal dimension can't merely always have existed, for you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. If your mystery "traversal dimension" that can't be found on Google or Wiki, and always existed without end, then we would never have come into being since it would still exist and not lead to the universe. Since you admit time is "naturally eternal" you're admitting an infinite regress, yet you would not still be happening by now, having had an eternity to do so. Each theory you come up with fails because it is not grounded in reality of what we do have for evidence of trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence for something coming from nothing.

To try to thwart off the problem with infinite regress, you produce an always existing timeless state of pre-universe conditions. If it is always timeless then the universe would never have existed. Whereas God who is outside of time can bring the universe into being because He has a will. You're producing a timeless dimension in place of God. What I would suggest is that is effectively your mindless god or idol. So you have proven the uncreated Creator exists except you make him a timeless dimension. But for the Creator to create a mind, He must be a mind and not a dimension. Dimensions have no minds. The lesser can never produce the greater. It's never been see in history.

Since so many corroborating independent sources of apostles knowing apostles, disciples working with disciples, across different periods of time, and you have no evidence for your fictional theory, then your theory is false. The burden is on you to show a fictional theory could be true. Ancient critics tried to refute the resurrection, indicating it was historical.

The award winning The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas says it best I think. "If we look at the New Testament material on Jesus' resurrection, there are indicators that the accounts were meant to be understood as historical rather than mythical [or fictional]. Consider the two sermon summaries of Peter and Paul, recorded in Acts, that contrast King David's buried body with Jesus' resurrected body" (Acts 2.22-32; 13.34-37) (88-89).

They claimed that Jesus' body did not decay in the grave as David's did, but rather was raised by God. It is difficult to imagine how Peter and Paul could have been any clearer if they meant to communicate a literal, physical resurrection. If a mythical [or fictional] genre was being employed, Peter and Paul could have easily said, "David died, was buried, his body decayed, but his spirit ascended to be with God. Jesus likewise...."

On page 294-295, we read, "Also note that Peter's sermon as portrayed in Acts 10:40-41, he claimed that he and others "ate and drank with Him after He rose from the dead." Luke seems to be intending to record historical events when in Luke 1.1-3, he writes,

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the world, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have taught."
New Testament critical scholar Bart Ehrman comments,

"There may indeed be fictional elements in the account, as we will see; but judging form the preface to volume one from the subject matter of the narrative (the spread of the Christian church), and from the main characters themselves (who are, after all, historical persons), we can be more plausibly conclude that Luke meant to write a history of early Christianity, not a novel. Moreover, all of the ancient Christian authors who refer to the book appear to have understood it in this way." (Bart D. Erhman, [I]The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2nd ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 2000], 124)
See also A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 188-89. "The work of Luke cannot be evaluated properly if we group it with inferior contemporary literature that treats of heroes, thaumaturges and other popular characters. It is genuine history" (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, and G. Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981], 3:395).

Some scholars have noted that the appearance language in the New Testament is the language of sight (Luke 24.34, Acts 10.40-41, 13.30-31, 1 Cor. 15.5-8). The writers did not use metaphorical language, so they at least thought God had acted literally upon them in the appearances of the risen Jesus.

Although 2 Peter cannot be part of the "minimal facts" argument because many scholars question its authorship by Peter, it still provides early testimony that at least some Christians within one hundred years after Jesus were interpreting events such as Jesus' transfiguration and resurrection as historical events.

In summary I would say, if the intent was to be historical and not mythical or fictional, I am not sure how they could be any more clear. And if they wanted to be mythical or fictional, I can't find any evidence for this proposition from the historical record. Praise the Lord!

[Churchwork]

On page 295...

We can also note with New Testament scholar Craig Bloomberg, "A careful reading of the patristic evidence suggests that indeed the vast majority of early Christians did believe that the type of information the Gospel writers communicated was historical fact, even as they recognized the more superficial parallels with the mythology of other worlds."

[Yrost]

In what verse does Jesus testify that he was god?

Thoughts are just processes, we have re-created similar processes with computers. There is no reason to believe they are supernatural.

Our consciousness is the only consciousness we can certainly be sure of. All others are assumed an not known. It is this fact that leads some towards Solipsism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism)

I still do not see what trillions of causes in nature there are. I only see the 4 fundamental forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_fundamental_forces).

Thermodynamics is currently being reconciled with Quantum Dynamics as Quantum Thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_thermodynamics). Therefore the second law of thermodynamics needn't always apply.

Radioactive decay is known to be spontaneous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay). Disproving your claim that nothing is spontaenous.

The traversal dimension of time I speak of is called Imaginary Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time). There is no past and future in imaginary time. Therefore it does not require infinite regress.

The synoptic gospels are almost identical. Usually this would imply that the authors were simply copying from the same book or books. This is the basis for the Two Source Hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_source_hypothesis) and the idea of Document Q (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Q).

So how can we tell exactly who wrote them or if they're fictional or not?

[everstill]

In what verse does Jesus testify that he was god?
Jesus never said he was a god, but God. Did you want some verses where He said He was God?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXBlKI46sgM



Thoughts are just processes, we have re-created similar processes with computers. There is no reason to believe they are supernatural.Computers don't have free will, thoughts that can create and contemplate, feelings, volition, intuition, communion, conscience, ability to procreate, self-consciousness and God-consciousness. What a silly conversation.


Our consciousness is the only consciousness we can certainly be sure of. All others are assumed an not known. It is this fact that leads some towards Solipsism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism)That is a false belief, obviously, since nature can't always have existed, nor start up from nothing, thus requiring a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and must have a mind because the lesser can never create the greater. It stands to reason since God created your mind, a maximally great God would create others, so when you talk with me, you can be confident you are talking to a mind and vic versa. There are so many dumb ideas out there. I can see you are reaching? You are reaching with your flesh to be unsumbmissive to your Creator. That's asinine and bound for hell.


I still do not see what trillions of causes in nature there are. I only see the 4 fundamental forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_fundamental_forces).When you pick up a rock, it is because you wanted to. That is a cause. There are other causes such as your ability to do so. Just because you observe 4 laws, doesn't mean these causes are not real and not utilizing those laws. So we trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and not only that, but EM, Gravity, etc. need a cause too, since if they always existed, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Take this further. You only see these 4 forces, but I only see God. Simply compare your always existing forces to God, and your forces lose out, because your forces can't produce a mind, morality, conscience, free will and feelings.


Thermodynamics is currently being reconciled with Quantum Dynamics as Quantum Thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_thermodynamics). Therefore the second law of thermodynamics needn't always apply.Why's that? There is no reason to think like you do except hostility to your Creator.


Radioactive decay is known to be spontaneous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay). Disproving your claim that nothing is spontaenous.Just because it is complex in its nature is no reason to assume it is spontaneous without causation. Every time you can't figure something out, don't you feel arrogant by asserting it happened all by itself? I would. I am glad scientists are not like you, closing up shop, but they keep searching for the causes. You're not very scientific.


The traversal dimension of time I speak of is called Imaginary Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time). There is no past and future in imaginary time. Therefore it does not require infinite regress.If your theory is true you must ask where it came from, since you can't arbitrarily invoke it as the root cause of all things. Since it doesn't have a mind it can't produce a mind. Since it doesn't have free will, it can't give us free will. Since it feels nothing, it can generate no feelings. We need God for this. Praise God, we are made in His image!


The synoptic gospels are almost identical. Usually this would imply that the authors were simply copying from the same book or books. This is the basis for the Two Source Hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_source_hypothesis) and the idea of Document Q (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Q).Most people argue there are so many differences, contradictory differences, so they cannot be from the same source. I agree there are many differences, so there were was no copying, but none of those differences to my knowledge are contradictory. Whether you want to think one or two of the gospels worked off an imaginary source, there really is no evidence for it. They are just taking common points and constructing an imaginary source out of it. You can make endless imaginary sources this way. Silly. I consider Mark to be very excited about Jesus as his own independent source, would be included in the 500, and mentions himself running in the streets naked. He is quite impetuous, so much so, Paul did not want to go on his next mission with him, but they reconciled later in life.


So how can we tell exactly who wrote them or if they're fictional or not?Since there are no problems, as described, what's the problem? Historians don't throw the whole Bible out, but can glean some facts from it like other historical documents. One of those facts are there were multiple different group settings having seeing what they believed to be Jesus alive from the dead, talked with Him and touched Him. Paul confirms this reciting the gospel in 1 Cor. 15 and some of those eyewitness accounts, for Paul spent 15 days with Peter, and with James and John. He mentions also being with them on more than one occasion and said they added nothing to him which indicates they were in complete agreement. Amen.

Realize why Christians are Christians. We are Christians because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs and appearances, and because you invoke a non-mind for the causation of all things even though, obviously, a non-mind can only act and react, but can never produce sentience. That is just a pipe dream you cling to that you use to send yourself to Hell. As you wish.

[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. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism)
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism), but strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and gravity also play a role.

Quantum Thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus) loses energy by emitting ionizing particles or radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation). The emission is spontaneous in that the nucleus decays without collision with another particle."

The article about Document Q (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source) 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.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism)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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus) loses energy by emitting ionizing particles or radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source) 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!