For the board atheists.... (page 3)

talesin

How can there be a discussion when the atheist has a complete lack of faith?

Without faith, there is no 'reason' to religious belief systems. Nothing there to discuss, really.

that's how this atheist sees it ...

AllTimeJeff

To talesin's point....

I think there is a limit to what an atheist can honestly contribute.

Traditionally, most atheists point out very simply that 'god' isn't there.

I can't argue the point.

Faith is can be different from promoted/enforced doctrine however. It can should be individual, and personal.

To me, atheism's main debator is organized religion, and their efforts at explaining and promoting their 'god'.

After that, I see atheism as a philosophy of diminishing returns. I am not an atheist. I believe in personal spirituality, that gives personal meaning, and harms no one.

Atheism has little to no play in that field, (personal spirituality.) Atheism seems to frequently be on the side of such "spiritualists" in their common "foe", organized religion, and enforced worship of a god that is promoted by a leadership with their own personal agenda.

After all of this, to borrow a quote from Terry, 'Your mileage may vary.'

Jack C.

Onthewayout , pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters and Odin are all fairytale strawmen. I didn't intend this thread to turn into a discussion about the existence of a creator. Although I believe in such existence and enjoy rational discussion about it, I feel no obligation to prove such existence to anyone. It's up to each person is his or her own way to decide.

wobble

Thanks for the thread Jack C, a visiting JW simply reading on this site will gain a new perspective because of it,thanks,good work.

tec

The God and Father of Christ is often VERY different than how God is perceived and portrayed in the OT.

My question is: why do you prefer to look at the OT stuff in order to help you discount God, instead of looking at Christ? Even if you are just looking at the bible, or using that in your argument, even it says to look to Christ in order to see God. Not the Israelites, not OT writings... just Christ.

Peace,

Tammy

NewChapter

Tec, when I look at Christ, I see he has always perfectly agreed with his father. Therefore, the bible must be taken as a whole--if I were to look at Christ. He actually directs readers to the OT. So the OT remains fair game. I totally understand that this is not the case for all Christians, and that is actually a relief. You guys are much nicer. But it is what it is. Jesus was an Israelite raised according to OT laws, and he is a product of such laws. He never disowned them.

NC

tec

Tec, when I look at Christ, I see he has always perfectly agreed with his father.

EXactly.

Therefore, the bible must be taken as a whole--if I were to look at Christ. He actually directs readers to the OT. So the OT remains fair game.

But this is backwards. I'm not tryin to argue, but it IS backward. If everything in the old laws, behavior, understanding was correct... then why would Christ need to have come to show the Truth? HE is the one referred to as Truth. Not the OT. Do I think there is some truth in the OT? Yes. You can see it when some prophets tried to correct the ways of the Israelites - that God required mercy, not sacrifice. That God did NOT punish the son for the sin of his father. There are contradictions in the OT as to who God is. Christ shows the Truth. Christ IS the truth.

I totally understand that this is not the case for all Christians, and that is actually a relief. You guys are much nicer.

I'm not sure being nice has anything to do with it. Might just be that some recognize that CHRIST is the Truth; not anything or anyone else. So it is to HIM that we look toward.

Christ corrected a lot of misunderstanding, and that's just what we HAVE written down. Never mind anything else said and not written about - or not included.

But it is what it is.

I agree. Just not with what you and others think it is.

Jesus was an Israelite raised according to OT laws, and he is a product of such laws. He never disowned them.

As I said, he corrected much misunderstanding.

"You have heard it said... but I tell you now..."

I can't imagine how long it would take for him to correct every detail of what was misunderstood in the past. Much MUCH easier just to teach by word and e Xample. Then we don't have to worry what may or may not have been wrong, or mistranslated, or literal, or figurative, or misundertood, etc, etc.

We just have to look at Him to know God.

Peace to you,

Tammy

EntirelyPossible

Leaving , time dialation (time travel) has been proven. The theory of special relativity predicted it and time dialation must be compensated for every day with global positioning satelites.

Time is real. It happens every day to every person. We all travel forwards through time.

However, what you refer to is time dialation, not time travel. If you refer to being able to skip forwards or backwards in time or change the direction of the arrow of time then no, that has NOT been proven. It always amuses me when fundies try to talk science and get it consistently wrong.

EntirelyPossible

But this is backwards. I'm not tryin to argue, but it IS backward.

Not in the least. If I want to know if a guy is a total dick or not, I don't look at what his son does, I look at what HE does.

If everything in the old laws, behavior, understanding was correct... then why would Christ need to have come to show the Truth?

Under new management, so to speak. As far as the Jesus guys truths, well, he only said the same thing the buddha was saying 500 years before him and the Bablyonians were saying 1500 years before that, don't be a dick to people. Hardly revolutionary or a new truth.

That God did NOT punish the son for the sin of his father.

Exodus 20:5, he shall punish the children for the sins of the father, to the third and fourth generation. What a dick.

Christ corrected a lot of misunderstanding

I really like the parts where he said slavery was bad or that women weren't property or don't kill gay people. Oh, wait, human rights wasn't on his agenda...what did he correct again? Don't kill birds to his dad?

I can't imagine how long it would take for him to correct every detail of what was misunderstood in the past.

Seriously. The three I picked would have been good ones to start with. Instead it was "don't sacrifice animals"? Really? That was higher on his list than "women aren't property, they are people"? I mean, I know it's not reasonable for him to fix every detail, but it seems like slavery and other basic human rights might be worth mentioning if he was so awesome.

trailerfitter

Before reading everyones replies to the origional post statement I would like to say that not all atheists are of the "rational science is right" stance. What amazes me is that jehovah or the idea of jehovah is acredited to creating everything the universe etc etc. Thanks to the JW organisation I was forced to examine what I actually believe....I am now an atheist. Even if it was true and jehovah did exsist,.. I'd want to be sand in his sandles to annoy the desert dwelling retard who thinks he has the right to do what he liked with the human race. inc. promoting abuse.

I find it insulting to my minimal intellegence that we should be threatened by a jealous god to worship him or endure his wrath. Any idea of a dominating god who wants to be called "the KING" or "LORD" to me is disgusing and to rebel, or to not accept the "only self-claimed true king": one is instantly accused of siding with Satan, is also ludicrous..The idea that the bible is the only truth is rediculous as science has proved it wrong about the understanding we have about the world we live in, however there are professional apologists who twist the bible scripture to fit modern thinking. Being accused of working for Satan because you have a different view on life also just shows that Judean / muslim and christian religions are not tollerant or accepting of either each other nor other beliefs.

No, there is nothing wrong in wanting an eternal life and feeling good all the time, why not?? . but wouldn't that get boring after a while? There is nothing wrong with belieiving in what you want to. I'd not want to spend all the rest of eternity praising the lord and his wisdom just to relieve his vanity.

Perhaps Bhuddist monks are closer to the truth of finding that heaven within?? The are atheists.

For the board atheists....

Share this