Nosy me ...
let me tell you something if an atheist could see the wounds in the body of christ and actually feel them with his hands,he would deny that the wounds are there.
What I like most of all about this purely diversionary tantrum is that it ignores everything hitherto objected to in the atheist perception of the Universe. Were one to put before an atheist a man named Jesus of Nazareth complete with wounded wrists and shins and side, no atheist would deny the presence of the wounds. In fact, you would have provided objective, undeniable evidence that a man calling himself Jesus was standing wounded before the atheist.
Objective demonstration: the objectivism of atheism will not deny the physical evidence placed before it. To the other, I feel it necessary to acknowledge the usual procedure surrounding such objectivism: objective demonstration shows only that the objectively posited hypothesis is true--in this case, that a man is wounded and calls himself Jesus. But I don't see why an atheist would deny what is demonstrable and testable when the evidence is before them: such a denial is religious.
Without a god and religions we would be free to establish our own objective values that will enable our survival. The accountability is for us to determine and will result in our ultimate survival if we learn fast enough and rid ourselves of ignorance and religious superstitions.
So ... you have a problem with that?
* What is objectionable to the idea of a species working toward its own survival?
* What is objectionable to the idea of that species accomplishing goals relevant to its continued survival?
Really, irresponsible statements like the above citation make me wonder if Christians aren't just waiting for God to show up and fix everything. That the ultimate goals of Christianity involve the forfeit of mortal life seems to indicate that Christianity is, as a philosophy and living practice, detrimental to the continued human endeavor.
Rules imposed on us by an evil tyrant are wholly unacceptable.
You are absolutely correct. What is even less acceptable is a set of rules imposed by the illusion of a tyrant. That is, a mass of people awarding to an imagined tyrant the authority to abuse not only that specific mass of people, but all other people as well. The Christian tyrant is a most repugnant tyrant.
you are denying the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that God does indeed exist. you knows God exists, you are quite familiar with that fact, but you says "under no circumstance or situation will I admit to God's existence."
I know you wish that was true; it would make your pride so much easier to inflate. Atheists I know generally deny the existence of God amid a neck-deep flood of irresponsible theology designed to license the adherent to any number of improprieties ranging from human dominion to material extortion.
you clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation, but refuses to admit He is the Creator. you perceives the divine authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuse to admit that God is their Author.
Again and again: you wish and you wish. I know it would be easier if people's intellects were limited to the boundaries of your bitter imagination, but it simply isn't so. You'll have to do better than tell people what they think in order to counterpoint their assertions.
GOD AN TYRANT EVIL ,hell no!!!,Atheism is the ultimate of satanism.
And here you go with that silly bit about Satan. The problem with Satan is that no theology derived from the Bible yet explains exactly what the purpose of Satan is. No theory yet presented adequately explains the limits of Satan's authority, or excuses God from willful malice through His holy servant, Satan-El. Satan is, perhaps, the true redeemer: Christ died only once; the Devil is wounded daily by the lies of a billion faithful. Considering that two-thousand years of careful philosophical work have failed to produce any satisfactory description of Satan, I wish you luck in this endeavor.
if you ask satan about the existance of god he will deny it. Ask him about his own exixtance,same thing he will deny it.you holds the Bible in one hand, but you(atheists) deny its existence by denying its truth with the other hand.
Well, as I once advised a friend of ours here at Sciforums,
Lori, here we enter a theological conundrum.
* I know for a fact that your description of Satan's behavior is inaccurate, assumptive, and based wholly in your hatred.
* Now: here's your choice--either I have met both your savior and your enemy, and learned a good deal about the nature of the cosmic stake at hand, or else my teenaged visions are as much balderdash as any other religious vision in the world.
So do you give credibility to a vision that describes a woeful, regretting Christ and a bewildered Devil, the only common trait of either is that nobody knows what the fight is about?
Or do you sack the credibility of a religious vision, and thereby undermine the credibility of all religious visions describing a scenario more favorable to your preconceived faith?
But in a faith-based arena, I have empirical proof that the statements or yours I've cited above are utterly false. Objectively, the data and conclusions reached by a plethora of preceeding philosophers has failed to give you theological justification for anything you say about Satan. You are, quite literally, speaking out of your ass.
Thus, you undermine your own observations of sin, as well, with such apathetic claptrap as
The law of sin is the one that governs satan's kingdom.
Hey--it's your God. If you don't know these things about It, that's not my problem. But if you choose to spout irresponsible theology in a call for human subordination ... well, that is my problem. Have your facts straight--whoops ... that's right: you rely on faith, not facts.
But really, that's what it comes down to. If Christians had better faith that reality will play out to describe the theology they believe, such issues as these would not be so critical. To wit:
* I believe it was
Radical who asked why these arguments don't spill over onto Islam or Judaism, or other religions. The answer is twofold and simple:
* Most of Sciforums' posters are western-educated amid the Christian and post-Christian first-world. When we get up in the morning, go to school or work, and when we come home at night to sleep, the most relevant abstract issues statistically find their orientation in the western criteria. Among these are theological matters, largely derived from Christianity. The Christian/Atheist split is much more common and relevant to our posters than, say, a Wiccan/Shiite split. You'll note, too, that many of our
alternative theists (myself included) derive our systems from Western ideas; Sufism is as Islamic as I get, and my exposure to far Eastern philosophies is limited.
* Which brings the second reason about: We just don't have that many Jewish or Islamic posters to debate with. Sure, we might all be able to reach a consensus--or not--regarding Islamic salvation and women, but I'd rather let a Muslim interpret that for me so I can tell him what I find objectionable about it; otherwise, it's just a bunch of Westerners sitting around and harping on Muslims for no better cause than to ignore the issues more immediately relevant to us.
So we find ourselves constantly faced with ideas with which we have traditionally found fault. That fault would matter as little to me as the inherent faults of Native American shamanism if it was not continually presented in my life as an adversarial entity.
I would love to leave my issues at the label of Liberty: expression, privacy, individual governance. However, one label has personified for my entire life the effort to destroy those Liberties--Christian.
I hope the logical snares you've encountered here might show you the paucity of the present state of faith; I'm not so much out to ask people to forfeit their faith, but rather reconcile the concept of what they think their faith is to its actual practice.
thanx,
Tiassa
