[jlcnuke]

Personally, my opinion is that I don't believe any "God" exists (as we refer to deities anyway). I could be wrong, but the evidence, to me, suggests it to be the most rational conclusion.

 

[jlcnuke]

I find it interesting that two people think they are infallible with regards to a question that at no point in history has their been a majority consensus regarding....

 

[jlcnuke]

for something to exist, it must have measurable physical properties. there must be some effect on the physical world that can be observed due to it being there. in science, these measurable physical properties define what is natural.

False premise. "For something to exist, it must have measurable physical properties" assumes our understanding and limited measurement capabilities can deal with that something and are adequate to quantify it. Neither is true for many things we already accept to exist (ranging from ideas to theoretical physics (many of which have become accepted science long after they were originally proposed).

 

[jlcnuke]

no, it does not. our ability to measure a thing does not limit a thing's ability to be measured in general. if a thing can be measured/observed, even though it is beyond our current capability, it can still exist. however, it cannot be supernatural, so it cannot be a god.

You keep saying this, and providing no proof to back up that claim. Can the supernatural exist? It could, despite your assertion that it's impossible. I haven't seen evidence of it to prove that it does, but that does not mean it cannot exist. You make assertions based on your current knowledge only, and disregard the possibility that your limited knowledge may be inadequate justification for your belief.

It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something which is beyond our capability to measure. As such, it takes faith to "believe" such a thing does not exist. You seem to have faith in your belief that the supernatural cannot exist. That doesn't mean you can't be wrong however, it just means you believe it to be so. Just like the religious have faith their beliefs are correct, regardless of the fact they could be wrong (and most will be wrong in at least choosing the "correct" faith even if a single deity does exist).

"Not believing" in something without having compelling evidence for such a belief is logical. "Believing something exist" or "believing something doesn't exist" without compelling evidence for such a belief is not, thus why such beliefs require faith to maintain.

Your belief is no more based in science than Phil1979's.

 

[jlcnuke]

I have offered both evidence and argument for God's existence.

But He is a Gentleman and will not force you to believe if you insist otherwise. He does give us the ability to refuse Him. I frankly would not want to go into eternity without Him, and am glad I know where I'm going when I leave this world.

You have offered no evidence of God's existence. "The universe exists so God must exist" is not evidence, it is a statement without justification. Your thoughts, wishes, dreams, hopes, belief, or faith are not "evidence" of your God's existence any more than the same things that followers of thousands of other God's are "evidence" of their God's existence.

Don't feel bad though, exactly zero people in the history of the planet have offered evidence of their God's existence either, hence one of the main reasons that religion is and has always been a tangled mess of people believing different things.

 

[jlcnuke]

People believe in a particular God, Goddess or Gods because of the indoctrination of their family and culture. Their religious identity was defined for them, they did not select it.

How many Christians here would be Muslim if raised in a Muslim family? How many Jehovah's Witnesses would be Mormon if raised in a Mormon family?

How many here have a religious identity that is counter to that of their parents and family?

My family raised me Catholic, I'm an agnostic atheist now. I'd wager (based purely on my own anecdotal evidence) that the largest % of people who have a religious identity different from their families are people from religious families that are not themselves religious anymore.

 

[jlcnuke]

I am disappointed in myself for clicking on this troll thread, but I did and just wonder how would you define "an agnostic atheist"? The meaning between the two are quite different. An atheist doesn't believe, whereas an agnostic just isn't sure. The way it happened for me was..(and I think this is pretty common w/ atheists)...

Raised in home and made to go to church --> Get older, stop going to church --> wonder what is the deal with "God", try out several different churches/religions --> After not being able to reconcile issues presented in most religions, become agnostic (maybe there is a god? I don't know?) --> Read, read, read, study, study, study...conclude there is NO GOD and there is no proof of such thus become full blown athesist. --> Die and find out one way or another.

Anyway, this subject is a hot potato (just as bad as abortion) and no one here is going to change any minds. Either you believe or you don't...it's of no consequence to others what your beliefs are.

[ag-nos-tik]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

To put it simply, the original and most pure definition of "agnostic" with regards to religion is "does not believe we can know of the existence or non-existence of a deity".

Atheist includes two similar, but fundamentally different definitions as it included "people who don't believe in any deity" as well as "people who believe no deity exists".

The former are generally "agnostic atheists" as they don't believe in a god but don't claim such a being couldn't exist.

You can also have "agnostic theists" who believe in a god but don't believe that such a deity can be truly known to us etc.

You have offered no evidence that God does not exist.

The "claim" is that God exists, and as such the burden of proof is on those making the claim. Without that claim, no "disbelief claim" would ever have existed. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 

[jlcnuke]

http://io9.gizmodo.com/10-famous-scientists-who-held-surprising-supernatural-b-1689425142

 

[jlcnuke]

lmao

Wow, you have to both not understand what "scientific" actually means AND not understand what "proof" is to buy that as "scientific proof" of God... that's pure comedy gold right there (or really really sad...).

 

[jlcnuke]

attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding

phaed seems to have a hard time grasping that this part of the definition doesn't say "will never be scientifically understood" but instead says "we can't explain it with science right now". Perhaps that fundamental misunderstanding is why he can't grasp what "supernatural" means in many cases.

 

[jlcnuke]

The appeal to authority fallacy isn't a fallacy when someone is actually more qualified to make a statement.

"Having qualification" and "properly using those qualification" are two significantly different things... in this case, the latter is definitely not happening with that guy.

 

[jlcnuke]

God sending Jesus, His son, to earth to live and then die a terrible death on the cross only to raise from the dead was supposed to be proof to everyone. Everyone had their own theories about it, which some counter the bible, but I did want to know something.

Out of all the atheist in this thread, will each of you share your beliefs about who and what Jesus was.

Please answer:

Did Jesus exist? As in a man that walked the earth and claimed to be the Son of God?

History did a fairly good job of proving some man with that name, did walk the earth and claimed to be the Son of God. He did die on a cross.

The part that gets muddy is his resurrection, which usually has a lot of different theories.

So what are your ideas about Jesus?

Jesus existed. There is adequate historical evidence to suggest that a person with that name existed in the general area and time as claimed in the Bible and other places.

That he appeared to some people at the time to be someone who did"fulfill" prophecies and that he garnered a group of followers is also fairly well documented. Though many have claims to match that, up to and including "resurrection", they just didn't "stick" historically as well as Jesus did.

I'd say more than the "resurrection" is "muddy" though, and I'd further say that many of the "miracles" attributed to that person were more likely to be on par with "faith healers" and other such con-artists of today's society rather than divine actions.

 

[jlcnuke]

It would take faith in jlcnuke's intellect to accept this on face value....just saying.

Why would it take any "faith" in my intellect to accept that a statement I say I would make is a statement I would make?

 

[jlcnuke]

So in your view Jesus was a con man?

Even His enemies admitted He performed miracles. Some said He did it by the power of satan.

Can a con man open the eyes of one who was born blind?

Maybe He just had some powerful flavor concentrate He sprinkled into the water to make it taste like the best wine?

Was Lazarus just playing possum in the tomb for two days before Jesus called him out?

Do Jesus' words and character really fit with Him being a con man?

Would a con man be able to fake his own death on the cross and resurrection, and subsequently be able to suddenly appear to disciples in a locked room?

What exactly happened to make a band of timid disciples bold messengers of the faith? What happened to Saul on the road to Damascus that made him a changed man?

In answer to all your questions, I'll say "yes, I think it's likely he was a con man", perhaps he was delusional and believed some of what he said, but he'd be far from the first (or last) person to have multiple people claim he could do things that seemed like "miracles" (a word that really means "we couldn't explain how it was done at the time) and have devout followers. Heck, plenty such people have existed in our lifetimes. I'd go so far as to say it's likely one or more of his "followers" were in on his scam as well and helped him to pull off his "miracles".

So, do I think it's less likely that the son of a deity who refuses to provide any real proof of it's existence to 99.99999999999999% of all people who ever existed, who is that deity become man, could "perform miracles" and "sometimes say some stuff that sounded good" (sometimes attack people because he didn't like what they were doing) existed than "some guy got some followers and made some people think he performed miracles" and those followers supported him financially (because talking nice and working a job to pay for your own meals/lodging etc would be too much of a miracle to ask from a deity's earthly incarnation after all....)? Yeah, I'd say the whole "miracle worker" and "son of God" is a whole lot less likely than he was the ancient equivalent of today's cult leader con-men.

 

[jlcnuke]

Jesus did not attack people, He spoke out against corruption, hate, and hypocrisy. I'm also not sure why you think He was financially supported by His followers. Finally, a lot of what He said did not "sound good", as you stated; much of it is impossible for the people of His time, or of ours, to live out, which is exactly why we need Him.

You're welcome to have your beliefs, however much I disagree with them. I was asked a question, I answered it. If my opinion upsets you there is nothing I can do about that.

I'm not trying to convince you to abandon your faith. Even if I was, many people would hold their faith even if they could travel in time and be shown proof that things they believe were not correct so it would likely be pointless. Even more pointless is trying to convince me that your beliefs should be mine. I was indoctrinated into Christianity as a child (like so many others) but I asked questions and sought answers and clarity and eventually stopped having such beliefs quite a while ago.

 

[jlcnuke]

For those of you who think Jesus is a con man, have you honestly read His recorded words in the New Testament? Does a con man speak like that? Does he show godly wisdom like that?

Yes, con men are some of the most silver-tongued individuals to have ever existed and, historically, many of them seek out people who can be influenced by faith (hence one of the reasons cult leaders develop such devout followings).

The miracles was only part of the equation. Jesus' words is another. The fact of His resurrection is another. The fact that His disciples were willing to die as martyrs for their faith in Him is another. They saw Him die, they witnessed the empty tomb after coming back (from running away scared) to see about the empty tomb. Did they all die (except John) for what they knew to be a lie, if it was not true?

You say "facts" like everyone accepts them on faith. When you don't, they are "stories", not "facts". That the "facts" as told by his most faithful of accomplices (or potentially duped followers) say one thing (and even contradict each other in many cases) does not make them "factual".

Look at their words and actions in the days of the early Church as recorded in Acts. Do they seem delusional?

Quite frankly, many do, yes.

Recall that the Jewish leaders asked for a Roman guard. Reading the text, one can draw the conclusion there were at least four armed soldiers. Jesus' enemies wanted nothing less than His body to remain in that tomb. The fact they agreed to pay off the guards' commander to keep them out of trouble for falling to secure the tomb speaks to the veracity that the tomb was indeed empty on the third day, if the very ones invested in it still holding a body admit that it's empty. The penalty for a Roman soldier for not tending his post was death.

No chance anyone could have been bought off... in the story about buying people off?? You got to see the irony in such an assumption, right??

The fact that you know you are a sinner is another evidence, and Jesus saw through people to their sin. Yet, no one was able to show that Jesus had ever sinned. Can you?

Sin is an invention of religion. It's made up. If you let me brainwash some people, bamboozle some other people, and have my followers select which accounts to allow to be viewed, I'm sure in a hundred years I could be remembered as pretty much whatever I wished. Cult leaders have convinced living people that they are the "sin-less reincarnation of Christ" in "modern times", that's gotta be a lot harder than "ignoring years of a person's life and then telling it through rose colored glasses" and only letting "the believer's tales" propagate through history...

The fact that without Jesus you know you have no Savior. Are you content to stand in the Judgement before a Holy God to give an accounting of your life and what you did with Jesus? Just what is the remedy for your sin that you hope will suffice, if not Him?

I need no remedy for the made up thing called "sin" that some religions have used to help control people in order to keep me from "judgement" by a non-existent deity.

Do you not know that Jesus died as your substitute to pay the price for your sins? If that's true, then He is your only hope of salvation. If that's true, then rejecting Him until it's too late will exclude from God's mercy forever. Do you really despise your own soul to that degree? Do you really count yourself as unfit to receive the free gift of eternal life?

Again, as I have nothing to suggest that God exists, or a soul exists, or an invisible tea-pot floating between planets exists, I have no reason to care one way or another about any of them or any of the beliefs that their believers have.

Sometimes I wonder what will be more painful to those who die lost - the knowledge they will never be out of the lake of fire, or the knowledge that they didn't have to go there, that there had been a way of escape, but they had scoffed at it.

If a deity exists that cares more about whether I will believe in them without evidence than they care about what kind of a person I am, and would punish the best of people for the crime of "not believing the same thing as a minority of people in the history of humanity" and would condemn me for that, then that is no deity which I would deem worthy of belief, much less worship.

 

[jlcnuke]

Here's a quick way to understand how threats such as "but your soul will rot in hell for eternity if you don't accept God/Jesus" sound to me:

Rephrase the sentence and replace "hell" with "a boiling pot of spaghetti sauce" and replace "God/Jesus" with "the flying spaghetti monster" and give your reaction if someone threatened you with such a thing. Apply the same principle to any other such religious "downsides" for "not having faith" and you'll show just as much concern for the "consequences". Even if you could have avoided such a horrible fate by just eating pasta once a month.....

or not, because it's almost certainly b.s. like all other supernatural religious beliefs.

 

[jlcnuke]

Also, when you're trying to understand why someone doesn't believe in your religion, remember that the old saying "I'm only an atheist towards one more religion than you" is actually accurate. You dismiss thousands of religions as either nonsense or wrong, but you choose to believe in this particular one; despite the fact that the majority of human history shows that most people who have ever existed did not share your belief. That what is "acceptable" evidence/belief for you isn't for others should be obvious really.

 

[jlcnuke]

Aren't we all going to feel silly when we get to Valhalla and Odin is laughing at our lack of belief in him..... fortunately, I don't think Odin ever said he would punish us eternally if we didn't believe, so we'll have that going for us, which is nice.

 

[jlcnuke]

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€"and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ€" 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Ephesians 2

Saved through faith, by grace, not works, all you have to do is believe.

Yep, if another Jesus walked among us today and just "didn't believe", he'd suffer eternal damnation per Christian teachings despite doing good deeds, performing "miracles", and living a life free of sin... because that's what modern Christianity thinks an all-powerful being thinks is "right"... and that being is definitely worthy of their faith and worship.