crocodile deathroll

Yes I agree, I felt disussion was getting little too uncomfortably close to religious eschatology

Theli

Thomas Ash...

Glad someone understood what I was arguing. The only reason we even refer to our "younger selfs" as ourselfs is that we share that person's memory.
Thought the person we are, both metaphoricly and literally is another person. We act different and we look different. The awareness of a single person cannot be considered a single 'solid' object.
Too bad this thread got out of hand. Thanks for replying.

Powerfull Voices

Hello there Heraclitus Nietzsche,

Josephus was a first century Jewish Historian in his Antiquity of the Jews book 18 chapter 3 verse 3 he writes;"

At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the

Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day".

This statement exists in every printed copy and every single manuscript of the writtings of Josephus known to man! If anyone takes it out they do so without any internal evidence only on the basis of their own prjadice. It is also quoted by Usivius 300 A.D. Accepted by numerous scollars including Phillip Shaff of Yale.

Other non-Biblical, non-Christian ancient references to Jesus occur in the pagan Roman authors Cornelius Tacitus, Gaius Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger, as well as in the Jewish rabbinical traditions.

At the time Jesus was entombed, only the disciples believed Jesus had risen. It was only until the Gospels were written and circulated that the resurrection became more widespread. This was several years later. By that time, there was no recognizable body for the Pharisees (or Romans for that matter) to provide. Jesus had decomposed as all human beings will do after physical death. The producing of unrecognizable bones (even if they were authentically Jesus's) would not have crushed the faith.

Very good thought but you presuppose that the diciples are liars and that Jesus coulden't have been raised from the dead both seem unresonable given your lack of evidence to the contrary! It is interesting what you are willing to belive though. What about the diciples dieing for this belief I don't belive you addressed this adequately by simply saying it was some kind of a "revenge" Jesus will get you if you kill us thing. Historicly the diciples did die for their faith!

This would mean after we die, our next moment of consciousness would be when we are resurrected right?

No, Jesus told the theif, "today you will be with me in paradise". Read Luke 16:22,23

But if we are never resurrected, our consciousness is indeed at an end.
I think the reason why Christianity's faith keeps continuing throughout the ages is because every great thing that is supposed to happen is out of human reach (after you physically die, and whenever Jesus decides to make his "second-coming"). If nothing happens when you die (no afterlife of heaven and hell), the individual's consciousness has ended so no "truth" about it is discovered.

Surely this can also be applied to Atheism! Read the rest of Luke 16.

Also, Jesus can keep his followers waiting for the rest of their lives (and their children's) without ever coming. Each new Christian generation is convinced Jesus will come during their lifetimes. You gotta admit, 2000 years is quite a long time to wait. I could think of several times throughout history that Jesus would have had a good reason to come. What could possibly be holding him up?

This comeing from someone who thinks the earth is 3.5 billion years old? What is 2000 years against the background of eternity. Maybe He's waiting for you.

A true first-hand unbiased account of Jesus's resurrection is nowhere to be found. The Gospels say (conveniently without giving specifics) Jesus visited many more people than just his living disciples. He even supposedly did more works (miracles?). I'm suspicious that no non-biased people have ever given accounts of seeing him after he was killed. That is a very good reason to doubt he ever truly made any post-mortum appearances. Did Jesus only visit ones that believed in him? What was the point of doing that? Even if he didn't visit him they would have thought he was alive and well somewhere (in heaven at the right-hand of God the Father?). All Christians believe he's there now, right?

Would you consider a Pharasee who chased the Christians from town to town throwing them in prison and condoning their exicutions a hostile witness? Saul was converted by a first hand viewing of the Lord Jesus and his life and deeds go on to prove this!

The only reason I haven't given you to doubt is your desire to have Jesus's second-coming take place. I can tell you why I don't think it will happen; why I don't think it could happen, but that won't stop you from wanting it to happen. This makes me ask: Why do you want it to happen?

No, you have given me no reason to doubt the gospel accounts. No reason to doubt the ressurection, other than that miracles are impossible and no proof that the Bible is flawed! What you think is important but is no reason to rewrite history.

So if we go the statistical route (as is commonly used for Christian arguments), why not go with atheistic Psychology (purely scientific), or Eastern holistic therapy and meditation as a means improve health, grades, and well-being?

Because it is not the point, Salvation is the point these are often biproducts.

I think it's because of the God factor - Christianity offers the added draw of excluding the believer over all those who are deemed "worldly" and adds the possibility that all who are not like you will be everlastingly tortured. Therefore, with theism it seems, Health, good grades, and well-being are not good enough!

I do not doubt that some diluded abortion doctor killer in the name of God type people think like this but you are quite wrong in branding the whole of Christianity paticularly Christ in such a way. " I came to seek and to save that which was lost" , "neither is the father willing that any should perish", "I do not judge you the word which I have spoken shall be your judge"

On a conscious level, you may be right. But, the influence of Christianity has a way of changing one's values to more easily accept it.

Like having Atheistic parents has a profound impact on their child becaming an Atheist? I grant your point but let's be fair.

Have you ever asked yourself why you want to be a Christian? I can't see any other reason than that Christians want more self-empowerment (if you have another please let me know. Simply saying: Because Jesus is real won't cut it). This need for self-empowerment by means of delusion, tells me that Christians consider themselves powerless without any true means to gain power, thus having to resort to life-after-death and such. It's a lot like the occult - people believe in Magick to do what they are unable to do and rely on delusional thought to get the job done. What else is prayer if not a Magick ritual?

Sure because I belive there is an absolute truth and this is it. Christianity in it's purist form in not about self empowerment it is about serving the Lord with all your mind, heart and soul. A good example is our Lord Jesus. Prayer is talking with our Father. I talk to the God in whom you don't belive.

Yes, in the minds of evolving "monkeys". I know you don't believe in Evolution

Do you belive in Evolution? If so you accept certain things by faith this is not unlike a belief in God.

This is an awesome observation on your part. Kudos! My belief is that mankind is always changing (as is the universe). This is why there is always continual interpretations and re-interpretations of knowledge. This is also the reason why I enjoy philosophy so much. And this is also why I don't believe the Bible's message is "eternal". As mankind changes, the interpretations change. I admit, with Christianity, the focal point will be tied to the Jesus icon, but how do we continually relate to him? This changes a great deal. Therefore, all the important aspects change.

In 2000 years the important aspects haven't changed why should we belive they will in the future. The scriptures have outlived all it's adversaries.

Yes, there is the central figure of Jesus as the focal icon. But our relationship to this central diety; how we use the diety changes with mankind. I personally think Christianity instills corrupt values in mankind (like the aforementioned willingness to belief delusion for power attainment). Christian values, taken to absurd lengths, also instill greed (what is desire for heaven if not greed - streets of pure gold?); sadism (hell as a place for those we feel encroach upon our power - wealthy men, sexy women - all will burn); suicide (this life is a means to an end, not an end in itself- everything about your life is sacrificed for death); masochism (born in "sin" on the road to hell if Jesus doesn't "save" us - and "floggers"), and the spreading of hate (intolerance for other's views- admittedly this has improved, but only because the law stepped in & Christians are reminded how they should love their neighbor - heck, didn't Jesus say we even should "love our enemies"?- who among Christians really does this?).

I think "taken to absurd lengths" is the key here. I think it is wise to live life inductively in regards our deaths. Suicide in my mind is indulging in the pleasures of this life to such a point that the pleasures define your life. Not to mention the possibility that God might, I say does, exist and you will be judged according to how you have lived your life. What a sinking feeling it will be for those who have lived for pleasure. Intolerance is demonstated wonderfully by Atheistic attacks on Christianity. Don't you think it odd that Christianity is so heavily fired appon yet other faiths are thought to be harmless. This is because Satan knows the truth and Christianity is it!

Of course it does. Evolution is change. It isn't "necessary", it's reality. Theism always seeks to confuse the descriptive with the prescriptive.

I don't see your point here. If it isn't necessary than it certainly isn't reality, right?

The only thing the same is the use people have for a diety: wanting to attain self-empowerment, but having no other means of getting it. That is why Christianity has been so frequently likened to a disease- if others use the same delusional Christian techniques to get their power, then no-one will have any real power. That is how it spreads.

I do not believe it is the teaching of Christ to seek "self-empowerment". You think it's us against you but it's us for you if you could only see that it's the very system you endorse that destroys you.


My own definition of an atheist is: having no use for a God, therefore not believing in that which has no personal use. There's so much needless arguing going around about how to prove or disprove God's existence. It always boils down to want. I do not want what I can't use (and there is only one human use for God isn't there?). God is defined as only use.

Here we see who the real victim of want is. Is "want" the way we discover truth these days? You accuse me of throwing my life away but least I can say my belief is not determined by a trivial word like "want".

I've clearly detailed the psychology behind prayer. But it's all like that. How can you tell God is giving you anything? A sense of well-being can be achieved on many things, not just God. Theists believe they're getting something out of God because they want to believe they are; because what other choice do they have? They either get nothing, or rationalize they are getting something (like answer to prayer). Atheists just strive for the getting of something, not bothering with all the rationalization. That is why so many scientists are atheists. Sure, there are some scientists that call themselves theists, but religious rationalization is allowed no room in scientific proofs. Perhaps the religious scientists just say they're religious because they want some security in the afterlife (they've found a use for it in that one unscientific realm). Meanwhile, their scientific work (method) is no different than the atheist scientists.

Prayer is not the issue, does the God we pray to exist is the issue. I say yes and therefore have no problem coming to Him in prayer. My Grand father was suffering from a severe ear infection he went to the doctor to no avail later he was just going about his business and heard a voice that said to him, "I can heal your ear" he said sure you can, not thinking, but immediatly noticed that the infection seemed to be gone. He went ahead and went to his scheduled appointment to see the doctors reaction. The doctor was amazed, there are many stories like this. My question to you is whom should I belive you or my Grandfather who is a wonderfull man of God? I think I'll keep praying, thanks. Can you say Jesus is Lord? I mean can you even say it?

I think a person declares themself an "agnostic" because of all the theist/athiest debates that are going on: Due to the inability for logical reasoning to prove or disprove God, they feel that agnosticism is the only realistic default belief.
Atheism is "self-defeating"? I'd like to hear your line of reasoning behind that statement. I don't think the determination of "use for God" is self-defeating at all. Atheists have no use for God (no use for rationalization of one's own influence in the world), while theists have a use for God (attainment of power by any means possible- for them, only delusion is productive).

Sure, Atheism is self-defeating because it affirms a negative which is impossible. How can one confirm what he does not know? Your "use for God" is no exception. I belive there is a use for God therefore contradicting my claim is "neccessarily" appling the opposite. Hence "there is no God" and your just a plain old Atheist again. I'm not trying to be mean mind you.

If God did create me (don't tell my parents I said that), then that's just it: he created me and now he has to live with his creation.

Bold words but if God did create you will only raise this argument here and now but not hereafter.


Pascal's wager says spending one's life in preparation as a means to a great reward is worth it because of the huge payoff.

More because of the huge loss if your wrong! And it's not preperation it's a moment in time when you decide to commit your life to Christ.

In my opinion, Blaise Pascal was a great writer & thinker, but I think his "Wager" is his greatest error and embarrassment (of course it comes from notes, not a finished work, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt by saying he might have omitted it in a final draft).

Your entitled to your opinion but let's not forget Blaise Pascal was a Christian so maybe he did mean it.

The reason why you don't worship me according to Pascal's Wager logic is the same logic as why atheists don't worship your God. It is simply not an appealing option.

I do not worship you because you are not God. God is our Savior! You cannot save yourself much less me or anyone else! Truth is over and above mere "appeal".

You find "joy and purpose" in the Christian faith. I say the Christian faith wastes the lives of its followers because of the assumption that our human lives are a mere means to an end instead of an end in itself.

?????I know you said Christian faith but you must be refering to Atheism. If all we are is matter then life is meaningless and the "memory lives on" is nothing more than all you have otherwise such a thought would be as meaningless to you as it is to me. Christianity offers life beyond the grave in the person of Jesus Christ whom you have not been able to discredit!!!

Christians believe they can't "achieve" anything in this life, so it's only natural for them to find their achievements in an afterlife. It's that belief that you can't achieve anything (as an end in itself) in this life that I have such big issues with. How can we let anyone (i.e. "priests") tell us we can never achieve anything in this life? The priests are getting something in this life - money, attention, and power from their congregations! I'm having none of it!

Wrong Christians belive they can achive the greatest thing in this life; eternal life. You and I can achive all sorts of things but to what avail if they are an end in themselves. All priests are not bad, I dare say most are not bad. Why do you focus so passionatly on the negatives will you go the next step and be lost with many of them? This is not an absolute statment though it can be true it does not accuratly represent Christ or His true followers.
Have you ever had a conversion experience? I see you only looking from the outside in and it makes for a most biased account. Ideas passed on by family perhaps but never really tested for themselves. I was a sceptic once and still am though I have accepted Christ into my heart. I still ask questions, one dosen't have to commit intellectual suicid to have faith. You needen't feel like it's an end to reason indeed it's a wonderfull compliment. I challenge you to go to a church where you know they are passionate about serving the Lord and start asking some questions. You may find that they welcome them and that you are loved as dearly beloved child of the living God. There are people out there who will really love you because the God in whom you don't belive has put His love in their hearts.

It isn't my intention for you to take personally anything I say against religion or Christianity.

I don't see how it's possible that I woulden't take it personaly. This isn't an idea it's a way of life.

I simply think they have adopted corrupting values, one of which is the hatred of their own lives (an important Christian criteria according to Jesus in the Gospels). A Christian may not feel as if he consciously hates his life, but the reason why Christianity seems so "fulfilling" is because it hides a self-hatred that, if it wasn't there before, is there now because of Christian values.

I don't think this is the kind of hatred you are thinking of for most of us. I think of it as more of a serving others attitude as opposed to serving self. I do think this is essential for true happiness. It really feels good to help others dosen't it?

No one is born a Christian, the values have been imposed by the environment (society) that holds them. Maybe that's a hidden draw to "congregate together" (attend church)- as a reinforcement of commonly held values. Misery always loves company. "But Christians are so happy" you might say. But why? Because they have found a way to hide their misery. It's all alot like alcoholism if you ask me. Loving Jesus is "intoxicating" is it not?

Christianity cannot be immposed you must accept Him for yourself. Many who are raised Christian reject it entirely later on as I said and vice versa. Again you are not in a real good position to make such claimes are you?
Sometimes it is intoxicating and sometimes it is hard but it goes beyond want.

I would like to convert the whole world. I think the world would be a better place if religion was eradicated from mankind. Not forgotten, but overcome. A large part of this possibility relies upon awareness of what religion actually does to an individual and society. Christians deny this awareness because it would destroy the illusion and lessen the personal power they attain by holding to such illusions.

Please elaborate!

So it is truth you are after? As a Christian, your search should have ended now. Why continue searching? I'll answer my own question here: because mankind constantly changes (evolves). Our possessions are never enough. Christians may feel that heaven and being so close to God and Jesus for eternity is enough, but their view of any afterlife is solely in the perspective of this life (the grass is always greener...). If heaven allowed its inhabitants any semblance of humanity, heaven would have to keep re-inventing itself just in order to keep everyone interested!

I did say I was after truth and I do belive it has found me so what do you think I was referring to now? Can you comprehend death? How will you then comprehend eternal life? Heaven represents conpletion (to know and be known) and even now our hearts long for it.

We, as beings who have known only the physical universe (being totally within its confines) have no means to prove what exists outside the universe.I belive there is one who has trancended time and space and He is able to define existence.

The limits of logic and our human rational minds are limited by the physical universe, and so are any proofs we are capable of. Does this mean that it is possible for there to exist something like God outside of the universe. Sure, just like it's possible for there to exist anything outside of our comprehensional, observational limits. But, the possibility of a "forever unknown" is not reasonable justification for me to put a "face" on it (personify it) thereby finding a use for it, and believing it.Jesus Christ has put a face on your "forever unknown".

How do we know whatever is outside our physical universe (if anything) has any semblence to a God at all? It could be purple baboons, so why not worship purple baboons? Answer- because there's no reason to do so.

Because Jesus Christ claimed to be God. This is why we worship Him alone.

The concept of God has earthly, humanistic traits, so it seems to be a figment of man's imagination (i.e. man knows he is limited - it is not hard to imagine the inverse- a being that is unlimited). But there's absolutely no means to substantiate a claim that God exists within the physical universe, other than as a figment of mankind's imagination. Since God was seemingly "hatched" within the universe, and the physical laws of our universe are probably not in existence outside of our universe (otherwise there would be no comparative border between within and without), then what we define to be "God" also probably doesn't exist outside the universe too. God would have to be quite different than we define it to be. If that's true, than can we justifiably define it as "God"? It would be unknowable- and it is! Anything that exists outside of our physical universe is unknowable to us and is therefore insignificant in relation to us.

You kindof lost me but I'll do my best. God was not "hatched" unless you are talking about His manifestation in the person of Jesus Christ. God by nature is eternal not unlike your matter. As creator of this percevable universe He is distinct from it yet as seen in the Bible He can freely intervene at will in it. As I said before Jesus Christ makes Him knowable.

All this apologetic talk we have to hear about an "uncaused first cause" only points to a supposed beginning of the universe as it is now observed by our rational minds. That doesn't prove that the universe was created by a higher consciousness (i.e. "God"). The "design theory" is also crap because we cannot possibly perceive our world objectively

You assume that God does not exist. I find proof of His existence in His revealed word. If God exists then objectivity exists too and we can precieve the world a priori by His revealed word.

...as we would be required to do to make such a comparative claim). Behind all theistic "proofs" is the hidden premise that God exists. But, that is supposed to be the conclusion, not the premise!. Therefore, the apologists' portrayal of "reaching" the conclusion that God exists is an illusion, because they've already established that God exists in their premises!

Circular resoning not unlike you scientific method but the Bible reinforces the premise and we are agreed that it is historacly relaibe though you do not belive in the supernatural (within your cirular resoning) and I do.

Be careful that you don't think an outsmarted atheist means that "atheism" itself as been defeated. This, of course, is another illusion William Lane Craig would have you believe. You and he hold the same conclusion (that theism is the truth), therefore you want atheism to be defeated

This is certainly true of your faith as well. I am gratefull for William Lane Craigs' ministry men like this are meating you on your own ground. I think you should appreciate them too for the same reason.

Isn't that why atheists are considered "evil" by theists? -Because atheists can acquire something (real personal power) the theists have to reach outside of the universe (an impossibility) to obtain?

I cannot speak for all Christians but I personaly love Atheists as well as all others of various faiths. I belive that is Christ's teaching and that is the love He has given me. Atheist are no more evil then Christians in that regard we all need to be saved.

... we have no way to compare the world with Christianity's influence to the world without it. All we have to deal with is the "way things are".
Now, do you see how William Lane Craig and other theistic apologists can screw with your reasoning ability?

Sure you can you simply take Christs' teachings and those who have followed them out of the framework of history. Please watch that program I was telling you about. WLC is still one of my heros. What do you think of old Ravi?

Because the theory of Evolution is based on science.

In a short to the point kind of way please tell me why you believe this to be true.

Nowadays, our powerful astro telescopes still haven't observed heaven's golden gates even though they've observed millions-of-years-old stars. So, the reinterpretation of God for the modern theist is that God exists in an alternate plane of reality (a "spirit world" if you will). Because that is the last vestige of unobservability! Oh ye ignorant men of God: do you not see that mankind has pushed God away and completely [I]out of the very universe He is purported to have made? Science has won! If not for the very fact that theism now claims it carries the esteemed banner of Science![/b]

This in no way explaines the Judao-Christian God. This addresses the god's of the pagans but our God is not theres now is it? I am defending Christianity and our God has come as is historacly verifiable as you know in the person of Christ. If only the faith you have in evolution where applied toward Christ you could very well be a believer. Please remember Science does not conflict with my faith only a theory that some feel make them more scientific. Many Scientist are and where Christians as you well know and it is not you place to say they were not sincere.

... if you meant "objective" as in "other people besides yourself sharing a value", this is simply because all moral values exist solely in humanity.

So do you belive that Hitler was wrong to kill millions of Jews and why? If Hitler did not believe he was wrong as well as many others how can you say he was wrong and why. It was right to him wasn't it? Dosen't that make it right. I mean there is no ultimate source of morals is there? It's a matter of feeling perhaps even prefrence, right.

I hope the last minutes of my existence aren't spent in worthless prayer to an invisible God. I could think of much more use for those last precious moments: like telling my family I love them and to always remember and re-live the good times we spent together.

I really don't think you believe this. You have been taught what to say here. What does your heart say? The Bible says, "God has set eternity in every mans heart. It's in yours too and though this lookes good in writting it's simply not true, this makes me sad.

No, as I've said numerous times, having no use for God defines atheism (just as having a use for God defines theism). If God "lived" with us and imposed himself upon us, we would have a use for such a God. My stating that the concept of God is outside of logic (and therefore the physical universe) simply means God can't be proven to exist by logical means.

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

This is the definition I found for Atheism. I dosen't seem to match yours on the serface at least. I know God can not be proven in a mathmatical sense or according to you scientific method this does not mean he dosen't exist. The person of Jesus and the Bible are resonable proofs if you would quite being so bias.

I never said "no God exists outside this universe". In fact, in the light of Science, that's the only possible place God can exist (provided the other dimensions are considered "outside" this universe, and that "God" is not defined as being "the universe").
I believe you did have a real conversion experience (otherwise you wouldn't have been converted). You found yourself in a position where you needed to believe in God. Why you came upon this need is now up for question.

Not really I just realized I was a sinner and needed saving. That is enough for salvation now I am learning to defend my faith, which is very real to me, in a knowledgable way even as the scripture says, "show thyself approved". You might say, it is not even possible then to convert you. I tell you, you are more correct in saying this than you know.

How can blood be shed in the name of no God? Easily you simply take out "no God" and insert Atheism. Think Stallin, Lennin, Iron Curtain, Killing field of Cambodia, Communism and Marxism ext.

I know what Jesus means to you because I know what he psychologically means to every Christian: a means for your self-empowerment. Please honestly tell me what he means to you and just see if what I said doesn't apply to you.

EVERYTHING!!! He means everything to me to the point that if He were somehow taken away I would cease to be me. Is this what Atheism means to you? I will not make a silly psychological puppie out of you though.

Who are you trying to kid here? Your very belief in hell means that you wish it upon someone (the "evil ones" perhaps?). You say "it is our choice". No one would ever choose to be everlasting tortured.
That's just a rationalization to take the responsibility of torturing people out of God's hands and put it into the hands of the tortured. I affirm that the concept of hell is believed because it is considered the resting place of "evil people". Surely you don't deny "evil people" deserve hell?

I would be lieing to you not kidding that's part of your psychology not mine. Kidding in this place would be a smoke screne for lieing(a sin) I can call it what it is.
I wish it apon no-one and neither does God he sent His son that we might be saved John 3:15,16. You are proof of this choice you have chosen but it's not final yet. We are all evil, we all deserve everlasting death. Christians simply affirm this and accept the gift of salvation that is the only difference between us.

I believe that human beings love self-empowerment. I just think there are some that can realistically achieve it and others who are unable to, and need another way to go about achieving it. That is the love you taste.

So sad! You are more right than you know and yet gravely mistaken. Don't you see, you can't achieve it and it will end in bitterness everlasting bitterness. That is not the Love I speak of.

I feel we still have much to talk about and I can't guarantee a quicker response next time but Lord willing I will respond if you reply. Please forgive the mispelled words and rough writting skills. I have prepared a day of fasting and prayer for you. May you have a wonderfull Christmas!!!

Heraclitus Nietzsche

Powerfull Voices:
Hello again! I hope all is well with you and hope that you had a very merry Christmas!
Thank you for your recent post. From our past posts I had no idea you were so learned in Christian Apologetics. With your last post you have shown quite a knowledge in the subject. You've raised some very stimulating points too.

Your first point is about Josephus. You offered a quote by him regarding Jesus's resurrection. But, that was not what I was referring to when I said that there were no other first-hand accounts of the resurrection aside from what was written in the Bible. Josephus writes: "They reported that [Jesus] had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion", but for Josephus to have given a “first-hand” account, he would have had to write something like: "I, Josephus, saw with my own eyes Jesus alive again after his crucifixion." Do you see what I mean? There simply are no other accounts outside of the Bible from anyone admitting to seeing Jesus after he was crucified. You're right, Paul wrote a first-hand account of being knocked down by Jesus’s presence (even though his description of Jesus’s visit was very different from the disciples’), and that he wasn't a believer at the time that it happened, but Paul’s account exists solely in the Bible, so it cannot be judged as being "independent" (i.e. Paul’s account is “self-serving”).
I also agree with you that there are other non-Biblical, non-Christian ancient references to Jesus, but not a single one of the writers of those non-Biblical ancient writings states they personally saw the risen Jesus. And that was entirely my point. However, I do not think, by itself alone, the lack of non-Biblical first-hand documentation of seeing the risen Jesus proves indecisively that he wasn't resurrected. But I
do think it means that there is no proof that Jesus was truthfully resurrected. One is forced to believe in the Resurrection entirely by believing other people whose belief in it is in their best interest. That is not a good enough reason for any rationally thinking person to believe in it. I personally don’t think Jesus was resurrected because I simply don’t think resurrection is possible. Observations of reality (which I’m a part of) tell me that the raising of the dead is impossible. An extraordinary claim that contradicts observations of reality (the definition of a “super-natural” occurence) requires extraordinary evidence. And there is no evidence, much less extraordinary evidence. Any book written thousands of years ago that says it happened is not even close to being extraordinary evidence. Now of course if Jesus does make his “second-coming” to all of humanity, then that would be extraordinary evidence. But until that happens, there is no sufficient evidence to believe it other than wishful thinking. “But, by the time Jesus does return, it’ll be too late to believe in him” says the Christian. Sounds like faith by fear to me. My own good sense doesn’t buy into that.

You seem to think that if a person dies for their belief, it means that belief is somehow true! What about those followers of "Heaven's Gate" who died for their belief in the Hal-Bop comet? Does that therefore mean what they believed in was true? Martyrdom is, and always has been, poor evidence for the truth of a claim.

How so? Atheists don't expect a God-given afterlife. My point was that everything that can indecisively prove God exists is supposed to occur conveniently outside our knowledge of our real lives (our existence on earth). Even Jesus's "second-coming" to all of humanity exists forever in "tomorrow". None of it exists in the here and now. That is what I think fueled this "2000 year long" stupidity- a never-ending expectation. That cannot be applied to atheism!

See, this is exactly the problem. If I ever thought the "grand scheme" of meaning in the universe hinged around my individual existence, you have my blessings to commit me to an insane asylum! The reason Jesus hasn’t returned yet is not because he's waiting for a few more people to accept him. That is ridiculous! But, at least you gave some type of answer as to what is taking Jesus such a long time to "return to earth in a blaze of glory and terrible justice". I guess the answer to my question, coming from a Christian point-of-view, offers either ridiculous reasons or no reason at all. My reason is because he's truly dead and is therefore unable to return. What reason can possibly top that?

You made it a point in one of your prior posts, so that's why I responded to it like that. Now, if salvation is the point, I ask: Salvation from what? From hell? That would mean that fear is the point in believing in Jesus. This would also mean that the difference between Christians and atheists is fear. Why are you afraid of something that might never happen, that nothing in your life proves will happen? That would be like if someone was afraid to walk out the front door of their house because they think they might be killed because of it. People go into psychological therapy all the time to cure conditions like that. Maybe all Christians need to be admitted to psychological therapy to cure their fear too. They say Jesus is the person who successfully cures their fear but, as we have just seen, he is really the cause of it! Christianity: a cause that masquerades as a cure.

Yes, I agree with you there. The beliefs of the parents do have a profound impact on their children's beliefs. Parents contribute more than anything else in their children's beliefs because the children instinctually mimic their parents. But when those children reach adulthood, well, that is a different matter entirely. The rest of society and their own intellectual capacity then come into play.

Atheism is, what I would call, a "modern" philosophy. It was partly birthed by science's observations of our physical universe's functioning, which doesn't leave too much room for God. Primitive man called all that he could not explain "God". Primitive man couldn’t help but “project” his rationality into everything he saw; he gave inanimate objects his “will” and personality. But now that there is more in the way of explanation (due to atheistic science) of the natural inner-workings of fatal diseases and why lightning strikes (for example), collective humanity’s sphere of the unknown has become smaller, and therefore so has God. The philosophy that emerged in the presence of a shrinking (and all-together "disappeared") God, coupled with an evolved “awareness” of the natural world, is called atheism.

And for what individual purpose do you serve the Lord with all your mind, heart and soul other than self-empowerment?? You say it’s because you “love” him. But you place expectations on that love don’t you? If Jesus were to throw you into hell regardless of if you worshipped him or not, I don’t think you’d find him too worthy of worship. Jesus’s sole duty is to be a “savior” of the individual. Christian love of Jesus is conditional love- nothing more and nothing less.

Here we begin theistic apologetics. Evolution (i.e. Science vs. Biblical Creation) has sparked volumes of discussions and arguments, so I'll keep this short and to the point. Science deals with "natural" occurences ("natural" defined as: within the parameters of our observable physical universe). Theism deals with "super-natural" occurences ("super-natural" defined as: outside the parameters of our observable physical universe). Neither Science nor theism states mankind just "popped" into existence without any cause. Science has given only one explanatory natural theory for mankind's existence- Evolution. Since this is the only scientific theory available, we are left with believing no scientific theory, or a theory that is merely gratuitously asserted (as all the unscientific primitive religions man has created have asserted). Any admittance of God into the explanation of mankind's existence is not science because, by definition, it would mean a "super-natural" occurence would have to happen. Any rubbish such as "Creation Science" is oxy-moron terminology. The creation of such a term by theistic apologists tells me that Science has indeed won the "Science vs. Religion" battle because Theism now erroneously (and laughably) attempts to call itself "science", whereas science would never stoop so low as to regressively call itself "religion". Science and Religion are like oil and water - they do not mix. So your statement that belief in scientific Evolution is like a belief in God is false. There is no "religious faith" in science. It deals with deductions from natural observations in our physical universe. I don't think relying on our human powers of observation can be called "faith" in the same way as "religious faith". We have no choice but to rely on our human powers of observation, but we certainly can decide not to believe in unsubstantiated beliefs of God. That's a difference no theistic apologetic word-play (i.e. changing definitions in the middle of an argument) can successfully hide.

Don't you think a person's relationship behavior to their God is an important aspect (indeed the most important aspect)? I think so. This human attitude to God has changed all throughout the past. That is my point. The very emergence of Jesus (a jew) who attempted to radically change orthodox Judaism; the followers of Jesus who created a new religion by worshipping him over YHWH; the emergence of Mother Mary and the saints as dieties (catholicism, which is historically the first Christian institution identifying Jesus's disciple Peter as the first pope); the emergence of Luther's Protestantism that radically changed Catholic Christian doctrine; the creation of the United States of America which separated church and state thereby abolishing having the church imprison or kill you if you didn't follow them; the growth of Science that cured us of (some of) our primitive beliefs ---- these are only but a few of the changes throughout history that have effectively changed mankind's relationship with God. Your current existence at the end of all this change cannot be identical to those people's existence before all that history took place. You think the relationship modern "Christians" have with Jesus is the same relationship his disciples had with him? What am I saying? Of course you think so! That is the very reason why Jesus seems so "close" to all Christians...because they believe their modern individual attitudes regarding him are eternal. The "relationship" of Christianity is one of "intimacy"- a true one-on-one relationship. This personal relationship defines Christianity for the individual; it fits into their personal definitions of what Christianity should be. Therefore, Christian belief is simply "the way it is now (in my personal relationship) is the way it has always been". Thinking anything different would only serve to lessen that "self-empowerment" I often speak of. But that is self-deception.
I think I have just now convinced myself, that on this topic of the non-changing aspects of Christianity, we can only agree to disagree.

Is not your belief in Jesus a pleasure you experience in this life that defines your life?

I think that any belief or action that denies one's own life is an acceptance of suicide (regardless of whether one physically commits the act or not). Christianity denies life by considering man “depraved” and it's strong emphasis on the doctrine of the afterlife: "What is this mere life in comparison to the next?" That belief, to me, is suicidal. It is a negation of this life (a life that I believe is our only life). Any negation of one's own life is the definition of suicide.

I don’t think collective humanity considers every other faith, but Christianity, to be “harmless”. Christians think Christianity is grossly singled out for attack because it is an attack on their personal belief (kind of like how you only notice that so many other people drive the exact same car you just bought now that you own one too). But I don’t think it’s “odd” that Christianity is so heavily fired upon. The reason why Christianity is attacked at all is because it is so intolerant of other people's religions and beliefs. There’s nothing “odd” about people taking offense to that. Attacks on Christianity are not because Satan knows it is the truth and wants to suppress it. If you really believe that line of rationalizing argument, you can use it to condone all kinds of crazy things: "Most humans are against murder because Satan knows it is the truth". People fire heavily upon Christianity because of its sickening intolerance of other people's beliefs. Jesus said "love your enemies", but all Christians think their enemies (if they stay their enemies) will wind up going to hell. Christianity generally says anyone who is not a Christian is going to burn everlastingly in hell. Christian duty is for the individual believer to share a role (with God) in the conversion process (i.e. negate all other belief systems).

Wrong. "Necessary" is a prescriptive word meaning "it should be". Reality is descriptive word meaning "it just is. Change, being a component of reality, doesn't mean that things should change. It simply means that things do change. Get it?
You may not know it, but theistic apologists always try to confuse the descriptive with the prescriptive. Pay attention and you'll notice it too. Science is always descriptive, so of course, the apologists try to put God in the equation by saying things don't just happen, rather they should happen (because God wills it). If all reality is "necessary" (prescriptive- that everything should happen) it makes it that much more easier to argue God's existence (by saying "Then who declares it should happen?"). This “prescriptive” account of change is also used to make an ethical appeal against Evolution. The scientific question is never: “do we want it to happen that way”, but rather did it happen that way.

Most people believe Jesus taught that he was God - that's an example of self-empowerment to the maximum! (I say “most people” because Jesus never directly referred to himself as “God”, but rather the “son of man”). But, Jesus taught, if you believe in him, you'll gain power over evil. He preached the mere utterance of his holy name will move mountains for you! How could you not believe it is the teaching of Christ to seek "self-empowerment"?? Every written word he supposedly spoke seeks to bait you with it! And you “take the bait” because it is in your human nature to strive towards self-empowerment. What is Jesus’s purpose (his role in your life) if not to give you more power? His gift of Salvation gives you power over your deserved damnation right?
I understand you mean "it's us for you", but that’s because you want to change peoples lives -the power to change people's lives. You're only "against" me if you cannot change my belief (by saying God will send me to hell-destroy me- if I don't change my belief- my "system"). I understand all that. It seems that it's you who do not understand because you never ask yourself "why?" You don't seem to "know yourself" because you've given up that quest to Jesus. It doesn't matter to you that you don't know yourself - it only matters that Jesus knows you, right?
Jesus called you a "sinner", so therefore you are a sinner! And Jesus knows (and "loves") you and will save you from everlasting damnation. That's all that "matters" right?
Well, the way I see it, I don't care if Jesus (or any Christian for that matter) calls me a name (a "sinner", a "loser", "evil" or whatever). Just because they call me that doesn't therefore mean that I am that name! Only if I accept their unfounded self-serving accusations do I fit those descriptions. For me, the definition of “sinner” is: he who submits to the accuser’s control.
Could you please explain to me what you meant by: “it's the very system you endorse that destroys you”.

You’re right. “Want” is not the way truth can be discovered. But it is the reason why people adopt personal beliefs without any sufficient evidence. Since you obviously disagree with me on this, please tell me what your belief is determined by. And don’t just say “Jesus’s words” or “The Bible” because you also need to account for your attitude towards them. Jesus’s words and the Bible are not “your belief”. Your belief is that you think Jesus’s words and the Bible are True, thereby believing in them. Don’t you “want” them to be true?

I’ve had a few ear infections myself and every doctor I went to was able to cure it. It’s quite a simple procedure, so I’m suspicious that you’re offering me a “straw man” doctor here. Regardless, I’ve seen accounts of many people who state God magically healed them. Some even saying, like your grandfather, that God spoke to them before the healing took place. Their motives for saying that always make me suspicious. Most of the people who give those “healing testimonies” believe in God in the first place, and then when they recover from an illness, say God talked to them, possibly because they like to believe they are somehow singled out (“chosen”) by God for healing (yet another example of the human instinct for self-empowerment?). This doesn’t necessarily mean they are lying about it, but that they’re merely willing victims of self-deception. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to put down your grandfather (or call him a liar), but I haven’t seen or known about an adequate “God healing” that provides sufficient evidence that proves God inarguably was behind it. All those faith healers on television have already been exposed as sleight-of-hand magicians and liars. You state: “[my grandfather] went ahead and went to his scheduled appointment to see the doctors reaction.” That doesn’t sound right to me. It sounds like you fabricated that part of the story (or at least put a false spin on it). Regardless, you ask should you believe me or your Grandfather? You’ll believe whomever you want to believe, right? There I go with “want” again… If you’re getting tired my saying that, then you should say something that does not involve your own wants. Remember, where “belief” is concerned I don’t think it’s possible to do away with “want”. Please prove me wrong.

Sure. I can say “Jesus is Lord” in the same way I can say “two plus two equals five”. I just don’t believe either statement is true. I am curious though about why you think I might be incapable of saying what I think is a false, and totally relative, statement (“Jesus is Lord”). “Demonic control” maybe? (Just kidding…I think…)

Affirming a negative is not what is impossible. It’s proving a negative that’s impossible. Affirming that God doesn’t exist is definitely possible. It is done in a relative way. God doesn’t exist for me in exactly the same way unicorns don’t exist for you or anyone else (you don’t believe in unicorns now do you?). But, if a unicorn galloped up to you and started licking your face, thus imposing itself on you, you wouldn’t think they didn’t exist anymore. Similarly if God imposed himself on me, I wouldn’t think he doesn’t exist anymore. I know that God doesn’t impose himself on me because I would be able to tell if he did (the very act of “imposition” brings the imposer to one’s attention). The only “imposition” I’ve encountered relating to “God’s existence” is other men who preach to me that I “should” believe in God. For me, that doesn’t cut it. I don’t feel “guilty” just because other men tell me I should. Maybe we’re different in that respect

I affirm this truth: Belief in God is relative. Those who feel God imposes himself upon him believe he exists (maybe only as a mere projection of their metaphysical wants). Those who do not feel God imposes himself upon them (those who I say are truly in reality) don’t believe he exists. Atheism is not self-defeating. If you believe it is truly impossible to affirm any negatives, then you must therefore believe everything exists! Is this really what you believe: the idiotic statement that “everything exists”? I know you don’t believe that nonsense so stop pissing on my leg and telling me it’s raining! You may not be trying to lie to me, but you’re using these stupid theistic apologetic arguments without even thinking about them first.
This is yet another theistic apologetic argument exposed for what it is- idiocy!

I’ll raise this point whenever and wherever I exist. Your words are laced with fear. What is it you specifically fear – God’s wrath if you don’t do as you’re told to do by other men? Look, if God did create us, then of course he has to live with his creation. That’s not a “bold argument”, that’s being truthful. If God wants to subject his creations to everlasting torture, then God has to live with his everlastingly tortured creation. You think your fear is (or maybe you think it “should be”) my fear, but you’re wrong about that.

There is nothing “wrong” with not believing in an afterlife. There is no sufficient evidence in this life that there is an afterlife (if you know of any I might have overlooked, please let me know). Okay, so other men tell me if I don’t do what they want (i.e. what “God” wants) then I’ll burn forever. What evidence is there in this life that God will burn me after I die because I don’t do what other men tell me to do? Nothing. Whatever is supposed to happen after we die can only be speculative without a shred of evidence of support.

This statement of yours seems to reveal your belief in the doctrine of “Once saved, always saved”. That is a Calvinist Doctrine (i.e. from the writings of John Calvin - Protestant). Pascal was a Jansenist Catholic, so he obviously wasn’t referring to Salvation being one “moment in time”. Pascal believed, as all catholics believe, that you can forfeit your salvation. Since you don’t believe in the forfeit of Salvation, you could be “in danger of the huge loss” as presented in Pascal’s Wager. This is yet more support of my previous argument that the most important foundation of Christianity (namely one’s attitudinal relationship with Jesus) has changed over the years.

If you’ve ever read anything about Pascal’s life you would know that as he became a more devoted Christian late in his life, he began to detach himself from his family and even renounce his previous great work (mathematics and inventions) by stating that his new mindset was “far removed from it all”. His work, Penses, which included “Pascal’s Wager” among other notes and partial scribblings, was originally planned by him to be a definitive work on Christian Apologetics. It was never finished because he abandoned it along with any interest he had in his previous great works and studies years before he died of illness. The disintegration and devaluation of his interest in his outstanding past accomplishments along with his apathy for the completion of his definitive work on Christian Apologetics is possible evidence to support Christianity’s ability to retard and cease the production of a great mind. The man who wrote Pascal’s Wager, in my opinion, was a babbling idiot compared to the man who furthered the parameters of Geometry and invented the first calculating machine. Maybe Pascal did recant the truth of his Wager after all by abandoning his writing and not completing or bringing any of the Penses to finished publication form even though he definitely had plenty of time to do so. Then his only mistake regarding the Wager was that he didn’t burn it before he died so others couldn’t publish it without his consent.

But, how do you know I am not God? How do you know I can’t save myself or anyone else? Do I have to perform a “miracle” for you to gain your belief? Jesus didn’t even do that for you. All you have is a book that says he did all those miracles, along with a large number of people who believed it before you. How can you “prove” that I’m not God? Answer: because I haven’t “imposed” my God-hood on you to convince you of it, just as your God hasn’t imposed his God-hood on me. Your mere saying Jesus was God just isn’t convincing to me, just like me telling you I’m God isn’t convincing to you.
Regarding Pascal’s Wager, my point was: how do you know I am (or any other religion’s God is) not the God that Pascal’s Wager is referring to? You could be worshipping the wrong God. That is one of the “point of reference” arguments I made that invalidates Pascal’s Wager, so don’t waste your time thinking the Wager is useful in ministry.
You do not worship me because you don’t think I’m God. I don’t worship your God (or any “gods”) because of the exact same reason. I don’t think anything is “God” (using your definition of “God”). I cannot save myself from what? Your definition of reality; your God? I’m not the one under your bondage of belief – you are!
I do agree with you that truth is over and above mere appeal. But, I still think your belief of what is true is totally based on appeal. You still have yet to explain it to me otherwise.

No, I am referring to Christianity. Atheism doesn’t view life as a means to an end because it doesn’t allow for the existence of an afterlife. You may think Atheism wastes the lives of its [/I]believers[/I] (not “followers” because there is no diety to “follow” as in theism), but that can only be because you think atheists should be spending their lives serving your God. Why should atheists spend their lives worshipping something they don’t believe is real- and for your sole benefit?

You believe that life is meaningless unless it has an objective purpose (as ordained by God). But Life can have a solely subjective meaning as ordained by those who live it. After I die, my consciousness dies, but the memory of my existence’s impact will live on by those who have been impacted by it (that’s what happened in Jesus’s case). Christianity offers life beyond the grave, but we both have admitted that Truth is over and above mere appeal. I do not seek to somehow divert you from Christianity by discrediting the person of Jesus Christ. I would have to change your belief to do that, but only you can do that. The only thing I strive to do is make people more aware of what is really going on with them (psychologically) when they hold to theistic belief. If I am successful, then at least the person is better equipped to make a decision to soberly continue their belief. If I haven’t made you more aware, then I fall back on those old words of wisdom that say: “There is none so blind as those who will not see”. But, that’s what I have been saying all along isn’t it? You believe because you want to believe. You think I’m blowing hot air because you want me to be blowing hot air. It somehow makes your belief more true to you if you believe that’s all that I’m doing. But truth is over and above mere appeal. We both agree on that!

But eternal life is not in this life is it? This life ends when you physically die, then the afterlife begins. The afterlife is outside of physical life; real life.

They avail to us as being our lives! The Christian always asks: “what good is life if it ends?” That is a blatant devaluation of life! I value all the time I have to my existence! Why don’t you?

Because all I see is negatives when it comes to Christianity and theism, because I am more aware of them than you apparently are. When I spoke of “priests” I didn’t just mean the numerous catholic priest who rape children. I meant all priests, preachers, and those who think themselves above others by being “God’s messengers”. Your subservience to religious belief benefits them materialistically- it is really they who you serve, not God. If God is so powerful, who needs them as middle-men? Answer: themselves!

I was a believer of Christianity throughout my whole childhood because of my parents. But I grew up and out and now make decisions and valuations of my own. I have read and studied the whole Bible many times while I was a rabid Christian, so I’m not in the position you think I am (looking from the outside in). I have experienced both sides of theism and atheism, and that is why I am in such a good position to compare. You think I’m unfairly biased simply because I don’t believe what you believe. Once again, Christianity’s intolerance rears its sickening head. I have never called you “biased” in your belief, merely “unaware” as I once was.

The love in a Christian heart is reserved only for those who think as they do. Sure, there’s hugs for unbelievers, but that is because of the hope they can and will be converted. For those of us who are beyond Christian conversion, there is only inevitable hellfire. That is not real love. True love is unconditional. Christianity is not without conditions. A person can only truly love others if they love themselves. Christianity teaches its followers to hate themselves and then medicate that self-hatred with God’s love.

Any “way of life” is a philosophy, an idea. I attack philosophies, not the independent people that hold to them. People have to conceptually separate their beliefs from who they are as an existing being. Nobody is born a Christian. They learn to become one. When I say “Christians do this or that” I am referring to the philosophies these people live by. When I say “You do this or that” I am referring to the philosophy that you are living by. You, as an existing being, are not your philosophy. It exists metaphysically; independent of your being. Your inability to separate the two concepts is why you think I am attacking you personally. I assure you, I will always maintain a separation of your philosophy from the existence of your being. Hopefully you can see your way to viewing me in the same light. Just to make it clear though, it is my interest (my self-appointed duty) to attack philosophies with no holds barred. But, I am aware that bandages hurt when they’re removed. Even so, that’s not a good reason to keep the bandages on. If anything, they should be removed as quickly as possible.

Are you aware that when you say “it feels good to help others” that is a direct reference to self-service? The “serving others” attitude is an illusion.

I still don’t see how it goes beyond the want of self-empowerment. Perhaps you can explain it to me further and make me more aware. Merely saying “it goes beyond want” doesn’t cut it.

That paragraph I wrote, if elaborated fully, could fill an entire book. I think my posts are getting too long as it is. But if there was something specific in the paragraph you were asking about, let me know.
But, in brief, I was basically putting forth an inductive theory for the improvement of life for mankind (and a highly optimistic one at that!). If all of mankind overcame its religious attitude through awareness of the harm it is doing to mankind, then all the problems in life that have been directly linked to religious thought would be solved. We’ve all heard many theistic apologists who said: “If God is taken out of the equation of life, leaving everyone to express their individual will, then chaos, dissonance, and evil will rule.”
Well, Chaos, dissonance, and evil rules now. Religion obviously doesn’t help it except through a means to escape away from life and reality into some type of “non-life”. I even go so far as to say much (if not all) of the “evil” that is seen in the world today exists precisely because of all the various religious attitudes that mankind now holds. This is because each religion believes it knows what God’s will is (religion divides mankind, not unites it- the real lesson to be learned from the Tower of Babel). Therefore, “the religious” think nothing of killing each other in light of that “higher law” (the continuing war of Israel and Palestine is a microcosm of this reality).
But, my point is that religion must be overcome in individual man. Idiotic attempts at “holy war” or genocide have all gone after the wrong culprit: humanity. It is “religion” that must be destroyed not people. Killing human life will cause nothing else but human life to feel “threatened” and bounce back stronger than ever (this has obviously happened in the past and makes conversion away from “religious attitude” harder than ever before. This is because humanity was attacked and not religion). Each person must develop themselves (by “conversion”) to see the real world as it is and therefore have no use for religion and the bondage it brings. A person who has converted away from religion through awareness is of more benefit to evolve a biological and psychological prevention for humanity to “accidentally” regress back into religion (which is exactly how all this mess started). It is the “religious attitude” that is the problem and is the root of “evil” in the world. It tries to stifle further progress for mankind (that’s why it wars against Science: progress). And it devalues our current lives (making them “insignificant”) with its perspective of a more valuable “larger” existence (the unlimited afterlife). Therefore, any crime against humanity done within our physical lives is considered “justified” by the unfounded hopeful rewards of the afterlife and the will of God (suicide bombers & Sept.11th tragedy). And any use of the individual life, in the light of religion, is only a means to a reward, which naturally nullifies any hope of real progress. The current life is “given up” on because of a “superior-in-comparison” afterlife.
But, honestly, what choice does humanity have but to should the responsibility to attack the problems within it? Does humanity remain in our current state of mankind with all its September 11th’s, wars, and murdered children? Seeking a real cure is worth the striving because there is nothing to lose and so much for our descendants to gain. It’s not good enough now, nor in all of humanity’s documented past, to simply continue a belief that says: “An invisible God will set everything straight outside of life”. That type of thinking, religious-thinking, is what delays and avoids the solving of the problem. Humanity must chart a course for its own destiny, and not evade its responsibility for its own well-being by giving the responsibility over to a God that has done nothing about the situation for thousands of years! Did I say “done nothing”? It would be more accurate to say “the concept of God” has caused and continued the situation for thousands of years by fostering the development of the “religious individual”.

You said you were “after truth”. This made me think you were searching for truth. If you believe it has found you, you wouldn’t be searching for truth. I guess you really meant that you possess the truth and that it is not something that you are “after”, because we cannot be “after” that which we already “have”.

I don’t think any existing human being can comprehend its own non-existence. Maybe that’s why belief in everlasting consciousness eases the discomfort of imagining one’s own non-existence. What’s there to “comprehend” about eternal life? Your consciousness never ends. A continuing existence is much easier for an existing being to comprehend than its own non-existence. Can you comprehend your own non-existence?
You don’t even attempt to try because you don’t believe anyone can or will experience non-existence once they’ve experienced existence. Your comment about heaven is very interesting to me partly because I’ve never heard heaven defined in that particular way (“to know and be known”). Is that taken from the Bible? I’m curious to know where you might have read that or if it is your own original take on it. I do, however, think you’re right in that a human being’s gravitation towards and acceptance in a community is among its basic psychology. Evolution, of course, defines this human “belonging” concept as “requirements of a social animal” and a “herd instinct”. I don’t think that such a state (of knowing and being known) is impossible here in this life (in other words, we don’t need to wait until admittance into heaven to achieve it). I mean, it’s a very real requirement of a strong bond of friendship between people isn’t it?

Yes, but you’re left with only a “second-hand” account. You have no experiential knowledge of transcendence yourself. I remember seeing a television news show spotlighting people’s beliefs in extra-terrestrials. It featured some guy who said he was an alien from a distant planet that existed outside of our physical universe. If this guy told you his take on existence, would you believe him? Really, my aim is not to poke fun, but I see no difference between believing Jesus or some self-acclaimed extra-terrestrial guy. I mean, one unverifiable second-hand account is just as good as another. I’ve often wondered why God decided to send his son Jesus into the time of world history that he did (the Roman Empire 2000 years ago). I guess it’s because everyone “today” would be able to tell Jesus was a fraud and think he was a weirdo, just like those numerous self-acclaimed extra-terrestrials who are so numerous these days.

No, Jesus Christ is the face put on the “forever unknown” by people who want there to be no “forever unknowns”. Jesus is considered a “diety” and that’s the personification role for all dieties.

You think Jesus Christ is the only person that ever lived who claimed to be God? If I had a nickel for every self-proclaimed God… If that’s the reason why you worship Jesus, I would hate to think who you’d worship if Charles Manson got his message to you before Jesus did! Again, I don’t mean to poke fun, but just listen to yourself.

WHOOPS! Sorry about the misunderstanding about that particular paragraph I wrote. I made a HUGE typographical error there by saying “God” was hatched, when I meant “mankind” was hatched. I guess I typed it too quick and should have proofread it. Actually, now that I think about it, “hatched” wasn’t such a good term to use either because it signifies being born from an egg. Let me tell you I had a heck of a laugh re-reading it in your post and imagining what you must have been thinking reading “God was hatched within the universe”. That’s just too funny. Hahaha… Well, you can believe I’m going to extensively proofread this post to make sure that doesn’t happen again!
So what I meant was that mankind is solely a product of this universe. Whether we believe God made us or Evolution and biological parents made us, the entire beginning and physical lives of all human beings is completely through the perspective of being a product of this physical universe. During our physical earthly lives, we exist completely within the physical universe. So if our perspectives are shaped by this physical universe, then our earthly perspective of God (as in “how we define him”) is also shaped by our existence in the physical universe. If that’s so, then theoretically God might not be as we define him. Therefore, the only God that human beings are capable of defining might not really exist at all. The “real God” would be unknowable and therefore insignificant in relation to mankind.
At any rate, I agree with your response of the commonly held modern unsubstantiated concept of God’s relationship to mankind, but with two exceptions:
1) You assumed that I believe “matter” is eternal. I do not.
2) Jesus makes God knowable. How can that be if Jesus himself is paradoxical? Who makes Jesus knowable? The preacher-man? Written words in a book that need to be translated?

I wouldn’t say atheism is an assumption at all. How can I assume that God doesn’t impose his existence in my life? I mean, he either does impose his existence or he doesn’t, right? I simply don’t observe any imposition by God that would provide evidence of his existence to me. On the other hand, theists say that God does provide imposition in their lives, therefore they believe in God. When I observe both beliefs (atheism and theism) it seems obvious that God’s imposition is relative. That is, he “reveals his presence” to some, but not others. Or that some are aware of his non-existence more than others, or that some are aware of his existence more than others. Why does God, if he exists, selective in revealing himself? As God of everyone, he should reveal himself to everyone, but he does not. Now, I know the book of Romans says that all mankind knows God exists, but some try to “suppress the truth in their wickedness”. But I assure you, not everyone “knows” God exists. We are all born by biological parents, the observable physical universe seems to run on its own, and we live our lives basically the same without God interfering and controlling all affairs (i.e. he didn’t stop Sept.11th, he doesn’t stop crime before it can do its damage, and he doesn’t step in and instantly punish those that don’t worship him). God lets us all just live our lives as we see fit. He doesn’t obviously interact with humanity on a global level by imposing his will and clarifying his existence to all mankind. The human lives of atheists are lived identically to the lives of theists even though the individual perspectives are different: we are biologically born, live, and die. God only reveals himself selectively on an individual basis (to those who are “believers”). Why?

You have stated you have found proof of God’s existence in his revealed word. Does that mean the Bible is your proof to yourself? Please explain that to me further.

I’m not sure how you are defining “objectivity” here. In comparison to our individual existence perspective, objectivity exists independently of God’s existence as a persona. If this isn’t true, then everything that is not you is God. This limits all reality to just two personas: yours and God’s. Also, what good would it do to “perceive the world a priori by His revealed word”? You’ll have to explain that to me further as well.

I still maintain that God’s existence cannot be proven to exist or not exist. The belief in God is based on “want” (for those that seek him out) or by accounts of selective imposition. There is no world-wide belief in the same definition of “God”. You think that the Bible reinforces the premise, but isn’t the Bible really the premise itself? If the premise “God exists” is arrived at before the Bible, what does the Bible really need to “teach” us? Isn’t “natural revelation” good enough? Apparently not, if the specific revelation of the Bible should be part of the “big picture” that is reality. I’d even go so far as to say that practically every word of the Bible cannot be known through “natural revelation”.

Atheism is not a “faith”. To have “faith” in anything, a person must accept assumptions that are not naturally observable. God doesn’t not “force” people to believe in him. How does he do that? By leaving us alone to live our lives and decide if we want to follow him or not – to have “faith” in him or not. Therefore, the natural observation is that God (and the “super-natural”) doesn’t exist. If this were not true, then the “super-natural” wouldn’t be “super-“ (i.e. “outside” of nature). There would be no super-natural, there would only be “natural”… period!
WLC, and other theistic apologists, are meeting “us” on our own ground? That means they are adopting a “scientific” attitude, but with God as a part of the equation. As I’ve said before that is like mixing oil and water. The reason why there are two different concepts: the super-natural and the natural, is because they are not the same – they are diametrically opposed. WLC’s meeting on the same ground is a fraud! I don’t appreciate fraudulent activity!

Okay, so you love atheists and everyone else. But, Christian duty is to convert everyone to Christianity. Those that are not Christians will be everlastingly tortured in hell. Is hell reserved for torturing those that are not “evil”?
Of course not. In Christianity, Hell is for those that do not accept Jesus as their personal savior. Atheists don’t accept Jesus, so they are considered “evil” by Christian doctrine (whether you care to admit it or not) and will go to hell (conveniently after they die).
Why does God need other mean to spread his Truth? Because he doesn’t do it himself! You say we all need to be saved, but the atheists don’t think that. Only the Christians think everyone “needs” to be saved (from hell?)

If we theoretically take (because we cannot actually take) Christ’s teachings and those who have followed them out of the framework of history, an enormous amount of blood-shed, that Christianity is responsible for, would never have taken place.
“Old Ravi” sounds familiar, but nothing about him comes to mind.

I believe I mentioned it above, but in short: Science observes the natural universe. There is only one scientific theory about the origins of man through observation of the natural world- Evolution. The Biblical account of the Creation of mankind in Genesis is based on the “super-natural” because it involves God who is not observable in the natural world. Theists say there would not be a natural world in the first place to observe without super-natural involvement, but that belief cannot be arrived at solely through observations of the natural world. One would have to theorize outside the natural world (bringing in the “super-natural”). Science doesn’t do that, though. It theorizes only about what is possible for mankind to observe, which is the natural world, not the super-natural.

The only thing that can be said to be verifiable about Jesus Christ is that there was once a person who had a teaching and a following back in the days of the Roman Empire. It is not verifiable that he was God, that he taught the Truth, or that the “miracles” he performed (including the Resurrection) were authentic and of super-natural origin.
Similarly, Charles Manson will go down in the history books, but that doesn’t mean his “message” was Truth. Sorry to keep making an example of Manson when referring to Jesus, but Manson claimed he was “God” just like Jesus did, so the similarities are indeed there. Christians killed in Jesus’s name just like the Manson cult killed in Manson’s name.

What you keep calling “faith” in Evolution is not the same as religious faith. There is no diety involved, no super-natural. “Faith’ in your natural powers of observance are not the same as faith in belief of the unobservable super-natural. Theistic and Christian Apologetics always tries to blur distinctions saying one is as good as another, but that is false. Science (Evolution) is based on observable natural activity. Theism goes outside of the natural world to find causes. The reason why it appears that Science doesn’t conflict with your Christian faith is because anything Science observes as “Truth” about the natural world can always be taken into the super-natural realm by theists who say: “God created that to happen” because they think that the natural world had its origins in super-natural activity. But how can the reality of the super-natural be arrived at by observing the natural world alone? Answer: it cannot, so it is thrown out.

I’m glad you brought up this theistic apologetic mumbo-jumbo so I can put an end here and now to its lie. Yes, I do disagree with Hitler’s actions. I think that guy was a frickin’ psychopath! He committed a crime against humanity. “Universal morals” have nothing to do with it. Just because the majority of humanity thinks Hitler’s actions were wrong doesn’t mean that the “wrongness” of it exists outside of the human race! The planets still revolved around the sun in our solar system without any hesitation- they didn’t get knocked out of orbit because they ran into a huge billboard in the sky that said “Human Hitler just committed a Wrong”. As I’ve said before, theists always take activity outside of the natural world and into the super-natural realm. They say the reason why we all think Hitler was wrong is because of God’s eternal law that says it’s wrong, and that God’s Law is instilled within every human being. But there is no good reason to look for morality outside of humanity because sane humanity wants to live, just like all animals, plants, and bacteria fight for their survival. This is completely observable in our natural world by science. Hitler’s action of systematic genocide is intolerable to humanity as a whole, so we stopped him from continuing it. Just because Hitler thought genocide was the right thing for him to do doesn’t mean the rest of humanity thought it was right to let him continue to do it. If the rest of humanity was incapable of stopping him when they did, he would have killed more innocent people for as long as he saw fit. That’s all there is to it. At the Nuremburg Trials, the rest of the murderous Nazis tried to defend themselves by using your very same argument. They said, “How can you judge us by your system of law when our system made it perfectly legal?” The answer to that is not some huge billboard of law up in the sky that dictates right or wrong for the whole universe. The answer is because the rest of humanity simply didn’t want the Nazis to continue to “play God” and kill off huge amounts of itself – humanity. Notice how I used the phrase: “play God”. That’s because Hitler probably thought, as you do, that there really is some universal billboard in the sky that tells us God’s Will. Some of the stuff I’ve read about Hitler said he was a theist (he frequently used the word “God” in a reference other than himself). Hitler thought he could use “god-like” decision-making over the earth and determine what was objectively (independent of humanity) right and wrong for all of humanity. This is similar to what happened during the Christian Crusades that slaughtered anyone who didn’t accept Christianity. Well, humanity didn’t let Hitler get away with his transgressions against it, just as humanity didn’t let the Christian Crusades go on indefinitely. God (defined as a persona separate from humanity) didn’t stop Hitler or the Crusades, humanity had to do it. Now if you define God as being humanity, well that’s a different story… So, I maintain that there is no observable ultimate source of morals that exists outside of humanity. For plant and animal life (non-human) there is the will for survival. But that’s all there really is to it all. If you think I’m wrong about all this please explain why.

Of course I really believe this. Are you telling me you are going to spend what could realistically be the last minutes of your life ignoring your family and praying to God so you will continue your consciousness in heaven and not in hell? If so, then I guess I attribute more value to my family and loved ones than you do (Jesus says he “comes as a sword between parent and child” so I guess you’re following him there to the tee). And why is it that you think I’ve “been taught what to say here”? Could it be that you are frequently “taught” what to say in response to others? I’ve read many Christian Apologetic books so I know that they give their readers a list of what to say in response to atheistic arguments (Morey’s book against Atheism comes to mind here with it’s “chart” in the back: the first column gives you an atheistic statement and the second column labeled “What to say” gives you a response to use unthinkingly. Also Norman Geisler titled one of his books “When Skeptics Ask”. Face it- you’ve been busted!)
Who the heck do you think supposedly “taught” me to say that I value my family and loved ones enough to express my love for them during the last few minutes of my life?
What does my heart say? It says I love my family and would like to tell them that one last time before I am forever unable to do so. If the Bible says it’s in everyone’s heart to forget their family and start babbling self-serving prayers to God before death, then I say the Bible’s wrong about that. One exception to any universal statement nullifies that universal statement, and I’m just as good an exception as anyone. The Bible’s full of universal statements like that (like saying atheists are all fools and liars at heart). But the Bible also says only God knows another man’s heart, so if you think you know mine or any atheist’s heart, according to the Bible you’re wrong. Maybe the Bible somehow aids you in thinking you’re God possibly?
But aside from all that, it is this very point that gives me sufficient observational evidence that says a belief in the afterlife negates one’s current life. If you knew there is no God, no afterlife, and that you would cease to exist when you physically died, then hopefully you love your family enough to do for them the same thing I would do for my own family. But that’s an impossibility isn’t it? Your belief in the afterlife makes it an impossibility for you.

You’re right about saying “on the surface”. My definition defines the reason why people are atheists. Maybe I should have used the term “produces” instead of “defines”. You’re also right, as I’ve also stated previously, that the inability of man to prove God’s existence through logical means doesn’t therefore mean God doesn’t exist. That is why I offered my reason as to why people are theists and atheists in the first place (i.e. “a use for a God”). If everyone had a use for God, everyone would think he exists. If no one had a use for God, no one would think he exists. It’s just as simple as that. This “use for God” could be anything from God making a personal visit thereby forcing you to deal with his actions, to merely the prospective believer who wants to acquire certain things and knowing that the “un-natural” (the “super-natural”) is the only possible way he can get them. The person of Jesus and the Bible are instrumental in baiting you with the latter use for God. They’re not “reasonable proofs”, they’re merely instrumental in giving you use for God. I don’t attribute “reasonable truth” use from the mere existence of a book. If I did, I would believe the existence of Tolkien’s book “The Lord of the Rings” to be “reasonable proof” of its truthful account. I do not.

So you accuse me of being “biased” again. Let’s take a simple test (shall we?) and see who it is who is really biased. Can you observe the world in all its naturalness without jumping outside it and into the “super-natural” realm?
Can you drop a ball, observing the gravitational pull the earth has on it, without believing something other than the natural behavior of two objects has just occurred? If you say you can view the observable action of gravity in our physical world without adding something unobservable into the equation (i.e. without thinking “an independent “God” is the cause of what I see”), then you are thinking no differently than an atheist. Atheists think that way all of the time and with everything they observe. Therefore, they are more tuned into the “natural world” than anyone else who feels the urge to include a “third party” into the effects of gravitational pull between only two objects. There is no observable third object. Perhaps the concept and terminology of “the law of gravitation” as something other than the two joining objects “helps” to think there is a third party, but our limited language always attributes “third parties” that are not real.
If I’m really being “biased” in my outlook then I’m proud to consider myself biased by the real world rather than an alternate unsubstantiated invisible world controlled by primitive dieties. Do you know that lightning has a “natural” explanation? How do you know that?

I questioned why you came upon your need to believe in God and you replied with: “I just realized I was a sinner and needed saving”. This means you realized you were “bad”. The Bible says sinning is a “bad” thing right? How did you come to the realization that you were “bad”? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not asking for a mention of any personal actions you might have done in the past that you felt sorry for, but I’m rather trying to center on the fact that if a person thinks they are “bad” then that is the equivalent of “self-hatred”. A person doesn’t “come to realize” they hate themselves, they either do or they don’t. So, in reality, sometime before your conversion you began to hate yourself. Try to think back, because this is important, when did you “realize you were a sinner”?
Do you remember what you were thinking, reading, or hearing at about the same time?
Moving on… the human mind deals with “self-hatred” in a number of ways, but all of them are initially medicating in nature. A person might resort to chemical and alcohol abuse, or adopt a new behavior (arrogance, violence, or artistic expression), or a person might immerse themselves in physical rewards (over-eating, over-sleeping, visual entertainment, etc.). But all these things are relied upon as “medication” for the self-hatred, they only offer relief for the self-hatred during their use. Once the use is discontinued, the person becomes aware again of their self-hatred and may develop “binge” or cyclical behavior. In an effort to provide continual medication, some individuals may give themselves over to religious belief (A big part of cult recruitment is finding individuals who have low self-esteem). The alignment of one’s consciousness upon religion “saves” the individual from their self-hatred, but doesn’t “cure” it. As long as the individual feels that they are currently “saved”, they are merely counter-balancing their self-hatred. With Christianity, a “sinner” is still a “sinner”, but the difference now is that Jesus has saved them so they feel better about themselves. But, is Christianity the real cause behind the individual’s self-hatred by constantly telling the Christian he is inherently “no good”?

Why should you have to defend what you believe except by merely stating it is because you want to believe? That is a true statement. You didn’t come into your belief through logical reasoning, so why learn how to defend your faith that way and make William Lane Craig your “hero”? I’ll tell you why. It’s not because the Bible told you so (“show thyself approved” could mean simply for you to act joyful, and “give the reason why you have hope” could mean simply for you to tell people that Jesus gives you hope). The reason any Christian feels the need to engage in apologetical debate is to provide themselves some avenue of reinforcement for their outlandish belief!

Those examples you gave are not examples of people killing in the name of atheism. None of them approached the people they killed and said: “Convert to atheism or die” (as if that’s even possible) like what was done in religion’s intolerant bloody past. All your examples were political in nature. Atheism has no political requirement like religion does. Look, I’ve said it before, only if no blood was ever shed in the name of religion and God would you have any semblance of an argument for “atheism contributes to murder”. But, a lot of blood was shed in the name of religion and God. There’s no denying it. So there is substantial evidence to make the statement: “religion contributes to murder”.

If removal of Jesus from your life means you would cease to be, then it sounds like you’re saying you are Jesus. You’re not saying that are you? What if Jesus never was born and no religion of Christianity ever was invented? You’d still exist now but would probably be involved in some other type of religion. If you would be so heavily damaged if Jesus were somehow removed from your life, then you must admit that Jesus is some type of crutch for you isn’t he? But a crutch for what? Your self-hatred! Jesus allows you to medicate your self-hatred.

Would I “cease to be” if atheistic belief were taken away from me? For instance, if I converted to Christianity I would no longer be an atheist. I wouldn’t “cease to be”! I’d then be a Christian!
Maybe I don’t understand what the heck you’re talking about here. Please explain.

Interesting choice of words. I would like to hear your psychological analysis of atheism. For instance, what psychological observations have you noticed in me?
Psychology is the science of the thinking human mind. Therefore, psychology is concerned with you, me, and every other living thinking human being. But, I do think Christianity is especially at war with psychology. Christianity doesn’t like psychology’s observations and conclusions of the Christian mind-set, and therefore calls it “silly”. This is partially because of religion’s natural war against science, but it’s also because the Christian doesn’t want to be psychologized. Certain thoughts and motives would be endangered of being unearthed and brought into the conscious mind. This procedure threatens the existence of the Christian mind-set. A huge part (maybe all) of the effort of the Christian is to “hide” their psychology (they do this by using the terminology: “surrendering the will”). Christians certainly hide their self-hatred and disgust of life by covering themselves in a thick opaque blanket of diety “blood”. But if the hidden motives are brought into the conscious mind of the individual, making them more “aware”, then perhaps the Christian might willfully abandon their belief. Maybe that is indeed what happens in every Christian who converts to atheism. Maybe that is indeed what humanity needs to do to improve itself.

I said “who are you trying to kid here” in reference to your saying you and your God don’t wish hell on anyone yet you believe hell exists and people will end up there. I didn’t say you were “lying” because that would place a blame on you that you know you are lying. You obviously think you are telling the truth, but the act of relaying the lies someone else told you, doesn’t mean what you said is the truth! It is still a lie even if you believe it is true. So that’s why I didn’t accuse you of being a liar. You are deceived. You think a lie is the truth and were trying to convince me of it’s truth, but I’m not “buying” it.

If God doesn’t wish for people to go to hell, he simply wouldn’t put people in there! People don’t “put themselves” into hell. That’s a lie. You show me a lake of fire and tell me to willfully jump in, I’m going to say “screw you”, and run the other way! If God sent his son so we would be saved from “the father’s” wrath, I would think he would be intelligent enough to just make it impossible for anyone to go to hell. Why would God need to sacrifice his son to make such a decision? I guess it got Jesus out of the house and off to work, as fathers are prone to do with their lazy sons, but I mean C’MON ON! That’s ludicrous!

Okay, let me see if I understand the Christian “the grand scheme” of reality: an “unchanging” God who knows everything and can do anything suddenly decides, after an unfathomably long time unto himself, to create organic independently thinking humans on one tiny planet in a huge universe, which he also created millions of years before he decided to create the humans. Then he gives them a choice to not be independent, but rather to say he’s God and praise him during their physical lives (which are limited because the first created man disobeyed him and ate from a tree God didn’t want him to eat from but made available to him anyway). God then, over time, “hides” from most of the humans (what I call “Science’s ability to shrink God”) but still places the same demand on the humans to worship him. Any human who spent their life worshipping him will join him happily ever after (wherever he’s at) after they physically die and leave the earth. Any human who doesn’t believe in him at all or believes in him the wrong way will go to extreme pain unhappily ever after (wherever hell’s at) after they physically die and leave the earth. Thousands of years after human life first was created, this “unchanging” God then sends his “son” (for whatever reason and who had been doing God-knows-what until then) to be incarnated as one of those humans so that he can be physically killed by an act of murder, thus creating a “middle-man” to be worshipped instead of himself. However, this “son” named Jesus was really the “father” since they are not two separate Gods (at least according to some, but others believe they are separate), but are “one” along with another persona that is called a “ghost”. So Jesus is now the focal point of worship and people can do that however which way they see fit but one of the original ways includes eating Jesus’s flesh (Wendigo cannabalism) and drinking his blood (Vampirism). Jesus no longer walks the earth but apparently is the only one of the “trinity” to still have a body that resides somewhere out of the sight of the powerful telescopes that the inquisitive humans have invented to view all over the big universe. But the old rules still apply. If you do not worship Jesus, according to whatever way you happen to adopt (depending on what the leaders of the group you’re involved with determine), then the heaven & hell scenario will still take place after the humans physical die and leave the earth. Eventually, after a very long span of time, Jesus will zoom back into the atmosphere of earth to start hacking up some of the humans that have “made a mess of the earth” (as if all this God-like activity wasn’t a larger mess- itself needing correction). Then all the good worshippers of Jesus will forever live in bliss on a “new earth”. The universe either will be destroyed or kept around to provide a home for all the good worshipper’s new immortal bodies. Hell will continually exist as a place where all the “bad” created humans and angels (and “death” and the “false prophet”) will be extremely tortured by fire. This is the final state of reality, so everything just continues and continues from there with no end, apparently because this reality is now “perfect” in God’s eyes and doesn’t need changing. God, of course, could have had the power to make this final state to begin with but decided to go through all the re-workings of it over time apparently just for “sh*t and giggles” seemingly because this perfect God has imperfect “human” emotions (imagine that!).

This account is not a full account of the Christian “grand scheme” (A more detailed account is much more confusing than this). I know you can find tons of mistakes in this account of the “grand scheme”, so please be my guest and try to clean it up a bit so it makes more sense. I trust you can do a better job of it than I did.

So did God create all humans to be “evil” and deserve everlasting death? If he didn’t, then who else is there that created us to be “evil”? If everyone is “evil” then that baby that was born this morning is also “evil”. Why is that baby “evil” and deserving of everlasting death?
Christians simply affirm this because of their self-hatred. If they don’t love themselves they can’t love anyone else, so everyone else is, naturally, viewed by them as “evil”.
Jesus said, “love thy neighbor as you love yourself”. Does this mean if a Christian hates themselves they should hate their neighbors as well? Could that be yet another reason why so much blood was shed in the name of Christ?

You begin this response with a confession (“So Sad!”). I described for you a natural observation of human existence and you say it’s sad. That is exactly my point. The natural world makes you “sad”, so you have to crawl your way into a world that isn’t so sad for you: an unnatural world- an illusion. With two words you have confessed your dissatisfaction with the real world.
Human instinct is to strive for self-empowerment. Humans have certainly come a long way in their pursuits and achieved many great accomplishments. You don’t spend a day of your life without enjoying past human’s toil (freedom, entertainment, transportation, communication, and a religion that seems to suit you). So I do not agree with you in saying humans cannot achieve anything. Now, if you’re talking about every individual human cannot prevent their physical death, so be it, but physical immortality would only prolong the individual’s existence and would in no way reduce the great accomplishments that individual human’s brief lives have obviously produced. As long as humanity can still reproduce, human lives will continue their chain of events and reach even greater goals than you or I can possibly imagine.
And you say I will end in everlasting bitterness. I presume you mean I’ll be going to hell. Well….Maybe, maybe not. I’ll guess I’ll cross that bridge if and when I come to it. I certainly am not going to believe in hell based solely on your desire for it to be true without any evidence of it in my life. I just think: If my attention is focused upon that which is “outside” of my life, I cannot spend enough time focusing on those things that are “within” my life (i.e. my only life). You disagree and are quite satisfied with looking away from this life, thereby devaluing yours and everyone else’s life. Don’t you know that same procedure produced the suicide terrorists of Sept.11th? They all believed great things would be waiting for them outside of their lives, thereby thinking nothing of it to kill themselves and many others. Their belief in an afterlife was a crime against humanity, as all belief in an afterlife is a crime against humanity. Anything that devalues human life is a threat, a crime, against it.

Ah, God….the all-powerful persona who created reality and who will punish me if I don’t acknowledge him and spend my life worshipping him. Will he never share in my joys? I guess if I end up not meeting his silent requirement for me, at least I’m comfortable in knowing that it wasn’t my fault that I fell out of grace of his highness. If God wanted a mindless robot without a choice to do whatever he wanted it to do, then he would have created me like that in the first place. So therefore, God’s motives in creating me to be who I am are to be questioned. For argument’s sake, let’s say God does exist and I’m not the one who he’s most angry with.
However, if it’s God’s way or the highway at the end of the day, I guess he’ll do whatever he wants to do with me about whatever “great crime” weak little me has committed against his all-powerfulness. And if that means I’ll be burning for all eternity at least I’ll not be embittered over my refusal to bow down to insincerity through trying to be someone other than myself as the being God created. Listen, if I see you in there in hell burning with me, I’ll be sure to give you a quick wave hello provided my arm and hand are still operational. I hope you don’t try to tell me it is impossible for you be sent to hell because there’s always the remote possibility you aren’t living how the real God wanted you to live and so he threw you into hell right along with me because I wasn’t living how he wanted me to live either. It’s even possible that we might even see Jesus and the writers of the Bible down there too for their fault in creating a false religion that took so much of humanity’s eyes away from worshipping the real God the way he wanted to be worshipped. But you know you’re not going to hell don’t you? In your inescapable limited human perspective, you simply don’t believe you will be going to hell at all because you really do “know” reality and God’s thoughts right? God wouldn’t make you “know” you weren’t going to hell if you were really going there! And God certainly wouldn’t have written in a book that you weren’t going to hell if you were really going to end up there, right? Of course not! All Christians believe they won’t be going to hell. It’s always reserved for other people who they love because, you say, God loves those other people too.

<Whew>

Well, after all this writing, I guess if we never agree on anything else, I have finally discovered a idea we both are in full agreement on! Neither one of us believe we ourselves will spend an eternity being everlasting tortured. That’s a great relief! I see what you mean, I feel great! I feel so great, I’ll even say: “no one else will spend an eternity being everlastingly tortured either!” Oh…...Well, I guess, unlike me, you don’t feel great enough to say that do you?


Well, take care of yourself Powerfull Voices! It was great, as usual, discussing such things with you.
We disagree with each other more than we agree, but that makes for a most lively discussion don’t you think?

Here’s to wishing you all the best in the new year to come!!

Powerfull Voices

Heraclitus Nietzsche,

I haven't even read your post through yet so I hope your not in a hurry. I had written quite a bit and as luck would have it it got erased. So I was quite frustrated and haven't read any more of your post since. I'll try to start replying again tomarrow but it will be quite a while before I finish I'm sure so I thought I'd let you know. Pray all is well for you. Blessings!

Powerfull Voices

Heraclitus Nietzsche,

I personally don’t think Jesus was resurrected because I simply don’t think resurrection is possible. Observations of reality (which I’m a part of) tell me that the raising of the dead is impossible. An extraordinary claim that contradicts observations of reality (the definition of a “super-natural” occurence) requires extraordinary evidence. And there is no evidence, much less extraordinary evidence. Any book written thousands of years ago that says it happened is not even close to being extraordinary evidence.

I've never observed anyone fall in love so I guess no-one ever has, right. I'd say a book written over the span of 1500 years accurate to the utmost detail proven almost daily it seems by science and archeology to be so is pretty extrordinary woulden't you. Just recently another stone was found as you know that said, "James the son of Joseph the brother of Jesus" but of course that was just a coincidence right just like all the rest of it. I really think if Jesus appeared to you personaly you would explain it away because it was impossible. Why is the Bible not extrordinary evidence? How does it being written so long ago therfore prove it is false? What is your evidence for saying so? I have noticed a clear absence of positive evidence which is needed to override the original explanations.

You seem to think that if a person dies for their belief, it means that belief is somehow true! What about those followers of "Heaven's Gate" who died for their belief in the Hal-Bop comet? Does that therefore mean what they believed in was true?

Yes, they did belive it was true didn't they. Do you think they would have commited suicide if they had known it to be a lie? The apostles must have known it to be a lie if it was and yet all but one died a martyrs death proclaiming it to be true. I truely find it hard to belive you instead of these men, sorry.

Salvation from what? From hell? That would mean that fear is the point in believing in Jesus. This would also mean that the difference between Christians and atheists is fear. Why are you afraid of something that might never happen, that nothing in your life proves will happen?

Yes salvation from hell. Fear of the God who has the power to destroy body and soul in hell is, I think, a lagitamate fear. This does not prove that God does not exist however it simply proves that Christians belive the Bible and why shoulden't they. I would rather put my trust in the Bible, though no-one likes the thought of hell, than in your "might".

Atheism is, what I would call, a "modern" philosophy. It was partly birthed by science's observations of our physical universe's functioning, which doesn't leave too much room for God. Primitive man called all that he could not explain "God". Primitive man couldn’t help but “project” his rationality into everything he saw; he gave inanimate objects his “will” and personality. But now that there is more in the way of explanation (due to atheistic science) of the natural inner-workings of fatal diseases and why lightning strikes (for example), collective humanity’s sphere of the unknown has become smaller, and therefore so has God. The philosophy that emerged in the presence of a shrinking (and all-together "disappeared") God, coupled with an evolved “awareness” of the natural world, is called atheism.

The Judeo-Christian God has never changed and He still exists today and "true" science does not disprove Him.

Any admittance of God into the explanation of mankind's existence is not science because, by definition, it would mean a "super-natural" occurence would have to happen

This simply shows science alone is not a suitable system with which to prove the existance of God one way or the other. I think true science void of theories is not opposed to the Christian world view so far as the science can go without becoming metaphysics.

I don't think relying on our human powers of observation can be called "faith" in the same way as "religious faith". We have no choice but to rely on our human powers of observation, but we certainly can decide not to believe in unsubstantiated beliefs of God.


Of course you woulden't that would put you in my boat but let the facts (or lack thereof) speak for themselves. Why unsubstantiated, because science is not sufficient to prove indubitably? What is your proof that God does not exist and why should I disregard the original reports for your circular, arguing from silence tactics?

Don't you think a person's relationship behavior to their God is an important aspect (indeed the most important aspect)? I think so. This human attitude to God has changed all throughout the past. That is my point. The very emergence of Jesus (a jew) who attempted to radically change orthodox Judaism; the followers of Jesus who created a new religion by worshipping him over YHWH; the emergence of Mother Mary and the saints as dieties (catholicism, which is historically the first Christian institution identifying Jesus's disciple Peter as the first pope); the emergence of Luther's Protestantism that radically changed Catholic Christian doctrine; the creation of the United States of America which separated church and state thereby abolishing having the church imprison or kill you if you didn't follow them

I think you need to keep in mind that Christains belive Jesus and YHWH are one not two different dieties. I am not Catholic so you know what I think of the praying to Mary and Appostles stuff. I think someone as knowledgeable as you also knows where that originated from don't you?

The reason why Christianity is attacked at all is because it is so intolerant of other people's religions and beliefs.

You should know that every religion and ireligion claims some form of exclusivity. A view that says all ways lead to heaven excludes the exlusivist. Atheism masqurades as a tolerant system but the repeated attacts upon Christianity in paticular are clear testimony to the contrary.

the way I see it, I don't care if Jesus (or any Christian for that matter) calls me a name (a "sinner", a "loser", "evil" or whatever). Just because they call me that doesn't therefore mean that I am that name! Only if I accept their unfounded self-serving accusations do I fit those descriptions. For me, the definition of “sinner” is: he who submits to the accuser’s control.
Could you please explain to me what you meant by: “it's the very system you endorse that destroys you”.

Did you have a bad religious experience or what? Your steriotype is just that and unfounded in the real world. You are a sinner because you sin. You transgress the law of God which is there wheather you belive it or not. Your definition of "sinner" is a very good one but we are not your accuser's there is one that accuses you and it is he that demands payment. Christ does not demand it but rather seeks to save you from it. That statement is quite self explanatory.

please tell me what your belief is determined by. And don’t just say “Jesus’s words” or “The Bible” because you also need to account for your attitude towards them. Jesus’s words and the Bible are not “your belief”. Your belief is that you think Jesus’s words and the Bible are True, thereby believing in them. Don’t you “want” them to be true?

Jesus is truth! I am totally within my rights to belive the Bible is true. Why shoulden't I?

I'm kind of speeding through here so I skipped all the stuff about my grandfather but it is needfull to say that that story was acurate to what he told me.

Sure. I can say “Jesus is Lord” in the same way I can say “two plus two equals five”. I just don’t believe either statement is true. I am curious though about why you think I might be incapable of saying what I think is a false, and totally relative, statement (“Jesus is Lord”). “Demonic control” maybe? (Just kidding…I think…)

Because the Bible says no-one can say Jesus is Lord except by the spirit. Did you say it? If not say it and it will be the best argument you've made thus far.

Affirming a negative is not what is impossible. It’s proving a negative that’s impossible. Affirming that God doesn’t exist is definitely possible. It is done in a relative way. God doesn’t exist for me in exactly the same way unicorns don’t exist for you or anyone else (you don’t believe in unicorns now do you?). But, if a unicorn galloped up to you and started licking your face, thus imposing itself on you, you wouldn’t think they didn’t exist anymore. Similarly if God imposed himself on me, I wouldn’t think he doesn’t exist anymore. I know that God doesn’t impose himself on me because I would be able to tell if he did (the very act of “imposition” brings the imposer to one’s attention). The only “imposition” I’ve encountered relating to “God’s existence” is other men who preach to me that I “should” believe in God. For me, that doesn’t cut it. I don’t feel “guilty” just because other men tell me I should. Maybe we’re different in that respect

But you would have to systematicly search through all of space and time to assert that unicorns never existed right. They could have existed but if one came up and licked me in the face I would probably dismiss it as some type of an illusion just as you would if Christ personaly appeared to you. How do you know that those men aren't telling you the truth? I don't feel guilty about feeling guilty you simply have not given me any good reasons to dismiss my belief.

I affirm this truth: Belief in God is relative. Those who feel God imposes himself upon him believe he exists (maybe only as a mere projection of their metaphysical wants). Those who do not feel God imposes himself upon them (those who I say are truly in reality) don’t believe he exists. Atheism is not self-defeating. If you believe it is truly impossible to affirm any negatives, then you must therefore believe everything exists!

We dont have to belive everything exists but we can't know for sure certain things don't exist just as you cannot know for sure God does not exist. To affirm God exists is nonsense outside the small rehelm of science. Science is your God and allows for no other but you are decived even as the bible says, "wise in their own conceites".

There is nothing “wrong” with not believing in an afterlife. There is no sufficient evidence in this life that there is an afterlife (if you know of any I might have overlooked, please let me know). Okay, so other men tell me if I don’t do what they want (i.e. what “God” wants) then I’ll burn forever. What evidence is there in this life that God will burn me after I die because I don’t do what other men tell me to do? Nothing. Whatever is supposed to happen after we die can only be speculative without a shred of evidence of support.

Why is the Bible not sufficent evidence? We know there was a historical Jesus now what makes us certain His apostles were'nt telling the truth when they said He was raised from the dead? Is it not your God that demands sole worship?

Your mere saying Jesus was God just isn’t convincing to me, just like me telling you I’m God isn’t convincing to you.

You have no proof to say that you are God. The evidence for the Resurrection the miracles perfomed by Jesus and the capability to forgive sins in this life which is endorsed by His ability to forgive the results of certain sins is sufficient proof. Again you don't believe because your idol god will not allow it, not because their is not sufficent evidence.

Why should atheists spend their lives worshipping something they don’t believe is real- and for your sole benefit?

I respect what you are saying here. I do not expect you to worship a God you truely do not belive in. If you will however simply examine the alternative you have chosen you will see it demands your belief but why should you believe it? You must make a choice based upon faith either way and I have argued and hold to the idea that yours is immensly risky. To make yourself feel better you act like Christians are so unhappy and ignorant but this is a crule lack of descretion like me saying that all Atheist are likewise though that statement is just as valid.

You believe that life is meaningless unless it has an objective purpose (as ordained by God). But Life can have a solely subjective meaning as ordained by those who live it. After I die, my consciousness dies, but the memory of my existence’s impact will live on by those who have been impacted by it (that’s what happened in Jesus’s case). Christianity offers life beyond the grave, but we both have admitted that Truth is over and above mere appeal.

I think "solely subjective" is the key phrase here. This is equal to my meaningless. In Jesus case we have sufficent evidence to belive he rose from the dead as both He and the prophets before said that he would. When He validated that and perhaps even before when He raised Lazarus He validated His words, "I am the ressurection and the life he that believes in me though he were dead yet shall he live and he that lives and believes in me will never die". Jn 11:25

This almost seems like a waist of my time because though you accuse me of wanting to believe what I belive you seem to be the one doing that and on much shakier grounds. You are not able to tear down the proofs I have offered as you boasted and you will not even defend your own views. You more or less admitted to me that Evolution was your view pretty much because it was your only alternative but not with a "religious faith" you say. Who is more unstable I ask you?

But eternal life is not in this life is it? This life ends when you physically die, then the afterlife begins. The afterlife is outside of physical life; real life.

No, as mentioned above eternal life begins in this life for the beliver and it is a real life.

The Christian always asks: “what good is life if it ends?” That is a blatant devaluation of life! I value all the time I have to my existence! Why don’t you?

I do I just believe my existence is eternal so I live as though it were.

I was a believer of Christianity throughout my whole childhood because of my parents. But I grew up and out and now make decisions and valuations of my own. I have read and studied the whole Bible many times while I was a rabid Christian, so I’m not in the position you think I am (looking from the outside in). I have experienced both sides of theism and atheism, and that is why I am in such a good position to compare. You think I’m unfairly biased simply because I don’t believe what you believe. Once again, Christianity’s intolerance rears its sickening head. I have never called you “biased” in your belief, merely “unaware” as I once was.

Sorry I offended you it is not my intention for you to take anything I say as a personal attack against you. I am interested in hearing about you conversion experience though. I don't think you believe you were a Christian because of your parnets do you? What experience do you think made you a Christian and honestly was there a bad experience that destroyed your trust in the Savior that was not intellectual but perhaps was later justified intellectually. I was also under the impression that your parents were Atheists but I guess they were converted right. Woulden't that be something if you are really a Christian that thinks Himself an Atheist now.

The love in a Christian heart is reserved only for those who think as they do. Sure, there’s hugs for unbelievers, but that is because of the hope they can and will be converted. For those of us who are beyond Christian conversion, there is only inevitable hellfire. That is not real love. True love is unconditional. Christianity is not without conditions. A person can only truly love others if they love themselves. Christianity teaches its followers to hate themselves and then medicate that self-hatred with God’s love.

Christians are not perfect never claimed to be but we are taught to love all. Some do not do this and all do not do this sometimes but it is the teaching of our Lord. "Inevitable" is not a fair word, in is preventable the rejection of Christ is your choice and you have no one to blame but yourself regardless of your itellectual smokescreen. Christianity teaches us to put God first but you cannot understand that.

Are you aware that when you say “it feels good to help others” that is a direct reference to self-service? The “serving others” attitude is an illusion.

It can be but also for the Glory of God if one so belives. Tell that last statment to someone who just got feed for the first time in a week or someone who finally have a decent place to live. We are so blessed aren't we, let's use a little common sense.

I still don’t see how it goes beyond the want of self-empowerment. Perhaps you can explain it to me further and make me more aware. Merely saying “it goes beyond want” doesn’t cut it.

Jesus washed His diciples feet, He went to the crossIT GOES BEYOND WANT
Humanity must chart a course for its own destiny, and not evade its responsibility for its own well-being by giving the responsibility over to a God that has done nothing about the situation for thousands of years! Did I say “done nothing”? It would be more accurate to say “the concept of God” has caused and continued the situation for thousands of years by fostering the development of the “religious individual”.

At best this is your opinion so I only need say I disagree. Atheism has and is forcing itself upon people in the hopes of this "earthly paradise" it has not worked and is not working but has led to the slaughter of millions. You try to seperate the person(s) from the philosophy when it comes to Atheism I could maintain a similar response but I think both views take a lagitamate hit when it comes to misconceptions. The person of Jesus Christ has done more to advance even this earthy paradise that you endorse than Atheism ever will. God is working in this world through His people you don't see this either because you don't want to or because you are ignorant in the area of helping the less fortunate. If either is true, I ask you unappologeticly WHY?

Can you comprehend your own non-existence?

Yes in light of a Biblical Christ centered world view I can.

Your comment about heaven is very interesting to me partly because I’ve never heard heaven defined in that particular way (“to know and be known”). Is that taken from the Bible? I’m curious to know where you might have read that or if it is your own original take on it.

Yes that's from Philippians 3:12. Isn't that a wonderfull thought especailly for someone who has studied epistomology as I'm sure you have. What can one truely know exluding doubt? One day we will know as we are known.

You have no experiential knowledge of transcendence yourself. I remember seeing a television news show spotlighting people’s beliefs in extra-terrestrials. It featured some guy who said he was an alien from a distant planet that existed outside of our physical universe. If this guy told you his take on existence, would you believe him? Really, my aim is not to poke fun, but I see no difference between believing Jesus or some self-acclaimed extra-terrestrial guy. I mean, one unverifiable second-hand account is just as good as another.

No because he has no proof. Christians have the Ressurection and the Bible and if Christianity is right it is exclusive. You know Jesus claimed to be the way, the truth and the life. Peter said, "no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved".

I’ve often wondered why God decided to send his son Jesus into the time of world history that he did (the Roman Empire 2000 years ago). I guess it’s because everyone “today” would be able to tell Jesus was a fraud and think he was a weirdo, just like those numerous self-acclaimed extra-terrestrials who are so numerous these days.

I thought you were going to ask a sincere question here but alas another unfounded slap in the face of reason.

No, Jesus Christ is the face put on the “forever unknown” by people who want there to be no “forever unknowns”. Jesus is considered a “diety” and that’s the personification role for all dieties.

This is an unfounded statement especialy in lack of the positive evidence you've failed to give. Why shoulden't I belive?

You think Jesus Christ is the only person that ever lived who claimed to be God? If I had a nickel for every self-proclaimed God… If that’s the reason why you worship Jesus, I would hate to think who you’d worship if Charles Manson got his message to you before Jesus did! Again, I don’t mean to poke fun, but just listen to yourself.

No, but I think He was the only God to make that claim. Proof my dear Watson how would Manson prove he was God? Has he ever healed anyone, forgiven anyone. Anyone ever witness him do anything like that?

1) You assumed that I believe “matter” is eternal. I do not.
2) Jesus makes God knowable. How can that be if Jesus himself is paradoxical? Who makes Jesus knowable? The preacher-man? Written words in a book that need to be translated?

How do you explain something from nothing if you do not think matter is eternal? I belive in a biblical big bang but something existed prior. How is Jesus paradoxical? The Holy spirit teamed with the proclaimer and the Bible make Christ known as far as that goes.

God only reveals himself selectively on an individual basis (to those who are “believers”). Why?

I think Psalm 19 answers this pretty good.

what good would it do to “perceive the world a priori by His revealed word”?

It gives us a greater understanding in many areas especialy creation it comes by faith but so does your view.

I still maintain that God’s existence cannot be proven to exist or not exist. The belief in God is based on “want” (for those that seek him out) or by accounts of selective imposition. There is no world-wide belief in the same definition of “God”. You think that the Bible reinforces the premise, but isn’t the Bible really the premise itself? If the premise “God exists” is arrived at before the Bible, what does the Bible really need to “teach” us?

Do you think there never was a universal belief in the same God, I do. God exists independently of us and our Bible but the bible teaches us how to live for Him and protects us from many problems that sin results in.

Those that are not Christians will be everlastingly tortured in hell. Is hell reserved for torturing those that are not “evil”?
Of course not. In Christianity, Hell is for those that do not accept Jesus as their personal savior. Atheists don’t accept Jesus, so they are considered “evil” by Christian doctrine (whether you care to admit it or not) and will go to hell (conveniently after they die).
Why does God need other mean to spread his Truth? Because he doesn’t do it himself! You say we all need to be saved, but the atheists don’t think that. Only the Christians think everyone “needs” to be saved (from hell?)

I maintian that everyone is evil and needs a savior. Yes, God needs us dosen't He. We are in some respect the manifestation of God in this world we act in His behalf and free will is preserved. If you grant me the premise that God exists it dosen't change anything if Atheists don't think they need saved.

Science observes the natural universe. There is only one scientific theory about the origins of man through observation of the natural world- Evolution. The Biblical account of the Creation of mankind in Genesis is based on the “super-natural” because it involves God who is not observable in the natural world. Theists say there would not be a natural world in the first place to observe without super-natural involvement, but that belief cannot be arrived at solely through observations of the natural world. One would have to theorize outside the natural world (bringing in the “super-natural”). Science doesn’t do that, though. It theorizes only about what is possible for mankind to observe, which is the natural world, not the super-natural.

I don't think Evolution is any more observable than the creation account and I maintain that it takes faith to belive it. I belive that miracles and the super-natural occur because I do not chain myself to science which is simply not adiquate when it comes to proving or disproving them, especially when it turns around and adopts another faith based view. Then you try to tell me it's not the same kind of faith!!! Goodness

Christians killed in Jesus’s name just like the Manson cult killed in Manson’s name.

A lagitamate criticism! We are well aware of it. Where they right to do so however?

What you keep calling “faith” in Evolution is not the same as religious faith. There is no diety involved, no super-natural. “Faith’ in your natural powers of observance are not the same as faith in belief of the unobservable super-natural. Theistic and Christian Apologetics always tries to blur distinctions saying one is as good as another, but that is false. Science (Evolution) is based on observable natural activity. Theism goes outside of the natural world to find causes. The reason why it appears that Science doesn’t conflict with your Christian faith is because anything Science observes as “Truth” about the natural world can always be taken into the super-natural realm by theists who say: “God created that to happen” because they think that the natural world had its origins in super-natural activity. But how can the reality of the super-natural be arrived at by observing the natural world alone? Answer: it cannot, so it is thrown out.

Here we go again. Evolution is unproven and unprovable just like God if you belive in it you do so by faith. It is certainly not observable but your only lagitamate alternative is a belief in God so you box yourself in "science" and hope for the best. That's why it is thrown out!

I maintain that there is no observable ultimate source of morals that exists outside of humanity. For plant and animal life (non-human) there is the will for survival. But that’s all there really is to it all. If you think I’m wrong about all this please explain why.

Well I do think your wrong but I guess that's because I belive in God. If God exists objective moral values exist and vice versa. I remember hearing about the Nazi's trial where they claimed it was right to them to kill Jews. If I remember right the persecution had a hard time with that one but didn't they finaly reason saying, "Is the not a law above our laws". To that you would have to say no but all of us sane people condemn you. However you fall vicum to your Argumentum ad Numerum fallicy here don't you. They might claim they are the sane ones. All that seperates truth to you is numbers, that's sad. Also there is not ultimate justice for those who don't get caught. The revelation of God in sharp contrast is the foundation of truth by which all others are judged. Remember what Jesus said, "the word which I have spoken the same shall judge you."

If you knew there is no God, no afterlife, and that you would cease to exist when you physically died, then hopefully you love your family enough to do for them the same thing I would do for my own family. But that’s an impossibility isn’t it? Your belief in the afterlife makes it an impossibility for you.

That's the thing though you don't know you only assume. I'm glad you love your family and want you last words in this life to be to them. I would only think otherwise if you had never recived Christ and that was your last oppertunity that's what I was thinking. If you have recived Him however your last moments (given that luxery) should certainly be spent telling your loved ones how much you love them and that through Christ you will see them again. Encourage them in the faith and breath your last in peace knowing where you go and who is there to greet you. Just a quick thought; have you ever read the last words spoken by Aheists and those devoted to Christ? What were the last words of Voltaire and DL Moody?

I questioned why you came upon your need to believe in God and you replied with: “I just realized I was a sinner and needed saving”. This means you realized you were “bad”. The Bible says sinning is a “bad” thing right? How did you come to the realization that you were “bad”? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not asking for a mention of any personal actions you might have done in the past that you felt sorry for, but I’m rather trying to center on the fact that if a person thinks they are “bad” then that is the equivalent of “self-hatred”. A person doesn’t “come to realize” they hate themselves, they either do or they don’t. So, in reality, sometime before your conversion you began to hate yourself. Try to think back, because this is important, when did you “realize you were a sinner”?

I think you are trying to confuse hating one's self as a being as opposed to the teaching of Christ to hate one's life as it is in conflict with ones spirit. The Spirit desires to do good but the flesh is corrupt therefore we seek to follow the desires of the spirit rather than the flesh. Hatered of life in this sense saves us from all sorts of problems a "if it feels good do it" lifestyle brings on. Such as around 40 STD's that are plaging God knows how many. I don't think one is brainwashed into beliveing their a sinner conscience is God given the real brainwashing is that which is opposed to the conscience however self distructive it may be.

The alignment of one’s consciousness upon religion “saves” the individual from their self-hatred, but doesn’t “cure” it. As long as the individual feels that they are currently “saved”, they are merely counter-balancing their self-hatred. With Christianity, a “sinner” is still a “sinner”, but the difference now is that Jesus has saved them so they feel better about themselves. But, is Christianity the real cause behind the individual’s self-hatred by constantly telling the Christian he is inherently “no good”?

Well you assume God does not exist I belive He does exist so it's really two differerent takes on it. We are still in the flesh and a sinner is a sinner in your eyes and mine but God sees the saved as sinless on behalf of His precious son. This life is not all there is if it where you might have a point but even for someone that's not sure they would still do well to become a Christian if only for the reason that they could "feel that they are currently saved" as I interpret you point.

Why should you have to defend what you believe except by merely stating it is because you want to believe? That is a true statement. You didn’t come into your belief through logical reasoning, so why learn how to defend your faith that way and make William Lane Craig your “hero”? I’ll tell you why. It’s not because the Bible told you so (“show thyself approved” could mean simply for you to act joyful, and “give the reason why you have hope” could mean simply for you to tell people that Jesus gives you hope). The reason any Christian feels the need to engage in apologetical debate is to provide themselves some avenue of reinforcement for their outlandish belief!

I think I did come to my belife in a fairly logical way but that is not neccessary though I think Christians should know what and why they belive just as you would Atheists. I think "show thyself approved" does mean to witness emotionaly too as you said but one can be emotional about a lie that's why it's important to study. Resoning alone like you said may lead you from the faith you may be an example of that so it is important to have integrity and character even a bit of perserverance mixed in too. Do you know what the unpardonable sin is? Your last statment could be applied to Atheists too and even moreso if you determine truth by numbers as we noticed earilier.

Those examples you gave are not examples of people killing in the name of atheism. None of them approached the people they killed and said: “Convert to atheism or die” (as if that’s even possible) like what was done in religion’s intolerant bloody past. All your examples were political in nature. Atheism has no political requirement like religion does. Look, I’ve said it before, only if no blood was ever shed in the name of religion and God would you have any semblance of an argument for “atheism contributes to murder”. But, a lot of blood was shed in the name of religion and God. There’s no denying it. So there is substantial evidence to make the statement: “religion contributes to murder”.

It's odd that your ignorant to the fact that people are forced to convert to Atheism by denying their faith in God. This was demonstrated in the examples I listed. It is estimated that 450 Christians are martyerd each day many at the hands of communist because they will not deny their faith. Atheism is a bloody system and you endorse it!

If removal of Jesus from your life means you would cease to be, then it sounds like you’re saying you are Jesus. You’re not saying that are you? What if Jesus never was born and no religion of Christianity ever was invented? You’d still exist now but would probably be involved in some other type of religion. If you would be so heavily damaged if Jesus were somehow removed from your life, then you must admit that Jesus is some type of crutch for you isn’t he? But a crutch for what? Your self-hatred! Jesus allows you to medicate your self-hatred.

He's not a crutch so much as a savior. But I do admit Jesus is there for me when no one else is. Is that what you call a crutch? Hopefull I cleared up the self-hatred bit already.

Would I “cease to be” if atheistic belief were taken away from me? For instance, if I converted to Christianity I would no longer be an atheist. I wouldn’t “cease to be”! I’d then be a Christian!
Maybe I don’t understand what the heck you’re talking about here. Please explain.

I guess I was just saying do you really belive it like I do? I wasn't really getting deep philosophicly but heartily. Do you really belive it. It has been said a man belives only in what he is willing to die for. Would you die for Atheism? Could you? " I have been crucified with Christ nevertheless I live yet not I but Christ lives in me." We have already died for Him who died for us. That should really confuse you the way you think.

I would like to hear your psychological analysis of atheism.

No thanks, when you cast mud at others you get your hands dirty and loose a lot of ground.

If God doesn’t wish for people to go to hell, he simply wouldn’t put people in there! People don’t “put themselves” into hell. That’s a lie. You show me a lake of fire and tell me to willfully jump in, I’m going to say “screw you”, and run the other way! If God sent his son so we would be saved from “the father’s” wrath, I would think he would be intelligent enough to just make it impossible for anyone to go to hell. Why would God need to sacrifice his son to make such a decision? I guess it got Jesus out of the house and off to work, as fathers are prone to do with their lazy sons, but I mean C’MON ON! That’s ludicrous!

We made it possible to go to hell by choosing to rebel against God's perfect plan but He out of His great Love made way that way is Jesus.

This account is not a full account of the Christian “grand scheme” (A more detailed account is much more confusing than this). I know you can find tons of mistakes in this account of the “grand scheme”, so please be my guest and try to clean it up a bit so it makes more sense. I trust you can do a better job of it than I did.

Your obviously not interested. Let the Bible speak for itself.

I guess if we never agree on anything else, I have finally discovered a idea we both are in full agreement on! Neither one of us believe we ourselves will spend an eternity being everlasting tortured. That’s a great relief! I see what you mean, I feel great! I feel so great, I’ll even say: “no one else will spend an eternity being everlastingly tortured either!” Oh…...Well, I guess, unlike me, you don’t feel great enough to say that do you?

For someone who has never heard the gospel God in His mercifull and perfect judgement could save them and I belive it would be through His son. But you, you have made a deliberate choice to deny the gift of salvation that is the unforgivable sin and it may be that the Holy Spirit never convicts your heart everagain so I plead with you to remember your first conviction and repent. It may be that you have been saved and cannot now be lost but think how many you may cause to be lost if you continue to live the way your living. Unlike you I cannot deny my conscience and my Lord.

I truely apprecaite your comments and general kindness in the way you say things. I cut out some things that didn't seem very meaningfull to get finished quicker that dosen't mean their not meaningfull to you though so if I cut out something you thought was meaningfull feel free to add it in you next post. May the Lord grant you a true conviction and a POWERFULL witness in the days to come for His glory which is our wonderfull existence. Thank you also for your patience, now it's my turn. The Lord Bless You and Keep you the Lord cause His Face to Shine Upon You.!!! Heraclitus Nietzsche