NonHomogenized

Erm... because, unlike me, god is supposedly infinitely loving and forgiving?

Ad Astra

Then explain to me how the simple fact that I don't want to be forgiven changes the attributes of the Almighty. If he really is an all-knowing, all-powerful being of moral perfection, how can he be any less than infinitely forgiving in any situation, whether I, or anyone, wants to be saved or not?

Seems to me, everytime someone tries to explain this God fella, he turns out to be even more unbelievable than before...

gilly54

Quote:

And Heaven is God's kingdom. Would you let someone who hates and despises you into your own home? I doubt it, so why should God?

I, as an atheist, don't hate or despise your god. It doesn't exist. It occupies the same stage as Odin, Zeus, Vishnu, Horus and the panoply of other gods that humans have invented throughout the ages. And like those just mentioned, belief in this one will die out. With Time, combined with advancements in science and archeology, this god will join its buddies.

Magus55

Archaeology has only continued to comfirm the Bible. Christianity will never die out - sorry to burst your bubble.

Godless Dave

That's news to me, and I follow archaeology. Got any examples?

Roland98

There are no such "external sources." The ones frequently cited, such as Josephus, are known to be forgeries or have had text added to them. As far as other historical documents and "critiques," these other historical documents aren't claiming to be the word of God and the basis for eternal life now, are they?

And this too is bunk--unless you're talking about the (now discredited) James ossuary, or perhaps the CIA information about the ark on Mt. Ararat?

gilly54

Quote:

Christianity will never die out - sorry to burst your bubble.

Pop! what is that sound? Oh, it's just another word of God being shown to be wrong by science. POP! Oh, you mean science discovered that the cure for leprosy isn't to put a drop of sheep blood on the right ear, thumb and big toe as directed by God (Lev. 14)? Antibiotics, you say! Wow!
POP! Oh, the world ISN"T flat? POP! You mean the gospels were written at least 70 years AFTER this Jesus character was here? So the gospel writers couldn't have been eye witnesses could they! POP! You mean this all-loving 'Prince of Peace" saw nothing wrong with slavery? POP, POP!

Bree

I have always inwardly laughed whenever a Christian (or any other theist) uses this arguement to "prove" to a non-believer that the Bible is true, that God exists et cetera. If you truly have faith, you would not need this sort of proof to convince yourself of God's presence in your life. You would just know it. That's what faith is, after all, isn't it? Believing in something, no matter what anyone or anything (including science and rational thought processes) tell you otherwise.

Faith is faith - and yes, it is an admirable quality in a person (at least, I think so). I often wonder why the so-called "faithful" need to verify their beliefs via other methods from time to time - is it because sometimes even they have doubts?

Kilgore Trout

Magus55 said:

As others, have said, this is not true. However even if it was true that would mean nothing. Archaeology can only "prove" things like whether or not the people, places and events in the bible are real. Just because we may have evidence of certain Hebrew kings, that has no bearing on whether god exists or whether the bible is written by the holy spirit.

If the bible was totally infallible, that would only mean it had no mistakes. You can write a purely fiction book using certain historical events as a backdrop without making any mistakes.

Kosh said:
Standard Apologetic Answer #6454a.... The Buddhists and Muslims only THINK they have those feelings. The christians KNOW they have those feelings. Just as the believers of other religions THINK they can hear their god talking to them, while christians KNOW their god talks to them. It's kind of like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Christians tell you that you can't be happy without Jesus in your life, so you say you are happy already, then they tell you "You just think you're happy."

EstherRose said:

There are NO documents about Jesus that were written during his lifetime. If the only documents about Abraham Lincoln were written after the year 1900, and they said he walked on water and rose from the dead, then I would say Lincoln was a myth. This does not prove he didn't exist, but given only evidence like that, you have no reason to believe it's true.

Christians say Roman historians did not care much about Judea and were not going to bother writing about some Jew who was doing miracles. The NT says Jesus was very famous and had a big following, so someone would have written about him while he was living. Even if I accept that they wouldn't want to write about this "back-water faith healer", the fact remains that there is no evidence of him written while he was alive.
As another example, say someone published reports today of a person who healed people, walked on water and claimed to be the son of god in rural Wyoming in 1960, but there were no reports of it until now. Would you believe this person existed?

mike_decock

Didn't historians like Josephus record events surrounding people in Judea during the first century who were far less famous than Jesus supposedly was?

-Mike...