The Atheism Thread - Part 7

[rodhulk]

While I'm sure some people do hate Christians, I think you're confusing people simply not believing in God with hatred at times. It's the beliefs that are targeted, rather than individuals. The beliefs are illogical to some. Also, I think there are some atheists (me included sometimes) that don't take religion and "evidence" in favour of it seriously because it seems like make-believe to them. This can lead to some mockery of the beliefs.

Like I said in another post, I'm not necessarily saying all people hate Christians, I see it often as meaning that if they don't accept what Christ (God) teaches, then they're not going to accept the Christian either. This "may" be what the Bible is referring to.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

You can have all the evidence you want on something but unless you truly examine the other side in an open, "non-full" way, then all the evidence somebody gives on the other side will never be good enough for you. This is why I repeatedly say, my message is for those who are hungry, I invite them to come and taste the goodness of God.

As as former Catholic, I did look at the other side in an open way, and I embraced it. I realized that a invisible force is not judging me. That moral values didn't come from the bible. That the Catholic god is one of many, many, many other god's worshiped throughout time.

If the god you worship is real, then all I ask for is to see him. But that's not going to happen.

 

[chaseter]

Rod, why won't you answer my question?

 

[Superwoman Prime]

What's with Rodhulk and theistic food references? Is God one and the same with Burger King?

Stop talking like that, btw. It's freaking weird.

 

[rodhulk]

Rod, why won't you answer my question?

I'm here only for those who thirst for the truth. No answer I give you will please you ( I know this from the past).

 

[rodhulk]

If the god you worship is real, then all I ask for is to see him. But that's not going to happen.

Romans 1:20 answers your question but it may not be satisfying for you.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

I'm here only for those who thirst for the truth. No answer I give you will please you ( I know this from the past).

You're in the wrong thread, dude. No one here is seeking your version of the truth.

 

[-Arya-]

You can have all the evidence you want on something but unless you truly examine the other side in an open, "non-full" way, then all the evidence somebody gives on the other side will never be good enough for you. This is why I repeatedly say, my message is for those who are hungry, I invite them to come and taste the goodness of God.

There is no evidence (physical, and unambiguous) on the other side. In order for evidence to change opinions, it needs to be quantified, and more importantly, it needs to rule out other explanations.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

We're "hungry" for you to go away now. And this is coming from someone who has defended Christians here on more than one occasion.

 

[rodhulk]

You're in the wrong thread, dude. No one here is seeking your version of the truth.

I'm referring to the many casual onlookers who don't post. Besides, once you guys finish with some questions, I'll be done here. The message has been said. I've tested God's word many times including in previous threads of this nature here at the hype and it remains true for me and because of that, I just can't help but preach it.

Despite claims that there is no evidence such as by Arya above, that's only because they refuse to examine it. That's their missed opportunity. Psalm 10:4 speaks of them.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

He called anyone who disagrees with his interpretations EVIL.

Also, dear onlookers, if you disagree that Job 8:9 refers to the big bang? You are a FOOL, according to Rodhulk.

 

[chaseter]

I'm here only for those who thirst for the truth. No answer I give you will please you ( I know this from the past).

I am a Christian first off. But, I am not a blind devotee that believes every letter in a 2000 year old book written and edited by man who have had that same 2000 years to show off their greed and hate through organized religion in the name of God. I also strongly believe in science and do not allow beliefs to cloud fact. Truth comes from fact, not from belief. You do not have truth on your side, you have beliefs.

So, answer my question. Do you believe that Adam and Eve were truly the only two people on Earth?

 

[The End]

Evidence would convince me, Rodhulk. I actually started off as a theist. It was my willingness to consider that I could be wrong, that lead to my disbelief in god.

It's really only in hindsight that christians don't think the bible supports geocentrism. Back in the day, christians certainly interpreted geocentrisim in the bible, and took the passages of the bible literally and seriously enough that they accused Galileo of heresy.

Here's another question.

You believe we're in the end of days. Do you have a time frame for that? Do you think its happening in the next 10 years? 20 years? 50? 100?

Would there be a point in time in which you'd think, "eh, maybe I was wrong about that", or would you continue to believe that the end of days is within your lifetime?

History is full of people that believed the end of times was within their lifetimes.

I'm trying to remember a specific example. There was a young earth creationist advocate in the 20th century that was convinced that turmoil in that century was a sign of the end times (his whole deal on young earth creationism was that he thought a literal interpretation of genesis and revelation went hand in hand and you couldn't take the latter seriously if you didn't take the former seriously).

He was so convinced, he had a sign in his office, something like, "today's the day" or something, I can't remember the exact wording but it was to that effect. He believed this totally for around 50 years up to his death, and decades have passed since. If anyone knows the name of the person I'm talking about, or can find it on google, I'd be grateful.

You're just another in a long line of people who thinks the end times are now, and another in a long line of people that thinks the events of their time fits prophecy. All these links sound good in your own mind, but when you express them to us they just come across as conspiracy theory/end times delusion. It's an incredibly common phenomenon. People thought the blood moon was a sign of the end times, for example. "Wow things are happening with Israel wow", things are always happening with Israel, its not convincing as a sign of the end times.

I don't think you can be reasoned with. I think you're a full blown fundamentalist that's totally lost his mind to bible literalism*. My question on Job 9:8 was a test, really. It's just simple logic. To believe that 'god stretches out the heavens' is a reference to the big bang, is a HUUUUUUUUUUUGE leap, clearly contains massive assumptions. Occam's Razor. It's just logic, man. You jump to the interpretation with the most assumptions, over more simple interpretations.

There are other fundamentalists that believe as you do, you can provide links to them, they're making the same fallacy in thinking as you do, in thinking that poetic metaphor in the bible describes real, scientific facts about the universe. 'Stretching out the heavens' as a reference to the big bang is too big a leap in logic. The passage can also be poetic metaphor to describe how the night sky looks to the naked eye; this requires MUCH less assumptions. It would require MUCH more description of the process to be convincing as a reference to the big bang.

If I can't convince you on this one single, obvious, basic point of logic, no one is going to be able to convince you on any other point regarding your interpretation of the bible. You are blind to your biases; you have committed a fatal flaw in reasoning in your choice to hold to your belief that poetic passages of the bible describe scientific facts. It's no better than the biases that cloud the judgement of people that think there are facts of reality to be found in tarrot cards. Your view is no less shallow than the world view of the mystic.


* (Though a weird sort of bible literalism. The kind of bible literalism that says, "when the bible says the earth rests on pillars, it doesn't really say that, and here's links to other people who have also surrendered their brains to a 2000 year old book who agree with me. And, 'stretches out the heavens' is totally a reference to the big bang, but when the bible makes reference to the earth being still and the sun moving, this is 'phenomenal' language".

You know, THAT sort of bible literalism, where you could forgive an objective observer for thinking that its almost as though certain people choose their interpretation based on convenience) *

 

[chaseter]

You can't reason with a fundamentalist because they only accept their world view as fact without doubt as told to them by another person who interpreted a 2000+ year old text as translated by people interpreting what was originally written over the centuries. Seems solid.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

I'm referring to the many casual onlookers who don't post. Besides, once you guys finish with some questions, I'll be done here. The message has been said. I've tested God's word many times including in previous threads of this nature here at the hype and it remains true for me and because of that, I just can't help but preach it.

Despite claims that there is no evidence such as by Arya above, that's only because they refuse to examine it. That's their missed opportunity. Psalm 10:4 speaks of them.

I don't think many casual onlookers would be looking into this thread for answers about god. This is a superhero website, not a religious one.

I do have a question. If I were to believe in your god, would I need to believe every word of the bible as truth? Such as treating women as inferior to myself?

''I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.''

 

[Thundercrack85]

I do sometimes wonder – in addition to all the other things – how the Catholic Church gets away with still being so blatantly sexist in the 21st century. There are still no female priests.

 

[redhawk23]

I do sometimes wonder – in addition to all the other things – how the Catholic Church gets away with still being so blatantly sexist in the 21st century. There are still no female priests.

The same way 137 of Fortune 500 companies still do not have a single woman on their executive boards. As much as we would like to think we've moved forward in the 21st century, there is a major lag in many areas.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The same way 137 of Fortune 500 companies still do not have a single woman on their executive boards. As much as we would like to think we've moved forward in the 21st century, there is a major lag in many areas.

Yes, but that's not official policy. If it were, they'd get sued into the poorhouse.

 

[regwec]

Rodhulk, it is clear that many of your "literal" interpretations of scripture are in fact deeply idiosyncratic, not to say eccentric. Aren't you worried that you may in fact be spreading heresy?

 

[Alex_Spider]

I do sometimes wonder – in addition to all the other things – how the Catholic Church gets away with still being so blatantly sexist in the 21st century. There are still no female priests.

The same way 137 of Fortune 500 companies still do not have a single woman on their executive boards. As much as we would like to think we've moved forward in the 21st century, there is a major lag in many areas.

Women are good only for 3 things, cooking, cleaning and breeding.

 

[rodhulk]

I am a Christian first off. But, I am not a blind devotee that believes every letter in a 2000 year old book written and edited by man who have had that same 2000 years to show off their greed and hate through organized religion in the name of God. I also strongly believe in science and do not allow beliefs to cloud fact. Truth comes from fact, not from belief. You do not have truth on your side, you have beliefs.

So, answer my question. Do you believe that Adam and Eve were truly the only two people on Earth?

You claim to be a Christian but your posts tell me you love the world. Here:

First John 2:15-16 says, "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world." Yet John 3:16 begins, "For God so loved the world . . ." So, God loves the world, but we are not supposed to? Why the apparent contradiction?

In the Bible, the term world can refer to the earth and physical universe (Hebrews 1:2; John 13:1), but it most often refers to the humanistic system that is at odds with God (Matthew 18:7; John 15:19; 1 John 4:5). When the Bible says that God loves the world, it is referring to the human beings who live here (1 John 4:9). And as His children, we are to love other people (Romans 13:8; 1 John 4:7; 1 Peter 1:22). The parable of the Good Samaritan makes it clear we cannot pick and choose whom to love (Luke 10:30-37).

When we are told not to love the world, the Bible is referring to the world's corrupt value system. Satan is the god of this world, and he has his own value system contrary to God's (2 Corinthians 4:4). First John 2:16 details exactly what Satan's system promotes: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life. Every sin imaginable can be summed up in those three evils; envy, adultery, pride, lying, selfishness, and more spring from those three roots.

The world is what we leave when we come to Christ. Isaiah 55:7 says that coming to God involves a forsaking of our own ways and thoughts. John Bunyan, in his book The Pilgrim’s Progress, pictures the believer’s position as having “his eyes lift up to heaven,” holding “the best of books” in his hand, and standing with “the world as cast behind him” (p. 34).

The world often applauds sin. Hollywood encourages us to envy sinners and to foolishly compare ourselves with the "beautiful people" (see Proverbs 23:17). Often the popularity of "stars" is due to their ability to stir in us dissatisfaction with our own lives. Advertisers prey on our natural tendency to love this world, and most marketing campaigns appeal in some way to the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, or the pride of life.

Loving the world means being devoted to the world’s treasures, philosophies, and priorities. God tells His children to set their priorities according to His eternal value system. We are to “seek first” God’s kingdom and righteousness (Matthew 6:33). No one can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24), and we cannot be devoted to both God and the world at the same time.

When we enter God's family through faith in Christ, God gives us the ability to exit the world's rat race (2 Corinthians 5:17). We become citizens of another kingdom (Philippians 1:27, 3:20). Our desires turn heavenward, and we begin to store up eternal treasure (Luke 12:33; Matthew 19:21; 1 Timothy 6:18-19). We realize that what is truly important is eternal, not temporal, and we stop loving the world.

To continue to love the world the way unbelievers do will cripple our spiritual growth and render us fruitless for God's kingdom (Matthew 3:8; Luke 6:43-45; John 15:1-8). In John 12:25, Jesus took this thought a step further when He said, "Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life." Not loving the world extends to our own lives as well. Jesus said if we love anything more than Him, we are not worthy of Him (Matthew 10:37-38).

In general, the term world in the Bible refers to the evil system controlled by Satan that leads us away from worship of God. John Calvin said, "The human heart is an idol factory." We can make idols out of anything. Any passionate desire of our hearts that is not put there by God for His glory can become an idol (1 Corinthians 10:31). Loving the world is idolatry (1 Corinthians 10:7, 14). So, while we are commanded to love the people of the world, we are to be wary of anything that competes with God for our highest affections.​

Unless the world could prove God doesn't exist or at least as per the Bible (which it absolutely doesn't and I've shown why in previous posts), I seek to please my master in heaven rather than the master of the world.

As for Adam and Eve, I'm not sure what you mean by being the only two people on earth. But if you mean by the first two created, then yes!

 

[E-Man]

I do sometimes wonder – in addition to all the other things – how the Catholic Church gets away with still being so blatantly sexist in the 21st century. There are still no female priests.

It's like how they got away with the sexual abuse scandals. Their main source of income doesn't dwindle when horrid things happen, so they keep doing it. Money talks a lot more than anything else.

 

[rodhulk]

Evidence would convince me, Rodhulk. I actually started off as a theist. It was my willingness to consider that I could be wrong, that lead to my disbelief in god.

It's really only in hindsight that christians don't think the bible supports geocentrism. Back in the day, christians certainly interpreted geocentrisim in the bible, and took the passages of the bible literally and seriously enough that they accused Galileo of heresy.

Here's another question.

You believe we're in the end of days. Do you have a time frame for that? Do you think its happening in the next 10 years? 20 years? 50? 100?

Would there be a point in time in which you'd think, "eh, maybe I was wrong about that", or would you continue to believe that the end of days is within your lifetime?

History is full of people that believed the end of times was within their lifetimes.

I'm trying to remember a specific example. There was a young earth creationist advocate in the 20th century that was convinced that turmoil in that century was a sign of the end times (his whole deal on young earth creationism was that he thought a literal interpretation of genesis and revelation went hand in hand and you couldn't take the latter seriously if you didn't take the former seriously).

He was so convinced, he had a sign in his office, something like, "today's the day" or something, I can't remember the exact wording but it was to that effect. He believed this totally for around 50 years up to his death, and decades have passed since. If anyone knows the name of the person I'm talking about, or can find it on google, I'd be grateful.

You're just another in a long line of people who thinks the end times are now, and another in a long line of people that thinks the events of their time fits prophecy. All these links sound good in your own mind, but when you express them to us they just come across as conspiracy theory/end times delusion. It's an incredibly common phenomenon. People thought the blood moon was a sign of the end times, for example. "Wow things are happening with Israel wow", things are always happening with Israel, its not convincing as a sign of the end times.

I don't think you can be reasoned with. I think you're a full blown fundamentalist that's totally lost his mind to bible literalism*. My question on Job 9:8 was a test, really. It's just simple logic. To believe that 'god stretches out the heavens' is a reference to the big bang, is a HUUUUUUUUUUUGE leap, clearly contains massive assumptions. Occam's Razor. It's just logic, man. You jump to the interpretation with the most assumptions, over more simple interpretations.

There are other fundamentalists that believe as you do, you can provide links to them, they're making the same fallacy in thinking as you do, in thinking that poetic metaphor in the bible describes real, scientific facts about the universe. 'Stretching out the heavens' as a reference to the big bang is too big a leap in logic. The passage can also be poetic metaphor to describe how the night sky looks to the naked eye; this requires MUCH less assumptions. It would require MUCH more description of the process to be convincing as a reference to the big bang.

If I can't convince you on this one single, obvious, basic point of logic, no one is going to be able to convince you on any other point regarding your interpretation of the bible. You are blind to your biases; you have committed a fatal flaw in reasoning in your choice to hold to your belief that poetic passages of the bible describe scientific facts. It's no better than the biases that cloud the judgement of people that think there are facts of reality to be found in tarrot cards. Your view is no less shallow than the world view of the mystic.


* (Though a weird sort of bible literalism. The kind of bible literalism that says, "when the bible says the earth rests on pillars, it doesn't really say that, and here's links to other people who have also surrendered their brains to a 2000 year old book who agree with me. And, 'stretches out the heavens' is totally a reference to the big bang, but when the bible makes reference to the earth being still and the sun moving, this is 'phenomenal' language".

You know, THAT sort of bible literalism, where you could forgive an objective observer for thinking that its almost as though certain people choose their interpretation based on convenience) *

I'm still waiting waiting for you to show me just one place where I am wrong. I've given you answers that have not been done away with. As per my "literal" interpretation of them, I believe that is where the best evidence lies as per my opinion and so yes, I am taking the Bible as literal unless proven wrong. And I mentioned why I listed the end times reference in a post to another poster, if somebody doesn't come to Christ before, then perhaps they will if we are indeed in the end times as they will see the Biblical signs as they continue to occur as proof that the Bible really could be correct.

 

[rodhulk]

Rodhulk, it is clear that many of your "literal" interpretations of scripture are in fact deeply idiosyncratic, not to say eccentric. Aren't you worried that you may in fact be spreading heresy?

Answered above (Post to "The End").

 

[rodhulk]

The burden of proof is on showing that any god does exist, not disproving something which has yet to prove its existence.

I've shown God easily could exist. Read my previous posts over the last several pages.