Atheism destroyed.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Ok so before I can tackle any of the points your throwing at me I need to tell me how you believe life came into existence, and do you hold a naturalistic view of the world.

I don't pretend to know how life came to be. I wasn't around, neither were any of us.

But the short version of what I consider to be the most probably scenario?

A series of complex chemical reactions that could occur anywhere in the universe, given the right conditions. Which we've already proved isn't actually that hard to find with our current scientific analysis/understanding of so called "Goldilocks zone" planets.

I believe the world is governed by the laws of nature, where applicable, and otherwise run by the laws of man, in instances where we have suspended natural order.

None of my understandings or beliefs about the world, require a 'God' to make them fit.

ETA: Again, I'm not a full blow Atheist, I just don't believe in a Monotheistic Deity, some how modeled after us, or us modeled after them. It doesn't actually make logical sense. The only way to believe in that, is to cherry pick what you believe from the doctrine.

Which just destroys it's credibility all together.

~Tenth

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Many of the fundamental principles of the Bible were authored by Paul, who never actually met Jesus.

If that isn't enough to throw mainstream Christianity into doubt, then i don't know what is.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

So when some one answers your op, you move the goal post....Shocking


Tenth responded to your questions, now 'destroy' it

a reply to: tothetenthpower

A series of complex chemical reactions that could occur anywhere in the universe, given the right conditions. Which we've already proved isn't actually that hard to find with our current scientific analysis/understanding of so called "Goldilocks zone" planets.

So just as igloo you are telling me we are nothing but bags of flesh holding chemicals that fizz. When I drop a bible in your lap you fizz atheistic thoughts. When a Bible is dropped in my lap I fizz theistic thoughts. All you are are fizzing chemicals so why should I listen to you as you have no justification for the very logic you try and use to deny God. You also told me you are an anti-theist. If you really believe we are all just star dust evolved into life forms then why does it upset you when a bag of chemicals fizzes differently from you?

You say you believe the world is governed by the Laws of nature, and all that is is matter and chemicals. Matter and Chemicals don't produce truth.

a reply to: ThomasFL72

You have no idea how out of your depth you are talking with language like to tothetenthpower.

Anything you were trying to do was ruined by your foul attitude to others. Godly... pfffft, right.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

So when some one answers your op, you move the goal post....Shocking

Tenth responded to your questions, now 'destroy' it

No! I want my question first!

a reply to: daaskapital

Actually Paul claims to have met the resurrected Jesus, as well as Jesus's brother. On what historical basis do you deny these claims?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: tothetenthpower

A series of complex chemical reactions that could occur anywhere in the universe, given the right conditions. Which we've already proved isn't actually that hard to find with our current scientific analysis/understanding of so called "Goldilocks zone" planets.

So just as igloo you are telling me we are nothing but bags of flesh holding chemicals that fizz. When I drop a bible in your lap you fizz atheistic thoughts. When a Bible is dropped in my lap I fizz theistic thoughts. All you are are fizzing chemicals so why should I listen to you as you have no justification for the very logic you try and use to deny God. You also told me you are an anti-theist. If you really believe we are all just star dust evolved into life forms then why does it upset you when a bag of chemicals fizzes differently from you?

You say you believe the world is governed by the Laws of nature, and all that is is matter and chemicals. Matter and Chemicals don't produce truth.

Annnnd done!

a reply to: roth1

There is actually no evidence besides stories written by lone people. No mass witnessing. Just stories by a single man that claim mass witnessing maybe.

Tons of evidence to prove the Bible talks real events places. Actually the Bible has eyewitness accounts recorded, on what historical grounds do you reject there testimony. The Biography of Alexander the Great was written 400 years after he lived, the Gospel of John was completed around 94 AD and we have copies from 125. See the difference there in time and yet you would consider one more accurate than the other because one claims supernatural events. Rejecting miracle claims in history is not a historical claim but a philosophical one, and a good historian doesn't let there philosophical bias get in the way of good history.

This is different..... usually this is someone who is beginning to test his faith, and or questioning its power over others. Ok.

For me there is no physical evidence. Cold hard facts have to be proven. I still do not believe in the resurrection because he didn't stay on earth.

This is one thing that bothers me..... if you got resurrected, and were sent to guide the people. Why the # would leave earth? The funny thing is that god tells you to keep trying. And keep trying. To get back up and keep trying. Why didn't the son of jesus.... keep trying? Why did he not stay and continue to guide people? Why not die a second time? Once just isn't enough for some people.

You see there is a saying.... the greatest trick the devil himself ever pulled.... was proving to the world that he didn't exist.

So if you think about his death and resurrection, and the lack of a body for the grave. Including the grave itself for god.... wouldn't you say the bible is the book of satan?

The flood also ticks me off because after all... are we not moses' spawn now? Why doesn't god ever speak about colors? For someone to know all human beings why are there no referrences to different colored people?

Why is it that God can kill millions of people.... and "rid the world of evil" only to have it pop back up again? Did god decide to reinvent bad people?

There are some serious loop holes in this book that seem to be too wide. At least the version I read has a lot of missing original scripture.

While I do not believe in a god of any type.... I openly accept the idea. But too many people become way too sheepish. Almost as if when the time came to battle against evil.... they would cower.... which means heavens army would be filled ith a lot of weaklings wouldn't you think? What I don't like seeing is a humongous crowd that isn't willing to fight back.

I know too many christians around this planet.... and they just seem to fill in the role of peasants....

Say what you will.... but saying that god creates armies in heaven... how do they train? On each other?

And another thing.... apparently god can only kill humans on earth. But he can't just fight hrll straight on? Why not just kill the fallen angel? Why does the battle have to take place on earth? Why here? Why not kill the source of all evil? Why does it have to be the people currently on earth?

I find the whole idea behind revelations to be rather dumb. And god only picks beings who live on earth? So we have to be born in an obstacle course?

There is so much wrong that I would rather accept the bible as nothing more than a set of ground rules. Nothing more.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: daaskapital

Actually Paul claims to have met the resurrected Jesus, as well as Jesus's brother. On what historical basis do you deny these claims?

Paul never met Jesus. The chronological facts are undisputed. Jesus of Nazareth was crucified during the reign of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor or prefect of Judea, in April, A.D. 30. As best we can determine it was not until seven years after Jesus' death, around A.D. 37, that Paul reports his initial apparition of "Christ," whom he identifies with Jesus raised from the dead. He asks his followers when challenged for his credentials: "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" equating his visionary experience with that of those who had known Jesus face-to-face (1 Corinthians 9:1). Paul's claim to have "seen" Jesus, as well as the teachings he says he received directly from Jesus, came after Jesus' lifetime, and can be categorized as subjective clairvoyant experiences (Galatians 1:12, 18; 2:1; 2 Corinthians 12:1-10). These "revelations" were not a one-time experience of "conversion," but a phenomenon that continued over the course of Paul's life. Paul confesses that he does not comprehend the nature of these ecstatic spiritual experiences, whether they were "in the body, or out of the body" but he believed that the voice he heard, the figure he saw and the messages he received were encounters with the heavenly Christ (2 Corinthians 12:2-3).

And here's some info on where a lot of your teachings come from:

Visit any church service, Roman Catholic, Protestant or Greek Orthodox, and it is the apostle Paul and his ideas that are central -- in the hymns, the creeds, the sermons, the invocation and benediction, and of course, the rituals of baptism and the Holy Communion or Mass. Whether birth, baptism, confirmation, marriage or death, it is predominantly Paul who is evoked to express meaning and significance.

The fundamental doctrinal tenets of Christianity, namely that Christ is God "born in the flesh," that his sacrificial death atones for the sins of humankind, and that his resurrection from the dead guarantees eternal life to all who believe, can be traced back to Paul -- not to Jesus. Indeed, the spiritual union with Christ through baptism, as well as the "communion" with his body and blood through the sacred meal of bread and wine, also trace back to Paul. This is the Christianity most familiar to us, with the creeds and confessions that separated it from Judaism and put it on the road to becoming a new religion.

It was a full decade after Jesus' death that Paul first met Peter in Jerusalem (whom he calls Cephas, his Aramaic name), and had a brief audience with James, the brother of Jesus, and leader of the Jesus movement (Galatians 1:18-23). Paul subsequently operated independently of the original apostles, preaching and teaching what he calls his "Gospel," in Asia Minor for another 10 years before making a return trip to Jerusalem around A.D. 50. It was only then, 20 years after Jesus' death, that he encountered James and Peter again in Jerusalem and met for the first time the rest of the original apostles of Jesus (Galatians 2:1). This rather extraordinary chronological gap is a surprise to many. It is one of the key factors in understanding Paul and his message.

What this means is that we must imagine a "Christianity before Paul" that existed independently of his influence or ideas for more than 20 years, as well as a Christianity preached by Paul, which developed independently of Jesus' original apostles and followers.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Your fundamental teachings trace back to Paul, and not Jesus himself. It is therefore logical to hold Christianity to scepticism, considering there is no way in telling whether the teachings themselves were those espoused by Jesus. Indeed, if you want to take a historical look at it, Jesus was only a Jew practicing Judaism.

a reply to: caterpillage

You see friend and atheist is left with a major philosophical probelm. An atheist is grounded to a naturalism/reductionism. The denial of a supernatural God leaves you with only material things, but this is illogical as we can see from reality. The laws of logic are not material, and yet in order for function normally in life or to have this debate the person must believe that the laws of logic are universal and that humans can know truth. This in itself is proof that these people know God, they might reject him but they know Him as Truth is grounded in Him.

a reply to: daaskapital

Once again you are ignoring eyewitness testimony. Paul claims to have met Jesus, and I'll ask again on what Historical basis do you reject his claim of seeing Jesus. Second, do you think that James the brother of the Lord couldn't have told Paul somethings about Jesus as well?

You get on here and preach that all the doctrines are of Paul, but if you research the Bible and actually attempt to understand it you'd see that everything Paul teaches can be traced all the back to OT times.

PS Luke is not an eyewitness but he interviewed eye witnesses.

the universe never experienced a big bang and besides. We are just judging by composition and size of nabouring galaxies to determine the age of the *Universe*.

Neither one galaxy was formed at the same time. Therefore that theory is impossible.

another contradiction is the fact of entropy. Entropy will simply eat away at the big bang theory without having to encorperate multi-verse theory or simulation theory just to even account for the massive ammount of energy needed to travel at that distance and expand at the rate they claim. Would have to be a higher impute of energy than what is currently present.

Meaning all the mass in existance right now would have to be near double the ammount or some other given ammount to achieve the exact state we are in right now. So later when the universe magically crumples on itself for no appearent reason it will then again re-expand and be smaller. and continue on and on until entropy has eaten away at all the energy in the universe.

Obviously this is a paradox. Because that energy has to come from somewhere in the first place. All this theory of the big bang is doing. Is taking the story of God, and minusing God from the equation.. That's it. it's like OMG THERE WAS A FLASH OF LIKE ( Minus God) and _____ Said it was good. Suddenly the universe was formed and humans are the only life forms to crawl out of the soup. YAY. we are special! must mean the entire universe belongs to us then huh. Since we minus God from the equation and all. So the universe is now suddenly *New*. Okay. There's no evidence for any of these claims at all.

Both athiests and christians alike may need to rethink some of their creation myths.



So what created the universe? Well first off nothing created the universe. Yes that was a pun.
The invisible darkness is not empty space. its compressed atoms/molecules/mass. Driven by the force of black holes.

Atoms consist of some pretty basic parts. The nucleus/neutron which attracts protons and eletrons.
The proton has a stronger magnetic force than the electron. So it gets the closest to the neutron. The electron spins around both of them because its pulled by the neutron by pushed away by proton leaving it to orbit. When it orbits it orbits faster than light because it is oscillating. Electrons=light. So it moves faster because of the magnetic pull. This generates the *image* of the atom having greater surface area than what is actually shown.
People like to be dumbfounded by the fact the atom is filled with mostly empty space and image that within an atom... Is another universe! But in all honesty. The electron is just moving way to fast, same as the protons. They generate the image of it being there just as a helicopters fan blades generate the image of a circle when it's pretty obviously they are just long bands. Well a black hole is formed based on matter decay and matter abaudance.

Since galaxies are constantly spitting out decaying material, Such as radiation from stars. Some of these particles take millions of years to disintergrate. And even with particles disintergrate, they are not completely destroyed into oblivion but are rather completely spent up of energy. Physical objects really do vibrate and cause matter to *exist* and when they stop vibrating they cease to exist.

This is in the case for black matter because black holes don't allow the formation of atoms, They rip apart the neutrons electrons protons into their *disintergrated* formate where pressures compress them into spheres formed from this decaying material, only negative and positive charges are interlocked so they cannot budge. its this lack of movement that prevents vibration. The objects arn't carrying the capacity to be charged because the north and south poles are unorganized, which is a requirement of having a current. You can't create a transformer with bands of wire in the shape of a wad of knoted hair.

the concepts of energy and magnetic resistance both prove these concepts. That all mass has limits and once these limits are breached they collapse. Much like standing on an alluminum foil diving board. If mass was limitless that foil would hold me up instead of dunking me in the water, Same concept as a star reaching a size larger than a galaxy itself simply is impossible. As galaxies are filled with stars and not the other way around.
Likewise an object cannot be infinitly small. because well. The scale does break down into objects that simply cannot be universes. Unless you want to claim that the moment we set fire to a cigarette. A second to us could be trillions kabillions of years because the flame actually reached and consumed those universes.
And of course its all somewhat possible but again, To far fetched and having to use loop holes to make the theory work.

Anyways my point with all this is that galaxies recycle themselves, and have been doing so forever. It is a never ending cycle because in reality. There really is more mass and energy than what is currently in existance.
It's all empty space. Space would be just one big solid object otherwise. There would be no *space* Just IT. a never-ending flaming gas cloud that would strech all of the universe. Since there is *space* it means all that *space* was converted into something else in order to make up *space*. Without the converstion there would be no *space* as the concept of a galaxy or even planets. Life itself simply would not exist.

Because of the law of stability, black holes will always exist. Suching in *deteriating* matter and crunching it up into seemingly empty space. I don't care much for the *Higgs* theory because it is bunk.

Black matter and energy re-expands into physical mass, That's where all of us come from. We came from nothing, and it is a transient process that is continually occuring everywhere.

Life exists because of the transient nature of destruction, The only thing that can escape a supernova or a black hole is life and asteroids/comets. Life can carry itself endlessly through the universe. It is mass and energy's way of self perseverance and carrying of information, as information is vital in the universe.

Planets and stars are doomed to become either.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: daaskapital

Once again you are ignoring eyewitness testimony. Paul claims to have met Jesus, and I'll ask again on what Historical basis do you reject his claim of seeing Jesus. Second, do you think that James the brother of the Lord couldn't have told Paul somethings about Jesus as well?

You get on here and preach that all the doctrines are of Paul, but if you research the Bible and actually attempt to understand it you'd see that everything Paul teaches can be traced all the back to OT times.

PS Luke is not an eyewitness but he interviewed eye witnesses.

So you have proof of eyewitnesses accounts?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb My Honest Belief Is I Am God Not The Jealous Cruel Character Written In The Old Book You Read But A Spectrum Of Light From Source Here To Experience Life To Better Understand Myself. The Beautiful Thing Is Though Is I Am No Better Than You Or Anybody Else. Because You And Everyone Else All Come From The Same Source Sent Here To Achieve The Same Thing As Me Except In Your Own And Unique way. How Else Could God Be Omnipotent All Knowing Unless He Was In Everything.

a reply to: daaskapital

Paul is single handedly the author of many things wrong with Christianity. I am not anti-Christian mind you. I just loath what Paul has done to it. Constantine and the Gnostics to another degree as well.

I think a modern day Christian has to come to terms with several things. Mary wasnt a virgin. Jesus wasnt of a davidic blood line so was not the Jewish Messiah. Jesus never intended for a formal religion as we have it now. What we have in the formal institution of faith like the Catholic church or others is exactly what he rebelled against. Mary Magdalene was to be the founder of his individual centered philosophy based on personal spirituality, not dogma. He never said he was some divine super person. He said we are all the children of God. Spiritual brothers and sisters with none more important or closer to truth or God. He took the biblical title of "son of man" and applied it to all. No trinity, no magic, no BS...just common sense, logic and his view on life from an enlightened and kabbalistic take on all things.

I think the fact that he was the "last sacrificial lamb" and that he removed the role of the high priest of the temple says it all. You dont need to make sacrifices of earthly goods to God, nor do you need an expert to communicate to God. He said our relationship with God was like that of a parent and child. Do you need a special mediator and a donation to talk to your parents?

There are some good points already in this thread. I dont think anything has been destroyed. OP is kind of slacking.
I am not a proponent of atheism. Personally I find agnostics to have more of an argument for not falling in line with organized religion.(as if you needed one).

I cant wait for nature to take its course and for humanity to return to personal spirituality like that of "primitive" man..., end religious institution, and for people to discover true spirituality in all its glory. When science and spirituality become one, since after all they follow the same inquisitive part of the mind and intuitive path of discovery.

a reply to: AnuTyr
Go back to page 1.. I'm the last question.. bottom.... page one..

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: igloo

It just carried on and evolved like everything.

So as basically what your telling me is only matter exist?

That's odd... That's from someone else's post?!? I never said " it just carried on and evoved like everything "

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: daaskapital

Paul is single handedly the author of many things wrong with Christianity. I am not anti-Christian mind you. I just loath what Paul has done to it. Constantine and the Gnostics to another degree as well.

I think a modern day Christian has to come to terms with several things. Mary wasnt a virgin. Jesus wasnt of a davidic blood line so was not the Jewish Messiah. Jesus never intended for a formal religion as we have it now. What we have in the formal institution of faith like the Catholic church or others is exactly what he rebelled against. Mary Magdalene was to be the founder of his individual centered philosophy based on personal spirituality, not dogma. He never said he was some divine super person. He said we are all the children of God. Spiritual brothers and sisters with none more important or closer to truth or God. He took the biblical title of "son of man" and applied it to all. No trinity, no magic, no BS...just common sense, logic and his view on life from an enlightened and kabbalistic take on all things.

I think the fact that he was the "last sacrificial lamb" and that he removed the role of the high priest of the temple says it all. You dont need to make sacrifices of earthly good to God, nor do you need an expert to communicate to God. He said our relationship was like that of a parent and child. DO you need a special mediator and a donation to talk to your parents?

There are some good points already in this thread. I dont think anything has been destroyed. OP is kind of slacking.
I am not a proponent of atheism. Personally I find agnostics to have more of an argument for not falling in line with organized religion.(as if you needed one).

I cant wait for nature to take its course and for humanity to return to personal spirituality like that of "primitive" man..., end religious institution, and for people to discover true spirituality in all its glory. When science and spirituality become one, since after all they follow the same inquisitive part of the mind and intuitive path of discovery.

You know.. that was nice..thanks