Do Atheists die more difficult than Believers

[Likely Guy]

Yea.

Thank you for the time spent offering that stupidly simplistic answer.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Likely Guy

[+Paranoid Android]

Alright, but Jesus didn't go over every single line of Deutronomy and Leviticus, so what do we do when confronted with... required sacrifice laws, required food laws, cleanliness laws.... No one follows these laws, so are we all sinning all the time? Or, if the laws are redone, then where are they posted? How can I follow what hasn't been passed down?

OK, but what are the laws? Where are they written? Which ones did Jesus edit? The Pharisees took Mose's Law and made it their religion. Should we do the same? Or, are we (mostly) freed from such legalism?

The sacrificial laws were dealt with largely by Jesus' death. At least the sin-offering part, which was the only 100% absolutely unconditional atonement. Free will offerings can be made any time, you just need to offer them freely. Without grumbling or replacing these acts of offering with goodwill and love to your fellow human beings, for as Hosea prophesies of the Lord in Hosea 6:6, "God desires mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings". See, physical laws "fulfilled" with a spiritual meaning.

Jesus also addressed the healthy eating laws of Leviticus 11, when he says in Mark 9 that it is not what goes into your mouth that makes you unclean, but rather what comes out of it that makes you unclean. Again, a spiritual fulfilment - the original laws (apart from the logic of not eating these foods that easily spoil and can then kill you if you eat it) are there so that the Jews could meditate on God every time they prepare a meal. Now we must meditate on God every time we open our mouths, to ensure our lives remain "clean" and "pure".

Time and again, these principles go to the heart of the Law. The writer of Hebrews in chapter 4 extrapolates the Sabbath beyond a one-day-a-week worship by saying we are always participating in a "Sabbath Rest" through the gift of the Holy Spirit, the physical law of setting aside one day a week in devotion to God has been fulfilled spiritually by saying we devote every moment of every day to God (though it's a good principle to set aside a rest day each week to recharge, that doesn't have to be Saturday, however). Paul calls us to live righteous lives in worship to God and his son Jesus Christ. But how can we live righteous lives if we don't know what is or is not righteous living? This is where the Law serves a purpose. We are not bound by the Law, we were set free from the Law through the shedding of Christ's blood. But the Law is still there to help us live righteously. And yes, Jesus doesn't address every single tiny point. But I think if we look at it through the filter that Jesus upheld - "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and strength,and Love your neighbour as yourself" then we can reasonably arrive at what the Law requires of us. We won't be right on absolutely everything. We're fallible humans, and will always make mistakes. Thankfully we have Jesus to guide us, and the grace that is brought from forgiveness, so we don't have to be perfect 100% of the time, just as long as we try our best.

~ Regards, PA

[shrooma]

EVERYONE dies alone.

.

[Second_chance]

I just can't embrace this atheism life style jazz no matter for what the reason, it kinda leaves one feeling empty inside with no purpose other than to be born then die and become nonexistent like before being born is to mind blowing...

There must be a God whom created this universe and countless others just like it?

No, what I mean to say is, "somebody or something? Had to create that nothing equation!" TIME

Woody Allen said this in his masterpiece Love & Death when confronted with an life after death issue pertaining to the existence of God? He hilariously replied,"Now wait a minute I'd hate to blow my brains out and find they discovered something?"

The Bible doesn't have all the answers but, it does provide a sense of hope for something far better to follow this short life.

I tend to reject the OT because of the brutality and that insanity of its many teachings.

The prophecy part is kinda cool i guess, don't understand much about this Jesus, for this piece of literature which has survived for thousands of years, can be most confusing that times...

My personal view of the afterlife is impossible to address at this time, after having cancer surgery my opinion may be a little too biased.

Hmm, because of a close call with death during this surgery i kinda look at life a bit differently now....

I pray there is something after this life, don't want to become nonexistent after I die.

Rather spend an eternity in hell, other than become nonexistent like i never existed, this nightmarish concept haunts me now big time...

These people whom believe do indeed die peacefully (Witnessed my step father dying of lung cancer whom died peacefully after giving his heart to this Jesus character?)

Some atheists may die horribly I honestly can't say have never gone there...

Just speculating here, perhaps deep down inside when human beings are near death, some questions may pop up,"what if there is a God after all?"Hmm, we act so brave even laugh at the face of death all our lives tall, proud fear nothing! Or do we all turn coward when death is near? I honestly can't say...

Edited September 5, 2014 by Second_chance

[Davros of Skaro]

Neil is a renowned physicist I have often read his work and also watched his latest very interesting TV Documentary on the cosmos. I know his position on religion and have listen to his debates on atheism as apposed to theism, however he cant prove his position on religion or God scientifically.

Neil cannot prove his position on three headed space Unicorns scientifically.

[+DieChecker]

It's true within the context of his audience in Palestine.

So now we're going Jedi here. "So what I said was true, from a certain point of view."

In your opinion. In my opinion, there's nothing in those sentences which look even remotely like an exaggeration.

They are as clear and plainly spoken as can be.

"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

It does not even matter, because Jesus came to fulfill the Law. He said so in the previous bit of scripture.

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."

That seems pretty clear to me. Jesus fulfills the Law, but the Law does not Pass till fulfilled. So if Jesus equals fulfillment, then the Laws can pass away.

And before you say that Jesus is to fulfill the law later, He said, "I came... to fulfill". Not, "I will come... to fulfill."

The Law of Moses is the Torah - the entire first five books of the Old Testament - including the creation of the Universe.

I'll check, but I think you'll find the Universe is still here, it's purpose still to be fulfilled.

True. But the Torah is not the teachings of Christ, so what you are arguing here is that the Jews should still be following Moses' Laws.

Jesus says that the Law still stands until the passing of the Heavens and the Earth.

Which event do you believe that he was figuratively speaking of, exactly?

No he said "till all is fulfilled".

Here you might argue that "all" means the Final Judgement, since "all" being fulfilled would fit into that better. But, the context of the two lines is...

"Do not think that I came to destroy .... but to fulfill.""... will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

He is speaking of the law, and the he did not come to destroy it, but to fulfill it, and then says nothing will change till it IS fulfilled, which is what he was There For.

You also have to remember that he was speaking to his Disciples, who were a lot of times some thick headed morons and needed to have things repeated to them in different ways before they got the message.

Which agenda? The agenda where I agree with one Christian interpretation over another?

How wickedly atheist of me.

Jesus rebuked the incorrect Pharisaic interpretation of the Torah, not the Torah itself. That's not negation.

Of course he did. He was constantly pointing out to the Pharisees the stupid things they were doing and how various things they claimed as law were not part of the Law of Moses. But that does not mean when he said he came to fulfill that he only meant to correct the teachers of the law. It meant that he came to fulfill the laws and prophets. And in doing so, break the "forever and ever" and free people of the strict interpretation of Moses' Laws.

People are free to follow these laws, it is simply that they don't have to. Because Jesus fulfilled them and they are not God's laws any longer, but only human laws.

I honestly believe otherwise.

Yet, the Disciple Paul, who may have done the most to spread Christianity says...

1CO 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.

Now, Paul gave the very best advice possible concerning food:

1CO 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

Eat whatever food you want that is sold in the market without asking any question for conscience' sake. If this is the true advice of an Apostle of the Lord, then the eating of anything — any food which the dietary law of Moses forbids in Leviticus 11, including blood, is not contrary to the Christian faith. If conscience troubles you about eating certain food, then avoid eating them. Otherwise, as Paul said: "Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Rom.14:22b-23).

http://www.propheticrevelation.net/misc/fib.htm

So, Christians who want to follow Moses' Laws are fine. If it helps them in their walk with Christ, all to the good. Yet, they do not have to do so.

From the passage we're discussing:

Matthew 5:

19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Which of those do you think Jesus is? Least, or Great?

Neither. Jesus only did what He saw his Father wanting Him to do. And so He couldn't have actually broken any laws, because the one who made the laws was telling Him what to do.

Anyway, it is a moot point, because Jesus fulfilled the law and the Least/Greatest wouldn't even apply anymore. Unless maybe he's speaking of those who were good Jews, who hadn't heard his message yet, and somehow died without having a choice to Believe in the new message or not.

As for the links - I listed them purely as being example of serious hand-on-heart Christians who disagree with you. I don't vouch for their particular reasoning skills - but I do agree with their conclusions.

If you have a specific instance, I'll gladly address it myself.

And when, exactly, have you ever seen PA do either of those?

I suppose I'll have a separate discussion about it with him.

[+DieChecker]

If you are unsure of how to enact a law, or you feel that you are unable to enact a law then you should pray to Christ and God for wisdom and forgiveness.

This is exactly right. In any instance in which a person is unsure, they can always pray for guidance. And if they feel they are doing wrong, pray for forgiveness.

Though like I posted to Tiggs. The Apostle Paul said that all things are legal to Christians, it is only your own contience and morals that you should listen to.

1 Corinthians 10

All to the Glory of God

23 All things are lawful for me,[c] but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me,[d] but not all things edify. 24 Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being.

25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake; 26 for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.”[e]

https://www.biblegat... Corinthians 10

This I believe then leads to the Atheist argument.... If all is legal, then are murders and rapists and swindlers going to Heaven?

To which I say... Do these people honestly repent? Do they honestly and truly NOW have Jesus in their heart and wish to live in His image? If so, then yes, I'd say that there is not much that a person can't be redeemed from. BUT, in my opinion most murders and rapists and other lifelong violent criminals will not accept Jesus into their heart, and are actually too fearful/angry/deceived to allow that to happen.

Edited September 5, 2014 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

The sacrificial laws were dealt with largely by Jesus' death. At least the sin-offering part, which was the only 100% absolutely unconditional atonement. Free will offerings can be made any time, you just need to offer them freely. Without grumbling or replacing these acts of offering with goodwill and love to your fellow human beings, for as Hosea prophesies of the Lord in Hosea 6:6, "God desires mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings". See, physical laws "fulfilled" with a spiritual meaning.

And even I still do so. I give a tithe, and give extra offerings if I am able to, to go to local and international ministries. I don't grow grain or raise sheep, so I have to sacrifice money. Yet it is not required to sacrifice. It is a personal form of worship that individuals must do for themselves.

Jesus also addressed the healthy eating laws of Leviticus 11, when he says in Mark 9 that it is not what goes into your mouth that makes you unclean, but rather what comes out of it that makes you unclean.

:tsu:

I was looking for that scripture. Thanks!!

Again, a spiritual fulfilment - the original laws (apart from the logic of not eating these foods that easily spoil and can then kill you if you eat it) are there so that the Jews could meditate on God every time they prepare a meal. Now we must meditate on God every time we open our mouths, to ensure our lives remain "clean" and "pure".

According to Paul, this is strictly not necessary, but if it helps a person walk with Christ, it is a fantastic thing to do.

Time and again, these principles go to the heart of the Law. The writer of Hebrews in chapter 4 extrapolates the Sabbath beyond a one-day-a-week worship by saying we are always participating in a "Sabbath Rest" through the gift of the Holy Spirit, the physical law of setting aside one day a week in devotion to God has been fulfilled spiritually by saying we devote every moment of every day to God (though it's a good principle to set aside a rest day each week to recharge, that doesn't have to be Saturday, however).

Paul calls us to live righteous lives in worship to God and his son Jesus Christ. But how can we live righteous lives if we don't know what is or is not righteous living? This is where the Law serves a purpose. We are not bound by the Law, we were set free from the Law through the shedding of Christ's blood. But the Law is still there to help us live righteously. And yes, Jesus doesn't address every single tiny point. But I think if we look at it through the filter that Jesus upheld - "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and strength,and Love your neighbour as yourself" then we can reasonably arrive at what the Law requires of us. We won't be right on absolutely everything. We're fallible humans, and will always make mistakes. Thankfully we have Jesus to guide us, and the grace that is brought from forgiveness, so we don't have to be perfect 100% of the time, just as long as we try our best.

~ Regards, PA

Very good post PA. You are a fantastic Disciple of God and Jesus. What you say does not really go against what I have previously posted, but builds on it and elaborates.

In as much as "The Law" is Jesus's "Law", or teachings. I do agree we should live by this Law. But in the strictest sense, you agree with me that Moses' Laws have Passed away as far as being Required.

Edited September 5, 2014 by DieChecker

[+Paranoid Android]

Very good post PA. You are a fantastic Disciple of God and Jesus.

Thanks for the compliment.

What you say does not really go against what I have previously posted, but builds on it and elaborates.

In as much as "The Law" is Jesus's "Law", or teachings. I do agree we should live by this Law. But in the strictest sense, you agree with me that Moses' Laws have Passed away as far as being Required.

I was referring to the Torah. It's not abolished, it's "fulfilled", and that contradicts your comments. Let me address a common sceptics quote from the Bible to get me point. The passage "parents, stone your unruly children". Firstly, that's not a law, that's a punishment, and there's nothing about punishments being "the Law" in the Bible. And apart from being necessary in extreme circumstances within that society in which the punishment was written, the underlying Law here is "Children, honour your father and your mother" (fifth Commandment). That is still a very much applicable Law, and how we express that is through "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and strength, and Love your neighbour as yourself". At no time am I saying the Law is "done away with" or "obsolete", it is very much 100% relevant. But we are not bound by the Law, as noted, since Jesus' sacrifice made that unnecessary.

Sounds like you're trying your own Jedi version of "So what you say is true, from a certain point of view" to fit in my views with your comments.

[+DieChecker]

So are you saying that Moses' Laws are still in Force, but re-interpreted? If so, then they are not really Moses' written down laws, right? In that case Moses' Laws have passed, as far as Christians are concerned.

My previous statements should have been clarified, I guess. I was speaking entirely of Moses' Laws, as written in the OT. The exact wording written in those scriptures does not apply to Christians. Don't you agree?

If you mean the Spirit of the Laws are still in effect. Yes I agree that is what Jesus would want us to do. If you mean the Wording of the Laws is still in effect. Then no I don't agree. And I am including even the 10 Commandments. Because given Paul's statement, even following those is just a personal choice that basically indicates you have Jesus in your heart. If you are a true follower of Jesus you don't need Laws, as you have Jesus in your Heart and the power of the Holy Spirit with you always, and these naturally will lead to a person living a life where they practice many of the old law practices, such as Honor thy Parents. But it is who they are, not because they follow a Law.

Edited September 5, 2014 by DieChecker

[+Paranoid Android]

I guess my disagreement with you is that Jesus quotes the Ten Commandments within his own teachings. He specifically quotes the commandments on Adultery and Murder, but he reapplies them with a broader meaning - if you're even angry with your brother you've essentially murdered him in your heart. If you've looked with lustful intentions at a woman, you've committed adultery in your heart. So it seems to suggest that the commandments are still very much in effect, except Jesus approached them with extra meaning - but I tell you such and such. In this manner Jesus at no point "abolishes" the Law or the Prophets, but he DOES "fulfil" them.

Perhaps it is just a matter of semantics, but I can't see myself ever using phrases such as "the Law is abolished/no longer applies/etc"

[Imaginarynumber1]

EVERYONE dies alone.

.

Unless it's a murder-suicide.

[Guest]

Neil is a renowned physicist I have often read his work and also watched his latest very interesting TV Documentary on the cosmos. I know his position on religion and have listen to his debates on atheism as apposed to theism, however he cant prove his position on religion or God scientifically.

No one can disprove a belief which makes no testable predictions. It would be impossible for Tysson to disprove religion. That is why he refuses to believe in it because it is not a meaningful belief in the way all his other beliefs are. He is been intellectually honest in rejecting a position which is un-amenable to proof or falsification.

Br Cornelius

[Jeanne dArc]

"My God my God why has thou forsaken me" is what Jesus cried out on the cross but he was only momentarily forsaken and he was forsaken by the Father in our stead.

There are several versions of Jesus' last words on the cross. The story is extremely dubious.

"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" is one version, in Luke 23:46. Another version is "It is finished", in John 19:30. Another version is "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", which is found in both Mark and Matthew. The fact the gospels disagree on the details of his death brings the event into serious question.

As for Jesus being "forsaken" by God, how does that work exactly? Isn't Jesus supposed to be God? If he was forsaken by God, was he not then 100% mortal human? In which case, why was his death so significant? Isn't the whole point of Jesus' death being useful as a means of vicarious redemption contingent on Jesus' divinity? If he was wholly separated from divinity, surely his sacrifice was rendered ineffectual; your own theology is clearly quite paradoxical at this point.

I think very few people are ever forsaken by God, but those that are, become filled with a sense of unspeakable desolation, ice cold fear and hopeless doom of the absolute knowledge that they are abandoned by God forever and forever, in a cold dark lost eternity, so far from the Great God of light, love and life.

Better to be safe than sorry it is extremely foolish to blaspheme God!

The better-safe-than-sorry approach would only be useful if there was any even remotely viable reason to suggest that I haven't been safe all along

I blaspheme God all the time Still safe. If I'm sorry later, oh well; at least I'd retain my dignity.

[+Paranoid Android]

As for Jesus being "forsaken" by God, how does that work exactly? Isn't Jesus supposed to be God? If he was forsaken by God, was he not then 100% mortal human? In which case, why was his death so significant? Isn't the whole point of Jesus' death being useful as a means of vicarious redemption contingent on Jesus' divinity? If he was wholly separated from divinity, surely his sacrifice was rendered ineffectual; your own theology is clearly quite paradoxical at this point.

Jesus' words here are a quote from Psalm 22:1 written by David about his experiences being hunted by King Saul. He begins by crying out "My God my God, why have you forsaken me". He then goes on to list all the horrors and hardships and how bleak it all looks. But half way in the tone changes. David acknowledges that God is in complete control, that things only LOOK bleak for the moment and God is actually going to turn the tables and make a seemingly lost cause into a great triumph.

Any Jew listening would know this context and understand that Jesus isn't actually forsaken, it just LOOKS like that, and God is in complete control, turning a seemingly lost cause into a great triumph (and if there was a Resurrection, no one could argue that the crucifixion was not a great triumph).

As to the other last words, as was commented just recently on last words they can be notoriously hard to actually discern. What individuals remember about a person's death can be very different from person to person, no one would record someone saying "oh no, I soiled my hospital gown" if that's what was actually their last words. They take from a persons last words a vignette that they think others would like to hear, so the fact that there are multiple last words of Jesus are not really a concern for me.

Just a thought.

~ Regards, PA

Edited September 5, 2014 by Paranoid Android

[Jeanne dArc]

Jesus' words here are a quote from Psalm 22:1 written by David about his experiences being hunted by King Saul. He begins by crying out "My God my God, why have you forsaken me". He then goes on to list all the horrors and hardships and how bleak it all looks. But half way in the tone changes. David acknowledges that God is in complete control, that things only LOOK bleak for the moment and God is actually going to turn the tables and make a seemingly lost cause into a great triumph.

Any Jew listening would know this context and understand that Jesus isn't actually forsaken, it just LOOKS like that, and God is in complete control, turning a seemingly lost cause into a great triumph (and if there was a Resurrection, no one could argue that the crucifixion was not a great triumph).

As to the other last words, as was commented just recently on last words they can be notoriously hard to actually discern. What individuals remember about a person's death can be very different from person to person, no one would record someone saying "oh no, I soiled my hospital gown" if that's what was actually their last words. They take from a persons last words a vignette that they think others would like to hear, so the fact that there are multiple last words of Jesus are not really a concern for me.

Just a thought.

~ Regards, PA

Thoughts well-noted

I personally have doubt that Jesus existed, or that he was a prominent figure if he did. Assuming for the sake of argument that there may have been a Jesus, and he was crucified, I still don't think that the gospels' accounts give accurate descriptions of his last words. The conflicting evidence makes the whole scenario quite dubious to me. But eh, I don't care all that much

[+Paranoid Android]

Thoughts well-noted

I personally have doubt that Jesus existed, or that he was a prominent figure if he did. Assuming for the sake of argument that there may have been a Jesus, and he was crucified, I still don't think that the gospels' accounts give accurate descriptions of his last words. The conflicting evidence makes the whole scenario quite dubious to me. But eh, I don't care all that much

Well at least Jesus' comments make more sense if you consider the context of Psalm 22 (at least they did for me, I've heard people argue that God needed to forsake Jesus on the cross for some theological reason or another, but I've never been convinced by those arguments). And while I obviously disagree on the existence of Jesus, I tend to agree that jesus wasn't the most important figure in that time period, until after his death at least.

[Jeanne dArc]

Well at least Jesus' comments make more sense if you consider the context of Psalm 22 (at least they did for me, I've heard people argue that God needed to forsake Jesus on the cross for some theological reason or another, but I've never been convinced by those arguments). And while I obviously disagree on the existence of Jesus, I tend to agree that jesus wasn't the most important figure in that time period, until after his death at least.

Can't really disagree The reference to Psalm 22 is of course a theological device; I personally think it was employed entirely by the authors of the Synoptic Gospels, given of course also that I doubt the historicity of Jesus, and consequently his crucifixion. Though, even if he did exist, and did quote from Psalm 22 like that, I find little significance there beyond perhaps that he meant it in the context that you described: namely, with an intent of having the same "God with pull through" kind of ideal as the psalm had. Given I definitely do not believe in any resurrection, of a possible historical Jesus or otherwise, I still find the whole scenario rather pointless: I see no meaningful sacrifice, even presuming that Jesus may have existed, and been crucified. But whatever.

[Alan McDougall]

No one can disprove a belief which makes no testable predictions. It would be impossible for Tysson to disprove religion. That is why he refuses to believe in it because it is not a meaningful belief in the way all his other beliefs are. He is been intellectually honest in rejecting a position which is un-amenable to proof or falsification.

Br Cornelius

I fully accept that Tyson is not a fool and he has his right to an opinion, just like I have a right to mine. I see evidence of an intelligence behind the structure and order of the universe, and he says we are just lucky to exist in a universe where life is possible.

To use a "Straw Man" argument there are many great renowned scientists who believe in God or some form of intelligent design.

[Alan McDougall]

There are several versions of Jesus' last words on the cross. The story is extremely dubious.

"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" is one version, in Luke 23:46. Another version is "It is finished", in John 19:30. Another version is "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", which is found in both Mark and Matthew. The fact the gospels disagree on the details of his death brings the event into serious question.

As for Jesus being "forsaken" by God, how does that work exactly? Isn't Jesus supposed to be God? If he was forsaken by God, was he not then 100% mortal human? In which case, why was his death so significant? Isn't the whole point of Jesus' death being useful as a means of vicarious redemption contingent on Jesus' divinity? If he was wholly separated from divinity, surely his sacrifice was rendered ineffectual; your own theology is clearly quite paradoxical at this point.

The better-safe-than-sorry approach would only be useful if there was any even remotely viable reason to suggest that I haven't been safe all along

I blaspheme God all the time Still safe. If I'm sorry later, oh well; at least I'd retain my dignity.

You are still alive, maybe you should consider the possibility of accounting for your blaspheming to Almighty God after death?

[Guest]

You are still alive, maybe you should consider the possibility of accounting for your blaspheming to Almighty God after death?

Is it impossible for you to accept that atheism is a valid response response to the evidence and therefore your point is meaningless ?

There is no need to blaspheme against God - but equally there is no reason to consider the feelings of something that doesn't exist.

If you can't accept the possibility of the non-existence of God I would suggest you stop engaging in discussions with atheists. You will never change anyone mind without compelling evidence in support of your belief, making statements which are offensive to atheists as blasphemy is to you will get you nowhere fast.

As I have said many times before - any God which is offended by Blasphemy is a petty tyrant not worthy of respect.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 5, 2014 by Guest

[Emma_Acid]

You are still alive, maybe you should consider the possibility of accounting for your blaspheming to Almighty God after death?

And maybe you should consider that to a great many people, the idea of any god or gods makes next to no sense, and frankly, who would want to place their stake in eternity in an being as petty, childish and boring as the god of the bible?

[Quaentum]

You are still alive, maybe you should consider the possibility of accounting for your blaspheming to Almighty God after death?

Maybe you should consider that there is no evidence that one religion is right and the others wrong so you should perhaps think of what you will do when you stand before Buddha or Ra

[Alan McDougall]

Is it impossible for you to accept that atheism is a valid response response to the evidence and therefore your point is meaningless ?

There is no need to blaspheme against God - but equally there is no reason to consider the feelings of something that doesn't exist.

If you can't accept the possibility of the non-existence of God I would suggest you stop engaging in discussions with atheists. You will never change anyone mind without compelling evidence in support of your belief, making statements which are offensive to atheists as blasphemy is to you will get you nowhere fast.

As I have said many times before - any God which is offended by Blasphemy is a petty tyrant not worthy of respect.

Br Cornelius

This sub-forum is not only for atheist to debate with each other , you are all in agreement, it is here for hopefully meaningful intellectual debate between theist and atheist..

You can't prove that God does not exist, so my statement about blaspheming him is still a valid possibility, until of course you come up with some absolute scientific proof of the non-existence of God.

[+HerNibs]

This sub-forum is not only for atheist to debate with each other , you are all in agreement, it is here for hopefully meaningful intellectual debate between theist and atheist..

You can't prove that God does not exist, so my statement about blaspheming him is still a valid possibility, until of course you come up with some absolute scientific proof of the non-existence of God.

You realize that this doesn't make sense right? Can't prove the invisible, all powerful, undetectable unicorn doesn't live in my garage can you? Old argument, still holds no water.

As of right this minute, there is no evidence (testable, repeatable, verifiable) to support any deity.

IF some evidence shows up that convinces me of any deity, rather than worship him/her/it/they, I have some choice words for it.

Nibs