Alot of Atheists came out of religious family's.
A lot of those atheist have more issues with the people than the beliefs, and don't know the beliefs that well to begin with. Trust me. I do a lot of debating.
What exactly is getting saved? Is there a concrete definition? Does everyone has the same definition of saved and can everyone go about it in the same way? Can you guarantee that by going to church I'll be saved?
According to the canonized Christian scripture, good works can't save you. So no, attending a church doesn't save. Also, according to the same scripture, there is evidence that you're saved. It's starts with God initiating, and the progress is seen in how your nature changes from having a total inclination toward sin, to now having a new nature in which you now desire to please God....and there lies the issue. The sinful instinct doesn't die. But sin doesn't negate salvation.
i sure hope that 9 year old kid in phnom phen forced to suck old white man dick for a living finds christ to show him direction in life otherwise he would have to spend an eternity in hell for commiting sins that were out of his control, amidoingitright?
Almost. If he/she went to hell, it wouldn't be for sins beyond his/her control. It'd be for original sin which we're all born with...which is why we learn how to lie, steal, disrespect authority without anyone even teaching us. It's human nature.
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
- Bertrand Russel
Faith is a joke, I'm sorry. Enjoy feeling guilty and repenting for every single time you lust, cuss, fuck, smoke, drink, laugh, cry, walk, and etc. You stupid religious nuts aren't worthy to be in your own kingdom because your "god" says so.
The flaw in his analogy is that we're not just claiming that something exists....we're claiming that the someone who exists created everything around us. And although there is currently minimal empirical evidence (considered credible by the atheistic scientific community) to prove there is a God, there is plenty of empirical evidence coupled with logic to suggest that there must/could have been a creator. The mathematic probability of these things happening without a cause is beyond the model that we give it (millions of years). The intracacies of life. The probability that a planet would have the proper molecules to form a cell that would have an instinct to split, multiply, mutate, over and over again until it evolved into both vegetation AND animals....what are the odds? Why are there other planets out there that are older than us and still haven't produced life? Why are we, such a young planet, able to produce life from random chance? Honestly, I respect extra terrestrial seeding theories more than I respect the logic of atheistic origin theories. It's ironic, though, that for a group that emphasises empiricism, they embrace that which they haven't seen for themselves.
And btw, according to the scripture, our God DOES say we're not worthy. And we aren't saved by our own merit or worth. We're saved by grace and mercy. I obey out of gratitude, not fear.
science: necessary for the advancement and well being of human life.
religion: unnecessary and not beneficial to the advancement and well being of human life.
we can live without one hurting us. i choose getting rid of religion.
I agree. On a totally naturalistic approach, we don't need religion to survive. That raises a question that Darwin also asked. Why did we come up with religion then? If our sole instinct was to survive, and there was no survival benefit to religion, why and how did we develop religion and morality?
agree with all your points except for the bold
Jews, Muslims, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches all believe he was a man and they are Judeo-Christian religions
funny how people put christians all in the same box when the different sects have so many different beliefs. (ie orthodox churches believing Jesus was man rather than God)
?? Orthodox Christianity? Do your research yo. Dudes from Augustine to Martin Luther held to the divinity of Jesus. Not sure what orthodoxy you're referring to.
Yes, that was one of the reasons. It made God seem too human.
I also read a few creation myths from the civilizations around the area and they all had similarities. Particularly the great flood story. This seems to show that at least a few parts in the Bible are derived from older stories from older civilizations.
The Bible as it is now also did not exist then. It was created by Emperor Justinian (I think thats the right emperor) who commissioned it. Also, there were more than 4 gospels.
Also, the claims that God is all knowing and all powerful did not make sense in my view. As well as the claim that Christianity is the only true path to salvation. There is nothing that holds Christianity above Islam, Buddhism, Baha'i, Hinduism, Mormonism, Zoroastrianism, etc.
Research proves that oral tradition and history can be passed on for hundreds of years without distortion. That being the case, why would it disprove the Genesis account if even older records indicate the same info? What if that wasn't just a myth, but a first hand account? And after hundreds of years it started to get watered down, and in Genesis it was corrected where it needed correcting?
The bible as it is now didn't exist then. Well, except the old testament. All that was done there was the addition of chapters and verses. The new testament had to deal with much more because of so many people who were trying to jump on the hype train. There had to be an orginazation to seperate the fake from the real. All the new testament scriptures were matched up with the old testament to confirm validity and consistency. Books like the maccabees were taken out because it was more of a historical account. Not considered divine. Esdras was taken out because it was more of an allegorical story. A good uplifting story, but fictional..not considered divine. Back in the old testament, while the jews were enslaved king cyrus (not a jew) told them to go and rebuild their temple. In the case of the emperor telling the religious men to canonize the bible (as we know it now) is not much different. If God is real, then he's powerful enough to orchestrate such events to ensure that His message to us is accurate.
Again, I can't convince a person to believe. I get along with atheists that are cool, moral (according to their view), peaceful, intelligent dudes who aren't angry at religion. I think what both sides hate is people trying to shove their beliefs onto them. Like, yo, Mr Atheist....can you please stop insulting, mocking, and hating me? I'm not affecting you. Leave me alone yo. If you wanna talk about it, be a big boy about it. And vice versa, the peaceful educated atheists are like "Hey Mr. Christian, if I tell you I don't feel like talking about it, can you let it go? Can you stop treating me like trash? Can you stop acting like you're better than me? Can you stop being so obnoxious?"
If I say your soul is on the line, and you say you don't care, well, live and let live. And if you think I'm a moron for believing in what I feel rather that what I see, then live and let live. Yaggadaming?