I grew up in a Southern Baptist church and over the years I have heard these same questions and below are the answers I heard Christians give.

Some of them found parts of the truth too, but Satan has confused them so that they don't see the whole truth like I do.

It just proves that God created the universe, some are just deceived as to who the real God is.

1.The Bible tells me so.
2. Satan lied to them like just like he did to Eve.

This is proof that Satan is powerful and can decieve many. That's why you should only trust the Bible as Gods one true message to humankind.

Satan has deceived them. We should only follow Jesus as he is the only one that has withstood the temptations of Satan. All others are therefore false.

God works in mysterious ways. The Bible says (quoting God) "My thoughts are not your thoughts."

The Bible tells me that there is only one true way to God, therefore all others are false.

One can not know God except through faith. Evidence is not proof. When you invite Jesus into your heart, you will have all the proof you'll need.

______________________________________

With answers like those above, it should be clear that no rational discussions will be honestly entertained as the religious mind is not operating from the prespective of logic.

oooo that evil deceiving satan...curse himmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!

Yeah I was fed the same lines.
Sure would like to see some new variations though

I think Satan is actually a pretty decent guy. He never killed anyone in the Bible. He didn't flood the entire world. He didn't harden a Pharoah's heart just so he could be incredibly nasty to the Egyptians.

Hell, the only "bad" thing Satan did was revolt against a God who is, in the words of Richard Dawkins,"...jealous and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist, an ethnic-cleanser urging his people on to acts of genocide." Hell, I think I'd do the same thing if I was an angel! Fuck Yahweh.

If Hell does exist...who wants to bet that Satan is really throwing massive parties and orgies 24/7? I mean, many things god considers to be sinful (sex before marriage, cursing, etc)...are actually pretty fun. So maybe...just maybe...God is bullshitting us about how Hell really is.

...well, if he existed.

I grew up in a Mormon church... they are especially fond of the "others found part of the truth" argument. They claim all religions contain some truth (since all religions were derived from the beliefs of Adam and Eve). They claim the truth has been distorted and changed over the years. They teach that the Mormon church is the only religion which contains the "fullness of the gospel."

Obviously, all of the arguments you demonstrated could be used to justify any religious believe. Substitute "Allah" and "Koran" in the right places and you'll have "evidence" for Islam.

I am always amazed at how quick religious people are to dismiss the experiences of others, while becoming irate if their own experiences are questioned.

I have had personal experience eating spaghetti, and watching monster movies. I have also seen personally birds and airplanes flying. That counts as evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existance I guess.

It's interesting how the first "proof" you offer is personal experience. However, you're quick to dismiss the personal experiences of others as less powerful "spirits."

What reason do you have to belittle thier religious experiences? (Other than an a priori dismissal of every religion which is different than yours.)

How did God communicate with you? How can you be sure it wasn't a "spirit?" Or perhaps your own mind? Some Muslims believe God has revealled their purpose in life is to tell people about Mohammed... how can you be sure they're wrong?

What if religious experiences could be scientifically proven to be naturally caused inside the brain? What if religious experiences could be duplicated in a labratory by stimulating certain parts of the brain, or increasing certain naturally-produced chemicals?

If a natural explanation for the experiences you've had is found, will you accept that there is no God?

Is God more or less organized than the universe he created? If God is more organized, more complex, or more complicated than the universe, than he is "proof" of some even greater being...

If the universe can serve as "proof" of a God, then that God MUST serve as "proof" of an even greater God... and that greater God MUST serve as "proof" of an even greater God still.

If something as complex as God can exist without a creator, then why can't something as small and feeble (by comparison) as the universe, exist without a creator?

Why should your personal experiences be given a higher value than the personal experiences of those in other religions?

How can you be so certain that your religion, that your miracles, that your experiences, are not a result of "spirits?" As opposed to a result of an interaction with God?

Perhaps an even better question is this: Why would God allow billions of people who are seeking him to be lead astray by "spirits?" Is God not more powerful than the spirits?

Have you attempted to experience other God's, for comparison sake? (You can't recognize a fake Rolex unless you've seen a real one.)

It's interesting... Your entire argument has been this: "My religion looks just like theirs, but theirs is fake. They have the same proofs I do, but theirs are done by spirits, whereas mine is done by God."

Other than your personal opinion, you haven't given any reason for someone to believe Christianity is any more likely to be true than Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Voodoo for that matter.

What evidence do you have that your "proofs" are a result of God's direct interaction, and that the same "proofs" being offered by other religions are from some kind of lesser spirit?

Out of curiosity, how many religions have you tried? Did you try worshipping Allah? Did you study the Book of Mormon? Have you tried to reach enlightenment like Buddha? Just how much exploring have you PERSONALLY done?

Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it? If God is as great as everyone thinks he is, and if God is as good as everyone thinks he is, then why wouldn't he be able to create such an obvious difference between the "true" church and the "false" church, that everyone would be drawn to worship him?

Most people inherit their religion the way they inherit their accent. The grow up around it, and they don't know any better. It's rare enough for someone to change denominations... it's extremely rare that anyone changes from one set of core beliefs to another.

In a world where every religion offers the same "proofs," and where there are natural explanations for the "proofs," which don't require the existence of a supernatural being... there is only one logical conclusion you can make.

There is no God.

Well then I'll be your huckleberry. Honestly, I was studying to become a priest, and I actually felt the call of God to take that profession. Among other feelings of God's presence when I was a Christian, I had very severe ones especially alone in the Chapel. Yet now I am an atheist. Most people on this board have once been Christian and felt the very same way you do.

Losing Faith in Faith is a great book. I must have read it about a dozen times by now.

Dan Barker is a great guy. I had the opportunity to meet him when he came to Phoenix for a book signing.

While he was signing my copy of Losing Faith in Faith, I asked him if he could still "speak in tongues." He said he could. AND... he said it still felt the same.

Dan said he could still do all of the things, and feel all of the feelings, which he used to associate with the Holy Spirit and God - but he now understands there are natural biological explanations for the things he felt.

I'd say that's a good example of someone who "had an experience" and left the church anyway. Heck, it's a guy who STILL has experiences, but has accepted that there is a natural explanation for experiences he used to consider "supernatural."

Christianity is not about supernatural experiences or "feelings." Yes, there are other religions that also practice a form of "speaking in tongues" and alot of the charasmatic phenomenons are fake, or do have natural explanations. this is what is wrong with mainstream, pentecostal, charasmatic christianity. it focuses on the wrong things, and in the meantime perverts what the bible teaches about those phenomenons. (Example: Biblical speaking in tongues were actual, known languages. Not jibberish. This "experience" certainly is not common anymore, nor is it necessary.)

If this man's devotion to Jesus was because of supernatural "feelings" then he never truly knew him nor what he is all about.

just to clarify, i wasn't trying to start a debate or anything. I just thought his quotes were interesting and wanted to input a christian opinion to it.

i never said he didn't know jesus because he spoke in tongues. my point was that if his conversion to christianity was based on emotional highs and experiences, then he might not have ever had a relationship with Christ in the first place. And if he continues in his atheism, then certainly he never was a true follower, for he would have stayed one. But, i cant judge man's heart. He may just be turned away at the moment and really be saved in God's eyes. If so, he'll come back around.

You just did.

I'll restate my question: Is there any definition of a Christian who turned atheist whom you wouldn't dismiss by claiming they were never "really" Christian?

Shaun, very well said.

There are probably a lot of Christians out there who DO doubt, but are unwilling to openly admit it because they know their peers would back-date their opinions... and everything they ever said or did would be doubted.

Yes. My good friend Brian is a great example. In his early teens he gave his life to God, was baptized, and believed the Christian doctrine. Later in life, during his college years he began questioning his faith and proclaimed himself an Atheist. This guy was pretty deep into it intellectually. As always, the biggest issue was the problem of evil and suffering.

Fast forward to just this last Saturday, and Brian has been convinced of the truth of God and Christianity. He asked God to forgive him of his years of apostasy. As weak and cliche the term is, he "re-dedicated" his life to service to Christ.

My opinion on this particular issue is that Brian truly was a child of God. He was an elect, and his baptism was not in vain. However, he slipped into a time of disobedience and doubt, abounding in sin and bad habits. But through reason, searching, and prayer he realized his foolishness.

So yes, Brian was "really" christian, but led astray for a time, only to return. As will all of God's sheep.

The difference between Christianity and other forms of belief in this context is that the Bible specifically teaches that if you are truly of the family, God cannot let you go. You may have times where you fall into a life of sin, but you are still God's child and will turn around eventually. So yes, someone could be a real "muslim" or "buddhist" and later fall away from that certain belief, because other religions do not require you permanantly join a family. Other religions don't even have a God that promises to keep them in the family.

Actually, they weren't really an atheist. because atheist's don't exist. The bible says that all men have an innate knowledge of their Creator, and his laws are written on their hearts. Everyone believes in God, they just supress that knowledge with their wickedness. -Romans 1.

Just because the Bible says it doesn't make it true - in fact, if it's in the Bible it's more than likely false. The babble also says that insects have 4 legs, bats are birds, and Christians can ingest poison and be bitten by venomous snakes without being harmed. Are you willing to test that last claim? Or are you afraid you might not really be a true Christian? And you might try asking a Cardiologist if "God exists" or "Christianity is true" is actually written on anyones heart. ::

Ah, yes, the pernicious and erroneous claim that atheists don't exist.

I recently had, elsewhere, a very long discussion about whether atheists actually exist. The claim is absurd.

I'm assuming you define an atheist as someone who claims that God does not exist, and like the Way of the Maser asshat Ray Comfort, you think that to make such a claim you need to know everything to make such a claim, right?

NO, that's BS. An atheist simply someone who lacks belief in God. Many people who lack this belief might add, in addition to this lack that they actually believe that God does not exist, but this is IMHO, a belief in addition to their being an atheist.

And still, there will be many people who will still make the belief claim, so even if the stronger definition of atheist is valid, you still have to concede that many people still make the claim that God doe snot exist--and they actually believe taht claim!

To claim that we all believe in God is not only obnoxious and arrogant, it is also a claim that you cannot make; you cannot know the beliefs of another, aside from what they tell you, any more than your straw-man "atheist can know everything.

You are so wrapped up in your own ridiculous worldview that you cannot even peek outside of it. Your arrogance to know the minds of others, based on a book that you choose to believe in, is telling...

I won;t say of what it tells, because I want to remain a little respectful, if only as a facade.

Shaun

I can't answer all of your replies/questions at this moment, I am about to leave for work. However, I will answer the replies about my 'non-existence of atheists' comment.

I'm not so dumb to really claim that no persons in the world claim to not believe in god, nor that they don't really believe their own claims. Of course, people who "dis-believe" in God do exist, and they do really think they "dis-believe" in God.

My point is that atheists, though they may truly think they don't believe in this God, cannot escape the marks of their creator that they bear and deep down, do know he exists. Whether they currently realize it or not. As i stated before, this innate knowledge we all have is supressed by our wickedness, therefore causing us to be deceived.

You may say the knowledge of God is not innate. it is only a brainwashing passed down through generations. If this is the case, then where did the very first person to start this brainwashing get the idea of "god" in the first place? Or, if we are not perfect people, with no perception of perfection to start from, how could we have ever discovered the concept of a perfect being?

Also, all you guys ever talk about is something that you say doesn't exist. you speak of him with such hatred, blaming him for mankinds faults and pronouncing his actions as evil. Even the atheist speaks from a presuppostion that God exists! At best, all you can do is seemingly prove that God is evil. This is because you exalt your own actions and thoughts as good, and in your rebellion to submit you must therefore make him out to be pure evil.. justifying your unloyalty.
And, you can't hate something that doesn't exist.

i'll try to stop by later tonight and answer the other replies.
-adam

VERY good point!

i'm just gonna copy and paste this from a website i found that explains this very well.

------------
Lev. 11:13, 19: " And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. (See also Deut. 14:11, 18)."

First, linean classification was not available when Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written, nor did a specific scientific definition for what a bird was exist. The classification of animals was made by function and form. This can be seen in the definition of words used to describe animals in the Old Testament. For example, the word here that we render "fowl" comes from the Hebrew word owph which means flying creatures, to include birds, winged insects, and any animal that owns a wing. It comes from a root word that means to cover or to fly. This verse could rightly be interpreted, "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among flying creatures....". The King James Version seems to call the bat a fowl, but when you understand the times in which it was written, and the meaning of the original Hebrew, it's obvious there is no error here.

Lev. 11:20: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."

Once again the word translated fowl here is 'owph', which means a creature with wings. It's the same word used in verse 21 and translated flying. The reference in both cases is referring to insects. Notice the differentiation between the four feet and the "legs above their feet". The large legs on insects such as the locust, grasshopper, cricket (beetle) etc., are considered legs, but they are different than the other legs which are called "feet" in every instance here. You can add the four feet (legs) to the legs above their feet (legs) and get 6 legs if you like, however, the Hebrews chose to differentiate between the regular legs on the insects described here and the large legs used for jumping or lifting off to take flight.
---------

Matt, the verse in Mark 16 about serpents and drinking poison was Jesus prophecying about the evidences of the Apostles that would later take place, as recored in Acts after the day of Pentecost.

The apostle Paul experienced supernatural protection from a viper when he was shipwrecked on the island of Melita (Acts 28:3-5). As far as I know, this is the only recorded example of this in the New Testament. Of course, there is no record of the apostles or disciples picking up snakes just to prove they are believers, that would be tempting God (Lk. 4:9-12).

"I've already explained myself in an earlier post about my "no-atheist" comment. I do beleive that you sincerely do lack belief in a God, but it's because you've deceived yourself. Your existence is dependant on him, and his image is placed in you. You have the innate knowledge, whether you realize it or not. My claim is not obnoxious or arrogant because it is not based from my own understanding or my own personal opinion. I get my beliefs from a standard outside of myself."

Well, I believe that you are decieving yourself. I know you have Odin's creation in your heart. We are all children of Ask and Embla, carved by trees and life breathed into us by Odin. Vili gave us awareness, and Ve gave us touch, taste, smell, and all the other ways to realize this beautiful world that was Ginnungagap, that was nothingness that Odin shaped. Why do you defy Him? Hail Odin. I hope you mend your ways and that we will meet in Valhalla and not Hel.

This only proves that other beliefs can have the same or similar belief structures. if someone really believed this, then we would have to study the differences between the "gods" in question and continue from there. trying to make someone sound stupid does not prove they are false.

Ever notice how much time Christians put into rationalizing or explaining away the bad parts of the Babble? And how can you say the old laws were changed by Jesus when he himself said he came not to change the old law, but uphold it, and that he came not to change "one jot or tittle (whatever the fuck a tittle is)" of the old law?

Zowie.

Blammo

Thwack!

Zork!

What did the five fingers say to the face? SLAP!

Seriously, that's damn clever, AZ. It's not going to help much, but it's damn clever. (Sorry, I'm feeling a bit pessimistic today.)

You know what I thought of a little while ago? Christians are like Jesus with the fish and loaves. Even when the fish and loaves ran out, there was more fish and loaves, and no matter how many people came up to the table, there was still fish and loaves...

Likewise, no matter how many ways you destroy every argument a Christian brings to the table, there's still argument left, and mostly, it looks just like the last argument.. and smells like rotten fish.

I wanted to address one more of your comments before I log off for the day.

Let's imagine for a moment that you met a full grown man who still believed in Santa Claus. I mean REALLY believed in Santa Claus. So much so that he preaches to others, about how Santa can see you when your sleeping, and he knows when your awake. He even knows if you've been bad or good, and if you "sin" against Santa you'll be punished by receiving only coal for Christmas.

Now, you and I know Santa isn't real... but how could we explain it to this man? We can either sit around and say "There ain't no Santa, there ain't no Santa..." or we can demonstrate the absurdity of believing in Santa by speaking as if Santa did exist.

For example:
---------------------
1) No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.

2) There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total - 378 million according to the Population Reference Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

3) Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 91.8 millions stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc.

This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

4) The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

5) 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecraft re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second.

Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 7,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

In conclusion - If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now. Merry X-mas.
----------------------
(Quoted from here.)

Anyone reading the above proof would not say the author has a "presuppostion that Santa exists." It would be more accurate to say say the author demonstrated how IMPOSSIBLE it is for Santa to exist by speaking as if he did.

Atheists who talk about how evil God is are employing the same method. Most Christians claim God is an infinately loving and benevolent deity. Atheists demonstrate how absurd that belief is by showing the atrocities presumably created by, or ordered by, this "loving" deity.

Like Santa's reindeer, the loving God also bursts into flames instantaniously in light of all the evidence.

is this all you have to say to my reply? interesting. I supposed no matter how many times seemingly contradictions in the "babble" are refuted and explained, mattshizzle will always close his eyes to the answers and spend so much time explaining away his reasons for diminishing the book's value.

your view on jesus and the law is skewed. highly unbiblical. of course, jesus did not come to destroy the law. he came to fulfill it. these are obvious quotes from the Gospels.

The purpose of jesus' life and work was to fulfill both the Law (the books of moses) and the prophets (other Old Testament books). He did not destroy the Old Testament. But that doesn't mean that Christians have to keep circumcision and all the other old laws. jesus' ministry caused many changes in the law -- changes so dramatic that laws were "set aside" or declared "obsolete" (Heb. 7:18; 8:13). Some laws remained the same, some were changed, and others were "abolished" (Eph. 2:15).

when jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets," he did not mean that each specific law would stay exactly the same. He meant that the purpose and message of the law and the prophets remain exactly the same. The law and the prophets pointed to him and were intended from the beginning to be fulfilled by him.

Some of the specific laws of the old covenant are still valid, but many of them were set aside when Jesus came and fulfilled them by his life, death and resurrection (for example: death due for sins).