I don't think it's desirable, or possible really. Basic guidelines for things like human rights are good, UN intervention when necessary.

This atheist doesn't as this atheist wants to see decentralization instead of centralization.

I think the idea of a one world government is nice, but I wouldn't want to see it in practice anytime soon. There would just be too much risk of corruption, which would be potentially devestating at that scale. The U.N. is probably the closest thing we will or should see for a while, at least until we can reach a point where there is no need to struggle for resources, disease, food, money and so on. Perhaps once we can eliminate the need to seek aquisition of these things on a grand scale a one world government would be plausible. Until then they will be a motivation for the corrupt.

It's not realistic, however, to think that all athiests have common political beliefs. When you list off the world religions, athiests are essentially "everyone else". It's not like there's any kind of common beliefs or requirements to be an atheist, other than an intellectual dismissal of one particular assertion by others.

 

Zeeboe, why are you posting this thread in 'Freethinking Anonymous' if you claiming you are christian again?

Now you're talking. Though from your posts, I'd like to know: What do you think it is a good studying tool *for*?

I've not heard that a one world gov't is popular with atheists. Where did you read this? Is this an idea from general observations or is there a specific place where a group of atheists are talking about a one world gov't?

Well, Lennon is awesome.

Now here is where your bible knowledge trumps mine.

Recently, mainstream publishers have taken the leap to publish books on atheism. There have been a lot more books published recently, said books are selling, so more publishers are publishing. The thing that gets me is when newscasters call this an "atheism fad" - yeah right. Do you think all of this research you've done, all of the stuff you have gone through in the past few months, is part of a "fad"? just a "phase?" I find that insulting.

I am sure some atheists and atheist groups want religion eliminated from the world, but I think those people are in the minority. I am only speaking for myself here, but I don't care if people practice religion. I do care that people assume I believe in god unless told otherwise. I do care that people believe Jesus is coming and therefore they see no reason to take care of the environment. I do care that children are being told that if they sin against god then they will burn for eternity - I consider that mental abuse. I care because atheists are descriminated against. I care because if I admit that I am an athist in my professional Occupational Therapy practice, the physician who tends to my clients will probably not assign clients to me fairly. So, I want to end the descrimination, abuse, and assumptions that come along with and are inseperable from religion. Atheists also seek to promote rational thought above emotional thought.

Have you read the "I am every Atheist" essays on this site? They are very good at explaining the athist position, which is, by the way, not a single position.

Are you sure you're an atheist? You seem... torn. Is it that you want to believe in god/christianity/jesus, but just can't? If so, I am sure a lot of folks on this site who have been deconverted can relate. I hope that someday you will be proud of your atheism.

I know you don't have a car, but have you tried to connect with some local atheists in person? www.meetup.com might have a group listed in your area. There is an atheist meetup here in St. louis which I attend every other week. The people there are wonderful, caring, open... You might get to feel like you are part of their community.

I hope I did not come off as trying to debate you in any of my comments. If so, then I apologize, as that is not my intention.

 

I am not hostile. Try not to be so defensive, it does not assist your queries here.

I visited your myspace page after reading your latest post and saw that you have changed your religion from agnostic to 'christian - other'.

That is why I asked the question, because 'christian - other' is not allowed to post in 'Freethinking Anonymous'.  

I am not going to type "Zeeboe... shut up" (yet), I am just asking for honesty. There are rules on the message boards and they need to be followed for the benefit of everyone. If you are a christian or any type of theist as your myspace page states, then you are not allowed to post in this forum. How is that hostile?

 

Again.....  I will tell you, it isn't about the questions you are asking. Ask whatever you feel like.

I ONLY asked because the answer to the religion question changed on your page. DO NOT irritate me by putting words in my mouth or twisting my words. I am modding these forums and part of my duties it to make sure theists are not posting in "Freethinking Anonymous". 

You answered the question sufficiently enough for me right now, but you are not going to come across very convincing when you are so defensive. The thread does not need to be closed, you can continue with your inquiries but if your theistic stance changes I hope you will be honest about it and realize you will no longer be allowed to post in this particular portion of the website.... capiche?

 

 

i don't think that one world government is really possible, but i'll admit i haven't given it a lot of thought. my primary concern is getting organized religion out of the american governing process, as well as the american educational system.

Why does it concern you when these prophecies are things any idiot living in Roman times could come up with? Where does the Bible say there will be no more religion and where does it say there will be one world government? And, again, why would it be unreasonable for an author living in Roman times to look at the state of the world and conclude that Rome would continue to take it over?



Most atheists don't hate Christians; they hate Christianity and what it's done, and want Christians to not be part of that. The Gospels and their associated prophecies were all written after Nero started his persecution of Christians; it's not really much of a prophecy if you write it after the events you're prophesying already happened.



First, where does it say that? Secondly, this is an obvious self-fulfilling prophecy. It's kind of clever, actually. If you remember the prophecy then you probably remember the words along with it, whereas if you've forgotten the prophecy it doesn't matter either way whether you remember the words. It's about one step removed from saying "This prophecy will always be remembered." There could have been dozens of minor religions sprouting up at the same time, all of them believing they'd never be forgotten and all of them were. And, if we're being pedantic, most of Christ's words have been forgotten, if he even spoke words in the first place. There's no way of knowing which of Christ's words in the Gospels were original to him and which were created by later authors, and even if all of his words in the Gospels were authentic, there's still very little of his ministry recorded. (Christians like saying that for all of Christ's supposed thirty-three years of life there's only about two hours of ministry.)



Your three reasons are the sorts of prophecies you'd get from Sylvia Browne or a phone psychic:
1) Predicting a one world government when the hated nemesis of the Christians, the Romans, almost had one already.
2) Predicting that Christians would be persecuted when the prophecy was written after the persecution started.
3) Predicting that Christ's words would never be forgotten when it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that's technically not very true anyway.

PPsssst, Zeeboe.  Ray Comfort isn't exactly what anyone would call a good resource for anything.

If you watched the Nightline debate, that should be a pretty big clue and he is not to be taken seriously.

ha! Nice. 

    Since i am wadding in late into this one....as an atheist, no i do not believe in a one world goverment, for 2 major reasons, 1 i doubt it will ever work, far to many differences between cultures, countries and continents for this to work. 2, corruption, we humans are corruptable with power, just imagine a person in charge of the WORLD, maybe a councel (sp?) made up of various member from each continent, country, but serious then how would the vote system work out etc etc etc, to many factors for one world goverment, hell even the UN doesn't work properly.

Atheists get blamed for everything. It doesnt suprise me that the accusation exists that atheists want a one world government. Patently absurd.

Just as with any other label, there is not 100% agreement amongst atheists. I dont know where the original poster got their information from, but I wouldnt be suprised if it was froma bias theistic source.

It is easy to look down on a label once you demonize it.

It has been my personal experiance that there are practical things one can work toward, and utopias that dont exist. Christianity and Islam have the same goal of world domination. If anything would lead itself in that direction religion is far more built to sell that idea.

Worship of any kind, be it over a party, a state, or holy person creates  a "wordview" attitude.

There are people, be they conservitive Christian or liberal Muslim or liberal atheist, that subscribe to the idea that "offensive" speach should not be protected.

There are just as many in each group that would disire to protect "offensive" speech and dissenting views".

As far as a one world government, that is a cock and bull story that fearmongers on the right use to equate atheists to hilter and stalin.

We have more to worry about with religion globaly and the global class warfare where weath becomes more concentrated and media more controled. But that is a humanitarian issue that affects the entire planet.

The idea that  6 billion people can be controled by one goverement is just as absurd as thinking Jesus or Allah or Ellen Johnson are the boss of everyone.

The days of Dominionism are dead. Our planet is too small and too diverse for anyone group to think that only they and their view has the right to be the law of the globe.

Where you got your info that most atheists want a one world government is suspect and I wouldnt lend it any credance.

 

 

 

Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron both admit that they could have done better, and now that I have been reading Comfort's book...I agree he could have done much better in the debate. But they are only human and will make mistakes. I agree that the RRS won the debate, and in my humble opinion it's because Ray and Kirk greatly underestimated them. Hopefully Ray and Kirk learned their lesson.

 

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I cannot stress this enough.....I do not think...(nor did I ever say)...that ALL atheists want a one world government......as for some biblical passages....well, I know many of you here do not consider the Holy Bible to be a reliable source but because I was asked, here are some random quotes I found online that talk about a new world order..."At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people." - Matthew 24:11 "A new world order with peace on earth, after the Battle of Armageddon, in the New Jerusalem. A thousand years of peace and prosperity on earth, after Armageddon, followed by another Armageddon. A city called the New Jerusalem descends from heaven. The New Jerusalem has twelve gates, and the walls have precious stones." - Revelation 21-22"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." - 2 Peter 2:3,4."It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him." - Revelation 13:7."He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time." - Daniel 7:25"Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold." - Matthew 24:12.
"Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God." - 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4. "And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. 7 Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, 8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain. 9 If anyone has an ear, let him hear" - Revelation 13:5"And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. 3One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. 4Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?” - Revelation 13
I know a lot of that sounds like a fairy tale, but you have to remember that in that time, that was how people spoke. Another poster on a forum said..."Concerning any source that is old the meanings can be interpretated in many ways, some interpretations can seem wild and almost crazed but some can have meaning in many cultures and ages, for example when one person sees the words 'great beast' in a old prophecy or book, one person could view it in the meaning that there could be a great monster (horns, claws etc) but in modern times we could view it as a powerful nation or alliance." [MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]

Like I said before, just because we may think God is a bully doesn't mean we should not worship Him. Infact, I think that's all the more reason to fear and submit to Him. I would never become an atheist just because I think God is a tyrant. That encourages me to become a Christian actually. If the Christian God is the one true God then I would rather worship Him then be against Him.

According to the Christian belief, God gives people free will. People can love each other or kill each other. I don't think we should blame God just because most people would rather kill each other. And if God is real and you believed in Him and followed His laws, then you go to Heaven, which is much better then earth so I've read, so dying is not a bad thing if you are a Christian. And the killers and all the other people who sinned against God will get their proper punishments when they die.

There are many things in life that I do not understand, but I don't think we're suppose to have all knowledge. That would explain the story of Adam and Eve and the tree of knowledge and why having knowledge or wanting to have all the answers to life is a bad thing. And that is why the bible says one is supposed to have a child like faith in Jesus and not question.

I hate to get off topic, but I did so I might as well post this too....this is from Ray Comfort's book, "The Evidence Bible" in regards of the contradictions in the bible.

"The Bible has many seeming contradictions within its pages. For example, the four Gospels give four differing accounts as to what was written on the sign that hung on the cross. Matthew said, “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (27:37). However, Mark contradicts that with “The King of the Jews” (15:26). Luke says something different: “This is the King of the Jews” (23:38), and John maintains that the sign said “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews” (19:19).

Those who are looking for contradictions may therefore say, “See—the Bible is full of mistakes!” and choose to reject it entirely as being untrustworthy. However, those who trust God have no problem harmonizing the Gospels. There is no contradiction if the sign simply said, “This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews.”

The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27)."

It sounds to me like if you are Christian, you have to be humble and have that childlike faith in the bible and in God no matter what, and if you are proud and not humble and are trying to gain all knowledge on all subjects and refuse to soften your heart, you won't hear the voice of God.

Also, a Christian friend once told me trying to understand the mind of God is like an ant trying to understand our minds.

If the Christian God is the real God, it seems like that in life (in regards of how we all think and who is the smartest) it kinda goes like this:

1. Bugs, animals and fish

2. Humans

3. God

As far as killing in the name of God is concerned,

Ray Comfort talks about that in his book actually.

"Religion has caused more wars than anything else in history."

"It is true that man has used religion for political gain. Nazi Germany had "God with us" engraved in German on the belts of Nazi soldiers. America said, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition." The law may even allow you to start the Christian Nazi Party, if you so desire. You can become a "reverend" for a few dollars through the tabloid classifieds and then further your political agenda with the world’s blessing, no matter how much it smears the name of Christ.

Jesus tells us in John 16:2,3 that there will be some who, in their error, commit atrocities and murder in the name of God: "The time is coming that whosoever kills you will think that he does God service." However, He informs us that these are not true believers: "And these things will they do to you, because they have not known the Father, nor me." (See also 1 John 3:15.)

Jesus told His followers to love their enemies. So if a man puts a knife into someone’s back in the name of Christianity, something obviously isn’t right. If we human beings can detect it, how much more will God? He will deal with it on Judgment Day. "

Add that to the third thing Jesus has said and has come true so far. From predicting that people will hate Christians, to predicting that His words will never be forgotton and predicting that people will kill in His name. He's been right three times now. Debate it all you want, but it's true.

I'm starting to think I was never a true Christian to begin with.

I actually think a globally unifying government is nearly unavoidable as technology shrinks the globe and blurs cultural and national lines.

 

How is this any different than the present world of multiple governmental systems? At present, many live in places where they do not have those they want in power. I am one of them. This will always be the case no matter the scale of the governmental system and to think it would be more problematic on the global scale seems to me to be unfounded.

And right now my opinion is different than those same peoples allliving within the US. Why do you think, when it works on a national scale, it would be different on a global scale?

Why do you equate a globally unifying government with 'world dominance by one group'? I would imagine many who support a globally unifying government are not wanting a dictatorship or some idealistically dogmatic oppressive regime but a democracy of sorts; something parlimentary or a representative republic. 

 

Yes. I doubt anyone wants Saddam to lead a globally unifying government. Especially since he is dead.

I can not see why you seed to think that what works well on the national scale can not be applied to the global  scale. There does not seem to be any legitimate reason for making this assumption.

 

 

You've got to be kidding me.

...............For the FINAL time, I DO NOT think all atheists want a one world government. One more time.......for good measure....I DO NOT think all atheists want a one world government. Do I need to announce this over the Rational Response Squad PA? Maybe we should put a sticky thread up on every forum with it being titled "Zeeboe does not think all atheists want a one world government." Maybe we should ask Brian if he is willing to make that announcement every show, every five minutes for the next ten years so some of you can get it through your heads.This is the last time I'm gonna say this. If anyone else makes the same mistake then they're just going to have to live with this annoyance thinking everyone believes atheists want a one world government.I asked a question in this thread. Show me where I said that I believe all atheists want a one world government.I have visual dyslexia and I can read better then some of you.If you're going to be involved in this thread, I'd really, really appreciate it if you read most of the messages here. That's not an order, but a very simple request. I apologize if I'm being harsh but this is starting to get a little frustrating. Infact, I am starting to think some of you are doing this on purpose. Infact, the next person who makes that same mistake, I'm just gonna laugh em;' off and assume they are trying to be annoying.

You sound very much like you're trying to talk yourself into believing in the Rapture.



It already happened. That's why the verse was written in the first place! Even in the early days of Christianity, people were starting to grow tired of hearing that Jesus Would Return Real Soon Now and nothing happening. Peter is telling his fellow Christians not to worry about the scoffers; in a bit of public relations spin, he's not only saying that the scoffers are wrong, he's saying that this is supposed to happen before Jesus comes back! There's no divine inspiration here, only Peter knowing just what to say to keep people from leaving the faith because Jesus was late. It's the equivalent of a man who trips over his shoelace and gets up saying "I meant to do that!"

The verse in question isn't even intended as a prophecy. It's intended to be a statement to Peter's fellow Christians, reassuring them that they Really Truly Honestly were living in the end days, and pointing to the scoffers as proof. The only reason it's taken as a prophecy is because things haven't changed in two millennia. Jesus still hasn't come back and so accordingly there are still scoffers.

Again, this is not something that would be totally unpredictable to mortals. All it would take for Peter to write those verses is the growing realization that Jesus ain't back yet and people are getting pissed. That's it.



God is trying to save as many people as he can? He's omnipotent. "As many people as he can" means every single person who ever has lived, is living, or ever will exist. All of this Rapture business is nonsense; if God wants to save everyone, he doesn't need to dick around with a Rapture that's been in the works for two thousand years.



Then you're one of the few Rapture nuts who believe that. They all want it to happen during their lifetimes because no one wants to die. Rapture fans want to go from life to heaven without that messy dying part in between.



That's silly. You're silly.



Which it isn't. Did you give OJ Simpson the idea to write that "If I Did It" book? You're giving an awful lot of credence to this hypothesis for someone who claims to not really believe it.



You're asking the hard questions and ignoring the easy answers. I already explained why these prophecies are considered true: not because they're actually divinely inspired but because they are predictions of things that any idiot living in 30 AD could make. Half of them aren't even intended as predictions -- they were intended to inform the people living in the times that these verses were written that the end times were NOW NOW NOW and they'd better shape up. Every mention of the end times in the New Testament, explicitly or implicitly, works from the assumption that it would happen within the lifetimes of people who are now thousands of years gone. They weren't prophecies. They tried to use things that happened all the time as proof of the end times. Then, when people looked around, they would see these things happening (since they happen all the time) and conclude that, welp, this must be it!

A one world government? Gee, why on earth would someone living in the time when the hated Roman Empire had a massive amount of land ever think that there could be a one world government? I mean, it's totally impossible that someone would think that maybe the Roman Empire would get even bigger. Must have been God's divine insight! And the fact that the Romans never did get around to making that one world government just gives the prophecy nuts more to work with. Reasonable people would conclude that since the prophecy was most likely written about the Romans and totally failed to come true, the prophecy is total crap. Not you and your fellow rapture nuts, though. If the Romans didn't do it, it must be someone else! Take your pick, there's two thousand years of failed prophecies to choose from.

Christianity being attacked? Goodness, why would someone writing during or after the Neronian persecutions of 64 or so AD ever possibly think that people might want to persecute Christians? Couldn't be that Christians and Jews in general were being persecuted. It couldn't be that Christianity had its critics since the beginning, just like all the mystical religions which irritated the scholars and the elites so much. Nope, must have been a sign from God telling people that. I can't imagine any other reason why Christians would think that people would hate a religion that said everyone who wasn't part of it would spend eternity roasting in flames.

People leaving because Christianity wasn't delivering on its promises? What would make someone predict that? Possibly they lived in a society where people were seeing that Christ wasn't coming back and were rejecting Christianity because their savior was taking forever to come back. And then, they tried to convince their fellow Christians that this wasn't it a problem. It's really a feature, you guys, not a bug! That's supposed to happen! People are supposed to leave the church because they think we're full of crap! It's a sign, guys, honest! I'm not just saying this to keep you from leaving the flock with the rest of the skeptics and rational thinkers!



Why should they disturb you? If I tell you that, in the end times, the sun will rise in the east and set in the west, will you be disturbed if you go outside and follow the sun's path and discover -- *gasp!* -- that the sun indeed rises in the east and sets in the west? You are being disturbed over very stupid things, and I worry that if you continue to think these prophecies are in any way worth being disturbed over, you will become a moron. These prophecies are not things it would take a divine miracle to predict. They are everyday occurances that happened to even the earliest members of Christianity.



There isn't. Glad I could help!

Zeeboe has always been a self-denying self-flagellating christian.  I'm yet again amazed that the moderators allow this emo theist to post in the "No Theists Allowed" part of the forum.

He'll whine about how the world is doing exactly what the bible predicted, and how much sense the bible makes and then add a disclaimer like this: "The Holy Bible makes a lot of sense and I feel God speaking to me.  But I know that God doesn't exist.  I miss talking to God.  I'm going to church today so I can worship Him."

Phaugh.  Go to church and leave us alone you twit.

If you're considering going Christian because you're afraid of the tyranny, then you've essentially proven one of the reasons that Christianity flourishes. Congratulations.

Perceiving the biblical god as a tyrant isn't the only reason for rejecting him, although it is a great one. There are also the biblical contradictions and errors (note that these are two different types of mistakes). The bible not only contradicts itself, but science and history completely obliterate any possibility of it having literal truth.

 Period.

 

Did it ever occur to you that maybe you just had free will to begin with?

1) "Aliens from the planet Pussei-8 gave us Dairy Queens."

2) "Dairy Queens exist."

3) "Therefore, aliens from the planet Pussei-8 must be real."

See the error here?

Also, God's "free will" that he gave you is pure bullshit. He gave you the "free will" to do it his way or the highway. But if you don't do it his way, he has created a place of eternal torment where you will be sent to suffer a punishment that is infinitely (literally) improportional to the crime.

Suppose a man hold's a gun to your head and tells you to sing "I'm a little teapot". He informs you that it's your free will whether or not you sing the song, but if you sing the song, he'll save you by rescuing you from the danger of the gun. But if you don't sing the sun, the gun will shoot you in the face. This is pure bullshit, because the only reason there is a gun is because HE produced it.

Similarly, God is giving you the "free will" to do it one way or the other, but he's rescuing you from or damning you to a fate that HE PRESENTED.

That's the stupidest notion of free will I've ever heard.

I think we should, because a lot of people kill each other for reasons stemming from religious beliefs.

And if he isn't real and you believe in him, then you dedicate your life to a pointless endeavor, when you could have been doing something more constructive.

Did you ever notice that many of things that are so great about heaven are things that we value here on earth? Why would that be... hmm....

Did you ever notice that God, angels, and man are often described in terms of a king's court? Why would heaven be modeled after a man-made (and outdated, nonetheless) system of government?

What's so bad about dying anyway? Have you ever died? Do you know that it's bad, or are you just afraid of it? I'm sure nobody wants to die a horrific or painful death, and nobody wants their family and friends to mourn, but do you really have any clue what death is like? Think about this: When were you born? Now imagine what life was like ten years before that. Maybe that's what death is like. Is that so bad? No complaints here. 

 

Wrong. They will get cruel punishments that are vastly improportional to the crimes they committed. For example, let's say you sin. Not exactly a huge sin (although let's not forget that all sin is equal in the eyes of God), but just the slip-up variety. You accidentally let a few curse words slip one day when you're in a bad mood, you accidentally look at an attractive person the wrong way, etc etc. then you die.

For each of these small acts, which took mere seconds and required almost no brain activity whatsoever, you will be punished for eternity. Not 100 years. Not 1,000 years. Not ten million years, but eternity.

Let's suppose that for each sin you commit, no matter how big, you are burned and tortured for 100 years each. If you sinned a mere 5 times before judgment, that's 500 years of torture! That seems pretty damn sufficient, don't you think?

But that's not good enough for old Yahweh.

Okay, let's suppose that for each sin you commit, no matter how big, you are burned and tortured for 10,000 years each. Same number of sins. That's 50,000 years of torture for JUST FIVE SINS!!!

But that's not good enough for old Yahweh.

Nope. Not even 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years of unfathomably wicked torture for each individual sin is good enough for Yahweh.

You must suffer FOREVER. Even if you regret your sin after the fact, it matters not. You are officially shit out of luck. YOu are there FOREVER.

Are they really getting "their proper punishment"?

Give me a break. That's just ridiculous and inhumane.

That's more of an insult to the religion than to your statement---just to clarify. But I would appreciate it if you thought about it. 

But just because we don't have knowledge in a certain area doesn't mean you can automatically insert any explanation you want. I could insert the aliens from planet Pussei-8 if I felt like it.

But I'm not going to, because that's lazy, and because it is an insult to anyone who would like to know the real answer.

"God of the gaps" should be a sin.

Did you know that "Adam" and "Eve" first appeared in the Epic of Gilgamesh along with Noah's Ark? They weren't called by those names, of course, but they were all in there. Zoroastrianism thought of it first. Strange how that works.

Do you see how your even THINKING ABOUT this religion is making you want to be ignorant? I'm not saying that you ARE ignorant (yet), but look at what you just said: having all the answers is a bad thing?

I agree that we will probably never have them, but what is so wrong about aspiring to find them?

This also leads to ignorance. Trust me: YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY QUESTION. In fact, if you want something that is more worth your time than Christianity, then just start asking questions and then look for the answers.

That includes any and all questions about Christianity (which, if asked and answered honestly, should lead straight to a rejection). 

I like that he picked a "contradiction" that was basically of no consequence. Who gives a shit what the sign said?

What about the conflicting geneologies in the new testament? What about the old testament geneologies which call for a 6,000 year old earth (it's actually about 4.5billion years old---not exactly a small miscalculation), what about the fact that the bible says that god does not tempt man and then provides a story in which god does tempt (and it uses the exact word) man?

Have fun: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html 

What Ray has done here is some hybrid of cherry-picking and rough-edge-smoothing to make you feel like there are no serious contradictions when there are plenty.

Ray is not honest with himself. Why would he be honest with you?

Biblical contradictions aren't the only reason to reject the message of the bible. It's just one straw on the camel's back, but you need all the straws to break it. (Or at least more than one of them.)

The above is just a safety-catch. The same way Christians "prophecied" that they would be persecuted when they already knew they would be; the same way they forbid anyone to question god when they knew people would; the same way Christians argue that god is beyond science and reason (because if he wasn't he wouldn't make sense); for the same reason Ray has said the above.

Ask yourself how much sense it makes that God would purposely sprinkle contradictions into his "revealed truth" to snare people. Does he want us to know the truth or not? What the hell is with the mind games? Why do I have to rely on a book anyway? Why doesn't he just jump on down and say hi?

The answers to these questions are obvious. Only a person who is determined to keep their belief will not find them of any consequence.

Ray is being an apologist. He's bad at it. Ever seen the banana argument? Oh my god... *slaps forehead*

 

You can do that without being a Christian.

Yes, even when God says that 2+2 = Orange, you are not to question him. I know it doesn't make sense on even the most basic level of logic, but just maintain that child-like faith (ignorance?) and everything will be okay.

I don't think any one person could gain complete world knowledge. The human life span simply isn't long enough, even if a person could dedicate his entire life to reading books. But mankind can collectively know a lot of things (we already do), and there is nothing wrong with that.

Is it not possible to be intelligent AND humble?

Softening your heart to hear the voice of God? You won't like this answer, but I'm going to call that "emotional woo-woo". It doesn't actually mean anything, it just sounds pretty and makes you feel nice. The truth doesn't always make you feel nice, but it's the truth.

Soften your heart to the fact that Christianity is bullshit and you will hear the voice of reason. 

 

Try thinking about it this way: If God doesn't make sense to our feeble, lousy, pathetic little minds, then just think how stupid he must sound to himself!

An ant would never understand our minds because ants don't know we exist, and even when they do, they hardly care. Ants never suffer an existential crisis, let alone contemplate a profound meaning to the universe ("universe" is another thing they don't know and could care less about). That is to say, ants don't even TRY to understand us. And if they could and did make the attempt, I'm sure some of us would find that interesting enough to want to share some of our thoughts with them.

Ant: "Thoughts?"

Ant Enthusiast: "Well, ant, lately I've been thinking a lot about nudist colonies."

Ant: "Uh huh..." *scribbles in ant notebook*

 

I will state my usual policy: When asking a Christian for an explanation, don't let them use analogies. I can explain to you why Christianity is bullshit without using them.

You could make any claim make sense if you were adamant enough about finding an appealing false analogy. 

 

Translation: "Do you know how humans are the greatest things on earth? Well God is even greater than that!"

There are brains on earth that can do things many times better than your brain can. Have you ever seen a bee? That bee has a better sense of direction and navigation than you could even dream of having.

The human brain is pretty damn amazing, but it's not better all around.

By the way, since minds are just an emergent property of material brains, do you realize that believing that god has a mind means that you believe he has a material brain? In other words, he's a physical being just like us and is confined to the same laws of physics as the rest of us? I think I spy a slippery slope ahead.

 

Of course, no TRUE Christian would do that. This is called the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. It occurs when a claim is made, the claim is refuted, and then the original claim is adjusted after the fact.

1) No American opposes the war.

2) I oppose the war, and I'm American.

1) Well, no TRUE American opposes the war. 

 

 Keep swinging, Ray. You might connect with something some day.

We've already proved how "just" this judgment will be (i.e. not at all).

Doesn't condemning people to eternal torment kind of contradict the whole "love thy enemy" thing? Why doesn't God love his enemies? Are we his enemies simply because we didn't find his story convincing? Maybe we would have been more inclined to believe it if he wouldn't have "snared us" with his contradictions. But I guess I shouldn't expect to understand such a great mind. HA!

Let's not forget that God, on several occasions in the bible, actually gave people permission to commit acts of violence, and even committed some of his own (killing all the babies was the best one). So it appears that even if you want to claim that some of these people who killed in God's name weren't "real Christians", that at least some of them were!

After the fact, no doubt.

If his words would have been forgotten, then you would have never known that this prophecy had not been fulfilled.

In case you missed it, that means that anyone can say this and has just as much of a chance as being right as he did. Try it!

They already had. Why wouldn't they do it again?

Yeah, and Nostradamus was right about 9/11, remember?

You weren't. Most of them aren't. 

What kind of a coward do you have to be to bow to a bully? Do you think it is moral or rational for a leader to be a bully? You want to worship a bully? That makes you an immoral sick coward. Fortunatly for you such a fictional being doesnt exist. Would you become a Nazi just because Hitler had the power to murder you or allow you to be murderd? 

I suspect you were never an atheist in the first place. I think you are an atheist, not based on the origin of the word, but you are an atheist based on the bastardized version Christians have turned the word into.

There is only one reason to hold a position on any isssue. EVIDENCE. Certainly God being a bully would not be a reason not to believe in his existance. But it would be morally repugnant to kiss his ass IF ONE WERE TO ASSUME FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE that such a claimed being existed.

Proveing the existance of Allah would still be a differant issue than weither or not such a being would be deserving of respect.

You are a charloton who came here claiming to be an atheist. I suspect you may merely think you are without knowing what it means and merely buy what theists tell you what it means.

If this is the best argument you can come up with you dont deserve to be an atheist. Atheists worth their intelectual weight wouldnt spew garbage like this.

We are not fooled by your ploy and we wouldnt want you using the word "atheist", you dont diserve it. That title is for people who think.  You are a con artist trying to fool people, nothing more.