Are Atheists Good People?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#780 Feb 19, 2013
USN Atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really?? So please tell me, how does your "god" work and by what evidence do you come to this conclusion? Verifiable evidence only please.
Oh shit, sorry. I forgot the atheist rules of debate...

You can say:
" Oh I see, so your omniscient "god" waited for people to die out...instead of just making them go "poof" and be gone."

Without having verifiable evidence.

But I can't

LMAO!

YOU are the claiming that God can *poof* things.

Please tell me, how does you know how God works and by what evidence do you come to this conclusion? Verifiable evidence only please...

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#781 Feb 19, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Dassa fack.
Hi, Ooog.
Yo Mac!!

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#782 Feb 19, 2013
Hyper Squid wrote:
<quoted text>
Your a redarded one. you fink that hoomins evolvd frum munkeys, so you're dum.
PoE!!!

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#783 Feb 19, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
PoE!!!
Prolly.

Since: Feb 13

Lockhart, TX

#784 Feb 19, 2013
Too stupid to understand science? Try religion I guess. lol

Since: May 11

Reality, USA

#785 Feb 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh shit, sorry. I forgot the atheist rules of debate...
You can say:
" Oh I see, so your omniscient "god" waited for people to die out...instead of just making them go "poof" and be gone."
Without having verifiable evidence.
But I can't
LMAO!
YOU are the claiming that God can *poof* things.
Please tell me, how does you know how God works and by what evidence do you come to this conclusion? Verifiable evidence only please...
I do not know how your "god" works that is why I am asking you. There is no "god", there never was and there is not one now so I am not the one to say how YOUR "god" does his magic. That is for you to explain if you are able.

So how does your "god" do things? Prayer? If you pray does it occur? And if not then I guess that must mean that your "god" said "no"? How do you know this....how do you know that he said "no" or if your prayer does come true then how do you know that it was your "god" that did it and not some other "god" that was listening to you and answered it? Or that it was just coincedence or PFM that caused it?

Here's one I really like to have answered - the saying "God will not give you more than you can handle.". Have you ever said it? Have you had it said to you. How about you try using that on the widowed mother who just lost her only child to SIDS and then kills herself out of despair...you know it has happened before. Do you think your "god" gave her more than she could handle?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#786 Feb 19, 2013
USN Atheist wrote:
There is no "god", there never was and there is not one now
How have you reached this conclusion?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#787 Feb 19, 2013
USN Atheist wrote:
So how does your "god" do things? Prayer? If you pray does it occur? And if not then I guess that must mean that your "god" said "no"? How do you know this....how do you know that he said "no" or if your prayer does come true then how do you know that it was your "god" that did it and not some other "god" that was listening to you and answered it? Or that it was just coincedence or PFM that caused it?
Strange.

You ask questions, then answer them.

That tells me you really don't want to ask a question, you just want to promote your ideas.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#788 Feb 19, 2013
USN Atheist wrote:
Here's one I really like to have answered - the saying "God will not give you more than you can handle.". Have you ever said it? Have you had it said to you. How about you try using that on the widowed mother who just lost her only child to SIDS and then kills herself out of despair...you know it has happened before. Do you think your "god" gave her more than she could handle?
Are you first claiming there is no god then blaming that god you claim doesn't exist on travesty?

Do you also thank God for that 9 year old girl that can play a piano better than Mozart?

I doubt it.

You Hatheists are all the same. You blameGod for everything negative & praise human ingenuity & the beauty of nature for every positive....

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#789 Feb 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you first claiming there is no god then blaming that god you claim doesn't exist on travesty?
Do you also thank God for that 9 year old girl that can play a piano better than Mozart?
I doubt it.
You Hatheists are all the same. You blameGod for everything negative & praise human ingenuity & the beauty of nature for every positive....
No, twit.

Those of us who have an inkling of how science works would be more than happy to debate Fundies on a scientific basis.

Except that most Fundies don't have a clue, when it comes to science.

So, we refute you on a Biblical basis.

Which we also tend to know better.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#790 Feb 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
We had another shooting out here yesterday. In Tustin.
I was getting worried, it's been a few days.
Yeah it's sad. Can only hope they were religious.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#791 Feb 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you first claiming there is no god then blaming that god you claim doesn't exist on travesty?
Do you also thank God for that 9 year old girl that can play a piano better than Mozart?
I doubt it.
You Hatheists are all the same. You blameGod for everything negative & praise human ingenuity & the beauty of nature for every positive....
If "god" isn't responsible for the negative in the world then something or someone is more powerful than god. Perhaps you should be worshiping that before you really piss it off.

Since: May 11

Reality, USA

#792 Feb 19, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>No, twit.
Those of us who have an inkling of how science works would be more than happy to debate Fundies on a scientific basis.
Except that most Fundies don't have a clue, when it comes to science.
So, we refute you on a Biblical basis.
Which we also tend to know better.
Exactly, thank-you.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#793 Feb 19, 2013
USN Atheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, thank-you.
YW.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#794 Feb 23, 2013
Atheists and the word "faith". Atheists understand thoroughly the word faith, they understand the meaning and how it's used. Atheists just like the rest of us use faith everyday in one way or another, whether in people or things it's a fact that we all use it everyday. Since atheists use it for other purposes, then why do they not use it to believe in God? The atheists believe their must be proof, facts that substantiate without a doubt something exsists or not. Faith which is used daily is proven to work when one uses it over and over in their lives or they wouldn't continue to use it. An example of faith for instance would be like having faith in a service such as your phone carrier you use, as long as that service runs smoothly you're happy, when it starts to cause you headaches you then have no faith in it as a good phone service, so you change phone carriers. Having faith in people is another way we demostrate the use of faith. Let's say for instance you use a doctor who has always taken the time to listen to you and showed a level of compassion you became use to expecting, and then you noticed his attitude and his lack of paying attention changed and you felt uncomfortable with him displaying this type of behaviour over the course of the last 5 visits, so now you have lost faith in him and you now seek another doctor.. Atheists must have scientific proof that God exsists before they will believe, but they have no problem believing in people or things through faith but refuse to allow themselves to utilize faith to believe in God. God has made it perfectly clear time after time that no calculation or deciphering or scientific testing will ever prove of his exsistence, again time after time God has made it clear that no testing by a man made method will ever prove of him exsisting. He tells us the only way you can know he exsists and he tells us this many many times to make sure we understand that FAITH is the only way to know of him being real. God has made it to where on judgment day no excuses will be used, like the excuse of not using faith to believe in him as we do in people and things in our lives. This seals the fate of those who refuse to believe in God for what ever reason.(12 min ago (55 min ago | post #479)(22 min ago | post #605044)

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#795 Feb 23, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
You assume scientists stumbled acrossed some rocks, assumed they were meteors, assumed they were from Mars and assumed how old they are.
I assume you are an idiot.
Most likely, I am correct.
Why would you assume that? It is a long established fact.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#796 Feb 23, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
Atheists and the word "faith". Atheists understand thoroughly the word faith, they understand the meaning and how it's used. Atheists just like the rest of us use faith everyday in one way or another, whether in people or things it's a fact that we all use it everyday. Since atheists use it for other purposes, then why do they not use it to believe in God? The atheists believe their must be proof, facts that substantiate without a doubt something exists or not. Faith which is used daily is proven to work when one uses it over and over in their lives or they wouldn't continue to use it. An example of faith for instance would be like having faith in a service such as your phone carrier you use, as long as that service runs smoothly you're happy, when it starts to cause you headaches you then have no faith in it as a good phone service, so you change phone carriers. Having faith in people is another way we demostrate the use of faith. Let's say for instance you use a doctor who has always taken the time to listen to you and showed a level of compassion you became use to expecting, and then you noticed his attitude and his lack of paying attention changed and you felt uncomfortable with him displaying this type of behaviour over the course of the last 5 visits, so now you have lost faith in him and you now seek another doctor.. Atheists must have scientific proof that God exsists before they will believe, but they have no problem believing in people or things through faith but refuse to allow themselves to utilize faith to believe in God.
I scanned your post as I have a nervous problem with long posts, which I myself am guilty of making. However, I think I grasped what you are saying.

Briefly, we all have faith in something daily. Very true. The things of this world you refer to, though, are things we have faith in due to previous knowledge that the particular thing or event does occur or exist, most of the time, so we get accustomed to it being always there.

There has never been one iota of a reason to believe that any god exists, except that the various religions have traditions that are passed down through the generations and indoctrinated into each succeeding generation that these 'gods' actually exist.

Some, such as the common ones of today, have writings from men of several, or many, centuries ago, attesting to these beings 'showing' themselves, but when deeply analyzed it is usually found there is no substance to the claims.

We have vast numbers of claims of the Bible that have had to be considered as fables, because man now knows beyond doubt that certain events actually never occurred.

With the Bible related religions, we have enough 'claims' now known to be untrue, that the whole document must be considered as unreliable.

Nobody can prove the non-existence of a god, because that is an impossible task. Anything non-existent cannot leave evidence, and if we had proved beyond any doubt that no god exists within our abilities to detect, there is always the possibility that one might still exist outside our range or abilities to detect.

On the other hand, proving the existence of a god, in order to actually give service to such an entity, should be easy, or we shouldn't pay it any mind. To the present date, Feb 23, 2013, man has not yet proved, and verified with proper methods, that any god has ever existed or exists now.

The statement in the above paragraph cannot be refuted because it is the current 'known' status of all knowledge about gods.

We have personal accounts of someone 'finding''God' and having a relationship with this 'God' yet not one of these people can prove that experience by any reliable method to others. They must then, at the very best, be considered as something created within their own brain cells.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#797 Feb 23, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
I scanned your post as I have a nervous problem with long posts, which I myself am guilty of making. However, I think I grasped what you are saying.
Briefly, we all have faith in something daily. Very true. The things of this world you refer to, though, are things we have faith in due to previous knowledge that the particular thing or event does occur or exist, most of the time, so we get accustomed to it being always there.
There has never been one iota of a reason to believe that any god exists, except that the various religions have traditions that are passed down through the generations and indoctrinated into each succeeding generation that these 'gods' actually exist.
Some, such as the common ones of today, have writings from men of several, or many, centuries ago, attesting to these beings 'showing' themselves, but when deeply analyzed it is usually found there is no substance to the claims.
We have vast numbers of claims of the Bible that have had to be considered as fables, because man now knows beyond doubt that certain events actually never occurred.
With the Bible related religions, we have enough 'claims' now known to be untrue, that the whole document must be considered as unreliable.
Nobody can prove the non-existence of a god, because that is an impossible task. Anything non-existent cannot leave evidence, and if we had proved beyond any doubt that no god exists within our abilities to detect, there is always the possibility that one might still exist outside our range or abilities to detect.
On the other hand, proving the existence of a god, in order to actually give service to such an entity, should be easy, or we shouldn't pay it any mind. To the present date, Feb 23, 2013, man has not yet proved, and verified with proper methods, that any god has ever existed or exists now.
The statement in the above paragraph cannot be refuted because it is the current 'known' status of all knowledge about gods.
We have personal accounts of someone 'finding''God' and having a relationship with this 'God' yet not one of these people can prove that experience by any reliable method to others. They must then, at the very best, be considered as something created within their own brain cells.
We here of God by our parents or other people about God being a loving God, and this starts us putting our faith in God just like faith we put in people and things in life. The bible is completely accurate. There is more proof of the validity and exsistence of the bible beyond a doubt. Manuscripts, archaelogical findings, eyewitnesses, even eyewitnesses from those who didn't like God. Religion has been obvious in every place in the world throughout time. Religion is talked about in life more than any other topic in the world..
Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability
by Matt Slick
The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy... and they are very consistent.
There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.2
Author
Date
Written
Earliest Copy
Approximate Time Span between original & copy
Number of Copies
Accuracy of Copies
Lucretius
died 55 or 53 B.C.
1100 yrs
2
----
Pliny
61-113 A.D.
850 A.D.
750 yrs
7
----
Plato
427-347 B.C.
900 A.D.
1200 yrs
7
----
Demosthenes
4th Cent. B.C.
1100 A.D.
800 yrs
8
----
Herodotus
480-425 B.C.
900 A.D.
1300 yrs
8
----

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#798 Feb 23, 2013
Part 2.



Suetonius

75-160 A.D.

950 A.D.

800 yrs

8

----



Thucydides

460-400 B.C.

900 A.D.

1300 yrs

8

----



Euripides

480-406 B.C.

1100 A.D.

1300 yrs

9

----



Aristophanes

450-385 B.C.

900 A.D.

1200

10

----



Caesar

100-44 B.C.

900 A.D.

1000

10

----



Livy

59 BC-AD 17

----

???

20

----



Tacitus

circa 100 A.D.

1100 A.D.

1000 yrs

20

----



Aristotle

384-322 B.C.

1100 A.D.

1400

49

----



Sophocles

496-406 B.C.

1000 A.D.

1400 yrs

193

----



Homer (Iliad)

900 B.C.

400 B.C.

500 yrs

643

95%



New
Testament

1st Cent. A.D.(50-100 A.D.

2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D. f.)

less than 100 years

5600

99.5%


As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#799 Feb 23, 2013
Final part,,,

Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts.

Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.

Below is a chart with some of the oldest extant New Testament manuscripts compared to when they were originally penned. Compare these time spans with the next closest which is Homer's Iliad where the closest copy from the original is 500 years later. Undoubtedly, that period of time allows for more textual corruption in its transmission. How much less so for the New Testament documents?


Important
Manuscript
Papyri

Contents

Date
Original Written

MSS
Date

Approx.
Time Span

Location



p52
(John Rylands
Fragment)3

John 18:31-33,37-38

circa
96 A.D.

circa
125
A.D.

29 yrs

John Rylands Library, Manchester, England



P46
(Chester Beatty Papyrus)

Rom. 5:17-6:3,5-14; 8:15-25, 27-35; 10:1-11,22,24-33,35; 16:1-23, 25-27; Heb.; 1 & 2 Cor., Eph., Gal., Phil., Col.; 1 Thess. 1:1,9-10; 2:1-3; 5:5-9, 23-28

50's-70's

circa
200
A.D.

Approx.
150 yrs

Chester Beatty Museum, Dublin & Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Michigan library



P66
(Bodmer Papyrus)

John 1:1-6:11,35-14:26; fragment of 14:29-21:9


70's

circa
200
A.D.

Approx.
130 yrs

Cologne, Geneva



P67

Matt. 3:9,15; 5:20-22, 25-28



circa
200
A.D.

Approx.
130 yrs

Barcelona, Fundacion San Lucas Evangelista, P. Barc.1


If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper. On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others. The Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing. It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New Testament.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min another viewer 973,938
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 9 min RiversideRedneck 64,601
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 17 min Liamm 654,403
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 52 min WasteWater 2,599
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 55 min gundee123 106,600
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr Steve III 45,282
40+ big black men for white sissy transvestites (Jan '13) 1 hr ChristinaMarieCD 13
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 8 hr Brian_G 281,947
More from around the web