Are Atheists Good People?
Doctor REALITY

Conway, AR

#1162 May 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Polly want a cracker? Atheists think your belief in the Satan is as foolish as your belief in god.
I will work for you, before I work for your fantasies. You are real, Satan is just your conception of evil. A deity that quite simply
does not exist anywhere but your mind.
http://bible.cc/revelation/20-12.htm
Doctor REALITY

Conway, AR

#1163 May 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Polly want a cracker? Atheists think your belief in the Satan is as foolish as your belief in god.
I will work for you, before I work for your fantasies. You are real, Satan is just your conception of evil. A deity that quite simply
does not exist anywhere but your mind.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#1164 May 7, 2013
Doctor REALITY wrote:
<quoted text> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =uuoOBOXgvk0XX
All this proves is Religion is for frightened infantile minds who prefer absurdity to uncertainty.
Do Do Cockodoo

Baltimore, MD

#1165 May 7, 2013
Doctor REALITY wrote:
<quoted text> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =uuoOBOXgvk0XX
Hi?
dr reality and old lunatic BS bambling day by day nonsenses around like lunatic on the edge of complete insanity?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#1166 May 7, 2013
Doctor REALITY wrote:
<quoted text> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =uuoOBOXgvk0XX
Do you not think any second coming, would be proven by the second coming?
And not by those who constantly parrot it will be?
It's sorta put up ..or shut up.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#1167 May 7, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't "know" anything about any professed creator because none of the gods man has created ever existed. http://www.godchecker.com that includes yours.
So your analogy is that adults simply believe in fairytales, I wish you would show me just one that lives out his life in a fairytale world, and I'll show you the mental institution where he resides. Church buildings are real. People from the President down believe, and no we weren't created by a chance meeting of atoms coming together at just the right time to create life, now that's believing in a fairytale, you have absolutely no proof what so ever in life being created this way, none at all. You again say there's no life after death, but you have absolutely no proof of that. You say God doesn't exsist, again no proof at all. The bible not only proves it but explains in great detail how life came to be and everything else I mentioned, which you can't prove. Your analogy on the bible being used to control the masses is greatly flawed. I could only imagine how long the line was when the rich ruler who you say was controlling the people, for what reason I haven't a clue was passing out bibles to millions. Try watching Duck Dynasty, who all happen to be members of the Church of Christ and take a load off. I personally think because of the mass confusion caused by man is so profound that people are having great difficulty in trying to figure out what church is the one true church, as there can only be one church, which is the Church of Christ. It
s amazing to me that people say, including yourself that all churches say the same thing about there church, but all one has to do is just a little studying and you can deduct the false religions so fast it's unbelievable. Not one person has ever attempted to prove the Church of Christ to be a false church, except without proof. Tell me just one thing that you see to be wrong and not in harmony with God, just one thing.
Nobody

Irving, TX

#1168 May 8, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't "know" anything about any professed creator because none of the gods man has created ever existed. http://www.godchecker.com that includes yours.
lol, yeah sure whatever you say man. Its your life.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#1169 May 8, 2013
Some of you people take this far to seriously. You folks can argue until your fingers fall off, but I doubt you're going to change the others' minds.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#1170 May 8, 2013
Also, your silly little icons to comments that don't agree with your points of view are very immature for such supposed intellectuals.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#1171 May 8, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
<quoted text> So your analogy is that adults simply believe in fairytales, I wish you would show me just one that lives out his life in a fairytale world, and I'll show you the mental institution where he resides. Church buildings are real. People from the President down believe, and no we weren't created by a chance meeting of atoms coming together at just the right time to create life, now that's believing in a fairytale, you have absolutely no proof what so ever in life being created this way, none at all. You again say there's no life after death, but you have absolutely no proof of that. You say God doesn't exsist, again no proof at all. The bible not only proves it but explains in great detail how life came to be and everything else I mentioned, which you can't prove. Your analogy on the bible being used to control the masses is greatly flawed. I could only imagine how long the line was when the rich ruler who you say was controlling the people, for what reason I haven't a clue was passing out bibles to millions. Try watching Duck Dynasty, who all happen to be members of the Church of Christ and take a load off. I personally think because of the mass confusion caused by man is so profound that people are having great difficulty in trying to figure out what church is the one true church, as there can only be one church, which is the Church of Christ. It
s amazing to me that people say, including yourself that all churches say the same thing about there church, but all one has to do is just a little studying and you can deduct the false religions so fast it's unbelievable. Not one person has ever attempted to prove the Church of Christ to be a false church, except without proof. Tell me just one thing that you see to be wrong and not in harmony with God, just one thing.
I have some shocking revelations for you;

1. Politicians tell people what they want to hear. If atheism were more popular, POTUS would be atheist.

2. Paul/Saul of Tarsus wrote most of the NT and it is even likely he and his buddies made up the whole Christ story.

3. All protestant branches of Christianity began circa 1535 with Martin Luther and not a second before then.

4. All Christian Churches are false churches and you can't prove otherwise.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#1172 May 8, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
I have some shocking revelations for you;
1. Politicians tell people what they want to hear. If atheism were more popular, POTUS would be atheist.
2. Paul/Saul of Tarsus wrote most of the NT and it is even likely he and his buddies made up the whole Christ story.
3. All protestant branches of Christianity began circa 1535 with Martin Luther and not a second before then.
4. All Christian Churches are false churches and you can't prove otherwise.
It hasn't worked yet. People of normal intelligence would not be swayed by anybody, especially a politician, as history proves this beyond a doubt. You been duped by your own unwilligness to read the bibe, as the bible clearly says when christianity came to be, "And it came about that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch." (Acts 11:23-26).

After having gone to Tarsus to get the new convert Saul, only recently a persecutor of the church himself, Barnabas returns with Saul and they work with the church at Antioch for a year. What an encouragement he must have been to Saul, for most believers were still afraid of him. Later, Barnabas and Saul (soon to be known as Paul) will travel through Asia Minor together establishing many churches in many different cities. Antioch would become their "headquarters" from where they would launch their missions and return after completing them.

It was during this year in which Barnabas and Saul are at Antioch that the disciples were first called "Christians". The disciples were followers of Christ. A disciple of Jesus is happy to wear His name. Later, Peter tells disciples to "in that name (that is, in the name "Christian" -J.Q.) let him glorify God." (1 Peter 4:16). Though the enemies of Christ may speak the name with a sneer, disciples wear it joyfully. The Lord has been sanctified in our hearts (1 Peter 3:15).

I can show you so easily that every other church is a false religion, and I will. Which one would you like me to start with? You do know I see no source or proof of anything you say.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#1173 May 8, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
<quoted text> It hasn't worked yet. People of normal intelligence would not be swayed by anybody, especially a politician, as history proves this beyond a doubt. You been duped by your own unwilligness to read the bibe, as the bible clearly says when christianity came to be, "And it came about that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch." (Acts 11:23-26).
After having gone to Tarsus to get the new convert Saul, only recently a persecutor of the church himself, Barnabas returns with Saul and they work with the church at Antioch for a year. What an encouragement he must have been to Saul, for most believers were still afraid of him. Later, Barnabas and Saul (soon to be known as Paul) will travel through Asia Minor together establishing many churches in many different cities. Antioch would become their "headquarters" from where they would launch their missions and return after completing them.
It was during this year in which Barnabas and Saul are at Antioch that the disciples were first called "Christians". The disciples were followers of Christ. A disciple of Jesus is happy to wear His name. Later, Peter tells disciples to "in that name (that is, in the name "Christian" -J.Q.) let him glorify God." (1 Peter 4:16). Though the enemies of Christ may speak the name with a sneer, disciples wear it joyfully. The Lord has been sanctified in our hearts (1 Peter 3:15).
I can show you so easily that every other church is a false religion, and I will. Which one would you like me to start with? You do know I see no source or proof of anything you say.
You are mistaken in your belief that I have not read your "Babble"
1 Corinthians 2:14

If you had any "proof" your church were the correct one, there would not be 38,000 other christian churches all saying that you got the message wrong and are going to burn in hell for it.

"Acts" was written a full 50 years after the supposed Christ figure existed. It proves nothing and is not a reliable accounting of those events. Also, we only know of Paul's "persecution of Christians" because Paul said so. This is very much like the modern Christian liars who claim to be "former atheists" in order to garner favor as a proselytizer of the Christian religion.

Paul is obviously a liar. Any preacher today who said he was knocked off his azz by a beam of light sent by god and spoke to god directly, would be seen as the liar he is. The fact that Paul lived 1900 years ago changes that not at all in my mind.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#1174 May 8, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
You are mistaken in your belief that I have not read your "Babble"
1 Corinthians 2:14
If you had any "proof" your church were the correct one, there would not be 38,000 other christian churches all saying that you got the message wrong and are going to burn in hell for it.
"Acts" was written a full 50 years after the supposed Christ figure existed. It proves nothing and is not a reliable accounting of those events. Also, we only know of Paul's "persecution of Christians" because Paul said so. This is very much like the modern Christian liars who claim to be "former atheists" in order to garner favor as a proselytizer of the Christian religion.
Paul is obviously a liar. Any preacher today who said he was knocked off his azz by a beam of light sent by god and spoke to god directly, would be seen as the liar he is. The fact that Paul lived 1900 years ago changes that not at all in my mind.
I'm unsure of what you're wanting me to get out of 1 Corinthians 2:14, please explain a little more in detail. The proof is there, but man has decided what and how he wants t worship God, so that is why the 38,000 false religions. As far as Paul making this all up just to be impailed upside down is ridiculous, not to forget all the others who were killed for their belieing in God. Ooogah all I can do is what I'm doing, reply with the answers I know to be true, whether you disagree or not.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#1175 May 8, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
<quoted text> I'm unsure of what you're wanting me to get out of 1 Corinthians 2:14, please explain a little more in detail. The proof is there, but man has decided what and how he wants t worship God, so that is why the 38,000 false religions. As far as Paul making this all up just to be impailed upside down is ridiculous, not to forget all the others who were killed for their belieing in God. Ooogah all I can do is what I'm doing, reply with the answers I know to be true, whether you disagree or not.
In the first century, there was no separation of Church and state. The government and the church were the same thing. Paul wrote the pauline letters to establish and maintain political power through his claimed divine authority and therefore association with the Christ figure. He was the ruler of his fiefdom "by God!". When his political rivals took over, conquered his territory, killing him was a matter of claiming that political power. Whether or not he recanted his ridiculous stories would not have mattered at all. They weren't killing him for religious conviction, no matter what you want to believe. They killed him for political control.

The fact is that you no little to nothing about how your silly book of fables came to be. That's why you are foolish enough to believe what it says.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#1176 May 8, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
<quoted text> I'm unsure of what you're wanting me to get out of 1 Corinthians 2:14, please explain a little more in detail. The proof is there, but man has decided what and how he wants t worship God, so that is why the 38,000 false religions. As far as Paul making this all up just to be impailed upside down is ridiculous, not to forget all the others who were killed for their belieing in God. Ooogah all I can do is what I'm doing, reply with the answers I know to be true, whether you disagree or not.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

There is no man more "natural" than one who observes the evidence presented by the natural universe only. You can not prove anything spiritual or supernatural exists at all, not one thing.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#1177 May 8, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first century, there was no separation of Church and state. The government and the church were the same thing. Paul wrote the pauline letters to establish and maintain political power through his claimed divine authority and therefore association with the Christ figure. He was the ruler of his fiefdom "by God!". When his political rivals took over, conquered his territory, killing him was a matter of claiming that political power. Whether or not he recanted his ridiculous stories would not have mattered at all. They weren't killing him for religious conviction, no matter what you want to believe. They killed him for political control.
The fact is that you no little to nothing about how your silly book of fables came to be. That's why you are foolish enough to believe what it says.
What is it with you and the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is a false religion.The bible speaks nothing of the catholic church, because the catholic church has nothing to do with the bible, nothing. The catholic church doesn't do anything the bible says, absoluely nothing. Every Catholic is taught and believes that the apostle Peter was the first Roman bishop—the first “Pope”—and that he resided at Rome. If this were true, God’s Word would state it. But, in fact, the Bible directly confirms the opposite. History seems to attest, however, and it is quite possible, that Peter was crucified in Rome. This said, here are a series of ten proofs, with scriptural support, demonstrating that Peter never resided at Rome:
(1) Rome is in Italy. This means that Gentile Italians live there. The apostle Paul was ordained to be the apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter. Paul wrote this to the Gentile Romans:“That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable…”(15:16). He also described himself to the Galatians as having the gospel of the “uncircumcision”— the Gentiles—committed to him (2:7).
(2) The Emperor Claudius had banished all Jews from Rome in AD 50. Acts 8:1 describes the “great persecution against the Church” and that “they were all scattered abroad” as a result.
(3) Peter wrote his first general epistle from the city of “Babylon”(5:13). Many have assumed that this is Rome, when it is actually the Babylon of Mesopotamia. It is interesting to note that historians generally confuse—switch—scriptural references to Babylon by applying those that do apply to Rome as though they apply to Babylon, and vice-versa—in other words, those that do not apply to Rome are assigned Roman designation.
(4) Paul told the Romans,“Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation”(15:20). Paul’s assertion would make no sense had Peter been resident at Rome, having established this congregation.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#1178 May 8, 2013
Final part,.
(5) Then, in light of the previous point, why would Paul offer the following salutation to the Roman congregation, also if Peter had been there for years?:“For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end that you may be established”(1:11). Think how insulting this expression would have been to “Pope Peter,” had he been in Rome.
(6) Paul concludes the Roman letter in chapter 16 with separate greetings to 30 different people in Rome—Mary, Andronicus, Junia—(these last two were probably apostles; Rom. 16:7)—Amplias, Urbane, Stachys, Apelles and 23 others— with no reference to the one who was supposedly the Pope, guiding the congregation and the entire New Testament Church from that city. No reasonable person could believe that Paul would so insult his own spiritual superior!
(7) Galatians 1:18-19 and 2:7 demonstrate that Peter was based at Jerusalem, from where he periodically traveled to places like Bithynia, Northern Galatia and Babylon, and other places where Israelites (also see #9) had migrated, from AD 38 to AD 49—the dates of these events described in Galatians.
(8) Luke 22:24 states,“And there was a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.” Here is why this passage is important. This debate took place after Christ, in Matthew 16:17-19, had supposedly designated Peter as the one who would become the first Pope. While not directly involving Rome, this provides its own proof that Christ never conferred, at least from the other apostles’ perspective, the office of “Pope” to Peter.
(9) This point proves the other side of point 1. Already referenced, notice how Paul, who first describes himself, concludes his statement in Galatians 2:7, with this about Peter:“But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision [Gentiles] was committed unto me [Paul], as the gospel of the circumcision [Jews and the other tribes of Israel, referenced in #7] was unto Peter…”
(10) In II Timothy 4:11, Paul, commonly understood to be writing this epistle from Rome, states,“Only Luke is with me.” Further, in verse 10, he describes how one named Demas had “forsaken” him and gone back to the “world,” with Crescens and Titus having also transferred to other places of duty. None of this makes sense if the “Pope”—Peter—had been present.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#1179 May 8, 2013
Working for the Lord wrote:
<quoted text> What is it with you and the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is a false religion.The bible speaks nothing of the catholic church, because the catholic church has nothing to do with the bible, nothing. The catholic church doesn't do anything the bible says, absoluely nothing. Every Catholic is taught and believes that the apostle Peter was the first Roman bishop—the first “Pope”—and that he resided at Rome. If this were true, God’s Word would state it. But, in fact, the Bible directly confirms the opposite. History seems to attest, however, and it is quite possible, that Peter was crucified in Rome. This said, here are a series of ten proofs, with scriptural support, demonstrating that Peter never resided at Rome:
(1) Rome is in Italy. This means that Gentile Italians live there. The apostle Paul was ordained to be the apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter. Paul wrote this to the Gentile Romans:“That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable…”(15:16). He also described himself to the Galatians as having the gospel of the “uncircumcision”— the Gentiles—committed to him (2:7).
(2) The Emperor Claudius had banished all Jews from Rome in AD 50. Acts 8:1 describes the “great persecution against the Church” and that “they were all scattered abroad” as a result.
(3) Peter wrote his first general epistle from the city of “Babylon”(5:13). Many have assumed that this is Rome, when it is actually the Babylon of Mesopotamia. It is interesting to note that historians generally confuse—switch—scriptural references to Babylon by applying those that do apply to Rome as though they apply to Babylon, and vice-versa—in other words, those that do not apply to Rome are assigned Roman designation.
(4) Paul told the Romans,“Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation”(15:20). Paul’s assertion would make no sense had Peter been resident at Rome, having established this congregation.
Calling the first organized church a lie, absolutely will not help validate another church. It is much like sibling rivalry.

“Nature--The Only God We Need”

Since: May 13

Christianity :TheGreatest Evil

#1180 May 8, 2013
Atheists are better people than radical christians.

But then,*anyone* is better than a radical christian, with the possible exception of a radical muslim.

It's a toss-up.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#1181 May 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Calling the first organized church a lie, absolutely will not help validate another church. It is much like sibling rivalry.
I'm not, because there not the first, the Church of Christ is. The date of the Church of Christ was established in 33 AD. Their is no mention of a catholic church in the bible, but there is a church called the Church of Christ being established in 33 AD. The catholic church has absolutely nothing to do with the bible as far as doing God's will as they don't even come close to doing as the bible says. In 2 Timothy 4:10, 11. Paul says only Luke was with him. Peter never was in the city of Rome. The whole organizational structure of the Church of Rome is built on false tradition and tragic misinterpretation of our Lord's words. It is built on tradition that is just not true.

Either the statements presented in the Bible are true, OR the contrary traditions are true. The traditions however have obvious errors thouroughly embeded in them and are clearly unreliable. One or the other has to be false. The Bible is the revelation from God and it proves itself to be what it claims to be. It is true. Peter never was in the city of Rome.

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
Never thought I'd see the day...when............. 7 min Doctor REALITY 6
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 9 min Uncle Jack 60,204
Is America 'Mystery Babylon,' mentioned in the ... 22 min Doctor REALITY 6
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 hr Message to Your M... 994,098
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 hr Faith 695,716
News US may never see another spiritual leader like ... 6 hr Doctor REALITY 2
Depressed girlfriend. Don’t know what to do 7 hr True Tamil Tiger 4
wierd situation with my mom. (Jul '14) Feb 19 Pimpy 23
More from around the web