Serious questions for the Christians on this board

[Rocky32189]

I have some serious questions for the Christians on this board:

Why do you think that there is no tangible proof of God? If he exists, why doesn't he make himself known to us?

Why do you choose to believe some parts of the bible and disregard others? For instance, the bible says that the earth is the center of the universe, when we obviously know this is wrong. What's to stop everything else from being wrong?

Do you believe that humans were the first organisms on earth? That is what the bible tells us, but fossil records show that significant life existed hundreds of millions of years before humans walked the earth.

Do you believe in a virgin birth? An understanding of science and the reproductive cycle tells us this is impossible, yet we hear about it every year at Christmas time.

Why does the bible tell us that good atheists go to hell but bad Christians (as long as they repent) go to heaven. Why would an all loving god follow such rules when there is no tangible proof of his existence?

[ChrisV1]

Originally Posted by Rocky32189

I'm sorry but that answer completely disregards the issue. You cannot say that it is improbable that life came from nothing, and then say that God came from nothing, is eternal, etc. It can be argued from either side and cannot be used to justify either side.

I was just saying that you cannot use science to explain the beginning of the world because it is not scientifically possible for something to poof out of nowhere. But in Intelligent Design it is certainly possible to believe that a superior being was here and always has been here to create all of us.

To answer your other question, I believe that atheists get a much worse treatment, most likely since most people belong to some religion (most Christianity). It seems like a lot of people think you are a bad person if you are an atheist. I find that lots of people connect atheists to anti-god people and satanists. This is what I've come across in my everyday life.

I have some serious questions for the Christians on this board:

Why do you think that there is no tangible proof of God? If he exists, why doesn't he make himself known to us?

He doesn't make himself known for the sake of faith. If you knew without a doubt god was alive you would follow him out of fear, and not because of love. If you follow him out of faith and truly believe, that is the correct way to follow. Also, who says he hasn't been on earth. No one knows what he looks like he could come in many forms.

Why do you choose to believe some parts of the bible and disregard others? For instance, the bible says that the earth is the center of the universe, when we obviously know this is wrong. What's to stop everything else from being wrong?

The bible does not say the earth is the center of the universe. However, in the past, the catholic church did and tried to imprison people that believed otherwise.

Do you believe that humans were the first organisms on earth? That is what the bible tells us, but fossil records show that significant life existed hundreds of millions of years before humans walked the earth.

In the passage Genesis 1 it states that god had created beasts to walk the earth, land, air, and sea. Then He created man in his own image.

Do you believe in a virgin birth? An understanding of science and the reproductive cycle tells us this is impossible, yet we hear about it every year at Christmas time.

I believe it is definitely possible. There have been evidence some virgin births in animals. I am not to informed on the science part of it however, but I did find a Good Read

Why does the bible tell us that good atheists go to hell but bad Christians (as long as they repent) go to heaven. Why would an all loving god follow such rules when there is no tangible proof of his existence?

There are signs everywhere. Maybe not as tangible as you would like, but signs of spirituality and the need for god in harsh times is present everywhere. If you had a chance to hear the word of god and you deny it that itself is denying the ground you walk on and the air you breath that god has built for you.

I hope I answered all of your questions....

[Little Horn]

Now that this is it's own thread...

ChrisV1, I think that this may be the second time you and I agree on something. I addressed the idea of God showing himself to prove his existence in the Atheist Hate thread. I addressed it this same way. That if he proved to everyone that he existed then it would destroy faith and faith is the foundation of Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions. However, you still did not dispute the fossil record showing evidence quite contrary to the accounts presented in Genesis 1.

I also read through the article you posted and found it quite interesting. The only problem is that if this hypothesis were the case, this would render Mary sterile. The Bible suggests that Mary had more children following the birth of Christ. (Matt 12:46-47, Matt 13:55, Mark 6:2-3, John 2:12). There are many more references in the canonized New Testament as well as many of the Uncanonized books and Gospels. So are we to believe that ALL these children were miracle births as well?

Now, when you get on the subject of the absolute beginning of everything neither side is correct or wrong conclusively. You're talking about the creation of time and space. This is a concept so far beyond our means to understand it. How do you measure the beginning of time?

Rocky32189, if you're going to cite the Bible as a reference you should probably present the verse and line. Not only will it make it easier for everyone but I will keep you from looking like a presumptuous ass. I personally do not recall the Bible stating that the Earth is the center of the universe. I could be wrong. if you've got that information then please post it for everyone to see.

[HipHopScribe]

It's incorrect to say that it's not scientifically possible to explain the beginning of life or the universe, if there even was a beginning, the universe may have always existed. As far as life, the idea isn't that it "poofed" out of nowhere, all the elements needed to create life existed before life, it's just a matter of the circumstances that fit perfectly to result in life from those elements. There are theories about the beginning of life and the existence of the universe, but science will have to advance before that can all be explained beyond much doubt.

[Rocky32189]

ChrisV1,

You cannot say it is scientifically impossible for life to come from "nothing". We just haven't advanced far enough to prove without a doubt that this possible. But we do have a wide array of evidence that suggests this is what occurred. Intelligent Design on the other hand, has zero evidence to back up its reasoning besides blind faith.

And like I said before, it is no more believable to say that a god was always here and one day decided to create everything, than it is to say the building blocks of life were always here and it took the right conditions to begin life. You cannot argue either way.

If I knew God existed, I wouldn't follow out of fear, but that is just me. Why don't you feel that you need tangible proof or evidence to back up your beliefs? Isn't the word faith simply a way to explain the lack of evidence for God's existence?

Genesis also states that god created the earth in seven days. Fossil records show that significant life existed millions of years before humans walked the earth. You cannot have it both ways. Either you accept science as fact or believe that fossil records are wrong, suggesting that dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as humans (or within seven days of each other). Do you believe fossil records are incorrect? What do you believe concerning this issue?

I think floorpuncher covered the virgin birth issue quite well.

I've never once denied the word of God. I simply do not believe in something in which I feel there is no proof of existence, but in fact there is a wide array of evidence to suggest he doesn't exist. What is wrong with that? If God gave me the ability to question something that I feel doesn't make sense, why would he punish me for it? But according to the bible, I will go to hell for this, but a Christian who kills and rapes (and later repents) will go to heaven. Why would an all loving God and reasonable God allow for this?

[ChrisV1]

Originally Posted by Rocky32189

ChrisV1,

You cannot say it is scientifically impossible for life to come from "nothing". We just haven't advanced far enough to prove without a doubt that this possible. But we do have a wide array of evidence that suggests this is what occurred. Intelligent Design on the other hand, has zero evidence to back up its reasoning besides blind faith.

It doesn't have zero evidence. There have been studies that trace the first human bloodline to North Africa or the Middle East, IE the suspected location of the Garden of Eden. There has also been studies on the complexities of the human species and how it is almost impossible for a non-thinking single celled organism to produce something such as the human brain which can process and understand concepts faster than any supercomputer in the world.

Also there is also good and evil. If we are just another one of the millions of species, how come we do not act purely on instinct as they do. Do you think that if we evolved from something such as a single celled organism that we would grasp the concept of good and evil that the Animal Kingdom has not? Animals will kill and hunt each other without remorse, they will have many mates but no attachment to any of them. Even the smartest animals in the worlds such as dolphins and pigs cannot grasp moral right and wrong. If all animals evolved, then how come they do not carry this moral asset?

Genesis also states that god created the earth in seven days. Fossil records show that significant life existed millions of years before humans walked the earth. You cannot have it both ways. Either you accept science as fact or believe that fossil records are wrong, suggesting that dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as humans (or within seven days of each other). Do you believe fossil records are incorrect? What do you believe concerning this issue?

Carbon Dating can be widely inconsistent, and is usually based off assumptions. I am definitely not disproving it, I am just saying. Also how do you know the Creator couldn't of placed them there to test his faith, or placed many vacant obstacles in a believers life to test the durability of their faith. It is not like they are actual Dinosaurs, just the fossils left behind, which can only explain so much.

[Little Horn]

Originally Posted by Rocky32189

ChrisV1,

You cannot say it is scientifically impossible for life to come from "nothing". We just haven't advanced far enough to prove without a doubt that this possible. But we do have a wide array of evidence that suggests this is what occurred. Intelligent Design on the other hand, has zero evidence to back up its reasoning besides blind faith.

And like I said before, it is no more believable to say that a god was always here and one day decided to create everything, than it is to say the building blocks of life were always here and it took the right conditions to begin life. You cannot argue either way.

If I knew God existed, I wouldn't follow out of fear, but that is just me. Why don't you feel that you need tangible proof or evidence to back up your beliefs? Isn't the word faith simply a way to explain the lack of evidence for God's existence?

Genesis also states that god created the earth in seven days. Fossil records show that significant life existed millions of years before humans walked the earth. You cannot have it both ways. Either you accept science as fact or believe that fossil records are wrong, suggesting that dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as humans (or within seven days of each other). Do you believe fossil records are incorrect? What do you believe concerning this issue?

I think floorpuncher covered the virgin birth issue quite well.

I've never once denied the word of God. I simply do not believe in something in which I feel there is no proof of existence, but in fact there is a wide array of evidence to suggest he doesn't exist. What is wrong with that? If God gave me the ability to question something that I feel doesn't make sense, why would he punish me for it? But according to the bible, I will go to hell for this, but a Christian who kills and rapes (and later repents) will go to heaven. Why would an all loving God and reasonable God allow for this?

Keep in mind that I am an Atheist. I think the difference between me and many other Atheists is that I don't necessarily take the stand that science proves the non existence of God because I don't because no advancement of science could ever prove such a thing. I think that because I study the Bible and other religous works I have a very solid understanding of what God is when viewed under the Christian microscope and I can understand a Christian's thought process a little better than most Atheists can. This is not to say that I agree with it or can relate, just that I can understand.

You claim that if you knew God existed, you wouldn't follow. I'm the same way. I refuse to worship a sexist, racist, malevolent bully in a positive light even if he were to show himself to me. What you're not understanding is the difference between faith and belief and worship. Just because you believe something to be true does not mean you have to like it. If God were to show himself he would prove that he existed and the foundation of Christianity would shatter. I'm not saying this makes any kind of rational sense as to why a God would create man, want man to worship him but to alway doubt his existence. But this is the foundation of Christianity. (Correct me if I'm wrong Chris).

As far as Genesis's account for the creation of everything and the order in which it happened... This doesn't mean that this is way that God created things. Yes, I understand that millions of Jews and Christians all consider Genesis to be the word of God but that doesn't mean that it is. All these fallacies establish is an unstable foundation for the story of Genesis but can not discredit the idea of God.

I know what you're going to say and before you say it i agree with you 100%.

If Genesis could possibly be wrong then what else could possibly be wrong.

These are things that to Atheist, cast doubt. As Atheists we typically look at things critically and try to use rationale to understand things. Religionists use faith therefore the specifics aren't really always important to them. I think that any Christian with any common sense would tell you that there are parts of their religion that don't make sense and that this is when they rely on faith. I can't begin to relate to this thought process but it is their right to look at things how they wish.

I often raise this question when I think about the idea of God.

If God created me in his own image, wants me to worship him and his son, yet made me so critical (and cynical) am I really to blame for my lack of faith? Is it really my fault? Is it fair that burn in hell forever for being as I was made?

I think not. To me, this is all the evidence I need to confirm to myself that there is no god. At least not one that cares about what I think or feel or whether or not I or anyone else worships him.

[Little Horn]

Originally Posted by ChrisV1

Also there is also good and evil. If we are just another one of the millions of species, how come we do not act purely on instinct as they do. Do you think that if we evolved from something such as a single celled organism that we would grasp the concept of good and evil that the Animal Kingdom has not? Animals will kill and hunt each other without remorse, they will have many mates but no attachment to any of them. Even the smartest animals in the worlds such as dolphins and pigs cannot grasp moral right and wrong. If all animals evolved, then how come they do not carry this moral asset?

This an incorrect statement. Penguins are just one of many species of animals that have the same mates for life. Also there have been studies that show the Chimpanzee are able to not only feel but express empathy to a fellow chimp who may have been injured or hurt in some way and to go out of their way to lessen the chimp's suffering. They form complex social structures taht consist of rules and regulation based off what is good for the clan. Is this so different than what we do? There was a long debate about morality without religion on here. I posted this in that thread but I want to post it again because I feel that it's relevant.

From Wikipedia

Evolutionary biologists start from the assumption that morality is a product of evolutionary forces.[citation needed] On this view, moral codes are ultimately founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were selected for in the past because they aided survival and reproduction (inclusive fitness). The strength of the maternal bond is one example. Another is the Westermarck effect, seen as underpinning taboos against incest, which decreases the likelihood of inbreeding depression.

The phenomenon of 'reciprocity' in nature is seen by evolutionary biologists as one way to begin to understand human morality. Its function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. For example, on any given night for vampire bats, some individuals fail to feed on prey while others consume a surplus of blood. Bats that have successfully fed then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984)

It has been convincingly demonstrated that chimpanzees show empathy for each other in a wide variety of contexts.[6] They also possess the ability to engage in deception, and a level of social 'politics'[7] prototypical of our own tendencies for gossip, and reputation management.

Christopher Boehm (1982) has hypothesized that the incremental development of moral complexity throughout hominid evolution was due to the increasing need to avoid disputes and injuries in moving to open savanna and developing stone weapons. Other theories are that increasing complexity was simply a correlate of increasing group size and brain size, and in particular the development of theory of mind abilities. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion suggested that our morality is a result of our biological evolutionary history and that the Moral Zeitgeist helps describe how morality evolves from biological and cultural origins and evolves with time within a culture.

As far as Carbon dating goes... it's funny to see that religionists will cling to carbon dating when it's finding support common idea such as the dates of the certain religious codex but completely bash it when it contradicts what is held as truth (see Aegean island of Thera and how Carbon dating relates to proof of the destruction of Jericho and also see the Shroud of Turin).

[ChrisV1]

Maybe I worded it wrong floorpuncher, I am not saying animals do not have feelings, morals, or they don't connect in time of need. That is all basic instinct. I am saying they don't know the concept of Good and Evil. They don't care if they kill another animal being or they do not shun those that do. Like we do. For Example, If a male lion killed 100 other lions in plain site, the female mate would not care. Which is the opposite of human life. No species besides human would label each other and notice the evil for killing or committing obscene actions or the good in each other for not. It is purely animal instinct.

[Little Horn]

Originally Posted by ChrisV1

Maybe I worded it wrong floorpuncher, I am not saying animals do not have feelings, morals, or they don't connect in time of need. That is all basic instinct. I am saying they don't know the concept of Good and Evil. They don't care if they kill another animal being or they do not shun those that do. Like we do. For Example, If a male lion killed 100 other lions in plain site, the female mate would not care. Which is the opposite of human life. No species besides human would label each other and notice the evil for killing or committing obscene actions or the good in each other for not. It is purely animal instinct.

This again is incorrect. Chimpazees have shown to develop extremely complex social structures that include laws and punishment for breaking those laws. This is not to say that ALL animals are this way but it does illustrate the ability to understand right from wrong without the word of God. Regardless, the concept of good and evil is all relative much like the concept of morality. There are still practicing cannibal tribes in obscure parts of South America. We view human sacrifice as evil and cannibalism as just as bad but in their society it is acceptable. You see what I mean?

[ChrisV1]

Originally Posted by floorpuncher

This again is incorrect. Chimpazees have shown to develop extremely complex social structures that include laws and punishment for breaking those laws. This is not to say that ALL animals are this way but it does illustrate the ability to understand right from wrong without the word of God. Regardless, the concept of good and evil is all relative much like the concept of morality. There are still practicing cannibal tribes in obscure parts of South America. We view human sacrifice as evil and cannibalism as just as bad but in their society it is acceptable. You see what I mean?

I'm not saying that all humans grasp Good and Evil but they all have the ability to. You are making chimpanzee's laws more complex than they really are. They are nothing more than if you kill one of us we'll kill one of you ideology. That doesn't mean they grasp what is Good or Evil to any extent, they are just retaliating to survive. I have not seen any evidence of one Chimp hating another because he killed an unrelated Chimp.

[Little Horn]

Originally Posted by ChrisV1

Cannibalism is few and far between. I'm not saying that all humans grasp Good and Evil but they all have the ability to. You are making chimpanzee's laws more complex than they really are. They are nothing more than if you kill one of us we'll kill one of you ideology. That doesn't mean they grasp what is Good or Evil to any extent, they are just retaliating to survive. I have not seen any evidence of one Chimp hating another because he killed another unrelated Chimp.

And I think you're putting too much stock in the concept of good and evil. I suppose this is one subject we simply can not agree on. You view God or the Bible as the source of good and evil and I view evolution and our survival instinct as the ultimate source of morality. I think you give the human animal too much credit in the way that you seemingly attempt to sever the way we respond to our environment from instinct and label it as something much more appealing.

Like I said though, good, evil, right, wrong, moral, immoral... it's all relative.

you should also look into jane Goodall and the studies that she did on primate behaviour and social structures. Or Even Frans de Waal. He's got some good stuff too.

[ChrisV1]

Originally Posted by floorpuncher

And I think you're putting too much stock in the concept of good and evil. I suppose this is one subject we simply can not agree on. You view God or the Bible as the source of good and evil and I view evolution and our survival instinct as the ultimate source of morality. I think you give the human animal too much credit in the way that you seemingly attempt to sever the way we respond to our environment from instinct and label it as something much more appealing.

Like I said though, good, evil, right, wrong, moral, immoral... it's all relative.

you should also look into jane Goodall and the studies that she did on primate behaviour and social structures. Or Even Frans de Waal. He's got some good stuff too.

Probably. And yeah I used to read about Jane Goodall, it is pretty interesting stuff. I still do not believe Apes have nearly the same thinking process as humans in terms of morality, but I think they are closer than any other of species no doubt.

[ShotgunSnipist]

To tell you the truth. I think 'God' is just one GIGANTIC Placebo. I was Christian. Was. Then I realized I was basically praying to a brick wall. However, I think praying works for a lot of people the same reason writing in a diary or notebook helps. You just feel like it's getting out of you. I also think it would just be a better Idea to rely on stuff you are 100% sure exists. We know we exist. We know our friends exist. We know animals and beings are all real. We can rely on them. We can rely on scientists to create cures for life threatening viruses and such. But we can not pray and expect someone to be healed.

On the other hand, there has been hypnosis done where people talk about going to heaven and being reborn into life back on earth. So really I know nothing. I don't know what to believe. But, I do believe the Christianity is not entirely correct. The people wrote the bible not god. If he really made the world and the people why would he send gays to hell if he created that disorder? Or women. 'He' says that women are men's slaves every waking second. Would 'god' say that?

It's just not worth the fuss to figure this kind of thing out. I do always feel like something is watching, waiting. I fell odd trashing this god I do not believe in. It's really quite odd. I guess someday, probably about 60 years from now. Well all know the truth. And each of us will hope we are right....

[Rocky32189]

It doesn't have zero evidence. There have been studies that trace the first human bloodline to North Africa or the Middle East, IE the suspected location of the Garden of Eden. There has also been studies on the complexities of the human species and how it is almost impossible for a non-thinking single celled organism to produce something such as the human brain which can process and understand concepts faster than any supercomputer in the world.

But that can be rationalized by science as well, i.e. the origin of our evolution as we know humans today. What I'm trying to say is that there is nothing that religion can explain, which can't be explained more rationally and believably by science. And there is not a shed of tangible evidence that God indeed exists.

Also there is also good and evil. If we are just another one of the millions of species, how come we do not act purely on instinct as they do. Do you think that if we evolved from something such as a single celled organism that we would grasp the concept of good and evil that the Animal Kingdom has not? Animals will kill and hunt each other without remorse, they will have many mates but no attachment to any of them. Even the smartest animals in the worlds such as dolphins and pigs cannot grasp moral right and wrong. If all animals evolved, then how come they do not carry this moral asset?

As floorpuncher stated, there are animals which exibit the same characteristics as ourselves. Obviously, our superior method thinking and morals come from our intelligence and this can be explained by evolution. Of course it is possible for us to stem from single celled organisms. This can be explained by billions of years of evolution. These changes are so tiny you can barely see them if you look at a small scale (thousands of years) but on a huge scale it is very reasonable. I do not feel religion provides the same type of rational explanations to justify their assumptions.

Carbon Dating can be widely inconsistent, and is usually based off assumptions. I am definitely not disproving it, I am just saying. Also how do you know the Creator couldn't of placed them there to test his faith, or placed many vacant obstacles in a believers life to test the durability of their faith. It is not like they are actual Dinosaurs, just the fossils left behind, which can only explain so much.

But why would God intentionally put hurdles in our way to trip us up? Why would he allow rational people such as myself to slip through the cracks and burn in hell for using the reason he supposedly gave me? I know you cannot answer these questions, but this is the type of rational that leads me to believe there is no God. Most of the answers given to back up religion just do not make sense.