By John Blake, CNN
“Lead me not into temptation. I can find it all by myself.”
That line, taken from the country music song “Lead Me Not,” evokes smiles because it underscores a truth: The struggle against temptation is universal.
A new survey, however, gets specific about the type of temptations most Americans battle against, and shows that men and women seem to wrestle with different vices.
“Temptations and America’s Favorite Sins,” a survey conducted by the Barna Group, a Christian research firm, concludes that the moral struggles that vex most Americans aren’t the salacious acts that drive the plotlines of reality television shows. Most Americans are too worn down or distracted to get snared by those vices, the survey concludes.
The top three sins seducing most Americans: procrastination, overeating and spending too much time on media.
“You would think it would be sex, drugs and rock and roll,” said Todd Hunter, pastor and author of “Our Favorite Sins,” whose book was consulted in conjunction with the survey.
The survey said that 60% of Americans admitted that they’re tempted to worry too much or procrastinate; 55% said they’re tempted to overeat, and 41% said they’re tempted by sloth, or laziness.
The sex, drugs and rock and roll-like vices fell dead last in the temptation categories: 11% of Americans said they were tempted by drug abuse; 9% were tempted by sexually inappropriate contact.
Even young people put sex and drugs way down on their list, according to the survey, which broke down temptations by gender and age. It found that 21% of millennials (born between 1984 and 2002) considered sexually inappropriate behavior their chief temptation. It was the lowest percentage attributed to any vice by millennials. Their top two temptations were worrying too much and procrastination.
The battleground for temptation has also shifted – it’s gone digital, according to David Kinnman, president of Barna Group, which based its survey on 1,021 online interviews with a representative sample of white, African-American and Latinos.
“Temptation has gone virtual, ’’ Kinnman said. “Nearly half of Americans admit to being tempted to use too much media and one in nine admits to expressing their anger digitally.”
Temptation also seems to affect men and women differently – more women said they’re tempted by gossip and overeating, and only 8% of women admitted to being tempted by online pornography versus 28% of men.
Many Americans who admit to being tempted aren’t putting up a big fight. The study said that 59% of Americans admit that they don’t do anything to avoid temptation and half can’t explain why they give into temptation.
Many Americans still can’t explain what sin is, Hunter said. Worrying, for example, is not considered one of the seven deadly sins (pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed and sloth). Yet survey respondents listed it as one of their top temptations.
“There’s no agreement on what sin is,” Hunter said. “It’s one of the aspects of the world we live in. It’s becoming more relativistic. It’s hard to talk about sin when everyone disagrees about what it is.”
Hunter knows a little bit about temptation. One of his is chocolate. He once shot up to 330 pounds because he overate. He said all temptations start with a desire for something good: tasty food, rest, intimacy. They become “disordered” when they enslave people and spread pain through their lives.
“Disordered desires imprison us,” he wrote in “Our Favorite Sins.” “In the end they give us nothing – not one lasting shred of goodness, freedom, joy, or love.”
Hunter’s advice for staying clear of temptation: fasting, praying and staying out of places and relationships that lead you toward temptation.
For those who aren’t religious, Hunter recommends thinking about sports. He cites the practice habits of superstars like NBA legend Michael Jordan. They practice progress, repeating athletic exercises every day until their body complies.
Little victories lead to big things, Hunter said. In his book, he quoted the legendary college basketball coach John Wooden:
“When you improve a little each day, eventually big things occur. So don’t look for the quick, big improvement. Seek the small improvements one day at a time – that’s the only way progress happens – and when that kind of progress happens, it lasts.”
Jesus' existence isn't the point. At that time, there were many who claimed to be the messiah, that's why most Jews rejected Jesus as just just another who some claimed was the messiah. But if there is no god in the first place, who cares if a real person is claimed to be the messiah?
assuming one believes the absurd idea of inherited "sin" in the first place.
Here are the premises that I base my conclusion upon for the Biblical God / Jesus.
Natural Origins or Supernatural Origins?
__ a) Matter, energy and time exist. Where did they come from? There are currently not naturalistic explanation
that only has supporting evidence for this issue.
__ b) Life exist. Where did it come from? There are currently not naturalistic explanation that only has
supporting evidence for this issue.
Therefore, this implies some supernatural being or event is necessary.
Which supernatural being or event answers the above issue?
__ a) Multiple religions address the creation of life, but only three begin with the creation of matter, energy
__ b) Given the Biblical account that begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
__ c) Given no other religions (other than the Abrahamic branches) begins with the creation of matter, energy and
Therefore, only the Abrahamic religions answer both of the basic issues.
Did the Judaism God Do It?
__ a) Given accurate transmission of the Jewish Bible,
__ b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37) in the Jewish Bible
Therefore, the God of the Jews is a viable contender.
Did the Islamic God Do It?
__ a) Given inaccurate transmission of the Koran Bible,
__ b) Given the factual inaccuracies (i.e. members of the Trinity)
__ c) Given the lack of specific prophecies in the Koran
Therefore, the God of the Muslims is not a viable contender.
Did the Christian God Do It?
__ a) Given accurate transmission of the Christian Bible (i.e. Jewish / OT and NT),
__ b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37, Rev 13) in the Christian Bible
Therefore, the God of the Christian is a viable contender. Since it includes the Jewish beliefs as well, it is
the better answer.
You can continue to cut and paste this nonsense, but it doesn't show a thing. When you ask where matter and energy come from, what makes you so unimaginative that you can think of no other possibility than that some invisible sky fairy "created" them? Doesn't it EVER dawn on you that we do not know how everything came to be, but that that is not evidence of god?
You would prefer the easy answer because you need to know "for sure" how all came to be. That's nothing but laziness on your part.
I need something stronger than a facepalm. Maybe.... facemeetrunawaytrain. We've talked about this over and over and over and hey you guessed it, over again.
The goal isn't necessarily discussion. What I think is happening with folks like Lie4It and Chard is 2-fold. I think they're throwing stuff out to proselytize (continually attempting to chip away at truth with pseudo science) but also so that they may refine their assertions if they feel the need versus any arguments they do get. Their premise will always be "gawd dun it wiff spellz" but they can refine their pseudo science in such a way that the average person may be mesmerized by the parlor tricks. It's an age old con game.
Holy cut n paste!
Things are getting serious.
@HotAirAce "sdot, it is generally accepted that Joseph was not the father of jesus. "
=>well, well!, very interesting.
so, you were so intent on trying to insult Christians by calling Mary names, that you failed to realize that you were publicly acknowledging that you accept as historically accurate the biblical account of Mary not being pregnant by Joseph.
Oh joy, hanging Chad is back, to enlighten us on the sky fairy.
We just need cowardlylion and the babble squad can be complete.
Have you been able to russle up any of that proof of your imaginary friend yet, Chud?
That is right hanging Chad, Joseph did not knock her up.
She got knocked up by some hung goat herder who just wanted a good lay.
So she got some old rich guy to buy into the whole virgin birth thing so she would not have to be stoned do death for having a kid out of wedlock.
nik, the entire birth story of the fabled jesus was written generations after the fact by someone without firsthand knowledge. there is no reason to believe any of it to be other than fiction.
I am totally being facetious. Hell, jeebus did not even exist as he was ripped off from one of the Egytian gods.
But hanging Chad has bought the lie, so why not tease him a bit?
you were so intent on insulting Mary you just didnt realize what you were exposing
@snowboarder, dont let the fact virtually all historians date earliest accounts of Jesus to within 10-20 years after his death/resurrection deter you :-)
And not one of them can prove Jesus was divine.
@niknak "jeebus did not even exist as he was ripped off from one of the Egytian gods"
@Chad "interesting homework assignment for you, try and find a single credible historian that believes what you believe..
then, think about this.. why would you reject the conclusions drawn by virtually all modern historians, and embrace one for which you have no evidence?
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and cla ssical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born BC 7–2 and died AD 30–36. Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek. Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal as sent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.
 Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies by Craig A. Evans 2001 ISBN 0391041185 pages 2-5
 Christopher M. Tuckett In The Cambridge Companion to Jesus edited by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl 2001 ISBN 0521796784 pages 122-126
 Amy-Jill Levine in the The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. 2006 Princeton Univ Press ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6 pages 1-2
 Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman (Sep 23, 1999) ISBN 0195124731 Oxford Univ Press pages ix-xi
 In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (who is a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
^ Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies existence) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61
 Michael Grant (a cla ssicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
 Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
 Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and cla ssical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"
 James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
 The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".
 Paul L. Maier "The Date of the Nativity and Chronology of Jesus" in Chronos, kairos, Christos: nativity and chronological studies by Jerry Vardaman, Edwin M. Yamauchi 1989 ISBN 0-931464-50-1 pages 113-129
 The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 page 114
^ Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (InterVarsity Press, 1992), page 442
 The Historical Jesus in Recent Research edited by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight 2006 ISBN 1-57506-100-7 page 303
 Who Is Jesus? by John Dominic Crossan, Richard G. Watts 1999 ISBN 0664258425 pages 28-29
 James Barr, Which language did Jesus speak, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 1970; 53(1) pages 9-29 
 Handbook to exegesis of the New Testament by Stanley E. Porter 1997 ISBN 90-04-09921-2 pages 110-112
 Discovering the language of Jesus by Douglas Hamp 2005 ISBN 1-59751-017-3 page 3-4
I will ask the same of you, hanging Chad.
Why do you keep clinging onto to the one book, out of so many, when you have nothing to back it's authenticity up with?
Why do you keep believing in god when there has never been one shred of it's existence proven by anything except your book?
You say you don't believe all the scientists who say there is no god, even though you have zero proof of you god.
Until the historians have some verifiable evidence of jesus, then I don't believe he existed.
chad wrote "@snowboarder, dont let the fact virtually all historians date earliest accounts of Jesus to within 10-20 years after his death/resurrection deter you"
it is well established in the gospels were written at least 40 years after jesus fabled death. there would not be a single first hand account of jesus birth. all fiction perpetrated by his followers to portray him as the messiah of prophecy.
Could it be, that you have a belief that you are unwilling to give up on, no matter HOW MUCH evidence demonstrates its incorrectness?
dont forget your HW assignment try and find a single credible historian that believes what you believe..
@snowboarder "it is well established in the gospels were written at least 40 years after jesus fabled death. there would not be a single first hand account of jesus birth. all fiction perpetrated by his followers to portray him as the messiah of prophecy"
well, I dont blame you for not knowing this information, after all, doing investigation just isnt your thing.. I know that..
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 1 Corinthians
now, that writing is dated to 53AD, 23 years after Jesus death.
Note also, that the creed contained therein, has been dated to 5 years after Jesus death.
that's right.. FIVE years.
but, listen.. none of this has to disturb you. it isnt neccessary that any facts exist to support your belief system, after all, it's true right? Who needs evidence when its true?
Incorrect in the preconceived notion that the God of Israel does not ( not (not exist)))?
I'm sure that there were quite a few "Jesuses" that the myth is based on. Whether any of them had a mother named "Mary" or whether that Mary or her husband had any inkling of the "virgin birth" myth and incorporated it into their own story for whatever reason is hardly relevant. Besides, there is no "virgin birth" prophesied; there is only a "young woman will conceive" statement that wasn't even that unique for the time and society in question.
Were there "jesus-type" speakers wandering around Palestine at the time in question claiming to be messiah? Sure, lots.
Did any of their mothers use some ancient statement about "messiah-comes-from-a-virgin" whopper to get themselves out of some consequence of infidelity? Unlikely.
chad, biblical scholars? that's like saying an honest thief. name any actual historian, not baptist ministers.
"Incorrect in the preconceived notion that the God of Israel does not ( not (not exist)))?"
you may want to rethink that ..
your statement is equivalent to "Incorrect in the preconceived notion that the God of Israel does not exist"
which I would agree with. atheists have a preconceived notion that God does not exist, and that preconception is wrong.
stick to the shallow end..
Chad, once again your inability to read causes you to utter stupidities.
I did not say that I accept The Babble's account of the birth of the allegedly divine jesus. With respect to insulting Mary, I merely followed the logical conclusions if one believes the virgin birth myth or not. What would you call a women who cheats on her husband and has a child by another man – a saint?
one fact is undeniable, that man has invented innumerable gods over the course of history. all gods not otherwise proven are assume to be the invention of men and considering the absolute absurdity of the christian doctrine, there is no reason to believe any of it to be true.
read the bold sections above..
i know, I know.. reading.. it's a pain in the neck..
Did Jesus actually claim to be of virgin birth? What sort of sin is it to make false claims about what Jesus said?
Actually Chad, historians in the know will tell you that jesus had an identical twin brother that came out of the closet before jesus so the writers of the babble decided to leave him out of the stories. The facts can be found in the gospels of judas and simon peter (cleverly hidden in the catacombs of the vatican) seen only by a few, complete with descriptions of g*y or*gies.
This is kind of fun making up BS stories about jesus, I feel just like the apostle paul, or maybe Dan Brown must have, although Dan got jesus se*xual orientation wrong.
Chad, I am very please to see that your ability to process logic seems to be decreasing with each passing day, just as I am pleased that your civility is decreasing even more rapidly. (Until recently, your stupidity was always expressed in a somewhat pleasant tone and friendly manner; that has changed as of about two weeks ago). Soon you will be the perfect christian.
Will you look at that? Chad being dishonest again! From the very source (Wikipedia, of course. What a rube.) Chad uses to support this claim –
"Note also, that the creed contained therein, has been dated to 5 years after Jesus death. that's right.. FIVE years."
...one finds, in the same section, the following –
"Robert M. Price and Hermann Detering, writing in the Journal of Higher Criticism (edited by Price) argued that 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 was not an early Christian creed written within five years of Jesus' death. Price and Detering denied that Paul wrote the verses and believed they were an interpolation possibly dating to as far back as the beginning of the 2nd century.
Dishonest. Oh, and lest we forget, a bigot.
chad, yes, there were characters or a character who's life became the fable of christian doctrine. most myths are based on some grain of actual occurrence embellished in the retelling. those sections in bold do not in any manner support the notion of a divine jesus.
So because there's proof that a man existed, that means he was born of a virgin, walked on water, and is the son of the Abrahamic desert god? Try finding some non-christian theologians who believe that, since appeal to authority and consensus seems to be the type of evidence you prefer.
not exist – something useful as a null hypothesis
not (not exist) – what you might prove if you had anything to work with
not( not (not exist)) – what, in your mind, we preconceived about the God of Israel along with everything else that we think does not( not( not exist)). Assuming we've ever thought about it, which we never would have except that amusing theists bring it up.
Also the fact that early Xtian apologists said that the reason the gospel stories looked so much like earlier stories was that it was all planned in advance by Satan. Okee dokee wink wink.
Creationism does not work Chad
"A ssuming we've ever thought about it, which we never would have except that amusing theists bring it up."
so, you're saying that you're an atheist
but you never actually thought thru your position..
well, glad we agree on that.
@Scence "Creationism does not work Chad"
=>ah, so then, how do you explain the origin of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe, the fact that the universe obeys laws, and the origin of life on earth.
just kidding, I know the answer "we dont know, but that doesnt mean God exists, it just means we dont think about it.. we agreed not to discuss this!!.. just... shut up!! you're a MORON"
Chad, when intelligent, honest people don't know the answer, they admit it, because they're honest and intelligent. Stupid people who value their fuzzy-wuzzy feelings over truth feel the need to imagine some invisible and undetectable sky wizard who uses magic spellz and thinks highly of those stupid enough to believe in him.
the entire section.. I know, I know,, you hate it when I do that..
The antiquity of the creed has been located by most biblical scholars to no more than five years after Jesus' death, probably originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community. Based on linguistic analysis, the version received by Paul seems to have included verses 3b-6a and 7. Concerning this creed, Campenhausen wrote, "This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text," whilst A. M. Hunter said, "The passage therefore preserves uniquely early and verifiable testimony. It meets every reasonable demand of historical reliability." Robert M. Price and Hermann Detering, writing in the Journal of Higher Criticism (edited by Price) argued that 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 was not an early Christian creed written within five years of Jesus' death. Price and Detering denied that Paul wrote the verses and believed they were an interpolation possibly dating to as far back as the beginning of the 2nd century. Price said that "The pair of words in verse 3a, "received / delivered" (paralambanein / paradidonai) is, as has often been pointed out, technical language for the handing on of rabbinical tradition". According to Price this (supposedly interpolated) text contradicts Paul's tale of conversion described in Galatians 1:13-24 which explicitly denies that Paul had been taught the gospel of Christ by any man, but rather by Jesus himself. However, many commentators have the view that Paul "received" this from Jesus. They point to 1 Cor. 11:23 as evidence of this idea. "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread..." (1 Corinthians 11:23, (KJV) ) The Greek words for "received / delivered" are the same here as in 1 Corinthians 15:3. But against these scholars, Geza Vermes defends the majority view in The Resurrection. Vermes says that the words of Paul are "a tradition he has inherited from his seniors in the faith concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus". According Paul's Epistle to the Galatians he had previously met two of the people mentioned in these verses as witnesses of the resurrection: James the Just and Cephas/Peter:
@Moby Schtick "When intelligent, honest people don't know the answer, they admit it,"
=>true, very true..
it's only people that are so dedicated to a belief system that they literally ignore everything that disagrees with it, that stop there and say "well.. the only option available from here is non-natural... so... that is where our critical inquiry stops and proceeds no further"
Never thought through my position on the particular God of Israel? I may have done – in all the detail it deserves. My assumption has been that it has to wait on a proof of the existence of God the necessary being some people argue in favor of. Then discussions can begin on whether it has been successfully or sufficiently identified by anyone.
I will state for the record that I am of the mind that the universe expands, contracts, and 'explodes' in a cycle. Matter always exists, just in different forms. The universe does not 'obey laws', we have simply come up with ways to describe what we see. These things happen regardless of what explanations we put to them. I think we have been over the life on earth issue. The fact that we say the universe is 'fine tuned' for something doesn't mean it is. If this is the 2nd time or the 202nd time the universe has been 'made', the conditions we perceive today could be terribly chaotic compared to what happend before.
@Damocles "I will state for the record that I am of the mind that the universe expands, contracts, and 'explodes' in a cycle. "
=>you will probably not be interested in the proof by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin which prove our universe had a beginning and is NOT eternal in the past...
best just to ignore that...
leads to a very uncomfortable series of questions for the atheist.
like, our universe began, all of the matter and time itself came into existence.
– energy can not be created or destroyed naturally (first law of thermodynamics)
– energy exists
– our universe is finite in the past
– therefore, all energy must have been brought into existence non-naturally.
best just to ignore that.... after all, you know your belief system is true, you dont really need evidence to support it.
You must have done a great deal of study to disregard all the other religions, deists, agnostics and atheists to come to the conclusion that the Judeo/Christian god is the one true god, have you? If so I believe that it is up to you to provide valid reasons, proof if you like, why you disregard all those other belief/non belief systems. I know your usual answer is why do others disregard your god, that is a cop out. I for one attended a christian church for about twenty years, read the bible, heard all the sermons but managed to escape what I saw as a scam, my reasons, state yours.
@Tom, Tom, HotAirAce
"The God of Israel doesnt exist until someone proves He does"
fascinating that you simply have no problem embracing the obviously fallacious.
but, then.. it's understandable.. after all, you know your belief system is true, why worry about lack of evidence for it, and the preponderance of evidence against it :-)
" you disregard all those other belief/non belief systems"
1. If the God of Israel is real, ALL of the other gods are false
2. the God of Israel is real
3. therefore, the other gods are false.
No one can argue the logic as presented, the only component that can be attacked is the truth of #2.
The claim of existence of the God of Israel, rejected because it is advanced in the absence of proof that God exists, which is itself waiting on (among other things) proof that there are eternal beings and on proof that there are necessary beings.
@Moby, Nice summary of the prophet situation during the Jesus era.
While I don't think it matters or will ever be known, I do think it rather interesting whether a young woman could pull off a "my child is a prophesized virgin birth" story. I agree it would be hard to get away with unless you had some super tough family members standing around or were exceptionally skilled in persuasion. Just think, though, what those little girls pulled off for so long with the Cottingley Fairies. I'm not saying it's likely this kind of con really happened, but I'd be impressed by a teenage girl who could pull it off.
Since you are one of the wizards of cut and paste, would you mind terribly posting their proof? Any chance that you would be willing to maybe post some articles by some scientists who don't agree with the conclusions they ended with?
The claim of existence of the God of Israel, rejected because it is advanced in the absence of proof that God exists, which is itself waiting on (among other things) proof that there are eternal beings and on proof that there are necessary beings
all you said was "God doesnt exist until you prove He does" using different words
fallaciousness is still fallaciousness no matter how much lipstick is applied.
"1. If the God of Israel is real, ALL of the other gods are false"
...nope – the god of Israel could be real, but might be a charlatan who lied about being the only god. I can think of several other options. I'm not surprised Chad cannot.
There's nothing fallacious about it, Chard. You haven't provided any proof that there is a god at all.
You can "LOL" and "well, well" and "seriously?" all you want, but you haven't made a case.
Well, Chad, I spoke of the claim that the God of Israel exists, which you make without proof. Will you ever be up to it? Seriously?
Yes, Chad, where there is no explanation in the natural and no evidence of anything else, we can only wonder. What we don't do, is presuppose that some ancient myth proven false in many of its claims is somehow correct on there being a big invisible sky wizard who used magic spellz.
Why do you prefer stupid claims that can't be demonstrated true over genuine and honest wonder? Why have you decided to ignore the mult.itudinous evidence that does not agree with your a priori beliefs?
I know the answer, but do you?
@Tom, Tom, the Other One –
Damn it, Tom! Now you've opened the door for another posting of the ridiculous "five points". Thanks, buddy.
Anyone who clings to their a priori beliefs regardless does so by ignoring facts and evidence against his a priori beliefs. Why does Chad think it's special when he does it?
1) If the god of Isreal is real etc etc. Untrue, if one deity is true, then it opens up the door to any deity being true.
2) The deity of Isreal is true. Yet to be proven, all manner of kinks in trying to prove.
3) Other deities are false. Again, untrue.
Sorry, Really-O? Chad's something like a Christian and I have some time to kill.
No worries. I, like Jesus, forgive you.
a lesson for you: "X doesnt exist until you prove it does"
is fallacious, regardless of the nature/identity of the object 'X'
that's it.. end of story.
If the God of Israel is real
then what He says is real
He says there are no other gods but Him.
inescapable logic.. the only thing you can attempt to attack is the reality of the God of Israel.
If He is real, everything else follows.
Quantum mechanics challenge the law of thermodynamics Aug 1/2012.
The experiments at CERN have isolated anti-matter June 6/2011.
It is just a matter of further discovery before your belief system will have to be revised once again, after all at one time you babble believers thought the earth was the center of the universe, your beliefs are constantly revised to conform to reality.
Really? A deity wouldn't lie to get you to worship it? A deity wouldn't be aware that other deities are hungering for your soul and attempt to lead you astray?
The claim that X exists can be rejected for lack of proof that it does. Of course X may exist, but your claim is worthless without proof. You know, it's more common for people to try to justify the foundational belief that God exists than to try to prove the claim that God exists.
From "Debunking Chad, er, I Mean William Lane Craig"
Is there anybody anywhere saying that something (X) doesn't exist until it is proved that it does? I don't think so. I think this is another example of Chad being either extremely stupid or exceptionally dishonest.
It's the belief that doesn't exist until the proof is supplied, fvcking moron.
@Tom, Tom, the Other One "The claim that X exists can be rejected for lack of proof that it does. Of course X may exist, but your claim is worthless without proof."
thanks for acknowledging that the statement "X doesnt exist until you prove it does" is entirely fallacious.
If as you finally were forced to admit, that "X may exist", then the statement that X doesnt exist until you prove it does.
Because the god of the bible lies from start to finish in the book, it's foolish to make any logical claims based on his existence or his supposed nature.
Perhaps the god of Israel is a charlatan and prankster and Christians are his marionettes. I mean, didn't Jesus have holes in his hands and feet? Maybe that's where the strings were attached. Hmm...
@Moby "the god of the bible lies from start to finish in the book"
@Chad "example please :-)
just pulling your leg moby, I dont expect you to provide any evidence to support your statements :-)
"If the God of Israel is real
then what He says is real"
This is nitpicky, but as a matter of how people are disagreeing I think matters. What you mean, I think, is:
"If the God of Israel is real
then what He says is true"
(else your conclusion wouldn't follow)
But that doesn't in itself follow any more than saying
"If Bill Clinton is real
then what he says is true"
So we have to modify again what you're saying to
"If the God of Israel is real
and every attribute believed assigned to him is accurate
and those attributes include complete honesty
then what he says is true"
Unless you say that whole lot you could really be talking at cross purposes with anyone with whom you're debating, because it is certainly logically possible for a god to exist but be misunderstood.
I never claimed a god didn't exist, Chard. I simply see no evidence that there is one. When are you going to produce some? Or are you too busy "LOL"-ing?
Deflect all you want. You have produced no evidence of the existence of a god. You have not shown any evidence that Jesus was divine.
But do keep snarking away. It must do something for your ego.
Oh, and now we're seeing the emoticons. Chard must be struggling again.
@Chad, I see several other people made the same basic point since I refreshed the page. I think if you flesh out what you mean the discussion will be more efficient.
1. If the God Of Isreal is real. ALL the other God's are false.
Really, but you could replace god of isreal with the name of any other god and your statement of logic would be different how exactly? "If" is your problem, it requires the proof you will never be able to provide, just as Vishnu is a big if.
"If the God of Israel is real
then what He says is real"
Nope. There is an unstated premise...that the bible is the true and inerrant word of the god of Israel.
Perhaps, eventually, a meaningful syllogism will surface.
Yes, End Religion – we've been all over this before with Chad. Apologists like Craig seem to grab part of these theories and then run with them and then leap to their god. They admit right in the paper that they don't know what might exist beyond the boundary. Part of Chad's replied to Damo:
[ "uncomfortable series of questions for the atheist.
like, our universe began, all of the matter and time itself came into existence.
– energy can not be created or destroyed naturally (first law of thermodynamics)
– energy exists
– our universe is finite in the past
– therefore, all energy must have been brought into existence non-naturally." ]
so on the last two points which are key for Chad, the part about finite seems to be theoretical according to that BGV paper; in other words they still admitted to a lot of unknowns there. and they've later written about the paper and the unknowns and apologists only have grabbed part of a reply to enhance their case for their god.
and on Chad's last point to Damo – that's just definitely something we don't know about – why? because we can't presume to know all of the extent of what natural means. we think we know a lot, but we may only know a fraction.
I am real.
Whatever I claim to be real is real because I am real
I claim the god of Israel does not exist
Therefore, it doesn't exist.
@Tom, I had been looking with no luck to see where you claimed God didn't exist, and all I could find was a rejection of the claim he did exist, which is hardly the same thing. Glad you verified.
"energy can not be created or destroyed naturally "
Somebody does not understand the implications of the Uncertainty Principle.
Why does Chad refuse to acknowledge the Planck Epoch of the universe?
Because he NEEDS the universe to have a definite beginning. If his a priori belief stated that the universe had no beginning, you can bet he'd be talking about the uncertainty via the Planck Epoch in nearly every post.
Glad you noticed, Sara. Maybe Chard will acknowledge that fact. I doubt it though. It puts a great big hole in his schtick.
Oops, sorry, Sara. You may have meant TTTOO.
Chad, (repeating my message to Live4Him),
If there really is a good god out there I think that he/she/it would be quite able to impart the necessary information to me (and everyone). I do not need to be "more blessed" than your legendary Thomas. If this god is as smart, powerful, noble, fair, just and loving as you proclaim he/she/it will do so.
You are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
It's a shame that your otherwise seemingly good mind has been hijacked by those myths.
@Tom (TTTPS), I meant you.
I see that now, Sara-funny how quiet the Chard has become all of a sudden. Maybe one of his smiley faces turned around and bit off his head.
"the entire section.. I know, I know,, [Chad] hate[s] it when I do that..
The antiquity of the creed has been located by most biblical scholars to no more than five years after Jesus' death, probably originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community. Based on linguistic analysis, the version received by Paul seems to have included verses 3b-6a and 7. Concerning this creed, Campenhausen wrote, "This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text," whilst A. M. Hunter said, "The passage therefore preserves uniquely early and verifiable testimony. It meets every reasonable demand of historical reliability." Robert M. Price and Hermann Detering, writing in the Journal of Higher Criticism (edited by Price) argued that 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 was not an early Christian creed written within five years of Jesus' death. Price and Detering denied that Paul wrote the verses and believed they were an interpolation possibly dating to as far back as the beginning of the 2nd century. Price said that "The pair of words in verse 3a, "received / delivered" (paralambanein / paradidonai) is, as has often been pointed out, technical language for the handing on of rabbinical tradition". According to Price this (supposedly interpolated) text contradicts Paul's tale of conversion described in Galatians 1:13-24 which explicitly denies that Paul had been taught the gospel of Christ by any man, but rather by Jesus himself. However, many commentators have the view that Paul "received" this from Jesus. They point to 1 Cor. 11:23 as evidence of this idea. "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread..." (1 Corinthians 11:23, (KJV) ) The Greek words for "received / delivered" are the same here as in 1 Corinthians 15:3. But against these scholars, Geza Vermes defends the majority view in The Resurrection. Vermes says that the words of Paul are "a tradition he has inherited from his seniors in the faith concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus". According Paul's Epistle to the Galatians he had previously met two of the people mentioned in these verses as witnesses of the resurrection: James the Just and Cephas/Peter:"
I'm fine with the possibility of a deity, it is not going to change my life in any way, no matter how many people yap and yammer that it should. I can respect an enti-ty that creates, I don't have to worship it. If it requires my worship, something smells fishy from the get-go.
Oops...I almost forgot. Chad – Dishonest. Bigot.
That's all well and good until people like Chad succeed in changing law and your teenage daughter has an unwanted pregnancy. Or you develop Parkinson's disease or any number of the other diseases that might be cured or ameliorated by stem cell research, but it is prohibited by law. Catch my drift?
=>I'm running off, will be back later to discuss "just because God is real, doesnt mean everything He says is true"
As you flounce off, waving your hankie, Chard, maybe you can think about presenting evidence that a god exists. I haven't seen you do so yet.
I am not Chad but the greatest proof for God is God Himself. In these last days God has revealed Himself to us in the person of His only begotten son the Lord Jesus Christ.
@Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son –
There must be a bangin' Mystic Warlords of Ka'a game about to take place in Chad's parent's basement.
Note that in my post I never said I was fine with the believers. A belief in a deity, or rather an enti-ty you feel is responsible for the creation of the universe, should be a private thing. If you don't think this enti-ty wants you to do certain things, then by gosh and by golly don't do them. There is no reason to thump your chest and bray like a jackhole to everyone with the misfortune to be within a ten mile radius of you that your way is the only way.
Cheers to you as well. Please note that the use of 'you' was not directed at you, it was a general usage.
Exactly, Really O. Someone educated by Chad today could become the next LCMS or WELS president telling someone they can't pray with other sects because only theirs is the one truly recognized by their god. I can easily think of worse.
Chad was offered a way forward, that is, that he might justify a belief in the existence of God, which he might hope to use as foundational. He continues to need to prove the claim that the God of Israel is real*, and we get to watch him fail time and again.
*Real may mean to Chad that the God of Israel is God – a necessary being, eternal, perfectly good etc. Also, that real means it is a part of reality that is accessible. He probably means by "the God of Israel" that it is uniquely identified in the writings of the Jews .
Even if you said you meant the specific George Washington identified in biography X it would still leave open the possibility that a part of that bio was wrong. If we discovered GW in fact had all his own teeth (or whatever) we wouldn't suddenly declare him not GW. I think it unlikely, too, that if the heavens opened up and a God came down and said "Here I am, just as in the Bible but you got this one thing wrong" anyone would go "Well, that's not MY god of Israel!" and walk off in a huff.
All that aside, the whole Abraham/Isaac (or Ishmael) business would seem to argue that the Abrahamic god is fully capable of deceit and trickery.
Hello Saraswati. I do think adding to an argument on the existence of God that it is the God of Israel is a handicap on the one pursuing the argument. If that person insists on more properties that God must have, they must be established as true properties of God.
If the God of Israel is real (as revealed in the Bible)
then what He says is real
He says there are no other gods but Him.
That which God has done, the creation, is revealed in the universe and in life. The “person” of God, His attributes are revealed in the bible.
Now, either that God of Israel as revealed in the bible is real, or He isn’t.
Bruce Almighty may have concocted the entire Jesus thing, however, that would mean that the God of Israel isn’t real.
Aliens may have invented the entire Jewish/Jesus thing as a cosmic practical joke, but that would mean the God of Israel isn’t real.
IF the God of Israel IS real, then what He says in the bible is real (if you want to use the term “true” that’s probably ok).
The point is, Bill Clinton can be real, but what he says is a lie. The same cannot be said of the God of Israel as revealed in the bible. If the God of Israel as revealed in the bible IS real, then what He says is true.
@Saraswati "the whole Abraham/Isaac (or Ishmael) business would seem to argue that the Abrahamic god is fully capable of deceit and trickery."
@Chad "and.. what evidence do you have to support that assertion?
I think you mean if the God is real and does not contradict descriptions of it in your NIV, including that it does not lie. If you are confronted by God, how will you know God will not lie?
If I'm confronted with a lying god, then the God of Israel as revealed in the bible isnt real.
are you paying attention?
Still not seeing a shred of evidence that any god exists. Why is that, Chardalicious?
Sorry, Chad. I thought you understood that the description of God you have may not be sufficient and accurate. God may be more than and other than what your NIV describes.
The God of Israel deceitfully convinced Abraham to sacrifice his own son.
What about this real God, Chad. How would you be satisfied that it is your God of Israel?
Where's our Chad? "The wicked flee though no one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion." Ah well. I'm sure he'll gather up his courage and come back with as much pluck as ever. AMDG
If I die and meet a being that says "why should you be allowed in to valhalla", and I say "what? I going to heaven because of what Jesus did for me", and he says "ah.. right, lol,, ,that was a joke"..
then, the God of Israel is not real
The God of Israel is either real, or not real.
end of story.
Does it never occur to you, Chard, that when you die, there won't be any "god" or "being" at all?
You are such a dullard.
"Die my dear? Why that's the last thing I'll do."
(Attributed to Groucho Marx)
""Die my dear? Why that's the last thing I'll do."" - Groucho Mar
cute, and probably got a laugh at the time..
he's dead now, and most certainly a theist.
so, that laugh ultimately fell flat..
@Saraswati "@Tom, I had been looking with no luck to see where you claimed God didn't exist, and all I could find was a rejection of the claim he did exist, which is hardly the same thing."
@Tom, Tom, the Other One "The claim that X exists can be rejected for lack of proof that it does"
what evidence have you considered and rejected?
Jesus melmo, but you're stupid, Chard. You can't even figure out whom you're addressing. Moron.
@TTTOO, Chard's the guy who's looking around wondering why everyone else is laughing.
I did say "The claim that X exists can be rejected for lack of proof that it does".
You disagree, Chad? I did also say that rather than a claim that requires proof, that is, a claim that something is fact, you could work from a belief and attempt to justify that belief rather than prove it..
What claim would you like to prove and what do you have in the way of a proof? That God exists? That the God of Israel exists?
well, you say you rejected it for lack of positive evidence.
so, what evidence did you consider that you rejected?
I see you're circling back to "God isnt real until you prove He is" :-)
Keep flailing, Chard. It's fun to watch you drowning in your own stew.
Well, maybe I have to hand it to chad for ending these discussions. He basically said in his last few posts that the only way to be sure is to die. When you die you will either a) be dead or b) be confronted by an enti-ty that may or may not claim to be X deity. I can actually agree with that.
No, Chad, you have it backwards. If you die and meet some god who is honest, you can be positive it is NOT the god of the bible.
@Damocles "Well, maybe I have to hand it to chad for ending these discussions. He basically said in his last few posts that the only way to be sure is to die"
@Chad "no, there is the absolutely real way of knowing for yourself right now by accepting Jesus Christ and receiving the Hold Spirit.
God HAS promised that if we search, He will allow Himself to be found.
sdot- I know it makes you feel better about your absurd beliefs to assert that those who disagree either don't understand or haven't read it.
Unfortunately, the exact opposite is true. It is precisely because we DO understand it and HAVE read it that we realize how ridiculous and patently false it is.
I assert that my understanding of the contents of the bible far surpasses your own, which is why I reject it.
Whoops. Sorry for the top post, folks.
Trying to use logic on people like AnwarSdot is like tyring to make your dog understand why you have to pay the electric bill.
They will never let go of their security blanket no matter how rediculous their argument is.
You cows are a major factor in global warming with all yer flatulence. Don't forget yer tripe, either. TT, da piper's kid said she wants da wurld to stick with latex anyway, so yer obsolete.
LOL @ cowpatty!
@lol?? as long as there are McDonalds we shall never be obsolete! Wait, do they use real beef?
Science somewhere has recycled dung patties for protein patties.
not the fresh stuff but zombie style, with a sip of fake blood, yummy.
My opinion is the schools have over reached on way too much already. 'sides the affordability factor will get them back to basic education soon or they'll be closing up shop. The airhead egoists should have been reined in a long time ago.
why are you never on topic?
Then all you fundies can keep homeschooling your kids.
I am sure they will be able to compete with the European and Asian and wealthey American kids who go to top notch educational programs.
Find god, stay dumb.
Genisis was tried in the court of law (civil) and can not teach it in public schools in the US period..........."
I get tired of scrolling.
Kids need the basics at public school – math, reading, science. Let them explore mythology as an elective in college when it's not on the public dime.
(or via homeschooling/private as others have said)
Have there really been 40,000 known religions over the years?
Or as you just using that screen name to make a point?
Just wondering, because that is alot of scientific time wasted trying to research that many mythologies.
sects/denominations of Christianity
as a good christian my fav sin is hate.
I hate anyone different than me, it is fun.
Well i good, because my favorite sin to dispise, loath, and hate, stuck up, self centerd non-christians like you, it is fun:)
For many Christian hypocrites, they are:
1. Ignore the Golden Rule.
2. Ignore the commands about not judging others.
3. Pretend that the Bible contains the word "abortion".
There is no commandment about not judging if you really read the Word. The Bible says judge righteously not by appearance but by acts. And no the Bible doesnt say abortion but it does say not to murder. Abortion means murder of an unborn child. Democrats love using kids for props when it comes to gun control but why dont they use kids as props at Pro abortion rallys? hmmmmm
And republican love lynching black people, or dragging them to their deaths behind cars or running them over with one.
Plus, the babble said a child was not alive until it took it's first breath as they had no idea about what conception was when the illiterate goat herders wrote your stone age book of magic spells.
So youre telling me that Colin powell loves lynching black ppl and condoleeza rice helps him? i did not know that. Also apparently they did know about conception seeing that there was a virgin named mary who CONCEIVED a child a virgin. anymore brainbusters tough guy?
sdot, "virgin conception" is the lie of one unfaithful woman that has really gone too far.
You brought up the dems, so I brought up what your side does, along with shooting abortion docs, I would say that puts your lily white xtians as the murderers and not the pro abortion side.
@sdot "Abortion means murder of an unborn child."
that's not what abortion means at all...
you need to refine your terminology, a lot
wicked men deserve death niknack. if someone killed your child you would do the same. and snowboarder i get the humor in your joke but if you look at tribes all over the world today and in the past including Israel theyu can tell if a woman has been penetrated, So this conversation is just cherry. er ah peachy.
sdot, it is generally accepted that Joseph was not the father of jesus. You are going to have to prove that your god exists and impregnated Mary, or live with the fact that she was an adulteress slut.
If God cared about fetuses, he would have given a rip all the times when he commanded women to be killed.
so you are telling me the atheist historians on the history channel saying that Jesus walked the Earth are wrong????? they wont say the Son of God but they will say he was alive and his Father was Joseph. wow you guiys are even smarter then them i guess. I didnt realize I was in an ongoing battle such inteligence. Good thing I got God on my side.
sdot, no one is denying the historical jesus – it is the divine, born of a virgin, jesus I believe is total crap mythology. Re: jesus' father, please be consistent – was it your god, Joseph or some other human male? You can't have it all ways.
sdot, the story of mary's supposed virgin conception was written likely well after her death and entirely unsubstantiatable. it is most likely completely fiction.
Guys i gotta run. I truly hope that you will find God one day. It really bothers me that ppl arent going to Heaven but I hope you guys do. You never got too out of line and I appreciate no namecalling though you did blasphem my father. Its ok. Im truly sorry for whatever made you decide not to believe but hope that maybe I could get you to read a little further into my side of this debate instead of just being one sided. I was able to debate a little with you guys because Ive looked into both sides. God bless
sdot, it would be interesting if anyone actually found god, but so far all gods have been conspi cuously absent.
@HotAirAce "it is generally accepted that Joseph was not the father of jesus. You are going to have to prove that your god exists and impregnated Mary, or live with the fact that she was an adulteress sl ut."
=>so you accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure, and that while His mother was engaged to be married to Joseph she became pregnant by some other "person" than Joseph.
well, well.. and just yesterday you were claiming that the biblical account was 100% nonsense!
what triggered all this progress?
Why do Christians always have to leave when the questions get tough?
sdot, btw heaven is a construct of the imagination of primitive supersti tious men afraid of death and the unknown. nothing more.
Yet again Chad is deceitful. . .
I did not deny the so-called historical jesus. I said the myth about a divine jesus is crap. You, nor anyone else, have yet to demonstrate I am wrong.
This article along with the comical responses, simply show how far the country has strayed from the true God. People now live by their perceptions, not God's instructions. (The oft quoted remark about God Himself being a murderer, since he first warned, then killed when man disobeyed, is particularly disrespectful) Therefore, a sin has been marginalized to what one 'thinks' a sin to be. One day, we'll all close our eyes, never to reopen them. At that point, we'll learn whether God was meant to be taken seriously, or if our interpretation of God, was good enough.
you make that statement as if there were only one god and not the innumerable gods created by man over the entirety of human history.
When you die that'll be it Fred, just nil. Stop worrying.
Which god Sanford and Son?
There are so many to choose from.....
Fred, you seem to be content with making plenty of assertions but supporting none of them.
On top of that, you seem also to be at ease subtly threatening those that don't believe in your god by saying things such as 'just wait, you'll see'.
I'm glad you're so confident about your beliefs, but why come on here and make your ideas so vulnerable to probable rejection? I understand you feel "offended" when people label your god evil (I could easily go much farther than that), but think of it this way: when you speak of your god as you do, I am offended. I am offended by anyone appealing to the supernatural and being unable to prove anything they say (and usually they themselves know that they're hypocrites).
Point being, we all live with a reality that we don't necessarily agree with. The difference between us is that I can properly defend my position and you can't.
fred, an "afterlife" is the invention of supersti tious primitive men afraid of death and the unknown. nothing more.
christians don't own god.
apparently your fav sin is close mindedness.
lol you atheists are funny. You think you are the first people to realize there was worshping of other "gods" throughout history. Yet the Bible talks about this and God himself knew that men would do these things. Notice the first commandment " Though shall have no other gods before Me" hmmmm I guess someone beat you guys to the punch. but youre smarter then God right? lol next
Human death = depleted carbon and if you are looking for the soul...... it can be found on the bottom of a shoe.
sdot, so by your own statement you admit that there are other gods.
sdot- I guess you are acknowledging that those other gods actually exist then, right? Why would a true god be jealous of imaginary beings?
@fred-"God first warned then punished" (or killed, whatever you said). So all of the infants and unborn children he killed were warned first? How did he warn them? What sin did they commit that they deserved to be destroyed?
EVERY religion has as one of their commandments that their god is the right one that the followers have to believe in.
And yours is not even original, as most of your babble was ripped off from earlier religions that existed long before xtianity was invented.
Face it bro, you have bought into a great big lie.
But don't stop believing now, the religious scammers need to eat too.
@Sdot, I wonder why your god hasn't told us anything actually useful....
It would've been nice, for example, if he had told us about viruses, electricity, the internetz or ANYTHING useful
But, nope, that couldn't have happened, because the people that wrote the bible had no idea
All they did was hijack ideas from other belief systems (for example, the 3-O god which comes from the neoplatonists) and so on, and put it all together to make humanity slave to their ideas.
You do what you will, but you should seriously examine the things you believe in.
see you guys dont really read the Bible so you dont know what it really says you take a couple verses out of context and use them to your advantage. Christianity is the first religion. Nothing before it. Why? Christ was with God all along " God said let US make them in OUR own image" Jesus was given to man 2,000 years ago. The son of adam and eve prophesized about the coming of the Messiah. the second man on Earth prophesized about Him! Also I acknowlege that people make false gods. the golden calf, budha, MuhamedHell even the Ny jets can be your God if thats all you think about and spend most your time doing. Guys really read a Bible you may see things different. quit relying on a couple versus and youtube videos as your basis. Oh or is that your God????
@Sdot, tell that to the Jews...
your ignorance is appalling
What are you smoking?
The Egytians had a religion, and a written language about that religioun 2000 BEFORE you jeebus was even born, if he existed at all.
The Romans were around 1000 years before xtianity as it was Emporor Constantine who made xtianity legal.
You never heard of Zeus, or Thor before?
Also, the East had many different religions way before xtianity was invented.
You must have been homeschooled by some real intellectual winners.
I don't have any gods sdot and never did.
you are referring to carbon dating which has been disproven but still used by the majority of scientist. look that up if ya wanna. buuuuuutttttt I already explained that Jesus has always been. He was with God on day one and that is in the first Book of the Bible. Man was given Jesus 2,000 years ago in human form but He has always been. Geeez pay attention.
Carbon dating has been disproven?!?
Tell me you are just trolling, because you can't possibly be this out to lunch.
Dude, put down the babble and pick up a basic science book one time.
Isaid look it up man. geeez i didnt just come up with that. like your Zeigeist movie came up with stuff lol Guys i gotta run. I truly hope that you will find God one day. It really bothers me that ppl arent going to Heaven but I hope you guys do. You never got too out of line and I appreciate no namecalling though you did blasphem my father. Its ok with me. not so sure with Him though lol. Im truly sorry for whatever made you decide not to believe but hope that maybe I could get you to read a little further into my side of this debate instead of just being one sided. I was able to debate a little with you guys because Ive looked into both sides. God bless
I'm sure Liberty U has a scholarly peer reviewed and accepted paper on carbon dating, but it might be on lost gold plates, or written in some language only shots can read.
@sdot: "see you guys dont really read the Bible so you dont know what it really says"
Some of us are atheists because we have read the bible.
"you take a couple verses out of context and use them to your advantage."
You have to be kidding me. Cherry picking verses has been going on since before the bible even became legal to own/read. The bible is tailor made with opposing views so that on any topic you can pick a verse that supports your view. This is also known as "hypocrisy" which is mostly all I'm trying to show you when I use a verse from your book of rules.
"Christianity is the first religion."
Well, if you had any credibility it is gone now. You've stepped into sheer absurd dishonesty.
"Nothing before it. Why? Christ was with God all along
Empirical evidence for this? 250,000 years of man's development where everyone went to hell just because jesus hadn't been revealed yet? Christ was with god just hanging out, having a beer, damning everyone to hell until they felt it was time to "reveal their truth" to medieval goat herders who had no video to record the event? Ignoramus...
Jesus was given to man 2,000 years ago."
Your jesus never existed.
"The son of adam and eve prophesized about the coming of the Messiah. the second man on Earth prophesized about Him!"
Those people are fictional characters in a fraudulent piece of literature. To claim characters in a work of fiction could prophesy anything is total lunacy. You're not even listening to what you're saying, you're just repeating stuff you've heard. Man did not *poof* into existence via magic spells, he evolved over millions of years. This is a fact of our reality. If you don't share that fact than you are delusional by definition.
Fred Sanford, if you detest sin so much please explain your actions in this clip... not very Christian of you!
Ignoring the religion argument, John Wooden was a smart dude.
Tea Party Patriots believe it's a sin to NOT boink their cousin at least twice a week.
Have the tea partiers figured out yet if you get a divorce, is she still your sister?
IF- an American believes in smaller gov't, and lower taxes...
THEN- They enjoy inbreeding?
Is this your logic?
Is she hot?
No logic, just an observation probably. But now that you mention it, wouldn't it be conservative to try to hold onto the genes of your forefathers (forefather?).
From all the rallys I saw the tea partiers look pretty inbred to me, Ed the talking horse.
if they are favorite they are not sins lol!
That's an interesting question. What is God's favorite sin?
tom, judging by the bible i would hazard a guess that murder is gods favorite sin. according to scripture he causes it and often partakes of it himself.
of course, by his own supposed admission he is jealous.
he even needlessly orchestrated the torture and death of his own progeny. talk about warped.
if i make the pot, i get to break the pot. U r the pot that God made
Then why bother making it? If all your god's going to do is destroy his own creation, what purpose does said creation have? Your god appears to be a crummy potter or just likes killing things.
ok, now all you have to do is prove what you wrote is true. I suggest you start with proving your god exists.
@ko: that's a horrible way to excuse murder. And the fact you let someone draw you into that excuse says a lot about you and your lack of moral fiber.
next time you have a stroke or irregular heart bits, please don't call 911, test your own conviction "if i make the pot, i get to break the pot. U r the pot that God made", I bet you're walking around with a Life Alter pendant in your neck.
Is procrastination really a sin? If it is, I'm in trouble at the judgement.
If it is a sin you probably don't need to worry about it today.
I was wondering the same thing but decided to think more about it tomorrow.
i think that what we have is a new definition of sin, which is more to the tune of extremes, such as in the Aristotelian sense
unfortunately, Christianity likes to give everything a twist in order to 'remind' everyone that their retarted god exists
One of the theists, a sort of Christian, came up with this:
1. Atheism denies that human beings have souls.
Note: Catholic theology maintains that human beings are souls, and have a body. So this seems inverted, even for a self-taught Christian.
2. Atheism understands human beings as mere physical objects, which are thoroughly subject to deterministic laws of nature.
I think the physical object is less significant than the information it carries and the way it alters that information, but information is described in terms similar to what this theist may mean by "laws of nature". However, deterministic means different things to different people. This theist is probably thinking deterministic as in dominoes falling over.
3. Human beings lack the ability to change previous states of the universe or the laws of nature, and these two components are sufficient, by themselves, to determine the future states of the universe.
Again, determinism means different things to different people. The laws of nature may not be ruled by domino determinism. Does only one possible world occur, and in it the things that happen are the only possible things (and all possible things happen). Or, one alternative, there are many possible worlds distinguished from one another by the possible things that happen in them, and which one I am in is never resolved. Here "the future states of the Universe" has no meaning because there is not just one future Universe.
Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is:
4. If atheism is true, the perception of free will is an illusion.
The conclusion doesn't seem inevitable just yet. Perhaps free will is an illusion, but I'd like to see the argument refined a bit. Are any theists up to it? So many fail at much less interesting arguments.
There are many flaws in the argument;
1) assertion that all atheists think the premise is true.
2) determinism is not universally defined.
3) free will is not universally defined.
On top of that, even if all were true, so what? If man doesn't have some technical definition of free will it changes nothing regarding the existential question of god.
We all know that man has practical free will.
I agree that it is an interesting philosophical question.
You are totally incapable of payin' your debts.............."Pro 22:7 The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower [is] servant to the lender."...........Add it up.
maybe you should try to understand what atheism is before cooking up or using someone else's complex strawman arguments
tom, invoking the "laws of nature" does not miraculously cause all actions or events to be deterministic.
lol??, why can't you ever post something that is intelligible?
They need to understand science more than atheism. The determinism of the laws of nature is an open question. While the wave functions progress deterministically, outcomes may or may not be deterministic. Nuclear decay does not appear deterministic. Still open.
Bostontola, even if what you say were true, and let's say that maybe there is a 'random' system at play, that still wouldn't show free will in any sense
Sorry, I know it was long-winded, but I can't resist poking at dead things. At any rate, this was an invitation for theists to hold up their side. Not a reading comprehension test for the rest of us.
FFT, I didn't say it does. I said in the first post that I don't think some technical definition of free will matters. We have practical free will ( free to choose to the best of our awareness).
Has anyone noticed that there are fewer theists around these days? The ones that are still struggling here don't have as much fight in them. The one that came up with this argument is even a conventional theist. More of an anti-atheist who likes to argue from the Bible. Kind of like a 12 meter racer. Great boats, but only competitive in the class limited by the 12 meter formula.
Well I don't know how much more you could want from this theist when my post showed "free will" is way over rated and is a silly argument.
Sin is a crime against nature and man and God. The three most damning and damaging sins in America today are atheism, ho mose xuality and abortion. Those three have the ability to rot America from within as they have rotted out other great nations.
Go back to school and figure out how to write and punctuate a sentence, captain azzmuzzle.
"sin" is a made up word to control the actions of the simple minded.
TBT if you had blue eyes they would be BROWN by now
What "great nations" have been destroyed by abortion, atheism, and hom0s3xuality, captain credulous?
TubeTop was the kid in your class who made fart noises just to get everyone's attention.
By your definition, I'm a sinner, but why do you think anyone cares about your definition?
Any nation in history that has embraced sin has fallen. With ho mose xuality, atheism and abortion (murder of innocents) being the worst.
Name them, chickens!t. Then show proof that atheism, abortion and hom0s#xuality were the causes of their downfall.
Meanwhile, in the here and now, there are quite a number of nations that embrace secular government, have no injunction against atheism, and where both abortion and gay marriage are legal. And they're doing quite well.
Glad I wasn't drinking when I read 'captain azzmuzzle'. My comp screen would have suffered a deluge of liquid.
I must admit, I preened a bit after posting that one, Damo.
DEEP-FRIED NEWBORN STUFFED WITH COCAINE AND COVERED IN CHOCOLATE SAUCE.
3 favorite sins: Giving fat chicks anal, getting oral from a chic I met in a bar and chocolate.
why would it be a sin to give a fat chick anaI or to have oral s3x?
It's a joke stoner snowboarder. If you weren't stoned, you might have gotten it.
If that's a joke, you shouldn't quit your day job.
you are apparently easily confused by something as simple as a name.
I cannot believe you left out "dong a line of coke off a strip*pers a*ss."
"sin" is a made up word for the purpose of controlling the actions of others.
stoner? generalize much?
The sins of unrepentant gay coitus has caused much damage.
So why did your crazy sky fairy make it the norm for a significant percentage of so many animal species, stupid ignorant Douglas?
Then, Doogie, why can't you cite the "damage" it has caused? What negative effects have occurred where gay marriage is already legal?
You can flap your gums about it all you want. It won't make what you believe true.
Gee, Doogie, if there is so much damage why haven't you been able to cite any of it?
The biggest sin of many is to blindly believe in their imaginary friend...
You are correct, no one should blindly believe. You must be born again, then you will have a reason to believe.
So you can't believe until you believe?
There are different levels of belief or faith. My opinion is you can’t start with the premise of “I know there is no God.” So, yes you will have to come to the point where you could say “God is possible.”
So you allow for a possibility of a deity, but disallow the possibility of no deity? Kind of strange.
I’m not allowing or disallowing anything, just thinking that if you are seeking God and start with the premise that there is no such thing, your search may be unproductive.
Move to numbers Robert they do not lie
Another timeline go figure interactive No reply needed FACT take it up with NBC
For all creationists and bible thumpers !!!
Earth’s timeline works better than the bible's timeline
Trace our planet's geological and biological ages
the problem with beLIEving is that you have to first KNOW what there IS to believe in...and thus far we are only TOLD what to ...beLIEve....until the time comes of the actual knowledge then we can talk about beLIEving....
Oops should be below Robert
What is time to something that is eternal?
I think you can place the first 12 chapters of genesis wherever suits you in history, and/or it could be parable. The thing is if you ever get to know God you can accept it as literal or parable.
True, you can’t have strong faith in something you are told. You have to experience it for yourself.
Genisis was tried in the court of law (civil) and can not teach it in public schools in the US period.
Creation/ID Lost Dover Trial.
Ah yes, NBC and da Clintons. you can trust them.
Atheists have brutally tortured and murdered more innocent people in the last 100 years than were killed in all previous centuries. Of course to a so called atheist brutal torture and murder are not really sins.
So Robert, how do you know which parts of your Christian book of nasty AKA the bible are to be taken literally, and which are parables? That seems to vary wildly across different sects of your sicko blood cult. Not surprising, when some of the extreme demands of your nasty sky fairy as presented in the bible are such as these:
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
"the problem..........." God has No problem for you or any other creature. He understands your situation.
Creation/ID (Genisis) lost in court, can not teach it in public schools. in US.
When you deny free speech or prohibit a theory from being taught how does that benefit knowledge?
Creationism and ID aren't "theories."
"So Robert, how do you know which parts of your Christian book.................." Here's one little clue: "Jhn 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!"................. Looks like if you dump your guile something good might happen, because that impresses God.
If it can be taught why is it not allowed. Shall we deny children the right to learn and choose for themselves what is true? Censorship seem to be the preferred method of nazis and atheists.
They CREATIONIST can teach what ever all day long in private schools
Creationism isn't a theory it is Truth.
Why should we teach something that has absolutely NO basis in reality?
If you want to teach your kid that the world was created in 6 days, do it at home. Such nonsense doesn't belong in science classes. The only approach to teaching creationism in public school is to do so in a comparative religion class in which students examine religious tenets and belief systems.
If you want children to be taught all possible explanations and "decide for themselves what is true," then you had better be prepared to have your kid taught about Zeus, Mithra, and every other "god" as if all were equally valid.
Won't it be a hoot to see the faces of non-believers if they come face to face with God when they die?
I will say procrastination, but not today. Maybe tomorrow.....
Once Christian prayer and Truth is reestablished in our schools there will be no need for anything else. America created by Christians for Christians. (That is why atheism will never work here)
Yeah, yeah, and Canadians aren't allowed to post here. We heard you the first 2 million times, ya boring idiot.
Christianity has never "worked" other than as a propagating mind virus (and a particularly insidious one at that), and its basic premises are absurd and false.
For example, one central tenet of Christianity, that the death of the son of god would have been any kind of "sacrifice" and was required to deal with "sin", is utter nonsense. This is a supposed omnipotent being that we are discussing. Christians, think this through a bit: how come your 'omnipotent' creature couldn't do all that supposed saving without the loony son sacrifice bit? And for that matter, how was it a sacrifice at all, when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time it wants with less than a snap of its fingers?
Pretty feeble god it is that you've made for yourself there, Christians. Give that some thought and maybe it will help you leave your delusions behind. You will remain a laughingstock otherwise, and the more you dwell in your silly delusion and ancient myths, instead of keeping up with advances in medicine and technology, the more America slips downward relative to the rest of the world in science and other fields.
Human death = dedleted carbon = We run out of hot air ! (GAS)
And another wonderful example of Christian love is found in newshound's post: he is looking forward to basking on a cloud and watching the people he hates roast on a spit.
Get bent, dear. There's no hell and no heaven.
Hey science, how big are those neanderthaws, anyway?
As an atheist, it is impossible for me to commit what believers call a sin.
Yes, before you can realize you are a sinner, you will have to agree with God. He won’t move to your position, you have to move to his.
as an atheist it is just as possible for you to sin as anyone else. Sin simply means to "miss the mark." There are sins against God, which means to miss the standard set by God. There are sins against man, which means to miss the mark set by society. There are sins against yourself, which means to not live up to your own standards. So unless you are incredibly careless and have no standards for your life, I can assure you that you live a sinful life just like the rest of us.
Actually, Robert, no one should agree with the viewpoints of the human rights abuser sky fairy presented in your Christian book of nasty AKA the bible, when it presents demands from your "god" like these, and threatens eternal torture, a clear, extreme, and frankly, disgusting, violation of some basic human rights that reasoning modern humans have accepted:
Nonsense. To "sin" does not mean "to miss the mark."
You are attempting to use the word "sin" in place of "commit a crime".
sin? that's what your mother said last night after i had my way with her.
You mean "after I had her my way"?
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.