Praying For Armageddon , American Fundamental Christians , BBC Four , 10 pm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thoth

What threads have you started to slag off Muslims?

---

Do I have to start off a thread saying Islam is nonsense to show that I don't have time for any organised religion ?

Or is that a request ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

What purpose would such a conversation serve from your perspective?

---

Well if I met God and I found out he existed I would ask him what he could offer if I signed up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Well if I met God and I found out he existed I would ask him what he could offer if I signed up

---

Read a few verses from John 3 where Jesus is speaking for 30 seconds and you will have your answer > John 3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

I cannot trust God or Jesus as I have been here for 5 decades and they have never got in touch and I don't know anyone who has spoken to them.

---

Well I speak to them daily and they speak to me by various means; I’m sure Gofer and any other person who knows Christ personally would give you a similar answer.

As for God getting in touch, then since you were a child, you’ve had a major event EVERY year to remind you that Christ came into the world as a baby, and another annual bank holiday along with Hot CROSS buns to remind you how He died and later rose again from the dead, a fact confirmed OUTSIDE the Bible writings as well as in them.

Some people say they have but that's either fellow religious people like you and I simply don't believe them.

No Christian would tell you to believe THEM, they would ask you to honestly LOOK at the evidence.

Until you do, all you are left with is the empty hope that it's somehow all fictional :sherlock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Until you do, all you are left with is the empty hope that it's somehow all fictional :sherlock:

---

Hope?

Jeez!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Well I speak to them daily and they speak to me by various means; I’m sure Gofer and any other person who knows Christ personally would give you a similar answer.

As for God getting in touch, then since you were a child, you’ve had a major event EVERY year to remind you that Christ came into the world as a baby, and another annual bank holiday along with Hot CROSS buns to remind you how He died and later rose again from the dead, a fact confirmed OUTSIDE the Bible writings as well as in them.

Some people say they have but that's either fellow religious people like you and I simply don't believe them.

No Christian would tell you to believe THEM, they would ask you to honestly LOOK at the evidence.

Until you do, all you are left with is the empty hope that it's somehow all fictional :sherlock:

---

Yep all fictional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Hope?

Jeez!

---

And there it is, blaspheming the *Name of the only Hope he has.

* Jeez is a shortening of Jesus, which can be used as an interjection in a similar (though often more harsh) way. The similar terms gee and gee whiz are also based on the word Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeepster

Yep all fictional.

---

As secular history records both these events, the claim of fictional is simply blind denial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

It wasn't MY attempt to connect with God

I had absolutely no choice

Catholic primary and junior school

Mass every Sunday and all the other holy days

I eventually thought this is nonsense as soon as I was able to realise it

From then on Sundays were a good laugh going fishing , playing football and generally messing about like kids do when they are not forced to go to church

If people at 21 are told about God and they choose to reject it or take an interest that's fine

---

I can understand where you are coming from now. As TP says you have been brought up in the Catholic tradition with a lot of man-made rules and regulations. I have admiration for the Catholic church as they have done much good work amongst the poor in Third World countries, running hospitals etc but unfortunately have been let down by some of their priests. This is a terrible shame for the other hard working, decent people in the Catholic church.

However their insistence on the priest being an intermediary between us and God is a falsehood. There is no basis for such an intermediary - we can confess our sins directly to God. Also I cannot understand their veneration of Mary the mother of Jesus, which borders on idolatory. Yes, she was obviously very important in that she gave birth to Jesus but she is not God. Also the idea of praying to the saints or to the statues of saints....uhm!

In the news today we learn that the Catholic church is going to apply more scrutiny to claims of miraculous signs like weeping statues etc. which is not before time I feel. I often wonder if this is a money making scheme as people go on pilgrimages to see the places where these events have supposedly taken place.

P.S. I found this article on the web which summarises my take on the Catholic church very well:

https://www.gotquestions.org/catholicism.html

FYI these are the opening paragraphs:

The most crucial problem with the Roman Catholic Church is its belief that faith alone in Christ is not sufficient for salvation. The Bible clearly and consistently states that receiving Jesus Christ as Savior, by grace through faith, grants salvation (John 1:12; 3:16,18,36; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10,13; Ephesians 2:8-9). The Roman Catholic Church rejects this. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that a person must believe in Jesus Christ AND be baptized AND receive the Eucharist along with the other sacraments AND obey the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church AND perform meritorious works AND not die with any mortal sins AND etc., etc., etc. Catholic divergence from the Bible on this most crucial of issues, salvation, means that yes, Catholicism is a false religion. If a person believes what the Catholic Church officially teaches, he/she will not be saved. Any claim that works or rituals must be added to faith in order for salvation to be achieved is a claim that Jesus’ death was not sufficient to fully purchase our salvation.

While salvation by faith is the most crucial issue, in comparing Roman Catholicism with the Word of God, there are many other differences and contradictions as well. The Roman Catholic Church teaches many doctrines that are in disagreement with what the Bible declares. These include apostolic succession, worship of saints or Mary, prayer to saints or Mary, the pope / papacy, infant baptism, transubstantiation, plenary indulgences, the sacramental system, and purgatory. While Catholics claim Scriptural support for these concepts, none of these teachings have any solid foundation in the clear teaching of Scripture. These concepts are based on Catholic tradition, not the Word of God. In fact, they all clearly contradict Biblical principles.

In other words there are lots of man-made rules and regs that you would need to follow, which are totally legalistic and unnecessary. If that's Christianity, then it's not for me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

And there it is, blaspheming the *Name of the only Hope he has.

* Jeez is a shortening of Jesus, which can be used as an interjection in a similar (though often more harsh) way. The similar terms gee and gee whiz are also based on the word Jesus.

---

Wow, you don’t say!

It’s all self righteous blah blah blah and ignores (as usual) the point that you are (again) putting words into other posters mouths to suggest they are engaging with your fairy tales. Sludge has never said anything to suggest he ‘hopes’ your imaginary friend is fictional. He doesn’t ‘hope’. Nor do I or many other posters on here who have indulged you. We know. Hope that helps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Wow, you don’t say!

It’s all self righteous blah blah blah and ignores (as usual) the point that you are (again) putting words into other posters mouths to suggest they are engaging with your fairy tales. Sludge has never said anything to suggest he ‘hopes’ your imaginary friend is fictional. He doesn’t ‘hope’. Nor do I or many other posters on here who have indulged you. We know. Hope that helps?

---

For people who 'KNOW' - you certainly have one thing in common, and that's not being able to present any evidence or answer one question for the agnostic stance you've chosen to make your world view!
At the same time as circumnavigating the presentation of any verified evidence for a non-created universe including all life on earth, you claim to have a rock solid certainty that those who know God are the victim of fairy tales! - the irony is off the chart :hehe:

Unfortunately the world view you currently support is such a mathetical improbability, it requires more faith than any human could logically possess:-

The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it… and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.’”

This is an astounding improbability! To put “a number with 40,000 noughts after it” in context, it is estimated that the number of atoms in the observable universe is only a number with 80 noughts after it, a tiny number in comparison. As an engineer, this says to me that the atheistic worldview is based on a mathematical impossibility. Don’t ever let an atheist tell you that they don’t believe in miracles, because the mathematics shows that if they believe that the molecules essential for life arose through purely naturalistic processes, they do.

If you are an atheist, your confirmation bias may be screaming at you to ignore this evidence, but I hope you will research it for yourself. If you come across a good answer to this impossibility, I’d be interested to hear it.

If you are an agnostic, has mathematics given you a good reason to get off the fence?

This unimaginable mathematical improbability is only one of a number of difficulties that is causing a growing number of scientists to describe evolution as a theory in crisis. ... - article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

For people who 'KNOW' - you certainly have one thing in common, and that's not being able to present any evidence or answer one question for the agnostic stance you've chosen to make your world view!
At the same time as circumnavigating the presentation of any verified evidence for a non-created universe including all life on earth, you claim to have a rock solid certainty that those who know God are the victim of fairy tales! - the irony is off the chart :hehe:

Unfortunately the world view you currently support is such a mathetical improbability, it requires more faith than any human could logically possess:-

The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it… and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.’”

This is an astounding improbability! To put “a number with 40,000 noughts after it” in context, it is estimated that the number of atoms in the observable universe is only a number with 80 noughts after it, a tiny number in comparison. As an engineer, this says to me that the atheistic worldview is based on a mathematical impossibility. Don’t ever let an atheist tell you that they don’t believe in miracles, because the mathematics shows that if they believe that the molecules essential for life arose through purely naturalistic processes, they do.

If you are an atheist, your confirmation bias may be screaming at you to ignore this evidence, but I hope you will research it for yourself. If you come across a good answer to this impossibility, I’d be interested to hear it.

If you are an agnostic, has mathematics given you a good reason to get off the fence?

This unimaginable mathematical improbability is only one of a number of difficulties that is causing a growing number of scientists to describe evolution as a theory in crisis. ... - article.

---

How come you are the one in the know,you will die like me and you are dead end of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Well I speak to them daily and they speak to me by various means; I’m sure Gofer and any other person who knows Christ personally would give you a similar answer.

As for God getting in touch, then since you were a child, you’ve had a major event EVERY year to remind you that Christ came into the world as a baby, and another annual bank holiday along with Hot CROSS buns to remind you how He died and later rose again from the dead, a fact confirmed OUTSIDE the Bible writings as well as in them.

Some people say they have but that's either fellow religious people like you and I simply don't believe them.

No Christian would tell you to believe THEM, they would ask you to honestly LOOK at the evidence.

Until you do, all you are left with is the empty hope that it's somehow all fictional :sherlock:

---

I have looked at the evidence

And that's the problem

There isn't any

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

For people who 'KNOW' - you certainly have one thing in common, and that's not being able to present any evidence or answer one question for the agnostic stance you've chosen to make your world view!
At the same time as circumnavigating the presentation of any verified evidence for a non-created universe including all life on earth, you claim to have a rock solid certainty that those who know God are the victim of fairy tales! - the irony is off the chart :hehe:

Unfortunately the world view you currently support is such a mathetical improbability, it requires more faith than any human could logically possess:-

The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it… and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.’”

This is an astounding improbability! To put “a number with 40,000 noughts after it” in context, it is estimated that the number of atoms in the observable universe is only a number with 80 noughts after it, a tiny number in comparison. As an engineer, this says to me that the atheistic worldview is based on a mathematical impossibility. Don’t ever let an atheist tell you that they don’t believe in miracles, because the mathematics shows that if they believe that the molecules essential for life arose through purely naturalistic processes, they do.

If you are an atheist, your confirmation bias may be screaming at you to ignore this evidence, but I hope you will research it for yourself. If you come across a good answer to this impossibility, I’d be interested to hear it.

If you are an agnostic, has mathematics given you a good reason to get off the fence?

This unimaginable mathematical improbability is only one of a number of difficulties that is causing a growing number of scientists to describe evolution as a theory in crisis. ... - article.

---

God grief!

You still have the gall to accuse others of lack of evidence, confirmation bias and - best of all - unintended irony!

You are in a closed fantasy echo chamber and when others refuse to join you there you claim to have won some sort of argument.

And stop trying to tell me I’m an agnostic. I’m not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

God grief!

You still have the gall to accuse others of lack of evidence, confirmation bias and - best of all - unintended irony!

You are in a closed fantasy echo chamber and when others refuse to join you there you claim to have won some sort of argument.

And stop trying to tell me I’m an agnostic. I’m not.

---

Most atheists think they can defend the atheist position; and even the top atheists that have the backbone to discuss their position (who debate theists) all without exception defend the agnostic position - and there's a very good reason for that, so I suggest you look up the definition of each before you state otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

I have looked at the evidence

And that's the problem

There isn't any

---

That's denial, not discussion.

If you were confident in your conclusion then you would have used a few of your last ten thousands words to give your reasons; unfortunately you (like the majority) are standing on the conclusions of others, hoping that the 'ice' is thick enough to hold you up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Most atheists think they can defend the atheist position; and even the top atheists that have the backbone to discuss their position (who debate theists) all without exception defend the agnostic position - and there's a very good reason for that, so I suggest you look up the definition of each before you state otherwise.

---

Zzzzzzzzz!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

For people who 'KNOW' - you certainly have one thing in common, and that's not being able to present any evidence or answer one question for the agnostic stance you've chosen to make your world view!
At the same time as circumnavigating the presentation of any verified evidence for a non-created universe including all life on earth, you claim to have a rock solid certainty that those who know God are the victim of fairy tales! - the irony is off the chart :hehe:

Unfortunately the world view you currently support is such a mathetical improbability, it requires more faith than any human could logically possess:-

The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it… and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.’”

This is an astounding improbability! To put “a number with 40,000 noughts after it” in context, it is estimated that the number of atoms in the observable universe is only a number with 80 noughts after it, a tiny number in comparison. As an engineer, this says to me that the atheistic worldview is based on a mathematical impossibility. Don’t ever let an atheist tell you that they don’t believe in miracles, because the mathematics shows that if they believe that the molecules essential for life arose through purely naturalistic processes, they do.

If you are an atheist, your confirmation bias may be screaming at you to ignore this evidence, but I hope you will research it for yourself. If you come across a good answer to this impossibility, I’d be interested to hear it.

If you are an agnostic, has mathematics given you a good reason to get off the fence?

This unimaginable mathematical improbability is only one of a number of difficulties that is causing a growing number of scientists to describe evolution as a theory in crisis. ... - article.

---

A number with 40,000 noughts after it is still more likely than a supernatural being putting it together during a slack period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

That's denial, not discussion.

If you were confident in your conclusion then you would have used a few of your last ten thousands words to give your reasons; unfortunately you (like the majority) are standing on the conclusions of others, hoping that the 'ice' is thick enough to hold you up.

---

As far as I am concerned it's a discussion

The same one ....does God exist

I have looked for evidence of God

There isn't any

That's the end of the discussion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost

A number with 40,000 noughts after it is still more likely than a supernatural being putting it together during a slack period.

---

Not if you understand probability.
If you know anyone with any interest in the field of probability or statistics then ask them.

It's utterly impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Not if you understand probability.
If you know anyone with any interest in the field of probability or statistics then ask them.

It's utterly impossible.

---

As explained very clearly in The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, improbability is different from impossibility.

Even if what you are discussing is really ‘improbable’ in a universal context.

Douglas Adams has got the drop on Harrison Ford. You are backing the wrong horse again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Not if you understand probability.
If you know anyone with any interest in the field of probability or statistics then ask them.

It's utterly impossible.

---

There you go again. A giant leap from improbable to impossible. My wife is a statistician incidentally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robin Friday's Ghost

There you go again. A giant leap from improbable to impossible. My wife is a statistician incidentally.

---

We live in hope!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Zzzzzzzzz!

---

Ok, let's see what your oft quoted "THE GUARDIAN" has to say re Christ:-

The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is both long-established and widespread. Within a few decades of his supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of Christian writings. Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD500. The major historical source for events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to 300 or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived. The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur. - article

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

We live in hope!

---

And in faith. And good for you that you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Ok, let's see what your oft quoted "THE GUARDIAN" has to say re Christ:-

The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is both long-established and widespread. Within a few decades of his supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of Christian writings. Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD500. The major historical source for events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to 300 or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived. The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur. - article

---

Another change of subject? Is that because your beliefs and arguments are built on sandy ground?

Given up on claiming atheists (even ‘top atheists’ whatever they are) are agnostics?

Given up on claiming lack of faith or religion is proof of faith or religion?

Given up on claiming the Old Testament is literally true because it says so in the Old Testament?

Given up on claiming up is down, left is right, or that cultural heritage proves that people (not just your fellow cultists) believe in magic?

However, I think The Guardian is right in that quote. There is more historical evidence of a minor prophet called (in modern translation) Jesus than there is of a single Romano British warlord called Arthur.

No evidence of magic for either of them - but maybe some similarities in the way their myth was expanded and changed over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Another change of subject? Is that because your beliefs and arguments are built on sandy ground?

Given up on claiming atheists (even ‘top atheists’ whatever they are) are agnostics?

Given up on claiming lack of faith or religion is proof of faith or religion?

Given up on claiming the Old Testament is literally true because it says so in the Old Testament?

Given up on claiming up is down, left is right, or that cultural heritage proves that people (not just your fellow cultists) believe in magic?

However, I think The Guardian is right in that quote. There is more historical evidence of a minor prophet called (in modern translation) Jesus than there is of a single Romano British warlord called Arthur.

No evidence of magic for either of them - but maybe some similarities in the way their myth was expanded and changed over time.

---

Sure, whenever people read "The historical evidence..............is both long-established and widespread" they immediately think they are reading about a myth :hehe:

I read somewhere recently that a myth/legend takes at least two generations after the last of the eye witnesses have died off to develop i.e. no one left alive to challenge any of the details. The earliest books of the New Testament were put together within about 40 years of Jesus's death with evidence from eye witnesses who were alive in Jesus's time.

I think most people accept a bloke called Jesus was around 2000 years ago

The problem is that Christians

think that rather than being a sort of community leader with a charitable side .....he was a supernatural visionary who healed the sick and performed magic tricks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

I think most people accept a bloke called Jesus was around 2000 years ago

The problem is that Christians

think that rather than being a sort of community leader with a charitable side .....he was a supernatural visionary who healed the sick and performed magic tricks

---

Actually that's quite an admission coming from an atheist. Obviously I don't agree with your second paragraph but I admit most people will acknowledge the historical Jesus simply as a great moral teacher, full-stop. Suppose if people just followed his moral teaching alone, think what a different world we could be living in! Of course, true followers of Jesus are trying as much as possible to emulate him but we are only human of course and none of us are perfect, so we have to rely on his grace and forgiveness at the end of the day, rather than depend on our "good works". At least he knows, that we know, we are sinners! :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Sure, whenever people read "The historical evidence..............is both long-established and widespread" they immediately think they are reading about a myth :hehe:

---

You do struggle don’t you? I said I agreed that there was an historical Jesus. He just wasn’t the Paul Daniels of 1st Century Judea. That is where the myth comes from. And don’t tell me Paul Daniels was not ‘ the son of God’. That would be very disappointing!

Question: do atheists know there is no God or do they believe there is no God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

Question: do atheists know there is no God or do they believe there is no God?

---

Dr Edwin Orr summed this up very well. He showed how any atheist could be shown to be an agnostic in less than 60 seconds.
He also pointed out that in all high level atheist/ theist debates, the atheist always seeks to defend the agnostic position and never the atheist position; which is just as well because the theist could win the debate before the audience were all comfortable in their seats.

Then to answer your question he explained that there were two denominations of agnostics:-

1. The agnostic who didn't believe there was a God but didn't dismiss the fact that God could possibly be discovered.
2. The agnostic who also who didn't believe there was a God but insists that Almighty God will never ever be found by anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

Actually that's quite an admission coming from an atheist. Obviously I don't agree with your second paragraph but I admit most people will acknowledge the historical Jesus simply as a great moral teacher, full-stop. Suppose if people just followed his moral teaching alone, think what a different world we could be living in! Of course, true followers of Jesus are trying as much as possible to emulate him but we are only human of course and none of us are perfect, so we have to rely on his grace and forgiveness at the end of the day, rather than depend on our "good works". At least he knows, that we know, we are sinners! :wink:

---

Ghandi

Nelson Mandela

Stephen Hawking

Far more important to me personally than Jesus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Dr Edwin Orr summed this up very well. He showed how any atheist could be shown to be an agnostic in less than 60 seconds.
He also pointed out that in all high level atheist/ theist debates, the atheist always seeks to defend the agnostic position and never the atheist position; which is just as well because the theist could win the debate before the audience were all comfortable in their seats.

Then to answer your question he explained that there were two denominations of agnostics:-

1. The agnostic who didn't believe there was a God but didn't dismiss the fact that God could possibly be discovered.
2. The agnostic who also who didn't believe there was a God but insists that Almighty God will never ever be found by anyone.

---

His question is about atheists, not agnostics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

His question is about atheists, not agnostics

---

It also answers that question if you read it carefully.

Do atheists know there is no God or do they believe there is no God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

Do atheists know there is no God or do they believe there is no God?

---

Havnt you already asked that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Havnt you already asked that?

---

Maybe so, but did anyone answer it?

('I don't know' would be better than nothing).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

Do atheists know there is no God or do they believe there is no God?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Havnt you already asked that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Maybe so, but did anyone answer it?

('I don't know' would be better than nothing).

---

I believe what we really need is a poll. I know what my vote would be! :thumbup: