Saw this on digg: http://atheistwager.blogspot.com/2007/04/first-post.html The stated result of rejecting God and being wrong is going to hell. A "clever" atheist came up with an alternate result of rejecting God: I'm sure God would see how awesome you are and give you a red carpet entrance into heaven *clap*. Or, God would show you how horribly mistaken you are and then give you what you wanted: seperation from him. What is basically being said here is "I'd rather be in hell than live with God." God can arrange that. It's ironic how quick atheists are to project the corruption of man that leads to all the world's problems onto a figure they don't even believe exists. He further elaborates: Couple problems: faith is not inherited from one's parents and God does prove his existence. Most of the world is aware of God. Many of them just don't know who he really is. There are countless examples of God proving his existence to those who rejected him in the OT. I guess this atheist missed the point of the plagues for one quick example. Jesus hung around unbelievers. Not believers.
god has not proven his existence. "the plagues for one quick example" you count the Gay plague in that? bird flu? why stop with humans? birds are sinner the moment they are born too huh? you make me laugh
I was refering to the 10 plagues brought on Egypt. The point of those plagues was to show the power of the Hebrew God. He started with harmless things and then gradually progressed as Pharoh was not impressed. Animals are just as subject to suffering from things that are out of whack as humans are. Bird Flu exists because everything is fighting against each other for survival, including bacteria and viruses.
ah right so the locus plagues of today are the same as 2000+ years ago, so no sign from god then huh? next you'll be saying earth quakes are from god, and not the continental plates shifting
Quite the coincidence that the locusts showed up when Moses told them to. Not everything that can naturally occur, always naturally occurs.
What about the plague of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the "Everything a white man says is racist" group? Gay plague? So its a plague to be gay now or that there are gays in society? Please tell me you're not another close minded individual because I think you tend to have rather good points in the forum, but if you've got an issue with gays, I retract this statement.
The Gay Plague was a slang name for AIDS and HIV that was used when it first appeared and seemed to be localized to the male homosexual community. AIDS is accurately described as a plague, and at one time it seemed to be something only Homosexuals got... a misunderstanding of it's nature that lead to many heterosexuals becoming infected through unprotected sex. Many intolerant people, some Atheist, some Christian, some of other religions, said that the gay community was getting what it deserved, and so the slang name "Gay Plague" took on an even more derogatory meaning.
somehow i dont think you read all my posts. but i'll make it clear to you ok: i'm lesbian clear enough?
As I understand this, he was looking at the biggest problem with religion. A headhunter from some random tribe could fight cruelly against his enemies, but if this follows the teaching of their religion, then he will go to heaven. How is one religion any different from another? How can all of these different religions claim to be right. I personally don't agree with such outspoken atheists (I usually don't try to shatter the delusions that people have. Whatever helps you sleep at night.) I definitely don't think that God has proven his existence though. Plague are easily traced to germs, and the biblical plagues can pretty much be described by scientific methods. I know the bloody river, the frogs, and locusts can. You also seem to be complaining against what I personally think is the best aspect of being human. We are questioning the world as we know it. How is blind faith a plus? Finally, how is it wrong for the atheists to place blame on God for the tragedies of this world. They are doing this to prove that he is either absurdly apathetic or doesn't care at all. He is simply pointing out reasons that contradict the existence of a benevolent overseer.
The argument basically boils down to atheists believe they have free will and demand free will. But they expect God to restrict the free will of others and if he doesn't make people behave the way atheists expect everyone to behave then God doesn't exist. Not in the scientific method sense no. Knowing God exists is secondary to actually liking him. Even the Devil knows that God exists. God doesn't prove he exists to someone until they like his personality. Otherwise they'll just "like" him out of fear or necessity. Which isn't what God wants. I can claim to be the Easter Bunny. The problem these days is that people would rather just reject everything outright than take the time to think about things and figure out what's right and what's a pile of steaming poo. Do you really expect religions to say "oh you got us, we're full of it!"
The problem these days is that people would rather just accept something outright than take the time to think about things and figure out what's right and what's a pile of steaming poo.