Being an atheist living in the deep south, I often get the question "Wouldn't it be better for you to just believe in God so in case there is a heaven you'll go there? If you turn out to be right you're no worse off!" While this is a semi-valid point in and of itself, there are a few problems I have with it. The first one is how do I go about deciding which God to believe in? I suppose I could believe in Yahweh, the God of Abraham, what happens if that's the wrong God? What if God is actually Odin (the chief God of Norse mythology), or the great Juju beast? What if there are actually many Gods (a la Hindu)? What if God turns out to be a flying spaghetti monster? Should I believe in all of these gods? The problem then is that most of the religions preach exclusivity. The first commandment of the Christian bible states "You shall have no other gods before me." So it's obvious that if I'm wrong about that, then believing in/worshiping every God won't work. And it doesn't make sense to me that a God would give humankind the powers of skepticism and reason and then punish us if we use them. (I gotta give credit to Galileo for this quote, as he originally put it "I don't think that God would gift us with powers of reason and logic and intend for us to forgo their use".) I don't think He (if he were as just as He is claimed to be) would expect humans to derive their sole faith in him from an ambiguous, self-contradicting and easily misinterpreted and edited tome. As Marcus Aurelius (one of the last Five Good Emperors of Rome) said, "If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by."

• Spread
• Media
• Quote
• 167 visits

Of course it's bullshit.

Believing in God because you might as well or because it's profitable for you is a sure fire way to not get into heaven. Christianity is supposed to teach self-sacrifice and good will to all men, not individualist greed.

• Quote
• Cite

Cast away all beliefs and be free.

Drink, party and be merry. Live a guilt free life.

• Quote
• Cite

@66,594

That's what I never understood about it. How am I supposed to be religious if I don't actually believe in God? I'd be going through the motions, but deep down I believe that God doesn't exist. I'd be lying to myself. According to what I understand about God, he doesn't want you to do that. So if there really were a God, would he want an atheist to continue being an atheist, or would want the atheist to lie to himself?

• Quote
• Cite

Appears I will be the first Christfag to step up to the plate here.

The question of which god to believe in (if you ARE going to choose to do so) is valid. Believing in Yahweh by default due to the Bible's proliferation around the earth does not hold water in and of itself, I agree. Still, the Bible IS where I put my faith, and I do so for many reasons. Let me just work on a few for now though:

1 - It's open availability around the earth. If Yahweh exists, it would stand to reason He would make Himself known to as many persons as possible. While there are other faiths with more adherents, they are also heavily localized to their country of origin. Christianity, in various forms, exists in every land of the world, no matter how small or remote.

2 - Accuracy. The Bible speaks factually of such things as the water cycle (Ecc. 1:7), how the earth is suspended in space (Job 26:7), or how the earth is round/spherical (Is. 40:22). None of these facts existed in the days they were written, at least, not to man who was not given such knowledge by God. Even such a person as Aristotle refuted the idea of the earth resting in a void in space…and he lived some 1,200 years after Job was written. Scientific facts aside, the Bible is historically accurate, and for certain secular scholars is the only point of reliable reference to ancient cultures. Many lands and civilizations mentioned in the Bible were once dismissed as being fictional…but time and archaelogical finds since have bore witness to their very existence. This is especially noteworthy when at times such cultures had only been noted in the Bible and no other sources.

3 - Unity. The Bible is composed of 66 individuals books, penned by some 40 men over a period of roughly 1,600 years. Even so, the Bible is completely in unity with itself and shares the same theme throughout (do not let people try and tell you the Bible theme is 'love'. That is oversimplification, and flat out wrong. The theme of the Bible has to do with the sovereignty of God and the vindication of His name). Granted, certain interpretations by men are going to suggest the Bible can be at odds with itself, but careful study backed by other scripture can help you to come to a better understanding of the Bible. Feel free to question me on any scripture….I will be happy to do a bit of research and explain with reasoning and other scripture what said initial scripture means.

There are a lot more reasons to put faith in the Bible, but I do not want to sound to 'windy'. I typed all of this up while sitting here btw, this is not copypasta someone else wrote or something I had in a word file. I believe strongly in the Bible, and Yahweh, and with good, founded reasons.

• Quote
• Cite

What about the Mormons? How can prove that they have the wrong faith? Or does it not really matter since Mormons believe in the exact same God as you?

• Quote
• Cite

@66,630

Sorry but Christianity was spread throughout all those countries but over-zealous conquistadors and imperical dictators shoving their beliefs down the 'ignorant heathens' throats.

• Quote
• Cite

@66,630
Atheistfag throwing his hat in the ring…

> 1 - It's open availability around the earth. If Yahweh exists, it would stand to reason He would make Himself known to as many persons as possible. While there are other faiths with more adherents, they are also heavily localized to their country of origin. Christianity, in various forms, exists in every land of the world, no matter how small or remote.
First of all, this is remarkably lucid. Still, there are some people on the planet who, for whatever reason, are not exposed to the teachings of the Christian faith. Somehow, they miss out on their chance to go to heaven, despite not having any particular moral failing.

> 2 - Accuracy. The Bible speaks factually of such things as the water cycle (Ecc. 1:7), how the earth is suspended in space (Job 26:7), or how the earth is round/spherical (Is. 40:22). None of these facts existed in the days they were written, at least, not to man who was not given such knowledge by God. Even such a person as Aristotle refuted the idea of the earth resting in a void in space…and he lived some 1,200 years after Job was written. Scientific facts aside, the Bible is historically accurate, and for certain secular scholars is the only point of reliable reference to ancient cultures. Many lands and civilizations mentioned in the Bible were once dismissed as being fictional…but time and archaelogical finds since have bore witness to their very existence. This is especially noteworthy when at times such cultures had only been noted in the Bible and no other sources.

The bible also gets a lot of things wrong, like the age of the universe. Also, Genesis says that the earth is surrounded above and below by water, not by space, but that leads in to the next point.

> 3 - Unity. The Bible is composed of 66 individuals books, penned by some 40 men over a period of roughly 1,600 years. Even so, the Bible is completely in unity with itself and shares the same theme throughout (do not let people try and tell you the Bible theme is 'love'. That is oversimplification, and flat out wrong. The theme of the Bible has to do with the sovereignty of God and the vindication of His name). Granted, certain interpretations by men are going to suggest the Bible can be at odds with itself, but careful study backed by other scripture can help you to come to a better understanding of the Bible. Feel free to question me on any scripture….I will be happy to do a bit of research and explain with reasoning and other scripture what said initial scripture means.

The bible contradicts itself on innumerable points, and I think that people's need to interpret the bible as a factual, historical document rather than as a mythical one is part of the problem here. Just as an example, the two accounts of creation given in Genesis explicitly contradict each other; this proves that at least both of them cannot be true, literally true, and therefore the Bible must be wrong on some of its accounts. The purpose of these stories, however, is to present a certain rationale for why things are the way they are (the status of women as subservient to man, etc.)

• Quote
• Cite

@66,630
> 2 - Accuracy. The Bible speaks factually of such things as the water cycle (Ecc. 1:7), how the earth is suspended in space (Job 26:7), or how the earth is round/spherical (Is. 40:22). None of these facts existed in the days they were written, at least, not to man who was not given such knowledge by God

The fact that the earth was round was already hypothesised by the greeks, as well as the water cycle was by some people (though in a inaccurate fashion, as in the Bible).
And what to think of this greek who has this theory about matter being split in atoms ? Democrite. Wow, divine inspiration there ! Or maybe not.
And did you knew that Galilee was prosecuted not because he thought the earth was round (which was known at this era) but because he thought maybe aliens existed ? And Voltaire wrote a little story involving aliens of different worlds, back in 17xx !

There are numerous examples like that, of scientific advanced facts being hypothesised centuries before their "proof" (well, I'm not saying aliens do exist), either by fantasy or to strenghten a philosophical point of view. Protip : this has nothing to do with your imaginary friend.

• Quote
• Cite

@66,637

Do not confuse religion with the Bible. How the Word was spread is immaterial. True Christianity was dead by the end of the 1st century by the time all of the apostles were gone. So then it becomes an issue of the Bible NOT existing any longer…or being spread (at times) by those that were doing things wrong in God's eyes. It still exists though noetheless, and after countless campaigns to have it stamped out of existence.

• Quote
• Cite

@66,637

Whoops…my last response was to the 'over-zealous conquistadors' post.

Back on track…Mormons are one of many Christians faiths. Do not confuse religion with the Bible. Two separate things. How can there be so many factions of Christianity with small to opposing views from one another when the Bible lays out ONE set of 'rules'? Answer - religion gets it wrong almost always. Mormons get it REAL wrong. Galatians 1:8 speaks of how one would accursed for subtracting or adding to the already declared 'good news' of the Bible, and yet the Mormons have the audacity to use their 'Book of Mormon' to augment the Bible which they also use.

• Quote
• Cite

@66,703

> First of all, this is remarkably lucid. Still, there are some people on the planet who, for whatever reason, are not exposed to the teachings of the Christian faith. Somehow, they miss out on their chance to go to heaven, despite not having any particular moral failing.

Heaven, for all of faithful mankind, is not their destination. There are countless scriptures that speak of the earth being returned to it's original state after the day of Armageddon. It stands to reason, because otherwise the sin of Adam and Eve (puny humans) would have changed the entire vision God had for His creations. Now all of a sudden people can go to heaven to exist with angels that already existed before mankind who they themselves were never human? Makes no sense. Still, MOST religion pushes that crap. "The Lord's Prayer", as in the KJV, says 'Father, hallowed by thy name. May your will take place on earth as is in heaven….'. Jesus told his followers to pray for and look to the day where God's will would take place on earth. This suggests the earth will be returned to paradisaic conditions. Psalm 37:11 says the 'meek shall possess the earth'. Well, is that ever going to happen without some divine intervention? Obviously not, look around at the world in which we live. These are just two (well known) scriptures that point towards faithful humans living on a paradise earth in a later time, not to heaven.

On a related note, only those that know God and turn their back on Him will find His disfavor. So, someone never coming in contact with the Bible WILL have opprotunity after Armageddon.

> The bible also gets a lot of things wrong, like the age of the universe. Also, Genesis says that the earth is surrounded above and below by water, not by space, but that leads in to the next point.

You would need tell me where the Bible states it's view on the age of the universe. The Bible points to the age of mankind, but to my knowledge, not the universe. As for Genesis stating the earth is surrounded above and below by water, well, it is. Our atmosphere surrounds the earth more closely than 'space', and the atmosphere is heavy with water. I would again need the scripture to which you are referring to have a more specific appreciation.

> The bible contradicts itself on innumerable points, and I think that people's need to interpret the bible as a factual, historical document rather than as a mythical one is part of the problem here. Just as an example, the two accounts of creation given in Genesis explicitly contradict each other; this proves that at least both of them cannot be true, literally true, and therefore the Bible must be wrong on some of its accounts. The purpose of these stories, however, is to present a certain rationale for why things are the way they are (the status of women as subservient to man, etc.)

Man's interpretation/translation causes contradictions. Two accounts of creation? Again, please cite the scriptures that I can appreciate what your belief on this is.

Btw, thank you for being pleasant in your views even if different. We can continue to agree to disagree, but I never see a reason for rudeness on some person's parts when doing so.

• Quote
• Cite

@66,706

> The fact that the earth was round was already hypothesised by the greeks, as well as the water cycle was by some people (though in a inaccurate fashion, as in the Bible).
And what to think of this greek who has this theory about matter being split in atoms ? Democrite. Wow, divine inspiration there ! Or maybe not.
And did you knew that Galilee was prosecuted not because he thought the earth was round (which was known at this era) but because he thought maybe aliens existed ? And Voltaire wrote a little story involving aliens of different worlds, back in 17xx !

> There are numerous examples like that, of scientific advanced facts being hypothesised centuries before their "proof" (well, I'm not saying aliens do exist), either by fantasy or to strenghten a philosophical point of view. Protip : this has nothing to do with your imaginary friend.

I am sure the Greeks were not the only ones to hypothosize about the earth being round, BUT, it was nothing but hypothosis. As is, not everyone or every Greek believed that. The Bible clearly states it as factual…not a guess.

Democrite, Galilee, and Voltaire…all brilliant men but not really a point to refute anything I stated.

• Quote
• Cite

All through the first few chapters of Leviticus it talks about how to sacrifice animals to atone for sins

1:5 And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar

1:9 But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of "a sweet savour unto the LORD".

1:11 And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.

1:14 And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the LORD be of fowls, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of young pigeons.
1:15 And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off his head, and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at the side of the altar:

And this is just the first chapter

But then it says this in Hebrews

10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

So does God want animal sacrifice or does he not want animal sacrifice?

Then there's 1 John, which contains the following passages

1 John 3:15
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

1 John 4:20-21
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

But then Luke says

14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

These are but a few of the 1,418 examples of contradictions in the christian bible. You can find them all at www.skepticsannotatesbible.com

• Quote
• Cite

@66,771

> All through the first few chapters of Leviticus it talks about how to sacrifice animals to atone for sins

> 1:5 And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar

> 1:9 But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of "a sweet savour unto the LORD".

> 1:11 And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.

> 1:14 And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the LORD be of fowls, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of young pigeons.

> 1:15 And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off his head, and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at the side of the altar:

> And this is just the first chapter

> But then it says this in Hebrews

> 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

> 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

> So does God want animal sacrifice or does he not want animal sacrifice?

Atoning for sins showed faith in God for the faults one had committed to said point. This does not buy ever-lasting favor with God. If it did, one such act (even if followed by countless other sins) would suggest God would find favor in such a person. No, it only allowed for forgiveness to the point of doing so. To liken it to something today, you could say a person could ask for forgiveness or repent for a certain crime they committed. If granted forgiveness, that still does not allow them to commit further crimes without punishment.

> Then there's 1 John, which contains the following passages

> 1 John 3:15
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

> 1 John 4:20-21
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

> But then Luke says

> 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Look up the definition of 'hate'. It has various meanings, but included is to 'love less'. To have hatred for one in one's heart yet try to approach God would be fruitless. Yet, one need to place God above family members (or, to love them less than God) is mandatory to show alligance. Today, we have similar expressions/words in the English language that denote different meanings depending on their context. That aside, one needs to look at original scriptures (or, their earliest existing copies) to understand the full meaning of their expressions. Looking to modern-day translations alone does not necessarily their originally intended meanings. If you do not buy that, you would have to ask yourself: 'Why does the Bible ask me to hate family members?'.

• Quote
• Cite

I should add that Pascal's Wager (or Gambit) is indeed invalid. Saying that you belive in God without foundation does not cut it. I would liken it to saying you are a fan of a team that wins the Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, etc. simply because they are the winner. Do you really have such alliegance, or are you just saying so because it seems to give you credit?

• Quote
• Cite

@66,713
> I am sure the Greeks were not the only ones to hypothosize about the earth being round, BUT, it was nothing but hypothosis. As is, not everyone or every Greek believed that. The Bible clearly states it as factual…not a guess.

> Democrite, Galilee, and Voltaire…all brilliant men but not really a point to refute anything I stated.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Of course the Bible states everything as factual, it's a fucking religion book, which christians believed to be inspired by God's words, and therefore TRUE.

And I just refuted your point by showing that lot of facts were thought by imaginative minds before they were discovered, so I don't see how the fantasy writers of the Bible can be set apart from these first one. Except of course the fact that "God speak to them", but since it's not really a fact…

• Quote
• Cite

@66,814

> And I just refuted your point by showing that lot of facts were thought by imaginative minds before they were discovered…

First off, while you refuted what I said, it was not valid. You were not even on point. Talking about splitting atoms or aliens existing has nothing to do with this discussion.

'imaginative minds'. Very well put. Other imaginative minds back then at times thought things contrary to the men you are lauding. Sometimes they got it right, other times they did not. That is called chance. Granted, some such men had valid theories to back their hypotheses, but once again, so did their opposers. The Bible though is perfect in scientific and historical accurary. If you wish to refute that, tell me the scripture(s) you think faulty.

> Of course the Bible states everything as factual, it's a fucking religion book, which christians believed to be inspired by God's words, and therefore TRUE.

Incorrect. God made man his own moral agent, able to choose courses for himself (same can be said for the angels, which is why Satan and his demons [fallen angels] exist). That aside, Christians are not the only ones to see the Bible as factual. Theologians have yet to definitively disprove ANYTHING within the Bible. You are just speaking to back your feelings but are working real light on evidence.

• Quote
• Cite