Committed to HIM wrote:
The atheists do not have the capacity to understand that a true believer of Christ is inseparable from their faith. All that I am or could ever be has been made complete through the blood of Jesus Christ!
To summarize , an atheist is anti-Christ, refusing even God’s existence. They, not even recognizing Him, can’t begin to have understanding. The fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of The Holy One is understanding. Therefore , understanding is impossible because they know not The Holy One!
I am thankful I know The Holy One. Any other believers thankful on this Lord’s day?

johnheadBut I was a true believer that Jesus as the son of god and after realizing what faith actually was and finding no evidence to justify holding such a view I gave it up.

Oh but then I must not have been a TRUE believer, I must have been fucking faking it all those years. Yea, that’s a no-true-Scotsman fallacy so you can take that excuse and shove it. People are allowed to change their minds and just because they changed their mind doesn’t mean they never believed it was real. Sometimes when people realize they are living in a fantasy they manage to grow a pair, question why it is they believe and eventually free themselves from the mental delusions of their peers.

Call me an anti-Christ if you like, in fact you can call me any number of derogatory names as many times as you like. But no matter what you call me it will not change the FACT that you have the same amount of evidence that Jesus was “the anointed one”, that he was born of a virgin, that he changed water in the wine, that he cured people with touch, that he brought the dead back to life, or that he himself rose from the dead and fucking flew to heaven as a Muslim has that Mohammad was a prophet of Allah. The only thing you have is faith; blind, ignorant, gullible acceptance that the writings of middle-east story tellers are actually true. You willingly choose to abandon reason and skepticism because believing you are the center of the cosmos makes you feel good, believing that you have an eternal parent that will not let you die makes you feel good, not having to think and make tough decisions on your own feels good, and believing that people who fail to agree with you will be tormented by some malevolent deity for eternity makes you feel good.

People take drugs because it allows them to escape reality. Religion is how you escape reality, religion is a drug and you are absolutely addicted to it. You will fight tooth and nail to keep getting your next fix just like any other addict. You come here to have people confirm your delusion and kill off any seeds of doubt that might happen to take root in that wonderful brain of yours.

You demonstrate this by making completely nonsensical assertions such as “fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom” which is a baseless argument from authority. You mean to tell me that a god that supposedly loves his creation needs to be feared? That is one of the great contradictions of your religion.

“knowledge of The Holy One is understanding” is another example of a completely vapid statement. Knowledge is demonstrable, please demonstrate the existence of this alleged “Holy One” that loves us to such a degree that we should fear it.

“I am thankful I know The Holy One.” Well I’m not convinced that you know anything actually. If you know something then demonstrate how you know, if you have faith then you do not know it, you are simply choosing to believe it in the absence of evidence. You have no right to make shit up and assert without reason that you know it to be true, we will not let you get away with it unopposed.


Prophet of Jesus Christ wrote:  That right there is disrespectful. And you are a liar. You do not respect me.

Can you not separate yourself from the religious bullshit you profess?

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” – Thomas Jefferson

Prophet of Jesus Christ wrote:  Thomas Jefferson is in hell. You will be able to ask him about that when you get there.  Tell him the Prophet of Jesus Christ, sent you.

Actually Thomas Jefferson is dead and his body is in the ground. The same place you and I will be one day baring some other form of disposal for our biomass. Hell is a fabrication of humans and used as part of the old carrot and stick routine.

Here is how it works. Christianity has to convince everyone they were created sick, worm-like, contemptible, and worthless. Once the preachers of Christianity have succeeded they conveniently offer a cure. The cure is the complete and utter abandonment of reason and the surrender of your mind to the Christian dogma. The cure is appealing to some as Christianity promises that you do not have to think for yourself, it will tell you what to think and how to think. The reward for this utter abandonment of your own mind and your being complicit with the human sacrifice of a Jew named Jesus is eternity in heaven. Some preachers even talk about streets made of gold and mansions for everyone; a transparent appeal to human greed. It sounds really nice but it is a fantasy with absolutely no evidence, yet wishful thinking has a very powerful effect on humans. That’s the carrot part now let’s talk a little about the stick.

What about people who might begin to question and doubt the claims of the charlatans and hucksters who are raking in all that free money from the credulous followers of Jesus. The seeds of doubt grow very fast when planted in bullshit. What about those pesky people who dare to point out the contradictions in the Bible and ask for, the most contemptible thing of all, evidence. Evidence which supports the claims underlying the Christian religion. Well this is where the stick comes into play.

HELL!! Yes, that magical realm of unquenchable fire where people are roasted alive and tormented by demons yet cannot die. Throughout history every possible nightmare scenario that could possibly be imagined has been incorporated into the fantasy of hell. Give Dante’s Inferno a read, it’s some of the best torture porn you’ll every read. Like you, some people get off imagining other people being burned alive in agony. I have to give the hell fantasy props, it works on some people.

The problem is that I am not "some people". I am part of an ever-growing group of free thinking individuals who have begun to live, not according to supernatural authority, but according to reason. Reason demands evidence and there is absolutely no evidence that such a place exists. It’s nothing more than an adult version of the Boogie Man. Telling me, an Atheist, that I am going to hell is no different from telling me there are monsters under my bed.

I’m sorry you’re mind is not your own. I’m sorry that you are trapped in such a childlike religious mindset and are unable to experience reality for what it really is and not just what you wish and pretend it to be. I’m sorry that instead of considering that your religion might be entirely made up, you would rather imagine me and others being burned at the hands of some devil with a pitch fork and pointy tail. I’m sorry that you’re still trapped in the religion from which I was able to free myself. I hope you eventually experience reality before the one life you will ever have is over with.

Interesting wrote:

I did tag where I first encountered your behavior, and you responded. That’s okay, you don’t have to act like I did that, even though I did. But that’s okay, I can see there will be know convincing you to be civil at any point. You call me immature, that’s fine. I haven’t admitted to the opposite. I just think everybody should be held accountable for what they say, you included. that’s all. Deny away, but I did tag the post where this all encountered, going on two weeks ago, now

As far as I am concerned I have been civil. Your definition of civil include far more requires than mine. Being civil simply means not engaging in hostility toward another person. I don’t know what you think it means.
In what way would you hold someone else accountable for their thoughts. What kinds of punishments would you like to see handed down.

Interesting wrote:

I don’t know man. I just know that if somebody insulted your intelligence, you’d get pretty upset too. That’s what I was doing. Sticking up for the people you were essentially referring to as clueless, dumb, etc. for believing in God. Only to turn it to say that you don’t like religion being shoved down your throat, which I agree with, but I was trying to make you see that you were doing the same thing on here, with not believing. I believe we can all coexist( I hate that word but seems fitting) without insulting each other’s belief system, whether it involves a god or not. Do you at least see where I’m coming from in this respect?

Why would I get upset at someone insulting me? It does me no injury when someone says something mean to me. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. The only reason people become angry over insults is because they choose to become angry.
You were sticking up for people over things you imagined were happening. I never said anyone was dumb for believing in gods,’credulous’ sure,’misinformed’ certainly, but not dumb or stupid. I have accused people of being ignorant, which is synonymous with clueless, but ignorance is not stupidity. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or understanding, in that regard I am ignorant or clueless of many things. I admit my ignorance and religious people do not. It is not an insult.
I do not think I’ve ever told someone not to shove their religion down my throat. I do not want them using the government to promote their religion but they are free to speak to me about it, I’m happy to listen to what they have to say only because I enjoy debate and look forward to eviscerating their faith claims with contradictory evidence and logic.
I am not doing "the same thing" here. This is an open message board. I can no more force my views on anyone than they can force their views on me. Everyone involved here must willingly come to this website and look at what is being written.
You believe we can all coexist, great, I am not promoting the separation or extermination of anyone. Not insulting someone’s beliefs system would require limits on free inquiry, open-mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake. There is no polite way to suggest to someone that they have devoted their life to folly. Being offended is subjective and nothing more than a whine. "I’m offended by that!" Well so what? They can be offended.
I do see where you are coming from, I just think you are wrong. Now you may choose to take offense at that but I refer you back to what I just wrote on the matter.

Cyclist wrote:

I have met several atheists over the years and the one common theme is they all are convinced that they are the smartest ones in the room. In reality, some are intelligent but for the most part, most are not that intelligent, they just spout someone else’s ideas and thoughts.

johnheadPlease let me clear up this misunderstanding of yours and explain why your conclusion is flawed. I’ll admit that in a room full of religious people it’s hard not to feel like the smartest person in the room but smarts, whereby I mean intelligence, is not the problem. I have said over and over again and I’ll say it once more, I AM NOT CONVINCED AND DO NOT THINK THAT I AM SMARTER THAN YOU.(I do think I am smarter than Anti-Atheist but he went out of his way to proved that)Intelligence is not measured by someone’s ability to construct original thoughts and idea, if that were remotely true then every single religious person would be disqualified. All they spout are the ideas and thoughts of 2000 year old biblical authors.

Cyclist wrote:

As I said some that I’ve come across are very intelligent. You seem to be someone I would put in that group. However, most that I have come across are very condescending and dismissive of people who are believers. As if those who believe are somehow less intelligent or gullible.

A good rule of thumb for me…if one has to try and prove how smart they are or if one feels the need to use ridicule as a part of their argument, they are probably not that intelligent.

johnheadYou’re half way correct. Condescending and dismissive are apt terms but those terms apply to the belief itself, not the believer. This is one of the biggest hurdles I’ve come to face in debating this issue over the years. Believers like you find it nearly impossible to separate yourself from your belief.I responded with condescension toward your belief in the supernatural because science and reason is superior to superstition and wish thinking. I respond dismissively toward your belief because in the absence of good evidence or logical argument there is no reason to take your belief seriously.

I respond as much as possible to YOU with understanding and concern because I use to be in your shoes. I use to regurgitate all the lame and debunked creationist clap-trap about intelligent design this and random chance that. I wanted to believe what my parents and grand-parents and preachers told me was true because why would they lie. Then I realized that they were not intentionally lying about anything, there were simply passing on what they were taught as children. They were never taught to think critically but rather to simply believe it without question on authority alone.

Nobody is trying prove anything about how smart they are to you or anyone else. You do not even know my real name so what the hell good does it do me to convince you I’m some sort of genius, I mean just think about what you’re saying. I don’t give a damn how intelligent you think I am. I am trying to give you the simple tools to think critically. You don’t have to subject yourself to an imaginary being, you can be good on your own accord and not be afraid to live your own life and think your own thoughts free from the tyranny of an invisible celestial dictator.

lowboy wrote:

Is pedophilia and beastiality there own business ? do you consider gay marriage normal behaviour. can two male gays copulate and procreate by making a child.

Is it normal behaviour for one male to use his wenie to penetrate the anus of another,

is the aids virus really caused by the invention of diet coke? afterall they both appeared on the scene at the same time.

you miss my point. I dont wont the in your face attitude these people have toward those of us who are straight.

live that lifestyle if you wish but dont try to make me accept it as normal behviour.

johnheadYou continue to draw this nonsensical parallel between homosexuality and child abuse. Let’s be clear on our definitions, pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children. When someone who has this disorder acts upon it we call that child abuse or rape of a child.

PLEASE STOP BEING WILLFULLY STUPID. The difference between gay marriage and pedophilia is clear, one involves two consenting adults and the other does not.

Do I consider gay marriage normal behavior? Sure, why not?

Is it normal behavior for one male to use his weenie to penetrate the anus of another? If your gay then it is absolutely normal. If you were doing it then it would be abnormal, because you’re not gay.

All I can do is speak for myself and say it isn’t my cup of tea. The question is where do you get off telling anyone else what they may and may not do in private? Where do you get off dictating what another man does with “weenie”? We already know you think you can tell a woman what to do with her uterus so I guess it only makes sense.

Can a male gay couple make a child? No, but that is that not relevant to marriage. If you were impotent and unable to impregnate your wife would it be right to deny your right to marry her? No, you married your wife because you loved each other and wanted to dedicate yourselves to each other, not because you needed a baby making machine.

I’ve met a hand full of gay people in my life and none of them have been in my face about their sexuality. What you probably mean by in your face is their unwillingness to keep quite about being second class citizens and the denial of their pursuit of happiness and their call for equal rights, yea that’s totally putting their lifestyle in your face.

You don’t have to accept them as normal. You can sit at home or church and talk about how abnormal you think they are until the cows come home. It’s like racism, you can think black people are inferior if you like, hold meetings in white outfits with pointy hats, burn crosses every week it make you feel better; but the law will afford equal protection regardless of skin color and soon it will afford equal protection regardless of sexual orientation.

lowboy wrote:

ok sir i am back. i read it. where is the word marriage and dont call it a civil right. that battle is yet to be fought.if it had said among these rights are the pursuit of happiness ,well maybe but that is another document anf where do it say you have the right to be happy.
do you know of any case where the court has overturned a local or state election where there were no irregularities and the majority of the people expressed thier right.?
from what i hear most legal scholars were surprised they even took it. they could have refused and that goofy lower courts ruling would have been law.
they got enough protection under current state and federal law.

johnheadEqual protection under the law is a Civil Right, that battle was won on July 9, 1868.  I did not say you have a right to be happy.  You have the right to PURSUE happiness. So it was in another document, so what?  The constitution does not GRANT RIGHTS, it only establishes the government and defines its powers.  We don’t have freedom of speech because of the first amendment, the first amendment is a specific prohibition on government power. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are self-evident and exist prior to any constitution. Marriage is one the “Blessings of Liberty” mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution if you are worried about seeing it written down.  It doesn’t matter if the local or state election were held without irregularities and the majority of people voted for something, civil rights are not subject to majority opinion. The majority has no “right” to discriminate and deny equal protection to the minority.  The Supreme Court takes up cases which have seen differing opinions across the country so as to set the record for the entire country.  They entitled to more than “enough protection”. They are entitled to equal protection under state and federal law.

lowboy wrote:

ok knucklehead . that amendment was to make the blacks citizens as a result of the dred scott case.some courts have used it for other situations.most of them a stretch.

here is what the justices will havr to decide; If same sex marriage is a fourtenth amendment right, then it will be extremely difficult to forbid other types of marriage that are clearly deterimental to society,such as polygamy and yes pedophilia.

if i want to marry my dog is that a 14th amendment right. if i want 15 wifes, is that a 14th amendment right?

states presntly govern marriage and i think you are going to find it will remain that way.

the us constitution does not guarantee you the right to be happy.

Maybe jefferson was focused so much on religion he forgot that. he also never envisioned that a small foolish,and mentally ill minority would be cast upon us by evil.

johnheadCivil Rights being denied to black citizens might have been the origin of the 14th Amendment but you are ignoring that it was not about black people it was about CIVIL RIGHTS BEING DENIED to black people.

Marriage is a civil (as well as religious) institution; married couples benefit from more than 1000 benefits under federal law. Equal protection requires equal access to civil benefits of marriage. Denying equal access to the benefits of marriage is a denial of civil rights and a violation of equal protection.

Nobody is advocating for polygamy. Nobody is advocating for pedophilia. Those two things are entirely separate and distinct from two consenting adults agreeing to care for one another. Your argument is a slippery slope fallacy. Tell us how gay marriage and GAY MARRIAGE ALONE is a determent to society. How would two men or two women being granted the privileges of a married couple harm you or anyone else? I submit that there IS NO HARM, and therefore NO REASON to discriminate against them.

A dog cannot consent to a marriage. A child cannot consent to a marriage. Those examples are vapid.

Correct, the US Constitution does not guarantee you the right to be happy. I never said it did, so now you can stop acting like I said that. The preamble to the Constitution reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The pursuit of Happiness is one of the “blessings of liberty” and your religiously motivated disdain of gay people drives you to deny them their pursuit of happiness, to deny them equal protection, thus denying them their civil rights.

Nothing is being “cast upon you”. You just hate that your religious edicts, which have been forced upon other people that your religion deems worth of execution, are now being cast off as the ignorant remnants of our superstitious ancestors. Equal rights for gays is another nail in the coffin of religious ignorance and bigotry. The age of reason is coming and appeals to godly authority as a justification for the mistreatment of others is loosing more power every year.

lowboy wrote:

i dont know if it was a big bang but something sure as hell blew up and that is why all those meteors are hitting us.

maybe blowing it up was gods way to start the creation and considering the way it was put back together it takes a fool not to believe a higher power did not have a hand in doing it.

It moves better than a rolex watch.

johnheadMore precisely, space-time inflated. There is a long chain of events which lead to the existence of meteors but needless to say we have a very good explanation of their origins.

A fool is the one who claims "it was put back together" by some magical invisible man.  We know the fundamental forces of nature which lead to star formation and planetary accretion. We know which of those forces gave rise to chemistry and the operations of life.

The fool is the one who has failed to educate themselves on these discoveries and instead relies upon ancient myths and legends to conclude that a being with a mind and a will just did it all in six days.  The fool ignores the fact that his explanation actually explains nothing whatsoever. Magic is not an answer, it is an excuse for ignorance.

Please tell me how you draw a comparison between the cosmos and a Rolex watch?

lowboy wrote:

the cosmos design is perfect. arolex watch near perfect. only a fool would not know the difference.even the most expensive timepiece requires adjustment. the cosmos is perfect and to my knowledge has never neede adjustment.

you are a fucking idiot not to know perfection is more than an accident and something mankind can never achieve.

johnheadCall me a fool if you like but I think your reasoning is flawed.  First off, what is your definition of perfect?  Second, if the cosmos is "perfect" then please describe how an "imperfect" cosmos would appear.

You continue to draw a correlation between a watch and the cosmos but we know that a watch is man-made because watches do not occur naturally but the cosmos IS all that is NATURAL.  We know that a watch has a purpose because man built it for a purpose, to measure the passage of time in distinct units which we humans have defined based on things we observe in NATURE.

You may call me all the names in the book but you are the one asserting perfection and being completely unwilling or unable to explain what it is about the cosmos that makes it PERFECT.

The fact that mankind cannot reproduce the entire cosmos has no bearing on your argument.  Our inability to craft something we observe in nature does not infer that it was crafted by something or someone else nor to then conjure up a specific deity that gives the remotest shit about any of us.

So please explain to this foolish fucking idiot how you came to the conclusion that the cosmos is perfect and what an imperfect cosmos would look like.

lowboy wrote:

you have just answered all your questions yourself. re-read your post.

has to be magic or i got a bad case of, if you dont know, i aint gonna tell ya.

johnheadThank you for surrendering the argument.  You could have be intellectually honest and just admitted your argument is flawed instead of asserting that my question to you was simultaneously my own answer as if that makes sense in any sort of rational reality.

I asked you to support your assertion of a "perfect cosmos" by describing an "imperfect cosmos" and the best thing you can manage is "you have just answered all your questions"? Then follow that up with "if [I] don’t know then [you] aint gonna tell [me]"

Thank you for admitting that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

lowboy wrote:




johnheadAgain, you keep employing the word perfection without justification.  The word "perfect" is intended to distinguish one thing from everything else.  For example, I could assert that in my opinion a certain woman has a ‘perfect’ body only because I could provide examples of other women with ‘imperfect’ bodies for comparison.  I could assert that a certain object is perfectly spherical or perfectly circular because I can cite examples of objects which are neither.

You keep writing that the cosmos is ‘perfect’ yet we only know of one cosmos, there is nothing from which our cosmos may be distinguished.  It is therefore dishonest and irrational to assert that what we observe is perfect unless you can answer the necessary question, compared to what?  If, as you say, there is no ‘imperfect cosmos’ then there can be no ‘perfect cosmos’ for the same reason you cannot have ‘up’ without a ‘down’ or ‘front’ without a ‘back’.  Your argument from perfection is fallacious.

You say everything we observe is perfectly synced?  Again I have to ask, what would an out of sync cosmos look like?  The cosmos is predictable because the laws of gravity and electromagnetism are universal.  Gravity pulls things into balls and causes massive things to orbit each other.  Electromagnetism gives rise to stars and eventually life.  The cosmos simply IS the way it IS and there is no evidence thus far that some super intelligent being has spend eons mucking about in our one little galaxy, with our one little solar system, on this one little rock for 4.5 billion years just to finally make YOU and ME.

The cosmos is also not an accident.  Accidents are events which occur contrary to intended events.  There is no evidence of intent therefore cosmos we observe cannot be accidental.

Lastly, inflation does not result in perfection because, as I have pointed out, the cosmos is not ‘perfect’; it just exists.

Dude wrote:

Let me ask you atheists something. Can you "prove" that love exists? Is there a scientific method that can conclusively prove that love exists? No. But do you love your children, parents, siblings or spouse? Sure you do. Well…..prove it scientifically.

johnheadLove by its very nature is immaterial.  Love, like hate, is the label we use to describe what motivates certain behaviors we observe in humans.  I can provide evidence of love insomuch as I can point to examples of certain actions which carry that label.

I am sexually faithful to my wife.  I provide for her well-being with food and shelter.  I tend to her needs when they arise and protect her from harm.  My selfless behavior toward my wife is indicative of what we collectively label love.  Love and hate are abstract concepts and not something which can be directly measured and quantified.  They are just employed to describe human emotional and physical reactions.

Now, if we define love and hate by their corresponding physiological reactions then you could scientifically prove they exist by constructing an experiment which shows physiological reaction [A] occurs when people report loving something and physiological reaction [B] occurs when people report hating something.

Ultimately though LOVE is a human construct to describe strong emotional connections we form with other humans or sometimes animals or even inanimate objects.  One reason we know it is real is because we are able to ask each other the question and get a real answer.  On the other hand, your GOD does not answer questions in any meaningful objective manner.  Your GOD does not act in any way distinguishable from every day natural and random events.  There is no scientific method that can conclusively prove that your god exists outside the confines of your imagination.

We can dance the philosophical dance all day, my inability to convince you scientifically that love exists adds not one iota of weight behind your assertion that god is real.  At the very least I will concede that your god is as real as love in the sense that both ideas are creations of the human mind.

MrDesoto1 wrote:
Do you have any credible, scientific proof of these “souls”?
Working for the Lord wrote:
Yeah but it requires being dead.

johnheadBeing dead provide evidence of nothing.  I know it’s a hard thing to imagine because life is cool and the thought of death gives you pause, but when you die that’s it man, you are done, over with.  Sure you’ll have family and friends that will remember you but you yourself will be no more.  I feel like a parent having to explain that Santa Clause isn’t real, but it needs to be said.  You’re diluting yourself to avoid the realization that death is final and enjoying the thought of living forever.  But it’s not going to happen.  You’re not going to heaven and we aren’t going to hell for disagreeing with you. When we both die we won’t being meeting anyone or doing anything.  The living cells that comprise our brains will have died and what makes you who you are will be no more.

So what does that mean.  It doesn’t mean life is meaningless as religious people like to claim.  What it means is that your life is more valuable than you could have ever imagined.  There are billions of galaxies and billions of stars and billions of planets but there is only ONE you. You will only happen once.

There is more than enough to do in this life.  There is more than enough to learn in this life.  There are more than enough people to love in this life. Why not stop wasting this one life you know you have by pretending you’re going on to a second one as a reward for giving up the very thing that makes you one of a kind in the first place; YOU MIND.

snschick wrote:
The point is i wouldnt be asked to wear a head dress because i wouldn’t even apply. I am all for Christian companies. TN has the will to fire law so if i owned my own company and i heard any talks about atheism or anything like it they would be fired on the spot.

Wow and you’re not prejudice at all.

snschick wrote:
I’m prejudice because i want God fearing people to work for me? I think all companies should be allowed to ask their employees what religion they practice. most Christians have a higher moral standard than others. It would make for a better work environment

danteheadYou are admittedly prejudice and you claim you have a higher moral standard.
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds I guess.
What higher moral standard do you think Christians profess over atheist?
If anything it is atheist who have the higher standard for morality. We believe this life to be the only one we will have. So it is of great importance to us that we make everyday count , better than the last , for a better tomorrow and a better future over all.
Christians spend their entire lives waiting for the next one always thinking that this life isn’t as meaningful as the next one will be. Almost like a teenager who gets their first car and is told next year they will be getting a new Ferrari Enzo.  The teenager with their first car isn’t going to care and respect the car when they think they will be getting a Ferrari in the next year.,Christians do the same thing. They don’t treat this life with the utmost respect and care because they think there is something better for them ,they just have to die to get there

Birdy wrote:
If I believed that there was no Heaven (rewards/peace/happiness) and no hell (punishment/torture/misery) then I would be out there killing and stealing and every other nasty behavior because being good or nice would be useless.

danteheadSo you’re only good and do good deeds because you think you will be rewarded. Not because you’re doing good to just out of the goodness of your heart. Pretty shallow of a person you must be.

That’s like going down to the homeless shelter and feeding them only to ask them later what are they going to do for you, because apparently you expect to be rewarded.

I have 2 people living in my house at this moment that are homeless with out my help. I’m not helping them because I expect to be getting brownie points with god, nor am I helping them out because I think I will be rewarded for doing it. Even though its put a little bit of strain on my finances and my home life, I do it because if I am able to help someone then I will.

So how would my choices here be , as you put it , useless because I don’t believe in the afterlife? According to the bible I am destined for hell anyways for apostasy and blasphemy.

Though if you think about it, faith of the after life, doesn’t stop priest from molesting kids, doesn’t stop religious people from committing murders, theft, rape, etc.

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” – Steven Weinberg

Birdy wrote:
I’ve been taking the “homeless” into my own home for years. I fed them, bought them clothes and supplies, treated them like family.
It is a big strain on my finances for sure. My property has been used and sometimes destroyed. All the people I helped have gone on and not a single one was there for me when I needed help. Yet, I still take the “homeless” in along with every stray cat and dog.
If I didn’t believe that there was a higher power giving me some sort of credit for what I do then I would stop doing it.

danteheadThen by your own admission you are not a good person because you genuinely care , you are only good because you think it will make god happy.  Thus making you disingenuously good.  Why would god want someone who did not do good things out of the kindness of their heart but only because you feel obligated to make god happy?

I’m only a good parent because I believe that it makes god happy not because I want to be a good parent.

I’m only a good neighbor because I believe it makes god happy not because I want to be a good neighbor and respect my own neighbors.

I’m only a faithful husband or wife because I believe it will make god happy, not because I genuinely want to be a faithful husband or wife.

Your religion has not made you into a genuinely good person.  You just use it to pretend that you are because you feel obligated to do good only for the sake of god and not for the sake of good itself.