Zone1 atheists don't have proof of God... because they refuse to look at the proof

[Hollie]

Again, the majority don't take them literally. Our own expression of "Time stood still" is a great comparison to people saying the sun stopped moving. It is so easy to understand how people felt that day....

Why accept the accounts of a literal, supernatural entity when the existence of that entity is deliverd by a book, written by unknown suthors amounts to stories, fables, folklore, myths, legends, parables, poetry, plays, etc.?

 

[Meriweather]

Why accept the accounts of a literal, supernatural entity when the existence of that entity is deliverd by a book, written by unknown suthors amounts to stories, fables, folklore, myths, legends, parables, poetry, plays, etc.?

As I mentioned before, the great majority do not take Bible accounts as literal, scientific fact. Most of us seek to understand the lesson and philosophical truths being presented.

It is interesting to (in real life) come across someone who sincerely takes each account as literal fact. Somehow, it is the world in which they live, and many are at peace with this. Their literal belief does not affect my life at all, and it does not disrupt their own life. The understand the truths/themes behind the story they choose to take literally, and it is those truths they incorporate into their lives.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why accept the accounts of a literal, supernatural entity when the existence of that entity is deliverd by a book, written by unknown suthors amounts to stories, fables, folklore, myths, legends, parables, poetry, plays, etc.?

It will never grow up. You have to add "do you" to "Why accept the accounts of a literal, supernatural entity when" {...}
But it's clearly hopeless. It simply can't speak for itself.

 

[SweetSue92]

Atheists have looked at the available proof of God and just don’t believe it

You need to do a better job of convincing

Indeed no.

Wipe the dust from your feet and move on

 

[SweetSue92]

As I mentioned before, the great majority do not take Bible accounts as literal, scientific fact. Most of us seek to understand the lesson and philosophical truths being presented.

It is interesting to (in real life) come across someone who sincerely takes each account as literal fact. Somehow, it is the world in which they live, and many are at peace with this. Their literal belief does not affect my life at all, and it does not disrupt their own life. The understand the truths/themes behind the story they choose to take literally, and it is those truths they incorporate into their lives.

Is the Virgin Birth literal?

 

[Meriweather]

Is the Virgin Birth literal?

While I have studied other suppositions, I believe that it is. I also believe that Bernadette did see Our Lady at Lourdes and heard her identify herself. "I am the Immaculate Conception..." (Bernadette did not even know what that meant.) This has not been the only Marian appearance.

Had Mary been impregnated by a soldier, a priest of the Temple, or Joseph, (a normal pregnancy a normal life), would she appear in our world? This also indicates she was assumed into heaven, something many non-Catholic Christians refuse to believe on the grounds it was only Apostolic Tradition and can't be found in the Bible. Also ironic as Apostolic Tradition has been passed down longer than the Bible and also includes Mary remained a virgin and had no other children, that Jesus' brethren were step-siblings and even cousins. In Biblical times there was no differentiation between siblings, step-siblings, cousins.

Remember, Orthodox and Catholics take much more on faith about Mary than other denominations are willing to contemplate.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Stop the presses, Rocky. Mr. Know It All just spoke for him/her self!

Is the Virgin Birth literal?

I believe that it is.

Does this mean it believes in a particular god yet wastes its life studying other gods that it has no use for or belief in? Stay tuned for Does It Really Know Everything Or Is It Just A Huge Bag Of Gas?

 

[Meriweather]

Does this mean it believes in a particular god yet wastes its life studying other gods that it has no use for or belief in?

Good morning, Grumblenuts. Yes, I believe in God, in fact know there is God, but loved studying Greek and Roman gods as well. Spent a lot of time on Aesop's Fables (and others) as well. Folklore is fun and interesting as well. When I am not wasting time on that, I waste time gardening, including adding little fairy gardens as well. Anything else I can bore you with?

 

[Woodznutz]

That makes my life worth living. .

Well, we do need fewer troublesome people on earth.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Good morning, Grumblenuts. Yes, I believe in God, in fact know there is God, but loved studying Greek and Roman gods as well. Spent a lot of time on Aesop's Fables (and others) as well. Folklore is fun and interesting as well. When I am not wasting time on that, I waste time gardening, including adding little fairy gardens as well. Anything else I can bore you with?

You mean "as well"?

Why accept the accounts of a literal, supernatural entity when the existence of that entity is deliverd by a book, written by unknown suthors amounts to stories, fables, folklore, myths, legends, parables, poetry, plays, etc.?

Is the Virgin Birth literal?

While I have studied other suppositions, I believe that it is. I also believe that Bernadette did see Our Lady at Lourdes and heard her identify herself.

That makes my life worth living. .

 

[Grumblenuts]

atheists don't have proof of God...​

Neither do theists, but that never stops them.

 

[SweetSue92]

While I have studied other suppositions, I believe that it is. I also believe that Bernadette did see Our Lady at Lourdes and heard her identify herself. "I am the Immaculate Conception..." (Bernadette did not even know what that meant.) This has not been the only Marian appearance.

Had Mary been impregnated by a soldier, a priest of the Temple, or Joseph, (a normal pregnancy a normal life), would she appear in our world? This also indicates she was assumed into heaven, something many non-Catholic Christians refuse to believe on the grounds it was only Apostolic Tradition and can't be found in the Bible. Also ironic as Apostolic Tradition has been passed down longer than the Bible and also includes Mary remained a virgin and had no other children, that Jesus' brethren were step-siblings and even cousins. In Biblical times there was no differentiation between siblings, step-siblings, cousins.

Remember, Orthodox and Catholics take much more on faith about Mary than other denominations are willing to contemplate.

If you take the Virgin Birth "literally" than why is God not able to do other miracles in His Creation? Are you the arbiter of what miracles are valid or not?

 

[nomadic5]

Very hard to insult me because I do respect what other people feel.

I said that males normally tend to be more objective in their thinking than women

But there is that word NORMALLY... Sometimes women are wiser than men... (yes, I know, wisdom is not the same thing as... whatever)

 

[Meriweather]

If you take the Virgin Birth "literally" than why is God not able to do other miracles in His Creation? Are you the arbiter of what miracles are valid or not?

Offering my own opinion on the virgin birth is not arbitrating. There is no dispute to settle, unless you are disputing that there was a virgin birth? Even if you do dispute the virgin birth, your opinion (or anyone's opinion) is as valid as mine.

In my opinion, any creation of God's is a miracle in my eyes. Are you, by chance, referencing a literal 24 hour/day six day creation? The Hebrew language, just like English in this case, defines 'day' in different ways. (English has 15 definitions for the word day.)

When English references "The day of the dinosaur" Webster is not insisting that all the dinosaurs lived one single day. The same can be said about light. "In the day of light creation" can mean a period of time when light was coming into being. The Old Testament has other examples where the Hebrew word that defines a 24-hour period, also defines a long period of time that began and ended. such as the day of King David.

Science and language offer different alternatives to events poofing into existence in a 24-hour time frame. It is quite unnecessary for any creation by God to take place within a limited time. For example, the angel did not announce that Jesus would be born to Mary on one day, then have that birth take the day after, on the second day. Mary was pregnant for the usual nine months.

Another example: Raising Lazarus from the dead. What is the alternative to that miracle story? There is none. We either believe John is relating a true event, or that he made the whole thing up. My opinion is that John is writing a true biography. The details of the account match the customs of that time.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

A lifetime of grooming and indoctrination, peer pressure from your community, a little delusion, maybe throw some mental illness in there, and voilà, faith

Do you guys EVER come up with an original insult?

 

[SweetSue92]

Offering my own opinion on the virgin birth is not arbitrating. There is no dispute to settle, unless you are disputing that there was a virgin birth? Even if you do dispute the virgin birth, your opinion (or anyone's opinion) is as valid as mine.

In my opinion, any creation of God's is a miracle in my eyes. Are you, by chance, referencing a literal 24 hour/day six day creation? The Hebrew language, just like English in this case, defines 'day' in different ways. (English has 15 definitions for the word day.)

When English references "The day of the dinosaur" Webster is not insisting that all the dinosaurs lived one single day. The same can be said about light. "In the day of light creation" can mean a period of time when light was coming into being. The Old Testament has other examples where the Hebrew word that defines a 24-hour period, also defines a long period of time that began and ended. such as the day of King David.

Science and language offer different alternatives to events poofing into existence in a 24-hour time frame. It is quite unnecessary for any creation by God to take place within a limited time. For example, the angel did not announce that Jesus would be born to Mary on one day, then have that birth take the day after, on the second day. Mary was pregnant for the usual nine months.

Another example: Raising Lazarus from the dead. What is the alternative to that miracle story? There is none. We either believe John is relating a true event, or that he made the whole thing up. My opinion is that John is writing a true biography. The details of the account match the customs of that time.

I don't know who you're arguing with here. On creation, for one thing. Earlier in this thread you seemed to have a problem with people taking the Bible "literally" (?), but then you believe in the Virgin Birth. If you believe in such a miracle than you really should not be scoffing at any of the miracles relayed in the Bible. You realize that to an atheist, to an unbeliever, a virgin becoming pg is just as ridiculous as God creating the world in seven days.

In other words:

If God is God, it is all possible.

If God is God, the talking donkey, the Virgin Birth, Noah's Ark, is all possible. To scoff at any of it is to scoff at all of it.

 

[SweetSue92]

Do you guys EVER come up with an original insult?

No and there's a reason for that. They are Destroyers, and on the side of the Destroyer. They do not create. We are on the side of the Creator, by the grace of God.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Another example: Raising Lazarus from the dead. What is the alternative to that miracle story? There is none. We either believe John is relating a true event, or that he made the whole thing up.

Actually, "he made the whole thing up" is an alternative. Far more likely, he borrowed some from others and embellished upon it.

My opinion is that John is writing a true biography. The details of the account match the customs of that time.

Really? Raising the dead was customary at that time? Not considered miraculous? If so, why would a Jesus bother?

 

[Hollie]

Offering my own opinion on the virgin birth is not arbitrating. There is no dispute to settle, unless you are disputing that there was a virgin birth? Even if you do dispute the virgin birth, your opinion (or anyone's opinion) is as valid as mine.

In my opinion, any creation of God's is a miracle in my eyes. Are you, by chance, referencing a literal 24 hour/day six day creation? The Hebrew language, just like English in this case, defines 'day' in different ways. (English has 15 definitions for the word day.)

When English references "The day of the dinosaur" Webster is not insisting that all the dinosaurs lived one single day. The same can be said about light. "In the day of light creation" can mean a period of time when light was coming into being. The Old Testament has other examples where the Hebrew word that defines a 24-hour period, also defines a long period of time that began and ended. such as the day of King David.

Science and language offer different alternatives to events poofing into existence in a 24-hour time frame. It is quite unnecessary for any creation by God to take place within a limited time. For example, the angel did not announce that Jesus would be born to Mary on one day, then have that birth take the day after, on the second day. Mary was pregnant for the usual nine months.

Another example: Raising Lazarus from the dead. What is the alternative to that miracle story? There is none. We either believe John is relating a true event, or that he made the whole thing up. My opinion is that John is writing a true biography. The details of the account match the customs of that time.

I would take exception to the notion that anyone’s opinion is as valid as any other. One may have the opinion that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth but that is hardly an informed opinion.

"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the *facts* of science can contradict the Bible."
-- Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey

Henry Morris may have his opinion but his opinion is an attempt to substantiate the fantastical stories of biblical mythology.

You may have an opinion that selected biblical “miracles” took place but that opinion is unsupported and is contrary to all rational existence. You have just hit upon the fatal flaw of biblical miracles as opinion. Never, in all of human history, has any claimed “miracle” ever been substantiated. As long as you must appeal to divine intervention for the explanation of an event, that event can never be provable (or even comprehensible), and therefore can never be part of any rational discussion.

 

[Meriweather]

I don't know who you're arguing with here. On creation, for one thing. Earlier in this thread you seemed to have a problem with people taking the Bible "literally" (?), but then you believe in the Virgin Birth. If you believe in such a miracle than you really should not be scoffing at any of the miracles relayed in the Bible. You realize that to an atheist, to an unbeliever, a virgin becoming pg is just as ridiculous as God creating the world in seven days.

The problem I have is that atheists seem to believe the majority of Christians take every word in the Bible literally. My point is that statistics show it is the minority of Christians who take every word in the Bible literally.

This does not mean that the others do not take any word of the Bible literally!

Next, I do not scoff at anything in the Bible--that would be all inference about me on your side. You could just as easily infer, "She loves the Bible so much, she studies the languages, history, cultures so she can understand more clearly." That never crossed your mind?