Why do the God-haters persist?

[Boss]

Boss claimed that science couldn't detect spiritual nature. It's up to him to prove his point, not just throw out unfounded suppositions.
If science can't detect anything, then for now you'd have to say that said object probably doesn't exist. I'm agnostic, so I leave the door ajar in case someone finds anything, but until science confirms said object, you have nothing but an unfounded theory. Sorry.

Nope, you misinterpreted my claim because you're a dimwit. Follow closely... Physical science deals with PHYSICAL nature. By definition, spiritual nature is that which is not PHYSICAL. Therefore, IF physical science discovers PHYSICAL evidence for something that is considered SPIRITUAL, it ceases to be something SPIRITUAL because it has obtained PHYSICAL proof.

There is nothing in science that says it can't discover things that are "spiritual" and history is rife with plenty of examples of just this sort of thing. I leave the door of possibility open that science will one day discover a physical explanation for spiritual nature. But the fact that it hasn't yet made that discovery in no way means that spiritual nature does not exist.

You are idiotically trying to make the argument that since science hasn't discovered it yet, that it's not possible and can't exist. If this had always been the assumption of science, most of what science has learned would have never been discovered. Science is an ongoing investigation of things, it isn't complete or empirical by any stretch. It hasn't already discovered all there is to find out. It is just flat out brain-dead stupid to make such an assumption.

 

[daws101]

Well, despite the fact god can't be proven, it amazes me you godlovers still persist. Please. Why are you people still believing? You can't possibility prove "god" is out there and listens to you. With all the madness and chaos in the world, hard to believe there is a GOD in this mess. I admire that. Noble.

because of things we and others experience.....

for example, a family from my church lost a daughter to cancer.....the parents and three friends were in her hospital room when she died.....the father had prayed "God if you have to take her from us, at least let us know she's with you".......when she died all five heard a choir of angels singing......the next morning as they were checking out, the night duty nurse asked them....."Pardon me but I have to know.....what was that CD you were playing last night......it was the most beautiful music I have ever heard"......

the unbelievers will accuse me of lying.......they will say it was a mass hallucination....irregardless, it is the answer to your question of why are we still believing.......

religious experiences are subjective...
not saying you're lying but you've falsely accused non believers of lying consistently.
the choir of angels is most probably from somebody's tv in another room in the hospital hospital.
all non private rooms have at least two...
I also seriously doubt any one there had the presence of mind to check it out objectively..
sorry about the loss.

 

[daws101]

We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.

True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.

Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss! Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories. It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.

But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout believers in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they fear God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.

Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.

So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.

more likely they can't live up to the standards and expectations set by god so they chose to tear him down rather than admit to their own shortcomings and failures.

there is no evidence that god set any sort of standard ..however there is and extraordinary amount of evidence that believers did...and blamed it on god.

 

[daws101]

because of things we and others experience.....

for example, a family from my church lost a daughter to cancer.....the parents and three friends were in her hospital room when she died.....the father had prayed "God if you have to take her from us, at least let us know she's with you".......when she died all five heard a choir of angels singing......the next morning as they were checking out, the night duty nurse asked them....."Pardon me but I have to know.....what was that CD you were playing last night......it was the most beautiful music I have ever heard"......

the unbelievers will accuse me of lying.......they will say it was a mass hallucination....irregardless, it is the answer to your question of why are we still believing.......

The night janitor with his boom box is saving the roach and laughing his ass off.

I accurately predicted what your reaction would be.....its what makes me a prophet.....

hardly....it was a setup with high probability of success.

proph·et [prof-it] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration.
2.
a.
a person chosen to speak for God and to guide the people of Israel: Moses was the greatest of Old Testament prophets.
b.
( often initial capital letter ) one of the Major or Minor Prophets.
c.
one of a band of ecstatic visionaries claiming divine inspiration and, according to popular belief, possessing magical powers.
d.
a person who practices divination.
3.
one of a class of persons in the early church, next in order after the apostles, recognized as inspired to utter special revelations and predictions. 1 Cor. 12:28.
4.
the Prophet, Muhammad, the founder of Islam.
5.
a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader.
you have none of the trait listed above...
boosy on the other hand fakes the above list very well.

 

[daws101]

Once again the OP exposes his true intent to flame those who don't share his beliefs.

LOL.. no flame just fact. Pointing out how someone is being dishonest has nothing to do with sharing my beliefs or flaming. But here you are again violating the piss out of forum rules, trying to get the thread moved to the flame zone because you don't like the OP.

Someone call the waaahmbulance!

how not original! you're so desperate, you need to steal lines form me who in your estimation is the lowest lifeform on the planet...irony is screaming..

 

[daws101]

Hi, you have received -7260 reputation points from koshergrl.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
.

Regards,
koshergrl

 

[Montrovant]

If there were actually something there, science could eventually detect it. So once more, EPIC FAIL!!!

Oh really? So for hundreds of years before astronomers were able to confirm that Jupiter was there, it didn't exist? Until Pasteur confirmed the presence of microorganisms, they weren't actually there? Until about 15 years ago when we confirmed black holes existed, they didn't really exist and weren't really real? Back when scientists didn't yet know the Earth was round, it was actually flat?

YOU are an EPIC FAIL! You don't even make rational sense. What exactly was your statement supposed to prove aside from your idiotic stupidity?

To be fair, he did say science could eventually detect it.

 

[Montrovant]

Boss claimed that science couldn't detect spiritual nature. It's up to him to prove his point, not just throw out unfounded suppositions.
If science can't detect anything, then for now you'd have to say that said object probably doesn't exist. I'm agnostic, so I leave the door ajar in case someone finds anything, but until science confirms said object, you have nothing but an unfounded theory. Sorry.

Nope, you misinterpreted my claim because you're a dimwit. Follow closely... Physical science deals with PHYSICAL nature. By definition, spiritual nature is that which is not PHYSICAL. Therefore, IF physical science discovers PHYSICAL evidence for something that is considered SPIRITUAL, it ceases to be something SPIRITUAL because it has obtained PHYSICAL proof.

There is nothing in science that says it can't discover things that are "spiritual" and history is rife with plenty of examples of just this sort of thing. I leave the door of possibility open that science will one day discover a physical explanation for spiritual nature. But the fact that it hasn't yet made that discovery in no way means that spiritual nature does not exist.

You are idiotically trying to make the argument that since science hasn't discovered it yet, that it's not possible and can't exist. If this had always been the assumption of science, most of what science has learned would have never been discovered. Science is an ongoing investigation of things, it isn't complete or empirical by any stretch. It hasn't already discovered all there is to find out. It is just flat out brain-dead stupid to make such an assumption.

Two things.

First, haven't you said that the spiritual has an effect on the physical? If that is the case, then physical science could discover (or has discovered) physical evidence for the spiritual, at least of an indirect nature.

Second, you say that physical science cannot find physical evidence for the spiritual, then leave open the possibility that science may one day find a physical explanation for spiritual nature. If there is a physical explanation for spiritual nature, might that be used as evidence for the spiritual? Those things seem at least somewhat contradictory.

 

[MrMax]

Boss claimed that science couldn't detect spiritual nature. It's up to him to prove his point, not just throw out unfounded suppositions.
If science can't detect anything, then for now you'd have to say that said object probably doesn't exist. I'm agnostic, so I leave the door ajar in case someone finds anything, but until science confirms said object, you have nothing but an unfounded theory. Sorry.

Nope, you misinterpreted my claim because you're a dimwit. Follow closely... Physical science deals with PHYSICAL nature. By definition, spiritual nature is that which is not PHYSICAL. Therefore, IF physical science discovers PHYSICAL evidence for something that is considered SPIRITUAL, it ceases to be something SPIRITUAL because it has obtained PHYSICAL proof.

There is nothing in science that says it can't discover things that are "spiritual" and history is rife with plenty of examples of just this sort of thing. I leave the door of possibility open that science will one day discover a physical explanation for spiritual nature. But the fact that it hasn't yet made that discovery in no way means that spiritual nature does not exist.

You are idiotically trying to make the argument that since science hasn't discovered it yet, that it's not possible and can't exist. If this had always been the assumption of science, most of what science has learned would have never been discovered. Science is an ongoing investigation of things, it isn't complete or empirical by any stretch. It hasn't already discovered all there is to find out. It is just flat out brain-dead stupid to make such an assumption.

Two things.

First, haven't you said that the spiritual has an effect on the physical? If that is the case, then physical science could discover (or has discovered) physical evidence for the spiritual, at least of an indirect nature.

Second, you say that physical science cannot find physical evidence for the spiritual, then leave open the possibility that science may one day find a physical explanation for spiritual nature. If there is a physical explanation for spiritual nature, might that be used as evidence for the spiritual? Those things seem at least somewhat contradictory.

^^ What Monte said.

Plus, I never said that "since science hasn't discovered it yet, that it's not possible and can't exist." You made that up. What I said was: "until science confirms said object, you have nothing but an unfounded theory." Please polish up on your reading skills.

 

[koshergrl]

What about "there might be a God or Gods or something, I just don't know because there is no data either way, but based on the scientific, historical and archaeological evidence it's safe to say Jehovah and Jesus as just myths"?

Actually, archaeologists don't agree, nor do historians. They concur that Jesus absolutely existed.

 

[MrMax]

What about "there might be a God or Gods or something, I just don't know because there is no data either way, but based on the scientific, historical and archaeological evidence it's safe to say Jehovah and Jesus as just myths"?

Actually, archaeologists don't agree, nor do historians. They concur that Jesus absolutely existed.

Actually, they concur that several preaching Jesuses existed at the time.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah prove that.

 

[koshergrl]

Names please. If they ALL agree that there was no Jesus, then there should be a whole list of them who have said so.

I'll wait.

 

[orogenicman]

Actually, there is only one (alleged) written record from the 1st century of the existence of Jesus, and that comes from Josephus (ancestor of Bocephus - otherwise known as Hank Williams, Jr.).

But who was this Josephus:

Josephus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Titus Flavius Josephus (/dʒoʊˈsiːfəs/;[1] 37 – c. 100),[2] born Joseph ben Matityahu (Hebrew: יוסף בן מתתיהו, Yosef ben Matityahu),[3] was a first-century Romano-Jewish scholar, historian and hagiographer, who was born in Jerusalem—then part of Roman Judea—to a father of priestly descent and a mother who claimed royal ancestry.

He initially fought against the Romans during the First Jewish–Roman War as head of Jewish forces in Galilee, until surrendering in 67 to Roman forces led by Vespasian after the six-week siege of Jotapata. Josephus claims the Jewish Messianic prophecies that initiated the First Roman-Jewish War made reference to Vespasian becoming Emperor of Rome. In response Vespasian decided to keep Josephus as a hostage and interpreter. After Vespasian did become Emperor in 69, he granted Josephus his freedom, at which time Josephus assumed the emperor's family name of Flavius.

Flavius Josephus fully defected to the Roman side and was granted Roman citizenship. He became an advisor and friend of Vespasian's son Titus, serving as his translator when Titus led the Siege of Jerusalem, which resulted—when the Jewish revolt did not surrender—in the city's destruction and the looting and destruction of Herod's Temple (Second Temple).
Josephus recorded Jewish history, with special emphasis on the first century AD and the First Jewish–Roman War, including the Siege of Masada, but the imperial patronage of his work has sometimes caused it to be characterized as pro-Roman propaganda.
His most important works were The Jewish War (c. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94).[4] The Jewish War recounts the Jewish revolt against Roman occupation (66–70). Antiquities of the Jews recounts the history of the world from a Jewish perspective for an ostensibly Roman audience. These works provide valuable insight into first century Judaism and the background of Early Christianity.[4] (See main article Josephus on Jesus).

So he was a Jew who betrayed his own people to the Romans. His reference to Jesus was written around 93–94 AD, long after Jesus is said to have died.

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scholarly opinion on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum, varies.[4][5][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery [5][6][7][8][9][10] by fourth-century apologist Eusebius or by others.[11] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear[12] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[9]

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [13] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[14][1][2][15][16][17] However, critics point out that Josephus wrote about a number of people who went by the name Jesus, Yeshua or Joshua,[18] and also speculate that Josephus may have considered James a fraternal brother rather than a sibling.[19]

Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to also be authentic.[20][21][22]

The references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as the Jewish War, written 20 years earlier, but some scholars have provided explanations for their absence.[23] A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of James and John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts.[20][24] Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them.[20][25][24]

 

[koshergrl]

That has nothing to do with anything.

The allegation is that historians and archaeologists all agree that there was no Jesus.

At least one historian, Josephus, actually recorded his existence in ancient times.

So I would like a list of all the modern archaeologists and scientists that *agree* Jesus is simply a mythical creature.

It isn't forthcoming, because it's a lie. But I'm just observing the niceties.

 

[koshergrl]

Stand by for indignant backpedaling from resident Christianophobes, progressives and god-haters.

Oh wait, they're one and the same.

 

[orogenicman]

That has nothing to do with anything.

The allegation is that historians and archaeologists all agree that there was no Jesus.

At least one historian, Josephus, actually recorded his existence in ancient times.

So I would like a list of all the modern archaeologists and scientists that *agree* Jesus is simply a mythical creature.

It isn't forthcoming, because it's a lie. But I'm just observing the niceties.

Did you read the post I made with reference to Josephus? Because, what is "accepted" as evidence for Jesus in those texts is rather scant and not consensually accepted. And I might add that although he had written a history of the Jews some 20 years earlier, there was no mention of Jesus in that text. And the mention of Jesus, when/if it did come, was over 60 years after the fact. Josephus didn't know Jesus personally, and in fact, none of the Gospel authors knew him personally.

 

[thebrucebeat]

That has nothing to do with anything.

The allegation is that historians and archaeologists all agree that there was no Jesus.

At least one historian, Josephus, actually recorded his existence in ancient times.

So I would like a list of all the modern archaeologists and scientists that *agree* Jesus is simply a mythical creature.

It isn't forthcoming, because it's a lie. But I'm just observing the niceties.

There is great disagreement as to whether or not Jesus existed. Many agree that he did. Others think it is a complete myth.
I fall on the side that he most definitely DID exist, and was an itinerant preacher.
I also am familiar with the fact that there was more than one named Jesus doing the same thing.
One thing is certain. Most credible scholars do find the Josephus reference completely unreliable and useless as proof of his existence or divinity.

 

[koshergrl]

You're not educating me regarding Josephus. I know who he is.

As I said, I'm still waiting for the evidence that doesn't exist, to support the lie that all archaeologists and historians agree that Christ is a mythical creature.

They don't. Not at all. In fact, many of the pre eminent archaeologists and historians are actually Christians...

 

[orogenicman]

Stand by for indignant backpedaling from resident Christianophobes, progressives and god-haters.

Oh wait, they're one and the same.

Except I am neither afraid of Christians, nor do I hate them. Plenty of Christians are progressives, so do you have a label for them? Atheists are not god-haters, since they don't even acknowledge its existence. Something has to exist before one can decide to hate it. Perhaps you are confusing your god with organized religion.