If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 states that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”, then all of the Bible must be taken as accurate. The creation account and the flood account now need to be taken literally. Why? 1 Corinthians 15:45 states that “So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.” If Jesus is the last Adam, then there would have to be a first literal Adam. He wouldn’t have sacrificed his life for a parable! Also, 2 Peter 2:5 states that “if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;”. This would indicate that there was a literal Noah. Therefore, all of the Genesis accounts should be taken literally, and it is patently obvious to any thinking human being that science does not convolve with Biblical historicity. God was incorrect and therefore not inerrant. Consequently, the Bible is incorrect about these instances and therefore Judeo-Christian God does not exist, since he inspired all of this nonsense. What say you to this logic? I am speaking to the Judeo-Christian’s now.
If the Judeo-Christian Islamic God is omniscient, then there can be no free will. If he knows exactly how the future will play out, free will cannot exist. If God knows the next sentence you will utter, then everything is predestined. If this is the case, then how can we be mad with anyone when they do something that disappoints us? It was God’s will that the incident occurred. Free will and godly omniscience are incompatible.
“If you don’t believe in the Christian God, there’s nothing to inhibit you from committing a crime. You can be a moral monster! Nothing stops you from committing heinous acts.” I hate it every time I hear this! Atheist are still subjected to the same social and psychological guidelines that hedge any society. We are still social animals and this trait is the result of evolution, not our choice. Why is it that Christians feel they have the high ground when it comes to morality? Have they READ the Bible? What say you?
Since all religions are dissimilar and require different propitiations to God, they are not compatible with each other and therefore there can only be one true religion. Ignoring the relatively minor group of people who actually chose their religion, what are the odds that the religion you were born into is the only true religion?
This is the problem with Christians. They play games with their false logical reasoning and move the goalposts in an argument when the Atheist is close to scoring a point. A perfect example is when you try to disprove the Christian God and they state, “are you saying that A god does or cannot not exist?” They add the indefinite article so that you must disprove every god in order to disprove THEIR God. This is truly a farce and it needs to be addressed by the Atheists community.
If God is in union with the churches, then why does he allow the molestation of children under the supervision of Priests? If God can do all things, why doesn’t he make sure that his Churches are ethically clean?
To continue on my previous 2 Great flood posts, see the below memes. Was Noah aware of penguins and polar bears? And how did they make the journey?
How can Christians object to homosexuality when the Bible demands that a woman be stoned to death if she is not a virgin on her wedding day? How many of you were virgins when you were married?
Belief in a religion or a religious ideology is the same as the sense of taste. In our entire lives we need evidence in order to live. We do not jump off a cliff because the evidence shows that of we drop an apple, it falls to the floor. When we are pulled over by a police officer, we need to show evidence that we can drive the car legally. We need evidence at the end of the week to substantiate our claim for our wages via timesheets. When we travel internationally, we need evidence that the little ones that are in tow are really part of our family. When we cross the border back into the United States, we need evidence that we are citizens of this great nation.
However, when we focus on religion, it becomes similar to taste. A religion can make you suspend all need for evidence and forces you to depend on belief to satiate our evidence seeking faculties. We believe because it makes us feel good. Soda is a prime example. We generally love the taste of soda but a study has found that a few ounces of soda is linked to an increase of cancer.
Will this stop everyone from drinking soda? No al all, because it tastes good and it makes us feel better. We do not see the damage that soda can do to our bodies and we continue with its consumption. Religion takes a similar avenue. We continue because it makes us feel better and all of the evidence in the world that God does not exist will not change our minds. Religion just tastes too good to stop. It satisfies our pleasure zones and allows us to continue to believe in this nonsense.
What say you? Is this analogy accurate or am I way out of line?
“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life.”
― George Bernard Shaw
What do you think about the above quote? True or false?