God doesn't care about morality or human behavior.

agent7
Posts: 10
Joined: 2011-09-16
User is offlineOffline
God doesn't care about morality or human behavior.

I don't care what other Christians tell you, I read the bible all my life and debated hundreds of law worshiping religions, and atheist. Its all the same, really! If you can read through all this, I will be impressed as most will stop reading in the first 4 lines as they share the same goals. 

First. 

 

All religions in the world go by good deeds, good scales and good works in order to go to heaven. You must do something; however, it seems strange that God been that almighty figure he says he is, would make people pass through all the bullshit other religions tell you to do, when he can simply do it himself and take care of the problem.   

Israel in the old testament always tested God, because they didn't believe in God; in fact many israelites believed they were Gods, therefore worshiping pagan Gods from other cultures, rejecting the God that brought them out of Egypt.   

The bible is meant to be a spiritual book, not physical. Laws in the 10 commandments were spiritual laws, but Israel took those laws to be physical. God was against them because they denied and questions his divinity, not because they sinned like most Christians will tell you. 

Man is in rebellion with God because, men "want to be like God", but not because you do bad things in life, or decide to steal a car.  That is the one thing which infuriates God, that mortal men made of flesh and bone, play with an everlasting consuming fire by claiming that they have power over God and don't agree with him or his work in the cross, claiming they can do a better job or simply rejecting his divinity.   

If there is one thing that unites law worshipers or atheist, is when you claim Jesus is God. Wow, they simply cannot stand it. They will bring you down even though Christ rose up. Its interesting why that bothers so many people, but I guess that if Jesus is not God then "they are god's" and have envy of him because they are not God's. Satan's downfall with God.  

God promised that he would pay a price for those he loved. That means that he chooses who to give the gift of heaven, so Christ came only for a selected few, those will be with God, regardless of what they do.  

Real Christianity is even more liberal than Atheism "would ever be" and most "true" Christians are afraid of telling others that.

In fact: 

I could go right now, kill 3 people, sleep with ten prostitutes, not pay them a dime and lie to my fiance, and God wouldn't judge me for what I do instead, he would bless me.

An atheist would either believe this is shear madness or agree with the fact that, perpetuating acts like killings, drugs, homosexuality is nothing to worry about. Proving that morals is not something God is looking inside me, he doesn't give a shit about my morals as I don't have any.  

He paid the price, so I am not worried about hell; however they are consequences in this world, so if I kill 3 people, chances are that I might go to prison, If I bang 100 prostitutes chances are that I might get aids, get them pregnant etc.. If I don't pay them they might not sleep with me again, and If I keep lying to my fiance chances are that she wont merry me if she finds out.

If I am extremely nice with people, they will fuck me over and take advange of me, but if I am a complete asshole no one will talk to me. So everything in life must be done in moderation, whether its breaking the law, or going by it, because the system here (in this world) will make you pay one way or another, although God won't if your his child as he overlooks your sin as he paid your bill.   

God doesn't care if you steal a pencil or you beat up someone, for him Human kind is meant to fuck up (as we all go by interest) , and knowing this, he doesn't judge people according to their actions, but according to what they say about him, as he wants to be worshiped and take full credit of all the problems in this universe. 

Christians that tell you that go by works, deeds or Good scales...those are worse-off than any atheist or law worshiper, because they technically are telling God "that hey!! we believe you payed it all" but then go back to works, or to preaching strange doctrines. The dog goes back to its vomit. Such things as you will lose your salvation, Jesus is not God, there is no trinity, evolution is true, God pay for you but he wants you to know do good works so you can enter heaven...all of this bullshit is what they preach. Nothing that atheist would care about, but technically share to some degree many common thoughts with them.  

There is no "free will" people don't decide their outcome or what they are going to eat tomorrow, its already all planned, and its ready to be executed. God is already programmed everything, and those he predestine to be in hell, will indeed go there, they have no chance! and those he payed for, will go to heaven as they have no chance to go to hell. He chooses that, its his universe; as when your teacher or boss tells you to design a project, he decides the project that will be done and what it should look like, without your supervision. Same with god, except that he decides everything. 

Their is no morals for true Christians, we can basically do whatever we want as what we do, is what God had plan already, and he thought to be good.   

The only difference between me and a religious person that goes by laws, or an atheist, is that when I die, Jesus Christ took care of my sin. That's all, I am probably worst than most atheist in this room and certantily worst than most religious people; I haven't killed anyone but I've fucked a lot of people somehow or another, and broken so many laws that I know that I need God.

Yes Atheist...that is something that most Christians wont tell you, they will judge you. I don't judge people as I am worst than most, I just say that the God the Son already payed the price, that most will find out that can pay. Morality doesn't exist, but you pay what you borrow in this world. So go on... and get mad with God, many were and are supposed to blaspheme his name, it was written, but the fucked up part is that he controls the thoughts of everyone and that "whom laughs last laughs best, you will never outsmart God.  

 

 

  


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'd respond to agent, but

I'd respond to agent, but everyone else has already said everything there is to say, refuting him completely, and there's no point.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Hey

Watcher wrote:

Hey CJ,

Quote:

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

Isn't that something I wrote just a few days ago?  I'm flattered.  Eye-wink

 

Get over yourself.  I've had that tag line for a couple of years now.  It is one of my standard responses to the street preachers.

I felt you were copying me. 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Hrm.  How odd.Actually I

Hrm.  How odd.

Actually I first used that line a few months ago on a history forum.

Well the truth is the truth.  No matter how many people independently verify it.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


agent7
Posts: 10
Joined: 2011-09-16
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:agent7 wrote:cj

cj wrote:

agent7 wrote:

cj wrote:

agent7 wrote:

 Archeology is digging history. But Archeology cannot prove that Julius Cesar existed, because he hasn't been founded. So as for what it stands "right now" in "the present", the existence of Julius Cesar "cannot be scientifically proven" therefore history is in "big problems"

Find him so I may believe!! because I am looking for scientific Data man!  

 

Using this reasoning, the US did not win the Revolutionary War, and US citizens are actually British citizens.  After all, we don't have DNA for Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Adams, etc.

There are two lines of historical proof necessary for every historical claim. 

Primary evidence - evidence created by the person/people in question.  Their writings, their paintings, their sculpture, and so on.  For the Revolutionary War, we have pamphlets, government documents, newspaper articles, personal letters and so on.  Written by the people who lived at that time in what became the United States.

Secondary evidence - what other people/persons say or write about the ones we are researching.  For the Revolutionary War, we have documents that are written by other countries about the conflict.  We also have contemporary secondary evidence - we don't sing "God Save the Queen" at a the national cricket match, we don't have a parliamentary government, and so on.

You just saw a long post with massive amounts of primary and secondary evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar.  You can reject this all you want - your right and privilege.  That doesn't make you right, nor does it make your demand for DNA reasonable. 

For a discussion of proper historical research methods, see Not Out of Africa by Mary Lefkowitz.  http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_11?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=not+out+of+africa&x=0&y=0&sprefix=not+out...

 

I completely agree, therefore by your own definition Jesus Christ can also prove his existence the historical methods you have used, without proving any scientific method; therefore, science cannot prove history, but history can prove history! 

 

Pookie, the bible does not prove anything.  It is one source only.  There are no contemporary secondary sources.  There are no proven primary sources.  We don't know who wrote the bible, we don't know exactly when it was written, and no one who lived at that time in Jerusalem wrote about a "Messiah" whose name was Jesus.  There were other Messiahs mentioned by a historian who actually lived in Jerusalem at the time Jesus was supposedly alive, but none of those Messiahs fit with the supposed martyr of the new testament.

The best we can do is say "this particular set of passages appears to be written by one person".  This is not proof - historical, scientific, or otherwise.

And for a history lesson, see PaulJohntheSkeptic and Gramps arguing about Daniel in one of the other threads.  The bible is not a very good history book even for the history of the time it was supposedly written in.  Not terribly surprising, given that it is impossible for it to have been dictated by a god/s/dess, and that long distance communication sucked in that time, and that most people couldn't read or write. 

 

You still haven't given me, a "scientific fact" to prove Julius Cesar existed, instead you have gone back, and tried to prove that Jesus never existed. Well, bud, I say fuck history because its all hearsay and narrations of human imagination, give me scientific prove that Julius Cesar existed or you have plain out, failed to prove that science is more relevant than history. Your call! 

You people believe that others that wrote in walls and told you that Cesar existed, so your faith is on history without proving" his actual existence using science!"  is this a fucking joke? logic please! 

I am going to be the most extremist, scientist base in this forum. Science or nothing! Fact or fluke! So far, Hannibal, Cesar, Alexander Magno, Spartakus, Genghis Khan, Attila, Ivan the Great, Cyrus, Socrates.... there is not one scientific way, to prove their existence because no one found their actual graves, therefore I don't believe in them, but I do believe that we came from a soup somehow, and somewhere in the middle of I don't know what swamp. with I don't no what Chemicals, because I neither have the facts nor the history (In paintings, cave writings...) and as a conclusion I don't even know if I am speaking to humans, because as far as I know, I could be talking to Aliens unless I actually test individually your DNA, to make sure you guys are not pretending to be Human. 

Science all the way baby!!! 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
^ Lies and delusions.

^ Lies and delusions.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


HumanVuvuzela
atheist
HumanVuvuzela's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Science

agent7 wrote:

You still haven't given me, a "scientific fact" to prove Julius Cesar existed, instead you have gone back, and tried to prove that Jesus never existed. Well, bud, I say fuck history because its all hearsay and narrations of human imagination, give me scientific prove that Julius Cesar existed or you have plain out, failed to prove that science is more relevant than history. Your call! 

You people believe that others that wrote in walls and told you that Cesar existed, so your faith is on history without proving" his actual existence using science!"  is this a fucking joke? logic please! 

I am going to be the most extremist, scientist base in this forum. Science or nothing! Fact or fluke! So far, Hannibal, Cesar, Alexander Magno, Spartakus, Genghis Khan, Attila, Ivan the Great, Cyrus, Socrates.... there is not one scientific way, to prove their existence because no one found their actual graves, therefore I don't believe in them, but I do believe that we came from a soup somehow, and somewhere in the middle of I don't know what swamp. with I don't no what Chemicals, because I neither have the facts nor the history (In paintings, cave writings...) and as a conclusion I don't even know if I am speaking to humans, because as far as I know, I could be talking to Aliens unless I actually test individually your DNA, to make sure you guys are not pretending to be Human. 

Science all the way baby!!! 

 

So how do you define the word 'science'?

 

A number of others seem to have offered their definition of the scientific process, but I think we'd benefit from hearing how YOU define the word. 

 


HumanVuvuzela
atheist
HumanVuvuzela's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Oh, and by the way, thanks

Oh, and by the way, thanks natural for doing the research and finding all the evidence of caesar (i'm not going to quote it again here.... Smiling ). Very interesting. 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
agent7 wrote: You still

agent7 wrote:
You still haven't given me, a "scientific fact" to prove Julius Cesar existed...

Hundreds of millions of people don't consider the claim that he existed as a project to build theirs and their children's entire lives around, so what's the correlation?

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
agent7 wrote:I am going to

agent7 wrote:

I am going to be the most extremist, scientist base in this forum. Science or nothing! Fact or fluke! So far, Hannibal, Cesar, Alexander Magno, Spartakus, Genghis Khan, Attila, Ivan the Great, Cyrus, Socrates.... there is not one scientific way, to prove their existence because no one found their actual graves, therefore I don't believe in them, but I do believe that we came from a soup somehow, and somewhere in the middle of I don't know what swamp. with I don't no what Chemicals, because I neither have the facts nor the history (In paintings, cave writings...) and as a conclusion I don't even know if I am speaking to humans, because as far as I know, I could be talking to Aliens unless I actually test individually your DNA, to make sure you guys are not pretending to be Human. 

Science all the way baby!!! 

You have serious gaps in he most fundamental understanding of how science works.  I would go into an explanation of how you can only have degrees of certainty regarding anything, but somehow I think any epistemic logic is lost on you.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
agent7 wrote:is this a

agent7 wrote:

is this a fucking joke? logic please!

Now that's just freaky, agent7.  I was going to say the EXACT same thing to you.

The sad thing is, is that you are deliberately fighting within yourself to cling to an illogical premise.

And it feels uncomfortable, doesn't it?  In your head?  I know.  I remember what it's like.

Agent7, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what is said on this forum.  It doesn't matter who makes the best argument or delivers the best points.

It doesn't even matter if you respond to me or I respond to you.  This entire discussion, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't matter a tiny bit.

Go be by yourself and really be honest with yourself.  Where no one else can see you or tell you that you are right or wrong.  That's where you're really going to find out the truth.  It feels worlds better when you finally stop lying to yourself.

I crossed over 7 years ago.  And I've never been more happy about any decision. 

It's so much better on the dark side.  They have cookies.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The evidence and its

The evidence and its analysis in modern historical research is as 'scientific' as in any other area of empirical investigation.

The evidence supporting the existence of Julius Caesar is massive, as natural demonstrated, whereas that for the other JC is essentially zilch.

You don't "prove" things with "scientific facts". That actually makes no sense.

You gather evidence ( 'facts' ) from careful observations, checked as thoroughly as possible, ie 'scientifically', and assess how strongly they support (or not) the idea, the theory, the hypothesis, you are investigating, such as the 'historicity', the actual existence of a person matching the particular set of claims, stories, and other references, such as images on coins (in the case of Julius Caesar). IOW not 'prove', in any strict sense, just "make a strong case for", is one way of thinking of it.

Science has to use different, more indirect, techniques for checking any non-replicable ideas or claims, whether they be of human history, the details of ancient life and how it arose and evolved, the early Universe, etc.

Sometimes we can run experiments to check whether what traces we observe of some past event could be produced by some plausible set of circumstances and/or environmental conditions.

And Science is NOT limited to testing physical substances in test-tubes (like DNA). It goes all the way to testing how groups of actual people behave and respond to various scenarios, by carefully devised questions and subsequent analysis, so we can get insights into, for example, how much confidence we can have in various historical events having taken place exactly as claimed. Or how easily people can misinterpret what they observe, especially when it is something unusual (to them). This is all valuable SCIENTIFIC insight into how to resolve things such as conflicting historical claims, for example.

But as others have already said, I really doubt this is going to have any effect on you, agent7, your ideas come across as so completely messed up, inconsistent, incoherent, etc.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Science doesn't make wacky

Science doesn't make wacky claims like someone walked on water and raised the dead 2000 years ago. The things most real historical figures did were realistic enough to have been scientificly approved.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin