Christians: We Arent Trying To Condemn Anyone

I subscribe more the JW outlook on afterlife, that we will die and then God will resurrect us under Christ's reign as we re-attain perfection and get to make the same choice Adam and Eve did. I believe the Earth's eventual role will be to be the host to the afterlife. It's just too beautiful as is, I can't imagine anything better than this planet, once we eliminate the abuse we are doing to it.

God also said that he will not let the Earth tartar, so his intentions are for it to withstand times indefinite.

Again, why would you limit yourself to the present day? Could the true God not be forgotten in the sands of time or possibly undiscovered yet as part of this deities plan? Is your faith just built on the popular trend of being one of the religions worshiped today?

Why would you even bring up how many people worship a particular religion? An appeal to popularity doesn't make claims made true. The small sect of people who believe extraterrestrials from another planet seeded this planet with life could be the ones that were right all along.

Until evidence for that comes forth naturally I'll file that in with the other countless claims made by people about supernatural forces.


Most atheists work on evidence. If you make a claim, I want evidence in order to believe you. Most theists use this logic every day so it isn't anything mindblowing. If someone tells you they saw a flying saucer beam up 3 cows your response will be "prove it." and if this person fails to present evidence you will certainly dismiss the story as drug or brain induced.

The larger the claim, the more evidence you require in order to believe something. The person making the claim always must present the evidence for what he or she is claiming and never the other way around. If I tell you "there's gold in my backyard" and you say prove it, I can't tell you that you have to bring me gold from the backyard or else my statement stands because... it makes no sense.

All of the faiths across time have had different requirements to live life and to enter the afterlife so if you pick the one wrong you'll have wasted your entire life doing the wrong thing. Your comparison of Christianity to Islam works because they effectively do believe in the same creator God but compare Christianity to Hinduism and your example falls apart handily.

The rules for the faiths are just different.

Atheists rejection of all of these beliefs lie in the lack of evidence and the rejection to believe something for the sake of believing it. Most honest atheists would say that if evidence for one specific creator entity ever emerged that they would pursue this and amend their beliefs if the evidence checked out.

The same doesn't work with theists subscribing to a specific religion. If hard evidence for the Norse pantheon arose most Christians would not convert whereas atheists would have no choice but to.

Bible plainly states that there will be a new earth on which God will build a new Jerusalem that is not tainted with sin. As beautiful as this place is, it's physical and doomed to be destroyed by a dying sun. Our eternal resting place will look similar to earth, but be metaphysical and minus all the bad stuff that is innate in our physical existence.

I'm sick of trying to respond to long posts on my phone, so this will be brief, apologies.

I doubt the real Creator would let the religion devoted to him fall out of sight and out of mind.

I mean I can change the statement to indicate that at the end of it all atheists by logic and the standards of evidence required to rule out (or rule in) the existence or lack there of as factual cannot prove their stance correct either.

The entire last page has only served to state that there is in fact a magical teapot floating between Earth and Mars -_______-

Well, what flavor is the brew?

Earl Grey, of course. It's the most dignified and refined flavor of tea.



(I hate earl grey tea. Chamomile ftw!)

/stumbles around in the dark

Where did everybody go?

Iced tea!!!

I really enjoyed reading the post and comments on this thread well the first couple of pages anyway. The only things that really turned me off was when people were bashing each other or their religion. I wish this topic was filled with more discussions and reasoning then trying to use past events or someones hatred to point out how incredibly stupid their beliefs/religion is. I am a man of faith, though I don't always do what I know is right I do strive to.

There are some people on here that really intrigue me, and others that leave a bad taste in my mouth. I wish people were more open-minded, even as a Christian I have heard and read a lot of debates and discussions and kept myself open to both sides of the debate. I'm sure some of you know or have heard of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. Those three men are some of the greatest debaters/speakers for the atheist community. And for Christian apologetic's there is William Lane Craig amongst others but don't know/remember there names at this moment. All four men are very brilliant and have spent a lot of time studying and questioning faith on many different levels. A good amount of there debates and speeches can be found on youtube, aswell as podcast on itunes. I encourage all of you to go and listen to these men debate and discussion amongst one another.

My only hope is to one day stop seeing people bad mouth or talk down to others for their beliefs and way of life. For those of you that believe and some of you that don't I hope you will come to find that we aren't here to judge our brothers or sisters but to love them wholeheartedly. I can't speak for atheist or agnostics but I hope Christians would stop trying to shove your belief on others. The best way for us to show God's love is to open our hearts and give the love God has given us and show it to others.

Sorry for that wall of text but I hope you will all go about this with open minds and open hearts as you listen and gather information to your own questions that you have had. I'll end it here. God Bless

Do you believe it will happen?
I think the hardest part of making this situation to happen is to cut down any attempt searching for deeper of understanding. The more you learn about atheism, the more convinced you are religions are BS. The more you fully-embraced everything about the religion (Abrahamic religions, to say here) the more intolerant you will become to the other faith believers.

Tolerance isn't found in the core of religions.
Rejecting facts because you have firm believe in something is laughable for scientists.

Well if you really think about it scientist believe in something that isn't quite fact itself. For one science cannot be proven with science itself it's impossible, also science can't prove that the past was real instead of it being created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. These are two rational beliefs that can't be proven with science but we all accept them as fact. Science cannot prove all things so just because people of science or scientist laugh at the idea of me or anyone else believing in what we know in our minds and hearts to be real does not affect me for my relationship with God is just that MY relationship.

Sorry I understood your comment/remark incorrectly it's just the way I read it and if I did take it incorrectly I ask that you please give me further details as to what you are implying.

I do not mean for this to be an argument but more a friendly debate/discussion.

It's not as laughable as you might think. there are scientists who unequivocally believe in God. There are scientists who believe in theories (such as string theory) despite only having evidence suggesting that it could be possible for that particular theory to work.

There are scientists who believe in wrong theories. Hawking firmly believed the Black hole information paradox was solved by destroying information, 't hooft and Susskind went on to prove that information entering a black hole was preserved.

Scientists aren't the holy of hollies, they aren't infallible. Treating them as deities not only dehumanizes them, but makes a mockery of modern scientific procedure.

Sorry, I don't get those 2 examples of yours.
"Science can't be proven with science itself something is impossible" you say? What would be the example?

As far as I know, none of the scientists dare to say they KNOW everything. When they develop a theory, it's something like : "Here's a better model than ever for understanding of our universe, please feel free to test it." And when there is just a case it fails, they have to remake or propose a new theory. They believe in these theory because the accuracy to predict what's the behavior they gonna see in the future, is higher than anything else.

Of course, that's why you call yourself a man of faith.
Scientists already said they can't disprove god(s) in term of they can't say at 100% that there is / there isn't any god.
When they have put their knowledge, scientific evidence on the table, they are putting the probability of god existence to lower and lower percentage.

Again, believing and knowing are 2 separate things.
They believe in string theory (actually, there's a better one out there : M-theory, and that's the one they are currently working atm) because it's the theory that has the best explanation to any observable events. They aren't saying they are know for 100% that the universe is really behaving like that.

Well that's the beauty of science. You made a scientific proof that the older theory was wrong, you submit to it, and make a better model to understand the universe better and able to explain what couldn't be explained by the older model.

This is what I meant by "Rejecting facts are laughable". If there's a sound scientific proof something isn't A, rejecting the proof means rejecting the facts.

What exactly makes you think they are infallible? They are more open to changes (In religion, the closest you see probably a denomination). In fact, they HAVE TO change if there's just a single contradiction occurred. See how Einstein's relativity trumps the classical mechanics of Newton. Newton's classical mechanic breaks down for an object that moves close to the speed of light.

Once the model is changed, everyone (helplessly) has to accept that is the best way to explain everything at that time.
In denomination, both the main and the branch can coexist and saying they aren't agreeing with each other at certain points of their holy books/interpretation/etc. They aren't converging.

Do we have the perfect model of our universe now? I dare to say not. Particle physicists are working on the search of Higgs Boson for their Standard model, and there's more out there to be worked on even if they've gotten the Standard model done.

Sorry if I've made probably some redundant points on this post.