Atheists need the Gospel

[@twobitsnick]

I need the cleansing light of Athena, all glory to her forever and ever.

[@AustinSimard]

bless up

[@UltraK420]

No. What I need is real knowledge, factual information that aligns with reality. You cannot provide a factual worldview if all you're doing is reading from a mistranslated copy of a copy, of a copy, of a copy of ancient texts that were originally written by Yahwists in the Greek language _thousands of years after_ prior civilizations. The religious book you read from doesn't even say what the original says, and the original is far more forthcoming about what was really happening back then. Anyway, where is your empirical evidence for your claims?

[@zacharystephens174]

Dead Sea Scrolls. womp womp

[@UltraK420]

@@zacharystephens174 The dead sea scrolls are still hundreds of years after the original texts, so between 3rd century BCE to 1st century CE. What else you got?

[@zacharystephens174]

@@UltraK420 How are the manuscripts written Before Christs Era to 1st century Christs Era not accurate to the time? Keep in mind Christ was alive and crucified around 33 AD. They date to the time of Jesus and before. Please try harder.

[@UltraK420]

@@zacharystephens174 Uh, because the manuscripts are originally inspired by older religions (thousands of years older) and they were written by different authors at different times _hundreds_ of years apart in the Greek and Hebrew languages, although keep in mind that ancient Greek is a much more complex and expressive language than ancient Hebrew (1.5 million words vs 8,000 words). Do you not understand the problem here? Christianity is not the oldest religion, not even remotely close, and neither is Yahwism. You have a christian bias, plain and simple. Get over it.

[@johnhunter5724]

​@zacharystephens174 what is it that underlies your confidence that the Dead Sea Scrolls are authentic ?

[@salpertia]

Were the outcasts and yet somehow christians have time and time again been shouted down, prosecuted, shut down for your faith. And you wanna know gods classic go to move? Keeping up the hide and seek championship belt by doing absolutely nothing

[@lucyferos205]

As an atheist, I have a lot to say. I'm only at the 8:32 mark, and I have to point out that I don't really care about Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris. I think theists are more involved with these figures than I am. The reason why I get angry when Christians say that gay people are going to Hell is because that Christian believes that it is justified to condemn someone to eternal torment for consensual expressions of love. It's not God that I'm angry at. It's Christians. I don't believe their "morality" comes from God at all.

[@Lelouchvibritania986]

Well you’re obviously only looking at the bad side. Which no offense a lot of atheist do

[@lucyferos205]

​@@Lelouchvibritania986The video is the one that brought up homosexuality, not me. It just assumed, incorrectly, why I get angry at Christian hate speech.

[@Lelouchvibritania986]

@@lucyferos205 you literally 1, generalized all of us which in my experience is common with atheist and 2, completely ignored the video. Being gay doesn’t automatically condemn you to hell. And 4, homosexuality isn’t love, it’s lust. Don’t agree with us all you want but don’t be a dumbass.

[@lucyferos205]

​@@Lelouchvibritania986Where did I generalize? The video is talking about specific Christians who make specific claims. That's what I'm responding to. Secondly, no, homosexuality is just as much love as heterosexuality is. There are a lot of loving gay couples out there. The acts themselves are physical expressions of love and intimacy, just like hugging or kissing. Your religion only condemns it as lust out of ignorance and hate.

[@Lelouchvibritania986]

@@lucyferos205 out of hate? The Bible literally says love thy neighbor and hate the sin not sinner. Why are you arguing over a topic you’re uneducated on? I’m do e talking to you if you don’t even understand the Bible.

[@kal22222]

I can tell you're confused by just looking at the Leafs calendar in the background. You have my sympathies

[@lucyferos205]

Do you not see the inherent irony in preaching "love" while promoting queerphobic hate speech, attacking the character of people whose arguments you disagree with, and calling people morons? You don't believe in love. It's okay, I don't either, but I don't feel like I have to lie to myself about it in order to avoid being punished by a celestial tyrant.

[@Lelouchvibritania986]

1 don’t disrespect god, and 2, so your ignoring those of us who love everyone, even gays, and dislike sin. Atheist loving ignoring those good

[@lucyferos205]

​@@Lelouchvibritania986I will disrespect whoever I want, and it is not possible to love gays while telling them they deserve eternal torment. That is inherently hateful.

[@UltraK420]

@@Lelouchvibritania986 1. Prove the existence of "god", specifically the "god" _you_ believe in. _Yeah, never mind the fact that humans have invented over 5,000 gods._ 2. What is your definition of "love"? Do you think "love" is telling a gay person that they shouldn't be gay because some 4,000-year-old religious text demands the entire world to feel that way?

[@Lelouchvibritania986]

@@UltraK420 response to 1, praying in my personal life has worked. Now can you give me solid evidence that god doesn’t exist? And response to 2, yes not wanting someone to go to hell is love. I might stop responding for a while because it’s late a night and I’m watching the last pirates of the Caribbean movie, don’t think I’m quitting yet.

[@UltraK420]

@@Lelouchvibritania986 1. That's not how this works. _You_ make the claim there is a god, the burden of proof is on _you_ to demonstrate "god". I simply do not accept your claim until you demonstrate it. 2. Where is your evidence that "hell" exists? How do you know for a fact that there is a separate realm called "hell"?

[@nihiqallam5616]

Yessir

[@zacharystephens174]

REAL AND TRUE! CHRIST IS KING

[@OceanusHelios]

No we don't. And we definitely don't need to look up somebody's nostrils for 18:17 minutes.

[@AustinSimard]

Uh, no we don't

[@fengxianzhe]

"Atheist remind me of the Quote of Dr. will Provine There are no gods or God, no good or evil, no meaning to life and there is no afterlife only darkness." Love you all and thank you for reading the message. There is purpose to life, there is good and evil, there is a God and afterlife 🙏

[@UltraK420]

My life has meaning because I say it has meaning. You don't have a monopoly on the meaning of life just because you choose to believe in a single deity of over 5,000 invented thus far, it's different between people. The meaning of _my_ life is not the same meaning you attribute to _your_ life, because obviously _you_ are you and _I_ am me. It's simple logic. Oh, I'm also an atheist.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Are you willing to answer some straightforward questions concerning your comment?

[@whiterosesforthebrideofchrist]

There are two different languages. There is the language of the atheist and there is the language of Yahweh. There is no communication between the two because the atheist does not want to communicate in the same way that Yahweh wants to communicate. For example, Yahweh says, “Let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet...” (Isaiah 1:18). The first thing on Yahweh's lists for discussion is your sin. However, for the atheist that topic is the last thing on the list. Also, it's not what you believe in, it's about what you love (Mark 12:33). The atheist's remedy to explain all his theories and to discredit the Genesis story is to add the construct of billions of years. But on the other hand, everything in Genesis is created in its adult form from the beginning. The trees, the animals, mankind are all created in their adult form. That also includes the universe. And an adult universe would and should appear to be billions of years old. Atheist do not understand that consciousness is not a chemical formula which could ever be created in a lab. When we talk about the elements we are talking about our experience of the elements through the miracle of consciousness. I would agree that the churches today are defective. In fact, the Apostle Paul pronounced a curse on most churches today because the main Christian denominations of today preach a different gospel than what Paul preached. To quote exactly what Paul said, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8). Both apostle Paul and Peter preached the same gospel and quote from the prophet Joel (2:32) saying, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of Yahweh shall be saved." (Romans 10:13 and Acts 2:21). The English translations say “Lord” instead of “Yahweh.” But “Lord” does not translate “Yahweh” it is a substitution of a totally different word altogether. This substitution activates two additional curses because if you substitute a word you are both adding and subtracting at the same time. “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18, 19) We are commanded by Messiah that, “...repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:47). In other words, we are supposed to preach the gospel that came out of Jerusalem and not preach the gospel that came out of Antioch, or Rome, or England, or New York, or Chicago, etc. By the time the gospel got to Antioch it had already been perverted as we read, “...And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26). The problem with this is that Yahweh spoke of a people called by His name (Deuteronomy 28:10; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Isaiah 43:6, 7; Daniel 9:19; Amos 9:12; Acts 15:17). Yahweh did not choose the name “Christian” for Himself. The people of Antioch chose that name and all the so called main denominations of today embrace that name “Christian” for themselves. When Peter and Paul preached the gospel they quote the prophet Joel, “Whosoever shall call on the name of Yahweh shall be saved.” (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13). I ask you, how many of the church fathers and so called main denominations of today preach that gospel? None of them. Absolutely none! Paul makes it very clear that the end result of him preaching the gospel was that the people would call on the name Yahweh. He says in (Rom. 10:14,15), The preachers are sent. They preach. The people hear. The people believe. The people call on the name Yahweh (Rom. 10:13). I ask you, how many of the church fathers and so called main denominations of today preach that gospel? None of them. Absolutely none! It took only one generation after the death of Joshua for the children of Israel to forget the mighty works of Yahweh which He had worked through Moses and Joshua and to began to serve the idols of the people around them (Judges 2:7-13). It took only one generation.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._* And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality. 1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god. 2. I personally have never observed a god. 3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true. 7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._ ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

[@lucyferos205]

Consciousness, God, morality, sin, minds, absolute truth, etc. are all oversimplified understandings created by ignorant, primitive people who lived thousands of years before science even existed. None of these things are real. Yeah, there is no absolute truth. There is only what we can be rationally justified to believe in, which highly depends on the information available to us. We used to believe in geocentrism, for example, until new information was available. It was rational to believe in geocentrism until we discovered superior evidence for heliocentrism. God is nothing more than an outdated explanation for biodiversity and the creation of the earth, made irrelevant by abiogenesis, evolution, and astrophysics. That was his purpose to the ancients. Your "morality" is obedience to a set of rules created and codified by human beings claiming to speak on the authority of a God that doesn't exist. "Sin" isn't real and never was. It's no different from any other made up standard or legal system that humans have created. God even acts as the mythical judge and Hell is the mythical prison.

[@zacharystephens174]

@@Theo_Skeptomai Great way to lay out the foundations and principles of your beliefs. I'd say the definition of a "god" is subjective in modern English. God, the Father we worship is defined to me as the omniscient and omnipresent King of the universe and realm. I would say you observe God every day, though what is observation? I consider the heavenly bodies I see everyday in the sky to be the effect of God. I observe God when all of the opportunities I receive are given to me by Him. I observe God when I reflect upon my wrongdoings and seek righteousness in His message to help me correct them. Natural phenomena and the laws of physics are all written and commanded by God. To assume that He must act as a supernatural force is an incorrect assumption. God is by definition a Natural force to us. Do you believe that no logical force created the foundation of logic for all you see much? I have to argue that to assume any other theory about the creation of the universe is more valid than the presence of a intelligent God takes much more faith. I have to ask you this, what came first? Matter or consciousness? How can you prove your claim?

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@zacharystephens174 'Observation' is the acquisition of knowledge or information concerning a real phenomenon (object, event, substance, entity, process, system, being, etc.) from sensory receptors be the modality natural (hearing) or artificial (sonar). Do you agree?

[@zacharystephens174]

@@Theo_Skeptomai I will admit that no Christian has physically observed God, as He died roughly 2000 years ago when He was physically present, but we have observed the effect God had on the world and the weight His name carries. I observe that He is the topic of this conversation people have had over 2000 years. I'd say I can only observe my own thoughts. Mindfulness is important for critical thinking, I think we can both agree there. I can't observe your thoughts, though I have faith you have them.

[@venren523]

lots of atheists read the gospel and it only affirms their belief.

[@zacharystephens174]

This is a common lie they say, when challenged this argument often falls apart. Very few have actually read the text they criticize. Most stop at Genesis if they read at all.

[@lucyferos205]

​@@zacharystephens174Yeah, just ignore all of secular Biblical scholarship, then?

[@zacharystephens174]

@@lucyferos205 What? That doesn't seem related to the topic at hand. Not every Christian is well read, I will admit. But most of the fathers of modern science were Christian.

[@lucyferos205]

​@@zacharystephens174Most atheists who claim to have read the Bible are former Christians like Paulogia or scholars like Bart Ehrman. It's very different from Christians who are taught to believe in the Bible's value but lack the intellectual honesty to actually study it, which is... most of them.

[@UltraK420]

Atheism is not a belief. Go back and read the definition, try again.