God's will cannot be explained. Death is a bad thing only to those who witness someone else dying, since we really don't know what happens after you die, rest is all just speculation. Maybe god does not exist. Maybe he does, who knows. The way to be truly happy in life is to accept whatever comes your way.
here's the real true statement about death.................... death is only a bad thing, WHILE YOU'RE ALIVE TO THINK ABOUT IT. once it happens, you won't care that you're not alive anymore. i must say however, it will probably be the worst, if you are aware you are about to die. i hope i die in my sleep or something. if i live to a really old age and i'm all falling apart...can't walk, etc. i'm really someone who might drink a bunch of beers, take some sleeping pills, and fall asleep in a car inside a garage with the car running. i'll probably play a good cd or something as i do it. make no mistake--i want to live--i'm just saying, if i get really old and everything sucks, i may do that. i'm someone who would have the balls to.
You cannot argue your way to proving the existence of God (or lack thereoff) My post was to merely to illustrate that Christianity is not about blind faith: we have plausible reasons for believing what we believe. But in the end, facts, complicated philosophical arguments, and theology are not enough to convince anyone of Chrisitanity. Then why I am I so sure of Christianity? I took the leap of faith, accepted Christ, and I EXPERIENCED IT PERSONALLY. I've already experienced the atheistic lifestyle during my first 20 years: screw the world, grab as much as you can for yourself while you're still alive. After all, when you're dead, well you're dead. I've seen my Dad go down that road and he pretty much went through a mid-life crisis and now he is totally jaded. =(
Honestly, I didn't even bother to find out if it is considered "proven". I mean, there is research proving nicotine is not addictive, so why would I care what the current consensus among "scientists" (who usually work for cigarette or other drug companies) is. All I know about vitamin B is that it is good for the nerves, and I have experimented with taking more, less, or none of it for many years. I think anyone will agree that taking twice or even 500 times the recommended dose of vitamin B will not harm you. If you look closely, you will find that some supplements contain more than 10 times the recommended daily value of vitamin B, and I am sure there are people who take one of those a day and are having no problems. I would guess there is not much research on the effect vitamins have on our bodies and minds, since they cannot be patented and nobody really has a financial interest in investigating them. If MRK proves that the product of a complicated synthesis lessens the effect of depression in 60% of all test subjects while causing death in less than .001%, they can make billions. If they proved that vitamin B cures 95% off all cases of depression while having no lethal side effects at all, they could basically wipe their asses with the paper their findings would be published on.
Yes. But it depends of course on how you define "drug". I see no reason why sugar should be considered any less a drug than coffee or cigarettes. You could also argue that it is more damaging, since it causes teeth to rot in nearly 100% of all subjects as opposed to cigarettes which kill only, what, one in three smokers? Anyhoo, in trying to find "scientific" evidence for sugar addiction, there is just no commercial interest in the subject, so the only information you find are obscure articles like http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/food/junkfood_addiction/sugar.html
Gekko and Co., Your arguments for atheism are very good and strong. There is however, a side to this discussion that has not been brought out, and before you can get away with debunking the whole notion of God, you need to deal with the greatest theological thinker of the 20th century: Karl Barth. What if the Christianity you are struggling against is not true Christianity at all? What if Christianity was hijacked in the first and second centuries by Greek philosophy (neo-Platonism, and Aristotle)? What if Jesus Christ did not come to establish a "religion" but as the revelation of a God who is otherwise unknowable, unassailable, Wholly Other? What if true Christianity is not about morality, the knowledge of good and evil? What if true Christianity is not about "getting my butt into heaven"? "As absolute Miracle, as pure Beginning, as that Primal Creation, faith brings the known condition and status of human life into relation with the unknown God." Barth You are not the first to raise these questions about the nature and existence of God. Theologians and philosophers have been struggling with then since the 17th century and the Enlightenment. For you to dismiss the whole notion of God as stupid is just as silly and pedantic as the Fundamentalist Christian who dismisses the whole body of evolutionary science as "a theory that has never been proved." Get real. Cheer, kp
while we're at it, i can't stand the cristy lane commercials on tv. "i believe in angels. something good in everything i see." "he's got the whole world, in his hands. he's got the whole wide world in his hands. "ONE DAY AT A TIME...sweet jesus."
There were a bunch of people last year that petitioned their Senator to renumber their highway 666 because of their belief that Satan roamed that highway causing motorist accidents. They spent not only their time and effort, but the time and effort of their Senator and the Senate, and the good money it takes to legislate and change the highway signs, never once thinking that if Satan is as horrible and monstrous and powerful an entity as they believe so as to cause all this grief and tragedy on the highway, let alone acts against God and mankind through the eons, that a change of highway signs couldn't possibly be enough to stop him. If they had only reasoned that, or considered that the book of Revelation, where they got that "666" from, says that it is the "number of a man", and not of a road, or if they had taken into account that the revelation was given to the apostle John in signs (Rev 1:1), that is to say, symbolically, and not literally, they could've saved some time and money. Ah but no, this group, as well as their religious leaders, misapplied scripture, time and money. They should instead have spent the money on learning how to drive or repair the road conditions. I'll bet that would have more to do with reducing the number of accidents more so than changing a number. One of the problems with religious beliefs is that they are based on populist theology, and then applied in the context of one's local universe only, though many do not understand this fact or that they even are guilty of this practice, and that people refuse to change their belief system in the face of obvious theological proof to the contrary which is odd to the extent of considering their claim of belief in the bible as their God's word, but not odd considering human nature. Even the Senators apparently didn't wish to meet up against that. For rather than conform to the obvious, people instead reason baselessly away in order to smooth over any theological conflicts and ripples. It's easier, and much more comforting. It also requires less thinking. There's the recent example of the highway number, but I'll give you a generic harmless example. Take the bride who says God blessed her wedding day by making it a nice sunny day. Or the priest/pastor/rabbi/whatever who offers that same thought as he or she officiates the wedding... nice sentiments, but seriously, they neglectfully overlook to think of the people in their community dying of cancer that same day or otherwise griefstricken and tormented, children starving to death in some third world country that same day, or the thief who finds that it likewise is a nice wonderful day to break into the bride's house and rob her family of a few possessions that day while they're out. The harm is that people are believing these leaders when they say this stuff, and people may make decisions, and they do, based on the stuff they believe (like that highway group). I call the 'sunny day' a harmless example because there aren't any major consequences (I think?) that would stem from it. But I know of someone who gave up his medicine when he thought he was 'healed', and died six months later. That, everything in between, up to and including wars and terrorist acts, is because of what people believe about their religion. And even when it's not so obvious, it's there. I also find interesting to look up biblical terms in scholarly tomes such as Strong's Concordance of the Bible to find out what things like hell and soul and spirit, among others, really mean in the native languages used in the bible (Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek), compared to the popular beliefs about those terms. It's an eye opener.
Catch a clue. We are not satanists. We simply don't believe in ANY mythology and creatures created in mans mind alone. I believe in satan as much as I believe in your god, which is about as equal to my belief of three headed unicorns. Pure fantasy. Please address this brilliant quote: "I contend that we are both atheists: I just believe in one god less than you. When you understand why you choose not to believe in all the other available gods, you will understand why I choose not to believe in yours. -Robert Stephens " Name 3 other gods man worships, and then please explain to us why you DON'T believe in those gods, and see if I would have the very same reasons not to believe in yours. Then please explain the scenario I described where god created a volcano, which he KNEW would erupt in the future, and would kill an innocent baby, who does not have the free will to choose where he was born. No cop outs. No bullshit replies like, "god works in mysterious ways". I want a REAL rational explaination why anyone would believe a god like this is loving or caring or just or NOT purely evil. peace axeman