Without God(s), what is the point?!

[Sheldon]

It is pointless !
I know what I intended by my remark, while you only guess.

 

[ppp]

It is pointless !
I know what I intended by my remark, while you only guess.

Then just acknowledged that you misspoke or were not clear and correct yourself.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Then just acknowledged that you misspoke or were not clear and correct yourself.

I have no such intention.
It is clear to me.
..see post #618

 

[Wildswanderer]

What do you mean by "Christ is the culmination of the law"?

(Romans 10:4). The predictions of the Prophets concerning the Messiah were realized in Jesus;

What were those predictions, specifically, and how were they "realised"?

Again, what does that actually mean. You seem to be talking in platitudes and expecting me to just accept them.

Explain what that means, in practical terms.

Same.

Seriously? Can you not explain anything in your own words? You really don't understand any of this, do you?[/QUOTE]
You obviously don't understand it...why, I don't know as the verses explain it clearly.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So god has a spirit. So he is like humans.

Nope. He's completely other. We are like him in having spirits. God isn't like us ... Are you omniscient, omnipotent, infinite, immutable, completely self-sufficient, omnipresent, perfect in every possible way, and incapable of failure?

 

[ppp]

I have no such intention.
It is clear to me.

I doubt it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nope. He's completely other. We are like him in having spirits. God isn't like us ... Are you omniscient, omnipotent, infinite, immutable, completely self-sufficient, omnipresent, perfect in every possible way, and incapable of failure?

Humans have a spirit but God does not have a spirit, God is spirit.

 

[Sheldon]

Things that Jesus never said.

Claims believers make they can't possibly support.

 

[Sheldon]

It's all in the mind my friend..
You are a human being and not the "perfect" atheist / person that you claim to be.

I made no claim about myself at all, here's my post verbatim to see your claim is untrue.

Sheldon said: ↑
Why would you wish that was true? Theists are scary. I don't want to treat anyone badly, and I don't need the fictional saccharine promise of an afterlife, or the risible imaginary posthumous torture chamber of Hell, to want to treat people decently...

You did claim you sometimes wished your beliefs weren't true, so you could treat people badly. Its there quoted in my response for all to see.

Why you need the saccharine myth of a posthumous reward just to treat people well, that's very sad.

 

[Sheldon]

Humans have a spirit but God does not have a spirit, God is spirit.

Claims 3
Evidence 0

 

[Sheldon]

Well, that's the whole point .. it is all about what you feel is right..

For you maybe, but then again you claimed you sometimes wished your beliefs weren't true, so you could treat people badly. That's all very sad.

 

[Trailblazer]

Claims 3
Evidence 0

That's true.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You did claim you sometimes wished your beliefs weren't true, so you could treat people badly. Its there quoted in my response for all to see..

No. You are reading something into my post which isn't there.
..just like you read scripture and misunderstand.

Why you need the saccharine myth of a posthumous reward just to treat people well, that's very sad.

..and there lies the reason your mind wants to engage in this pettiness.
You accuse believers of having no human decency, so as to proudly think you are superior.
What bunkum.

 

[KWED]

No.
It is not possible for anybody to even exist if there is "no god"

That is clearly false because we exist, yet there might not be a god. Your certainty in your belief is no more proof of god's existence than a Bahai's or Hindu's certainty in their belief.

..but if you mean "can an atheist live a moral life?", it depends who it is, obviously.

So yes, you admit that people can live good, moral lives without the need for any god to instruct them.

 

[KWED]

@KWED argues against major revelation .. I'm sure that you can work it out for yourself.
It means that he does not agree with the morality of religious people, such as the King of UK

Wrong. Many religious people have a similar morality to me. Obviously there are those who claim to agree with the intolerance, violence and discrimination in religious morality, like yourself, but the others are not much different to myself - tolerance, avoiding harm, helping those less fortunate, equality, etc. We just claim a different source for our morality.

 

[KWED]

I'm sure that you don't agree with my moral values.

..yet I agree with Prince Charles' ..
Secular values include those which seem good at the time.
Core Christian/Muslim values do not change.

As a Muslim you shouldn't recognise Charlie as king because such positions are

Christ is the culmination of the law” (Romans 10:4). The predictions of the Prophets concerning the Messiah were realized in Jesus; the holy standard of the Law was perfectly upheld by Christ, the strict requirements personally obeyed, and the ceremonial observances finally and fully satisfied.

The ceremonies, sacrifices, and other elements of the Old Covenant were “only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves” (Hebrews 10:1)

Know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:16).

Sorry, no idea what you are on about. Can you explain it in non-dogmatic terms?
Thanks

 

[KWED]

We have almost none of God's attributes, but we do have a spirit, so we are like God in that way.

So we are not "made in god's image" then.
Righto.

 

[KWED]

So what if it is?

Most Muslim apologists claim that Islam is all about peace and love, and that any violence, intolerance, etc is just misinterpretation. I am simply putting out an accurate description which is supported by the scriptural evidence.

[ That is not to say I entirely agree with you ]

Ok. Which bits do you disagree with?

There would be no Muslims if God hadn't made it our duty to defend ourselves.

Firstly, we know that isn't accurate. After some of the Muslims moved to Medina, the Quraysh left them alone. It wasn't until Muhammad starting attacking the Meccan caravans that the military conflict started. Were the Meccan's not allowed to defend themselves against Muhammad's attacks?

There could be, I suppose, if you think that God should "wave His wand" and cause people to fall down dead.

It was Allah who told Muhammad to start attacking the Meccan caravans, thus starting the war. He could have told Muhammad to live in peaceful co-existence and respect the beliefs and property of others.

It's part of the test .. will we lay our life on the line for a good cause, or will we choose wealth and security?

So you admit that Allah asks Muslims to fight and die in his name?

Of course you have. Those forums are for debate between Muslims, and not for atheists.

Wrong. They claimed they encouraged non-Muslims to join and ask question. Presumably they assumed that they would educate the ignorant kuffar and promote a cherry-picked, sanitised version of Islam.
Oops!

 

[KWED]

I'm sure that you don't agree with my moral values.
..yet I agree with Prince Charles' ..
Secular values include those which seem good at the time.
Core Christian/Muslim values do not change.

Hmm. I don't think New King Charlie finds slavery, using female captives for sex, torture, domestic violence, gender discrimination and homophobia to be morally acceptable.
Sorry to disappoint.

 

[KWED]

There you go .. that is a major difference between a sincere believer and a disbeliever.

The whole civilised world has changed its moral position on slavery over the last couple of centuries - but you consider this to be a mistake? Yikes!