fairy tale

Life is full of coincidences when you look for them. And when you attribute god to them all, they make set him up as a neat guy, a neat guy who commits genocide and let's most of his loved ones suffer. Some get free cars, other suffer. It's like a big game show.

"Atheism is just another word for quitting. It is the path of the disenchanted who refuse to heal."

First, I'm glad you're away from Christianity, but now the other shoe needs to drop.

Quitting things can be good: quitting smoking, quitting drug abuse, quitting drinking, etc. Losing the god belief is just like that. THEN you will heal.

There's no more rational reason for believing in "God" than in "Jesus." Your anecdotal story of coming across a car does not prove in any way, shape or form, the existence of a deity. If there's a personal god out there who cares about us, giving you a car is not even really for the best, it just adds to global warming; maybe a just god would make us all walk or use mass transit to avoid destroying our world.

Even if you assume that having a car is for the best, what about all the bad things which god allows, like letting your unborn child get killed?

From Chucky Jesus

I believe that there is a god, too. But I think as long as we think of him as some sort of benevolent Santa figure then we are going to continue to live a life of delusion. "God" at best is an energy that we are all a part of. He is neither good, bad nor particularly interested in our lives.

As one of the other posters said - where was he when you were in the accident in the first place? Or when your child was being killed?

I don't think that a search for a relational god is inevitable as you say - and not searching for god is not a sign of bitterness.

Besides - if there is a god - why the hell did you get a car??? Where's my Lincoln???

Spoomonkey

Where was god while the baby inside you was being killed? I'm sure it was a "good, compassionate christian" that killed your baby too!

pathetic!

God didn't give you a car...a person did...if god used this person as an agent to answer your prayer then god violated this person free will to do so. This generous act belongs to the guy who gave you the car. To say that it was god is an insult to the guy who actually had to saciface his time and money.

Shannerwren

Like you, I realize that christianity is bunk, the same as other organized religions. Like you, I also pondered the existence of god. Unlike you, I still do.

Your essay utterly failed to persuade me. It seems that if you are thanking somebody, it should be the generous man who gave you a car, not some imaginary thing that you have fixiated on in your mind.

I couldn't believe in a good and loving god who would randomly cause someone to get a free car while allowing one-third of the world to live in poverty and thousands of innocent children to die from hunger every day regardless of how faithfully they believe and pray. If this is your idea of god, you can keep it.

Anna, I'm with you on this one. I posted this response on another thread. But I'm going to re-post it on this thread because it's relevant to the topic.

================================

The bottom-line question to which it all boils down is this: Is there an intelligent, sentient, individual being who is responsible for creation and who is interested in its ongoing existence/development.

My answer to that question is: If there is, it is beyond the capacity of our human minds to comprehend in its fulness, but we can comprehend some small part that is within the limits of our capacity. To assume anything beyond that is purely faith.

Now, my personal experience has been that when I have reached out in 'faith', 'God' has responded in faithfulness. Now, I have had so many supernatural experiences in life that I used to tell people, "I don't just believe in miracles; I depend on them."

I'll share one example as an illustration. This occurred when I was young and was first beginning to seek to understand God. I had a dream which I understood to be telling me to play the number '132' (underground Mafia numbers) for 12 days. Now I had never in my life played the numbers previous to this. So, at the local bar where I had been accustomed to hang out (at this time I no longer drank any alcohol, but would still go to the bar and drink orange juice), I played the number '132' for 11 days for $1/day, during which time it never came up. On the 12th day I played it for $1.50, which was the limit, and I boxed it each way for $1 each (123, 231, etc., etc.). It came up 132, just like the dream had said 12 days previously. Now, what supernatural intelligence knew, and communicated to me, that the last digit on the advanced, declined, and unchanged on the stock exchange (which is what determined the winning number each day) would be 132, 12 days in advance? This is but one simple example. I have also had far greater and more compelling experiences than this one.

So, does this mean that God created the universe? Obviously, that's quite a leap. But to me this, as well as other experiences, is a clear evidence that there is a prescient, supernatural, intelligent power, greater than myself, in which I can trust, and learn from, and be guided by. And it is not a large leap from that to trust that there is sensient intelligence responsible for creation and which is interested in its ongoing development.

MikeG:
So, does this mean that God created the universe?

Lorena:
No, it might mean that "god" IS the universe, though. So "god" is as smart as the smartest of us, as evil as the worst of us, and as powerful as the most powerful of us.

So, because we are part of what "god" is, "god" can only do what we can do. If we want anything, then, we have to do it ourselves.

So, in fact, if god is the universe, it is MUCH, MUCH better to be an atheist than to believe in a deity, because in the end, it is all up to ME.

So Anna, I am sorry you found yourself in a situation where you needed a stranger to give you a car. I am glad you found one. I prefer to work really hard to make money to buy my car.

When we believe in ourselves, we make things happen and the need for external help disappears.

So, yeah, there may be some sort of "god" around, but I am sure she would rather be ignored than to be trusted to do things we can definitely do ourselves.

I agree completely with a few posts here. Receiving a car after praying is no indication of a god. As you yourself said, the MAN who gave it to you saw you walking and felt compassion for you. If a car magically appeared in your driveway and the keys magically appeared in your hand, then you could say it was GOD.

Anna,
As it has been stated here......you have taken the first step...........it’s time for you to quit and walk away.

MikeG,
Am I to derive that this random auspisious coincidental convergence of two persons coming together preaching the same ridiculous hogwash can be attributed to some divine action from a force that I can’t possibly understand? Or did you set this up with a friend of yours?

Noell

Noell,

No collusion! Auspicious indeed!

I have been given cars by strangers and have given them away myself, and I STILL don't believe in God. WTF does getting a car have to do with proving God exists? My husband walked the line in every way as a CHristian and would pray for "God" to heal him of a STD that he contracted after his father sodomized him. WHY did God feel it was more important for you to get to work via an automobile and not feel it important to heal a sincere man's affliction?

Why do the prayers of children and their parents go unanswered everyday as another one bites the dust from disease or malnutrition? I know, you're probably assuming it's because they have the wrong brand of God, and he isn't hearing their prayers. Is your God that nitpicky that he turns a deaf ear to innocent children with swollen bellies who haven't even had the opportunity to reject or deny him? You get knocked up from having premarital sex (you dirty-birdie. You know a chaste woman of God doesn't do such things), and then you want us to believe that the Jewish God is real because you got a free car? Give me a f*ing break!

And even if there IS a god, how does your "answered prayer" prove Yahweh is the ONE and ONLY? If he is, I find him most despicable considering he chose to answer your random prayer and ignore those of 6 million faithful Jews during the Holocaust.

So you're a deconvert from the Christian faith, but you want to sell us your version of the same God who not only sends people to Hell for not believing in Him, but also finds it completely acceptable to have multiple wives, keep slaves, oppress women, kill children and all the inhabitants of other cultures, kill animals ritualistically to appease his appetite for blood sacrifices and rape young girls from other tribes. You want to sell us a God will kills off the entire world with the exception of 8 people and a boat load of animals. You want to sell us a God who would play a game with Satan on some poor unsuspecting man, simply to prove this man's devotion to him, and then never even give the man the courtesy of telling him WHY he had all of his children killed, WHY he had to suffer through such terrible affliction, and WHY all of his friends left him. THe list of your God's crimes go on and on, but I digress.

If you choose to find peace in your Hebrew war God, be my guest, but don't expect us to coo over him. I've done my research, and your God failed to make the grade. THe early Hebrews were NOT monotheistic. THey believed in a pantheon of gods. Influenced by the surrounding cultures i.e. the Babylonians, Summerians, Egyptians, etc. they adopted many of their customs and religious beliefs. Do your research on Zoaraster and his religion which had a heavy influence on the Hebrews condenscing their beliefs into monotheism, believing in an afterlife, Heaven and Hell etc. There are writings older than your Hebrew ones strikingly similar to your creation story, your flood story, and the list goes on.

Congrats on getting a car, but you'll have to come up with more convincing evidence in favor of your god's existence to deter me from my stand. An actual appearance would be nice

"...how do you expect God to give you a car. Is he just going to come in here and give you the keys?? I said...that is not my problem...it is HIS."

Aha! The Secret is working whether you know it or not...
Oprah told me all about it.

i never pray, i don't believe in god, in fact i curse his name every single day. i work to spread reason and science and crush religion. i have three cars and two houses. i have a wonderful life, a wonderful wife, and never lost a child. i contribute to many charities and raise money for worthy causes. i attribute my success to working hard, having a good attitude, and not believing in fairy tales. it's a lot easier to succeed in life when you accept reality on its own terms.

you clearly have a big disconnect with reality. god did not give you a car, and i feel sorry for the generous bastard who did. He gives you a car and you thank who? You thank *god*? You don't deserve the car. You didn't earn it by working for it, and you didn't earn it through your gratitude. Based on your inability to understand the way things work makes it likely you will endure a lot more pain in the future. I will not be surprised when you lose the car.

One day I may lose a car, lose a child, or lose everything I have. I will deal with it like a responsible adult by trying to figure out what really happened and then make appropriate decisions based on reality, not based on some fantasy character up in the sky who will or will not bail me out based on his whim. I won't give up by saying "it must be gods will".

In fact, lots of bad things have happened to me too, but I don't blame god. Either I created the problem through actions, inactions, or words, or some essentially random chain of events happened that intersected with my world and caused the problem. But I *dealt* with the problems, like I do every day... I don't expect god to do anything for me, because a) he never has done anything for anyone, ever, and more importantly b) he doesn't exist.

Christianity is giving up responsibility for dealing with life on its own terms. It's simply despicable.

Here are my thoughts, take it or leave it; comment, or don't.

MikeG said: The bottom-line question to which it all boils down is this: Is there an intelligent, sentient, individual being who is responsible for creation and who is interested in its ongoing existence/development.

1) i.e....does there exist a self-existing, metaphysical, immaterial, disembodied, personal intelligence---one who created the entire universe(125 billion known gallaxies); one who put planet earth "as the center" of that universe; one who put human-kind "at the center" of that earth and all other animals/creatures; one who put the affairs of said humans "at the center" of it's attention, making them a full time "occupation".(?)

or, maybe this bottom line...

2) Does there exist a self-existing, metaphysical, non-sentient, non-personal, impartial, unbiased "force" that is responsible for the singularity(?)

or, maybe this....

3) Does there exist in human language a word that is conceptually representative of either "1" and/or "2"---as in the form of a generic 'noun' that humankind uses, by either, a) assigning meaning to said 'noun', or b) assigning said 'noun' to material things, concepts, ideas..e.g..."Hey, my dog's name is Thor."(named after a specific "God")..or, "Check out the sunset...that's surely God"(calling any part, or all of nature, "God")

Notice, "God exists" in any case:

1 = "God"
2 = "God"
3 = "god"

However, strictly in terms of "Theism" vs "Atheism"(the latter only necessary because of the former), we can rule out # "3", because both terms deal exclusively with a metaphysical being, not a personal name/pronoun for a person, animal, thing, or concept.

Now, this is not to say that people can't assign the 'noun', "God", to anything they damned well please, and thus say, "god exists!". However, it doesn't necessarily make them a "Theist" if they assign the word "God"/"god" to "things", "ideas", etc... or an "Atheist" if they don't.

Back to the original question...

Regarding a personal "God" as described by MikeG, and further elaborated on in # "1", I say "no", no such being exists. Additionally, I think that holding the notion of such a being/senario is arrogant---HOWEVER, that's not why I lack belief in such a being; I lack belief due to lack of credible evidence FOR such a being.

Here are some additional problems that contribute to my lack of belief in any personal deity, including, Jesus Christ/El/Yahweh:

1) Assuming said "creator" is even half as intelligent as Theists claim; assuming humankind is "the crowning jewel" of this "creator", why in hades are there so many lower organisms better adapted/suited for life on this planet? Waiting for a logical answer, please.

Quick examples in the mean time:

a) If a starfish looses a leg, it simply grows another, and goes on it's merry way. If a human looses a leg?.. well, they're f%cked, and must rely on man-made concepts/ideas to "get by".

b) The earth is 2/3rds water. Why don't we have gills and webbed feet/hands?

c) Why do we die by the thousands of skin cancer annually, yet, a lizard's skin was presumably "designed" for maximum sun exposure?

Back to "a"---can't "God" see that you're hobbling around on one frickin' leg? Presumably, he's "omniscient" and "omnipresent", right? So why would "God" make you ask for something so f%cking obvious? Anyone want to give it a shot and have it make "perfect" sense?... since "God" should have a "perfect" solution?

2) Contradictions. No personal "being" can exist who is "omniscient", AND who has "freewill". It is IMpossible, just like the concept of a "married bachelor" is IMpossible.

Here's why: If said personal "God" knows the future, then said "God" knows all conflicts that will arise, and thus, knows what choices he/she/it will make in the future to "solve" said conflicts..i.e.."God's plan". Yet, if the future is "fixed", but then "God" uses "freewill" to change his/her/it's "plan", then it wasn't a "plan" to begin with.

"Square circles" can't exist, and neither can a "personal God" who is both omniscient and omnipotent(freewill).

3) An "all-loving" personal being contradicts a being who allows "suffering". Period.

Those are the three main reasons for my disbelief in a personal being as described by MikeG.

Now, if a non-personal "God" exists as describe by me in example # "2". So what? That's my question..."so what"?

Comments welcomed.

MikeG:

I have also had far greater and more compelling experiences than this one.


Jim Earl:

I sure hope so. I played the game for over 25 years and never once did a "god" answer my prayers. Maybe it was me, but I doubt it. I followed the instructions provided in the "good book" about prayers and how to get them answered but nothing happened. I tested the waters and to no avail.

There is no god or gods and it's evident enough for a logical person. Only people of faith could ever believe such crap.

Jim Earl

Jim Earl said, "There is no god or gods and it's evident enough for a logical person. Only people of faith could ever believe such crap."

Mark Twain, my favorite atheist, said, "Faith is believing in things you know ain't true."

It is interesting reading the coincidences others post here and they come to the conclusion that god did it.

Like Anna, at one point I threw my bible down in disgust and it lay open at Ezra 5, verse 1 which said "So King Darius gave an order to search the records. They were kept in the treasury of Babylon." Tell me, what "message" was god sending? That he like random nonsensical verses? What a clever god!

Anna, why do you think god heard your prayer through some generous, (or stupid, depending on how you look at it) person who gave you a car, but ignored all the desperate parents' pleas to save their dying child. You and your problems were more important in god's eyes?

Atheism is another word for quitting? I guess people who give up smoking are just quitters too. If quitting means not believing in fairy tales, then we should be proud to be quitters.

I also threw the buyball up in the air and it magically opened on Mat. 27:5 - "Then Judas went out and hanged himself." Since I couldn't understand what that meant, I threw the buyball up in the air a second time and lo, it opened at Luk. 10:27 - "Go and do likewise."

Come on guys you are way too hard on Anna. She is just not there yet. She may never be where we are and it's OK. In the end what does it really matter outside of the fact she is at peace with herself and is not pushing the false dogma of Christianity. In reality she is probably a Deist and that is what many of the founding fathers of this country were.

"Atheism is just another word for quitting."

I stopped reading once I got to this part, and someone may have pointed this out already, I don't know. Anyway, I never "quit" anything. I never had a reason to believe in God, and I don't think I will ever have a reason.

Anna: "...and I now call myself a Jew"

Anna: "Anyway, Christianity is a cult!! No thinking man can reconcile the inconsistencies and outright lies."

Regarding your "positive" projection of your belief proposition, if a tenet of your belief is to value consistency and the veracity of claims, then that of course could be the exact same tenet of belief, that some use to derive meaning from your claim(s).

You suggest you characterize yourself as a Jew... I'm not a Rabbi per se, but let's take what you have stated and see what a non-orthodox Jew would propose for your noun “God”… now, mind you, the response reflects what a Jewish Rabbi has presented in reference to the use of your term “God”, and I am merely inquiring as to your response.

Please read…


“Ignosticism or igtheism is the view that the question of the existence of a transcendent God is meaningless because the terms are "clearly nonfalsifiable" and "basically unintelligible".[1] For an ignostic, the statement "God exists" is not a proposition, a statement which can be true or false, but is instead as nonsensical as "All mimsy were the borogoves".”

"The term ignosticism was coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine, founder of the Society for Humanistic Judaism, and igtheism was coined by Paul Kurtz, who derived ig from the word ignorant, writing, "I am an igtheist, for I do not understand what the theist is talking about. I cannot say whether or not such a being exists since I do not comprehend what is being asserted."

"According to Kurtz, ignosticism is compatible with atheism and agnosticism.[4] Theodore Drange, however, sees atheism and agnosticism as cognitivist views.[5] In any case, ignosticism falls under the general category of nontheism.”

An atheist would say "I don't believe God exists", or,
in the case of strong atheism "I believe god does not exist".
An agnostic would say "I don't know if God exists or not",
and an ignostic would say "I don't know what you mean when you say 'God exists'."

In the entry under "God" in the Guide to Humanistic Judaism, published by the Society for Humanistic Judaism, ignosticism is defined as "finding the question of God's existence meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences."[6] This use of the term "verifiable" is consistent with logical positivism and indicates that the word "God" is cognitively meaningless, but not necessarily emotionally or aesthetically meaningless. It is sufficient to say that an ignostic thinks the idea of God as a being makes no sense.

When the word "God" is spoken, the ignostic may seek to determine if something like a child's definition of a god is meant or if a theologian's is intended.

A theistic child's concept generally has a simple and coherent meaning, based on an anthropomorphic conception of God: a big powerful man in the sky responsible for certain matters.[7] This anthropomorphic divine conception has been rejected by Spinoza, as well as by Feuerbach in The Essence of Christianity (1841).

A theologian's concept is more complex and abstract, often involving such concepts as first cause, sustainer, and unmoved mover and claiming such attributes for God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. To the ignostic these abstractions, taken singly or in combination, cannot be said to be false; rather, they are muddled, self-contradictory, linguistically empty, or perhaps poetic. Hence, one cannot meaningfully expound on the existence or nonexistence of God.

The consistent ignostic, therefore, awaits a coherent definition of God (or of any other metaphysical concept to be discussed) before engaging in arguments for or against.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism


Anna, when people speak in terms of transcendence, immaterialism, omni benevolence, and the like, it is just plain nonsensical per the good Rabbi. Anyone jumping in and making positive claims towards the nonsensical word “God” is irrational, there is no focus or object to be questioned.

Here, a nice little demonstration may be in order to show that much of language is deceptive, empty, nonsensical, void of tangible meaning other than just plain aesthetic…

Example: “I always lie”.

Now, do you “believe” me, or do you “disbelieve” me? I could likely play with you for a while, and give you the logical reasoning that supports logical claims, and those that don’t, but in the end, it is you who has to understand the meaning of what you are actually talking about, it is my job to “know” my position, and how I should proceed when given such linguistic noise. There are rigorously consistent methods to filter language to understand the veracity of a claim(s).

To a naturalist, or something of the sort, language itself is nothing but the absorption of information and cognitive manipulation or synthesis, whether or not the words created reflect what “is”, or what “can be”, become items for speculation. If a person says the sun is “God”, it could later be interpreted as the “sun of God”, and later the “Son of God”, through linguistic evolution. In any case, there is a shift from what “is”, the “sun” which is a physical object, to what one may “want” or “desire” the sun to represent or become, and then what the “sun” can become becomes the very “ideal” that is worshipped symbolically as a God.

Much of language is artistic expression; Ayn Rand had a few words to say on such a topic;

“Art is the recreation of reality according to one’s values. By “recreation” I mean neither copying reality nor creation in a mystical sense. I don’t mean going contrary to reality or indulging in fantasies. I mean (paraphrasing Aristotle) creating what could be and ought to be. “What ought to be” implies that the re-creation is according to the artist’s values. “What could be” means that which is consistent with reality as opposed to fantasy. Fantasy is a legitimate form of art, but one must know how to use it within a rational framework. Proper fantasy must be consistent with reality. Therefore, when I say a writer re-creates reality, I don’t mean he creates a mystical fourth dimension or something else incompatible with actual facts.”

Thus, Anna, Ayn Rand would suggest if one is projecting their values onto a natural object, in order to present “what ought to be”, then there is the matter of elevating one’s values over all others’. If one is attempting to present the argument of “what could be”, then it “must” be done in a rational framework, where all is compatible with all known facts. If someone wants to adore an object because they appreciate the valued meaning they find in an object, then good for them; but please, don’t make a positive rejection of the tenets of my belief that are consistent and compatible with all known facts in the natural sciences.

If you want to speak of your God, and how much your God does for you, then;

“Friedrich Nietzsche suggested that the existence of a metaphysical realm is irrelevant because it cannot possibly have an influence on the physical realm.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

In other words, if one isn’t receiving an influence from the external reality, then all that is left is internal to one’s own mental reality. However, one’s person truth is their own, as long as they abide by the Ayn Rand rule, and “present” their belief in harmony with reality and known facts, what one creates in their mind is a cognitive fact, not an extra-human phenomenon.

And, lastly, A.J. Ayer, a positivist, had something to suggest regarding the terms you have used in your posting, since one would have to assume you are in fact a theist, by your acceptance of the enigmatic term God.

“One such positivist, A. J. Ayer, argued that one could not speak of God's existence, or even the probability of God's existence, since the concept itself was unverifiable and thus nonsensical.[9] Ayer wrote that this ruled out atheism and agnosticism as well as theism because all three positions assume that the sentence "God exists" is meaningful.[10] He also argued that the meaninglessness of theistic claims meant that there was "no logical ground for antagonism between religion and natural science,"[11] as theism itself does not entail any propositions which the scientific method can falsify.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Anna: “Atheism is just another word for quitting. It is the path of the disenchanted who refuse to heal.”

How do I put this; Anna, your movement towards theism is based on words that are either nonsensical or aesthetically pleasing to you, or both; in either case, I have no reason to be an antagonist to you position, that would make me as irrational as you are.

However, if I were at one time a theist, based on particular tenets of belief, and I came to understand the fallacy of such tenets, I may in fact become antagonistic and outright reject those tenets, making me a self-proclaimed atheist, in short, I could reject or deny the theistic experience and foundations that I once held, thus, atheism in that context is one in which a person becomes antagonistic towards a previously held position. Ahteism in such a context can be internally consistent, and therefore logical, using the self as a closed system.

Atheism, in that context, is not a refusal to heal, it’s a rejection or denial of a previous manner of thinking, and it’s called mental progression based on cost of opportunity and benefit.

I've prayed and opened the bible up to random passages too, several times. It never worked...except for the last time. The last time I did it, it opened up to the book of john. I started reading, read all the way through to the end of the book and realized it was all nonsense. So much for divine guidance.

Some people are just outright liars. This person is one of them. If any such story could really be substantiated it would be heralded as the premiere evidence God. Unfortunately (or fortunately) it has never been verified and continues on the internet as here-say as it once did in the home of the fundamentalist Christian, exposed for all to riducle. This is what drives the faith. How pathetic.

Andrewajenkins@yahoo.com

The stories by Anna and MikeG are indeed surprising. As a former Christian, I never had anything like this happen. I know that Christians sometimes embellished stories, however. For example, my guess is that those stories are either: (1) made up, (2) stories that they "borrowed" from someone else and changed the main character to themselves to make it a little more compelling (rather than hearsay) - **I've actually seen Christians do this**, (3) embellished, or (4) that they aren't telling us about their "misses". For example, it could very well be the case that MikeG prayed for numbers every night, received different "revelations" at different times, and failed repeatedly, but he persisted and (through sheer persistence + probability) eventually won, but didn't tell us about all his misses. And whenever someone claims they randomly opened the Bible and a certain verse jumped out at them, I'm certain that they aren't telling us the number of times they looked at verses that had nothing to do with their situation, or the number of times they reopened the Bible to "try again", or fact that they read a whole block of text before finding "the verse". Like I said, I know that Christians often embellished their stories and leave out details to enhance the apparent miraculousness of their stories. They want to believe it, too, and they can often be found trying to convince themselves by lying to themselves.

Whether these stories are simply made up, or details changed/ignored in order to make them seem more miraculous, I don't know. But it reminds me of a Martin Luther quote, "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

For people who "truly believe", they may see no harm in a lie that "leads people to God". But, first of all, there should be no reason to makeup stories to advocate the "true religion" - it should be capable of creating evidence. Second, we don't believe in your God. That makes false stories as reprehensible as you (Anna, MikeG) would regard made-up stories that "help" people find the God of Muhammad or believe in Krishna.

Also, while Anna denies Christianity, she believes God used the New Testament to show her the way. That strikes me as a bit odd.

"For example, it could very well be the case that MikeG prayed for numbers every night, received different "revelations" at different times, and failed repeatedly, but he persisted and (through sheer persistence + probability) eventually won, but didn't tell us about all his misses."

TF, I can assure you that I never previous to the above stated experience played the numbers—not even one single time. Further, I did not "pray for a number", as you posit. I was not in any way seeking such information. It simply came to me in a dream, without my having sought it.

However, immediately after I had that experience, I DID try to dream another number. I came up with 232, which I played for one day, not like the 12 days in the first experience. I did not 'box' the 232, because the first number had hit exact. The actual number came up 322. If I had boxed it, it would have hit. That was the LAST time I EVER played the numbers. I never even tried again—not one single time. And I have probably spent less than $25 dollars on lottery tickets in my entire life.

It was simply a part of my growing experience at the time. I had seen what I needed to see, and there was no need to think that "playing the numbers" should be an end in itself. It merely showed me that there is a supernatural spiritual dimension to life that is real and awesome, and worthy of further pursuit in understanding.

MikeG,

I want to make sure I understand what you wrote. You think that because you dreamt of the number 132, played it for 12 days and eventually hit it, there is a "supernatural, spiritual dimension" worthy of pursuit, i.e. "god of some sort exists". How did you get from point A to point B? Winning at the numbers racket because you were persistant means you had supernatural or divine help?

Are you serious?

How do you know it wasn't say, the christian devil that did it? Or Thor, Or Vishnu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

What even makes you think it is anything "supernatural" at all?

Why do you think this "supernatural entity" gave you the magic number and yet sat idly by while thousands of kids around the world died during that 12 day span while you were gambling on 132?

I'm not saying "stop looking", but stop creating fantasies as an explanation and then believing them to be reality.

Awesome post Dave 8. I don't know how many other people read it, but I'd like to consider myself an Ignostic from now on.

Mike,
Whether or not "a supernatural spiritual dimension to life that is real and awesome, and worthy of further pursuit in understanding" actually exists is not what we here at Exchristian oppose. It is the lie of religion and especially the Judeo/CHristian one. Praying for a car and getting one the next day is NOT proof of God, and even if it were, miracles and "answered
prayer" are reported the world over by countless other religions and cultures who use these "miracles" as proof for THEIR god, so which one do we worship Mike?

How many prayers are NOT answered and why, if these "miracles" like you hitting the lottery are so inspiring to you, won't "God" use his powers a little more convincingly and save the Sudanese from machetes and Ethiopians from starvation? Why won't he heal ONE amputee? Just one, damn it! Why doesn't he/she/it/them clear up all of this religious animosity on Earth and save his/her/its/their creation from a nuclear war over proving which god is the "real" one? God certainly has alot of different options now in this age of technology. He doesn't have to reduce himself to talking asses, burning bushes or golden plates.

WHatever exists is arbitrary and capricious in contributing to the affairs of man. Whatever exists has chosen to ignore the really important questions and concerns of human existence and concentrate rather on minial prayer requests or random acts of kindness that just never can quite prove for sure if it was God or coincidence.

As far as I am concerned and as long as this elusive God exists, I will never pay him homage.

Has anyone read the National Enquirer when they do the blue dot thing? To sum it up there is a page with a big blue dot. You are to concentrate on the blue dot. Then the blue dot is supposed to bring us wonderful good luck and fortune.

Weeks later they run a story on all the good things that happened to people who touched the blue dot from million dollar lottery winners to people who beat incredible medical odds.

The blue dot is exactly like prayer. Of the tens of millions who read the enquirer, a select few are going to have some tremendous good fortune after touching the blue dot. Those who do touch the dot and get lucky, write the National Enquirer and tell them how great the blue dot is. Like prayer the fucking blue dot never did a thing for me, but they don't write about people who are failed by the blue dot.

Congrats on the prayer answered for the car, I wonder if wishing on the blue dot would have yeilded the same results.


xrayman

Nvrgoingbk: "I don't know how many other people read it, but I'd like to consider myself an Ignostic from now on."

I liked your post, and the part on miracles, and how that is supposed to give credibility to words :-) I can hear it now, "yeah, I had a natural dream, and it led to, uh, a, uh, miraculous supernatural event, or, uh, something outside of this reality, that I live in, or, uh, something like that".

At one point in my life, I believed I knew exactly what those words meant, and I did using "other" words to explain them, but I have since realized that I was just ignorant surrounded by a huge support group of increasingly ignorant people.

When I say words like God, god, supernatural, etc., I understand the only reality they possess is in the form of words, just words, and words are meaningless until they are able to be applied to something tangible. So, playing with words like god for me is like playing with word puzzles, and no more than that, until someone can come up with a reasonable application for such meaningless gibberish... :-)

I would derive a lot of pleasure, the next time there is a national event such as Virginia Tech, where a person projects nonsensical words in abundance, for the recipient of such words to listen to the entire rant, and then, sit there with poise and confidence and just say: "Dude, what on earth are you talking about!" Have a great one.

Anna, you're gonna drive me to drinkin'/ If you don't stop drivin' that hot rod Lincoln...

It was a common practice at one time, and some people still do it, to randomly open the bible right after someone visits your home and read some random verse from wherever the book opens to. I think it even has its own name, this practice, but I don't know (or care) what it is. If I recall, it's discouraged by Xtian theologians as bad theology. If my thinking ever swoops that low, I would hope that the book opened to the title-page of John, to remind me that it's time to take a visit to the john and run my head under the tap to cool my fevered brow.

I just have to say that this endless talking about if there is or is not a god is amusing. to all the non-believers out there, what do you want christians to say? in your own words, what do you want a christian to say about your "evidence"?

anonymous asked "what do you want christians to say? in your own words, what do you want a christian to say about your 'evidence'?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "our evidence", but I'll try to answer your question anyway. Here are four things Christians can say about their religion that I have no immediate objection to:

1) Nothing.

2) I believe on faith. You can do as you like.

3) I have credible objective evidence for the existence of the god I worship, and here it is...

4) I have solid reasoning that supports the existence of the god I worship, and here it is...

Of course, I may take issue with the specific "evidence" or the "reasoning" that is proffered along with items #3 and #4, but I view all of the above as 100% acceptable positions to take at the outset.

Did I answer your question? If not, please clarify and I'll try again.

I know that a lot of you will die believing in your selves and nothing else. Sad or not, to some of you however there is that posibility wich you close your mind to.. but then again how great is your mind if in fact you are as messed up as the next person. The point is, questioning and doubting the posibility of Gods existence is the strategy that the Devil so happily uses with those that are so self righteous to think that the answer will come from a simple mind like yours or mine, just look around you, yes there is very bad stuff happening but if you pay close attention most of this bad stuff is happening thanks to man kind... just because we are not willing to admint that the been wich created all things may want us to take time to pray and comunicate with him "yes lift your hands up in the air. Comunicate with him" many don't even try or if they try it has to be in their terms, but who are you to give terms to the ONE that created the SUN.
Stop the pride and realize that you don't have the answers because you are so full of your selves that like the girl that doesn't want to be a christian but believes in God is noncese the only reason God will have anything to do with your salvation. Of course salvation don't forget you will die one day and since you spend more time being a bible critic more than a humble reader, don't be surpriced to find your self in a place were suffering is more than what any of us will experience in this earth, but drop all the doubting and selfrighteousness, recognize that Jesus did live and died, but as an act of God he resucitaded so that we may come to a place of peace and true compassion. God is real he is here we don't se him but very breath that you take, every day that you live is proof that he es real because in every breath and every day he is giving us the chance to come to him, so that when our time comes we will go to that place wich he has prepared for us, You don't have to believe what I wright but the one way that anynithing will make sence, is when in prayer just like when you talk to a very important person that you respect, you ask him to show himself to you.......
Give him a chance, and let him lead the way because you know that the way that you've been following is not necesarily the best.

"questioning and doubting the posibility of Gods existence is the strategy that the Devil so happily uses"

Is that true? I also doubt the possibility of the Devil's existence too. By your logic, that must be the strategy that GOD so happily uses, right?

I doubt ALLAH exists as well. Whose strategy is that?

Hello No-name,

Are you the same no-name as above? Could you guys please pick names for yourselves? It's really very easy and avoids a lot of confusion.

If you're the same no-name as above, then you completely ignored my attempt to answer your question. Either way, your post is little more than a string of ad hominem attacks. You assert all manner of character flaws in us to explain why we do not share your belief in invisible super-beings. Of course, in so doing you completely avoid the central issue, which is that there doesn't seem to be a trace of your god. Flawed and limited as we are, there's still no reason to believe fantastic stories unless there is some evidence to support them. If we were to ignore this simple principle, we would be reduced to credulous simpletons who cannot separate reality from fantasy.

I know you'll completely ignore or misconstrue what I just said, so let me ask you a very simple question. Do you believe in Zeus, Mithra, or Krishna? Why or why not?

I'm sorry if someone thinks that I was attacking, however there is a point that was seriusly missed in my previous attempt, and that is the existence of Jesus wich in fact is a proven historical fact,but plese don't give me the how can you pove it bit, because just like the existence of Christopher Columbus and Julius Cesar they are in the books, and are not mith like zeus, mithra or wich ever other we can come up with, however none of this is a person that has resucitaded, you want proof...... give me proof that you are right.....

Anonymous,

Please be honest. You did attack us by suggesting that many of us "believe in ourselves and nothing else", which is rather rude and presumptuous. You also implied that we are self righteous. So the appropriate response from you would have been to apologize for the unwarranted attacks.

You went on to say "...existence of Jesus wich in fact is a proven historical fact,..."

No, that's a bit of religious dogma in itself. If you actually study the subject and read what a diversity of scholars have to say, you'll discover that the historical evidence for Jesus is extremely weak.

As for Zeus, Mithra, and Krishna being myths, that PRECISELY the point. You and I both believe them all to be myths. (What are YOUR reasons, by the way?) I also believe the Jesus of the Gospels to be a myth.

You asked me to give you "proof" that I am right. First, that word has no place in this discussion. Neither of us can *prove* anything about the past; however, we can marshal *evidence* to support one conclusion over another. Do you see the difference?

Before taking this any further, I want to clarify exactly what it is we are discussing. Are we discussing the existence of Jesus as a historical figure (around which a fantastic legend later grew), or are we discussing the accuracy of the Gospels concerning this person (i.e. he was the "son of god" who worked miracles and was resurrected from the dead)? Just to be clear, I am somewhat on the fence concerning a historical Jesus (although I lean toward the mythicist camp), but I categorically reject the many fantastic stories of resurrected god-man saviors, including that of Jesus. Which discussion do you wish to have?

By the way, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE use a name other than "Anonymous" if you want to have a discussion at all.

OK OK lets try this, Yes I want to discuss the existence of Jesus Chirst, as a man in history and also as the son of God.
But lets clear up a couple of things. Do you think the bible is a historical book, or just a bunch of made up stories writen by people with great imagination?
We need to get this topic resolved before we go any further...
If we are goint to come to the conclution that God is real or not we should begin at the begining don't you agree?

Hello HD,

Thanks for the reply, and for providing a distinct name for yourself. You asked

"Do you think the bible is a historical book, or just a bunch of made up stories writen by people with great imagination?"

I don't see it as being exclusively one or the other. Clearly there are portions that are more historically accurate than others. For example, I consider the early epistles (such as those correctly attributed to Paul) to have more historical value than, say, the Gospels. That is, I think Paul's epistles can be mined for information regarding the early church more effectively than the Gospels, since the latter have clearly been reworked and redacted countless times, and they incorporate material from many (unknown) sources, both oral and written. While the provenance of Paul's epistles is problematic as well, there is much less evidence of tampering in them (at least in those that Paul actually wrote).

Here's something more concrete: In my opinion there is little doubt that there was an evangelist by the name of Paul who believed in and delivered sermons about a (presumed) messiah by the name of Jesus during the first half of the first century. The early epistles can be used as "historical documents" to establish that much (and somewhat more). However, stories such as the virgin birth, Herod's slaughter of the innocents, the miracles performed by Jesus, the sermon on the mount, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus all appear to be fanciful stories created at a later time by weaving together various older traditions and pulling verses from the OT (a process known as midrash). There is no independent corroboration for any of these events, and they are very similar to motifs appearing in numerous older myths. Therefore, I do not regard them as historically reliable accounts.

You went on to say "If we are goint to come to the conclution that God is real or not we should begin at the begining don't you agree?"

Well, it's hard to say "no" to that, but I must point out that even agreeing on what the "beginning" is will be problematic. For example, you may think that agreeing on the status of the Bible is the beginning. However, there are even more basic "epistemological" matters, such as what counts as evidence, and more concretely how one determines the reliability of an ancient document. To avoid an infinite regress, one typically starts somewhere "in the middle" and then moves to more fundamental issues if/when they arise.

So, for now I'm quite content to start by discussing the historical reliability of the Bible, and then see where that takes us. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Here's a very open-ended question for you. How reliable to your deem the Bible to be, and why?

Hello jim arvo:
there are some facts that are writen as historical events such as the existence of a man named Paul wich you have mentioned, how ever you must know that his given name was not Paul but Saul, who happend to be a Pharasee wich in hebrew ment separated, in other words he was part of the religious group of those days that lived under the mosaic law wich was the rules "to give them a name" under wich they were to live as Jews or circumsiced people, with the conviction that any body that even mentioned the name of Jesus should be Killed. Now Saul did not become Paul until he had an extraordinary experience on his way to Damascus. To this point hitoricaly this were the narations of the man, you desided to bring him up as Paul but his name was not Paul unless we take into account the experience that he had with Jesus Christ on that journey, now besides Paul there is another man named Simon wich if it was not due to his interactions with Jesus would not be known as Peter, this are events that are writen primarily in the bible but if you want to investigate a little more about this there is other books wich will confirm the existence of such men.
Now you asked how reliable I deem the bible to be and why?
No.1 In you previous statement you mentioned someone who's writtings are being not only studied but analized until today, we are talking about books written over 1900 years ago, that to this day bring motive for discussion. So there is no doubt that the Bible has historical events that if we take the time to investigate will find to be true.
No2 As we continue with our discution I will show you the reliability true the examples and teachings that come from a book wich was written over a period of 4000 years and in essence has one mesage.
No3. As per the events narrated about Jesus's crucifiction, there is enough writen accounts to show that the Bible has veracity, do you agree?
This are simple basic reason why I belive the bible is reliable.
I must ask you one thing whose teachings do you find to be a reliable source for a life with out God?

To HD:

Yes, of course, "Paul" = "Saul of Tarsus". Yes, "Paul" took that name as a result of his religious conversion; let us even assume that said conversion took place on the road to Damascus, and that he experienced it as described in his epistle to the Galatians.

However, you seem to be reading far too much into religiously-motivated name changes. I think you will agree with me that Cassius Clay becoming Mohammed Ali is not compelling evidence of Allah. What it does provide is evidence of ardent *belief*. So, let us stipulate the Saul of Tarsus ardently believed in a messiah named Jesus, and consequently adopted the name Paul. (Same for Simon/Peter.) Can we henceforth refer to him as "Paul" (and "Peter") without fear of confusion?

I'll address your other points in the order you raised them. I'll abbreviate them somewhat, but hopefully keep the meaning intact:


#1: The Bible consists of "...writtings [that] are not only studied but analized until today, ...written over 1900 years ago, that to this day bring motive for discussion. So there is no doubt that the Bible has historical events that if we take the time to investigate will find to be true."

It is true that the Bible is an old document. Yes, it is discussed and referenced perhaps more than any other book ever written. Yes, it affects millions of lives the world over. All true. However, none of these facts, individually or collectively, vouch for its historical accuracy. The Koran is also a very old book (not quite as old as the NT), which has ALL of these characteristics, yet is contradicts the Bible. Both cannot be entirely true. The Hindu Vedas are more ancient, and have these very properties. These are ready counterexamples to your criteria.

#2: "...I will show you the reliability true the examples and teachings that come from a book wich was written over a period of 4000 years and in essence has one mesage."

Okay. Listening...

#3: "As per the events narrated about Jesus's crucifiction [sic], there is enough writen accounts to show that the Bible has veracity, do you agree?"

No, I do not agree. As I said, there is NO corroboration for any of the fantastic events described in the Gospels. The anonymous account attributed to "Mark" is the earliest document to mention any historical event concerning Jesus. Paul mentions a crucifixion (please note the spelling), but does not fix the event in a historical context, nor does he even indicate that it took place on Earth with a flesh-and-blood human being. There were many deities discussed and worshiped at that time, and many of them "died" and came back to life in a "spiritual" realm. As far as we know, that's what Paul had in mind as well.

There is almost universal agreement among scholars that both "Luke" and "Matthew" borrowed heavily from "Mark"'s account, and likely other documents as well (e.g. "Q"), so they are not independent accounts. All the Gospels are written in a hagiographic form--i.e. with the sole purpose to "deify" a human--to instill belief in him/her as divine. This is not to be confused with "history". Historians of the time are universally silent about such events, save for a few dubious and vague passages (which we can get into later if need be).

HD asked "I must ask you one thing whose teachings do you find to be a reliable source for a life with out God?"

I honestly cannot understand that question as stated, as it appears to assume too much. First, I put very little stock in the "teachings" of any one person, as I do not see anybody as having such great authority that I should simply believe what they say without testing it and corroborating it. Second, I don't think of myself, or anybody else, as "living without god" any more than I think of them as "living without unicorns". The very question seems to put the cart before the horse. If there is a god, then I'd surely like to know. As yet, I've seen no evidence for her. Consequently, I do not expect or wait for help from above--I concentrate on helping my fellow humans myself. If there is an all-powerful deity who would like to get my attention, I'm confident that she could figure out how to do so. And I'll be quite happy to hear what she has to say.

To jim arvo
You are missing the point when I enphasize on the names of the apostoles, is because they had a revelation wich came from having an encounter/relationship with Jesus; they didn't just decide one day that they would use other names but if infact that is what you are implying how can you show me proof that Simon's name was not changed to Peter by Jesus as Saul to Paul, other than the sugestion that they were fanatics or similar. To me this is important because when you meet Jesus he will not only change your character but also your purposse (what you are about) this men became bald theachers of the gospel of Christ that is why they spent all that time and effort even their lives for they recognized that they had been amongst the Lord.
There is a paragraph on your responce that reads,
There is almost universal agreement among scholars that both "Luke" and "Matthew" borrowed heavily from "Mark"'s account, and likely other documents as well (e.g. "Q"), so they are not independent accounts. All the Gospels are written in a hagiographic form--i.e. with the sole purpose to "deify" a human--to instill belief in him/her as divine. This is not to be confused with "history". Historians of the time are universally silent about such events, save for a few dubious and vague passages.
I find it very interesting that you proceed to talk about some scholars interpretations rather than basing your answers on your own interpretation wich you hinted to me on your last reponce when you said.
First, I put very little stock in the "teachings" of any one person, as I do not see anybody as having such great authority that I should simply believe what they say without testing it and corroborating it.
So wich is it do relly on teahings of others to come to your conclutions or you put most of your stock on your own interpretation. By the way it is pretty grand to suggest that there is universal agreemnt about the borrowing of the gospels come on UNIVERSAL you know you are using a very large term for someone who wants proof of everything.
Proof that the reason why you choose to help fellow humans does not have an underlined correlation with the posibility of (do onto others as I would like done onto me).
And if you have an explanation about that please also explain to me goodness or badness (not to call it evil)
I would appresiate an honest non litterary responce, fellow human been to fellow human been.

This exchange between Jim and HD is like witnessing Mozart being played to a treefrog.

fjell

How true, Fjell. How true.

HD said "You are missing the point when I enphasize on the names of the apostoles, is because they had a revelation wich came from having an encounter/relationship with Jesus..."

No, I did not miss your point at all. Clearly that's what you were suggesting. Perhaps you missed my point. They were BELIEVERS in Jesus. BELIEF is sufficient to explain the behavior of adopting a new name. In the case of Paul, his "encounter" with Jesus was purely spiritual, judging by his own words. If you assert that the name-change was an result of a direct encounter with Jesus, then you are arguing in a circle--that is, you are simply assuming what you wish to show. Assuming only what is in evidence (the name change), it does not follow that Jesus existed; only that some believed he did.

HD: "...how can you show me proof that Simon's name was not changed to Peter by Jesus as Saul to Paul,..."

I can offer no such proof, nor is it my burden to do so. People adopt new names through religious conviction all the time. Nothing supernatural is needed to explain that behavior. If you wish to introduce a supernatural element, then the burden of proof is on you.

HD: "...when you meet Jesus he will not only change your character but also your purposse"

Again, that is circular in that it assumes the very point in question; that there is/was such a person as Jesus.

HD: "I find it very interesting that you proceed to talk about some scholars interpretations rather than basing your answers on your own interpretation wich you hinted to me on your last reponce when you said."

I think you're confused. I, like you, must obtain a lot of my information from others. Of course I read what many scholars have to say, but that does not mean I automatically accept their conclusions. I vet what they say using my own research and/or that of other scholars. It's a long tedious process. Is there anything controversial in that, or counter what I've stated previously? (I think not.) Now, it's a fact that the majority of scholars, both conservative and liberal, will agree with the basic statement I made previously. We can get into WHY they agree if you wish, as that's the important bit anyway. So, please don't confuse my reference to a consensus among scholars with a simple-minded appeal to authority. I categorically do not employ the latter tactic. Is that clear now?

HD: "So wich is it do [you] relly on teahings of others to come to your conclutions or you put most of your stock on your own interpretation."

Clearly, neither of your alternatives is accurate. Let me clarify this for you. I DO NOT simply adopt what anyone says, which includes scholars of any description. However, I do avail myself of what they say and what evidence they proffer. I should hope you do the same. In many instances there is consensus, and for very good reason: namely, that the evidence is substantive and cohesive. This is so, for example, for the theory of the Synoptic Gospels, which includes the dating of Mark prior to Luke and Matthew and the borrowing of the latter from the former. Have I addressed that to your satisfaction?

HD: "By the way it is pretty grand to suggest that there is universal agreemnt about the borrowing of the gospels... you know you are using a very large term for someone who wants proof of everything."

My exact words were "almost universal consensus". Put another way, the vast majority of those who have studied and written about the Synoptic Gospels agree that this is so, albeit they may disagree on the extent of the borrowing and/or its significance. If you disagree, then I can only conclude that you've done very little investigation of this on your own.

HD: "Proof that the reason why you choose to help fellow humans does not have an underlined correlation with the posibility of (do onto others as I would like done onto me)."

I'm sorry but I can't even parse that. It appears to me that we are quickly straying from the topic of Jesus. I politely request that you refocus your efforts on presenting your case for Jesus rather then trying to dissect my words, or to speculate about my motives. The latter gets us nowhere.

HD: "And if you have an explanation about that please also explain to me goodness or badness..."

Sure, I could write a tome on that topic. (In fact, I've done so in other threads.) But that would take us far afield of the original topic that we agreed to discuss. Please explain why you believe the Bible to be a reliable historical document. We've not made any discernible headway in that direction yet.

Oh, I forgot to address this statement by HD:

"...you know you are using a very large term for someone who wants proof of everything."

I'm sure the regulars here could almost chant my response to that in unison. I'm not asking for PROOF; I'm asking for credible EVIDENCE. As a rule, I neither request nor expect "proof" of anything. However, if you make a claim (e.g. the Bible is a reliable historical document), then I expect you to be able to back it up with something. Does that make sense?

Jim Arvo said:
"I'm sure the regulars here could almost chant my response to that in unison"
----
Jim,

How about this 'chant' from the original Star Trek series....

"He's DEAD Jim"

"Another one bites the dust", will also do.



AtheistToothFairy

Hi there ATF,

You may be on to something! I submit the following "Scotty" quotes as additional candidates:

1: "The shape the thing's in it's hard to keep it from blowin'." -- Scotty, The Doomsday Machine, stardate 4202.9, Episode 35

2: "I've giv'n her all she's got captain, an' I canna give her no more."

3: "She won't take much more of this."

4: "This jurry-rigging won't last for long..."

5: "Ma barins...ma poor barins."

(All Scotty quotes shamelessly lifted from this site and not corroborated.)

So I see there is a few of you out there.
OK then lets take this aproach since you fell so sure about your selves, on that rejecting the reliability of the bible as the word of God.
There have been hundreds of books written on the subject of the evidences of the divine inspiration of the Bible, and these evidences are many and varied. Most people today, unfortunately, have not read any of these books. In fact, few have even read the Bible itself! Thus, many people tend to go along with the popular delusion that the Bible is full of mistakes and is no longer relevant to our modern world.

Nevertheless the Bible writers claimed repeatedly that they were transmitting the very Word of God, infallible and authoritative in the highest degree. This is an amazing thing for any writer to say, and if the forty or so men who wrote the Scriptures were wrong in these claims, then they must have been lying, or insane, or both.

But, on the other hand, if the greatest and most influential book of the ages, containing the most beautiful literature and the most perfect moral code ever devised, was written by deceiving fanatics, then what hope is there for ever finding meaning and purpose in this world?

If one will seriously investigate these Biblical evidences, he will find that their claims of divine inspiration (stated over 3,000 times, in various ways) were amply justified.
The remarkable evidence of fulfilled prophecy is just one case in point. Hundreds of Bible prophecies have been fulfilled, specifically and meticulously, often long after the prophetic writer had passed away.

For example, Daniel the prophet predicted in about 538 BC (Daniel 9:24-27) that Christ would come as Israel's promised Savior and Prince 483 years after the Persian emperor would give the Jews authority to rebuild Jerusalem, which was then in ruins. This was clearly and definitely fulfilled, hundreds of years later.

There are extensive prophecies dealing with individual nations and cities and with the course of history in general, all of which have been literally fulfilled. More than 300 prophecies were fulfilled by Christ Himself at His first coming. Other prophecies deal with the spread of Christianity, as well as various false religions, and many other subjects.

There is no other book, ancient or modern, like this. The vague, and usually erroneous, prophecies of people like Jeanne Dixon, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and others like them are not in the same category at all, and neither are other religious books such as the Koran, the Confucian Analects, and similar religious writings. Only the Bible manifests this remarkable prophetic evidence, and it does so on such a tremendous scale as to render completely absurd any explanation other than divine revelation.
The historical accuracy of the scriptures is likewise in a class by itself, far superior to the weitten records on egypt, assyria, and other early nations.
Asrcheological confirmations of the biblical record have been almost innumerable in the las century. Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology,said:
and I Quote No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
We could expand and make reference to Scientific accuracy.
I understand that many of you would much rather stick to your so called knowledge however I am saddened by statements like.

Consequently, I do not expect or wait for help from above--I concentrate on helping my fellow humans myself. If there is an all-powerful deity who would like to get my attention, I'm confident that she could figure out how to do so. And I'll be quite happy to hear what she has to say.

Because if in fact we want to concentrate on helping our fellow humans, I must assume that we would seek a source that inspires rather than continually brings us to believe that our understanding is enough to comprehend the greatness of the creator, much less to try to understand a book that was divinely inspired, but we don't want to even consider that posibility>
Star treck ... pretty funny
God's existence not so... funny