Why I never became an atheist.

[abelcainsbrother]

The reason why I never became an atheist is because I remember when I got saved and how it changed me and how happy I felt,it was like being high or something but hard to explain,but I just felt happy like never before and it felt like a ton was lifted off of me and I thought totally different than before.I wanted to tell everybody Jesus saved me and I did and I was only about 12 years old.I have never forgot that.

Jesus truly saved me and I was changed just like the bible says.I had been raised up in Sunday school but it became totally real the day she started talking to me about Jesus and took me through the Roman Road in the bible and a few other scriptures and asked if I wanted to pray and ask Jesus to save me and I asked Jesus to come into my heart and save me and forgive me and he did.

She was my Sunday School teachers wife and she had drove me home from Sunday School and was dropping me back off at home.And I know over my life that no matter how I may have strayed from time to time I still always felt that gentle tug of the Holy Spirit pulling me back.Even though I've strayed from time to time I never got to a point where I no longer believed or did'nt want God anymore.

[Audie]

The comparison between God and "other Gods" is done when people don't fully understand the Christian concept of God.
The Christian understanding of WHAT and WHO God is means that God MUST exist because if He didn't, nothing would exist.

What non believers know about the Christian God is usually the result of what the Bible says about him and what his followers say about him. The problem with your claim is that In the eyes of the non believer, the Christian God is described in a way that he is NOT required to exist in order for everything else to exist.

Ken

No Ken, non-believers fabricate what they THINK The Bible says about God.

The bible states that God is the creator and sustainer of all and without God, there is no life.
Colossians 1:17
1 Corinthians 8:6

That all the exists is of God.
Without God, ultimately, there would not be anything.

The issue is that non-believers think of God as they do "other gods", simply because they don't realize that the Christian understanding of God means that God IS existence and as the creator of all AND the sustainer of all, without God there is nothing.

That is why comments like "I don't believe in Zeus either" or ' I just believe in one less god than you" are comments of ignorance about God.

God belirvers dont do the same fabrication???

[PaulSacramento]

Naww bro; I ain't jokin' the fact that there are people who study astronomy who know a lot more about it than you and I combined yet they do not believe in the Christian God should tell you that it is possible for someone to conclude the God as described in the Bible is not necessary on order for everything to exist.

Ken

Kenny, the God as described in the bible ( and if you are of the mind, tradition) MUSt exist by the very simpel fact that He IS existence.
As the creator and sustainer ( first cause and prime mover), if He did not exist then the universe would have NOT come to be OR be able to continue to exist.
IF there is even JUST one "law" of physics or even just ONE "necessary element" then God MUST exist.

The issue is that you don't seem to grasp what is being stated is an undisputable fact about the universe that exists.

I understand what is claimed about God, I just don't agree with it. If what were said of him were an undisputable fact, then absolute proof would have been given by now.

Ken

So, the fact that you exist and I exist and the universe exists, that isn't enough proof of the existence of God?

Correct.

Is it because you don't agree that God MUST exist for their to be something?

Correct.

K

Ken,
Can I ask you something?
What and Who do you think God is base don your understanding?

[Audie]

Naww bro; I ain't jokin' the fact that there are people who study astronomy who know a lot more about it than you and I combined yet they do not believe in the Christian God should tell you that it is possible for someone to conclude the God as described in the Bible is not necessary on order for everything to exist.

Ken

Kenny, the God as described in the bible ( and if you are of the mind, tradition) MUSt exist by the very simpel fact that He IS existence.
As the creator and sustainer ( first cause and prime mover), if He did not exist then the universe would have NOT come to be OR be able to continue to exist.
IF there is even JUST one "law" of physics or even just ONE "necessary element" then God MUST exist.

The issue is that you don't seem to grasp what is being stated is an undisputable fact about the universe that exists.

I understand what is claimed about God, I just don't agree with it. If what were said of him were an undisputable fact, then absolute proof would have been given by now.

Ken

So, the fact that you exist and I exist and the universe exists, that isn't enough proof of the existence of God?

Correct.

Is it because you don't agree that God MUST exist for their to be something?

Correct.

K

Ken,
Can I ask you something?
What and Who do you think God is base don your understanding?

My probably unwelcome take is that no god actually exists. God, capital letter as
portrayed in the OT and NT has what seems to me a peculiar mix of attributes, as
might be expected when written about by a number of different authors from different time periods and perspectives.

IF there is a god, I'm disinclined to think it is that one.

[PaulSacramento]

My probably unwelcome take is that no god actually exists. God, capital letter as
portrayed in the OT and NT has what seems to me a peculiar mix of attributes, as
might be expected when written about by a number of different authors from different time periods and perspectives.

IF there is a god, I'm disinclined to think it is that one.

So it is the OT and NT interpretations of God that you don't like?
I can understand that, I wasn't a big fan of the OT version of God myself ( always liked the NT view though).
The thing is that we can't get "bogged' down on how humans try to "explain" God in terms of human attributes ( He is jealous or angry or spiteful). The writers were trying to convey to their audience a message in a way THEY would understand.
Someone once said that the God of bible seems like two totally different Gods when comparing the OT to the NT and they are kind of "right".
The message is the same of course, BUT the audience was different and they understood it differently.

we have to allow for the difference between 2 millenium Mesopotamian influenced Hebrews and Hellenistic Jew to 21st century Christians and non-believers.

The point, in regards to the necessity of the existence of God, is NOT WHICH God but IF there is a need for GOD.

[Byblos]

My probably unwelcome take is that no god actually exists. God, capital letter as
portrayed in the OT and NT has what seems to me a peculiar mix of attributes, as
might be expected when written about by a number of different authors from different time periods and perspectives.

IF there is a god, I'm disinclined to think it is that one.

The proposition whether or not God exists is independent of any religion. Once that issue is settled then one can move on to revelations and which religions are closer to the truth than others. But as long as the issue of God's existence is still an open question there is no point whatsoever in asking, well, which 'god'.

[Audie]

My probably unwelcome take is that no god actually exists. God, capital letter as
portrayed in the OT and NT has what seems to me a peculiar mix of attributes, as
might be expected when written about by a number of different authors from different time periods and perspectives.

IF there is a god, I'm disinclined to think it is that one.

The proposition whether or not God exists is independent of any religion. Once that issue is settled then one can move on to revelations and which religions are closer to the truth than others. But as long as the issue of God's existence is still an open question there is no point whatsoever in asking, well, which 'god'.

Agreed other than that last. You dont know much about me, but you can count out me being a werewolf or the governor or New Caledonia. Either "Audie' would certainly be a fiction. Im much simpler than that.

The god that sent a world wide flood does not exist either, for simple reason that that flood never occurred.

[PaulSacramento]

The god that sent a world wide flood does not exist either, for simple reason that that flood never occurred

I can't tell you how many skeptics have the same faulty equations skills.
It's not a slight on you Audie, it's simply a fact that many skeptics THINK they know the bible and quite simply don't.
To be honest, MANY believers have the same problem.

[Kenny]

Naww bro; I ain't jokin' the fact that there are people who study astronomy who know a lot more about it than you and I combined yet they do not believe in the Christian God should tell you that it is possible for someone to conclude the God as described in the Bible is not necessary on order for everything to exist.

Ken

Kenny, the God as described in the bible ( and if you are of the mind, tradition) MUSt exist by the very simpel fact that He IS existence.
As the creator and sustainer ( first cause and prime mover), if He did not exist then the universe would have NOT come to be OR be able to continue to exist.
IF there is even JUST one "law" of physics or even just ONE "necessary element" then God MUST exist.

The issue is that you don't seem to grasp what is being stated is an undisputable fact about the universe that exists.

I understand what is claimed about God, I just don't agree with it. If what were said of him were an undisputable fact, then absolute proof would have been given by now.

Ken

So, the fact that you exist and I exist and the universe exists, that isn't enough proof of the existence of God?

Correct.

Is it because you don't agree that God MUST exist for their to be something?

Correct.

K

Ken,
Can I ask you something?
What and Who do you think God is base don your understanding?

Being as you are Christian, according to my understanding; the Christian version of God is the creator and sustainer of the Universe, and everything that exist. He is also seen as the greatest being conceivable. Of course there are a million other ways you guys describe him as well.
My personal view of God is of course that of a myth (hence the atheist label I've been given) described various ways by various people yet believed and worshipped by billions world wide.

Ken

[PaulSacramento]

Being as you are Christian, according to my understanding; the Christian version of God is the creator and sustainer of the Universe, and everything that exist. He is also seen as the greatest being conceivable. Of course there are a million other ways you guys describe him as well.
My personal view of God is of course that of a myth (hence the atheist label I've been given) described various ways by various people yet believed and worshipped by billions world wide.

Ken

Do you understand though, that our view of God is a logical and reasonable one based on what we know of the universe?
That God is not A being but IS BEING, just like He doesn't exist, HE IS existence.
Do you understand why those statements are logical and reasonable?

[Kenny]

Being as you are Christian, according to my understanding; the Christian version of God is the creator and sustainer of the Universe, and everything that exist. He is also seen as the greatest being conceivable. Of course there are a million other ways you guys describe him as well.
My personal view of God is of course that of a myth (hence the atheist label I've been given) described various ways by various people yet believed and worshipped by billions world wide.

Ken

Do you understand though, that our view of God is a logical and reasonable one based on what we know of the universe?

When you say "based on what we know of the Universe" this "we" you speak of are your fellow Christians; not the scientist who spend their lives studying the Universe; most of whom just so happen to be atheist right?

That God is not A being but IS BEING, just like He doesn't exist, HE IS existence.
Do you understand why those statements are logical and reasonable?

What do those statements mean? Please explain.

Ken

[PaulSacramento]

When you say "based on what we know of the Universe" this "we" you speak of are your fellow Christians; not the scientist who spend their lives studying the Universe; most of whom just so happen to be atheist right?

I mean based on what those "mostly atheist" scientists state.

PaulSacramento wrote:
That God is not A being but IS BEING, just like He doesn't exist, HE IS existence.
Do you understand why those statements are logical and reasonable?

What do those statements mean? Please explain.

Ken

For God to BE God He must be the First Cause, Prime / unmoved mover and that means that He is not anything in potential but everything in actuality and that without Him there is no possibility of anything that is, being anything else.
Now, we do know that in this universe, things become something else, they change/move/change and without God, none of that can happen.
Since it does happen, therefore God, as described above, must exist.

[Audie]

The god that sent a world wide flood does not exist either, for simple reason that that flood never occurred

I can't tell you how many skeptics have the same faulty equations skills.
It's not a slight on you Audie, it's simply a fact that many skeptics THINK they know the bible and quite simply don't.
To be honest, MANY believers have the same problem.

Faulty equation skills. Right.

Does the Paul Sacramento who was president of the USA for six consecutive terms exist?

As for "knowing the bible", I know it a whole lot better than a great many, possibly most Christians. But you agree many "believers" dont know squat about their own book.

There are btw some 38000 sects all of whom understand the bible differently / better than the others. Not to mention some few eccentric individuals and their take.

[PaulSacramento]

The god that sent a world wide flood does not exist either, for simple reason that that flood never occurred

I can't tell you how many skeptics have the same faulty equations skills.
It's not a slight on you Audie, it's simply a fact that many skeptics THINK they know the bible and quite simply don't.
To be honest, MANY believers have the same problem.

Faulty equation skills. Right.

Does the Paul Sacramento who was president of the USA for six consecutive terms exist?

As for "knowing the bible", I know it a whole lot better than a great many, possibly most Christians. But you agree many "believers" dont know squat about their own book.

There are btw some 38000 sects all of whom understand the bible differently / better than the others. Not to mention some few eccentric individuals and their take.

Audie, according to you:

The god that sent a world wide flood does not exist either, for simple reason that that flood never occurred

That means you equate the the world wide flood never happening to God not existing.
The problem with that is the bible does NOT say it was a world wide flood ( though some INTERPRET that way).
You are taking ONE possible interpretation of an "equation" and saying that because it is not correct, math doesn't exist.

Do you see what you are doing wrong there?

[Audie]

My probably unwelcome take is that no god actually exists. God, capital letter as
portrayed in the OT and NT has what seems to me a peculiar mix of attributes, as
might be expected when written about by a number of different authors from different time periods and perspectives.

IF there is a god, I'm disinclined to think it is that one.

So it is the OT and NT interpretations of God that you don't like?

"That I dont like"? What an odd take on it. "God" is a character in a novel.

I can understand that, I wasn't a big fan of the OT version of God myself ( always liked the NT view though).

Pick n' choose?

The thing is that we can't get "bogged' down on how humans try to "explain" God in terms of human attributes ( He is jealous or angry or spiteful). The writers were trying to convey to their audience a message in a way THEY would understand.

People are smarter now?

Someone once said that the God of bible seems like two totally different Gods when comparing the OT to the NT and they are kind of "right".
The message is the same of course, BUT the audience was different and they understood it differently.

Or to put it bluntly, "he" comes across as a schizo monster.

The point, in regards to the necessity of the existence of God, is NOT WHICH God but IF there is a need for GOD

I got that, I just dont agree that such a thing is necessary. On the latter, if there is a god, it sure isnt the OT / NT one.