Most personally convincing reasons you don't believe.

[Chad32]

That's unlikely, given that the societies and their religions are older than the bible. Christianty is a young religion, and you can't really get around that.

I've said this 3 times now so pay attention:
Again in some cases the religion May indeed be older, BUT THERE ARE NO SURVIVING DOCUMENTS OF THOSE RELIGION OLDER THAN THE BIBLE!!!!

Do you not understand what that means? For instance in the Case of Zoro-ism Their oldest complete manuscript dates all the way back to the 17th century. Their oldest incomplete document (a few pages of their book) is from the 10th century AD.
http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroast...cripts.htm

Do you not see what you are claiming of Christianity is most likely true of the religions you said Christianity 'borrows from?'

It doesn't really matter if the writing were newer than the bible or not, though there are things like the cod of Hammurabi. The fact is that older religions existed that had gods that supposedly created the universe, and people who could work miracles.

And even if there wasn't that, there are other reasons to not believe your god exists. It is becoming clear to me that our thought processes are very different from each other, and we're very unlikely to come to a mutual consensus here.

[Drich]

First: Are you actually making an excuse for why I was beaten and molested by family members?

No, I thought I was clear. I am saying if those things happened and you thought God was meant to 'protect you' because you thought "God loves you" means God will always look out for you, and because He did not you lost faith because of it. You Are the exact type of Zeus/Genie worshiper I was speaking about.

You had a very narrow minded view of God and when God did not come through you abandoned God.

Second of all - it was my mother's third husband that beat me. My father was too upstanding of a man to ever dare put me through that. Thirdly - the man that beat me stood 6 foot 2 inches tall, was a large, heavy man and the belt he used put welts the size of half dollars on my ass because the holes had to be reinforced with metal grommets to hold up the pants on his fat ass. He didn't beat my sister. He didn't beat his two daughters. He beat ME. On a daily basis. I was a small child compared to his size. What right does a man that size have beating a child of 10 who weighed less than 70 pounds? He was at least 350 pounds.

Maybe this is the reason you all think I am a sociopath, because your 'story' elicites no emotional response from me. Rather I see it as a weak attempt to curry favor from your peers and to turn the tide of the conversation in your favor. The reason I feel nothing for you is because it does not change the truth of what I said. This discussion is not about tugging at heart strings or baiting a conversation to make someone else look cold or heartless. It is about a failed understanding of God. And whether you were beaten like a mixed race korean 'sicky/disappointing bastard' red headed child of a fat man, it does not change the facts of the matter. The facts are immutable, the rest is just dressing. You had a broken understanding of who god is and it carried over to your adult life.

You can't fix what happened. However you can do something about your broken perception of God.

I was a child when these things happened. My beliefs then were nothing like what they are now. Obviously. Do not insult my intelligence by attempting to question my thoughts as a child and comparing them to my thoughts as an adult.

"When I was a child I acted and thought like a child, but when I grew up I put away childish things."
Whether you are, or did think like that makes no difference to what I have said. as What I said, is speaking to the reason you currently do not believe in God per your own words.

You have a lot of nerve Dripshit. I mostly tolerate your bullshit, but you have crossed a line and that is unacceptable.

Then perhaps you shouldn't draw lines you don't want crossed.

This thread is about why people don't believe. If your story takes you to a place you can not openly discuss then why share it? Is it your opinion that I personally do a psych evaluation on everyone, and tailor everything I say to make sure I do not cross any of you?

Here's a news flash: The things I do not want discussed... I do not share. The things I do share are completely open for discussion, dissection, mutilation by you 'good people.' For instance I shared my wife's drug addiction, and in that thread and some of you 'good people' used that instance to try and sow doubt and distrust between us, as a way to try and manipulate the topic or distract me from my objectives. which again is fine as that was my choice to share.

I say that to say, if you are going to share something then you need to be ready to have it 'examined' harshly. If your not there, and you share anyway then may I suggest it is you who has 'crossed a line.'

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you might need to be willing to do more than just allow us to mutilate your thought droppings..if there's some objective you have in mind.  You're going to have to find the wherewithal to modify those failed propositions you've so kindly graced us with.  If, for no other reason..than to meet that objective of yours. Or, I suppose we could simply continue with the pretense that there's some integrity in what you do here, that you actually have an objective or are doing anything to achieve it.

[vorlon13]

What God's ultimate rule would be is subject to debate.

Not blaspheming against the Holy Spirit would be a strong contender.

And blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is PRECISELY what happens when one is going to the wrong church.

You  imply belief in Jesus 'indemnifies' a believer, in spite of attendance/membership/fealty to a heretical Christian schismatic church.

That view is heretical in and of itself.


Heretics don't go to heaven, they burn, and they burn forever.

Ahhh, No.. It's not up for Debate.
Jesus Himself Identifies God's 2 Greatest Commands:
Mat 22:34 The Pharisees learned that Jesus had made the Sadducees look so foolish that they stopped trying to argue with him. So the Pharisees had a meeting. 35 Then one of them, an expert in the Law of Moses, asked Jesus a question to test him. 36 He said, “Teacher, which command in the law is the most important?”

37 Jesus answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and most important command. 39 And the second command is like the first: ‘Love your neighbor[d] the same as you love yourself.’[e] 40 All of the law and the writings of the prophets take their meaning from these two commands.”

If you Love God with all your being then you would not blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

Two, the Holy Spirit is not the church. WE Are the church. If you are going to a Jesus Christ centered Church and believe this church will help you full fill those two commands then it doesn't matter who's name is on the building.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is uniquely a nonredeemable sin. 

If God can grant forgiveness for all other sins, it behooves you to take His prohibition against blaspheming the Holy Spirit uniquely seriously, over and above all other transgressions.

Misconstruing blaspheming the Holy Spirit is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah it's always fun making people do that. Then on the other hand I really ought to eschew obfuscation more often.

Not gonna tempt me you either Stimbo

Lol, the funny thing about the phrase "eschew obfuscation" is it basically means "don't confuse people with big words"

-Hammy

[Joods]

@Dripshit: You're a real piece of work. Just like you said in an earlier post on this thread

New Flash: I wasn't really speaking to you. I was answering someone else when you jumped into the conversation.

- my answer to the OP didn't concern you. It didn't address you and it didn't involve you.

You know, it's funny, but you claim to be a "christian" but judging from your interactions with my posts, you lack the compassion and empathy required by your own fucking religion to be a good person. If this is how you talk to people on a forum, I'd really hate to see how you interact with people IRL.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Thank you, what you say makes a lot of sense   This is why I am so opposed to religious indoctrination in children... that all these belief systems are essentially implanted without their knowledge or consent... and then you're lumbered with them forever after. And like you say, they can only be rationally overridden if they are first brought to the surface... leaving a whole web of interconnecting ideas festering beneath the surface and influencing your thinking when it shouldn't be.

Are you opposed to non religious indoctrination?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am. My son is being raised attending her Methodist church by his Christian mother, but is under no pressure to join or be baptized, just yet. Also, both of us teach him science and how it works, as well as telling him to be skeptical of what he is told by anyone, to find out the facts, and how to do so. We want him to be a healthy thinker, and his religion be his own choice, freely made when he is old enough to truly understand to what it is he is pledging allegiance (or not). I am careful never to tell my son I don't think there's a God, even when we talk about religious things, because I don't honestly think he's ready to handle those kinds of thoughts, yet, without being influenced one way or the other.

I think you will find that very few atheists tell their children they should/must be atheists.

[The Grand Nudger]

Neither my wife nor myself have ever expressed our differing positions on god to any of our children.  Never will.  They have to figure that out on their own, and own whatever it is they come up with, lol. If we ever address it, it's going to be with adults.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think that's wonderful.

[Drich]

I've said this 3 times now so pay attention:
Again in some cases the religion May indeed be older, BUT THERE ARE NO SURVIVING DOCUMENTS OF THOSE RELIGION OLDER THAN THE BIBLE!!!!

Do you not understand what that means? For instance in the Case of Zoro-ism Their oldest complete manuscript dates all the way back to the 17th century. Their oldest incomplete document (a few pages of their book) is from the 10th century AD.
http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroast...cripts.htm

Do you not see what you are claiming of Christianity is most likely true of the religions you said Christianity 'borrows from?'

It doesn't really matter if the writing were newer than the bible or not, though there are things like the cod of Hammurabi. The fact is that older religions existed that had gods that supposedly created the universe, and people who could work miracles.

If you understand your argument correctly It COMPLETELY MATTERS Which One Came First! Your Whole Argument Is Contingent On The Idea That Because These Other Religions Came First The Jews And Christians Borrowed From Them!!! Now if all that you know of these other religions are based on these 'holy books' (what else can they be based on as they have been considered 'dead religions for hundreds if not thousands of years) then your argument can be used against you. Because again IF their 'holy book' is a lot newer than the bible, (for instance 17th century) then it is just as plausible that those stories were borrowed from the bible if in fact they are similar.

And even if there wasn't that, there are other reasons to not believe your god exists. It is becoming clear to me that our thought processes are very different from each other, and we're very unlikely to come to a mutual consensus here.

Agreed, if your thoughts are not grounded in logic and reason then it stands to reason we will not come to the same conclusion.