• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Why does God choose to remain invisible and undetectable?

Status
Not open for further replies.

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What's an empty tomb evidence of except for an empty tomb? If I were to walk past an empty tomb my first thought wouldn't be "Zombies!" I would obviously conclude that aliens had abducted the body.

You know, I get a kick out of folks who will reject well evidenced science and I mean science that has boatloads of objective evidence to support it, but will accept what some anonymous authors wrote in stories 2000 years ago as being great evidence.

Anyone can write anything in a book, it doesn't make it true.
 
Upvote 0
W

WindStaff

Guest
What's an empty tomb evidence of except for an empty tomb? If I were to walk past an empty tomb my first thought wouldn't be "Zombies!" I would obviously conclude that aliens had abducted the body to reanimate it.

Someone as important as Jesus would have their remains somewhere and kept sacred if not for his resurrection. And his remains do not exist.

Although, there is the Shroud of Turin which many believe depicts Jesus:

shroud-turin-image.jpg
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Someone as important as Jesus would have their remains somewhere and kept sacred if not for his resurrection. And his remains do not exist.

Not if there was a group of people who did not want his remains found.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You know, I get a kick out of folks who will reject well evidenced science and I mean science that has boatloads of objective evidence to support it, but will accept what some anonymous authors wrote in stories 2000 years ago as being great evidence.

Anyone can write anything in a book, it doesn't make it true.

I get a kick out of people who reject well evidenced "science" that science can't account for life the begin with.
 
Upvote 0

Hezekiah Holbrooke

Active Member
Nov 25, 2014
196
6
81
✟402.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You know, I get a kick out of folks who will reject well evidenced science and I mean science that has boatloads of objective evidence to support it, but will accept what some anonymous authors wrote in stories 2000 years ago as being great evidence.

Anyone can write anything in a book, it doesn't make it true.

Some of us get a kick out of a boatload of scientist in the year 2014 continuing to argue among themselves concerning the origin of the American Indian. They tout all their advancements in their knowledge of DNA yet cannot settle among themselves whether or not the American Indian originated from the Asians, the Mongolians, the Pacific Islanders, or the Egyptians and they have more than an ample supply of live specimens upon which to get their DNA.

Scientists are really no smarter than anyone else. They are only guessing too.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Some of us get a kick out of a boatload of scientist in the year 2014 continuing to argue among themselves concerning the origin of the American Indian. They tout all their advancements in their knowledge of DNA yet cannot settle among themselves whether or not the American Indian originated from the Asians, the Mongolians, the Pacific Islanders, or the Egyptians and they have more than an ample supply of live specimens upon which to get their DNA.

Scientists are really no smarter than anyone else. They are only guessing too.

Try that line on the judge where DNA is being presented as evidence in a murder or paternity trail, and let us know their response.
 
Upvote 0

madaz

dyslexic agnostic insomniac
Mar 14, 2012
1,408
26
Gold Coast Australia
✟24,455.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It is not equivocating, it is common sense. Anything that can be described as running by a set of laws is prescribed/created/invented by an independent external party. To reject this is to reject common sense. I don't think there is a need to say more.

To suggest Godidit because it's just plain common sense and nothing else needs to be said, is not only ridiculous, it's a cop out. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that a god created the universe. That is just a desirable theistic notion in liu of our current lack of knowledge and understanding.

Need you say more?....please!

Second time words are put into my mouth, I already said myths don't verify anything. But neither do your statements verify that biblical accounts are myths.

Nothing I say will verify that biblical accounts are myth. Im just a anonymous atheist on the Internet.
Conclusions such as that, are arrived at only after careful objective examination.
Once again, I see no reason why Christianity is granted anymore authenticity than any other theistic notions put forward in the history of mankind.

IO is believed by the Maori people as one supreme God, so it is your part to convince me that IO is a different God from the one I believe and is more powerful.

It not my part to convince you of anything nor do I have any interest in verifying the identity of the imaginary friends held in high regard by primitive peoples.


But as I have read, Maori's beliefs do not seem to conflict with the biblical accounts of history and therefore it is entirely possible that they believe in the same God Noah believed but merely called Him by a different name.

If you had to read it, it was obviously a modern interpretation.
Traditional Maori relied on oral tradition. The name IO was even too Tapu to mention orally let alone record.

The early European settlers in New Zealand succeeded in putting their Christ into Maori tradition with the widespread use of their Anglican missionaries, they essentially muddied the waters with their own religion. A smart way of unifying with some of the native warriors so they would ally with the british soldiers to slaughter other tribes that wouldn't comply.

The traditional Maori belief system is now well and truly contaminated with Christianity, hence the modern transliterated words in the maori language so necessary now for Maori to worship Christ.



Would you acknowledge that it is entirely possible that Maori and Christians believe in the same supreme God?

Christian Maoris do worship the same god. But this certainly was not the case for a millennia prior to European settlement.

To even make such a comparison prior to european settlement would probably get you boiled up in a big pot.

Then let me tell you a group of early Christians, called the Bereans, tested what they heard from the disciples and examined everything they said to determine their truth.

Believing in the true God does not devoid people of reason and careful study, in fact God encourages people to seek and test the truth.

To believe in gods in these modern times is to abandon reason.

To be able to believe in a god to the point that one can believe that killing others without any reason is a sacred thing shows the signs of a passive mind wholly incapable of moral reasoning.

You appear to understand this, yet you still follow an Abrahamic religion, how do you deal with the cognitive dissonance?


True Christians, on the other hand, exercise their minds to discern good from evil, truth from lies and test everything they see through the use of moral reasoning.

The criteria to be a Christian is much simpler than that. Whether one is true Christian or not is not up to your judgement.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Some of us get a kick out of a boatload of scientist in the year 2014 continuing to argue among themselves concerning the origin of the American Indian. They tout all their advancements in their knowledge of DNA yet cannot settle among themselves whether or not the American Indian originated from the Asians, the Mongolians, the Pacific Islanders, or the Egyptians and they have more than an ample supply of live specimens upon which to get their DNA.

Okay. So what methods/results do you propose will settle the matter?

Scientists are really no smarter than anyone else. They are only guessing too.

It depends on what you mean by "smarter". If "smarter" means that they have specialised knowledge in their particular field of study, then they are "smarter" in that regard at least. Because of that, their "guessing" is actually informed by their knowledge, which makes their "guessing" a lot "smarter" than the guessing of someone who lacks their educational background.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Yet, God hasn't abandoned us. It is man who turns away from God. God allows us to stray so He can draw us near Him.

Actually according to the Bible God has no problem demonstrating himself directly to some people and not others.

The rest of us get to rely on sketchy stories from 2000 years ago.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Someone as important as Jesus would have their remains somewhere and kept sacred if not for his resurrection. And his remains do not exist.

It would have been kept sacred regardless.

The cite of his "resurrection" is most certainly lost though, it's quite questionable then that it ever existed.

Although, there is the Shroud of Turin which many believe depicts Jesus:

A burial shroud depicting an anglicized Jesus shows that you guys will believe anything.
 
Upvote 0

NewOrthodoxDenomination1

Junior Member
Dec 26, 2014
33
1
32
US
✟22,653.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Assuming a god exists, it has chosen to remain invisible. Just how does it better serve this god's agenda to have a world in which he doesn't manifest himself in reality? A world in which an existent god which doesn't manifest itself in reality is indistinguishable from a non-existent god?

Furthermore, why would a god set up a system in which our salvation is dependent upon believing something to exist on insufficient evidence?

God has manifested himself multiple times throughout history. Burning Bush, Pilar of Fire, Jesus Christ. Further, all of Creation is evidence of God's existence. Atheists often argue that the Big Bang could have happened given an infinate amount of time for Goldie Locks conditions to be met. They fail to account for the fact that time didn't exist before the Big Bang as it is intertwined within the physical universe. How then could Goldie Locks conditions be met?

Further, not all Christians believe that "belief" in something is the way to salvation. Some think that God comes a reveals himself to individuals and guide them so that belief in something invisible is not necessary.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.