Since atheists claim that there is no God, why do some have such hostility against those who do believe in God...

Since atheists claim that there is no God, why do some have such hostility against those who do believe in God? Why do some seem to have a mission in life or an axe to grind against Christians or Christianity and even against God? Why do they detest a belief in something that they themselves don’t believe in? Since there is no Santa Clause, why don’t they go up to every Santa Clause they meet and rail against them or not existing since both don’t seem to exist to them?

Other urls found in this thread:

sciencealert.com/physicists-run-a-classic-quantum-experiment-showing-how-molecules-act-as-waves
m.digitaljournal.com/science/experiment-shows-future-events-decide-what-happens-in-the-past/article/434829
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Neverending Shitpost

I have no animosity towards atheist because I used to be one. Christians are in no way superior to non-believers because God is no respecter of a person’s ability, social standing, or wealth (Acts 10:34; Rom 2:11). God doesn’t look at the outside as we do, rather He looks at the heart (1 Sam 16:7). We too must look, not at the outside, but at the soul of that person as someone that needs saving. They may have very good reason not to believe in God, but we all know that belief doesn’t alter what is true so ask them sincerely why they became an atheist? Show them respect but ask them what their reasons for not believing in God since they lack all knowledge of all places in the universe? Why can they not deal with a God and that exits?

We don't hate atheists unless they're total faggots that deserve it. Like those godfags that post Neverending story memes on Sup Forums every five minutes.

I dont care if you or anyone else believes in god so long as there is complete separation of church and state and no laws are passed to curtail any of my freedoms because of religious beliefs. Be as dumb as you like, just don't let your dumb affect me.

Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?

...

Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?

the fact that there is one or isnt doesn't change jack shit

>axe to grind against Christians or Christianity

Because it's a lifestyle choice that we are made to give special rights.

ah yes intelligently designed beings that can die in 60 billion retarded ways

it appears your god is a little girl from a crappy movie.

your first question is meaningless. you might as well say "would you agree that black is black?"
On your second question, creationists have been trying to find evidence for "intelligent design" in the universe for a long time and have come up with absolutely nothing.

. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?

atheists that actually care about atheism the worst types of people

>intelligently designed things

Pull the other one. What intelligently designed things?

no, i would not agree. This has not been shown to be true and you obviously do not understand the big bang theory if you think that is what it says.

no

If humans are simply a process of random chemical processes over millions of years then how a non-believer be so sure their atheism properly represents reality? What if they’re wrong? What hope is there after this life if life is all there is? Does that rob purpose beyond the grave? Do you believe in an after-life somewhere? The Bible declares that “what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Rom 1:19-20).

atheism and evolution are two different subjects

nothing would change if they were wrong
what if you're wrong for believing in wrong god/gods

If you don’t believe in something, does it mean it doesn’t exist? In other words, does what we believe change what is true? An example was that humanity was convinced at one time that the earth was flat but their “concrete evidence” of looking at the earth and seeing nothing but flatness didn’t make the world into a flat surface. What atheists believe and don’t believe cannot make something true or false.

because religion is what is wrong this world and a lot of christians try to incorporate their beliefs education such as noahs ark and things of that sort. religion is really holding the human species back.

atheism does not represent a reality, it is a belief.

quoting from a book that is from a religion that atheists do not believe in will not convince them. you might as well have done a madlib.

We know about Aristotle was opposed to Plato’s “First Cause” but his own theory of causality is still an argument from universal causation. Plato’s basic argument in The Laws (Book X) was that all movement in the world was an imparted motion, and since everything is in motion, who or what caused that first movement? Who or what was the first cause of the universe? Where did matter come from? Was there a singular point of the beginning of the universe and all matter? Since matter must have a cause, Who or what was that cause?

actually, knowing something about an even changes that event. this has been scientifically proven.

sciencealert.com/physicists-run-a-classic-quantum-experiment-showing-how-molecules-act-as-waves

I grow tired of your very dumb word games. I had these debates a decade ago online and your side has come up with nothing new. You don't understand the scientific topics you discuss and in fact, you deliberately misunderstand them as you have had them explained to you many times. Waste your life with the god nonsense. I don't care.

that has been answered, the big bang. a singularity, that expanded at the speed of light. not something from nothing, everything in the universe contained in a infinitely small infinitely dense region of space time. no bearded sky man needed.

m.digitaljournal.com/science/experiment-shows-future-events-decide-what-happens-in-the-past/article/434829

in the beginning man said "let there be god, and there was god".

Atheists may say what happens to them after death and as far as the physical body, we can know that, but what about the soul of a man or woman? Can you kill a soul? Is this all there is after life? Is it nothingness or no state of awareness? How can they be so sure that there’s no afterlife? What if they’re wrong? Won’t it be too late them to believe in God (Heb 9:27).

I would ask an atheist if there are certain objective morals. Do they have something that they see an absolute moral principle? Is murder of an innocent person always wrong and at all times? Are there objective universal morals? Are there none? Where does morality come from?

athiest, idgaf what u believe, im surrounded by people of faith and we get along because we're not assholes

man created god to explain the universe, now that we are beginning to understand the universe we do not need such comforts.

you don't actually answer questions do you?

But why do you belive in god? Which one?

>Where does morality come from?
from man. morality does not exist without someone to create it. There is no morality in nature.

That movie gave me nightmares...still does...

That is what satan wants you to say. I am going to take him off of my insurance and my phone plan for you to be able to make salmon fishing. What i just said makes no sense just like Satan wants it to.be 777 not 66*

>What if they’re wrong?
what if they are right?
who cares one way or the other?

...

so you have no argument and you also have that number wrong, it is not 666 that is a mistranslation. it is 615, look it up. it is the number of the beast. The beast was nero.

antitheists claim there is no god.

Atheists don't accept the claim that there is a god unless they are presented with evidence.

Is it me or is every serious Sup Forums post an attempt at trolling?

Surely the fact that Christians came to the understand that something had to have created the influence because of cause and motion roughly 1500 years before your scientists Theorized the SAME THING.

sorry if i implied i was a believer, what i meant was i am an athiest and i get along with people of faith for reasons other than religion

Kek

ah the age old non answer, "satan made you say it" So there is no free will?

this made as much sense as

. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)

Because Christian's are supposed to be hated. Despite keeping to ourselves and supporting everyone's way of life (even those that go against our own) we must be ridiculed and targetting. It's actually biblical. This is only the beginning. Soon we will be prosecuted, punished, and, in many cases, executed. It already happens in many other countries and if you look at the direction society is heading, it will happen here (in the US) as well. Those of us that actually believe aren't that concerned about it. It falls in line with what the Book of Revelations teaches us. We may still be hundreds of years away, but it's started.

I have to enter captchas now, so I am ending this as it is now, not fun but work.

Also I think you are a bot. your answers are to wrote and rehearsed and there is not thought behind the,

How can Jesus be considered a great prophet when the Gospels say many times that Jesus accepted worship as God (Matthew 8:2; 14:33; 28:9; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; 20:28-29)?

Atheists are not a homogeneous group, however some atheists might well argue that believing in things that are wrong (Or believing based on no evidence) is detrimental to both the individual and society. If you believe absurdities you can commit atrocities.

If Santa Claus was something influential people believed in, I'm quite sure it would be attacked with the same vigor, because it's basically the same thing.

>Despite keeping to ourselves and supporting everyone's way of life
>but gays aren't allowed to be married, and if you dont believe in the same shit as me, you're going to hell
????

BORING> But for fun, I'll scream into the aether...

Atheists aren't hostile to the religious, but to the actions of the religious to push and force their singular views onto everyone else, even those closely aligned to them, and atheists are hostile to the results of that pushing.

Shia and Sunni and Wahabists and Sufis have spent a thousand years eroding the peak of their empire, when Al Jibra was a revolutionary text inspiring a whole new understanding of maths.
Christians in Ireland spent almost 100 years being monsters to each other over variations in Christian Theology. Muslims swear that Jesus/Issa is their messiah, then slaughter the Druze, who also worship that same messiah, despite them being what Qu'ran calls 'people of the book', who are supposed to be protected. Or Dominionists, and End Times folks, who reject all science in favor of ignorance fueled by 'Sky Fairy won't let anything bad happen/When we blow this world up we all get Heaven which is perfect'.

Individual people who believe? No problem. The policies of collective action by those believers? It's fucking intolerable.

It's like Gandhi said, I like your Christ, Your Christians, not so much. (I paraphrase.)

OP here, I assure you I am not a bot. Just adding to the neverending shitpost. These threads get a lot of responses plus i was getting tired of seeing all of those Andy SiXX and Trap Cancer threads. Thanks for replying user

athiests claim their is no god

agnostics don't accept the claim that there is a god unless they are presented with evidence

u dum

Why do Muslims believe Muhammad is superior to Jesus when even the Quran affirms that Jesus was sinless (Sura 3:45-46; 19:19-21), born of a virgin (Sura 3:47), called the Messiah (Sura 3:45), performed miracles such as raising the dead (Sara 5:110), and bodily ascended into heaven (Sara 4:158), and Muhammad did none of these things?

I'd love to read about Nero being 'the Beast'. Got a handy useful reference? (as opposed to reading whatever shit google puts at the top)

What evidence? There is no evidence for God, and in fact, the case for God as he is commonly defined, cannot be made.
That is because the claim of God is an unfalsifiable claim, and you can't prove what you can't also disprove.

So the ball is in your court. Make a definition of a court and devise a test that could potentially disprove the God you have defined. Only then does it make sense to look at any evidence FOR a God.

Do you agree that an open-minded person should be willing to look at all the evidence? If so, then are you willing to look at the evidence for God’s existence?

Oh look it's the same thread as yesterday with a different picture of the same character

Read the bible user. All the evidence is there

It's really about comfort in knowing a why for which there's no true answer and may never be. "I'm more comfortable with my opinion so you should be too"

>the bible
>evidence

That something came from nothing is the religious claim, not the scientific one. In fact no scientists make any definitive claims about the first Planck second of the universe because the science to do so is not in yet.
You make the claim that a God just was... From Nothing, and then created a bunch of other stuff from nothing. You claim to have the answers, and your side is the one with creation from nothing all over the place.

Why would I care? I think he was a child-raping piece of shit. I think Jesus was a self-flagellating Essene carpenter during a period of absolutely terrible Roman rule. I don't think Tanakh is divinely given, but instead written by men, as demonstrated by the magickal finding of Deuteronomy in the back closet of the First Temple. I don't have to argue about who is more divine between Jesus and Mohammed, because I don't think either was.

Shit, I only self-Identify as a Jew and not an atheist because Hillel's questions, driving Jewish ethics, are the best way to think about daily behavior towards others.

Sounds like you had a run in with a few misguided Christians my friend. I apologize if you had a bad experience. While homosexuality is forbidden in our religion, we are also taught to lets others walk their own path. We are supposed to spread the word and make the gospel known, but if the recipient doesn't want to hear it, we are to move on. Some in our faith don't understand that entirely and I fear it reflects poorly on us as a whole.

Only an evil God would punish people for not believing in him based on bad evidence. Is your God evil?

Furthermore, if you base your belief on pascals wager, you are not, in fact, a true believer. You are, at best, proficient in self-deception.

1) No, there are a number of quantum particles that seem to pop in and out of existence at any given moment in time.

A) Virtual particle production is a natural outcome of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. This principle states, in part, that quantum fluctuations in the universe’s space-time fabric will generate particles, provided those particles revert to quantum space-time fluctuations before any human observer can detect their appearance. Typically, the particles so produced must disappear in less than a quintillionth of a second. Since these particles cannot be detected directly, physicists refer to them as virtual particles. No one has ever, or can ever observe them!

As Astronomer Hugh Ross has calculated, “for a system as massive as the observable universe, the time for it to arise from nothingness (the space-time fabric) and revert back to nothingness (the space-time fabric) must be less than 10-102 seconds (101 zeroes between the decimal point and 1). This episode is a bit briefer than the 14-billion-year age of the universe.” A single virtual particle has an existence that is massively too short to observe, and an effect as large as the universe would disappear correspondingly more quickly. That is why practically no physicist supports Lawrence Krauss in his assertions in his book “A Universe From Nothing.”

Another problem is that quantum particles appear within the quantum foam of our space-time universe. In order for the universe to appear from quantum foam, there would have to be a region of space-time full of energy fields (such as the Higgs field) that would produce a virtual universe. This is manifestly not “nothing.” The “nothing” of the question would have zero dimensions, and zero energy. It doesn’t mean “no particles of mass.”

Exactly what did Jesus, himself, say about forbidding Homosexuality?

Please do not quote Saul of Tarsus, a known whore-mongering epileptic with syphllitic hallucinations.

Your argument could just as easily be leveled at religion. The only difference being that our understanding of the world around us has actually expanded in a way that we keep being less and less wrong, whereas we've really gotten nowhere with religion, because wee have no evidence to go on.

If religion was in any way evidence based, it wouldn't be religion at all, because it wouldn't require faith. The fact that faith is needed undermines any evidence based argument for religion from the get go.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination
King James Bible. Matthew 5:27-5:30 Speaks of adultery in a few different forms.

Does bigfoot exit?

But that is the old testament user, not the new testament

>intelligently designed things
At the time the Bible was written, the Earth was believed to be the center of the universe. As there is no mention from the all-knowing God in the Bible of other worlds with life on them, nor other races of mortals, most people believe that the universe was created for man.

Consider, however, that in 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the known universe you would die instantly. We are not the center of the universe. We are not the center of the solar system. We aren't even anywhere close to the center of our galaxy, and our galaxy is nowhere near the center of the universe. In what way is it intelligent to design a universe 270,434,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles wide for the purpose of supporting a planet 7,917 miles wide? In what way is it intelligent to design the lifeform to occupy that planet in such a way that it is able to survive in practically 0% of that universe?

God created humans to engage in sex only within the arrangement of marriage between a male and a female. (Genesis 1:27, 28; Leviticus 18:22; Proverbs 5:18, 19) The Bible condemns sexual activity that is not between a husband and wife, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual conduct. (1 Corinthians 6:18) This includes intercourse, fondling another person’s genitals, and engaging in oral or anal sex.

While the Bible disapproves of homosexual acts, it does not condone hatred of homosexuals or homophobia. Instead, Christians are directed to “respect everyone.”—1 Peter 2:17, Good News Translation.

They're not mutually exclusive. While many things have changed, those changes are made clear in the new testament. How did this even become a conversation about homosexuality anyway?

KJB isn't the original language, one. Two, Matthew wasn't alive when Jesus was, so that's not an authoritative quote.

You can look to cosmology for the answer. Or you can pretend you already know by claiming "Magic/God". My conjecture would be that people who spend their time investigating these questions will end up smarter than those who pretend they knew it from the start.

Because religion gets used as an excuse to create certain racial/religious/lifestyle minorities as second class citizens, and is at the heart of many conflicts that lead to countless innocent deaths and endless wars. So many atheists believe that people's continued support of religious institutions is harmful to progress towards a peaceful world. But ultimately anything taken to an extreme can be dangerous, so without religion filling that role, it could just as easily be ethnicity or fuckin frozen yogurt topping choices.

oh is this retard back with his retarded strawmen threads?

great

They making the frogs gay user

>Why do some seem to have a mission in life or an axe to grind against Christians or Christianity and even against God?

Well lets see:
Sitting at restaurant with my son, Random weirdo comes up flops a card on our table next to my kid and tells us "god bless!"

Yup, Jesus card. Tell the person to come back and take their card and leave us alone. Person does so but then gets snotty about it. Going off on hoe "God told him to do it".

This, this is why atheists have a right to grind a axe. Christian have this innate idiot urge to push their religion on everyone.

Mind you, I am fucking Christian and this shit pisses me off.

Morality is a mixture of instinct and logic. It is something evolution has selected for in man, because groups without any moral frameworks would not be able to work together and survive.

Morality is based on being able to distinguish from suffering and pleasure. A moral act can be seen as one that minimizes the first and maximizes the latter. Religion is not needed to explain this.

This is also wrong. Song makes it clear, anythign which enhances the marriage, and leads to kids, includeing oral and anal, is fine. Fuck you idiots don't ever bother to read in the original Hebrew, and you allow agenda driven translations for POETRY to fuck your entire system up. Hell, NIV is ALSO not an actual translation of the original heberew and aramaic and greek, but of the fucking KJB. Idiots.

Sodom has become so associated with homosexual conduct that its name was for many ears a byword for it. But is 'sodomy' really what Sodom is about?

The account describes the men of the city attempting to forcibly have sex with two angelic visitors to the city, who have appeared in the form of men. Later parts of the Old Testament accuse Sodom of a range of sins: oppression, adultery, lying, abetting criminals, arrogance, complacency and indifference to the poor. None of these even mentions homosexual conduct. This has led some people to wonder if we have read homosexuality into the Genesis narrative, when in fact the real issue was social oppression and injustice. But a close look at the text makes it clear that homosexuality was in fact involved.

The King James bible is heavily revised/edited to serve evangelical beliefs and is not a great source to use to justify christian positions. Ultimately, scorn/hatred/persecution of any person for any perceived sin, goes against Jesus's message of forgiveness, love, and understanding. The whole point is that God decides whether someone is good or bad, and it's not peoples' job to judge others on Earth.

How you calling retarded user?

But it is the word of the lord. How can you say that?

>King James bible

Everytime someone starts off by saying " in the king James Bible" I fight every urge to not counter with "Well in the Rick James Bible..."

That which begins to exist has a cause

The universe began to exist

The universe has a cause

THAT I could have some faith in.

Leviticus contains two well known statements about homosexual activity:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

“An abomination” is often used to describe idolatry, and some suggest these verses are not condemning homosexual behaviour in general, but only the cultic prostitution connected to pagan temples. It is also often claimed that the fact that these prohibitions appear in a book full of other laws which no Christians think they are expected to follow today suggests that they should not be taken as having abiding moral relevance. But to take the first objection, the language used is not that specific; it refers to lying with a man “as with a woman,” - that is, in very general terms. Secondly, the surrounding verses in each instance describe other forms of sexual sin (such as incest, adultery and bestiality), none of which is anything to do with pagan temples or idolatry, and which we would take as being applicable to Christians today. It is moral, rather than just pagan religious behaviour that’s in view. Furthermore, Leviticus 20:13 highlights both male parties equally, again suggesting general, consensual homosexual activity (as opposed to gay rape or a forced relationship).

Still not the actual words of Jesus himself.

False equivalence.

No it would not. Information is not per definition man made or intelligent made. It is intelligently interpreted from some sort of complexity. Analogy time:

Throw a ball at your keyboard. Each time it makes a comprehensable word that makes some sense in its context, save it, otherwise delete it and throw the ball again. Repeat for a few years. You know have a text of information that you never intended to write, but that is nevertheless information.

...

Well, if I accept worship as God would you worship me?
Maybe he was neither?

Because religions are not internally consistent?

If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?