How can you not be christian?

[Persemacleus]

I'll justify why I reject your God when you justify why you reject all other Gods but yours.

[Farnhamia]

I'll justify why I reject your God when you justify why you reject all other Gods but yours.

That's easy, God said to reject them.

[Shia Islands]

My question is how can you not be christian. People who are athiest, I believe say there is no god as an excuse for them to get away wiht something they know is a sin. Also people say why doesnt god just show himself and my answer to that is Faith. What use what it be if god just showed himself to everyone and then everyone just switched to christian, God wants people who have faith and are loyal not people who see him and then suddenly believe. Also Athiest who dont belive in god explain to me about ghosts then? Dont say thier not real either because my dad and stepmother have both seen demons, and if you want to know about it i would be more than happy to explain.

Also people who belive Obama is the Anti-Christ, I can see this to some point because in the bible it says that the Anti-Christ will try to make peace wiht everyone and be a nice handsome smooth talker whihc obama is so yes i can see obama being the anti-christ. But i wouldnt freak out about it because if your saved then you will go to heaven. just like 2012 why freak out when you will be going to a better place thats why i think the people who freak out about it are the ones who are worried because they no about the sins they have committed.


Also all of these different religons like catholics, prodestants and judism and all the others i think are in my opinion are not needed because all you have to do is belive in god and the virgin marry and that jesus gave his sins for us, also god didnt make religon, humans made religon in thier own way that they seen fit. For example reilgon is formed like a club and then one day a member form that club doesnt like the ideas of it so then they go and make thier own club meaning religon. But really all you have to do is belive in virgin marry, jesus sacrifice and belive in god as your heavenly father and you will go to heaven.

Im not a perfect christian, no one is infact ive had my doubts but after talking wiht my Step Mom and my Dad and thinking about the miracles that have happened to me i do belive there is a god and thats called faith. So please anyone is welcome to comment but do not argue or make stupid comments or make fun of anyones religon. This is meant to be a discussion not a argument about which religon is better or calling someone stupid because of thier beliefs.

Ok look I will explain this as simple has I can so you get it. Your family needs to get checked out if you all think ghost are real, I mean come on. And even if they were real you need more proof then my family as seen them. You know they could be not telling the truth. Life is a cycle everything that happens can be shown for reason through science or math. Is that harsh, yes but you claim not to want a argument well everything you said I fond very insulting.

[Willenburg]

I think the real question will be is how not can you have unable love some speak English.

[Johz]

Atheists- Stop pretending every Christian out there is an atheist hating caveman who believes the word of the lord, not because he came to a logical conclusion based on experiences in his own life, but because he's stupid and naive.

Fair enough, but in order to follow this I need Christians to stop proclaiming that this alleged "word of the lord" is the valid document they claim it is, or present verifiable evidence to that effect. Otherwise, I reserve the right to the opinion that they're naive and stupid.

I'm not going to justify a viewpoint that isn't mine. I will, however, point out that you don't actually have any proof that god doesn't exist.

Nor do I have proof that invisible pink unicorns don't exist. Do I have to prove that to you as well?

Given that invisibility for something that large is impossible given current knowledge, I can use logic to say that it doesn't exist. Plus the fact that, we would've found a skeleton or droppings of an invisible pink unicorn, plus the fact that they'd make a noise, we'd know they exist even if we couldn't see them.

As for god, as an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being, he's not going to leave definite proof.

And I give you Carl Sagan's immortal essay, The Dragon in My Garage.

I have little problem with people choosing to believe in omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient beings who choose not to leave definite proof, but unless they can actually produce the proof that the aforementioned being chooses not to provide, I reserve the right to the opinion that they're being naive and stupid.

I've just come back from Spring Harvest, which, as many British Christians will probably know, is a large inter-denominational Christian conference. At this place I spent most of my time being sceptical, because that's what you guys on NSG have taught me. So when this guy claims that his extreme short-sightedness is healed, I sit up and listen. And that makes me think. What about all the millions of miraculous healings that defy current medical knowledge? Does that count as proof?

[Johz]

I think the real question will be is how not can you have unable love some speak English.

Come again? I am seriously having trouble reading this. If you are using a translator, have you tried using Google Translate? I find that that usually produces an accurate translation.

[Soniere]

What about all the millions of miraculous healings that defy current medical knowledge? Does that count as proof?

Not any more than the tens of millions of "unanswered" cases of prayer healing, miracles, etc.

[Farnhamia]

Atheists- Stop pretending every Christian out there is an atheist hating caveman who believes the word of the lord, not because he came to a logical conclusion based on experiences in his own life, but because he's stupid and naive.

Fair enough, but in order to follow this I need Christians to stop proclaiming that this alleged "word of the lord" is the valid document they claim it is, or present verifiable evidence to that effect. Otherwise, I reserve the right to the opinion that they're naive and stupid.

I'm not going to justify a viewpoint that isn't mine. I will, however, point out that you don't actually have any proof that god doesn't exist.

Nor do I have proof that invisible pink unicorns don't exist. Do I have to prove that to you as well?

Given that invisibility for something that large is impossible given current knowledge, I can use logic to say that it doesn't exist. Plus the fact that, we would've found a skeleton or droppings of an invisible pink unicorn, plus the fact that they'd make a noise, we'd know they exist even if we couldn't see them.

As for god, as an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being, he's not going to leave definite proof.

And I give you Carl Sagan's immortal essay, The Dragon in My Garage.

I have little problem with people choosing to believe in omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient beings who choose not to leave definite proof, but unless they can actually produce the proof that the aforementioned being chooses not to provide, I reserve the right to the opinion that they're being naive and stupid.

I've just come back from Spring Harvest, which, as many British Christians will probably know, is a large inter-denominational Christian conference. At this place I spent most of my time being sceptical, because that's what you guys on NSG have taught me. So when this guy claims that his extreme short-sightedness is healed, I sit up and listen. And that makes me think. What about all the millions of miraculous healings that defy current medical knowledge? Does that count as proof?

Being unexplained by science does not automatically equate to being of supernatural origin, it just means that the explanation hasn't been found.

[Shia Islands]

Atheists- Stop pretending every Christian out there is an atheist hating caveman who believes the word of the lord, not because he came to a logical conclusion based on experiences in his own life, but because he's stupid and naive.

Fair enough, but in order to follow this I need Christians to stop proclaiming that this alleged "word of the lord" is the valid document they claim it is, or present verifiable evidence to that effect. Otherwise, I reserve the right to the opinion that they're naive and stupid.

I'm not going to justify a viewpoint that isn't mine. I will, however, point out that you don't actually have any proof that god doesn't exist.

Nor do I have proof that invisible pink unicorns don't exist. Do I have to prove that to you as well?

Given that invisibility for something that large is impossible given current knowledge, I can use logic to say that it doesn't exist. Plus the fact that, we would've found a skeleton or droppings of an invisible pink unicorn, plus the fact that they'd make a noise, we'd know they exist even if we couldn't see them.

As for god, as an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being, he's not going to leave definite proof.

And I give you Carl Sagan's immortal essay, The Dragon in My Garage.

I have little problem with people choosing to believe in omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient beings who choose not to leave definite proof, but unless they can actually produce the proof that the aforementioned being chooses not to provide, I reserve the right to the opinion that they're being naive and stupid.

I've just come back from Spring Harvest, which, as many British Christians will probably know, is a large inter-denominational Christian conference. At this place I spent most of my time being sceptical, because that's what you guys on NSG have taught me. So when this guy claims that his extreme short-sightedness is healed, I sit up and listen. And that makes me think. What about all the millions of miraculous healings that defy current medical knowledge? Does that count as proof?

Simple he lied about having this issue, him just saying he is healed means nothing. Belief of religon I think just leads to hardship. Why do I need to belive in false hopes?

[Treznor]

And I give you Carl Sagan's immortal essay, The Dragon in My Garage.

I have little problem with people choosing to believe in omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient beings who choose not to leave definite proof, but unless they can actually produce the proof that the aforementioned being chooses not to provide, I reserve the right to the opinion that they're being naive and stupid.

I've just come back from Spring Harvest, which, as many British Christians will probably know, is a large inter-denominational Christian conference. At this place I spent most of my time being sceptical, because that's what you guys on NSG have taught me. So when this guy claims that his extreme short-sightedness is healed, I sit up and listen. And that makes me think. What about all the millions of miraculous healings that defy current medical knowledge? Does that count as proof?

Why won't God heal amputees? It's rather curious that people can be miraculously cured of internal, invisible diseases or bypassing certain injuries in defiance of medical understanding, but more obvious examples such as amputees go unblessed by God's healing touch. All it really suggests is that the human body is capable of recovering from disease and internal injury in ways we don't yet understand. To suggest that God is behind them is to suggest that God should be willing to heal any injury, when it's very clear that this does not happen.

[The Alma Mater]

All it really suggests is that the human body is capable of recovering from disease and internal injury in ways we don't yet understand.

Or do understand. People often seem amazed that if you have a 1 in 10.000 chance of recovery, 1 in 10.000 people actually recovers. It must be a miracle !
Too bad of those 9.999 others of course, but that is statistics for you.

[Station 12]

Personally I'm under the belief that if God does exist, he doesn't like interfering with humanity too much. Hence why evil exists. Miracles could be him or they might not be, but it's unlikely that he'd do a mass miracle provided he does exist and he does heal people.

[Tunizcha]

All it really suggests is that the human body is capable of recovering from disease and internal injury in ways we don't yet understand.

Or do understand. People often seem amazed that if you have a 1 in 10.000 chance of recovery, 1 in 10.000 people actually recovers. It must be a miracle !
Too bad of those 9.999 others of course, but that is statistics for you.

This always gets me. If you get lucky and are one of the 1% of people who do make it, as opposed to the 99% who don't, God performed a miracle. If you aren't one of those 1%, you just have to pray, then eventually God will help you. It's just a cop-out.

How about God makes it so that you never had the disease in the first place?

[Shia Islands]

Personally I'm under the belief that if God does exist, he doesn't like interfering with humanity too much. Hence why evil exists. Miracles could be him or they might not be, but it's unlikely that he'd do a mass miracle provided he does exist and he does heal people.

Show my the proof, and "god" is evil anyone just look at the chaos it makes.

[Ekraysia]

I just saw this thread, and in response to your question,

How can you not be christian?

Simple. I am a Buddhist. I believe I have answered your question, narrow-minded and ill-thought-out though it is. Problems?

[Treznor]

Personally I'm under the belief that if God does exist, he doesn't like interfering with humanity too much. Hence why evil exists. Miracles could be him or they might not be, but it's unlikely that he'd do a mass miracle provided he does exist and he does heal people.

What's the difference between a god that allows no evidence of its existence and no god at all?

[Soniere]

What's the difference between a god that allows no evidence of its existence and no god at all?

Objectively, that deity would exist.

[Station 12]

Personally I'm under the belief that if God does exist, he doesn't like interfering with humanity too much. Hence why evil exists. Miracles could be him or they might not be, but it's unlikely that he'd do a mass miracle provided he does exist and he does heal people.

What's the difference between a god that allows no evidence of its existence and no god at all?

That's sort of like asking me the difference between someone hiding in a box and no-one in the box.

...I don't understand why the Atheists are all going against me, I'm doing my best to be neutral.

[The Alma Mater]

What's the difference between a god that allows no evidence of its existence and no god at all?

Objectively, that deity would exist.

But His (or Her) existence would not matter in any practical sense. After all, any practical effects would be evidence of His existence, and therefor forbidden.

[Station 12]

What's the difference between a god that allows no evidence of its existence and no god at all?

I missed a serious point up here. When did I ever say he hides all evidence of his existence? I said he doesn't like meddling with us, I didn't say he doesn't like letting us know he exists.

[Treznor]

What's the difference between a god that allows no evidence of its existence and no god at all?

Objectively, that deity would exist.

So, you can't prove that deity exists, since said deity doesn't allow it. The workings of this deity are indistinguishable from the natural workings of the universe, and has no impact that can't be explained by random chance. But somehow this allows for the deity to objectively exist just because the deity exists?

You see, my understanding of something that objectively exists is that it is possible to verify that it exists. Its existence does not depend on whether or not we look for it, but its existence is called into doubt if its existence cannot be verified when we do look.

Personally I'm under the belief that if God does exist, he doesn't like interfering with humanity too much. Hence why evil exists. Miracles could be him or they might not be, but it's unlikely that he'd do a mass miracle provided he does exist and he does heal people.

What's the difference between a god that allows no evidence of its existence and no god at all?

That's sort of like asking me the difference between someone hiding in a box and no-one in the box.

...I don't understand why the Atheists are all going against me, I'm doing my best to be neutral.

Because you're using the argument that just because we can't disprove God doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in God. I'm pointing out the flaw in this logic, that just because we can't disprove a number of fantasy creations doesn't mean we should believe in them. Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. Atheism is a statement of belief. The inability to prove or disprove invisible sky fairies is insufficient justification for believing in them.

I've pointed out that I have little problem with people believing in invisible sky fairies. My problem is when they publicly claim that they do exist, and that they have documentation on how we should live our lives because of that belief. Without verifiable evidence, I'm allowed to challenge their beliefs if I am so moved to do so. You can't tell me I shouldn't challenge them simply because they believe, because belief is not sacred. Any idea should be subject to challenge, be it scientific, philosophic, cultural or religious.

[Prevania]

Personally I'm under the belief that if God does exist, he doesn't like interfering with humanity too much. Hence why evil exists. Miracles could be him or they might not be, but it's unlikely that he'd do a mass miracle provided he does exist and he does heal people.

Hang on, "he doesn't like interfering with humanity too much": what about the small matter of his genocides (eg: the Flood), miraculous healings or the minor mistake that was Jesus?

[Treznor]

What's the difference between a god that allows no evidence of its existence and no god at all?

I missed a serious point up here. When did I ever say he hides all evidence of his existence? I said he doesn't like meddling with us, I didn't say he doesn't like letting us know he exists.

Allow me to rephrase: what's the difference between a deity who is indistinguishable from random chance in nature, and no deity at all?

[Station 12]

I've pointed out that I have little problem with people believing in invisible sky fairies. My problem is when they publicly claim that they do exist, and that they have documentation on how we should live our lives because of that belief. Without verifiable evidence, I'm allowed to challenge their beliefs if I am so moved to do so. You can't tell me I shouldn't challenge them simply because they believe, because belief is not sacred. Any idea should be subject to challenge, be it scientific, philosophic, cultural or religious.

They have a problem with you publicly claiming that god doesn't exist as well, they have a problem with you treating them like idiots for believing in it and mocking them for it (using "invisible sky fairies" to describe god, obviously showing you have absolutely no sense of respect for their belief)

[Farnhamia]

What's the difference between a god that allows no evidence of its existence and no god at all?

I missed a serious point up here. When did I ever say he hides all evidence of his existence? I said he doesn't like meddling with us, I didn't say he doesn't like letting us know he exists.

Allow me to rephrase: what's the difference between a deity who is indistinguishable from random chance in nature, and no deity at all?

Haberdashery ...