Conversation with An Atheist

[RLT63]

Ah Pascal's wager again.

What if a God exists but it's not Jesus?
What if it is Jesus, but he only allows critical thinkers and skeptics into heaven?
What if a God exists that doesn't offer an afterlife?
What if a God exists that offers reincarnation into this life?
The possibilities are endless, and that's why Pascal's wager doesn't work.

What if the God of Islam is the one? We're both as shafted as eachother in that case.

Billions of Muslims think that Jesus existed, but don't think that he was crucified or resurrected.
Are billions of Muslims wrong?
Was Jesus just a high ranking prophet like Muhammad?
Not the son of God.....

Jesus didn't marry a 6 year old and have sex with her when she turned 9. He's nothing like Muhammad

 

[RLT63]

Ah Pascal's wager again.

What if a God exists but it's not Jesus?
What if it is Jesus, but he only allows critical thinkers and skeptics into heaven?
What if a God exists that doesn't offer an afterlife?
What if a God exists that offers reincarnation into this life?
The possibilities are endless, and that's why Pascal's wager doesn't work.

What if the God of Islam is the one? We're both as shafted as eachother in that case.

What if Jesus is the Son of God and you never accept him?

 

[RLT63]

Ah Pascal's wager again.

What if a God exists but it's not Jesus?

If it's not Jesus then who? Elephants and cows?
A God that has a pedophile for a prophet? Or a God who doesn't care to know us?

What if it is Jesus, but he only allows critical thinkers and skeptics into heaven?

Jesus told us who he allows in Heaven

What if a God exists that doesn't offer an afterlife?
What if a God exists that offers reincarnation into this life?

I'm okay then, I just cease to exist or I come back as a cat and sleep all day

The possibilities are endless, and that's why Pascal's wager doesn't work.

You're not an atheist, you just can't make up your mind

What if the God of Islam is the one? We're both as shafted as eachother in that case.

I don't think God would choose a pedophile as his prophet

 

[Mancunian]

If it's not Jesus then who? Elephants and cows?
A God that has a pedophile for a prophet? Or a God who doesn't care to know us?

Jesus told us who he allows in Heaven

I'm okay then, I just cease to exist or I come back as a cat and sleep all day

You're not an atheist, you just can't make up your mind

I don't think God would choose a pedophile as his prophet

I was only trying to explain to you why Pascal's wager doesn't work.
I find it interesting that you view other people's religious beliefs as fantasy but your religious views are not.
I'm an agnostic atheist btw. Sometimes stronger leaning towards agnosticism, and sometimes the other way.

 

[RLT63]

I was only trying to explain to you why Pascal's wager doesn't work.
I find it interesting that you view other people's religious beliefs as fantasy but your religious views are not.
I'm an agnostic atheist btw. Sometimes stronger leaning towards agnosticism, and sometimes the other way.

I would have said you're agnostic from your posts.
You shouldn't find it strange that people believe in their own religion and don't accept other religions.
I can see why someone would believe as you do, there are so many things that are unknown and the idea of just ceasing to exist when you die doesn't seem that bad.
But I don't believe that way.

 

[Titus]

If the Bible is true then Islam is false.
If the Bible isn't true then Islam is false.

 

[Wrangler]

I find it interesting that you view other people's religious beliefs as fantasy but your religious views are not.

Mainly because of the many verified miracles in Christianity but none in other religions.

 

[RLT63]

 

[Titus]

If the Bible is true then Islam is false.
If the Bible isn't true then Islam is false.

The Quran teaches Jesus did not die on the cross
Quran 4:157 : " and for their saying, indeed we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah. And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but another was made to resemble him to them.

Mohammed says Jesus was not crucified. Instead another imposter was made to look like him, and that is why some thought Jesus was crucified.

Conclusion: Mohammed contradicts the Bible.

John 19:16- 17
- then he(Pilate) delivered Him(Jesus) to them(jews) to be crucified, then they took Jesus and led Him away....where they crucified Him...

Mohammed teaches Christians must judge by what God has revealed in the gospel,
Quran 5:47 " and let the people(christians) of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein."

Mohammed also writes in his Quran,
Quran 10:94 " So if you are in doubt O Muhammad about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those(christians) who have been reading the Scripture before you.

Conclusion: Mohammed teaches Christians to get their understanding and believe what the Scriptures teach.

Final conclusion: If Mohammed is correct that Jesus was not crucified then the Bible is wrong.
This makes Mohammed wrong as he also said Christians are to follow and believe the teachings of their gospel.
Therefore Islam is false because the Quran and their prophet Mohammed is wrong.

If the Bible is correct that Jesus was crucified. Then Isalm and their Prophet Mohammed is wrong because Mohammad wrote in the Quran that Jesus was not crucified while also telling Christians to believe and follow their gospel given to them from Allah.

If the Bible is true, then Islam is false.
If the Bible is false, then Islam is false.

Mohammad taught in his Quran the people, Christians must judge by what Allah has revealed to them, that being the Scriptures.

Judging Mohammed by the Scriptures, we must judge his claim of being a prophet and his " holy book" as false.

 

[Mancunian]

Mainly because of the many verified miracles in Christianity but none in other religions.

Is the story about Jesus casting demons into 2000 pigs verifiable?
Was it one man who was possessed or two men (Matthew)?

 

[Mancunian]

Muhammad supposedly split the moon in half, he supposedly rode from Mecca to Jerusalem on some kind of equine creature with or without wings? On top of that ascended to heaven, all of, or part of the way on this mythical creature?

Billions of people have believed or do believe this to be true?

And yes, one of Muhammad's wives was a six year old girl called Aisha.
The guy was an illiterate cave dweller who pretended that the angel Gabriel had visited him?

Billions of people have believed or do believe this to be true?

Isn't it time for a reality check?
If these stories were told to adults and not forced upon children, do you think that Islam would be a thing?
I think not.
The same goes for every other religion that mankind has cooked up in it's vivid imagination.
God's with elephants heads? God's that ride around on magic geese?
It's all very silly.

 

[RLT63]

Is the story about Jesus casting demons into 2000 pigs verifiable?
Was it one man who was possessed or two men (Matthew)?

There were two, according to Matthew, while Mark and Luke focus on one (the more prominent figure). The story of Jesus casting demons (called “Legion”) into a herd of pigs appears in three Gospels:

• Matthew 8:28–34: Jesus arrives in the region of the Gadarenes (or Gerasenes/Gergesenes in some manuscripts) and is met by two demon-possessed men coming out of the tombs. They are fierce; the demons beg to be sent into the pigs; the herd rushes into the sea and drowns.
• Mark 5:1–20 and Luke 8:26–39: The same core events (after the calming of the storm, location near the Sea of Galilee, tombs, Legion of demons, pigs drowning, the healed man wanting to follow Jesus but being sent to tell others) but they describe one man with an unclean spirit / many demons.

These are widely understood as parallel accounts of the same event, based on shared details of timing, setting, dialogue, the pigs, and the aftermath. There is no direct contradiction. Mark and Luke do not say there was only one man; they simply narrate the encounter with the more prominent/vocal demoniac (the one who interacts extensively with Jesus and later proclaims what happened). Matthew includes the additional detail that a second man was also present and involved. Gospel writers often select and emphasize different aspects of the same incident rather than giving exhaustive, identical reports. In short: Matthew records two; Mark and Luke highlight the primary one. Both descriptions can be true without conflict.
Thanks Grok

 

[RLT63]

Muhammad supposedly split the moon in half, he supposedly rode from Mecca to Jerusalem on some kind of equine creature with or without wings? On top of that ascended to heaven, all of, or part of the way on this mythical creature?

Billions of people have believed or do believe this to be true?

And yes, one of Muhammad's wives was a six year old girl called Aisha.
The guy was an illiterate cave dweller who pretended that the angel Gabriel had visited him?

Billions of people have believed or do believe this to be true?

Isn't it time for a reality check?
If these stories were told to adults and not forced upon children, do you think that Islam would be a thing?
I think not.
The same goes for every other religion that mankind has cooked up in it's vivid imagination.
God's with elephants heads? God's that ride around on magic geese?
It's all very silly.

How silly is abiogenesis? That life came from non life? There’s no way, and I don’t believe that I share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. To me, that’s silly, and I agree with you Islam is silly

 

[Wrangler]

Is the story about Jesus casting demons into 2000 pigs verifiable?
Was it one man who was possessed or two men (Matthew)?

Just because many miracles are verified, doesn't mean all are. But I find it funny that you continue to not answer questions while asking them. Did you read the thread on Evidence to Be Seen? Have you processed the post there about the false standard of proof atheists use?

I'm an agnostic atheist

So many contradictions. Most Atheists that I've encountered have given a lot of thought to morality and fully understand absolutes. You clearly are indoctrinated into moral relativism and turn a blind eye to the cognitive dissonance you suffer in holding on to your contradictions.

I've seen the pattern before. An atheist abandons his untenable atheism, realizing it is untenable. Another atheist called himself an agnostic, finding it easy to not take a position than defend the indefensible, defending a negation in the presence of positive evidence. One is either in, out or on the threshold. No one is fully in and at the same time, fully out.

From what I've gathered from your posts is that you are, in fact, a deist; You believe a higher power created the universe but now has nothing to do with it. So, why do you invent the label "agnostic atheist?"

 

[Wrangler]

How silly is abiogenesis? That life came from non life? There’s no way, and I don’t believe that I share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. To me, that’s silly, and I agree with you Islam is silly

As I've said, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

It is a philosophical axiom that something cannot come from nothing. Atheists hold that everything came from nothing; It is a most illogical position. Worse, it's nihilistic, a denial, a negation. Imagine centering your life around the idea that you don't like to eat liver? Or anything else you don't like? I don't like the idea of God - so, I'll walk around with this negation as an identity. Good grief!

From a psychological perspective, we have to feel bad for these people.

 

[Titus]

I find it interesting that you view other people's religious beliefs as fantasy but your religious views are not

For very good reason.
Islam is clearly made up.
Their prophet is a pedophile, barbarian.
His religion is a child rape and murder cult.

Joseph Smith published the book of Mormon in 1830.
Joseph copied King James style English from the 1600's.

Joseph claims the book of Mormon is around 1000 years old.

According to Joseph Smith. He claims this book was written by ancient inhabitants in America and preserved by "Moroni".

Why then does the book of Mormon translate into the way brittish white people from Europe spoke in the 1600's?

The King James Bible is the Bible that was used by all Americans during Joseph Smith's lifetime.
Joseph grew up in a protestant environment in which the King James Bible was widely used.
The book of Mormon first published in 1830, contains numerous passages that closely resemble the wording found in Isaiah and the New Testament.

Smith's book resembles the bible he would be familiar with.
This is strong evidence Smith invented the whole religion.

Mormons claim to be Christians yet are polytheist i.e. believe in multiple Gods.
The Bible unquestionably teaches there is only one true God.

Mormonism does not hold up to scrutiny.
It is another false religion.

 

[RLT63]

@Mancunian , Romans 8:24-25

24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. Hebrews 11:1 1 ¶ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. This is what you don't understand. It takes no faith to believe in things you can see. We hope for things we cannot see. Faith is the evidence of those things Psalms 42:10 10 As with a sword in my bones, mine enemies reproach me; while they say daily unto me, Where is thy God?

 

[Mancunian]

Just because many miracles are verified, doesn't mean all are. But I find it funny that you continue to not answer questions while asking them. Did you read the thread on Evidence to Be Seen? Have you processed the post there about the false standard of proof atheists use?



So many contradictions. Most Atheists that I've encountered have given a lot of thought to morality and fully understand absolutes. You clearly are indoctrinated into moral relativism and turn a blind eye to the cognitive dissonance you suffer in holding on to your contradictions.

I've seen the pattern before. An atheist abandons his untenable atheism, realizing it is untenable. Another atheist called himself an agnostic, finding it easy to not take a position than defend the indefensible, defending a negation in the presence of positive evidence. One is either in, out or on the threshold. No one is fully in and at the same time, fully out.

From what I've gathered from your posts is that you are, in fact, a deist; You believe a higher power created the universe but now has nothing to do with it. So, why do you invent the label "agnostic atheist?"

I have given an alternative view point, I'm not a deist, I don't think that a God exists, that makes me an atheist, I'm agnostic because I'm not arrogant and can't possibly know whether a God exists or has ever existed.
I'm not a gnostic atheist who claims to know for certain that a God doesn't exist.

 

[Mancunian]

How silly is abiogenesis? That life came from non life? There’s no way, and I don’t believe that I share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. To me, that’s silly, and I agree with you Islam is silly

You are saying exactly that... That life came from none life, God just poofed mankind into existence using some known ingredients that just happened to be available to him.
Or were the ingredients created for natural processes to carry the baton???
Explain why dinosaurs roamed the earth?

 

[Mancunian]

We know that mankind was pretty late to the party... If we're made in God's image, why the rigmarole of prehistoric creatures?
Why bother with Neanderthals?