Forum:Is everyone on RationalWiki an atheist?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Is everyone on RationalWiki an atheist? — Unsigned, by: GrandDukeofGrizzlydale / talk / contribs

No. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Who cares? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The idea for a RationalWiki user survey was always around. But no, not everyone here is an atheist. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
No, only the intelligent ones. Tee hee! - shit meet fan! Scream!! (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Try not sounding like a /r/atheist at least in front of outsiders. :P --ZooGuard (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Most of us are CIA stooges anyway. The stuff about atheism is just a smokescreen. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
the FSM, IPU and Fairy Belinda prefer we not say, so yes , atheists with regard to some things Hamster (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
No, but rationalists, skeptics and people who ask for evidence before belief tend to be or become athiests.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god as has been described by those religions for centuries any more than I believe the Earth is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that a turtle propping up two elephants keeps the Earth in space, or that the stars in the sky are dead lion kings. As time progresses so does our understanding, this is mostly true except in the case of religion, which tends to make myself and other rationalists take a step back and question why exactly that is. I do believe in an infinite multiverse however, and as Bruno described finding providence in infinity, I too see there being far more to understand about the nature of reality than we know now. I understand that given an infinite system, all things become possible however improbable. This to me leaves room for God or a god-like being. However, as rationalwiki points out, believing in the multiverse in some sense still requires just as much leap of faith as does belief in that same Judeo-Christian God does. However, at least with multiverse theory, their is at least some evidence to support the hypothesis, if not any direct evidence of its existence.--Wyt3dr4g0n (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm an agnostic myself, which I think comes from having a scientific background. I find it funny that I hear the same arguments from both anti-theists/atheists and people with faith (not all of either groups, just the most antagonistic). "I know there is/isn't a god, and I have definitive proof! If you don't believe me you're a fool!". Yet the proof always fails any sort of deductive reasoning test. One discussion I had with two friends, a devout Christian and a Harris/Dawkins disciple (both soldiers), mostly entailed them battling over how Occam's Razor proves there isn't a god and how the human eye proves there was.--TheJackolope (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hell no. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 01:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
there are a smattering of Goat and Jerboa worshippers, and the occasional follower of the Floying Spagehtti Monster as well as Belinda, the Fairy of Last Tuesday. Members of the Maratrean dieties are also around. Its a mix. Hamster (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

a completely different discussion[edit]

I am a Christian, a legit one too. I believe Atheism is one of the many paths that lead to hell.Pitzy 17:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)— Unsigned, by: Pits Brazil / talk / contribs

I'm not sure how one variety of nonsense can be more "legit" than another. Could you clarify how you know you're "legit"? Ikanreed (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I call myself agnostic (or, if I'm dealing with someone who's super-religious, I simply say I'm "non-religious"), partly for the sake of avoiding stigma and being non-confrontational. If atheism were deemed less disturbing than agnosticism, I would probably call myself an atheist. But also, "agnostic" describes me better because I don't presume to know whether there's a god out there, somewhere beyond the limits of my five senses. A deep sea fish, which didn't need, and therefore doesn't have, functioning eyes, doesn't know either whether there's a bathosphere shining a light on it; it doesn't mean the lamp doesn't exist. Or the ants in an ant farm may be unaware of their owner. Landmartian (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Though people are often unsure if I'm Catholic or if I worship entropy in the form of Hastur. An argument could be made that there if very little difference between the two.--Castaigne (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I ultimately consider the question of whether god exists or not to be irrelevant to the daily function of my life, and so would be an apatheist despite having other beliefs. --Miekal 18:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I do not know if God exists. I also do not know with absolute certainty that unicorns, fairies or bigfoot don't exist. However, in the absence of any good evidence that they that do exist, I am justified in believing that Gods, fairies and unicorns do not exist. One is a question about knowledge and the other is about belief. As I do not believe that gods exist I am an atheist.--Coffee (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
(ec)Since we're re-opening this discussion, I've got lots to say, particularly about apatheism, but it relates to agnosticism, atheism, and every other term for the "whether there is a god" question. There's a lot of hypothetical gods that would matter to my day-to-day life if they existed, but there's a lot of good reason to doubt those gods existance, because the observational results vis-a-vis that daily life isn't there. I'm not agnostic towards that class of gods, nor should I be. They're non-extant. Then there's the set that I have to be agnostic about because they're almost defined by their lack of evidence: deist gods, faith demanding gods, invisible pink unicorns. I feel compelled to be apatheistic towards that. In the end, I have to shift the burden of proof onto the god claimant, because otherwise, I don't even know what kind of god/goat you're talking about. Ikanreed (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Unicorns are different because they would be something detectable by your senses (unless they were invisible, silent unicorns that are able to pass through matter like neutrinos). If someone were to ask whether such unicorns exist, I would have to disclaim opinion on the matter. I would also probably be an apatheist about it. Landmartian (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Invisible, pink ones can't be detected at all. Ikanreed (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. But is the argument that Gods - and by their extension their influence - are by definition undetectable? Because if neither they nor their influence is detectable then we have no reason to bother about them. If however they are detectable than they should be at least as testable as unicorns.--Coffee (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That was the point of my post. Some hypothetical gods require and justify active atheism. Because they would present evidence. Others seem purposefully cloaked in plausible deniability and require apatheism. It varies. Ikanreed (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I said I am a legit Christian because that's exactly what I am, a legitimate Christian, the one the Bible talks about. Not some fake politician that says that to get votes. ANYWAY Unicorns haven't had an effect on the history or the culture of the world. On the other hand, God has been the basis of EVERYTHING since the dawn of the world 10,000 or so years ago. There is little evidence to suggest that God doesn't exist. Why? Because every Christian is an evidence he DOES exist. Every church shows he DOES exist. Every life changed shows he does exist. Can science bring joy, happiness, and end to addictions? Explain Billy Graham or Abraham Lincoln or Paul or the thousands of influential Christians in the world. Charles Spurgeon. How do you explain the fact you hate the God of the bible more than any other false god, or religion, your all in denial. If you ever explored the sciences, chemistry, anatomy, etc...You will realize how FREAKING COMPLEX THE WORLD IS. Every breath is amazing. Every particle transferring energy and staying in place is AMAZING. LIFE itself is proof the a God exists, we don't need the Bible to tell us that. Go to a third-world country, ask anyone if they happened by chance. They wont tell you about mother nature, no, they will tell you about a Creator, perhaps not MY Creator, but a creator. Think about yourself...As a kid, before your were influenced by Satan. What did you think??? Every time someone dies the bible says that is a warning- a warning that the end is near. For all of us. Are you going to be able to tell God you love him, or that you spent your non-influential and sad, depressed life trying to find happiness and disregarding all mention of someone that freely gives the GRACE of JESUS to those in need. I am a Christian, and I hope all of you become Christians, and I hope that someday I will see you in heaven, and rejoice I was part of your conversion.Or, in the line to Hell.— Unsigned, by: Somebody too dumb to sign / talk / contribs

Counterpoint; every other religion. And I never understood how you can argue "but the world itself proclaims gods existence!" because, hypothetically even if it did absolutely be evident a deity created it, what about it shows it's any more created by some desert hill tribes god than the great spirit of several native tribes? --Miekal 19:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)--Miekal 19:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Point one: Shouting with capital letters doesn't make you right - though it does make you look silly. Point two: What is this evidence? You simply say it exists. What is it?--Coffee (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The evidence - ebola, AIDS, cancer, poverty, starvation, war. Yep, he's an alright dude that god of yours. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
and what's your take on the Problem_of_evil. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I enjoy SHOUTING because I feel like a PREACHER! You asked what is the evidence, for God. Well.. If you want me to repeat the list.. But that would be a long paragraph so I wont. Basically, everything GOOD in the world is evidence for God. Caps are used as like italics for me as well, but that's beside the point. Anyway. Ebola-Sin-Aids-Stupid humans not listening to God when he said have Sex with your wife, Sin-Cancer sin..- Poverty, liberals...Just kidding sin- starvation, greed and sin- war, stupid humans not listening to God, and sin, and plain evil.. I suppose the fact that we want to eliminate the above things is fact that he exists. We want, simply put, perfection. 777. Sadly, humans are imperfect, 666. Jesus came to cast our imperfections and sinful lives away.— Unsigned, by: True Christian™ / talk / contribs

awesome. --Miekal 19:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Good enough for me. I'm converted! The shouting and associated content-free ranting was especially convincing.--Coffee (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think God doesn't exist? Did your mom die? Or are you in denial, or something? Or, you want to be completely logical. Right. Nobody spends their time on a forum like this if they don't really REALLY hate God. And.. no. I wont stop the CAPS, I rather enjoying yelling and ranting, I feel more convincing. I remembered my siggy too!---> Pitzy 19:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Because the idea that there's an all powerful deity running around throwing natural disasters and causing/allowing human made disasters to happen on both widespread and personal scales, and i'm to believe that this deity is benevolent, just and that I should love them for it all, is absolutely horrifying. That I can attribute these things to natural causes instead seems more likely than the doublethink of "loving god who lets lots of terrible things happen"--Miekal 20:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"Nobody spends their time on a forum like this if they don't really REALLY hate God." Typical god-botherer statement. I'm an atheist; I don't hate god -'cause there isn't anything there to hate. Mind you the older I get, the more likely I am to hate god-botherers! Scream!! (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"I feel more convincing" to bad it's just a feeling. Marlow (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Wow. We must all hate unicorns as well. Sorry "HATE" unicorns.--Coffee (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to Welcome a Fellow Christian to this site. I am sure that our strneght and Honesty are equally Firm.--Tolerance (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
So... why care about god if god doesn't exist, right? You have a roundabout way of asking that question, but let's address it honestly. Because people who believe in god, and their interpretations thereof, have very real implications for people who just want to live their lives. Be it your own inexcusable hatred for gay people(seriously, that's on you; grow up), other people's attempt to control our family planning, or some more extreme peoples' attempts to murder and kill. The implications of assuming the absurd are pretty drastic. Wanting to contest that at a root level isn't unreasonable. Ikanreed (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thus spaketh Pitzy: Explain Billy Graham, and the people wailed and shook their fists, for they had not the ingenuity among them to overcome the obviousness of the troll, nor could they answer its challenge. Fonzie (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

. Two of the many consequences of sin coming into the world are sickness and death. Romans 5:12 says, “Sin entered the world through one man and in this way death came to all men because all have sinned.” The worst part is that either one can strike anyone at any time, even innocent little babies. 1 John 5:19 tells us the whole world is under the control of the evil one. He’s the responsible party here because he’s the one who brought sin into the world. As long as there’s sin in the world there will be sickness and death. THIS was too answer the guy that said why did a God let bad crap happen. Pitzy 18:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC) I do not hate Gay people. I do not agree with Gay people. I do not hate you all. I do not agree with any of you. Pitzy 18:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

But didn't God create sin by allowing the serpent to tempt Eve? Why would a benevolent all powerful god create such a scenario? Marlow (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Think about this: A complete stranger invites you to the diner that he owns. You go, order your food, and get ready to pay the bill. This is when the man tells you everything on the menu is free. You can come whenever you want, get whatever you want, and don't have to pay for anything. But, the man tells you that you can not have the turkey sandwich. It is his favorite, as is special to him. Everything ACCEPT that sandwhich. Why? It was to show that he was still the owner, and that by his GRACE and LOVE they could have everything, at no cost to them. Not allowing them to eat the sandwhich showed they were not in control, not all powerful, God was. Lol, when the serpent tempted Eve that wasn't the sin of Eve, when she ate the apple-Turkey Sandwich- BOOM all hell broke loose. Literally. Kind of. Nevermind. Some people think Adam was the first sinner, because he let Eve eat the apple. That's not my view though. Pitzy 18:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Why should i be punished for the crimes of my forbearers? Why is the resturant holding me accountable for the fact somebody else related to me ate a sandwich? Why should i be punished for committing sin if i was never given the chance not to commit sin? If sin entered humanity through adam and eve, my ancestors, and through them i inherited a sinful nature i didn't get a say in, ultimately i'm being punished for something somebody else did, and that is the antithesis of justice. --Miekal 19:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Because we are all human, and you would have done the exact same thing, and perhaps God enjoys when humans freely worship him and choose to accept him and refuse the Apple. That's what it really is, everytime we refuse sin we are refusing that Apple so long ago. Why should you be punished? Well, that's why JESUS CAME!! That's the greatness of it, Jesus came to take away your punishment! So it doesn't matter that you sin anymore, and that Eve took the apple... Pitzy 19:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
But why should i need jesus. The point still stands that people have and are being held accountable because somebody else disobeyed god and then had kids. I didn't eat the apple, my great crime to get me a sinful nature was being born to somebody who also was born to somebody who was also born, on and on, back to adam and eve. I'm being punished because I was born, not because i sinned --Miekal 19:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's the problem: you were not created perfect, you were created with a flaw passed on by your forebearers. You are a factory defect, subject to recall. There's a big factory recall of Takata airbags right now; your argument is like saying, "hey, I bought my car, I paid my money, there is nothing wrong with my airbag. The recall doesn't apply to me." Yet the maker says, "hey, beware, I SCREWED UP in the process of making it. Only I can fix it. If you try to fix your own problem, that voids the warranty, and if harm yourself it's NOT MY PROBLEM anymore." nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 15:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC) I just said this, but this makes it more clear Pitzy 19:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Not an answer, and giving me links is worthless. I want you, you, without copy pasting or anything, to tell me why it's fair that i inherited a sinful nature, and thus am forced to go let jesus in my life or be punished eternally for it. Why should i be punished for the crime of my father?--Miekal 19:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It is illogical to think that two imperfect people could produce perfect offspring. Since Adam and Eve had both sinned and been cursed then it would be impossible for their children to be perfectly free from sin. So the real question is: why would God permit sin nature to pass along to Adam’s descendants?1 Doesn’t that seem harsh? Yeah, bro, it does, but so is Hell. Bible Says Levil was in the body in his father.

If this applies to each person being “in” their ancestors, then we could say Abraham was in the body of Noah before the Flood. And Noah was in the body of his ancestor Adam when he sinned! In a sense, we were all in Adam when he sinned! This explains why we inherit a sin nature. When Adam sinned, a sin nature came over them and since we were in them and our life came from them, we inherit this nature as well.:Guess what, I copy and pasted this, but, here is some biblical passages:For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 :Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned....Romans 5:12— Unsigned, by: True Christian™ / talk / contribs
uh huh... except no, that isn't how that works.--Miekal 19:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Who cares if he copy pastes it Miekal? It's standard Christian apologia and doesn't get at the issue of theodicy very well. In any event, according to Pitzy, an all powerful god created this scenario and even let this devious serpent into the garden to tempt man. Being all powerful he knew exactly what would happen and yet purposely set things up so that they did. Why would a perfect being make such a flawed creation that he knows can't live up to his own expectations? Why a hypothetical situation where the fruit is replaced by a turkey sandwich is supposed be more convincing, I don't know. If someone invited me to his house and said don't eat this sandwich, but also intentionally invited a devious trickster who he knew would trick me into eating the sandwich I'd be a little upset when he kicked me out, sounds like a set up to me. Marlow (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

He didn't make Satan, he didn't want Satan there, but he was. He did know what would happen, and he didn't make a flawed creation. The tree of wasn't flawed, once they ateof the tree it was flawed. And IT WAS POSSIBLE to live up to his expectations. The situation helps some people :/— Unsigned, by: True Christian™ / talk / contribs

So the all powerful, all knowing god that created everything, wasnt able to stop satan from being in the garden? How does that work with the "god must allow all things to happen and can do whatever he wants" trait. IS god not all powerful or all knowing??--Miekal 19:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
He was able, silly child, if he is ALL powerful and ALL knowing, do you think we would understand why he let Satan in? Well, we do a little, to allow Adam and Eve to live their life FREELY, not like robots. Did he know they would fail? yeah...That sucked, but, now I exist, so maybe it wasn't all that bad, and Jesus came, so that doesn't matter anymore. Also, using caps doesn't impress me, because I use them TOO! Pitzy 19:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
why should i worship a god who purposefully screwed me over? Why should i worship a god who, because he wanted to have me "freely choose" to follow him, deliberately crippled my legs while only promising to fix it if i follow him around. How is that anything but abuseful on gods part? How is it even a free choice if my options are "follow" or "go jump on a sword"--Miekal 19:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You want to know why? He sent his bleepin son...his ONLY SON... to DIE... And suffer separation from GOD... That's why you should worship him. Well, that's a choice, isn't it? Love God, or hate God...If you hate God, yeah, your right, that's jumpin on a sword, its suicide. but, with that option on your plate, loving God is oh so much better!!! Pitzy 19:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC) I enjoy talking to you, btw, this is interesting...What Satan fills the minds of unbelievers with. Pitzy 19:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I helped a friend move to a new apartment once (God sending jesus to go die/giving me choice/what have you), asked if we could have sex in return (God demanding i worship him), and then when she said no, i lit her on fire and sent her to forever burn in a pit of evil (God sending me to hell for not worshiping him).. So god is just a bigger, divine version of a MRA. awesome--Miekal 19:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)hahah...HEHEH.MUAAUAHUAHAUH. I finally found what is wrong with your thinking.. God doesn't send people to hell, he saves us. We send ourselves to hell through our sin and willingness to not follow God...Like, why would we reject God after he willingly sent his son to die? That is the worst thing someone could do. And God, looks at your sins, looks at what you have done, realizes you don't have Jesus so pay for any of your sins and says.."I never knew you. I LOVED you..I LOVE You.. but this is what I have to do, otherwise I would not be a perfect, completely fair and loving God." Pitzy 20:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' Do you think he found satisfaction in that? Mathew 7:23. Or he will say well done good and faithful servant..YAYAY!! Pitzy 20:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"God doesn't send people to hell" is where you lost me in that. and "completely fair"? I mean, i guess if the 6 year old girl who thinks olaf and Sven are the funniest shit ever and dies of cancer , while manson gets to apparently live forever, is fair, then we really have nothing to talk about. --Miekal 20:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC) My bad, your right, God isn't completely fair, he kind of cheated when he allowed his son to..SAVE THE WORLD..I mean, all you have to do is have faith... Don't pull that little girl vs manson crap. They are both as guilty and sinful before God's eyes. I don't mean to be cliché, but God's ways are mysterious. And, that is the world that is unfair, because of sin. It isn't perfect, you know.. Don't expect God to be the hero again, he already was, 2000 years ago. Pitzy 20:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC) O.K, God DOES TECHNICALLY send people to hell, but the better question is WHY is he sending people to hell, and the answer is because we rejected is FREE no strings attached gift of Salvation.. Pitzy 20:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd love to know what sins a 6 year old girl commits that makes it so shes going to deserve to burn in hell forever.--Miekal 20:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, do tell me. God is in direct control of this hypothetical process of judgement, but he doesn't "Send you to hell". Because you know, that'd be mean, and god can't be mean so "he saves you" because you say so. Why would an omnibenevolent god choose anything besides universal salvation?
      • Because unrepented sin is beyond his ability to fix? That sure is a weak omnipotence.
      • Because he wants some people to go to hell? That sure is a mean spirited savior.
      • Because he doesn't want some people in heaven? What kind of omnipotent god couldn't change a person, especially once disconnected from their earthly desires?
      • For reasons beyond our understanding? You sure are confident about it for that kind of bullshitty ambiguity. Ikanreed (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What's sins did the 6 year old girl commit? Well, I wouldn't know, but I know that we are born sinners, and she has undoubtedly whined and lied, and that is enough to make her unworthy to stand before Gods utter perfection. You might call it a limitation, but something sinful couldn't even begin to stand in front of PERFECTION itself...WHICH is why Jesus intercedes for us... Ikanreed. God doesn't want some people to go to hell, I think your referring to Satan? Jesus wants everyone to be in heaven, but if you choose to reject God, your going to end up in hell. God spends your entire life trying to change you, and he probably could. but, once again, FREEWILL is the key word here... I don't really need to explain freewill. Just understand that this life is your only chance, and God has been telling you that through people like me and books like the Bible for your whole life. Pitzy 20:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh man, sure sucks for that little girl that she whined and maybe told some fibs. Guess god has to give her cancer and then throw her into hell because of it. Where's mansons cancer though? Why does he get to just sit in crazy town prison and live til he dies at an old age, but the little girl gets punished right away? --Miekal 20:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Shalom, y'all. There's at least one Jew here. Meshakhad (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Make that multiple Jews. Though I'm technically an agnostic. Alsto003 (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Alex

a different question[edit]

since you are so hung up on people freely choosing to follow god or not through jesus, What about people who have never heard of jesus, or God? What about them? all the natives in america before europeans came to take their land and convert them maybe? Is god going to condemn them to hell because they didn't heed the message they never heard because they were busy being native tribes in america and not in the judean countryside?--Miekal 20:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God's law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.And this is the message I proclaim—that the day is coming when God, through Christ Jesus, will judge everyone's secret life." Romans 2:14-16 Pitzy As in, they know that murder is wrong-they know that Rape is wrong- So will they choose not to do those things? Or not... Only God knows who of the unreached people will be saved. Pitzy

That's awesome, but doesn't answer the question. Plus, even if i followed all of gods commandments to the letter, I'd still not be saved, because i am ultimately still unsaved without Jesus, or is Jesus not essential to the process? --Miekal 20:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Jesus is essential to the process, but since none of them have heard of God or Jesus that doesn't mean they are going to hell. Look at the bible verse, if they show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it, they demonstrate that God's law is written in their hearts...God will know their situation (Of course) and will look at their life... Look at the verse. The Bible makes it clear their is a possibility they will be saved. Who knows how. Perhaps, before they die they will know Jesus? Who knows. We trust the word of God. Pitzy

So jesus actually isn't essential, so long as they've never heard of him. Got it, time to airdrop a list of gods commandments, but purposefully hide any mention of jesus. Afterall, then all we need to be judged on is our works and not our faith. --Miekal 22:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I am 14, and do not know all of these answers (I know basic stuff, but, my adolescent hormonal filled body can't explain it well) so, I go on Google.

The Bible also teaches that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2)! And it implies that whoever seeks after God earnestly will find him (Deuteronomy 4:29; Psalm 86:5; Proverbs 8:17; Jeremiah 29:13; Matthew 7:7-8). God is fair as well as just. We are confident, for example, that the Old Testament patriarchs who lived by faith before Jesus’ earthly ministry, are in heaven. So certainly some people have gotten to heaven without knowing Jesus in the personal way that the New Testament speaks of. Ultimately only God can judge as only He knows the individual’s heart. We hold out hope that for those who have not heard but have not rejected God, those have been misinformed, or those who are unable to understand (children, mentally ill, etc) may be pardoned by a just God.

Certainly, the Bible does not teach “universalism.” Universalism is the idea that everyone gets to heaven. I agree with this completely. Yeah, I know you know that I know you don't get to heaven by works.... Pitzy 23:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You knowq, you can keep saying "But jesus died for our sins!" and "But hell!" over and over and over, but neither are that convincing of arguments. --Miekal 23:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's not like the entire Bible was written about one person.
That was sarcastic, because it was written about one person, Jesus, everything points to him, so why not talk about the centerpoint of Christianity? So, do you think that copy paste is correct? Is your question satisfied? Or do you still think everyone who hasn't heard the gospel is going to hell automatically. Pitzy 23:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
not really, i know more than enough that say gotta know jesus. --Miekal 23:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Huh? Pitzy 00:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Do Daniel's Prophecies Prove God's Existence?[edit]

In the book of Daniel he proclaims prophecies from God that basically tell the history of four empires, before anything happened. It's pretty accurate...So do you think that's valid stuff for proving the that God exists? I mean, nobody is that good at guessing... Pitzy
been there, done that Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Funny, but none of those prophecy's DIDN'T come true, in fact, the only negative thing the article said was that it was vague...Well, it was obviously Rome, no need to state that, it's obvious. Everything lined up, the correct order of events. Why is it a failed prophecy, again? Pitzy
Written down after the events no doubt - and excluding mention of the ones that didn't happen. That's assuming you can believe anything 'written' by bronze age herdsmen of course.
Oh and pits, if you don't start signing correctly (Please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png, on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you.) I'm gonna block you! Scream!! (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
see Idk About calling Babylon the greatest empire in Daniels totem pole. Pretty sure rome tops it. Also he seems to have missed out on the empires after rome. And the part where God doesnt seem to have smashed all the human empires with his big stone. --Miekal 18:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
God will smash the empire in the end times, he was talking about when the anti-Christ is here. Also, at the time, Babylon was the greatest... Rome actually fell pretty dang hard, they were pretty stupid. Pitzy 19:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Since all empires fall, predicting that an empire (or four) will end doesn't prove much. BicyclewheelModerator 21:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Pitts, well yes, at the time babylon was the greatest, however, the implication of it being golden was that babylon was a great state, while the rest following were inferior in quality than the short lived empire of Nebby. Also, even if the last one is the anti-christs kingdom, how does this figure into every previous empire between whatever the third is and fourth?--Miekal 22:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Unless it's an empire full of Christians, every empire is the anti-Christs' empire. It's a term for people who don't believe in Jesus. So any heathen empire that fell(and some that interpreters just had theological disagreements with) would fulfill the prophecy. It wouldn't be a prophecy if it couldn't apply to anytime in the last millennium. User:PsychoGecko, 18:40 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Prophecy doesn't work the way you think it does. The point is to call for repentance and holiness, not to foretell inevitable dooms. This is the actual point of the book of Jonah: despite the lengths to which the prophet went to shirk his duty, Nineveh repented and was not smitten. This is the point of Isaiah 38: Hesekiah repents and prays and is spared for a time. We are the salt of the earth; while there are people who care about their neighbors, the earth may yet be preserved. We aren't supposed to pray that the day of wrath should come sooner. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 04:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If you write it vague enough, or if people who come after you try to make events work like the prophecy said, then a prophecy kinda sucks. It's like Penn and Teller when they talked about a Nostradamus prophecy that had been interpreted to mean someone from the Middle East would attack New York. It can be made to fit the events after the fact, but unlike evidence-based methods, it was unable to give enough actual information to predict the events before they happened. Which is something you'd think a prophecy should do. Same reason why, if the Bible had been correct when it said the earth was covered in a solid dome that had holes let in light and water from outside the earth, it still wouldn't have been any better than a lucky guess unless they had any hard evidence as to why they believed it.User:PsychoGecko, 18:32 28 April 2015 (UTC)