jesmond3945:
Not you can, I want you to state them out and prove they actually talk about the future.

The Simpsons cartoon predicted Donald Trump's presidency and many more.

The link below is also an example,

Niflheim:
@tintingz,

You are so correct!!! Many cartoons and comics predicted the future, so I do not know what the big deal about the bible is all about!!!


This is the link:.........................................https://kotaku.com/the-2020-tokyo-olympics-were-predicted-30-years-ago-by-1276381444

Now the question is, do you accept there are failed prophecies in the Bible?

LastDays777:


Let's put it this way: What you call logic in the physical world is a child's play when compared to the spirit realm.

How did you know this?

TOSIN116:

I guess the reason why you are not behaving immorally is because of the constituted authority.
One day when you don't care about what people think of you anymore we will see how you fare.

Who made "anyone else" God?
I don't care what "anyone else" thinks now, and I fare pretty well.

Gggg102:

I'm not implying that atheists have to be immoral. what I mean is that there is nothing holding an atheist back if he chooses to be immoral. they are free from morality in the sense that they are not under any moral code except the one they set for themselves.

That is not true! Atheists can have as much morals as anyone else, and are no more free than anyone else where morality is concerned. There could be quite a lot holding atheists back from being immoral!

(I'd hoped we would have dealt with this in the appropriate thread where you could have learnt what an atheist is but I guess you got distracted or just didn't feel the need to engage with the available evidence so as not to disturb what you believe about atheists!)

budaatum:

That is not true! Atheists can have as much morals as anyone else, and are no more free than anyone else where morality is concerned. There could be quite a lot holding atheists back from being immoral!

(I'd hoped we would have dealt with this in the appropriate thread where you could have learnt what an atheist is but I guess you got distracted or just didn't feel the need to engage with the available evidence so as not to disturb what you believe about atheists!)

I'm not denying that at all. Atheists can have as much morals as possible but, they have more freedom when it comes to morality. they are not like Christians or Muslims whose morality are set in stone.

Christians and Moslems are bound to follow a particular moral code. atheists recognize morality as a subjective experience. an atheist has more control of the moral code he follows.

TOSIN116:

nah... you can't really get the bible without believing.
try reading hebrews 11

and that not why God sent his son to us please click
here for reasons

Did you notice the first line in what you asked me to read? It clearly says, "Recently, God woke [that person] up at 3am and told [that person]......."

So could you please explain to me how that becomes whatever God may have told buda, who God never woke up at 3am?

Buda does not take her God message from third parties so much. Buda considers herself worthy enough for God to get off it's ass and come speak to it's creation buda personally! If you do care to know what God might have told buda go read some of it here please!

As to not understanding Hebrews, I'm going to let that pass, for now.

enilove:

The time is coming when you will regret allowing yourself to be fooled by the devil.

Till then, yawn!

Gggg102:


I'm not denying that at all. Atheists can have as much morals as possible but, they have more freedom when it comes to morality. they are not like Christians or Muslims whose morality are set in stone.

Christians and Moslems are bound to follow a particular moral code. atheists recognize morality as a subjective experience. an atheist has more control of the moral code he follows.

Go read the posts of Niflheim, to see how immoral religious people can sometimes be, so it's not as if some God or Allah stands over those who believe in their existence to stop them being immoral or forcing anyone to be moral.

Everyone has as much freedom as they want whether to be moral or immoral and to decide how moral or immoral they wish to be, Gggg102. No one's morality is set in stone.

budaatum:

Go read the posts of Niflheim, to see how immoral religious people can sometimes be, so it's not as if some God or Allah stands over those who believe in their existence to stop them being immoral or forcing anyone to be moral.

Everyone has as much freedom as they want whether to be moral or immoral and to decide how moral or immoral they wish to be, Gggg102. No one's morality is set in stone.

a theist won't agree. a theist believes morality is set in stone and would agree that those religious people are immoral. they have a strong basis with which they differentiate morality from immorality.

there is no strong basis on which atheists can condemn those religious people.

religious people can be immoral and they are judged as immoral. an atheist can be immoral and judge himself moral. no other person's opinion is binding on him.

theism calls theists to a particular code of morality. atheism frees one from that call.
an atheist can't be moral because of atheism, the atheist morality lies outside his religious (un)belief. the theist is bound by his theism to be moral, the atheist is not bound by his atheism to be anything. an atheist can be anything outside is atheism and he does not stand condemned. if a theist acts outside the moral code, he is condemned.

the fact that you believe morality is subjective proves this point. what is moral to you might not be moral to the next guy. what is immoral to you might be moral to the next guy. how do you now judge on what is moral and immoral when morality and immorality might not mean the same thing to different people?

what if atheist A believes there is nothing wrong with rape? how would you who believe in subjective morality judge him?

a theist does not have this liberty to determine for himself what is right and what is wrong. right and wrong has been set by their god. if they do wrong, they do wrong. there is no way they can justify themselves. they can't subjectively assert that they are right.

enilove:

That is , the chips would be implanted in the right hand or in the forehead as the Bible says .
I hope you people remembered the Obama health care bill which would only be enjoyed by those who have received the chips in their hands ?

It is a pity that ignorant people get to have a voice. Personally, rather than banning the burqa, I would rather ban you from ever uttering another word!

Please consider educating yourself. Ignorance is not an excuse for committing the sin of bearing false witness, and it is highly immoral to create fears from outright lies!

Truth be told, there is a chip program under Obamacare, but not the kind some may think. It's CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program -- it doesn't require any implanted microchips, but is there to provide insurance to low-income kids who fall into the grey area where they aren't eligible for Medicaid benefits but also come from families who can't afford the cost of private health insurance.

And,

Second, nothing in any of those unpassed bills mandated that anyone be implanted with any type of microchip or RFID-based device, for any reason. The passages quoted above reference a section of the legislation that simply called for the creation of a registry which would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to collect data about medical devices “used in or on a patient” (such as pacemakers or hip replacements) for purposes that included tracking the effectiveness of such devices and facilitating the distribution of manufacturer recall notices. Absolutely nothing in those bills required that patients receive any type of implantable device (microchip or otherwise) or authorized the government to mandate the implantation of devices in patients.

Gggg102:


I'm not denying that at all. Atheists can have as much morals as possible but, they have more freedom when it comes to morality. they are not like Christians or Muslims whose morality are set in stone.

Christians and Moslems are bound to follow a particular moral code. atheists recognize morality as a subjective experience. an atheist has more control of the moral code he follows.

Your second paragraph, is morality changing from time to time not better than morality that is stuck in the ancient days?

In both Quran and Bible slavery is morally accepted, is that morally accepted today?

Gggg102:



a theist won't agree. a theist believes morality is set in stone and would agree that those religious people are immoral. they have a strong basis with which they differentiate morality from immorality.

there is no strong basis on which atheists can condemn those religious people.

religious people can be immoral and they are judged as immoral. an atheist can be immoral and judge himself moral. no other person's opinion is binding on him.

theism calls theists to a particular code of morality. atheism frees one from that call.
an atheist can't be moral because of atheism, the atheist morality lies outside his religious (un)belief. the theist is bound by his theism to be moral, the atheist is not bound by his atheism to be anything. an atheist can be anything outside is atheism and he does not stand condemned. if a theist acts outside the moral code, he is condemned.

@bolded, Boko Haram killing people, how do they see thier action, moral or immoral?

Gggg102:



a theist won't agree. a theist believes morality is set in stone and would agree that those religious people are immoral. they have a strong basis with which they differentiate morality from immorality.

there is no strong basis on which atheists can condemn those religious people.

religious people can be immoral and they are judged as immoral. an atheist can be immoral and judge himself moral. no other person's opinion is binding on him.

theism calls theists to a particular code of morality. atheism frees one from that call.
an atheist can't be moral because of atheism, the atheist morality lies outside his religious (un)belief. the theist is bound by his theism to be moral, the atheist is not bound by his atheism to be anything. an atheist can be anything outside is atheism and he does not stand condemned. if a theist acts outside the moral code, he is condemned.

I can only tell you that as far as I know, the individual chooses how moral or immoral they want to be and no gods stand over anyone dictating how moral or immoral they are allowed to be. And that assuming a belief in God makes a person less immoral is an idea that is not supported by reality. To claim an atheist has no "strong basis" for their morals just shows how little knowledge you have of atheists, and morals.

tintingz:
Your second paragraph, is morality changing from time to time not better than morality that is stuck in the ancient days?

In both Quran and Bible slavery is morally accepted, is that morally accepted today?

what makes today's morality better than the morality of ancient days?

if I believe slavery is moral, with what authority would you condemn me? afterall, morality is subjective. my truth may not be your truth and your truth is not superior to my truth.

what if I tell you the ancient morality is better than today's?
what if I also believe things like rape, terrorism,murder... is moral?

.

tintingz:
Your second paragraph, is morality changing from time to time not better than morality that is stuck in the ancient days?

In both Quran and Bible slavery is morally accepted, is that morally accepted today?

Perhaps I'll leave this one to you tintingz, and only comment occasionally. This person has shown how my words are taken and I wouldn't want to disabuse him of his beliefs.

tintingz:
@bolded, Boko Haram killing people, how do they see thier action, moral or immoral?

if I'm to speak from the Christian side, they are immoral. God says it is immoral, end of story.

from Islamic perspective, they are immoral. Allah says it's immoral, end of story.

from their warped version of Islam, they are moral. Allah says it is moral, end of story.

from the atheistic point, my opinion has no value. my opinion is mine and theirs is theirs. my truth is not superior to their truth.
I may believe it is moral. I may believe it is immoral. both are opinions and neither are real truths.

LastDays777:


The Bible contain a lot of secrets and code of this world. You can't understand it using the worldly way of thinking. E.g. when Jesus(Yeshua) said he was going to bring down this building and rebuild it in three days, they thought it was the physical building we see but NO. He meant the spiritual body of Christ.

There are things that goes against logic in the spiritual world. Because you don't understand something doesn't make it a 'child story book'

Thank you. Man is essentially a spirit, has has a body and then a soul to bridge the gap of spirit-body.
Once you miss this simple fact, you miss a lot of things about the man to God relationship.

The unseen world needs to be described with analogy of things we can see and appreciate more easily but people have taken these analogy and make them seem like bedtime stories.

Look at the analogy of death, When Adam fell or died according to God's word he was still walking around physically but with degraded physical features and mind. If when God was creating man He breathes life into the clay of the ground to give consciousness then death connotes lose of consciousness among others.
In Genesis 20. Abimelech died briefly but was still physically alive. People take it to mean Abimelech died physically. Lots of wrong interpretation have been given to the bible.

budaatum:

I can only tell you that as far as I know, the individual chooses how moral or immoral they want to be and no gods stand over anyone dictating how moral or immoral they are allowed to be. And that assuming a belief in God makes a person less immoral is an idea that is not supported by reality. To claim an atheist has no "strong basis" for their morals just shows how little knowledge you have of atheists, and morals.

an individual chooses how moral or immoral they wish to be, but the theist has a fixed definition of what is moral and what isn't. morality is constant for the theist. the morality of the theist is from his theism.

an atheist cannot get morality from his atheism. the morality of the atheist is from outside his atheism. atheism as a worldview does not give a definition of what is moral and what isn't moral. an atheist sources his morality from outside his atheism. morality can vary between individuals. different atheists might get their values from different sources.
a theist has a fixed source to tell him what is good and what is bad. atheism does not define good and evil since good and evil are subjective terms in atheism.

budaatum:

I can only tell you that as far as I know, the individual chooses how moral or immoral they want to be and no gods stand over anyone dictating how moral or immoral they are allowed to be. And that assuming a belief in God makes a person less immoral is an idea that is not supported by reality. To claim an atheist has no "strong basis" for their morals just shows how little knowledge you have of atheists, and morals.

an individual can be moral or immoral regardless of his beliefs. I don't dispute that. a theist can be moral or immoral, an atheist can also be moral or immoral.

the issue is: what is considered moral and what is considered immoral? what makes an action good and another evil? what is moral and what isn't?

for a theist, god decides the morality of an action. whatever god decides is set in stone.

for atheists, morality is subjective. everyone has his own truth.

let's take fornication for instance.

for a Christian , god says fornication is bad, therefore it is bad. a Christian could fornicate and it would be seen as he has done something bad. that Christian would be condemned as immoral.

for atheists, one might believe fornication is immoral, another could see it as completely moral. can the one who sees it as immoral condemn the other? which of them is right? whose morality is true? on what basis can one judge the other?

Gggg102:



if I'm to speak from the Christian side, they are immoral. God says it is immoral, end of story.

Actually if we look at what Yahweh commanded in the old testament about killing unbelievers and taking thier lands, it's morally accepted.

from Islamic perspective, they are immoral. Allah says it's immoral, end of story.

Fighting unbelievers and taking thier lands is morally accepted in the Quran and Hadiths, many Muslims of today are influenced by mordern western laws that they drop the ideology and fine-print it to another thing.

from their warped version of Islam, they are moral. Allah says it is moral, end of story.

Good

from the atheistic point, my opinion has no value. my opinion is mine and theirs is theirs. my truth is not superior to their truth.
I may believe it is moral. I may believe it is immoral. both are opinions and neither are real truths.

Atheists are also bound to the laws of the land, atheists also have sense of morality, most atheists are empathetic when it comes to morality, most atheists are humanists.

The point I'm making is even with moral codes set in the ancient era, people can still behave Immoral and think it's moral.

tintingz:
Archeological evidence can be anything linked to a person's physical existence or sites, since you're so sure Moses lived in Egypt, why not provide archeological evidences of prince of Egypt?

You talk about believe, so by your logic @bolded so even if we didn't see someones archeological evidence the person still exist right? So we can say Spider man, Luke Cage existed if we're to believe.

Don't quote me wrong
What i said is your opinion doesnt define reality.
Example if you don't believe the earth is round that doesnt make it flat.

jokerr:
I am a highly disturbed fellow....please lemme go and find my self cuz its obvious i'm lost

Why is this one always telling me his life problems?

tintingz:
Actually if we look at what Yahweh commanded in the old testament about killing unbelievers and taking thier lands, it's morally accepted.

Fighting unbelievers and taking thier lands is morally accepted in the Quran and Hadiths, many Muslims of today are influenced by mordern western laws that they drop the ideology and fine-print it to another thing.

Good

Atheists are also bound to the laws of the land, atheists also have sense of morality, most atheists are empathetic when it comes to morality, most atheists are humanists.

your first two paragraphs are subjects for another discussion.

atheists are not bound to anything. or should I say atheists are not bound to anything they choose not to be bound to.

the laws of the land are subject to continuous changes and reflect human opinion. they are human constructs.

if the law states that slavery is legal, would you be bound to the law?
if the law states rape is legal, would you follow it?
if the law approved killing people of different mindsets, would you be okay with it?

atheists have a sense of morality but their sense of morality is not gotten from their atheism. atheism does not provide any moral compass. atheists are not compelled to be empathetic or humanists by their atheism. there is no instruction that atheists have to follow a certain moral code as a result of their atheism.
atheists become humanists not because of their atheism.

does atheism instruct you to be good? or does it instruct you to be evil? it does neither. whether you are good or evil is up to you independent of your belief.

atheism also does not provide a definition of what is good and what is evil. what an atheist consider good is up to his subjective experience.

what defines good for you as an atheist? is it binding on all humans? it isn't. as an atheist, what is good for you may be evil for another. your morality is subjective.

The new testament was heavily doctored by the romans and most of the stories in the old testament will be misunderstood if you understand them literally

Gggg102:

let's take fornication for instance.

for a Christian , god says fornication is bad, therefore it is bad. a Christian could fornicate and it would be seen as he has done something bad. that Christian would be condemned as immoral.

for atheists, one might believe fornication is immoral, another could see it as completely moral. can the one who sees it as immoral condemn the other? which of them is right? whose morality is true? on what basis can one judge the other?

I think you mix biblical sin with morality.

Fornication means the act of sex between two unmarried people. These days, most people, regardless of religion or none, have sex with one another without being married, and none of them consider themselves condemned, nor do most people condemn others for so doing. I would go as far as even claiming that you, a Christian, do not condemn other people for having sex outside marriage nor do you consider them immoral. Or do you? Some would even go as far as asking God to bless their fornicating, like the thief who prays to God to not get caught!

God, it would seem says a lot of stuff about a lot of things, but does it not appear to you that no one seems to give much of a damn what God says? Just ask yourself how many things you've done today that God has something to say about but you didn't even think of God, nor do you consider yourself damned because of it.

I repeat, people chose how moral or immoral they want to be regardless of their religion or not, it seems.

tintingz:
The Simpsons cartoon predicted Donald Trump's presidency and many more.

The link below is also an example,



Now the question is, do you accept there are failed prophecies in the Bible?

this is just like the man I saw on youtube that predicted the sinking of the titanic and some other bullocks that I saw. My brother there is a difference between coincidences and prophecies. Meanwhile I would reply you more, I need you to give me the bible verses that failed and an exhaustive list of all predictions from the Internet.

jokerr:
How do u expect normal , rational thinking minds to believe in a fairytale.If u can believe DAT God exists means u believe in Cinderella...

It seems you can't just comprehend.

and if i say who created all things? you'll say you don't know that it was a big bang. what caused the bang? you don't know. and your normal, rational thinking mind will tell you first it was nothing then it exploded! how can something come from a vacuum?
see how stupid you can get just to deny God existence.

tintingz:


The point I'm making is even with moral codes set in the ancient era, people can still behave Immoral and think it's moral.

lemme ask you. as an atheist what makes an action immoral and what makes another moral?
what makes the person who thinks it is moral wrong and you who think it is immoral right?


with moral code set with authority from god, nobody was free to decide what is right and wrong. whatever god said is final. if someone acted immoral, he can't say he acted moral. what he did was immoral and that's final. him saying it's moral is another crime. god had already set morality in stone and anyone who acted against the set rules is immoral.
a theist can not behave immoral and 'think' it is moral because the theist believes only god sets the moral code. when a theist behaves immoral, he is immoral.

for atheists, there is no set in stone code of what is right and what is evil. you can decide fornication is good and another can decide it is evil. there is no fixed definition of good and evil.
you can't say a person acted immorally because your definition of morality is subjective and applies to you alone and also to those who share your subjective view.

if you think fornication is immoral and another person thinks fornication is good. can you say the other person is immoral?
does your subjective opinion overrule his subjective opinion?

budaatum:

Did you notice the first line in what you asked me to read? It clearly says, "Recently, God woke [that person] up at 3am and told [that person]......."

So could you please explain to me how that becomes whatever God may have told buda, who God never woke up at 3am?

Buda does not take her God message from third parties so much. Buda considers herself worthy enough for God to get off it's ass and come speak to it's creation buda personally! If you do care to know what God might have told buda go read some of it here please!

As to not understanding Hebrews, I'm going to let that pass, for now.

If you don't believe in God why talk about his son.

And i told you to read about the purpose of him sending his son and not about the Andrew you called buda.

I explained the source of my morality here. I doubt it would make a difference, but at least you wouldn't honestly say I haven't got any unless you chose to disbelieve me.

Gggg102:



what makes today's morality better than the morality of ancient days?

Because we're more enlighten and evolve in our intellects, your question is like asking what makes morality of today better than stone age?

if I believe slavery is moral, with what authority would you condemn me? afterall, morality is subjective. my truth may not be your truth and your truth is not superior to my truth.

Today slavery is abolished in every country, the law will be against you, civilization will be against you, if you exist during the old testament era slavery is morally accepted.

what if I tell you the ancient morality is better than today's?
what if I also believe things like rape, terrorism,murder... is moral?

There are more babaric practice in ancient morality than today because of human periodic intellects, how humans understand themselves in the past is different today, we're empathetically, intellectually evolving.

In this era, rape, terrorism, murder is immoral, there's a consensus or objective moral in this.