Inspired by the diatribe, articles and comments of 'Charles Dumbwin', 'SummerSpring' and 'Prime'.
The religious and counter religious articles continue on a steady roll, however the writers representing christianity generally fail to present their argument intelligently. Amazingly many of these articles are filled with vehemence, personal self righteousness and personal indignation, but most (if not all) fail to provide any logical argument that would entice a non believer to their 'Never Never Land', nor lead a coherent non believer to feel that the writer possessed a thought of his/her own.
Sadly, even the ones that are written by reasonably coherant persons endeavour to prove the existance of God, which of course is impossible.
Perhaps the most ridiculous approach to achieve this proof is the use of excerpts from the Bible, with its inconsistancies, myths and dubious origins, as well as historical documents that are vague and generally inappropriate when put in a logical context.
Using these dubious references, they try to prove that Jesus existed and in so doing believe that this would prove God's existance.Alternatively they may seek to disprove a scientific theory, also believing that in so doing they will prove the existance of a god. They are however protected with a very safe escape clause, when daring to challenge the practicality or logic of a doctrine or Biblical paragraph. This clause absolves the need to understand by saying (with different wording) that we are too dumb to understand everything anyway, so knowing all the answers is not necessary. In principal if anything is improbable and unlikely, don't worry about it, you are an idiot, just believe it anyway.And the crowd shouts "Amen"......
Other than seeking to annoy the annoyingly vocal religious zealots, the non believers do not need to disprove anything and generally act in irritated response to the rhetoric and attempted influence on their lives.
Summerspring exerts that athiests are folks who are rebelling against a god and do not want to adhere to his rules. Sadly his opening paragraph "The reason why the atheist doesn’t believe in God..." reduces the article to yet another narrow minded article of limited value. If someone rebels against a god and breaks the associated rules, this would imply that he would need to believe in a god in the first place and retain that belief.He would therefore be nothing more than a dirty little sinner, but not an athiest.
The common misuse of the word 'athiest' is rather naive when it is used to define the 'other than us christians' folk, because it typically exudes ignorance and indoctrination. It clearly implies that the writer is purely repeating terminology drummed into him by similarly indoctrinated folk, without anyone actually knowing what they are talking about. The word's misuse makes it possible to easily evaluate the mental prowess of the individual who presented the article.
As a christian, Summerspring would need to believe that god existed first, thereafter everything else came into being and anyone failing to believe this has abandoned his god and the rules. This is nonsensical as an athiest simply does not believe in a god or deity and therefore has abandoned nothing. To a non believer religion is an 'add on' created by man. How life and the universe came to be will probably always be theorised and though new discoveries will probably be made, it is quite likely to remain a theory. As a christian you are impairing your own life experience to one without real discovery as you have closed your mind and have instead chosen to repeat the same rhyme over and over again, indoctrinating yourself and passing it on to generations to come.
Prime asks the question, "Can a once Christian become unchristian?". I went outside, put some liver paste on my dog's tail and watched him chase it around in circles. Oh, I couldn't get past the second paragraph of Primes article. I remember mention of an 'Athiest'. yawn...
Many non believers adhere to very similar ethics and morals required by most main stream religions, which is not coincidental at all, as they originate from common sense and logic, not from a man made imaginary friend. If you insist on sharing your superior and inciteful knowledge, follow Tyronehster's example of attempting to present an argument worthy of debate.Spewing Rhetoric is just plain moronic.
Tyronehster's article was the first in a while that gave me cause to ponder my own lack of belief, though perhaps a bit lengthy and a bit tedious to read, it was informative.In reality though, no article will influence a realistic and open minded person into believing the unbelievable.
My dear Christians, there is no definitive proof that God or Jesus exists or existed and trying to prove it impresses upon the non believers how incredibly naive and indoctrinated you are. Faith is a personal thing, but what you have is what you have been taught by man, using the instruments of man for the purposes of man, not of a god.
The word Faith says it all, look up the meaning. It does not require proof and if you need faith, then submit.
There is no proof that God exists and only God himself can prove it.He has thus far declined to do many that honour, except perhaps a chosen few, such as the blessed and inciteful folk like Prime, SummerSpring and Charles Dumbwin, who represent Him with humility. (or not....)
I did once see a pink elephant.... Mind you, now that I think back, I was filled with the spirit...Klippies, I think it was....Disclaimer: The use of Uppercase such as 'Him' and "God' is used purely out of respect to Christians like Tyronehster, any typos that cause offence are directed at the zealots )
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.