As for the ugliness in our world, we find the cause coming from the first two human beings who lived and had the choice to obey or disobey God. They chose to disobey and we reap the dire, sinful consequence. Read about it in Genesis 3.

But a new heaven and a new earth are coming (See Revelation 21).

Until then, all human beings have the opportunity of new life through Christ: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life’ (John 3:16).

David: <<I would not follow the words of Jesus if they did not tie up with the highest ethical standards unless he pointed out he would torture me for eternity if I didn’t. I would accept he is god and would no longer be an atheist, of course!.>>

Humanistic answers like you have given here are a dud. I know. I tried them. Only a relationship with the God-man, Jesus Christ, changed my life. I would not trade that for all the $$$ in the world.

David: <<Repeat mode on: Even if Anthony Flew was very well known by all atheists, and he wasn’t, his words would not be accepted just because he is an atheist. You obviously have not looked at anything but religious nonsense about him.>>

Your bigotry is showing up again. You want me to believe that your atheism has the sense for me to follows and that anybody’s relationship with Jesus Christ is ‘religious nonsense’. When will you quit using this ad hominem logical fallacy?

(Part 2 continued in Part 3)

(Part 3, continued from Part 2)

David: <<This is funny. I say the divine Jesus is a myth only believed by Christians and you offer proof that he is not, from a Christian view.>>

That is NOT what I stated. This is what I said: <<However, the worldwide evidence indicates that your first statement does not define the nature and personhood of who Jesus is. 'Jesus is God' cannot be a complete statement about his true nature as the New Testament reveals. Your 'Jesus is God' scenario is erecting a straw man logical fallacy as Jesus' nature is more comprehensive than that.>>

He is the God-man Jesus Christ. That’s the biblical evidence. He is not just God. He is God who became flesh and that makes Jesus the God-Man.

sonofgloin,

Knowing the distinction between probability and possibility is very important for forming an accurate representative view of reality. Don’t leave home without it.

Maybe you could answer the question as others are apparently fearful of it.

And a Merry Christmas to you if that gets you through the night. :))

David

OzSpen,

Anthony Flew lost the plot and was manipulated by others to admit to there being a designer when he did not have up to date scientific information. He was suffering from senility at the time. Get your head out of religious websites and smell the roses.

You have failed to properly check this story out and you have failed to understand the unimportance of it. This is a dumb religious strawman. No one cares what Anthony Flew thought. Okay, I’m wrong there. Apparently some Christians think it is important. Let me rephrase that, most atheists are not interested in what Anthony Flew thought.

I really don’t even care if he was of sound mind and chose to believe in a designer force, a deity or a god or even the Christian God, the Islamic Allah or Bugs Bunny.

Calling my comments on this matter, bigotry is inaccurate. (to say the least)

I certainly don’t want discussion with you to go any further. What made you think I would?

A fluster of posts with Biblical quotes, religious stories and anecdotes do not answer the question I posed.

Can you answer it thanks. It will not harm you.

David

SoG,

<<...all the reference books I have use the term nonbeliever when describing the word atheist.>>

Okay...

I'm not sure what your point is, sorry.

Do you mean to say that you have reference books contradicting what myself, Wikipedia and most (if not all) dictionaries say about atheism? If so, could you please list some for me so that I can check them out?

I don't think you can, because I suspect these references don't exist.

<<But at the end of the day there are two words, atheist and agnostic, and each have a specific application.>>

No, essentially theism and atheism go to what you believe, while gnosticism and agnosticism go to what you know. The two are in no way mutually exclusive, even if you only apply your understanding of agnosticism. 

<<Agnostic is best served by the word doubt, meaning no judgment has been made.>>

Not entirely... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

<<Atheist engenders nonbeliever, an absolute position.>>

Erm... no. You've got your absolutes mixed-up in a splendid display of the equivocation fallacy.

'Believer' and 'non-believer' are *logical absolutes*, meaning that one is either a believer, or they are not. Similarly, an object is either a rock, or it is not. There are no in betweens with logical absolutes. 

So in this context, 'believers' believe in a god, everyone else comes under the non-believer category - whether they are doubters, strong atheists, confused, don't know or don't care. 

The "non" in non-believer is simply a negation of the word "believer". It says nothing about how strongly one believes or doesn't and neither does the fact that they are LOGICAL absolutes. 

<<In the context of this thread, atheists have declared there is no god...>>

How so?

David,

You are into logical fallacies again as you have demonstrated here: Genetic fallacy, straw man fallacy, and red herring fallacy.

No, I will not answer any further as there cannot be a logical discussion when you continue to use logical fallacies like this towards my posts.

SoG writes: "Your [David's] position is not as steadfast with the inclusion of the word “possibilities”….and that is all I have been bleating on about."

Wow. 

So the magic word was "possibilities". That's like a cruel joke. It reminds me of those Indian gurus who claim to know the meaning of life, but have never told anyone what it is because they apparently haven't asked the right way.

Incidentally, I did actually cover the difference between 'possibilities' and 'probabilities' with Shockadelic (or maybe you just needed to hear the word from David).

SoG,

While that's all fine and well, you committed three fallacies in the wake of your attempts to hear that one word (and avoid understanding what others had been telling you).

The argumentum ad populum;
The strawman;
The equivocation fallacy;

And you came dangerously close to the argument from ignorance.

Not exactly what one would expect from a thinking man or a fence-sitter.