"The Case for Christ" [Online resource: click] by Lee Strobel is splendid reading for anyone who is utterly convinced of the absence of God or just wishes to learn more, and "The Case for Creation" by the same author is excellent if you want yet more material after that.
Anyone who can read this and still be so concrete in their faith in the absence of God is beyond hope.
Do I understand a lot of the more religious principles behind the Bible, most specifically the ones concerning God, his existence, and his behavior and the more supernatural aspects of our world? Absolutely not. But the first living cell was impossible, automatically ruling out evolution. Now, I don't mean astronomically low odds, which evolution so often relies upon, I'm talking physically impossible.
Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics. To support evolution is to throw our dear Sir Isaac Newton in the wastebin. According to this law of physics, the universe we live in is in a constant state of decay. Evolution states that life is becoming progressively better. These are contradictions.
Charles Darwin was a brilliant man of his day. Biology was a budding science; we knew very little about how organisms functioned. When he observed the slight species variations on the Galapagos Islands, it seemed plain that they all came from the same species. This notion is far from absurd, even likely. Different birds developed slight genetic mutations that caused them to thrive in different areas. Some had pointy beaks, some had bulky beaks, etc. However, this principle cannot be applied to the transformation from one species to another. This phenomenon in the Galapagos birds can be compared to the various breeds of dogs. They are the same species and can mate together. This information for these variations is stored in their genetic code, and it is only a matter of getting the right combination of genes to produce an interesting result. However, in order for a new species to emerge, a very specific kind of mutation must take place; one that spawns with an extra or a missing chromosome. This is not an uncommon occurrence, in fact, Down Syndrome is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome. People with Down Syndrome are not superior to a normal human in any way at all. Similar deformities are caused by the absence of chromosomes. Also observe that differing species cannot mate. Cats cannot reproduce with turtles, nor apes with zebras. We can often use cloning technology to combine their genetic code, yes, but they cannot produce offspring. Yet people with Down Syndrome are capable of reproduction with a human with the appropriate number of chromosomes. Eh?
Darwin's theory was sprung before the advent of micro- and cellular biology. Do a study. Most microbiologists (and astrophysists and astronomers) see the complete impossibility of the evolutionary development of what they studied and though not all desire to be subject to a God, they do acknowledge Intelligent Design. Though Charles' studies were remarkable then, anyone who decides on evolution today is nothing short of ignorant. There are those with arrogance; it is natural for us to deny the presence of a greater being. If we are subject to a greater being, then we cannot do exactly as we please. You complain about Hell. Does the fairest and most just king not throw the most wretched scum into the dungeons? This is what we truly are, and only recognition of this fact will put you on another path.
Now for the other extreme! Did you know that the moon is exactly placed and proportioned so that we have solar and lunar eclipses, where the sun and moon, because of their relative size and distance, appear to be the exact same size? Maybe this alone could be attributed to extreme coincidence. Yes, when an asteroid broke up the Earth, a nicely round and perfectly sized and positioned entity took its place beside us. Did you know that Big Bang theorists believe that nothing exploded? According to our beloved Newton's First Law of Thermodynamics, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Another contradiction. Did you know that any endothermic reaction (AKA the Big Bang) requires reactants, and these reactants must have usable energy? Big Bang? Maybe. But where did the reactant come from? Another Big Bang, perhaps? And from where did that one come? And that one? Do you see my logic at this point?
"It's an amalgamation of texts, all more than 1700 years old."
Actually, its a good bit older that that. And what difference does this make? They are historical documentation of the life of Christ and the Old Testament, and several of them are letters (most from the apostle Paul) to various churches and people. (Namely Titus, Timothy, and the churches at Ephesus and Corinth, to name a few) All of them have purpose, far more than just texts. They were the history books, and they were personal letters. Have you taken the time to read the Bible, even a little bit?
"I admit, many of the characters of the bible probably existed, but men never lived more than 120 years."
Remember good old Newton's Second Law? This makes it very logical that humans would have had longer lifespans when the universe was young. Also, according to the Bible, around 4,000 or so years ago, the Earth's human population was reduced to Noah and his small family and every animal species was reduced to a population of two. Do some research in genetics; this would have a very bad effect on human genetics (Ever wonder why inbreeding is generally illegal?) and would definitely cause lifespans to go way down.
"..there is no way around this apart from the familiar whine of 'God is just testing us.'"
Did I say that? Don't think so.
Your other points were addressed at some point in the text.
Have you ever taken the time to study and learn about religion? I've learned from experience that most aethiests either accept their beliefs out of ignorance or arrogance. Other beliefs like to fall under the same categories.
You claim to know more than your adversaries, yet you can't even spell them. There's no central "beliefs" for atheism, and there are atheists that don't even believe evolution. Also, I like how you claim every religion but Christianity has nothing but ignorant followers. Very Christian of you.
-------------------
The Holy Bible has an astronomical amount of secular archaeological and historic data to support it; far more so than any other system of beliefs.
Except, you know, science and history.
-------------------
For example, Jesus' disciples are described in the Bible as having been martyrs, dying for their beliefs. Historic recordings of the time describe this information, also. To say that this fact alone was false, that the disciples did not die for their beliefs, would be to call some good kings liars.
Two things here.
1: I don't doubt that Jesus existed. There's plenty of evidence that a man named Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago.
2: I don't care if I call a good king a liar. Plenty of people back then were stupid and uneducated, even if their intent was good.
-------------------
Most men won't die for much of anything, yet these men knowingly and willingly put theirs lives at stake to spread the Good News.
You are aware that there are people in the middle east blowing themselves up for their god, right? People died for your religion. Big ****ing deal. People die for every religion.
-------------------
Quote from madk »
And excuse me while I find a law of physics that completely disproves evolution. It's some guy's law, just want to find his name.
You're probably referring to the second law of thermodynamics. Excuse me while I find a rude reaction image.
****, do some research on a site other than evolutionisevil.org. You'd know that even other fundies are ****ing embarrassed by that weak, weak defense by now.
Furthermore, disproving evolution doesn't prove that the Christian god exists. Evolution is not your enemy, it's completely independant of atheism.
-------------------
I'm not one of those people who just believes everything I'm told; I accept the Bible not because it looks pleasant. In some ways, it's not. But the evidence is irrefutable. Do I believe that most Christains are right? No, not necessarily. But the evidence shows: the Bible is correct, and those who do not follow it are the ones who seem foolish.
****. You.
If you came in here and only said that you believed in God, you know what I would have done? Patted you on the back and complimented you for having faith. I'm an atheist, and I have nothing but respect for the religious and the holy, for they have much more self control than I. However, you burst in here, wave around a bunch of ******** everyone already knows, and claim everyone who doesn't agree with you is a fool?
And what do you mean "the bible is correct"? You honestly think that because some of it has historical evidence, it's all completely true? I can write a book claiming grass is green and Mexicans are made of toasters. Portions of the book being true doesn't make it a completely reliable resource. How do you know the bible isn't meant to be interpreted metaphorically? How do you know the translation you're reading is even remotely close?
-------------------
In short, we're having a pleasant conversation, and you come in spewing ******** you copy-pasted off some fundie's blog. The purpose of this thread is to discuss religion, not to try to disprove the other side. Be civil or get the **** out. We don't need you or your hostility.
I am actually quite offended that you're doubting my references. Not a single bit of this is copy-pasted. The only sites I've been looking at as references are cold, hard facts, mostly on encyclopedia sites. That website I linked to? I haven't even read it myself more than I needed in order to know it was what I was looking for. I've actually, whether you choose to believe it or not, done a lot of reading, even books that are in complete support of evolution. Everything I've said that is factual information can be found on the internet on nonchristian sites, most of it even in school textbooks.
You claim to know more than your adversaries, yet you can't even spell them. There's no central "beliefs" for atheism, and there are atheists that don't even believe evolution. Also, I like how you claim every religion but Christianity has nothing but ignorant followers. Very Christian of you.
Yes, my spelling mistake. I was totally wrong there. Now, I am aware that evolution is not for every atheist, but it is for the majority of them. How else did this all come in to being? I've yet to be introduced to anything besides Intelligent Design, Evolution, and some interesting combinations of the two. And by ignorance, I was referring to lack of knowledge of the facts. I mean no insult, if that's what you're saying.
Except, you know, science and history.
Mind pointing out anything other than this that I've used as evidence? I was trying to be careful as to avoid this kind of remark. Unfortunately, you made your post before I finished amending mine.
You are aware that there are people in the middle east blowing themselves up for their god, right? People died for your religion. Big ****ing deal. People die for every religion.
These poor people are brainwashed from childhood, and this is a large part of it. You know the kamikazes? They were told that dying and killing infidels would earn them a high place in heaven. Suicide bombers? Same thing. Do you know that Christians are told to love their enemies? Pray for those who wrongly use them? Love their neighbors as themselves? Also, though martyrdom is definitely not viewed in a negative light in the Bible, it certainly is nowhere encouraged. These twelve men did not kill themselves. [Judas being the exception, anyone who's read the gospels well should know that Matthias was a faithful disciple who later took his place.] They served Christ until their time was come.
And what do you mean "the bible is correct"? You honestly think that because some of it has historical evidence, it's all completely true? I can write a book claiming grass is green and Mexicans are made of toasters. Portions of the book being true doesn't make it a completely reliable resource. How do you know the bible isn't meant to be interpreted metaphorically? How do you know the translation you're reading is even remotely close
Then don't just sit there; prove it wrong.
How do you know the bible isn't meant to be interpreted metaphorically?
Tell me what should make you think it is meant to be; tell me one passage that you're doubtful about. I'll find an answer for you. The parables were perhaps metaphors, but they are fictional stories told by Jesus. The vast majority of the Bible is history, not doctrine. Maybe if you realized this it would help you out a bit.
How do you know the translation you're reading is even remotely close
When I went and reread I laughed. Did you know that it's not? The King James Version of the Bible, the most widely used translation, is riddled with incorrect translations? Did you know that the original Greek and Hebrew texts are easily accessible online? Yea, this is about as invalid an argument as it gets. Not that the KJV is horrible, but if you're actually studying, get into the original language a bit.
There are those with arrogance; it is natural for us to deny the presence of a greater being. If we are subject to a greater being, then we cannot do exactly as we please.
Oh, now I see where you were going with this. Atheists are only atheists because they're selfish, promiscuous and sinful, right? What about people who believe in gods who DO let them do whatever they want?
Maybe this alone could be attributed to extreme coincidence. Yes, when an asteroid broke up the Earth, a nicely round and perfectly sized and positioned entity took its place beside us. Did you know that Big Bang theorists believe that nothing exploded? According to our beloved Newton's First Law of Thermodynamics, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Another contradiction. Did you know that any endothermic reaction (AKA the Big Bang) requires reactants, and these reactants must have usable energy? Big Bang? Maybe. But where did the reactant come from? Another Big Bang, perhaps? And from where did that one come? And that one? Do you see my logic at this point?
Alright, then. Where did God come from? Hmm? If you can believe God has always existed, I'm allowed to believe the universe has always existed.
I am actually quite offended that you're doubting my references.
What a coincidence. I'm actually quite offended that you called me and many of my friends ignorant fools.
Then don't just sit there; prove it wrong.
This is the very central point of my presence in this topic. I don't want to prove you wrong.
Most of the world's greatest scientists were Christian. I love a Christian girl. My family is Christian. I plan to adopt a child and raise him or her Christian.
Faith, when practiced correctly, is a great thing. It strengthens bonds, straightens out the mischievous, and gives people hope. I don't want to prove it wrong. You are allowed to believe whatever you want to believe. Who am I to tell you what to do? Who am I to call you ignorant or foolish? Who am I to say whether or not God exists? Why would I even WANT to make you an atheist? Turning the devout to atheism after they've matured never ends well. Belief makes you happy, and that makes me happy.
I'm no-one. I'm an average speck of meat on a rock hurdling through space, and so are you. Neither of us can ever KNOW if there is a god. I will never say "There is no God". You, however, seem to think it's appropriate to state your opinion as FACT and call me a fool.
The only thing I want you to see is, holy ****! MAYBE you're wrong! I mean, you assume atheism and antitheism are the same thing, and you think I'm the ignorant one?
Atheists are only atheists because they're selfish, promiscuous and sinful, right?
Heh, a lot of them, actually, yes.
There are two reasons somebody would be an atheist; allow me to clarify since you think I'm trying to call you a fool.
One will either not realize that there is a God because they do not have sufficient knowledge on the particular subject to believe so.
Or, they realize that there must be a God, but are unwilling to accept it.
Alright, then. Where did God come from? Hmm? If you can believe God has always existed, I'm allowed to believe the universe has always existed.
That's actually one argument that's just a bit new to me, due to the utter uselessness of it. You're not proving nor disproving anything. Good for you, you can believe that according to Newton's Second Law (yes, I like do Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics, thank you) the universe previously had an infinite amount of energy to get to the point here it is now. At least a supernatural God is not bound by the laws of physics. Like I said, I am aware of the apparent absurdity of God, the "I am". But ask any true Christian who has been so for a while, and they can tell you that prayers to Jesus are answered, and sometimes in supernatural ways.
You strike me as someone who really leads a crooked life based solely on the information you gave me. You're living behind a mask from the people you love, but don't personally believe. Yes, faith is an excellent thing and people can be quite useless without it sometimes. But faith is not accepting a notion as a possibility. Truly, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Atheists are only atheists because they're selfish, promiscuous and sinful, right?
Heh, a lot of them, actually, yes.
There are two reasons somebody would be an atheist; allow me to clarify since you think I'm trying to call you a fool.
One will either not realize that there is a God because they do not have sufficient knowledge on the particular subject to believe so.
Or, they realize that there must be a God, but are unwilling to accept it.
You're officially prejudiced. You're no better than a racist or a sexist. Jesus frowns upon these. Enjoy hell.
You strike me as someone who really leads a crooked life based solely on the information you gave me.
You're officially prejudiced. You're no better than a racist or a sexist. Jesus frowns upon these. Enjoy hell.
Prejudiced? Really? Is God prejudiced? It might help if you would support your claims with other examples. Additionally, this comment shows how little you know about the religion you claim to appear as a part of. "...I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand." Once saved by grace, always saved by grace.
"For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"
"ALL our righteous acts are like filthy rags"
Mighty presumptuous, don't you think? All? Why, certainly.
I appreciate that you are damning me to Hell for pointing out the obvious.
Sure, if someone were so self-absorbed, they'd take anything I just said as an insult to their liberty; there's no way around that. I've sown a seed, they need to realize the Gospel. But if someone was here for any purpose other than to hurl insults and accusations, I rather think that they would see and learn. I realize that's how you see a lot of what I've said - insults and accusations - but they are true, based on, if one chooses to believe it, the Bible. The Bible is not a soothing love song to the godless, and I'm quite sorry if you think religion's purpose is to be a cushion and a convenience.
And do me a favor: look back on the posts of ours, and see that you have not disproven any of what I've said while I have shown you where your statements went wrong. You've gone for the unavoidably personally hurtful facts and minor spelling or clarity mistakes and focused on them. You seem to have ignored the hopefully convincing facts I provided. Can you not stand by your own beliefs? I would suggest thinking long and hard about what you want to believe, because it is not going to lead you to where you'd like to go. Your eternal being is on the line, not merely a fanciful argument. Learn what your family has, and embrace it fully, provided that it is a true Christianity.
Peri, madk, you've officially crossed the lines of debate to the point where you're not debating, you're just nit-picking at yourselves for your religious beliefs and creating an argument. Stop it before I bar each of you from this thread, or dare I say a momentary ban. I enjoy banning people very much, not for the ego empowerment, but more as a stress reliever, so if you dare repeat this again, I will not hesitate to ban, Peri and madk. Stop yourselves before I interfere, and you will not like it when I interfere.
I fished this out of the trash because I still have that little, itty-bitty glimmer of hope and faith that you people can have a proper discussion without this kind of commentary:
I appreciate that you are damning me to Hell.
And many other examples I can point out. If this thread degenerates into these kinds of comments, I'm re-trashing this into the compost heap for good. Don't disappoint me.
Augh, what? I felt like I was the one being totally sensible :tongue.gif: After all, that comment you quoted was because that's exactly what he did to me <.< Not to mention the quote was rather taken out of context..
Anyway, Peri, no hard feelings or anything, but I really would appreciate it if you'd read up on the site I linked to. It's got heaps of good information.
Augh, what? I felt like I was the one being totally sensible :tongue.gif: After all, that comment you quoted was because that's exactly what he did to me <.< Not to mention the quote was rather taken out of context..
No, no. You didn't read my post correctly. Both of you are to blame equally; you fed each others flame into a perpetual heated topic. I merely used your quote as an example for others on what not to do, the context is useless. Don't think I read through the entire thread? You're very wrong. I hold you two accountable for disrupting what was a perfectly calm and chilled debate and discussion with petty insults, this goes with Peri and madk.
So no, madk, you weren't being sensible. It's a sure fire (forget the pun) sign people in this thread aren't sensible when a moderator trashes it and then another fishes it back out for said reasons previously stated here, and then threatens said people with bans. I daresay it's a ProTip. Kiss and make up, madk and Peri, or suffer the consequences.
Now that that's over, *takes off fake Hitler mustache, puts away hammer*. This actually brings up the reason why we don't have a Debate Forum in the first place. I thank myself for reminding myself of that. *pats himself in the back*
But the first living cell was impossible, automatically ruling out evolution.
I'd like to point out that this makes no sense whatsoever since evolution doesn't care about how the first cell came to be. It merely describes how life changes with no regards to how it began.
We don't yet know how life began, and I'm perfectly fine with not knowing. What I'm not fine with is when people take a gap in our knowledge and fill it with nonsense.
Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics. To support evolution is to throw our dear Sir Isaac Newton in the wastebin. According to this law of physics, the universe we live in is in a constant state of decay. Evolution states that life is becoming progressively better. These are contradictions.
Also, that's not the second law of thermodynamics. It mentions nothing about decay. It states that any system increases in complexity as time progresses, which exactly describes evolution. I would also like to point out that evolution is one of the most solid theories in existence and is also an observable fact on a smaller scale. No actual microbiologist would ever say it isn't.
Also, the Big Bang was exothermic. We don't know what caused it nor do we pretend to.
I'd just like to inject a bit of sensibility into all of this. Madk's arguments are riddled with an unspeakable number of holes (that haven't really been touched upon), and I'd just like to point out some major ones, like tears in a screen door.
I binned this for a reason - this topic flirts with disaster by its very nature, and all roads traveled here will lead to flames. I had assumed that the most recent posts were evidence enough of that. Ruling those out, understand that my removal of this topic is a preemptive measure - it's easier to prevent a fire than to put one out. It has been decided, however, to leave this topic available for review, for posterity. Closed.
Anyone who can read this and still be so concrete in their faith in the absence of God is beyond hope.
Do I understand a lot of the more religious principles behind the Bible, most specifically the ones concerning God, his existence, and his behavior and the more supernatural aspects of our world? Absolutely not. But the first living cell was impossible, automatically ruling out evolution. Now, I don't mean astronomically low odds, which evolution so often relies upon, I'm talking physically impossible.
Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics. To support evolution is to throw our dear Sir Isaac Newton in the wastebin. According to this law of physics, the universe we live in is in a constant state of decay. Evolution states that life is becoming progressively better. These are contradictions.
Charles Darwin was a brilliant man of his day. Biology was a budding science; we knew very little about how organisms functioned. When he observed the slight species variations on the Galapagos Islands, it seemed plain that they all came from the same species. This notion is far from absurd, even likely. Different birds developed slight genetic mutations that caused them to thrive in different areas. Some had pointy beaks, some had bulky beaks, etc. However, this principle cannot be applied to the transformation from one species to another. This phenomenon in the Galapagos birds can be compared to the various breeds of dogs. They are the same species and can mate together. This information for these variations is stored in their genetic code, and it is only a matter of getting the right combination of genes to produce an interesting result. However, in order for a new species to emerge, a very specific kind of mutation must take place; one that spawns with an extra or a missing chromosome. This is not an uncommon occurrence, in fact, Down Syndrome is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome. People with Down Syndrome are not superior to a normal human in any way at all. Similar deformities are caused by the absence of chromosomes. Also observe that differing species cannot mate. Cats cannot reproduce with turtles, nor apes with zebras. We can often use cloning technology to combine their genetic code, yes, but they cannot produce offspring. Yet people with Down Syndrome are capable of reproduction with a human with the appropriate number of chromosomes. Eh?
Darwin's theory was sprung before the advent of micro- and cellular biology. Do a study. Most microbiologists (and astrophysists and astronomers) see the complete impossibility of the evolutionary development of what they studied and though not all desire to be subject to a God, they do acknowledge Intelligent Design. Though Charles' studies were remarkable then, anyone who decides on evolution today is nothing short of ignorant. There are those with arrogance; it is natural for us to deny the presence of a greater being. If we are subject to a greater being, then we cannot do exactly as we please. You complain about Hell. Does the fairest and most just king not throw the most wretched scum into the dungeons? This is what we truly are, and only recognition of this fact will put you on another path.
Now for the other extreme! Did you know that the moon is exactly placed and proportioned so that we have solar and lunar eclipses, where the sun and moon, because of their relative size and distance, appear to be the exact same size? Maybe this alone could be attributed to extreme coincidence. Yes, when an asteroid broke up the Earth, a nicely round and perfectly sized and positioned entity took its place beside us. Did you know that Big Bang theorists believe that nothing exploded? According to our beloved Newton's First Law of Thermodynamics, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Another contradiction. Did you know that any endothermic reaction (AKA the Big Bang) requires reactants, and these reactants must have usable energy? Big Bang? Maybe. But where did the reactant come from? Another Big Bang, perhaps? And from where did that one come? And that one? Do you see my logic at this point?
"It's an amalgamation of texts, all more than 1700 years old."
Actually, its a good bit older that that. And what difference does this make? They are historical documentation of the life of Christ and the Old Testament, and several of them are letters (most from the apostle Paul) to various churches and people. (Namely Titus, Timothy, and the churches at Ephesus and Corinth, to name a few) All of them have purpose, far more than just texts. They were the history books, and they were personal letters. Have you taken the time to read the Bible, even a little bit?
"I admit, many of the characters of the bible probably existed, but men never lived more than 120 years."
Remember good old Newton's Second Law? This makes it very logical that humans would have had longer lifespans when the universe was young. Also, according to the Bible, around 4,000 or so years ago, the Earth's human population was reduced to Noah and his small family and every animal species was reduced to a population of two. Do some research in genetics; this would have a very bad effect on human genetics (Ever wonder why inbreeding is generally illegal?) and would definitely cause lifespans to go way down.
"..there is no way around this apart from the familiar whine of 'God is just testing us.'"
Did I say that? Don't think so.
Your other points were addressed at some point in the text.
You claim to know more than your adversaries, yet you can't even spell them. There's no central "beliefs" for atheism, and there are atheists that don't even believe evolution. Also, I like how you claim every religion but Christianity has nothing but ignorant followers. Very Christian of you.
-------------------
Except, you know, science and history.
-------------------
Two things here.
1: I don't doubt that Jesus existed. There's plenty of evidence that a man named Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago.
2: I don't care if I call a good king a liar. Plenty of people back then were stupid and uneducated, even if their intent was good.
-------------------
You are aware that there are people in the middle east blowing themselves up for their god, right? People died for your religion. Big ****ing deal. People die for every religion.
-------------------
You're probably referring to the second law of thermodynamics. Excuse me while I find a rude reaction image.
****, do some research on a site other than evolutionisevil.org. You'd know that even other fundies are ****ing embarrassed by that weak, weak defense by now.
Furthermore, disproving evolution doesn't prove that the Christian god exists. Evolution is not your enemy, it's completely independant of atheism.
-------------------
****. You.
If you came in here and only said that you believed in God, you know what I would have done? Patted you on the back and complimented you for having faith. I'm an atheist, and I have nothing but respect for the religious and the holy, for they have much more self control than I. However, you burst in here, wave around a bunch of ******** everyone already knows, and claim everyone who doesn't agree with you is a fool?
And what do you mean "the bible is correct"? You honestly think that because some of it has historical evidence, it's all completely true? I can write a book claiming grass is green and Mexicans are made of toasters. Portions of the book being true doesn't make it a completely reliable resource. How do you know the bible isn't meant to be interpreted metaphorically? How do you know the translation you're reading is even remotely close?
-------------------
In short, we're having a pleasant conversation, and you come in spewing ******** you copy-pasted off some fundie's blog. The purpose of this thread is to discuss religion, not to try to disprove the other side. Be civil or get the **** out. We don't need you or your hostility.
Yes, my spelling mistake. I was totally wrong there. Now, I am aware that evolution is not for every atheist, but it is for the majority of them. How else did this all come in to being? I've yet to be introduced to anything besides Intelligent Design, Evolution, and some interesting combinations of the two. And by ignorance, I was referring to lack of knowledge of the facts. I mean no insult, if that's what you're saying.
Mind pointing out anything other than this that I've used as evidence? I was trying to be careful as to avoid this kind of remark. Unfortunately, you made your post before I finished amending mine.
These poor people are brainwashed from childhood, and this is a large part of it. You know the kamikazes? They were told that dying and killing infidels would earn them a high place in heaven. Suicide bombers? Same thing. Do you know that Christians are told to love their enemies? Pray for those who wrongly use them? Love their neighbors as themselves? Also, though martyrdom is definitely not viewed in a negative light in the Bible, it certainly is nowhere encouraged. These twelve men did not kill themselves. [Judas being the exception, anyone who's read the gospels well should know that Matthias was a faithful disciple who later took his place.] They served Christ until their time was come.
Then don't just sit there; prove it wrong.
Tell me what should make you think it is meant to be; tell me one passage that you're doubtful about. I'll find an answer for you. The parables were perhaps metaphors, but they are fictional stories told by Jesus. The vast majority of the Bible is history, not doctrine. Maybe if you realized this it would help you out a bit.
When I went and reread I laughed. Did you know that it's not? The King James Version of the Bible, the most widely used translation, is riddled with incorrect translations? Did you know that the original Greek and Hebrew texts are easily accessible online? Yea, this is about as invalid an argument as it gets. Not that the KJV is horrible, but if you're actually studying, get into the original language a bit.
Oh, now I see where you were going with this. Atheists are only atheists because they're selfish, promiscuous and sinful, right? What about people who believe in gods who DO let them do whatever they want?
Alright, then. Where did God come from? Hmm? If you can believe God has always existed, I'm allowed to believe the universe has always existed.
What a coincidence. I'm actually quite offended that you called me and many of my friends ignorant fools.
This is the very central point of my presence in this topic. I don't want to prove you wrong.
Most of the world's greatest scientists were Christian. I love a Christian girl. My family is Christian. I plan to adopt a child and raise him or her Christian.
Faith, when practiced correctly, is a great thing. It strengthens bonds, straightens out the mischievous, and gives people hope. I don't want to prove it wrong. You are allowed to believe whatever you want to believe. Who am I to tell you what to do? Who am I to call you ignorant or foolish? Who am I to say whether or not God exists? Why would I even WANT to make you an atheist? Turning the devout to atheism after they've matured never ends well. Belief makes you happy, and that makes me happy.
I'm no-one. I'm an average speck of meat on a rock hurdling through space, and so are you. Neither of us can ever KNOW if there is a god. I will never say "There is no God". You, however, seem to think it's appropriate to state your opinion as FACT and call me a fool.
The only thing I want you to see is, holy ****! MAYBE you're wrong! I mean, you assume atheism and antitheism are the same thing, and you think I'm the ignorant one?
Heh, a lot of them, actually, yes.
There are two reasons somebody would be an atheist; allow me to clarify since you think I'm trying to call you a fool.
One will either not realize that there is a God because they do not have sufficient knowledge on the particular subject to believe so.
Or, they realize that there must be a God, but are unwilling to accept it.
That's actually one argument that's just a bit new to me, due to the utter uselessness of it. You're not proving nor disproving anything. Good for you, you can believe that according to Newton's Second Law (yes, I like do Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics, thank you) the universe previously had an infinite amount of energy to get to the point here it is now. At least a supernatural God is not bound by the laws of physics. Like I said, I am aware of the apparent absurdity of God, the "I am". But ask any true Christian who has been so for a while, and they can tell you that prayers to Jesus are answered, and sometimes in supernatural ways.
You strike me as someone who really leads a crooked life based solely on the information you gave me. You're living behind a mask from the people you love, but don't personally believe. Yes, faith is an excellent thing and people can be quite useless without it sometimes. But faith is not accepting a notion as a possibility. Truly, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
You're officially prejudiced. You're no better than a racist or a sexist. Jesus frowns upon these. Enjoy hell.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Prejudiced? Really? Is God prejudiced? It might help if you would support your claims with other examples. Additionally, this comment shows how little you know about the religion you claim to appear as a part of. "...I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand." Once saved by grace, always saved by grace.
"For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"
"ALL our righteous acts are like filthy rags"
Mighty presumptuous, don't you think? All? Why, certainly.
I appreciate that you are damning me to Hell for pointing out the obvious.
No problem.
Call me back once you've realized that you're a sick man doing nothing but driving souls AWAY from Jesus.
And do me a favor: look back on the posts of ours, and see that you have not disproven any of what I've said while I have shown you where your statements went wrong. You've gone for the unavoidably personally hurtful facts and minor spelling or clarity mistakes and focused on them. You seem to have ignored the hopefully convincing facts I provided. Can you not stand by your own beliefs? I would suggest thinking long and hard about what you want to believe, because it is not going to lead you to where you'd like to go. Your eternal being is on the line, not merely a fanciful argument. Learn what your family has, and embrace it fully, provided that it is a true Christianity.
Peri, madk, you've officially crossed the lines of debate to the point where you're not debating, you're just nit-picking at yourselves for your religious beliefs and creating an argument. Stop it before I bar each of you from this thread, or dare I say a momentary ban. I enjoy banning people very much, not for the ego empowerment, but more as a stress reliever, so if you dare repeat this again, I will not hesitate to ban, Peri and madk. Stop yourselves before I interfere, and you will not like it when I interfere.
I fished this out of the trash because I still have that little, itty-bitty glimmer of hope and faith that you people can have a proper discussion without this kind of commentary:
And many other examples I can point out. If this thread degenerates into these kinds of comments, I'm re-trashing this into the compost heap for good. Don't disappoint me.
Science is always trying to update, with new theories.
Anyway, Peri, no hard feelings or anything, but I really would appreciate it if you'd read up on the site I linked to. It's got heaps of good information.
No, no. You didn't read my post correctly. Both of you are to blame equally; you fed each others flame into a perpetual heated topic. I merely used your quote as an example for others on what not to do, the context is useless. Don't think I read through the entire thread? You're very wrong. I hold you two accountable for disrupting what was a perfectly calm and chilled debate and discussion with petty insults, this goes with Peri and madk.
So no, madk, you weren't being sensible. It's a sure fire (forget the pun) sign people in this thread aren't sensible when a moderator trashes it and then another fishes it back out for said reasons previously stated here, and then threatens said people with bans. I daresay it's a ProTip. Kiss and make up, madk and Peri, or suffer the consequences.
Now that that's over, *takes off fake Hitler mustache, puts away hammer*. This actually brings up the reason why we don't have a Debate Forum in the first place. I thank myself for reminding myself of that. *pats himself in the back*
I'd like to point out that this makes no sense whatsoever since evolution doesn't care about how the first cell came to be. It merely describes how life changes with no regards to how it began.
We don't yet know how life began, and I'm perfectly fine with not knowing. What I'm not fine with is when people take a gap in our knowledge and fill it with nonsense.
Also, that's not the second law of thermodynamics. It mentions nothing about decay. It states that any system increases in complexity as time progresses, which exactly describes evolution. I would also like to point out that evolution is one of the most solid theories in existence and is also an observable fact on a smaller scale. No actual microbiologist would ever say it isn't.
Also, the Big Bang was exothermic. We don't know what caused it nor do we pretend to.
I'd just like to inject a bit of sensibility into all of this. Madk's arguments are riddled with an unspeakable number of holes (that haven't really been touched upon), and I'd just like to point out some major ones, like tears in a screen door.
Relic of a bygone age.