ForumsWEPRTheism and Atheism

4668 1385341
thepyro222
offline
thepyro222
2,151 posts
Peasant

I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please

  • 4,668 Replies
Moe
offline
Moe
1,715 posts
Blacksmith

You're taking theories and hypothesis that have not yet been proven as truth, but I'm the idiot for doing the same thing because I believe in God.


The difference is that our theories have mountains of evidence, real evidence. Your "theories" have circular reasoning and a lack of any valid evidence.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,557 posts
Jester

I can come at you with supporting science for Christianity, but guess what you would do, you all would call it biased


Not if it wasn't, go on, put up the links. Or is this just talk.

You're taking theories and hypothesis that have not yet been proven as truth


Do you even know what a scientific theory is?

anytime I say anything to any of you, you shoot it down as biased or unreliable


Because, so far, you have sounded like exactly what you are talking about.

Otherwise, all you're doing is you're set out to destroy Christianity and my beliefs only because they are different from yours.


I have never intended to destroy Christianity, although I can't speak for others. I have only asked questions, and never received a legitimate response, or when I have, it's been utterly laughable.

You all truly have no idea what you are talking about.


Methinks you just read our post and regurgitate the terms people call you because you don't know what they mean and want to sound like you do.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

The problem is that sound logic requires truth, which to the best of human knowledge is requires fact.

What do you mean by this?
Draconigena
offline
Draconigena
102 posts
Nomad

You're taking theories and hypothesis that have not yet been proven as truth, but I'm the idiot for doing the same thing because I believe in God. Wake up and smell the coffee. You're all being hypocrites, and you're all being so closed minded that anytime I say anything to any of you, you shoot it down as biased or unreliable. There is no point in debating anymore, because all you're doing is being a hypocrite.

Funny, that's exactly what you've been doing.
loloynage2
offline
loloynage2
4,211 posts
Peasant

and how in the heck are they so perfect that we are a specific, perfect distance away from the Sun, with an ideal orbit pattern, and everything is tailor- made to support life.

That would be cosmic selection. Just like natural selection, if the earth wouldn't be suited for life then we wouldn't be here and probably in an other planet, if not, completely non-existent.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

Again, you keep talking about science. Science and religion don't mix. You can't argue apples with oranges.


You argue your God has an effect on this universe, that puts him on the scientific playing field.

And for your set of laws, who put them in place?


Nobody. The way you state the question is fallacious.

why were they made the way they were?



Again the way you state this is fallacious implying a creator when one is not needed. I don't fully understand it but from what I gather it has something to do with the nature of quantum mechanics.

and how in the heck are they so perfect that we are a specific, perfect distance away from the Sun, with an ideal orbit pattern, and everything is tailor- made to support life.


It's the mold, we are the product of that mold. It's no wonder we would fit. Also it's not perfect, even on this planet alone there are places we could never survive.

Speaking of life, how can you submit that some random crap organized it self and replicated over and over again to make such complex life forms?


Again you imply it was all just random chance which is not correct. We can submit this because we have loads of evidence for it.

yeah. Science does a hell of a job explaining everything


If you bothered to learn what science actually says instead of remaining in your constant state of ignorance you might just find out how good of a job science does at explaining things.

You compared science to a box that God doesn't fit in. I think God is a box you are stuck in, giving you a very limited view of the world around you.
Moe
offline
Moe
1,715 posts
Blacksmith

What do you mean by this?


He claimed to be using sound logic, but to have sound logic you must have truth(from Moegreche's post about logic). Truth according to Merriam Webster is fact. Therefore if he is not using fact, he is not using sound logic.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

everything is tailor- made to support life.

Say you found life on another planet. Would you expect the creatures there to be not adapted to their environment? Because those creatures that are adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, and will propagate more of themselves in the future, so that you will basically have more and more individuals who are well-adapted to their environment.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

I was actually born atheist


So was everyone else...Ever....

I can come at you with supporting science for Christianity, but guess what you would do, you all would call it biased


I would probably call it idiotic and stupid, as well as biased, since I haven't actually seen any actual supporting evidence. Find some actual evidence and I won't be able to call it biased, then, will I? Hit me with your best shot.

You're taking theories and hypothesis that have not yet been proven as truth, but I'm the idiot for doing the same thing because I believe in God.


No, I am talking about theories that are probably true, and you are talking about what a two thousand year old book written by bronze age goat hearers who where speculating that the earth was only a few generations old and that the stars where just lanterns hanging there the size that you see them.

Wake up and smell the coffee. You're all being hypocrites, and you're all being so closed minded that anytime I say anything to any of you, you shoot it down as biased or unreliable.


That happens when you keep bringing biased and unreliable sources into this. The world was never covered by a sheet of water just dangling out side of the atmosphere, there was never a global flood, the earth was not created in seven days, there is no god. If you bring a source that uses real science, feel free, but you to this date have not.

here is no point in debating anymore, because all you're doing is being a hypocrite.


Us: Here is the objective evidence, lets see what we can make of this.

You: Here is the random stuff I found in Ken Ham's videos, lets see what I can make of this.

When you want to have a real debate, then come and let me know


Right back at you. Come back when you learn what "Evidence" is.

Otherwise, all you're doing is you're set out to destroy Christianity and my beliefs only because they are different from yours.


Or because they have killed millions of people, held back scientific advancement, and caused a ton of hatred. I think that is a good reason to try and destroy something.

Yet I'm the one who's being a hypocrite and can't argue.


Yep. You seem to be.

You all truly have no idea what you are talking about.


You do realize this is just another way of saying "LALALALA I AM NOT LISTENING" again, correct?
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,557 posts
Jester

Would you expect the creatures there to be not adapted to their environment?


Of course not. God made them too. Of course they would fit perfectly. Except...wait, no religious text, no not one, mentions life anywhere other than Heaven or Earth.
thepyro222
offline
thepyro222
2,151 posts
Peasant

The difference is that our theories have mountains of evidence, real evidence. Your "theories" have circular reasoning and a lack of any valid evidence.

There is no hard evidence that has been given to me that I can't argue.

Not if it wasn't, go on, put up the links. Or is this just talk.

I've already done this.

Do you even know what a scientific theory is?

It's a hypothesis

I have never intended to destroy Christianity, although I can't speak for others. I have only asked questions, and never received a legitimate response, or when I have, it's been utterly laughable.

Then ask a question


You're all asking me to prove God to you, and the fact is is that I can't. You all want a videotape of God in heaven and anything else is insufficient. What you're asking me to do is impossible, so thus your entire argument fails.

Say you found life on another planet. Would you expect the creatures there to be not adapted to their environment?
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

He claimed to be using sound logic, but to have sound logic you must have truth


There are certain facts that do not need other facts to be proven. These can be definitions, for example.

Here is an example of a logical theorem that needs no axioms to be proven:
Hypothesis: |- p
Assertion: |- p

If you know p, you know p.

But even propositional calculus is self-justifying. You define implication as such:
p | q | ( p -> q )
_______________
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

^attempt at truth table

You define what ~ (not) means. And you can arrive at a classical system. It's not like you needed any previous knowledge to arrive at that!
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

Do you even know what a scientific theory is?

It's a hypothesis

That's exactly what it's not.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

There is no hard evidence that has been given to me that I can't argue.


So why haven't you argued this yet?


I've already done this.


Links to people who somehow think the earth was once surrounded by water and that the grand canyon was somehow formed in seconds, not to mention that they dinosaurs where somehow living at the same time that humans where...

It's a hypothesis


No. No it isn't. I would explain, but mage is probably coming with a video.

You're all asking me to prove God to you, and the fact is is that I can't.


Because he doesn't exist. Every hear of the burden of proof?

What you're asking me to do is impossible, so thus your entire argument fails.


Wait... You have an omnipotent, omnibonevolent being who is supposedly willing to help you if you believe in him to the point of moving mountains, and you are unable to prove that he even exists? How about you move a mountain?

Say you found life on another planet. Would you expect the creatures there to be not adapted to their environment?


They would probably be adapted to their environment, of course... That is kind of how evolution works... But that is another story, right now we are on the Big Bang.
thepyro222
offline
thepyro222
2,151 posts
Peasant

scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]


Translation: A scientific theory is a collection of data and observations of phenomena that seem to fit together because they sound good together. Yes, there is logical, factorial evidence that supports it, but it't not a fact because it can't be 100% proven.
Showing 1321-1335 of 4668