Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism
| 4668 | 1391323 |
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
If I may ask Jefferyinspiration what does your God look like?
If you read the last "heated debate" as such snake, you'll see that i've admitted how much belief in god is blind faith.
I've also said that it's a personal choice for one to believe in God.
And a personal choice for someone to think a believer is Naive.
I also said i'm more than willing to take scientific theory into consideration and if the day comes where Christianity proves to be the wrong path, i'll laugh and admit how wrong i was.
My opinion is God is different to all believers.
So until we get concrete evidence of evolution that has been recorded excessively and we find where the big bang started to the exact point then will you become an atheist?
So until we get concrete evidence of evolution that has been recorded excessively and we find where the big bang started to the exact point then will you become an atheist?
Personally i don't see how it concerns you in the slightest.
I mean if i'm being honest.
I understand atheists who get annoyed at Christians who ram their beliefs down the throats of others and try get them to convert.
Yet i'm someone who listens to points, does not argue straight out against them, but respects others opinions and accepts that belief is a personal choice.
Why should me believing in God bother you? You don't know me, not even the tiniest bit, and you never will.
I think you have to realize free will lets us think and believe what we want to.
You can have your view, i can have mine.
and by then way hahiha, from my perspective, you're only starting a religion to gain generous tax benefits, am I right?
Nope. Highfire already gave you a neat link, and I might also add, in case you miss that, that pastafarianism even has it's own gospel. I actually bought a copy and have read it, and I can only commend reading it.
and by then way hahiha, from my perspective, you're only starting a religion to gain generous tax benefits, am I right?
Do you realize that Pastafarianism is a farce on creationism and is not created for profit (unlike Scientology)?
To Ssssssnake: The bible does not specify whether the Earth was created first or not. The beginning phrase "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the Earth" does not necessarily mean that the Earth was created first. The passage just lists heaven and Earth as being created, but doesn't really tell you if anything was created before.
So until we get concrete evidence of evolution that has been recorded excessively and we find where the big bang started to the exact point then will you become an atheist?
We have concrete evidence for evolution and there isn't an exact point where the Big Bang started as that's everywhere being an expansion.
You can have your view, i can have mine.
I'll answer this with this quote.
(7) I am entitled to my opinion (used to support the truth of the opinion).
A quite common outcome in arguments between science and pseudoscience is when the person holding the failing position resorts to saying ââ¦well, that is my view and I am entitled to my opinion.â This is often recruited in support of the argument being made, thus implying that ones entitlement is somehow important for the truth of the argument itself. Indeed they are entitled to their opinion, but their entitlements were never in question. We are all entitled to our opinions â" but this has no consequence for the scientific truth of them and does not establish or justify the validity of them. So the problem here arises when one recruits the mere âentitlementâ (and no evidence) to a view, as some form of evidential support for the truth of the view. It is often used as a final defence mechanism when faced with quite strong counter-arguments and evidence.
The crucial point with this error in argumentation is that your individual entitlement to hold a view is no indication at all as to its validity or truth â" indeed, it is completely irrelevant (a form of the non-sequitur fallacy). When having a scientific debate, discussing evidence and theory, it makes no sense to recruit your human rights and âentitlementsâ in defence of any view. It shifts the focus from one of science, evidence, and reason to one of human rights (see Whyte, 2005). This is an irrelevant and unhelpful tangent. You are of course entitled to hold any view you please, but it becomes a fallacy of reason to recruit that mere entitlement as some form of evidence in support of the truth of that view.
Recruiting the âIâm entitled to my opinionâ stance in any debate is functionally equivalent to saying, âI am entitled to be wrong!â Entitlements do not establish truth. Human entitlements and rights are irrelevant to a scientific debate based on facts, evidence and reason. A scientist may be entitled to his / her opinion of the facts, but their entitlements do not make them correct, their data and evidence makes them correct. A scientist is entitled to believe that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius, but the entitlement to that view does not make the scientist correct â" the facts gained from scientific study provide evidence â" which actually exists independent of anyoneâs view of it. Therefore, it is sound reasoning, logic, and the recruitment of supportive empirical evidence of quality that makes an argument more likely to be correct.
http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=Seven_fallacies_of_thought_and_reason.php
The bible does not specify whether the Earth was created first or not. The beginning phrase "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the Earth" does not necessarily mean that the Earth was created first. The passage just lists heaven and Earth as being created, but doesn't really tell you if anything was created before.
It does specify the creation of the earth before the Sun however. This is either flat out wrong or God used very incompetent methods of constructing this solar system.
In a "failing argument"..
Your point would be brilliant if i was arguing.
Except if you read the rest of the post, you would see that i was not arguing, simply stating i understand the two differing topics.
Your point would be brilliant if i was arguing.
Except if you read the rest of the post, you would see that i was not arguing, simply stating i understand the two differing topics.
The part to look at more closely is this part.
"The crucial point with this error in argumentation is that your individual entitlement to hold a view is no indication at all as to its validity or truth indeed, it is completely irrelevant (a form of the non-sequitur fallacy). When having a scientific debate, discussing evidence and theory, it makes no sense to recruit your human rights and entitlements in defence of any view."
arguing or just simply stating aside you seemed to address the question of science over religion with "it's my opinion".
Okay atheists, if you guys want us to shut up and not have any faith, please give me a specific answer that will disprove us. There's no point of this argument unless there is solving point. So enlighten me.
Okay atheists, if you guys want us to shut up and not have any faith, please give me a specific answer that will disprove us. There's no point of this argument unless there is solving point. So enlighten me.
Here's as close as we can come to disproving your argument, turning it against you. Disprove that unicorns exist. Go on, try.
They haven't been discovered. Although, with a little genetic tampering, we can make horses it grow a horn.
They haven't been discovered
If I remember right, they are in the bible. Although I might be thinking of something else.
Since when was God discovered? I bet you I could find people who legitimately believe in unicorns. You can't provide proof of God, no? I could find hundreds of books with unicorns in them, actively engaged, interacted with, and talked about. I can find videos of unicorns at work. They heal people you know.
You must be logged in to post a reply!