I am a christian, i and i strongly belive in my lord jesus christ, and i also belive that if you belive in him and except him as your savior, u will go to heaven. and i also believe that he created the world, not the big bang, or that we came from stupid apes.
i thought in order to reject something you needed to disprove it first? not sure how that works....
Not at all. If I claim that there is a pink unicorn holding up the earth with his tongue do you have to prove me wrong before you reject my claim? Of course not. As I said, the onus of proof is on the one making a claim. If an atheist claims that there is no god at all then I would tell them to prove it, or withhold the assertion, just as I tell religious people that they either need to pony up the evidence or quit running about telling everyone that we need to be saved.
oh right, but then its my opinion that your wrong about the unicorn, not a fact. and it is thier opinion that we need to be saved, and you dont have "roof" that we dont, so its your opinion. just saying
Jesus came, and people wrote down all significant events before and after he died.
Actually nothing was written about Jesus until decades after his supposed death. The first writings he was barely more then a footnote. As later writings were made the story became more and more magical.
Others, called Catholics, believed the Bible exactly as it was written, and had faith that Jesus was real, due to the evidence of the perfectly legitimate Bible and the thousands of eyewitnesses that saw Jesus perform his miracles.
The earliest record of the term Catholic Church was in 107A.D. This would have been shortly after the last and most fanciful accounts of Jesus were written. The Bible alone isn't evidence. The thousands of eyewitnesses only appear in the Bible. There are no eyewitness accounts of these miracle outside of the Bible. So all this amounts to is the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true, which is a fallacy.
Then another religion sprung up: Christianity. Christians ignored all the new rules made by the Catholics and believed the Bible alone.
Actually Christianity was first with Catholicism branching off from it. There are accounts of Christian prosecution dating back to 64A.D. This is decades before the first recorded mention of Catholicism.
As you can see, branches have been made off of other religions in order to stick to the original thing.
If this is the case then it would seem the Bible was done piss poorly since this has happened many times. There are currently nearly 35,000 denominations of Christianity alone.
oh right, but then its my opinion that your wrong about the unicorn, not a fact. and it is thier opinion that we need to be saved, and you dont have "roof" that we dont, so its your opinion.
That would be correct, however one opinion follows reason and logic, one does not. That is the primary difference, and one which most people fail to recognize.
true ttrue, its very illogical, but for some reason they are content and happy with thier beliefs, as you are content with your, um, lack of beliefs. so lets just live and let live, or die...
true ttrue, its very illogical, but for some reason they are content and happy with thier beliefs, as you are content with your, um, lack of beliefs. so lets just live and let live, or die...
If their beliefs didn't affect our laws or government I wouldn't have an issue with it, but when dogma and faith are used as the motivation for laws which affect us all, regardless of beliefs, then it becomes an issue, especially when these people wish to have their beliefs taught along side facts in science classes, or when these beliefs are the basis for laws which discriminate against people for their sexual preference, or denied medical procedures because their dogmatic principles think that such procedures are 'immoral'.
if you had proof that there isnt a higher power it would be a fact.
You can only provide proof of somethings existence not it's lack there of.
but for some reason they are content and happy with thier beliefs, as you are content with your, um, lack of beliefs. so lets just live and let live, or die.
Religion far too often doesn't "live and let live".
No, I'm an atheist. I simply am what is called an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in any god because there is no evidence to support that belief. If some god showed up and we could demonstrate that this deity was who it claimed to be and we could demonstrate an understanding of its desires then I would be bound by reason to admit its existence, but until that time I'm bound by reason to admit that there is no evidence for such a claim.
Not only that, but everything that we know about the universe and our place in it, how we got here, and everything else makes it highly unlikely that such a deity exists in the capacities it is purported to have, especially by the 3 major religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
yes it does, but i was asking mage if was going to follow the religious example on 'living and not letting live, or if he was going to take the "high road" and leave them alone. ghandi rings a bell, but i always thought that if someone took my eye, im not going to just leave him be, im gunna take his, you know, like if we followed ghandi, we would be blind, and the bad people would steal all our stuff cuz we couldn't effin see!!
got a little ranty there for a minute, sorry, anyways.... Do you ahve faith, in anything?? i mean to say, i have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, albeit it is a tiny miniscule possibility that it wont, a black hole could randomly appear and suck everything and everyone up, or like some other major catastophic even, completely unpreventable. but i still have faith. seems like something like the religous peeps, although they have faith in something unlikely, wherease i have have faith in something likely. i have faith that my wife wont like screw a bunch of dudes, also unlikely that she would, but i don't have a way of knowing that she wont, all i can do is have faith, get it??
i mean to say, i have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, albeit it is a tiny miniscule possibility that it wont
This is true, but this faith is based on evidence. We know where the sun is in relation to us in our solar system, we know that our planet rotates along its axis, which is what causes 'sunrise' and 'sunset' and we know that there are many stages which must first occur before the sun quits emitting light. So you have faith because of evidence, not in spite of a lack of it.
i have faith that my wife wont like screw a bunch of dudes, also unlikely that she would, but i don't have a way of knowing that she wont, all i can do is have faith, get it
And I have faith that my wife won't either. This is based on trust and has taken a long time to be built up between us, as trust always does. I trust my wife, I trust that she wants to remain my wife, and I've made it very clear that if she cheats then we will no longer be a couple and she has communicated that she understands that stipulation and agrees to it. I can observe her actions, hear her speak, and make inferences based on her nonverbal communication on the subject. Again, there is observable evidence of her fidelity, and there will be evidence if that ever changes.
Again, that doesn't apply to religion. There is no evidence which supports their claims, every area in which religion makes a claim about something which is testable it has been proven to be wrong, and in the other areas it is contradictory and ambiguous. To have faith in something simply for faith's sake, and not because of evidence or education is unreasonable and illogical.
Might want to add logic, philosophy, theology, Christian history, and a perusal of Mirriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary to your studies, then try to debate facts with facts instead of whatever brand of inaccurate brainwashing you've been subjected to which causes your obvious lack of knowledge.
why is it a general lack of knowledge? he might not know as much about atheism as you, but you certainly do not know as much about faith, or prayer, or religion, as religious people do. even if you were religious and are not now, there is obviously something that they know that you do not, correct? the same could be said of them, they don't know something that you do, which is why you choose to be atheist and they do not, whatever the case though, i think we should try to be less condescending to each other, and that is directed to both sides, although, my suggestions are meaningless, i am not a mod......
Might want to add logic, philosophy, theology, Christian history, and a perusal of Mirriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary to your studies, then try to debate facts with facts instead of whatever brand of inaccurate brainwashing you've been subjected to which causes your obvious lack of knowledge.
