Yet, a casual Christian is the very reason the church in this country is failing. We need more extremists who value love above all other laws (tis scriptural) who work together for the general good of the world through humanitarian efforts.
Extremist Christians had there chance, it was called the Dark Ages.
No, actually. Thanks.
While it may give you the warm and cozies it's a poor gauge for reality.
See the problem with this is that you aren't me. You can keep telling me this but it doesn't change how I feel about God and no it isn't me being ignorant it's me being me. As I said I don't claim that my experiences are reasons for others to believe but our simply why I believe.
Yes I'm not you I didn't experience what you did. I was pointing out that personal experience is a poor substitute for evidence.
Yet, for example, point me to the threads about Islam, Scientology, and paganism. Christianity is the epitome of religious discrimination for the world as it's illegal in more countries than the vast majority of the religions.
Could have sworn I saw a topic on Islam around here somewhere...odd might have to consider making one. Paganism covers a vast number of religions may of which aren't very large, mostly since they mostly tend to keep to them self. Scientology doesn't really need a thread it is often bashed as being nothing more then a popular modern day cult (very much like how Christianity was treated in the past). Besides religiously run countries that are not permissive over any other religion where is Christianity illegal?
Also you don't know what converting is and I'm sorry but you need to stop acting like you do. You aren't Christian and you do not understand it therefore your viewpoint on it is flawed.
Convert to change from one to another. In this case changing one set of beliefs to another set. Many try to spread the word and try and get others to come around to Christian beliefs. The Bible even says to do this, arguably directly or indirectly. So how am I flawed here?
See it's statements like this that make me wonder why Christians are considered the close minded ones. You don't believe in God; I do, yet I don't consider you stupid. I implore you to read his works before you call him stupid.
Didn't say believing in God made you stupid or anyone else. I said ignoring evidence in favor of what some ancient text says makes you stupid. There is no evidence for God so there is no evidence to ignore.
However I do see believing in something without evidence irrational, but that's different then stupid and I'm sure we are all irrational to some extent. Just sometimes it's far more glaring then other.
I was simply citing him as a deist/agnostic which, as you pointed out, he was. Also I'm almost against the majority of organized religion (Catholicism for example) yet I'm a follower of Jesus. Also ignoring the evidence seems to be your fall back point..?
Like I said he was more likely atheist but he hated being called that. Since your harping on the point of me saying ignoring evidence is favor of some holy book is stupid then claiming I'm calling everyone stupid for believing in God because of this when this is not at all what I'm saying then what do you expect? Perhaps I need to give you some basic example of what I mean.
I tell you "I have a baseball" and I hold a baseball up in my hand. You say "no you don't" the book I live my life by says baseballs don't exist, even though your looking right at the baseball in my hand. your ignoring the evidence (the baseball in my hand) and claiming my statement of having one is wrong all because some book says they don't exist.
Now let's use a real world example.
We evolved, we can offer the fossil record backed up with geological finding backed up by several dating methods, studies of our genetics suggest this, and as a whole we even have observed instances of evolution in other species. But all of this is ignored in favor of the Bible saying God made us.
Such as? Also I don't consider a morality code to constitute the only was as I can follow that on pure accident.
Not sure if I'm following what your saying in the second sentence but as for, such as...
Scientology
Islam
Hinduism
more extreme forms of Buddhism (my experience with Buddhists hasn't been the case)
Judaism (though arguably another form of Christianity)
Sikhism
etc...ism
As a definition abiogenesis refers to the assertion that life arose from nonliving things, and from amino acids to life is a gigantic step.
It's not as huge of step as you may think. We have been able to recreate similar conditions thought to have existed during the time life arose and developed the building blocks for RNA. Once you have that it's a very small step to go from that to full RNA strands to finally DNA and so on.
And yes, I do believe in the Big Bang. I've said it before. I don't believe, though, that the primeval atom could have popped out of nowhere, which if I am not mistaken is its current implication.
Right now we don't know. What alt was pointing out though is that it is not unthinkable for that to be the case. From my understanding the current top idea is based on the M theory. It's thought that perhaps two membranes collided allowing matter and energy from one to transfer to the other. However there is currently still a lot that needs to be pinned down before we can say anything with any amount of certainty.
