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
looking at some as 100% correct is just closed minded
There are things like mathematics which can be 100% correct, and some statements that are based on already completed facts and not stating anything about future can also be 100% correct.
@thepyro: please calm down, you have probably lost or losing your temper. Binary logic approach requires cold head, and most people here don't accept anything else.
Yes, they do not, and in fact they don't even stop sperm completely. Latex is porous, the topmost diameter of pores is 5e-6 m (5 micrometers), and highest diameter of a spermatozoid is ~4 micrometers. The diameter of AIDS virus is less than 0.5 micrometers.
Since we were just talking about letting people have there own opinion I would like to point this out. Now we have already shown this to be wrong, that condom do indeed help prevent AIDS among other forms of STDs and that latex is not a porous material, yet here we still have the claim being made. So at what point do we just consider such people as either ignorant or stupid and unwilling to learn? Should we allow them to try and continue to spread their own ignorance, (which in the case of condom use can be dangerous) in the name of "allowing them to have there own opinion"? Worse yet no matter how much evidence we present they claim we are the ones who are in denial despite making the claim that they won't change their position under any circumstance practically in the same breath.
It's exactly this that I'm completely sick and tired of. And exactly this why I continue to challenge and present factual data to appose it. I'm guessing I can't get through someone like this but I can keep their brand of ignorance from spreading like AIDS.
never have I claimed that I completely deny the possibility that there is a God, but given the evidence I find it highly improbable.
when it said chritianity ftw i actually thought it was a place to talk about christianity not to watch a poor guy get flammed because he shared his opinion.
Depends how you try to share it. It's a thread, it's open to everyone, course there's gonna be conflicting opinions.
This is why religious folk fail in debates. You folks have no idea that debating is not the same thing as persecution. Hence, why we laugh when you guys claim to be oppressed. Oppressed is getting lynched, not getting asked questions that make you uncomfortable.
Niiiiice.
is feeling that they need to rebut every single religious comment with pseudo-science that they are superior in intellect and understanding.
You have no idea what Science, or Pseudo-Science is.
Don't let it affect you my friend that's the only way they get the satisfaction.
Sorry for double post, my mistake on pressing a button which... I don't know which one lol.
Don't let it affect you my friend that's the only way they get the satisfaction.
That's trolls. I feel bitter anger at his close-mindedness, his foggy answers to our fair questions and his accusations in an attempt to put us on the defensive. He CANNOT prove his religion, so we've no need to disprove it. No biblical records count as proof as they may easily be false - unless PROVEN otherwise. Thanks.
No one can be blamed for this but himself.
He shouldn't necessarily be blamed either. This is just the result of it but if he is (I lost track of what he posted and which page) blamed us for w/e then I have no idea wtf he's talking about.
Yeah - it's not a fight. That's where you're wrong. The loser is the winner - they gain more knowledge than the winner. They have learned something new, and are on the path to discovering the truth.
Very rarely a debate is handled properly where it's with open-minds, empathy in mind and understanding the perspective of your opposing faction. I can see how Religion is good, it gives you hope, it makes you feel secure, and it ultimately feels great acting nice to others who believe like you. But... It is not the truth, in my opinion, and that is why I argue against it.
Religion has its bad sides, if there was none, people would focus on other things, research, development, production, the world would have sped up technologically so much quicker!
And at this, I mean, if atheists can believe in whatever they choose, why not let Christians do that as well, without the army against them?
There are things like mathematics which can be 100% correct,
"as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."-Albert Einstein
In other words math and reality can be at odds on certainty. Because of how science in later definitions strictly relates to the natural world there is debate on whether math should be regarded as a science.
and some statements that are based on already completed facts and not stating anything about future can also be 100% correct.
Actually no a fact is only confirmed to such a degree that we don't hold provisional consent. Your third example is how the atheist views God.
Sorry for TRIPLE post, I need to get rid of that button :<
And at this, I mean, if atheists can believe in whatever they choose, why not let Christians do that as well, without the army against them?
Seriously, though? Christians have more free reign than Atheists any day of the week. You have churches, you have your dead buried at said churches, you are recognised as a legitimate belief. What do we, as an entire faction get? A few plant-life labs and a Topic at School (Science) which sucks as is, compared to what it could be.
Personal attacks... how very, predictable of you atheists.
Is that all you got? That's a generalized attack to all Atheists. Come on. You should not only KNOW better but you don't understand why we say what we say - we (or I) certainly understand what you say. But as I said, your closemindedness changes that.
You guys are doing it again. >,> Why can't you just let them believe in what they want?
Shut up with that, if they want to believe what they want, they can close their door to this thread, bar it and never hear from it again. It's that simple.
And Einfach I can compromise with you, the loser is technically the winner. They understand faith and they see the facts.
The only reason I can go against you on this is because I already see the facts and I already understand faith. The loser is the winner, and the winner is in the winner if everyone could just debate properly. But, being a religious one, that's obviously not possible.
I lost faith in humanity 51 pages ago, by the way.
Is it your job to fix their beliefs to what you see fit? Is that your goal in life?
Any plan is certain to fail if no army is prepared to follow it.
Not in proper context but you get the point. Martin Luthar King, Joan of Arc, The Crusades (thanks, btw >.>, Hitler + Nazi's, all had people and thus influence backing them up.
Now we have already shown this to be wrong, that condom do indeed help prevent AIDS among other forms of STDs and that latex is not a porous material, yet here we still have the claim being made.
Argument from authority, unproven. Use a microscope against your condom and stretch it equally in all four directions, you will detect pores. Also, how do you explain the 3% chance of unwanted pregnancies if the couple have used a condom and after the intercourse they discover it be solid? You links are pretty nice, though they briefly overestimate the scientific results. Yes, a reduction is in place, but not elimination.
"as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."-Albert Einstein
Hehe, correct, but it's so because we don't have a complete set of laws that rule the universe. You might see Einfach using abstract mathematical arguments as 100% correct, and they are, while being watched within abstract (non-applied) science. That's what I mean about "mathematics facts are 100% correct". You might also read my argument against his position on page 50.
Actually no a fact is only confirmed to such a degree that we don't hold provisional consent.
Please explain. We can know that person A hit person B with a club, and person B died afterwards from injuries made by this club's hit. Therefore we can determine that person A murdered person B. Is this not a 100% corrent determination?
Sorry for TRIPLE post, I need to get rid of that button :<
I broke up your post fest so no worries.
Religion has its bad sides, if there was none, people would focus on other things, research, development, production, the world would have sped up technologically so much quicker!
As I have stated if it really was like this then we might have at least a little reason to consider it's validity.
Also if a religion was true wouldn't it stand to reason that it would be demonstrably true beyond all reasonable doubt?
Please explain. We can know that person A hit person B with a club, and person B died afterwards from injuries made by this club's hit. Therefore we can determine that person A murdered person B. Is this not a 100% corrent determination?
No it's not, though it would be absurd to think otherwise. Perhaps there was a piece of evidence that was missed and the hit was not the actual cause of death. Going to more extremes of a matrix like world they two never even had any contact with each other and neither may even exists outside the observes perception.
You are contradicting binary logic here. And your passage about "going for more extremes" implies that there are laws of how the things are driven that are outside of our possible reach. Actually implying this is implying the existance of God, regardless of form.
What are the odds that the very next video in the series for me to watch would turn out to to directly relate in some way to my last post? I guess it must be a miracle...or just dumb luck.
I'm awfully sorry but youtube.com is banned by out network administrators, so I can't answer on them.
What are the odds that the very next video in the series for me to watch would turn out to to directly relate in some way to my last post?
0.5 - either it will, or it will not. (joking in fact) It can be both of course, but "dumb luck" is a serious question - why some people are lucky, not in lotteries, but in general life - like they have more good happening around them than average, and some are not.
I do accept the possibility of a God I don't accept the probability of a God.
What's the difference of meaning of these words that you want to display here? For me, "robable" and "ossible" in general are two ranges of mathematical probability, the former being greater than the latter, but none are either 0 or 1.
What's the difference of meaning of these words that you want to display here? For me, "robable" and "ossible" in general are two ranges of mathematical probability, the former being greater than the latter, but none are either 0 or 1.
I'll try to explain with an example. It's possible that a 12 foot purple dragon could come crashing into my living room through one of the wall in the next 10 second. The probability of that happening though is unlikely to the point where I don't believe that a 12 foot purple dragon will come crashing into my living room at any point in time let alone in the next ten seconds.
I'll use another example on how a fact could be shown to be false. It's a fact that if I were to drop an apple while standing on Earth it will always fall to the ground. But it's possible that tomorrow when I go to drop that apple it rises into the air instead. But this isn't very probable to happen. It would then no longer be a fact that every time I dropped that apple while standing on the Earth that it will always fall to the ground.
this means "ossible" is anything nonzero, and "robable" is anything you might decide to consider actually happening. Hmmmm. So literally anything is "ossible" in this world, as anything imaginable has a nonzero chance to appear, regardless of it being 1e-(1e(1e100)) probable. Strange position. I wonder what's the probability of God existing, by your opinion? Mine is of course 1.0.
