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
Einfach, it's weird that you don't oppose ME, while I'm backing up thepyro222's statements. Since if you don't, then his assumptions are unprotested, so can be claimed as true.
No - I protest his statements. To make the claim that his assumptions are true because of this is straw man. You back up the strongest parts of his argument, while I tear down the weaker parts. You haven't stated anything wrong yet...
This is a fallacy. I used to think X but now I know better.
No, it's called enlightenment. It happens in the real world. I know something different now because I cam across new information.
No - there is all right or wrong - otherwise there is a contradiction.
Saying that in itself is a contradiction, saying that implies that everything is predictable, which in the real world, it's not. I can't predict next time I'm going to take a dump. It just happens, I can't predict that in two days I'm going to get hit by a car, and it actually happens (unless of some major coincidence). The only person that can determine definite right and wrong is God
I would think many morals could be traced back to early humans living in close groups. Where killing other members of the group is bad, where stealing from other is bad, and other such things. All would be harmful to the group, which would require the group to find a way to punish the individual causing problems
This would have needed a way to explain it, which would have been a religion
@ Darkroot. A theory is a puzzle of information that has bits and pieces, but it really doesn't fit together. I can prove the Bible in the real world because it proves itself. The Bible, as I have stated before, is made up of eyewitness accounts, which, in a court of law, is the strongest evidence that someone can give. You're giving me bits and pieces of coincidental evidence filled with assumptions and opinions
Doesn't fit together? Huh if that was true we wouldn't have computers. But I don't really want to explain science to you since it seems you have never really studied it.
Bible proves itself? You know my fictional character also proves himself he is the very definition of correct and rigorous logic. I thought all religious texts proved themselves too, hmmm.. that would be a contradiction wouldn't it?
You do know eye witnesses give incorrect statements right? Have you studied psychology? Also eyewitness doesn't prove anything if you can't replicated it by anyone with the ability.
You're giving me faulty logic and evidence from a book that wants to prove itself.
Yes Stephen Hawking said that "What comes before the Big Bang?" is like asking "What is North of the North Pole?"
Actually this is the source of that statement. (J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice M. Tinsley, "Will the Universe Expand Forever?" Scientific American [March 1976], p. 65)
1. ~(p ^ ~p) - Law of Non-contradiction 2. (p v ~p) - Law of the Excluded Middle 3. ~D --> (p ^ ~p) - Not-Determinism (~D) implies a contradiction. 4. ~~D - Not-Not determinism, because Not-determinism implies a contradiction. 5. ~~D --> D - Not-Not something implies something. 6. Therefore, D - Determinism is inevitable!!!
I can think of situations where some of these would break down but most are dealing with quantum physics. Applied to the physical world they should hold. So nevermind...
God ended the world once with the flood of Noah,
A flood that left no geological evidence what so ever and required far more water then what exists on the entire planet. That's one magical flood.
And at the big bang, what created the big bang?
Likely the separation of the fundamental forces of the universe from the singularity going critical.
All morals came from one form of religion or another.
No they didn't. There are non religious aboriginals who hold a strictly naturalistic view of the world who got along fine without any religion with there own moral structure. (Sorry I can't think of the name of these people, if anyone knows please post.)
"look, the bible is based off of eyewitness accounts, and is backed up with other historical documents."
It's based off second hand accounts at best and there are no contemporary document supporting it.
You all are assuming that Christianity is false, so therefore, all of your arguments are going to be the same.
I am assuming that Christianity is not automatically correct. Now to convince me to buy into it, you have to present valid evidence.
I know the arguments, I've been there, and you're arguments make no sense.
I know the arguments, mainly arguments from ignorance, special exception, beauty, emotion, all fallacies. Also baseless assertions and misrepresentation of theories... If you have anything new to share that would be great.
I'm coming at you and saying "look, the bible is based off of eyewitness accounts, and is backed up with other historical documents."
Why is there so many contradictions in the bible then? Also even if parts of the bible were accurate, how does that imply that the whole book is accurate? Who witnessed genesis?
if you discount the bible, then you're discounting all of the proof for the argument of Christianity, thus making you prejudiced
I'm going to write some random **** on a piece of paper and claim it as fact. If you discount this piece of paper as evidence then you are prejudiced.
No, it's called enlightenment. It happens in the real world. I know something different now because I cam across new information.
Fine then - I used to believe that p implied p, but now I know better. Enlightenment. P implies p is a lie.
Saying that in itself is a contradiction, saying that implies that everything is predictable, which in the real world, it's not. I can't predict next time I'm going to take a dump. It just happens, I can't predict that in two days I'm going to get hit by a car, and it actually happens (unless of some major coincidence). The only person that can determine definite right and wrong is God
OK - just because it's impossible to predict the outcome WITHIN the system (within the universe) does not preclude determinism by any means - in fact, this is necessary for determinism in the first place, because otherwise, grandfather paradoxes and the sorts could be created and such.
I can think of situations where some of these would break down but most are dealing with quantum physics. Applied to the physical world they should hold. So nevermind...
As far as indeterminate states in quantum physics (I assume this is what you mean by your discussion with Moegreche) - State A is not a statement. State A is indeterminate or State A is true is a statement.
Its is Discrete Mathematics, but it also goes into programming it.
OMG, pigeon hole theorem! No serious fun class even if it's pretty hard, probably hardest computer science first year course. You will love Discrete Math II it's about 100 times harder.
Again, you're assuming that the bible is faked, which is dismissing the evidence which I have given you without consideration or even a **** thought. Shut your mouth and open your mind. "Well the bible is wrong because I say so" this is what you're saying
if you discount the bible, then you're discounting all of the proof for the argument of Christianity, thus making you prejudiced
1. It is not proof, you have not presented any evidence or proof of it itself being proof, it can't back up itself. 2. We discount the Bible because (and this is for me) I think it's an unreliable source. If I look at Aesop's Fables and the Bible, I see the same thing. If I look at the Bible and the Law, I only see rules between the two of them.
The only person that can determine definite right and wrong is God
This may've been taken out of context, I only read the post above me but. No, he really can't. His moralities if they are in the Bible are dire, and anyone with a leaf of instinct that can be skeptical about that which they believe could probably see the flaws immediately. Oh, wait! Faith. Woops, sorry, looks like we can't do that then >.>
No but seriously. Look at it, be a critic, if your argument is that it's 2,000 years old, so what? God was supposedly there since the start, he's supposed to be a ball of perfection so why the hell are his morals wrong?
You're basically asking me to provide a videotape of God in heaven and anything short of that doesn't cut. I can't technically "rove" anything. All I can give you is the evidence, which is what I have been giving you.
"Well the bible is wrong because I say so" this is what you're saying
We said the bible is not supported by itself - that would be a circular reference. Do you have any tangible evidence for the bible besides the Bible itself?
you're assuming that the bible is faked, which is dismissing the evidence which I have given you without consideration or even a **** thought.
a **** thought ... how ironic...
I assume you're talking about driejen's why can't I just write ... - This is intended to reveal that your current arguments for the bible are circular references.
"Well the bible is wrong because I say so" this is what you're saying"
Usually when someone says I say so they back it up with logic. You on the other hand say the bible is right because the bible says so.
You're basically asking me to provide a videotape of God in heaven and anything short of that doesn't cut. I can't technically "rove" anything. All I can give you is the evidence, which is what I have been giving you.
No, we are asking you to give us a smidgen of proof that God exists. None of the evidence you have given has be either testable/logical in nature.
You can actually prove a ton. You define the term "imply". There is some p that is either true or false, can't be not (true or false) and it can't be (true and false). There - you've just proved a huge chunk of propositional calculus.
