Evolution debate will soon be history

[jmcrae1]

Amen brother thor it is easy to follow yet so many choose not to. Yes i choose to follow someone that lays down his life for me.



http://www.google.com/imgres?q=far+...w=172&start=0&ndsp=33&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:78

 

[Four]

Amen brother thor it is easy to follow yet so many choose not to. Yes i choose to follow someone that lays down his life for me.



http://www.google.com/imgres?q=far+...w=172&start=0&ndsp=33&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:78

So if there was a religion that was even easier to follow, you would follow it instead of Christianity? Or is the human sacrifice necessarily for you as well? Meaning, would it require a religion to be easier, and have a similar sacrifice of flesh?

 

[stringmusic]

So if there was a religion that was even easier to follow, you would follow it instead of Christianity? Or is the human sacrifice necessarily for you as well? Meaning, would it require a religion to be easier, and have a similar sacrifice of flesh?

Not a "human" sacrifice.

And it's not about being the easiest to follow, it's about God doing the saving, which is the case in Christianity. While in other religions, one must rely on themselves to do "something" to please their god or get to heaven.

If my children were in a burning house, would I stand outside and yell for them to save themselves, or would I head in and save them?

 

[Four]

Not a "human" sacrifice.

Hmm, i don't know if i care to go back and forth on this particular point, but to the best of my knowledge, in christian lore, Jesus was a human form of god.. if Jesus was human enough to die, and as he surely was a sacrifice, why wouldn't it be safe to say it was a "human sacrifice?"

While in other religions, one must rely on themselves to do "something" to please their god or get to heaven.

If Christianity doesn't rely on doing anything, does that mean atheists are in accordance?

If my children were in a burning house, would I stand outside and yell for them to save themselves, or would I head in and save them?

I would hope you would go in and save them... given the christian cannon i would say this would make you a better person than Yahweh

And it's not about being the easiest to follow, it's about God doing the saving, which is the case in Christianity.

No offence, you're welcome to discuss, but my line of questions was specifically directed at jmcrae1, as he mentioned that he read a bit about other religions and Christianity seemed easiest.

Which is why i posed the question, if there was an easier religion, would he follow it instead?

 

[bullethead]

The proof of my God's existance lies within a book that you deem unreliable. The reason I do not beleive in any other gods is because after reading parts of the koran, hindu texts, and writings about bhudisim I can see that all of these religions want me to do something physical in order to be accepted be it praying five times daily or finding self enlightenment through meditation. My God only ask me to accept his Love and ask for forgivness of my sins. He freely gave his life so that I may live forever. He lives within my heart and that is how I know he is real and although you may not believe in him or have something that you can lay your hands on doesn't make him any less real.

Take a step back and look at what your saying. Yours is real because all you have to do is believe. Theirs are not real because they require something physical.
Your basis, argument, stance, or whatever you want to call it is no better than the Atheists you are calling out. Your proof for your God is no proof at all and you cannot provide a shred of evidence that says any other God does not exist.
You can see what non believers are up against when arguing against a God. You KNOW all those other gods are baloney stories and their beliefs are foolish but you defend your God and beliefs just the same. The non believers are right there with you at dismissing all those other Gods, except for one. You dismiss the thousands of other Gods and the non believers just go one farther than you.

 

[jmcrae1]

No I would not follow any other religion if it were easier because in acuality it would be easier to just not follow anything and let my pride in myself keep me from ever getting salvation. All i had to do was admitt that i was a sinner and that I needed a savior which was very hard to do.

 

[Four]

No I would not follow any other religion if it were easier because in acuality it would be easier to just not follow anything and let my pride in myself keep me from ever getting salvation. All i had to do was admitt that i was a sinner and that I needed a savior which was very hard to do.

So your previous statement suggesting that the ease of Christianity drew you to it in lieu of Islam, buddhism, etc was incorrect?

It seems you're belief is one of preference?

 

[jmcrae1]

one of truth kind sir. I know that you don't believe the same as me and you don't believe what I think is true just like I don't believe what you think is true. That being said I do like having these disscusions because you fine gentlemen in this forum have a great deal of knowledge. And from the avatar pictures some pretty healthy beards as well



http://www.google.com/imgres?q=char...w=188&start=0&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:75

 

[bullethead]

one of truth kind sir. I know that you don't believe the same as me and you don't believe what I think is true just like I don't believe what you think is true. That being said I do like having these disscusions because you fine gentlemen in this forum have a great deal of knowledge. And from the avatar pictures some pretty healthy beards as well

No one can argue what people think is true. It is another story entirely when people say they have proof that something is true.
Something doesn't merely exist because people think it or believe it. Something is not true because there is absolutely no evidence of it. The only way to disprove something that does not exist is to let the evidence of it's non-existence speak for itself. Honestly and sincerely I have been searching for someone(besides myself because I cannot do it) to buck up and provide some real evidence so one religion stands out above all the others. So far they are all in same pile and dilemma with the only thing that would give credibility to one above the rest is actual proof of what they say is true to actually be true.

 

[Asath]

“Well hopefully your anti-nutball group will do a better job of running the government than the Christians. What is your prediction on when the US government will be "all atheist" or at least a majority. Besides those nutball Blue laws, what are some real issues better served by the new Atheist government? Will the Atheist do a better job of race relations and womens lib as those are religious problems stemming from the Bible? Hopefully the Atheist will stop taking my hard earned money to help people who are not willing to help themselves. If ya'll can do that you've got my vote.”

Not sure what your point is here. I don’t need to bother predicting when the government will become ‘all-atheist.’ That happened the moment it was formed, with the specific and written intent to prevent ANY religion from running it. Read the Constitution – it is pretty clear on this point.

So there is no ‘new Atheist government,’ as you wish to so tauntingly propose, since there was never a Christian government to begin with – that idea was outlawed at the outset. That many of the founders were outwardly Christians, in the spirit of the time and place, is undeniable, but it seems that their private thoughts were honest ones, and they understood quite well the bad uses that are made of theocracy by otherwise ‘good’ people. So they quite deliberately cut that possibility off at the knees.

And you might want to back up your reading of the Constitution with a bit of reading of history -- Christians were the SOLE capturers, traders, profiteers, and justifiers of slavery in this country, and were the SOLE suppressors of women. What progress exists towards race relations and women’s rights are no thanks to you. ALL Christian churches fought actively against those things for centuries, and some of the nuttier ones continue to do so. Are you saying that Christianity now lays claim to the progress in areas they violently opposed, or asking the thoughtful folks who out-flanked you to reverse this progress on your behalf?

And what of your money? Can you call yourself a Christian, while resenting the call to help the poor? Isn’t that EXACTLY what you were ordered to do by your Jesus? It is only us heartless, thoughtless, ignorant and unenlightened non-believers who reject this notion, and we are roundly vilified for it. The idea of ‘charity’ is quite a good one, and helping the less fortunate, because one can, is an admirable and civilized outlook. But we wish to do so the old-fashioned way – because we WANT to – NOT because it is compelled at the threat of punishment if we do not. Religions came up with the idea of compulsory charity (largely because their priests and leaders were lazy, and needed free stuff), and if YOU reject that idea, the same as we do, then please leave your ‘Christianity’ at the door -- you’ve failed the test, and have begun to think as an individual. Oops.

Unfortunately, the moment you have a single thought or actually believe a single thing that is not as ordered by Your God, in Your Book, then you are no longer a Believer. At that moment your religion has failed you, and has failed progress, and has failed society, and is little more than an anchor around your neck. Odd as it sounds, the moment you agree that stoning ‘sinners’ is a poor idea, you’re free.

You’ve opened the door to your own cage. So why stay inside of it?

 

[ted_BSR]

“Well hopefully your anti-nutball group will do a better job of running the government than the Christians. What is your prediction on when the US government will be "all atheist" or at least a majority. Besides those nutball Blue laws, what are some real issues better served by the new Atheist government? Will the Atheist do a better job of race relations and womens lib as those are religious problems stemming from the Bible? Hopefully the Atheist will stop taking my hard earned money to help people who are not willing to help themselves. If ya'll can do that you've got my vote.”

Not sure what your point is here. I don’t need to bother predicting when the government will become ‘all-atheist.’ That happened the moment it was formed, with the specific and written intent to prevent ANY religion from running it. Read the Constitution – it is pretty clear on this point.

So there is no ‘new Atheist government,’ as you wish to so tauntingly propose, since there was never a Christian government to begin with – that idea was outlawed at the outset. That many of the founders were outwardly Christians, in the spirit of the time and place, is undeniable, but it seems that their private thoughts were honest ones, and they understood quite well the bad uses that are made of theocracy by otherwise ‘good’ people. So they quite deliberately cut that possibility off at the knees.

And you might want to back up your reading of the Constitution with a bit of reading of history -- Christians were the SOLE capturers, traders, profiteers, and justifiers of slavery in this country, and were the SOLE suppressors of women. What progress exists towards race relations and women’s rights are no thanks to you. ALL Christian churches fought actively against those things for centuries, and some of the nuttier ones continue to do so. Are you saying that Christianity now lays claim to the progress in areas they violently opposed, or asking the thoughtful folks who out-flanked you to reverse this progress on your behalf?

And what of your money? Can you call yourself a Christian, while resenting the call to help the poor? Isn’t that EXACTLY what you were ordered to do by your Jesus? It is only us heartless, thoughtless, ignorant and unenlightened non-believers who reject this notion, and we are roundly vilified for it. The idea of ‘charity’ is quite a good one, and helping the less fortunate, because one can, is an admirable and civilized outlook. But we wish to do so the old-fashioned way – because we WANT to – NOT because it is compelled at the threat of punishment if we do not. Religions came up with the idea of compulsory charity (largely because their priests and leaders were lazy, and needed free stuff), and if YOU reject that idea, the same as we do, then please leave your ‘Christianity’ at the door -- you’ve failed the test, and have begun to think as an individual. Oops.

Unfortunately, the moment you have a single thought or actually believe a single thing that is not as ordered by Your God, in Your Book, then you are no longer a Believer. At that moment your religion has failed you, and has failed progress, and has failed society, and is little more than an anchor around your neck. Odd as it sounds, the moment you agree that stoning ‘sinners’ is a poor idea, you’re free.

You’ve opened the door to your own cage. So why stay inside of it?

Gosh, with all this proof, it might be hard to argue with what Asath is sayin' here.

NAH, he's just blowing hot air again. I am not amazed that he has declared all Christians to not be Christians, and Christianity to be a complete failure.

He makes a lot of these opinionated declarations. It is as if he himself has ordained himself the ultimate authority.

BTW, I did not read every post in this thread, my sources are: Post #371, The GON Forum, AAA subforum and Wikipedia

 

[ASVP Viking]

Atheists on this forum are always asking for proof that God is real, for one shred of concrete evidence that he exist. I ask for one solid concrete piece of evidence that God does not exist. I'm not trying to be mean or rude to anyone and if I come off that way I aplogize in advance, I would just like to know the evidence on to why he is not real.

Trying to justify god's existence with "Well you can't prove he DOESN'T exist!" is pretty weak from an argument standpoint. The burden of prooflies with the advocates, not the questioner.

 

[ted_BSR]

Trying to justify god's existence with "Well you can't prove he DOESN'T exist!" is pretty weak from an argument standpoint. The burden of prooflies with the advocates, not the questioner.

It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Just sayin'.

 

[Miguel Cervantes]

Trying to justify god's existence with "Well you can't prove he DOESN'T exist!" is pretty weak from an argument standpoint. The burden of prooflies with the advocates, not the questioner.

Sort of like proving that time exist huh? I mean, after all, isn't it just a man made measure of existence?

 

[ASVP Viking]

It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Just sayin'.

Non-organic life doesn't exist on Earth. A 100% efficient machine doesn't exist. There has never been a single facet of evidence of the existence of Jesus, or any other Messiah. Thetans don't exist. And until there is feasible evidence (which won't happen), God doesn't exist.

Feasible evidence, as per the scientific community is any subject that has a physical, detectable presence in the universe, that has some ability to impact the environment around it.

 

[ASVP Viking]

Sort of like proving that time exist huh? I mean, after all, isn't it just a man made measure of existence?

You must not be too good at arguments... Time has physical and detectanle effects on the universe. "God" doesn't.

 

[Miguel Cervantes]

You must not be too good at arguments... Time has physical and detectanle effects on the universe. "God" doesn't.

Interesting remark and counter argument, and totally void of any factual evidence. But if it makes you secure in your faith, good luck with that.

 

[ASVP Viking]

Interesting remark and counter argument, and totally void of any factual evidence. But if it makes you secure in your faith, good luck with that.

Time has a physical effect on the universe. It is observable, and has a physical presence, relevant to time, location, and speed.

Those are proven scientific facts, which our very lives are relevant to. Blatant disregard for simplistic, elementary arguments makes me think you're a very low quality troll.

 

[Miguel Cervantes]

Time has a physical effect on the universe. It is observable, and has a physical presence, relevant to time, location, and speed.

Those are proven scientific facts, which our very lives are relevant to. Blatant disregard for simplistic, elementary arguments makes me think you're a very low quality troll.

Believe what you want, it is your right as an American. What isn't your right is to deprive others of what they believe merely because you fail to own the faculties to understand it.

 

[ASVP Viking]

Believe what you want, it is your right as an American. What isn't your right is to deprive others of what they believe merely because you fail to own the faculties to understand it.

You come to an Atheist/Agnostic board to be the odd man out in every argument (Omega complex maybe?) And then play the victim?

I provided a point: Time has a physical effect on the universe.

Your 1st answer: NO FACTS NO FACTS NO FACTS

Your 2nd answer: Yeah you can believe what you want, but when you discuss your beliefs with others of the same mindset in a forum board dedicated to such, YOU'RE PERSECUTING ME AND MY BELIEFS.

Let me guess the next one: WELL YOU WON'T BE HERE MUCH LONGER, NOBODY DISAGREES WITH ME AN GETS AWAY WITH IT.

Look, I didn't go after you, nor did I attack your beliefs. If you're so sensitive about your faith, perhaps this board isn't right for you.