Bright, 1. If you reject Jesus, you hate Jesus. God considers all who reject Him his enemies. 2. Are you withholding judgment on your skepticism as well as God? If not, you are a hypocrit. If you are, then, you have found the internal contradiction of skepticism. 3. I don't claim magic! Magic is the scientific use of forces to manipulate reality according to physical or spiritual laws. God condemns magic, as do I. 4. False. If you reject the evidence, you must disprove it.
Array( 1 week ago by seethebright)
"That is fact." Oh yes. It's fact. It's science. It's a super duper factual scientific super fact. There's an undeniable stat from a U.S. government cenus book that says, "Murders attributed to belief in non-existence of god/gods, 1909-2009: 17,458,871
Array( 1 week ago by shazaman2)
ChristianVoice8, One example of religious dogma is Islamic terrorists. Another example is abortion clinic bombers. These dogmatic acts, you would be hard pressed to find an atheist committing such acts. This is because atheists are more pragmatic, in that they don't believe they will have any sort of eternal salvation.
Atheism has only ...( 1 week ago by urantivirus)
Atheism has only become common in the last couple 100 years or so. The reason being that they were usually killed by Christians or other religious people. I don't know where you get your facts from. But religion has killed way more people then atheism. Religion teaches hate. It makes you think that people like me and people of other beliefs are going to hell. Oh, and tell me which Atheists you're talking about. Don't even mention Hilter.
False, virus. ...( 1 week ago by ChristianVoice08)
False, virus. Atheism grew in ancient Greece. However, do to logic & it's lack of explanatory power it failed as a world view. The enlightenment period & postreformation increase in science DUE TO CHRISTIAN scientists, atheism continued to be rejected as it is illogical. However, with the increase in the separation of spirit from reason triggered by Kant, Pascal & Aquinas who pushed for reason alone, reason became sovereign. This damaged presuppositions. CONT
Array( 1 week ago by ChristianVoice08)
CONT With the rise of rationalism, atheism was once again espoused merely because presuppositions that were theistic were rejected out right (a clear bias) as not based on reason alone. However, as atheism can't answer ANY of life's questions and lacks a moral basis, it has lead to a rise in evil and atrocitites even though most people are theists. The problem, in my opinion, is that nonChristian theists & many professing Christians are living as practical atheists in contrast to their views.
Array( 1 week ago by ChristianVoice08)
QUOTE There's an undeniable stat from a U.S. government cenus book that says, "Murders attributed to belief in non-existence of god/gods, 1909-2009: 17,458,871" So, bright, you are admitting that atheism is killing millions as opposed to less than 200,000 attributable deaths to Islam??? Hmmm.
1. Islam promotes ...( 1 week ago by ChristianVoice08)
1. Islam promotes violence. However, Muslims kill mostly Muslims then Christians. It IS NOT comparable to Biblical Christianity which CANNOT kill in the name of God. 2. Abortion bombers are not Christians by definition. Their acts VIOLATE Christian teachings (AKA dogmas). You can't lay them at our feet. 3. Atheists who are consistent with their world view are slaughtering the masses in China, North Korea and in the old Soviet Union. You fail to prove your point, but, your bias is clear. Shaza
Of course not, ...( 1 week ago by seethebright)
Of course not, silly. I think you may not have picked up on the fact that I was joking.
Array( 1 week ago by seethebright)
CV, 1. I can't exactly hate Jesus because as I said quite clearly, I'm not really sold on the idea that he existed. 2. Am I skeptical about my skepticsm, is that what you mean? I don't know how to answer that. Are you mad about your anger? Are you disappointed about your sadness? 3. Yep, you do. Think of magic in a broader context, not according to the lexicon of a bible thumper. 4. Please describe the supposed evidence. If it is evidence, I will not dismiss it.
"violating the laws ...( 1 week ago by seethebright)
"violating the laws of nature at will" Riiiiight, CV. No one would ever consider that magic.
It's just a larger, ...( 1 week ago by seethebright)
It's just a larger, broader overall gripe I have about blind faith. Name one belief that is commendable or deserving of respect, intellectually speaking. I don't mean value statements, like "I believe in justice." I mean the very beliefs that define religion in contrast to philosophy and science. At its core, religion is nothing but an appeal to the supernatural to alleviate fear.
I have serious ...( 1 week ago by SoulOdyssey)
I have serious reservations with discussing this any further with you--beliefs that define religion differ from one religion to the next, and you simply cannot classify them all as a single entity. You speak of philosophy and science yet you have yet to present a valid argument without serious logical errors. As you say, they're more like diatribes that I suspect is the fruit of your "overall gripe." At its core, religion perfectly harmonizes with philosophy and science, and elevates them both.
bright, the simple ...( 1 week ago by ChristianVoice08)
bright, the simple logic escapes you. If you created the natural law, you are NOT boun d by it. DUHHH
YOU have the blind ...( 1 week ago by ChristianVoice08)
YOU have the blind faith, bright. I have the facts on my side. YOU can NEVER prove there is NO God. Therefore, if you choose to ignore all the evidence of God and claim that there is NO evidence and that there is NO God, you are exercising blind faith.
"beliefs that ...( 1 week ago by seethebright)
"beliefs that define religion differ from one religion to the next" Not really. There is no fundamental difference between believing different manifestations of the supernatural. What makes religion different from philosphy is an appeal to magic. (Sorry, CV, I know that makes you very angry.) I CANNOT fathom why you'd ever argue that religion harmonizes PERFECTLY with science. Science is superior to religion in every way that matters. Science would be science even if religion never existed.
There you go again. ...( 1 week ago by seethebright)
There you go again. Challenging me to prove a negative. YOU ARE RIGHT--I CAN NEVER PROVE THERE IS NO GOD. And you can never prove there are not magical unicorns grazing on the lint in my sock drawer. Could you at least list a few of your facts? Seriously. As I said before, if there is some real evidence you'd like to share I won't dismiss it. To be clear, I do not claim there is no god. Like you, I don't know if there is a god. Unlike you, I suspect there is not a god or gods. Understood?
I understand that ...( 1 week ago by seethebright)
I understand that you believe that your particular god created the natural law and is thus free to break it at will. I don't see much evidence that your particular deity is in fact real. That naturally leads me to doubt your claim that he/she/it created anything, let alone the natrual laws governing the universe. Try harder, CV. Try harder.
I don't have to try ...( 1 week ago by ChristianVoice08)
I don't have to try harder. If you cannot refute all 27 books of the New Testament & namely the four gospels, then, YOU are the one ignoring the evidence as God stepped into time as a man & performed miracles showing His mastery of the natural. Then, He rose from the dead showing He was God. He identified Himself as God. You are ignoring that evidence, Bright. Give answer.
Well, at least now ...( 1 week ago by seethebright)
Well, at least now you are making some attempt to define what you think is evidence. But let us step back a few steps. You present the gospels as evidence for claims made by the gospels. I told you before that I felt there was scant evidence that jesus even existed. Perhaps you should start there. (And please don't bore me with Josephus. Been there. Done that.)
Curiously, your ...( 1 week ago by SoulOdyssey)
Curiously, your statement is neither scientific nor philosophical--well, I suppose it could be had you actually given support for your arguments--which you haven't. All you've attempted to accomplish is to try and relate all religions with a commonality with "magic" (which you have yet to define). Again--incoherent rambling. I implore you to spare yourself from becoming the laughing stock of both the atheistic and theistic community. Try again honey
NO, Bright. YOU ...( 1 week ago by ChristianVoice08)
NO, Bright. YOU must prove your claim AGAINST the Historical Jesus. I have to prove NOTHING! The accounts stand as true until disproved as they are contemporary and YOU are NOT, Aristotle's Dictem. So, let's see you disprove ALL four Gospels and then the Book of Acts as it also speaks of Jesus's resurrection.
Science is superior ...( 1 week ago by seethebright)
Science is superior to religion in every way that matters. Science would be science even if religion never existed. That's my opinion. Your opinion is that religion perfectly harmonizes with philosophy and science, and elevates them both. Can't we all just get along? I'm sorry, is this just more rambling?
utube, I agree with ...( 1 week ago by ChristianVoice08)
utube, I agree with you to an extent. While I do not use my own experience & personal knowledge of God with others as proof since that proof is subjective & not easily verifiable by others, I do have empirical evidence & personal knowledge of God. These coupled with an ongoing relationship with Him make your ascertion a moot point. I can't deny Him Who I know exists. I would be a liar to speak hesitantly about that which I know beyond doubt. You should think about what this means.
1. If you reject Jesus, you hate Jesus. God considers all who reject Him his enemies.
2. Are you withholding judgment on your skepticism as well as God? If not, you are a hypocrit. If you are, then, you have found the internal contradiction of skepticism.
3. I don't claim magic! Magic is the scientific use of forces to manipulate reality according to physical or spiritual laws. God condemns magic, as do I.
4. False. If you reject the evidence, you must disprove it.
Oh yes. It's fact. It's science. It's a super duper factual scientific super fact.
There's an undeniable stat from a U.S. government cenus book that says, "Murders attributed to belief in non-existence of god/gods, 1909-2009: 17,458,871
One example of religious dogma is Islamic terrorists. Another example is abortion clinic bombers. These dogmatic acts, you would be hard pressed to find an atheist committing such acts. This is because atheists are more pragmatic, in that they don't believe they will have any sort of eternal salvation.
CONT
With the rise of rationalism, atheism was once again espoused merely because presuppositions that were theistic were rejected out right (a clear bias) as not based on reason alone. However, as atheism can't answer ANY of life's questions and lacks a moral basis, it has lead to a rise in evil and atrocitites even though most people are theists. The problem, in my opinion, is that nonChristian theists & many professing Christians are living as practical atheists in contrast to their views.
There's an undeniable stat from a U.S. government cenus book that says, "Murders attributed to belief in non-existence of god/gods, 1909-2009: 17,458,871"
So, bright, you are admitting that atheism is killing millions as opposed to less than 200,000 attributable deaths to Islam??? Hmmm.
2. Abortion bombers are not Christians by definition. Their acts VIOLATE Christian teachings (AKA dogmas). You can't lay them at our feet.
3. Atheists who are consistent with their world view are slaughtering the masses in China, North Korea and in the old Soviet Union. You fail to prove your point, but, your bias is clear. Shaza
1. I can't exactly hate Jesus because as I said quite clearly, I'm not really sold on the idea that he existed.
2. Am I skeptical about my skepticsm, is that what you mean? I don't know how to answer that. Are you mad about your anger? Are you disappointed about your sadness?
3. Yep, you do. Think of magic in a broader context, not according to the lexicon of a bible thumper.
4. Please describe the supposed evidence. If it is evidence, I will not dismiss it.
Riiiiight, CV. No one would ever consider that magic.
Not really. There is no fundamental difference between believing different manifestations of the supernatural. What makes religion different from philosphy is an appeal to magic. (Sorry, CV, I know that makes you very angry.)
I CANNOT fathom why you'd ever argue that religion harmonizes PERFECTLY with science. Science is superior to religion in every way that matters. Science would be science even if religion never existed.
Could you at least list a few of your facts? Seriously. As I said before, if there is some real evidence you'd like to share I won't dismiss it.
To be clear, I do not claim there is no god. Like you, I don't know if there is a god. Unlike you, I suspect there is not a god or gods. Understood?
Can't we all just get along?
I'm sorry, is this just more rambling?