1818 replies to this topic

[Duchykins]

Well, SOME evidence would be a good start, even if it's not extraordinary.

[shadowhawk]

EVIDENCE: As I said before is, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.   No evidence will overcome willful skepticism.  So You see no evidence presented because you don't want to.  I am not trying to overcome this.  However, much evidence has been given.  

Edited by shadowhawk, 11 July 2014 - 06:44 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Well, SOME evidence would be a good start, even if it's not extraordinary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 11 July 2014 - 07:00 PM.

[DukeNukem]

Referring to that first video:

 

In a lottery, a number MUST be picked, so it's not improbable at all that a certain number is picked -- it's inevitable, in fact.  (The improbable part is trying to guess which number will be picked beforehand, but regardless, a number WILL be picked.)

 

With the supposed resurrection of Jesus, though, this event was not inevitable, nor even probable by any known standard.  So Dr Craig is totally comparing apples and oranges in the video.  But I imagine his quackery will fool all believers who do not want to believe he's pulling a fast one.

Basically, ALL of these videos posted by SH are equally misleading, and full of quackery and delusion.

[sthira]

And regarding that second video:

Two scholars are arguing about a topic in literature on a religious television network. The literature topic -- resurrections of people and mythical beings -- is fictional. They're arguing about fictitious events penned in antiquity. Their discussion (truncated by the media demands of live television) is not too dissimilar to other literature scholars that might argue about fictitious events that occurred in Homer's Odyssey, for instance.

[shadowhawk]

And regarding that second video:

Two scholars are arguing about a topic in literature on a religious television network. The literature topic -- resurrections of people and mythical beings -- is fictional. They're arguing about fictitious events penned in antiquity. Their discussion (truncated by the media demands of live television) is not too dissimilar to other literature scholars that might argue about fictitious events that occurred in Homer's Odyssey, for instance.

They are arguing about whether the events are all the same because one copied the other or one was real an d not copied.  The rest of your comments are off target and commit the genetic fallacy.  

[shadowhawk]

Referring to that first video:

 

In a lottery, a number MUST be picked, so it's not improbable at all that a certain number is picked -- it's inevitable, in fact.  (The improbable part is trying to guess which number will be picked beforehand, but regardless, a number WILL be picked.)

 

With the supposed resurrection of Jesus, though, this event was not inevitable, nor even probable by any known standard.  So Dr Craig is totally comparing apples and oranges in the video.  But I imagine his quackery will fool all believers who do not want to believe he's pulling a fast one.

Basically, ALL of these videos posted by SH are equally misleading, and full of quackery and delusion.

You missed the point.  It is not that a number will ne picked but that # 10,362 will be picked or any other specific number.  It is highly improbable.  So given God, communication must take place but when it does it may be highly improbable.  Humes position that exceptional events require exceptional evidence is false.  I don’t know if you realize it or not but your argument also makes this point.

The resurrection was inevitable if the Christian view is correct.  God loves us.  We are separated from God by sin.  The penalty was paid.  God resurrected Christ and offered the gift to us.  You know the message.  Your name calling will not change that.

[serp777]

Referring to that first video:
 
In a lottery, a number MUST be picked, so it's not improbable at all that a certain number is picked -- it's inevitable, in fact.  (The improbable part is trying to guess which number will be picked beforehand, but regardless, a number WILL be picked.)
 
With the supposed resurrection of Jesus, though, this event was not inevitable, nor even probable by any known standard.  So Dr Craig is totally comparing apples and oranges in the video.  But I imagine his quackery will fool all believers who do not want to believe he's pulling a fast one.

Basically, ALL of these videos posted by SH are equally misleading, and full of quackery and delusion.

You missed the point.  It is not that a number will ne picked but that # 10,362 will be picked or any other specific number.  It is highly improbable.  So given God, communication must take place but when it does it may be highly improbable.  Humes position that exceptional events require exceptional evidence is false.  I dont know if you realize it or not but your argument also makes this point.

The resurrection was inevitable if the Christian view is correct.  God loves us.  We are separated from God by sin.  The penalty was paid.  God resurrected Christ and offered the gift to us.  You know the message.  Your name calling will not change that.

The only highly improbable thing here is that Christianity is the one correct religion out of thousands out there, assuming one religion is correct. Arguing from probability is about the worst argument you can make

Referring to that first video:
 
In a lottery, a number MUST be picked, so it's not improbable at all that a certain number is picked -- it's inevitable, in fact.  (The improbable part is trying to guess which number will be picked beforehand, but regardless, a number WILL be picked.)
 
With the supposed resurrection of Jesus, though, this event was not inevitable, nor even probable by any known standard.  So Dr Craig is totally comparing apples and oranges in the video.  But I imagine his quackery will fool all believers who do not want to believe he's pulling a fast one.

Basically, ALL of these videos posted by SH are equally misleading, and full of quackery and delusion.

You missed the point.  It is not that a number will ne picked but that # 10,362 will be picked or any other specific number.  It is highly improbable.  So given God, communication must take place but when it does it may be highly improbable.  Humes position that exceptional events require exceptional evidence is false.  I dont know if you realize it or not but your argument also makes this point.

The resurrection was inevitable if the Christian view is correct.  God loves us.  We are separated from God by sin.  The penalty was paid.  God resurrected Christ and offered the gift to us.  You know the message.  Your name calling will not change that.

The only highly improbable thing here is that Christianity is the one correct religion out of thousands out there, assuming one religion is correct. Arguing from probability is about the worst argument you can make. Scientistolgists don't need extrodinary evidence either then

Edited by serp777, 12 July 2014 - 06:19 AM.

[shadowhawk]

serp77: "The only highly improbable thing here is that Christianity is the one correct religion out of thousands out there, assuming one religion is correct. Arguing from probability is about the worst argument you can make"

 

Christianity is one of only a few major religions that male up 99% of the population of the world.  The vast, vast majority of those are monotheistic.  (One God) The largest is Christianity.  How probable is that?  Extraordinary?  There is only one.  

It is built upon Jesus Christ and one of the miracles he did was the resurrection.  How probable is that?  Very rare.  Extraordinary.  Does it demand extraordinary evidence?  Rare occupancies occur all the time and we do not demand extraordinary evidence to believe in them.  To demand extraordinary evidence for extra ordinary events such as David Hume did is the wrong use of probability so I agree with you.  However this misuse is used all the time when attacking improbable or one time events by atheists and other skeptics.  It has been done here.

By the way, I have given extraordinary evidence, far, far more than any other historical figure of the time.

[Lewis Carroll]

 

Referring to that first video:

 

In a lottery, a number MUST be picked, so it's not improbable at all that a certain number is picked -- it's inevitable, in fact.  (The improbable part is trying to guess which number will be picked beforehand, but regardless, a number WILL be picked.)

 

With the supposed resurrection of Jesus, though, this event was not inevitable, nor even probable by any known standard.  So Dr Craig is totally comparing apples and oranges in the video.  But I imagine his quackery will fool all believers who do not want to believe he's pulling a fast one.

Basically, ALL of these videos posted by SH are equally misleading, and full of quackery and delusion.

You missed the point.  It is not that a number will ne picked but that # 10,362 will be picked or any other specific number.  It is highly improbable.  So given God, communication must take place but when it does it may be highly improbable.  Humes position that exceptional events require exceptional evidence is false.  I don’t know if you realize it or not but your argument also makes this point.

The resurrection was inevitable if the Christian view is correct.  God loves us.  We are separated from God by sin.  The penalty was paid.  God resurrected Christ and offered the gift to us.  You know the message.  Your name calling will not change that.

 

 

I completely agree with DukeNukem. It seems that the majority of the videos you post are quite misleading and extremely biased.

 

In regards to your second paragraph, I find it both troubling and baffling that people can actually digest the story of Christianity. I honestly don't understand how people can take it seriously. 

 

I still don't understand how one can propose that God loves us after reading the Old Testament. God loves us so much that he once killed the entire population of the world. God loves us so much that he is sending 75% of us to Hell (given that reaching the Kingdom of God is more difficult then passing through the eye of a needle). God loves us so much that he planted a "Tree of Knowledge" in the middle of the Garden of Eden just to temp Adam and Eve (who were both by all means "dumb"). God KNEW that Adam and Eve would eat that fruit. God is the reason we are separated by sin; he planned it that way! He knew humanity would be separated by sin. He knew his creation would not turn out satisfactory, and, as a result, he would CHOOSE to send his only son to be mocked, tortured, and crucified (when he could have chosen a far less gruesome, barbaric game plan). He knew it would all unfold this way, and he pre-planned humanities fall. How can you possibly say, based on the story clearly written in the Bible, that God loves us?

 

 

serp77: "The only highly improbable thing here is that Christianity is the one correct religion out of thousands out there, assuming one religion is correct. Arguing from probability is about the worst argument you can make"

 

Christianity is one of only a few major religions that male up 99% of the population of the world.  The vast, vast majority of those are monotheistic.  (One God) The largest is Christianity.  How probable is that?  Extraordinary?  There is only one.  

It is built upon Jesus Christ and one of the miracles he did was the resurrection.  How probable is that?  Very rare.  Extraordinary.  Does it demand extraordinary evidence?  Rare occupancies occur all the time and we do not demand extraordinary evidence to believe in them.  To demand extraordinary evidence for extra ordinary events such as David Hume did is the wrong use of probability so I agree with you.  However this misuse is used all the time when attacking improbable or one time events by atheists and other skeptics.  It has been done here.

By the way, I have given extraordinary evidence, far, far more than any other historical figure of the time.

 

I fail to see how your rant retorted serp77's response whatsoever.

 

"The only highly improbable thing here is that Christianity is the one correct religion out of thousands out there, assuming one religion is correct."

Edited by MajinBrian, 12 July 2014 - 07:01 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Response to MainBrain:

Perhaps sin is a bigger issue than you think.  Reading the old Testament, it was a big issue and by the way people are shown to be extremely evil there and it was not Gods doing.  How do you know what percent go to hell and there is a way provided by God not to go there.  You send yourself there.  Hell is where God is not and that is where some want to be.  Freedom of choice seems to be a great value to God and I assume it is to you also.  Choose, then blame it on God?
God says choose Him.   God did choose and did send His Son to rescue you and I.  You don’t like it and argue he could have chose another way?  How do you know?  God is love but you don’t have to accept it.  In fact you can choose not to choose but then that is also a choice.

I wont repeat myself.  Christianity is one of only a handful of major religions..Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism (by influence, not by numbers).  This covers most of humanity.  There are thousands of others but not serious contenders.  Some people still think the world is flat but seriously.  So, Christianity, Islam and parts of Hinduism are Monotheistic.  Panintheism and Pantheism make up Hinduism.  Buddhism (parts of it) does not address the subject of God, So if you think there is evidence for these other religions, there are topics on it you may be interested in.  There is even one on Atheism though that is very small except here.

Just because there is pluralism does not mean they are wrong or right a subject I tried to address in section two, Which One.  Serp777s assertion that because there are different positions, none is correct, is nonsense.
 

[Lewis Carroll]

Response to MainBrain:

Perhaps sin is a bigger issue than you think.  Reading the old Testament, it was a big issue and by the way people are shown to be extremely evil there and it was not Gods doing.  How do you know what percent go to hell and there is a way provided by God not to go there.  You send yourself there.  Hell is where God is not and that is where some want to be.  Freedom of choice seems to be a great value to God and I assume it is to you also.  Choose, then blame it on God?
God says choose Him.   God did choose and did send His Son to rescue you and I.  You don’t like it and argue he could have chose another way?  How do you know?  God is love but you don’t have to accept it.  In fact you can choose not to choose but then that is also a choice.

I wont repeat myself.  Christianity is one of only a handful of major religions..Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism (by influence, not by numbers).  This covers most of humanity.  There are thousands of others but not serious contenders.  Some people still think the world is flat but seriously.  So, Christianity, Islam and parts of Hinduism are Monotheistic.  Panintheism and Pantheism make up Hinduism.  Buddhism (parts of it) does not address the subject of God, So if you think there is evidence for these other religions, there are topics on it you may be interested in.  There is even one on Atheism though that is very small except here.

Just because there is pluralism does not mean they are wrong or right a subject I tried to address in section two, Which One.  Serp777s assertion that because there are different positions, none is correct, is nonsense.
 

 

 

I don't even know where to begin...

 

Well, first off, I want to point out that it's extremely hard to comprehend what you're saying (and not because the material is advanced...).

 

Second, for the hundredth time, my name is "MajinBrian", not "MainBrain" or "MinBran" or any of the other combinations you've used. Honestly, I feel like this is your attempt at an Ad Hominem.

 

In regards to my "knowing the percent of people who will go to Hell", the percent/number was not the point. The point was that it is extremely difficult to be granted entry into Heaven. Yes, Christianity is the largest religion. However, that still means that there are billions of people who do not believe in Jesus. And, since Jesus is the path to Heaven, they may be in trouble. Plus, "mortal sin" destroys our communion with God. Continuous mortal sin, especially when foregoing confession, is a fast track to Hell. I for one have racked up these mortal sins. I consider myself a pretty "good" person overall. And if I am destined for Hell (either due to my lack of faith in Jesus or my large tally of sins), so are A LOT of over people. Even people who believe in Jesus will have a pretty tough time reaching salvation. The Bible makes this very clear.

 

Matthew 7:13-21 - “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it." 

 

This leads back to the actual point I was making - God KNOWS all. 6,000 years ago when God created the universe, he knew that all these people were destined for Hell, but he chose to go ahead with his plan. So, yea, "we send ourselves to Hell or Heaven" based on our actions on Earth; however, this does not change the fact the God 100% knew it would play out that way. And if he knew all along that all these people (myself and most others on this forum included) were destined for Hell, he should have just not created us in the first place! Nonexistence sounds a whole lot more appealing then spending eternity burning in the fires of Hell.

 

God has an extremely twisted love.

 

Yes, I completely blame God. I think he is quite the malevolent psychopath to make creation play this twisted little game called life. It's possible we have free-will, but that doesn't change the fact that God already knows what we are going to do. God is not only the card dealer, but he also knows what's in everyones hand  as well as every call and fold we will make. The game is rigged, and the majority of us will lose. And God planned it that way...

Edited by MajinBrian, 12 July 2014 - 09:05 PM.

[serp777]

serp77: "The only highly improbable thing here is that Christianity is the one correct religion out of thousands out there, assuming one religion is correct. Arguing from probability is about the worst argument you can make"

 

Christianity is one of only a few major religions that male up 99% of the population of the world.  The vast, vast majority of those are monotheistic.  (One God) The largest is Christianity.  How probable is that?  Extraordinary?  There is only one.  

It is built upon Jesus Christ and one of the miracles he did was the resurrection.  How probable is that?  Very rare.  Extraordinary.  Does it demand extraordinary evidence?  Rare occupancies occur all the time and we do not demand extraordinary evidence to believe in them.  To demand extraordinary evidence for extra ordinary events such as David Hume did is the wrong use of probability so I agree with you.  However this misuse is used all the time when attacking improbable or one time events by atheists and other skeptics.  It has been done here.

By the way, I have given extraordinary evidence, far, far more than any other historical figure of the time.

 

All I see is an argument for popularity. Just because a lot of people believe in a religion is not any evidence for it's validity. Majority belief =/= truth. Plus you're forgetting about all those other large religions, like Islam, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Judiasm, or all the other ancient beliefs that existed before. 

 

"By the way, I have given extraordinary evidence, far, far more than any other historical figure of the time."

That's because you havent given any evidence for any other historical figure. A pointless argument. 

[Duchykins]

Crap, I thought we stopped using 'everybody else is doing it' in high school

[serp777]

Response to MainBrain:

Perhaps sin is a bigger issue than you think.  Reading the old Testament, it was a big issue and by the way people are shown to be extremely evil there and it was not Gods doing.  How do you know what percent go to hell and there is a way provided by God not to go there.  You send yourself there.  Hell is where God is not and that is where some want to be.  Freedom of choice seems to be a great value to God and I assume it is to you also.  Choose, then blame it on God?
God says choose Him.   God did choose and did send His Son to rescue you and I.  You don’t like it and argue he could have chose another way?  How do you know?  God is love but you don’t have to accept it.  In fact you can choose not to choose but then that is also a choice.

I wont repeat myself.  Christianity is one of only a handful of major religions..Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism (by influence, not by numbers).  This covers most of humanity.  There are thousands of others but not serious contenders.  Some people still think the world is flat but seriously.  So, Christianity, Islam and parts of Hinduism are Monotheistic.  Panintheism and Pantheism make up Hinduism.  Buddhism (parts of it) does not address the subject of God, So if you think there is evidence for these other religions, there are topics on it you may be interested in.  There is even one on Atheism though that is very small except here.

Just because there is pluralism does not mean they are wrong or right a subject I tried to address in section two, Which One.  Serp777s assertion that because there are different positions, none is correct, is nonsense.
 

"Just because there is pluralism does not mean they are wrong or right a subject I tried to address in section two, Which One.  Serp777s assertion that because there are different positions, none is correct, is nonsense."

 

Annddddd another red herring, which is actually nonsense. The word i used was improbable, not impossible. Google the definition of improbable. Don't tell me what my position or assertions are when you have no idea what you're talking about; thanks .  Your arguments are absurd, and your attempts to put words in my mouth are disgusting. 

 

Furthermore it certainly suggests that most positions are wrong, since they are mutually inconsistent with each other. 

 

It's still also funny how you think you're the ultimate judge of sense. You don't like an argument? Well it must be nonsense then. Incredulity 101. 

[serp777]

 

serp77: "The only highly improbable thing here is that Christianity is the one correct religion out of thousands out there, assuming one religion is correct. Arguing from probability is about the worst argument you can make"

 

Christianity is one of only a few major religions that male up 99% of the population of the world.  The vast, vast majority of those are monotheistic.  (One God) The largest is Christianity.  How probable is that?  Extraordinary?  There is only one.  

It is built upon Jesus Christ and one of the miracles he did was the resurrection.  How probable is that?  Very rare.  Extraordinary.  Does it demand extraordinary evidence?  Rare occupancies occur all the time and we do not demand extraordinary evidence to believe in them.  To demand extraordinary evidence for extra ordinary events such as David Hume did is the wrong use of probability so I agree with you.  However this misuse is used all the time when attacking improbable or one time events by atheists and other skeptics.  It has been done here.

By the way, I have given extraordinary evidence, far, far more than any other historical figure of the time.

 

All I see is an argument for popularity. Just because a lot of people believe in a religion is not any evidence for it's validity. Majority belief =/= truth. Plus you're forgetting about all those other large religions, like Islam, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Judiasm, or all the other ancient beliefs that existed before. 

 

"By the way, I have given extraordinary evidence, far, far more than any other historical figure of the time."

That's because you havent given any evidence for any other historical figure. A pointless argument. 

 

" Rare occupancies occur all the time and we do not demand extraordinary evidence to believe in them. "

Ok then, scientology, and Islam, and all the other rare occurances that happen all the time are valid. We don't need good evidence. At least you admit there isn't extraordinary evidence. That's a good start. THe fact that you don't think you need a lot of evidence for a huge claim about the entire universe is maximum unscientific. 

 

[Duchykins]

Response to MainBrain:

Perhaps sin is a bigger issue than you think.  Reading the old Testament, it was a big issue and by the way people are shown to be extremely evil there and it was not Gods doing.  How do you know what percent go to hell and there is a way provided by God not to go there.  You send yuourself there.  Hell is where God is not and that is where some want to be.  Freedom of choice seems to be a great value to God and I assume it is to you also.  Choose, then blame it on God?
God says choose Him.   God did choose and did send His Son to rescue you and I.  You dont like it and argue he could have chose another way?  How do you know?  God is love but you dont have to accept it.  In fact you can choose not to choose but then that is also a choice.

I wont repeat myself.  Christianity is one of only a handful of major religions..Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism (by influence, not by numbers).  This covers most of humanity.  There are thousands of others but not serious contenders.  Some people still think the world is flat but seriously.  So, Christianity, Islam and parts of Hinduism are Monotheistic.  Panintheism and Pantheism make up Hinduism.  Buddhism (parts of it) does not address the subject of God, So if you think there is evidence for these other religions, there are topics on it you may be interested in.  There is even one on Atheism though that is very small except here.

Just because there is pluralism does not mean they are wrong or right a subject I tried to address in section two, Which One.  Serp777s assertion that because there are different positions, none is correct, is nonsense.
 

It's hilarious how so many Christians believe their god stupid by giving these kinds of arguments. Well, I suppose people's gods can only be as moral and intelligent as themselves.

[shadowhawk]

MajinBrian, it appears you do know about Christianity somewhat and do not accept it.  OK, that is your choice.  I am sure you are a pretty good person, even better than me.  That is not the point.  How God judges is His business and the basis of that judgement is also His business.  If it was up to those in Jail, they are all good guys and they would all be out.  Just ask them.  However that is not the way it works.  I don’t think God created the cosmos 6,000 years ago nor do I know anyone who does.  He created people with the freedom to choose.  He KNEW what he was doing.  He didnt make robots and we can choose.  It is called limited determinism.  So you are making a choice.

You are choosing.  You want to blame God for your choice; no it is your choice.  You want God to choose you?  Choose Him.  Reject and blame him for your choices if you want but they are still your choices.  Want to be with God?  Choose Him.  Don't want to be with God, reject and blame him.  You are free to choose.  Does God know what you will choose?  I would say yes, but you don't know.  Be creative Choose God and then He will have chosen you.  Predestinate yourself.
 

 

MajinBrian   Yes, I completely blame God. I think he is quite the malevolent psychopath to make creation play this twisted little game called life. It's possible we have free-will, but that doesn't change the fact that God already knows what we are going to do. God is not only the card dealer, but he also knows what's in everyones hand  as well as every call and fold we will make. The game is rigged, and the majority of us will lose. And God planned it that way...

No, you are free to plan it that way and what you are doing now is proof of that.  Want a different outcome?  Choose one..  You are free.

Edited by shadowhawk, 14 July 2014 - 09:14 PM.

[shadowhawk]

serp777: All I see is an argument for popularity. Just because a lot of people believe in a religion is not any evidence for it's validity. Majority belief =/= truth. Plus you're forgetting about all those other large religions, like Islam, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Judiasm, or all the other ancient beliefs that existed before.

I am sorry you can’t see.  I have started topics on Atheism, Islam, Hinduism, Indefinite life and others.  So I have not forgotten about other religions.  As for the others do you want to start a evidence for all the other creation myths?  How about Eagle, Coyote and hummingbird.  Want to start that one for us?

Shadowhawk: "By the way, I have given extraordinary evidence, far, far more than any other historical figure of the time."

Serp777: That's because you havant given any evidence for any other historical figure. A pointless argument.

Why don’t you, we have topics on them.  How about Islam.  Want to comment on how Mohammed died.  I recently posted on that historical event.  Where are you?  
 

[Lewis Carroll]

Honestly, you missed all the points I was attempting to make. You overlook the main thesis/point in favor of picking out minute details to dissect for possible fault.

 

After reading your response and, once again, glancing over my own post, it's hard for me to respond. I am attempting to be "unbiased", but I honestly feel that this debate is tilted ridiculously in my favor. None of your counter arguments make any sort of legitimate cracks whatsoever. This seems to be a rather pointless conversation, since you refuse to be rational or open-minded.

 

 

 

 

MajinBrian, it appears you do know about Christianity somewhat and do not accept it.  OK, that is your choice.  I am sure you are a pretty good person, even better than me.  That is not the point.  How God judges is His business and the basis of that judgement is also His business.  If it was up to those in Jail, they are all good guys and they would all be out.  Just ask them.  However that is not the way it works.  I don’t think God created the cosmos 6,000 years ago nor do I know anyone who does.  He created people with the freedom to choose.  He KNEW what he was doing.  He didnt make robots and we can choose.  It is called limited determinism.  So you are making a choice.

You are choosing.  You want to blame God for your choice; no it is your choice.  You want God to choose you?  Choose Him.  Reject and blame him for your choices if you want but they are still your choices.  Want to be with God?  Choose Him.  Don't want to be with God, reject and blame him.  You are free to choose.  Does God know what you will choose?  I would say yes, but you don't know.  Be creative Choose God and then He will have chosen you.  Predestinate yourself.

 

 

"Matthew 7:13-21 - ?Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it." 

 

This leads back to the actual point I was making - God KNOWS all. 6,000 years ago when God created the universe, he knew that all these people were destined for Hell, but he chose to go ahead with his plan. So, yea, "we send ourselves to Hell or Heaven" based on our actions on Earth; however, this does not change the fact the God 100% knew it would play out that way. And if he knew all along that all these people (myself and most others on this forum included) were destined for Hell, he should have just not created us in the first place! Nonexistence sounds a whole lot more appealing then spending eternity burning in the fires of Hell."

 

No, you are free to plan it that way and what you are doing now is proof of that.  Want a different outcome?  Choose one..  You are free.

 

 

You're, once again, simply sugar coating the "facts". Regardless of how you twist it, at the end of the day, God KNOWS EXACTLY what will happen in regards to our actions, decisions and final destination.

Edited by MajinBrian, 14 July 2014 - 10:00 PM.

[shadowhawk]

OK MajinBrian blame God if you want for your choices  Remove God and then what?  Do you still have full reedom of choice?  Does the future look great now that there is no God.  Does it now make sense?  By the way, the Sun will someday expand and the earth will be inside it.  If there is no God we will all burn in hell. This is not about winning an argument, it is much more serious than that.  Good luck. 

Edited by shadowhawk, 14 July 2014 - 10:58 PM.

[Lewis Carroll]

OK MajinBrian blame God if you want for your choices

 

 

 

Once again, this is not the point. I am not "blaming" God for ones choices; I am simply stating that he already knows.

 

Remove God and then what? 

 

 

 

Remove all current religious doctrine, dogma, etc., and then we can restart this whole "search for God" (aka: the mysteries of the Universe) by relying on logic and reason rather then faith and 2,000 year old books. 

 

Does the future look great now that there is no God.

 

 

 

It looks Heavenly.

 

Does it now make sense?

 

 

 

It definitely makes more sense then before.

 

 

This is not about winning an argument, it is much more serious than that. 

 

 

 

I completely agree. We as a species need to evolve out of this primitive state where millions are reliant on religion for answers and purpose.

 

Fact > Faith

 

Faith should not dictate anything in society besides ones personal, subjective opinion in which they keep to themselves.

 

"I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam -- good people, yes, but any religion based on a single, well, frenzied and virulent god, is not as useful to the human race."

 

"The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved — Judaism, Christianity, Islam. These are sky-god religions. They are, literally, patriarchal — God is the Omnipotent Father — hence the loathing of women for 2,000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on earth, as he is in place not for just one tribe but for all creation. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed for their own good."

 

-Gore Vidal

 

Good luck. 

 

 

Thanks, Shadowhawk.

[shadowhawk]

Let me again define faith:

Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.  Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.  Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.

American biblical scholar Archibald Thomas Robertson stated that the Greek word pistis used for faith in the New Testament (over two hundred forty times), and rendered "assurance" in Acts 17:31 (KJV), is "an old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence."  To be persuaded by belief that has warrant, a trust in and commitment to what we have reason to believe is true.  It is belief that the hypotheses we hold will be substantiated in the future, in fact.  Trust.  Faith should be defined as “trusting, holding to, and acting on what one has good reason to believe is true in the face of incomplete evidence and difficulties.”

 

I don't think we can do away with faith.  The ancients saw the same universe we do.  Faith in what we are seeing comes from our assumptions about it.  There is no proof for atheism.
 

Edited by shadowhawk, 15 July 2014 - 01:05 AM.

[serp777]

 

serp777: All I see is an argument for popularity. Just because a lot of people believe in a religion is not any evidence for it's validity. Majority belief =/= truth. Plus you're forgetting about all those other large religions, like Islam, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Judiasm, or all the other ancient beliefs that existed before.

I am sorry you can’t see.  I have started topics on Atheism, Islam, Hinduism, Indefinite life and others.  So I have not forgotten about other religions.  As for the others do you want to start a evidence for all the other creation myths?  How about Eagle, Coyote and hummingbird.  Want to start that one for us?

 

Shadowhawk: "By the way, I have given extraordinary evidence, far, far more than any other historical figure of the time."

Serp777: That's because you havant given any evidence for any other historical figure. A pointless argument.

Why don’t you, we have topics on them.  How about Islam.  Want to comment on how Mohammed died.  I recently posted on that historical event.  Where are you?  
 

 

Evidence for other religions is evidence against Christianity, so it's acceptable to put it in an evidence for Christianity thread. Your argument that because Christianity is a major religion means it's more likely to be true or considered is awful, but it seems like you're not defending that argument from popularity anymore. 

 

"I am sorry you can’t see. "

MORE NAME CALLING. T_T T_T T_T T_T. AD HOMINEM. T_T. MEANIE ALERT.

 

"As for the others do you want to start a evidence for all the other creation myths?  How about Eagle, Coyote and hummingbird.  Want to start that one for us?"

 

Nah, it would be relevant to post it here since evidence for those myths would be evidence against Christianity, since they are mutually exclusive. All religious evidence is applicable to all religious threads despite your proposition, which I dont accept, that it should go in some unnecessary other thread.

 

If you want, start a thread called: is there evidence for religion? That one thread makes more sense than creating a thousand threads addressing each religion. It was mainly your fault for creating all these unnecessary and illogical threads that we need to navigate through. 

 

Again, you've ignored the major point and deflected : "All I see is an argument for popularity. Just because a lot of people believe in a religion is not any evidence for it's validity. Majority belief =/= truth. "

 

 

[serp777]

Let me again define faith:

Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.  Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.  Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.

American biblical scholar Archibald Thomas Robertson stated that the Greek word pistis used for faith in the New Testament (over two hundred forty times), and rendered "assurance" in Acts 17:31 (KJV), is "an old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence."  To be persuaded by belief that has warrant, a trust in and commitment to what we have reason to believe is true.  It is belief that the hypotheses we hold will be substantiated in the future, in fact.  Trust.  Faith should be defined as “trusting, holding to, and acting on what one has good reason to believe is true in the face of incomplete evidence and difficulties.”

 

I don't think we can do away with faith.  The ancients saw the same universe we do.  Faith in what we are seeing comes from our assumptions about it.  There is no proof for atheism.
 

"Everything has incomplete evidence,"

 

An unporvable assertion that you would need to show is either true or false through logical or mathematical analysis. Proving this would require you to know everything or show a proof. This kind of claim is faith. Therefore your entire argument is void. 

Edited by serp777, 15 July 2014 - 03:10 AM.

[serp777]

 

Let me again define faith:

Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.  Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.  Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.

American biblical scholar Archibald Thomas Robertson stated that the Greek word pistis used for faith in the New Testament (over two hundred forty times), and rendered "assurance" in Acts 17:31 (KJV), is "an old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence."  To be persuaded by belief that has warrant, a trust in and commitment to what we have reason to believe is true.  It is belief that the hypotheses we hold will be substantiated in the future, in fact.  Trust.  Faith should be defined as “trusting, holding to, and acting on what one has good reason to believe is true in the face of incomplete evidence and difficulties.”

 

I don't think we can do away with faith.  The ancients saw the same universe we do.  Faith in what we are seeing comes from our assumptions about it.  There is no proof for atheism.
 

"Everything has incomplete evidence,"

 

An unporvable assertion that you would need to show is either true or false through logical or mathematical analysis. Proving this would require you to know everything. This kind of claim is faith. Therefore your entire argument is void. 

"The ancients saw the same universe we do. "

​So they had telescopes, infrared cameras, microscopes, atomic force microscopy, etc? 
 

 

 

[shadowhawk]

serp777

all you are trying to do is derail the topic.  Have a nice day. 

[shadowhawk]

"Everything has incomplete evidence,"

 

An unporvable assertion that you would need to show is either true or false through logical or mathematical analysis. Proving this would require you to know everything. This kind of claim is faith. Therefore your entire argument is void. 

"The ancients saw the same universe we do. "

?So they had telescopes, infrared cameras, microscopes, atomic force microscopy, etc?

 

Godel's "Incompleteness Theorem."   Discussion in "Evidence for Atheism." 

[serp777]

"Everything has incomplete evidence,"
 
An unporvable assertion that you would need to show is either true or false through logical or mathematical analysis. Proving this would require you to know everything. This kind of claim is faith. Therefore your entire argument is void. 
"The ancients saw the same universe we do. "
?So they had telescopes, infrared cameras, microscopes, atomic force microscopy, etc?

 
Godel's "Incompleteness Theorem."   Discussion in "Evidence for Atheism." 

First, red hering, you have not shown how i have derailed the topic. If anything your fallacies are detailing a more interesting conversation about christianity and evidence. Furthermore do you know what godels thereom is?


http://en.m.wikipedi...teness_theorems

His thereom places limits on arithmetic from systems of axioms ;it has nothing to do with evidence but has to do with proving relationships about natural numbers. The universe, although many parts can be approximated by math, is not made of numbers and therefore does not have to have the same constraints as math

[addx]

"Everything has incomplete evidence,"
 
An unporvable assertion that you would need to show is either true or false through logical or mathematical analysis. Proving this would require you to know everything. This kind of claim is faith. Therefore your entire argument is void. 
"The ancients saw the same universe we do. "
?So they had telescopes, infrared cameras, microscopes, atomic force microscopy, etc?

 
Godel's "Incompleteness Theorem."   Discussion in "Evidence for Atheism."

Yes, you made your argument there, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THAT THREAD ACCEPTED YOUR ARGUMENT AS VALID.

So? What now? You still think you've proven it, ALL OF OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE SEEN YOUR PROOF ON THIS FORUM DENY THIS.

Is it then proven in any measure? Can you answer this simple question?