The Most Joyful And Friendly Discussion Ever

User avatar
Rainboy
Posts: 1923
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainboy
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: The Most Joyful And Friendly Discussion Ever

Post by Rainboy »

Donald Dump wrote: In theory, it sounds smart. But in reality it's different. There's war, plague, people not having children and many other factors to it.
This reminded me, if Earth was six to ten thousand years old, how come that scientists found fossiles of dinosaurs old millions of years?
To the first point, I was accounting for wars, plagues, famine, etc. My assumptions were based on historical data that we've actually seen.

To the second point, I believe that carbon dating is wrong, and the fossils are not millions of years old. You should read some papers on carbon dating and how it works sometime, it's really quite fascinating. Carbon dating measures the relative proportions of the carbon isotopes carbon-12 and carbon-14 in a fossil. Carbon-14 is created by sunlight energizing things in the atmosphere at a pretty constant rate, and chemistry tells us that carbon-14 decays (half life) at a constant rate. So, if you measure how much carbon-14 is left in the fossil and know how much was in the fossil to begin with, you can estimate the age of the fossil within a few percent.

I don't at all disagree with this process. I believe that we can accurately measure the current amount of carbon-14, and I further believe that we have a very good handle on how fast it decays. The point I argue is the starting amount. See, in an old earth that is billions of years old, the sun has been around long enough for carbon-14 levels to reach equilibrium - that is, the rate at which the sun produces carbon-14 in our atmosphere matches the rate at which old carbon-14 decays. Thus, under an evolutionary model, carbon dating can yield fossils that are millions of years. However, if God's creation didn't populate the earth with carbon-14 initially, not enough time has passed for equilibrium to be reached (IIRC it takes about 30k years or so, but don't quote me on that). Thus, the fossils would have been initially made with less carbon-14 than evolutionary science would expect, which throws the results off by potentially many orders of magnitude.

So to sum up, I believe that carbon dating fits BOTH the evolutionary model and the creationist model. In and of itself, it doesn't favor either and is consistent with both worldviews. Regardless of which of the two worldviews you use as your basis for evaluating the evidence provided by carbon dating, you can easily arrive at a conclusion that supports your view.
Donald Dump wrote: Now the main three question,
and I'm sorry but there's just no way to make this not offensive;

1) Religion has caused millions of deaths worldwide and unfortunately, still is. So you two, Shadi and Rainboy, approve your religion, but (I assume, and hope xD) you do not approve burning witches, killings, terrorism, crusades etc... Aren't you bothered that members of your religion, furthermore priests, were doing stuff like that before, some still are?
2)Do you believe in abnormal stuff not mentioned in the Bible (witches, fairies, werewolves etc...)? Just curious, not planning to discuss it.
3)What do you think of both of your religions spreading to more groups (Suni and shia/orthodox, romachatolic, anglo, protestant, Jehova's witnesses). Jesus (and most likely Muhammad, but I might be wrong) never spoke about their religions splitting into groups. But I am assuming that both of you would never want to belong to the other group, am I correct?
Honestly, I don't find these questions offensive at all.

1) Yes. I find it extremely offensive. I believe that the bible is extremely clear that Christianity is a religion of love - where I define 'love' as considering the needs, wants and desires of others, including those who intend you harm, as more important than your own. Now certainly none of us are able to fully achieve that, but to twist the bible into justifying the crusades, burning witches, etc. is one of the most abominable things you can do. While I feel immense sorrow for those who are so corrupt or deceived that they act as such, my hatred for the sin itself is beyond my capability to express. If I could think of an appropriate profanity to use in this context, I would.

2) I believe that demons have been granted real power for a time in this world, and that they seek to use that power to deceive and corrupt humanity. I do not believe in ghosts, fairies, werewolves, etc, but I do believe that the bible is clear that since Adam's fall, Satan is the ruler of this world for the time being.

3) I believe that Christ is in the business of building one singular Church. There are a few fundamental beliefs which I consider so core to Christianity that anyone who doesn't believe them cannot honestly call themselves a Christian; but, outside of those who falsely take on the title, I believe that I can have fellowship with many denominations even if we don't agree on some of the other details in the bible.

Specifically, for me to consider someone a Christian, they have to believe that:
  • The bible is the word of God and the original texts are inerrant - or without error.
  • Current copies of the original language texts are accurate, and can also be considered inerrant. (Note that I did not say that all translations are without error - this is why going to the original language is frequently important for doctrinal discussion of the bible. A translation is usually good enough for most conversations, but to really understand the deeper richness of the bible, you have to understand the nuances of the original.)
  • All of mankind has sinned. That is, we have all broken God's law.
  • The punishment for sin is death - both physically when our brains finally shut off, but also spiritually when we are separated from God forever in hell.
  • Christ is literally God in human form. He lived a perfect life, willingly died an unjust death to pay the price for our sin (see above), and conquered death by rising again.
  • Anyone who accepts Christ's gift and makes him lord of their life will effectively transfer their sin debt to Him, such that when God looks on them, He sees the perfection of Christ instead of their sin. There is no requirement to live a good life, go to church, give money, prey a specific prayer, etc.
Outside of these points, there's a ton of room for discussion about everything from how we should live (eg, should we all go become monks, is it OK to be a rich billionaire, etc) to how Christ operates (do miracles still happen, predestination VS free will, etc) to what will happen at the end of the world (pre-trib, post-trib, etc) to which day of the week we should worship on (Saturday VS Sunday). All of these things are good to discuss, and we should all strive to have the most accurate understanding of them that we can, but our beliefs in these areas are not what saves us or makes us Christian.

So I guess to your point, I would consider Protestants, (Christian) Orthodox, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc to, in general, still be fully Christian; and I would consider Catholics, Mormons, Jehova's witnesses to be, in general, non-Christian. That isn't to say that specific individuals within those organizations are or are not Christians, just that the general teachings either follow or break what I consider to be fundamental Christianity based on my understanding of the bible. I fully believe, for example, that it is possible for a Roman Catholic to be saved, but I do not believe that the general teachings of Catholicism will directly lead you to salvation.
Last edited by Rainboy on Tue Aug 30, 2016 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sense? What fun is there in making sense...?
User avatar
Rainboy
Posts: 1923
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainboy
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: The Most Joyful And Friendly Discussion Ever

Post by Rainboy »

Shadi wrote:Also by your answer to K0ntra earlier, if you later on find science to be more logical would you then not be a Christian anymore?
It's interesting to see what happens when someone converts to (another) religion or leaves a religious belief, because maybe if they didn't read about a religion their viewpoints would be different. Some things would probably remain the same as "love thy neighbour" but being religious goes a lot deeper than that.
Well, first off, I believe that true science and true religion will always agree. It's not that I find science inadequate, but rather that I reject the evidence for evolution. Now if someone who claimed to be a Christian revoked their claim and chose instead to believe in evolution, they would either be in rebellion to the God who saved them, or they were never a Christian at all. I believe that the bible teaches that you cannot lose your salvation, but if you forsake Christianity, it is evidence that perhaps you weren't really saved to begin with. After all, only God can know the heart of a man.
Sense? What fun is there in making sense...?
User avatar
HATER
Posts: 2293
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
Location: Behind you.
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 69 times
Contact:

Re: The Most Joyful And Friendly Discussion Ever

Post by HATER »

(Fair warning, this post isn't truly on the topic of religion, but rather is on the topic of this thread itself.)



I've been following this thread since it was written, and despite Kat and Rain's many comments to me about it, I have chosen to not get involved.

I do however have a few questions, and indeed something to consider for all parties involved.

What is motivating your involvement in this thread? This one is mainly at k0ntra here, as I've known Rain well enough and long enough (nearly a decade now, geez!) to know that he considers himself defending his faith from misconceptions. While I often don't agree with Rain on many issues (from theology to sexuality to how the werewolf section should be moderated!), I do know that he is an individual who strives to do what he thinks is right, and if he thought he could change even one mind by responding in this thread, he would take the time to do it.

Likewise, as for Shadi, I feel fairly confident I know his motivation for getting involved. Being a follower of Islam, he certainly has an interest in making sure his religion is represented correctly, and, as he is an individual driven to discussion and often trying to stir up deeper thought on different topics, I am not surprised at all to see him here.


As for katcrusader, I see her as lightly trying to play devil's advocate for the sake of a good discussion, and though her points have been valid, her flippancy seems to have done her a discredit: k0ntra seems to have dismissed her as a troll, and Rain's all but ignored her contributions.


Which beings me to you, k0ntra, who started this entire thread. I want to know what your motivation is for starting it. Let's take a look at the reason you've cited here:

"I just want to see what people think"

So, you're simply curious about why those with a religion believe in the way they do.


This doesn't make terribly much sense, though. There are many, many other resources on theology and religion in general available by book, youTube, websites, and more that would be produced by people much, much more qualified than those on a small CounterStrike gaming forum such as ours.

And likewise, if you wanted a proper discussion on the topic in a group discussion format, there are many different forums specifically for such discussion, where you would also be able to find much more qualified and informed people who are there for the specific purpose of having intelligent discussion about their respective faiths.


So we can safely rule this option out. Curiosity about religious believers and their respective beliefs was not the reason you started this topic, leading us to one of two conclusions:



a) You're not curious about religious believers in general, but instead specifically about the religious percentage of neonDragon. This seems somewhat plausible, given that you know people here and might be curious about their religious beliefs, but the point could be raised that you could easily ask such acquaintances privately. But maybe you're curious about the general population of nD as a whole and that's why you posted a public topic on this. I'll concede that this is a distinct possibility.

or

b) You're not actually looking for more knowledge and rather, are looking for a chance to argue and debate and try to prove a point. You have not started this discussion to seek much, if any, enlightenment or understanding about the beliefs of others or even examine your own beliefs. It's clear that you're specifically targeting Christianity for most of your arguments, and that other religions are only of tangential importance. This, coupled with the fact that you were formerly a Christian, means this discussion probably isn't really about religion in general, but rather about Christianity vs. Atheism under the guise of a more inclusive discussion, which I think is what you intended it to be from the start (see: how you've been taken off guard by any non-christian person responding to the thread who hasn't distinctly labeled themselves as a devil's advocate).


I would hope that b) is not the case, but the more I read your posts in this thread, it quickly becomes clear to me that this a far more likely your motive.

First off, for someone who is quick to claim science is on your side, and indeed, that "science made you change your beliefs", you really don't cite much actual scientific evidence to support your claims. You're on the Internet -- there are many, many scientifically reviewed articles and studies out there that could support your conclusions, would it kill you to cite one once in a while instead of pulling this bullshit:
Donald Dump wrote:this is incorrect, as science has proved that
Donald Dump wrote:except atheism, which has got facts proved by science.
Donald Dump wrote:The starlight thingy you mentioned disapproves science, yes,
Donald Dump wrote:And, as time passes we will discover more and more scientific thingies.
Donald Dump wrote:But yeah, science in general.

While I agree that scientific evidence can be cited for the rudimentary ideas of some of your claims, you have made no effort to link ANY of it, and it's very concerning to hear you throw around the word "science!!1!1" like it's some kind of magic fucking wand that automatically proves you're right on every count. Newsflash: It's not.


Second, for someone who claims to be interested in learning more "without offending" and very concerned about "getting hate and trolling" from people, you seem to be quite insensitive to other people's beliefs, dismissing them as bullshit before giving the believers a chance to explain their beliefs.


Also, saying "No offense" before something obviously pretentious and condescending doesn't make it any less pretentious or condescending.


Examples:



Donald Dump wrote:well no offense but what you wrote is obviously incorrect.
Donald Dump wrote: no offense, but I think that you started making stuff up.
Donald Dump wrote:Back in the day, people didn't know that there were that many, and couldn't sort out similar ones.
Impossible.

Honestly, you're afraid of getting "hated on" (check my name, bitch!) and yet your attitude of arrogance clearly shows you're not here to gain any information.


-------------------------------------------------

My conclusion:


I doubt it makes too much difference to Kat or Shadi whether you're sincerely seeking knowledge, but I know from personal experience that Rainboy truly pours a lot of time, effort, blood, sweat, and tears into earnestly explaining his beliefs, even to total strangers across the Internet, and I vastly respect the amount of patience he displays in the process. I would hope that you would not abuse that patience by making a half-assed attempt to prove ideological superiority, which is what it sure looks like to me right now.


Perhaps I'm wrong, and this is not the case. I'd like for you to show me and the other good people in this thread that this discussion is in earnest by:

1. Actually citing sources for your claims. "Scientific thingies" is NOT a valid proof of anything ;)
2. Practice what you preach in terms of respect for others' beliefs. Give them a chance to explain their personal beliefs /before/ you call bullshit on their entire belief system. Yes, obviously you don't believe the same things they believe in, or you wouldn't be having this discussion at all. The point of any proper discussion is to allow the free exchange of ideas, and your premature arrogance really hinders that goal.
3. If you're going to make the discussion mainly about the validity of Christianity, at least do the rest of us a the courtesy of at least saying so.


But until I've seen these changes happen, I simply will not be able to take any of your posts for anything more than a blatantly obvious attempt to incite division within the community for kicks, rather than an intellectual exchange of ideas.


(Not to mention the George Carlin skit in your sig -- and don't get me wrong, the guy was a great comedian-- but nothing says "I'm coming into this discussion to respectfully seek knowledge from others" like a big ol video entitled "RELIGION IS BULLSHIT". ) tl;dr: k0ntra 3edgy5me
Last edited by HATER on Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
These users thanked the author HATER for the post (total 4):
Katika VS, Numble, gal, Emziek
You must disregard the statement I am currently making because every statement I make is inherently false.

ImageImage
User avatar
KING SNEL
Posts: 3327
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:47 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: The Most Joyful And Friendly Discussion Ever

Post by KING SNEL »

hate this boring TLDR topics nowadays
User avatar
Shadi
neonDragon Amdin
Posts: 15508
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:44 am
Location: Behind yo house
Been thanked: 643 times

Re: The Most Joyful And Friendly Discussion Ever

Post by Shadi »

@K0ntra
You were 12 though, rapid change is inevitable with religious influence or not. Not saying religion didn't change anything but you were going through big changes at that age either way so it's hard to take it into account, whereas with an adult that lived a carefree life suddenly becomes God-minded could change a lot.
Rainboy wrote:
Shadi wrote:Also by your answer to K0ntra earlier, if you later on find science to be more logical would you then not be a Christian anymore?
It's interesting to see what happens when someone converts to (another) religion or leaves a religious belief, because maybe if they didn't read about a religion their viewpoints would be different. Some things would probably remain the same as "love thy neighbour" but being religious goes a lot deeper than that.
Well, first off, I believe that true science and true religion will always agree. It's not that I find science inadequate, but rather that I reject the evidence for evolution. Now if someone who claimed to be a Christian revoked their claim and chose instead to believe in evolution, they would either be in rebellion to the God who saved them, or they were never a Christian at all. I believe that the bible teaches that you cannot lose your salvation, but if you forsake Christianity, it is evidence that perhaps you weren't really saved to begin with. After all, only God can know the heart of a man.
Rain, my question is, if the situation comes where true science is going to disprove Christianity, I am not saying this is going to happen, I am not saying it's even possible --> what then? I feel like you're avoiding the question but only kind of answering it, I understand that your current and possibly your view the entire life makes it sound silly to even consider the possibility.

@HATER
Likewise, as for Shadi, I feel fairly confident I know his motivation for getting involved. Being a follower of Islam, he certainly has an interest in making sure his religion is represented correctly, and, as he is an individual driven to discussion and often trying to stir up deeper thought on different topics, I am not surprised at all to see him here.
Well, I was only here because of discussion initially. I do indeed like to discuss different topics in depth. I had no "Islamic" motivation initially until K0ntRa brought it up. Yes, obviously I want my religion to be seen in a different light than it is now but I've also learnt that humanity needs someone to demonise and blame, and it typically just happens to be Islam at the moment. I'll deal with that and try to represent the non-extremist, friendly part of the community to convince people that a large majority of us are here with the intention of peace.
This doesn't make terribly much sense, though. There are many, many other resources on theology and religion in general available by book, youTube, websites, and more that would be produced by people much, much more qualified than those on a small CounterStrike gaming forum such as ours.

And likewise, if you wanted a proper discussion on the topic in a group discussion format, there are many different forums specifically for such discussion, where you would also be able to find much more qualified and informed people who are there for the specific purpose of having intelligent discussion about their respective faiths.

But it's very different to see what people he knows think, I'd much more like to hear about Rain's view on Christianity over some random stranger. I know how Rain is, and why he would argue and how sincere it'd be because I know him as a person. Kontra could easily Google it but I don't think he's trying to stir up shit. I believe your distinct possibility is not distinct at all, there's a good chance it's exactly that. In fact I personally wish there were more topics like these but unfortunately they're sensitive.

While I agree that scientific evidence can be cited for the rudimentary ideas of some of your claims, you have made no effort to link ANY of it, and it's very concerning to hear you throw around the word "science!!1!1" like it's some kind of magic fucking wand that automatically proves you're right on every count. Newsflash: It's not.
Well, most science is known and doesn't always have to be linked.
Second, for someone who claims to be interested in learning more "without offending" and very concerned about "getting hate and trolling" from people, you seem to be quite insensitive to other people's beliefs, dismissing them as bullshit before giving the believers a chance to explain their beliefs.


Also, saying "No offense" before something obviously pretentious and condescending doesn't make it any less pretentious or condescending.
I do agree here.

I doubt it makes too much difference to Kat or Shadi whether you're sincerely seeking knowledge, but I know from personal experience that Rainboy truly pours a lot of time, effort, blood, sweat, and tears into earnestly explaining his beliefs, even to total strangers across the Internet, and I vastly respect the amount of patience he displays in the process. I would hope that you would not abuse that patience by making a half-assed attempt to prove ideological superiority, which is what it sure looks like to me right now.
It makes a difference to me, because his approach would also vary my answers. I would join the discussion either way probably, but my answers depend on the approach.

(Not to mention the George Carlin skit in your sig -- and don't get me wrong, the guy was a great comedian-- but nothing says "I'm coming into this discussion to respectfully seek knowledge from others" like a big ol video entitled "RELIGION IS BULLSHIT". ) tl;dr: k0ntra 3edgy5me
I definitely do see your point but his approach in the sig should not have an effect by his approach in the thread, his sig is much older than this thread.

It's hard to argue against which is probably why he himself went "point taken" somewhere earlier on the thread.

@Snel
Find another topic then, don't have to ruin it for people who want to have it.
To be humble to superiors is duty, to equals is courtesy, to inferiors is nobility.

- Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
Hadi
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:41 pm
Location: Palestine
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: The Most Joyful And Friendly Discussion Ever

Post by Hadi »

Just look for it in the قرأن الكريم and you will know the truth.
Failing is not falling down, it's refusing to get back up.

This is 10% LUCK!
20% SKILL!
15% CONCENTRATED POWER OF WILL!
5% PLEASURE!
50% PAIN!
This is a 100% REASON TO REMEMBER THE NAME!
User avatar
Wayne
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 2:43 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: The Most Joyful And Friendly Discussion Ever

Post by Wayne »

HADI. wrote:Just look for it in the قرأن الكريم and you will know the truth.
yes that is true!
Image

There is freedome of speech, but i cannot guarantee freedom after speech
User avatar
Gold Stellar
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:33 pm
Location: Canada, and I'm proud of it
Has thanked: 227 times
Been thanked: 33 times
Contact:

Re: The Most Joyful And Friendly Discussion Ever

Post by Gold Stellar »

be brave, friend. i think "good for you" for posting such a difficult topic. religion can get a little....awkward around others. the fear of being judged holds you back. good for you for breaking that barrier :)
T.O.A.O.,
Gold Stellar

Image Image
User avatar
God's servant
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:32 pm
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: The Most Joyful And Friendly Discussion Ever

Post by God's servant »

Now that the animosity has both been addressed and passed, I'd like to weigh in (again, I lost version one of this post).

1)According to the Bible, Christ was saying that the mankind developed from Adam and Eve (don't know their exact names in English language). Today we know for certain that this is incorrect, as science has proved that humans developed from monkeys by the process of evolution. This calls for a question; Why did Christ lie? Only answer I can think of, is that he didn't know that science would prove much later that what he was saying is incorrect. And if he didn't know something, he can't be almighty, can he?
2) Same thing with the creation of the world. Christ was saying that God created it. Now, much later, we know this is incorrect as well.

I don't think you're debating about whether or not Christ knew about either evolution or "the big bang" (I think we can both agree he didn't know about them yet lie) but that he was not omniscient, which I agree and point you to Matthew 24:36.

3)Then, every religion claims that every other religion is false, and they are true. But they have got one thing in common - they're all - religions. They all have (a) God(s), and priests, and prayers and stuff. So, they are all basically the same, but just have different names for their religion, players, God(s), priests etc... This leads to the conclusion that they all copied stuff from one another. Christianity copied theirs from ancient religions which don't exist anymore.
4)Finally, no matter which religion you are, at least 80% of people on planet Earth do not agree with you. And not a single religion has actual facts to support their story - except atheism, which has got facts proved by science.

In regards to fitting two of every animal on Noah's Ark -- without even leaving the confounds of science and applying any faith, there's an argument for its possibility.

I don't think that Abrahamic religions or science have been out to fundamentally disprove each other, and so science is no better an argument for atheism than it is against religion. The truth shall set you free: If you seek truth in science, you will probably find some; if you seek truth in religion, you will hopefully find some. If you seek truth in atheism I don't think you will find the truth or freedom you're looking for (I really don't think George Carlin did.)

Pray until you get answers, and a high five to the Christian apologists in this thread.
And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and
wages war. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name
written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

http://Godsservant.info :)
Cruxell
VIP
Posts: 1771
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 7:14 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Re: The Most Joyful And Friendly Discussion Ever

Post by Cruxell »

First and foremost; I'd like to re-open this one:
There is scientific proof (example) stating that the world is older than 6-10 thousand years. How does religion explain this?
God's servant wrote:Now that the animosity has both been addressed and passed, I'd like to weigh in (again, I lost version one of this post).

1)According to the Bible, Christ was saying that the mankind developed from Adam and Eve (don't know their exact names in English language). Today we know for certain that this is incorrect, as science has proved that humans developed from monkeys by the process of evolution. This calls for a question; Why did Christ lie? Only answer I can think of, is that he didn't know that science would prove much later that what he was saying is incorrect. And if he didn't know something, he can't be almighty, can he?
2) Same thing with the creation of the world. Christ was saying that God created it. Now, much later, we know this is incorrect as well.

I don't think you're debating about whether or not Christ knew about either evolution or "the big bang" (I think we can both agree he didn't know about them yet lie) but that he was not omniscient, which I agree and point you to Matthew 24:36.

He's been given powers to revive the dead, walk over water but he wasn't almighty and omniscient?
Furthermore, why would God let Jesus tell what's wrong; Why would he risk that people (after finding more scientific evidence about the big bang) might find this as an argument to not believe in him?


3)Then, every religion claims that every other religion is false, and they are true. But they have got one thing in common - they're all - religions. They all have (a) God(s), and priests, and prayers and stuff. So, they are all basically the same, but just have different names for their religion, players, God(s), priests etc... This leads to the conclusion that they all copied stuff from one another. Christianity copied theirs from ancient religions which don't exist anymore.
4)Finally, no matter which religion you are, at least 80% of people on planet Earth do not agree with you. And not a single religion has actual facts to support their story - except atheism, which has got facts proved by science.

In regards to fitting two of every animal on Noah's Ark -- without even leaving the confounds of science and applying any faith, there's an argument for its possibility.

Not sure what you mean, what argument?

I don't think that Abrahamic religions or science have been out to fundamentally disprove each other, and so science is no better an argument for atheism than it is against religion. The truth shall set you free: If you seek truth in science, you will probably find some; if you seek truth in religion, you will hopefully find some. If you seek truth in atheism I don't think you will find the truth or freedom you're looking for (I really don't think George Carlin did.)

I don't really get your point...?

Pray until you get answers, and a high five to the Christian apologists in this thread.
Another,
I presume that you just like any other religious person have been raised as a Christian, amirite? Don't you need something more than just what you were told by your parents to base your life on?
That leads to this; why can't God just send another Christ? Why doesn't he just convince everyone that he is real. You're a Christian, but still - you must admit that there is some sense and logic behind these theories - at least because so many people are turning to atheism. Why can't God give us an explanation (if there is one) to how there is proof that the world is older than 10 thousand years?
Locked

Return to “Trash (The Lounge)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests