Yes. Is that really so hard to believe?Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Yes. Is that really so hard to believe?
Getting a bit hypocritical. In that case "Christianity is wrong" in no way constitutes an action against others. Christianity is an abomination and can lead to people being shunned and hurt by others, so Christians should try to stop being Christians. By your logic, there is nothing wrong with those statements, they don't and can't hurt anyone, and they certainly couldn't be insulting enough to lead to any sort of depression.
Homosexuals aren't second class citizens. A person can't say it's justifiable to treat them less well than the religious peers they defend.
Does Christianity condone bullying? Is it all on the up-and-up?
We don't have unified religion in America. You can rest assured that there will be no unified religion in America. Apart from that, the separation of church and state is firmer than ever, apart from gossip sources that are unaccountable and come up in the media because they are scandalous.
Apart from that, for every ten people that tell you they are religious, nine tell you so because they think it's convenient to them, and they didn't even read the books. You are too preoccupied about this. They'll never come back as a power source to control our society. The point is that our religious poeple of thousands of denominations and non-denominations don't even care about that, except for PTL preachers making money.
My son's public school dropped science and social studies and suddenly started sending home "grammar" lessons made up of bible verses. Separation of church and state? I would like to know where so I can go there.
reconsidered
Last edited by stuntpickle; 12-06-2011 at 08:05 PM.
I have no idea why so many new atheists say, "There is no evidence that God exists" when it is clearly untrue. Perhaps Wyatt can explain it to me. Obviously, there are written eye witness accounts of miracles, of the Resurrection, of God appearing out of burning bushes, and of personal revelation. I think the new atheists might mean to say, "There is no 'scientific evidence' that God exists." This might be true, depending on how we define science. However, the notion that science constitutes the only form of "evidence" flies in the face of common sense (we all believe our own eyes, for example) and all evidentiary rules. Most history (for example) is non-scientific. It relies on written, eye-witness accounts -- very similar to the Bible. There might be as much "evidence" for the Resurrection as for the Battle of Issus (although, of course, it's reasonable to demand more evidence before accepting supernatural occurences, because they are so incredible).
It is also possible, of course, that atheists mean, "There is no persuasive (or convincing) evidence that God exists." However, the reams of evidence are so substantial that saying there is "no evidence" is ridiculous.
Christians will try to pick apart science and materialism but then when someone like Sathya Sai Baba, a reputed miracle worker, comes along they will resort to the same arguments used by atheists who resist the notion of Christ's divinity.
Furthermore, Christians follow the exact same line of reasoning when they reject the revelations of Muhammed that atheists follow when they reject those of Moses.
As much as most atheists fail to realize the consequences of their atheism, the same is true for their believing counterparts who fail to acknowledge the full ramifications of their faith. If the scientific method is relaxed or altogether discarded, well then anything goes. If the Bible then also the Koran and the Book of Mormon. If Christ's miracles then those of Sathya Sai Baba too.
Last edited by Darcy88; 12-06-2011 at 08:34 PM.
. . . Why?
Huh? I never said it was unreasonable to "reject the revelations" of anyone. In fact, I'm an atheist myself. I just think it's unreasonable to say there's no evidence for something, when there is book after book after book, filled with evidence (although none of it may be persuasive).
If a jury hears all the evidence in a case, they can decide "guilty" or "not guilty". But if the case has gone on for days, and dozens of witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, it would be silly for jurors to claim there had been "no evidence presented".
I can just picture St Peter reading all that I've written here back to me on the day of judgement, Bien and Stuntpickle standing arms-crossed shaking their heads from behind the gate. Hahaha.
Last edited by Darcy88; 12-06-2011 at 08:44 PM.
Haha. I would have to pass on heaven if I saw them standing there. That would be the great thing about hell. All of my friends would be there. The best musicians too.
That's not evidence, but claims. None of it's reproducible. The jury you mention below wouldn't even hear that evidence, because it's only hearsay.
There's no evidence that God exists because he's supposed to be invisible, incorporeal, all-powerful, etc. etc. There's also no evidence that he doesn't exist for the same reason, plus the additional problem of proving a negative. That's where modern religion has it all over the ancients. They had gods and so on that essentially ceased to exist when we learned the reality behind the phenomena the gods were created to explain. This new God, however, can have any claim made about him that the claimant finds convenient.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Mahatma Gandhi
I did not say this as a statement of fact. I only offered it as an example in the abstract of an assertion that does not require justification or evidence. By the way, I am not an atheist by at least one common definition. I do not deny the existence of God, for example, mostly because I don't have enough interest in this particular notion of a supreme being to bother about it one way or another. I believe in no supernatural phenomena.
Perhaps I should have said "no credible evidence." That takes care of your objection.Obviously, there are written eye witness accounts of miracles, of the Resurrection, of God appearing out of burning bushes, and of personal revelation. I think the new atheists might mean to say, "There is no 'scientific evidence' that God exists." This might be true, depending on how we define science.
There is little credible evidence that the Bible is based on eye-witness accounts. Wasn't all of the New Testament, for example, written by people living well after the events described took place? The case of the Old Testament is clearer still, right?However, the notion that science constitutes the only form of "evidence" flies in the face of common sense (we all believe our own eyes, for example) and all evidentiary rules. Most history (for example) is non-scientific. It relies on written, eye-witness accounts -- very similar to the Bible.
Fanciful accounts of miracles and mysterious events are not evidence, they are fancy. Even if taken at face value, there is no reason to associate any of these accounts of mysterious "events" with the particular types of divine intercession inferred from them. Hence no evidence is correct—but I will make it "no credible evidence" if you prefer.It is also possible, of course, that atheists mean, "There is no persuasive (or convincing) evidence that God exists." However, the reams of evidence are so substantial that saying there is "no evidence" is ridiculous.
By the way: Is that Canyon Lands in your avatar?
Last edited by WyattGwyon; 12-06-2011 at 10:21 PM.
Now now! Everyone has the right to reconsider what they wish to post. And even if someone beats them to the punch and quotes them before they withdraw their statement, like Ecurb did in this case, I still consider it out of bounds to respond once an author demonstrates the intention to reconsider a post.
Posting Permissions
