Questions, Misconceptions, Objections,..etc,

[blueblood]

This thread is hilarious, we have atheists who brow beat "believers" for spreading their version of the truth yet these atheists are bent over backwards trying to convince a believer the atheists version of the truth.

Pot meet kettle.

This is like debating whether country vs rock vs rap vs etc. Music is the best

Edited September 4, 2012 by blueblood

[Smallc]

This thread is hilarious, we have atheists who brow beat "believers" for spreading their version of the truth yet these atheists are bent over backwards trying to convince a believer the atheists version of the truth.

Well, it's quite simple. There is no proof of God. God probably doesn't exist. A being that probably doesn't exist has far too much power of the body politic.

[Smallc]

Answer to what? Why should I bother to answer to someone who don't meet the questions head-on? Why should the band play with someone who insists to play "off-key?"

Then show me some sheet music so I can follow along. If you can't produce evidence of how a perfect being can jive with the Bible....

You don't even understand the concept of God or a god - let alone the implication my statement!

And like I said, you are equating yourself to the position of God, who created everything. You're thinking that He should think like you, and behave like you.

He should be perfect. It says so in the Bible.

According to your definition of what should be "perfect."

Perfect does have a a definition, you know? Perfect, as well as the four omnis that God is supposed to be.

See, He can't win with you no matter what! On one hand you say, "A perfect being should be able to easily create children that worship him freely

He isn't going to win with me because I have no proof of his existence or, leaving that aside, his perfection, given what the Bible says.

Another dead giveaway you know nothing about the Bible at all!

I don't agree with your interpretation. That's something completely different.

He did actually. He gave Adam and Eve free will. What did they do??

He gave them free will...showed them his 'perfection', and they still turned away....hmmmm...not such a great guy, I guess.

Just so you know, when I spoke about, "the wages of sin is death" - that had to do with THAT sin! That's why we have death! Jesus' dying for us and getting Resurrected was a triumph over that death - that those who believe in Him becomes resurrected and gain eternal life!

If God loves me anyway, and I live my life as a good person to the best of my abilities, then why should I have to believe in Jesus to receive eternal life?

If you say so.....but I know for a fact that you're lost in this discussion. As evidenced by your answers.

I'm looking at this from a logical standpoint. I don't care about 'evidence' in the Bible.

Ummm.....you're not finding it fair because maybe you have no idea what you're looking for?

And you do? It's quite clear that you would justify anything in his name. Life, as it exists for so many people, even those with extreme adherence to their faith, isn't fair, and isn't something that seems to have been dreamed up by a perfect being.

Well I'm just stating a fact: if you don't believe in God, you don't believe it.

Eh, you know I'm talking about faith. And I gave my reasons - my testimony. I'm not forcing you to agree with me. I find we're both just wasting our time trying to "discuss" when we hardly meet at all.

But that isn't good enough. Why would I have faith in something of which I have zero - zero - evidence? Why should I have zero evidence of the all knowing, all loving creator? If he's really so jealous, shouldn't he show himself, so that all of us can believe as strongly as you do?

[blueblood]

Well, it's quite simple. There is no proof of God. God probably doesn't exist. A being that probably doesn't exist has far too much power of the body politic.

Let me play the devils advocate. A religious person can move the goal posts as they believe in something that is super natural which by definition defies normal logic and scientific thought. A religious person can pull any argument they wish because god in their eyes created everything and therefore can bend the rules according to advances in human intellectual capacity.

In short, if religious people want to believe in something, why waste time trying to change their minds using metrics that don't apply to them.

[Smallc]

Let me play the devils advocate. A religious person can move the goal posts as they believe in something that is super natural which by definition defies normal logic and scientific thought. A religious person can pull any argument they wish because god in their eyes created everything and therefore can bend the rules according to advances in human intellectual capacity.

They can believe what they want. Too often though, those beliefs come into the public policy sphere.

In short, if religious people want to believe in something, why waste time trying to change their minds using metrics that don't apply to them.

Because the metrics do apply to them.

[The_Squid]

Let me play the devils advocate. A religious person can move the goal posts as they believe in something that is super natural which by definition defies normal logic and scientific thought. A religious person can pull any argument they wish because god in their eyes created everything and therefore can bend the rules according to advances in human intellectual capacity.

In short, if religious people want to believe in something, why waste time trying to change their minds using metrics that don't apply to them.

If their beliefs didn't have an effect on the public at large, but was kept within their homes/churches, then I don't think anyone would have any issue. However, the religious in this country are a powerful lobby group and have people inside government actively trying to change Canadian laws to be more in line with their religion. This is an issue with people who are rational thinkers and believers in secularism.

[blueblood]

They can believe what they want. Too often though, those beliefs come into the public policy sphere.

Because the metrics do apply to them.

Unfortunately those beliefs do come into the policy sphere because of tradition and numbers, it's the nature of the beast. Right now in north America we have a huge debate over which belief of how to fix the economy is the right one. Those religious people make up a fair chunk of the population and have every right to be represented even if their representative may have controversial views.

The metrics I. Your eyes apply to them, but in their eyes the metrics don't because what they believe in doesn't follow what is determined as logical. You are trying to convince people "the truth" who believe in something that can arbitrarily change anything it wants as it made everything, is supernatural, etc. You can't have a debate when one side can change the parameters on a whim.

[Smallc]

You're right...but sometimes it's fun.

[blueblood]

If their beliefs didn't have an effect on the public at large, but was kept within their homes/churches, then I don't think anyone would have any issue. However, the religious in this country are a powerful lobby group and have people inside government actively trying to change Canadian laws to be more in line with their religion. This is an issue with people who are rational thinkers and believers in secularism.

And the religious people could flip that argument the other way and say that secular people are trying to change laws to be more in line with what they believe in. Why are they a powerful lobby group? They have numbers and want to be represented like everyone else.

If religious people had to keep their views at home then in fairness militant athiests like kimmy should as well. Personally that's how most reasonable people religious or not operate, but unfortunately every village has their idiots.

[Smallc]

And the religious people could flip that argument the other way and say that secular people are trying to change laws to be more in line with what they believe in.

That's not even close to the same thing. It's like comparing chemistry to alchemy.

[blueblood]

That's not even close to the same thing. It's like comparing chemistry to alchemy.

Not quite. Your dealing with people who strongly believe in something just like the atheists strongly have their beliefs and have numbers. You have to put yourself in the shoes of a religious person to see where they're coming from (not necessarily believe what they believe of course).

For those religious people, their beliefs haven't hindered them one bit and what they believe in works for them. In their eyes, if it's working, why do they need to change it?

[Smallc]

Not quite.

Quite.

[GostHacked]

Not quite. Your dealing with people who strongly believe in something just like the atheists strongly have their beliefs and have numbers. You have to put yourself in the shoes of a religious person to see where they're coming from (not necessarily believe what they believe of course).

For those religious people, their beliefs haven't hindered them one bit and what they believe in works for them. In their eyes, if it's working, why do they need to change it?

The people that are not hindered by their own beliefs are not the ones trying to make me change what I think/believe.

[cybercoma]

I was trying to respond to it on my phone, and got frustrated.....that's why I left the response that I did.

It's all good. It was just funny.

[Smallc]

It's all good. It was just funny.

I thought so too....

[The_Squid]

The people that are not hindered by their own beliefs are not the ones trying to make me change what I think/believe.

Exactly. Why should any citizen be governed by laws based upon the lawmakers' belief in the bible? Why not the Quoran? Or some other holy book?

The answer is that NO LAWS should be based upon the interpretation of a holy book. It's so 16th century...

[cybercoma]

Their version of truth? You've got atheists all wrong. All they're saying is "prove it." Truth lies in the proof and since there isn't a shred of it for God, he probably doesn't exist. Yet, religion still has political clout why?

[The_Squid]

Their version of truth? You've got atheists all wrong. All they're saying is "prove it." Truth lies in the proof and since there isn't a shred of it for God, he probably doesn't exist. Yet, religion still has political clout why?

Hallelujah brother!!

[blueblood]

Their version of truth? You've got atheists all wrong. All they're saying is "prove it." Truth lies in the proof and since there isn't a shred of it for God, he probably doesn't exist. Yet, religion still has political clout why?

To a religious person, it is their version of the truth. Since god is supernatural a religious person can pull evidence out of their ass. In my opinion I'm going to hedge my bets and say I don't know what "the truth" is.

Religion has political clout because of this thing called a group of voters and number of votes athiest and religious gets you elected.

[betsy]

the entire concept of religion is personal opinion, so it's jaja!

No, Christian religion is not a "personal opinion" - whatever you mean that.

You're ignoring all the other topics related to it, just like all those who insist on pretending those arguments and "evidences" - a word that you guys demand - don't exists on this board.

Edited September 5, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Their version of truth? You've got atheists all wrong. All they're saying is "prove it." Truth lies in the proof and since there isn't a shred of it for God, he probably doesn't exist. Yet, religion still has political clout why?

Well, GENERAL REVELATION alone - along with what it evoke from you - already provide proof more than your evolution theory does, along with your mythical missing link!

This on-going saga is like a game started by Darwin (forgot the name of that game), where one tells a story, and the next one picks up on it and add a string to it, then another one picks up on it and add another string to it.....except that Darwin thinks the story he started with is more a link of baloney, instead of sausages! Is that the missing link???? Sausages?

Talk about clout! Your atheist religion has more clout since you've got the secularists on your side!

Edited September 5, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Exactly. Why should any citizen be governed by laws based upon the lawmakers' belief in the bible? Why not the Quoran? Or some other holy book?

The answer is that NO LAWS should be based upon the interpretation of a holy book. It's so 16th century...

Yeah, it should be based on purely Godless mad-men laws.....with shifting standards.

Recyclable standards and laws.

One minute you are human, then suddenly you are declared not so human after all, and it's open season on you! With the blessings of those who consider it unforgiveable to say anything that may hurt someone's feelings! Mad-men laws.

Know what? Just got a new idea for a new topic. Coming out soon, not today. Too busy.

Thanks for that.

Edited September 5, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

To a religious person, it is their version of the truth. Since god is supernatural a religious person can pull evidence out of their ass. In my opinion I'm going to hedge my bets and say I don't know what "the truth" is.

The evolutionists accept what's starting to look like a supernatural too, you know? They've been pulling so-called "evidences" from every orifice....in their zealous desire to prove the non-existence of God.

The only difference is that they don't even realise it. Or they're just being stubborn.

If I'm not mistaken they think we're related to birds too....golly, who knows, maybe someone's had visions of angels!

Edited September 5, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Let me play the devils advocate. A religious person can move the goal posts as they believe in something that is super natural which by definition defies normal logic and scientific thought. A religious person can pull any argument they wish because god in their eyes created everything and therefore can bend the rules according to advances in human intellectual capacity.

In short, if religious people want to believe in something, why waste time trying to change their minds using metrics that don't apply to them.

May I suggest you read the topic, The Bible? That was created partly for atheists who demand some "imperical evidences." Those evidences were given - supported by modern science.

It's a very long read though.

[Peter F]

May I suggest you read the topic, The Bible? That was created partly for atheists who demand some "imperical evidences." Those evidences were given - supported by modern science.

It's a very long read though.

I don't know about the others but I read it and it offered no support whatsoever from modern science. The real laugher was the claim that 'god stretched out the heavens' confirmed and was supported by Einstien theory of general relativity. That was hilarious.