khalou

The situation for the atheist is as follows; I grow up believing there is no God because my mother died and I have alot of resentment. Ok now my argument to a believer becomes God doesn't exsist. However I can't just say he doesn't exsist because of my resentment towards my mothers death, so I look for evidence to back up the conclusion I have already reached. I find that there are no pictures of God so that benifits me, I find that when I prayed for my mother to get better she didn't so theirs more evidence. There are no bones of Jesus and no way to verify anything written in the bible. Theirs more evidence, but when I tell a believer they don't listen to me. The situation for the believer is as follows; I grew up in church and read the bible regularly, I put my will second to God's will and everything I need is provided to me. I am very happy and I have faith that God exsist though I have never seen him. When someone tells me he doesn't exsist I tell him about faith, I show him scripture, and I show him the dig sites and evidence of events that were recorded in the bible, like wars, and earthquakes and sudden destruction of cities, and I show him the footprints in the red sea where it is written in the bible that moses delivered the hebrews from the egyptions. I am upset because he still will not believe me even now. Now here is my point. Neither one of these people will ever be convinced that the other one is right. They never fully consider both sides of the story. In both cases they ignore evidence for the other side and cherry pick those peices of information that suites them and best falls in line with the beliefs that have been preconcieved. Well, what about me? I fit the latter history. I have been shown that anything can be believed just by looking for evidence in support of it, but if one looks for evidence that disputes it, then we can see if it's true or not. Christians offer no such evidence, but atheists do. I lost that faith because Christians seem to want to get involved in an argument of secular evidence in the first place. I'd easily become a Christian again if I could find one that doesn't do this, but so far, I haven't. All Christians seem to misunderstand the data and proclaim "evidence" where none exists! Personal evidence, and in what one experiences personally, is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the ridiculous logical and historical and other supposedly scientific arguments that are supposed to show that Christianity is correct that never do so because the method of determining actual evidence is ignored! Faith is faith. Faith is all you have. You certainly can't show any evidence of God without faith. Why do Christians constantly dilute the message by making such glaring errors of logic in their arguments?? Do you WANT to keep people from the faith? k

Good going, ex-brother. What do you mean? k

The scientific method doesn't work this way. You don't look for reasons to believe something is true in science. You look for reasons NOT to believe something is true. Look up Karl Popper. Anything can be backed up by stacks and stacks of evidence in favor. This is a fundamental problem with Christians and their arguments with atheists. Christians seem to believe that science is about what you've described. How could that be possibly true when we're talking about scientists that are of all faiths and are humans, yet agree on things? Intelligent Design, for example, seeks to gain scientific status as a theory. There is one reason, and one reason only, that makes it impossible for Intelligent Design to rate a scientific status. There is no way to prove it false. That's it, that's all. If you can't disprove it, then it isn't scientific. What was that you said? "we as believers make up our minds about something, then look for evidence to back it up. Atheist do this as well except they look to science". Impossible. Science does not look for evidence to support their theories, because history has shown that there is always evidence that might support a claim. What science seeks is some test that might disprove the theory. If there is no such test, then it isn't scientific. In Darwin's case, every scientist on the planet seeks to disprove evolution. That is how we learn. There have been many chances for this, and all have ended up supporting evolution. Darn! So scientists of all cultures, of all religions, of all tendencies still regard evolution as a viable theory. It offers predictions, and explains vast amounts of observable phenomena. That's why scientists of such diverse backgrounds can support the theory. Some, not all, Christians seem to want people to believe that evolution is supported by a group of like-minded individuals that are totally against Christianity, but that would be impossible. Who would intimidate the Indian Hindu scientists who believe that God created the earth? Or the Muslims that believe the same? Science all over the world has tested the theory ever since Darwin with the enthusiasm of their opinions, and have only come up with support for the theory. I know that no one here will understand what I'm saying, but please! Before you go and try to equate faith with science, at least understand what science is. k

You continue to exhibit an ignorance that truly knows no bounds. I am not an enemy of Christianity, and think that you just might do it more disservice than I ever possibly could. If you are really interested in the scientific method, which I truly doubt, then I suggest you look it up, because you have already exhibited such a profound misunderstanding of it that I'm surprised the moderators aren't falling all over themselves to prevent your posts from reaching sensible ears. Are you actually accusing each and every scientist on the whole of the planet of belonging to some fraternal order that has agreed to certain truths that are based on faith of some kind? Scientists that are made up of Muslims, Christians, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Monarchists, Pagans, communists, vegetarians, panthologists, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, and every other belief system are all in agreement in faith about evolution? How could that be managed? Is it even possible? What central control would there be in this conspiracy? If you're interested, and I'm certain that you're not, the scientific method deals with that which is testable, falsifiable, and provides predictions. Since Karl Popper, the days of simply assembling reasons to believe something are long gone. Nowadays, whatever you say in science has to include that which might disprove what you are saying, or it isn't scientific. If there is no way to disprove your theory, then your theory isn't scientific. Evolution can easily be falsified. The whole of science is constantly trying to do just that, and has been since Darwin. If ever a Jurassic fossil is found in the Triassic period, evolution would fold, for example. The discovery of DNA and RNA could easily have disproved evolution, but only supported it. Every scientist in the world is actively trying to disprove what has been presented as a theory. That's how discovery is achieved. I can't believe that an adult living in this century that has any interest at all in the scientific method doesn't know this stuff. It is fundamental to science. Every post I've read from you makes it plain that you are unaware of the scientific method as it is practiced all over the planet. Google everything I've said. Go ahead. But that isn't the worst thing you've done here. You've done your religion a disservice in many ways. For one, you don't love me. That is apparent. You are acting like a football quarterback that can "win the game" against the evil atheists. Yay. Good for you. What about Jesus, who actually does love me? Secondly, you have misled Christians in their understanding of science for some unknown reason. What if someone adopts Christianity based on your words and then discovers that you are wrong about science? What if they lose that faith because of your feel-good, rah, rah, tactics when they discover your ridiculous claims about science? I'm glad you can make a living on your ministry, but please. It isn't your bottom line that will judge you when you meet your maker. I am not your enemy, unless you seek to continue to mislead people. k

First, let's deal with your assertion that human logic will never disprove Christianity. Of course it won't. I agree. But what I find interesting in your post is that you believe that the evidence of some sort of human corpse rising from the dead. On what do you base this evidence? I am unaware of any such thing. Secondly, how is it that you suppose that Christianity offers any kind of moral code? The definition of Christian morality differs from person to person, and never achieves the basic definition that it transcend that of human rationalization. If a God exists, and His morality is transcendental to human intellect, then there should be things that don't make sense in His morality. We are sinful creatures, and have no idea how to live justly. How is it, then, that every Christian who speaks about morality is willing to allow those who wear cotton-polyether blends also condemn homosexuality? Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible in the OT in the same place that wearing two different threads in clothing is condemned. If Christians were willing to be consistent and condemn polyether blends along with homosexuality, then I might be convinced that Christian morality transcends my own ability to determine what is right and wrong. But, things being as they are, I have a problem deciding how some Christians will allow homosexuality, and others won't. What is your shirt made of? k What you speak of comes from the Old Testament. Does it make sense to you to lump what a shirt is made of along with homosexuality? Do they seem equal to you? They don't seem of equal importance to me but obviously 2000 years they must thought that they were equal. Does that mean that we have to believe they are equal? I don't think so. We have to use our brain to see beyond 2000 years ago and now and make a reasonable conclusion. I personally conclude that it doesn't matter what my shirt is made of. And I personally conclude that homosexuality does matter but in this, people are concerned, not cloth, so we need to come to a resonable conlusion. I personally conclude that a person is more important than homosexuality. So I guess I personally rank in order of importance, most important first......person first, second in importance, homosexuality, third in importance cloth(also last in importance). My understanding of what khalou is saying is we Christians seem to rank sin in different catagories which is in itself a sin. Sin is sin, no matter how trivial it is in our eyes it is all sin in God's eyes. There is no measurement to sin it all leads to death and destruction! Am I wrong or right khalou? Yes. k

Since there is no evidence that God exists, then this would be a true statement, but since people are raised by their parents to believe that God exists, then it isn't really a useful question. k This is actually not an accurate statement. There is legal / historical evidence for the existance of God that can eiter be accepted or rejected. We have the testimony of eye witnesses and actual participants who claim to have had conversations with this God. One cannot, however apply the scientific method to prove that God exists. But then again, one cannot apply that method to prove that I exist. I'm wondering which testimonies exist that were written by eyewitnesses? So far, I've found NONE. You, on the other hand, are available to tell me who you are, and therefore, you exist as far as I'm concerned. k

Since there is no evidence that God exists, then this would be a true statement, but since people are raised by their parents to believe that God exists, then it isn't really a useful question. k

Heh. If a westerner is a Zen, then chances are they are being trendy. But Gautama was certainly inspirational in his abandoning of his worldly riches. WAY before Jesus, this formerly rich young man understood that one's possessions could easily "own" the person. Jesus came along later to try to make the point that enlightenment is personal and the most valuable commodity. I like to watch Christian Evangelists who tell people that God wants them to be rich, because they, themselves are. They like to say that God will grant them x10 whatever they give them in cash. Talk about missing the point!! k (Edit) I feel so trendy Edited per TOS: The use of profanity will not be tolerated. This includes sexually explicit, vulgar, or other profane language or usernames as well as any any signs or symbols that suggests such. Do not post sexually explicit, vulgar or offensive website addresses (URL's) to the forum. (Eph. 4: 29) Luke! You didn't use profanity, did you? k

Speaking as a person who was a Christian for over four decades, I must disagree. I have felt the presence of God. I, as each and every other believer in the supernatural, have personal experience with that. The only way I could possibly maintain that faith would be to ignore evidences that show that the current Christian belief can't be right. Instead of adapting to those evidences, I am assaulted by arguments that have nothing to do with those evidences. Ignorance of what has been discovered is, instead, held in higher regard than evidence! I still maintain that Christianity could be true, but only because there are learned people who understand all the evidence against and still believe. But I don't find them on this board. Why is that? Why do Christians who actually understand the arguments against stay away from this board like the plague? Could it be that they understand that this board is all about "feel good" garbage that doesn't in any way deal with the facts? Could it be that Jesus Himself wouldn't want anything to do with people that basically prove that Christianity can't be true because Christians don't have any idea what the evidence is? Could it be that the Anti-Christ will eventually use these people to claim authority? I don't know, and can't pretend to know, but there is something fundamentally wrong with people who won't investigate what has been discovered, all under the guise of "faith". k I am a believer in Christ Jesus. I think I am understanding this correctly

First, let's deal with your assertion that human logic will never disprove Christianity. Of course it won't. I agree. But what I find interesting in your post is that you believe that the evidence of some sort of human corpse rising from the dead. On what do you base this evidence? I am unaware of any such thing. Secondly, how is it that you suppose that Christianity offers any kind of moral code? The definition of Christian morality differs from person to person, and never achieves the basic definition that it transcend that of human rationalization. If a God exists, and His morality is transcendental to human intellect, then there should be things that don't make sense in His morality. We are sinful creatures, and have no idea how to live justly. How is it, then, that every Christian who speaks about morality is willing to allow those who wear cotton-polyether blends also condemn homosexuality? Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible in the OT in the same place that wearing two different threads in clothing is condemned. If Christians were willing to be consistent and condemn polyether blends along with homosexuality, then I might be convinced that Christian morality transcends my own ability to determine what is right and wrong. But, things being as they are, I have a problem deciding how some Christians will allow homosexuality, and others won't. What is your shirt made of? k

Then let's go there, you and I. You, who specifically have decided that you aren't interested in the physical sciences, and I, who believe that these are the methods of discerning the truth of creation. You claim that probability is decided by opinion. I counter that argument by saying that probability is something that can be determined. k

Ha! When I read this I had it the other way round! You're on the money there When I was first saved I had no problem with Christianity sitting alongside evolution, old earth all that. The important thing for me was who God is, who Jesus was, hiow his atoning death paid for my sins. I saw these things as fundamental and the rest wasn't important. I think there are many Christians who feel the same way. A critique of the flood story won't bug them much, because it bears no relation to their personal relationship with God. The more I studied, the more dogmatic I became. The books by Josh McDowell showed me that there was a scientific basis for everything in the bible. By the time 3 or 4 years had passed I was pretty hard core. Finding that my fundimental "Either the whole bible is literally true or it is all unreliable" and "Jesus, Liar Lunatic or Lord" logic was fatally flawed started my switch from Christian to agnostic and finally to atheist. If my experience is anything to go by, the more fundie a Christian is the more likely he/she is to have the house of cards collapse. Yup. Josh is good at preaching to the choir, but he is an opportunist when it comes to true logic and scientific reality. Josh relies on the human tendency to accumulate evidence in favor of a belief in order to make that belief seem more realistic. Too bad science has transcended that archaic position. I can't blame laypersons for believing that Josh is really using science to reinforce his claims as they are based on human tendencies, but I really get upset when laypersons decide that science also does so. These people, of course, are making a very good living on these practically criminal claims, and, as a republican, I can't blame them (buyer beware), but it is such the anti-thesis of what is being preached that I can't help but enjoy the irony. k

Heh. If a westerner is a Zen, then chances are they are being trendy. But Gautama was certainly inspirational in his abandoning of his worldly riches. WAY before Jesus, this formerly rich young man understood that one's possessions could easily "own" the person. Jesus came along later to try to make the point that enlightenment is personal and the most valuable commodity. I like to watch Christian Evangelists who tell people that God wants them to be rich, because they, themselves are. They like to say that God will grant them x10 whatever they give them in cash. Talk about missing the point!! k (edit) I feel so trendy ZEN? REALLY? Sorry about that. k

Speaking as a person who was a Christian for over four decades, I must disagree. I have felt the presence of God. I, as each and every other believer in the supernatural, have personal experience with that. The only way I could possibly maintain that faith would be to ignore evidences that show that the current Christian belief can't be right. Instead of adapting to those evidences, I am assaulted by arguments that have nothing to do with those evidences. Ignorance of what has been discovered is, instead, held in higher regard than evidence! I still maintain that Christianity could be true, but only because there are learned people who understand all the evidence against and still believe. But I don't find them on this board. Why is that? Why do Christians who actually understand the arguments against stay away from this board like the plague? Could it be that they understand that this board is all about "feel good" garbage that doesn't in any way deal with the facts? Could it be that Jesus Himself wouldn't want anything to do with people that basically prove that Christianity can't be true because Christians don't have any idea what the evidence is? Could it be that the Anti-Christ will eventually use these people to claim authority? I don't know, and can't pretend to know, but there is something fundamentally wrong with people who won't investigate what has been discovered, all under the guise of "faith". k

Ah. 1,093 prophecies in the OT about Christ? I suppose that means that all those who believe in the OT also believe in Christ. They don't? Gee, I wonder how that happened? k