New ALabama governor openly asks for non-Christians to convert

[Krynn72]

HBO had a guy running through the streets of Rome shouting that Julius Caesar was "IN ITALY!!!!"

Are you saying HBO lied to me?

Next you'll be telling me that the Romans didn't even speak English.

 

[GreatEmperor]

All imperial dickwads of history have a cockney or otherwise British accent, the TV tells me so !

 

[CptStern]

With this understanding, then it is definitely true to state that we are nothing more than a mistake, nothing more than mere biological machines who accidentally rebelled against our DNA in the evolutionary process and are now able to think for ourselves; achieved our higher state of consciousness because of a freak accident. Hell, using this ideology, the entire universe was a freak accident, everything, from the love you feel for family, the sexual desire you feel for a woman or man, morality in general, has a basic, underlying, biological explanation and at the end of the day, none of it really matters anyway, because we are but a mere spec of dust in a dark, vast, un-ruling cosmos and all we will have when we are cast into the eternal pit of nothingness, is whatever legacy we could construct out of our short lives.

I find your conceit to be far more disturbing: that the entire universe was created solely as a placeholder for gods chosen few. all existance was dragged into being simply to justify a single planet at the edge of galaxy in a sea of galaxies. if you look it at that way (you open the flood gates to this way of thinking) then religious isnt just inplausible it's completely absurd

 

[Eejit]

I’m not trying to herd anything under atheism. Richard Dawkins’ ideology hits the nail on the head and any atheist who disagrees with him is a complete hypocrite as far as I am concerned. You said atheism is the non-belief in God which ultimately means the non-belief in a spiritual realm and everything associated it, which then, I think we will agree, means believing in nothing, but the observable and physical universe around us.

Guys I think I found the problem. He's under the impression that ethics and morality depend utterly upon religion and spirituality.

Hint: they don't.

All imperial dickwads of history have a cockney or otherwise British accent, the TV tells me so !

Check out "The Eagle"

 

[Shift]

Sorry for my absence.

I just don't understand why meaning and purpose have to be spoonfed to us by a higher power. I don't understand why life is a mistake if a bearded old man doesn't plan it.

First of all, God isn’t a bearded old man, where the hell did this come from? There is no description of his appearance. Second of all if there is no God, then we weren’t made by anything, we are all here by chance, a freak accident, mistake is probably the wrong word to be honest. And I fail to see what use purpose is if all we are doing is slowly heading to an eternal pit of nothingness. Why should we care about a legacy if eventually we simply won’t care if we are remembered or not, because you know, we will be dead?

But you should. That's just simple logic. You cannot possibly argue with that.

If I truly believed in God and heaven and all that shit, all I'd be occupied with in life is how to get into heaven. It's just 80 years here on Earth (if you're unlucky) so that's a small sacrifice to make.

I can’t possibly argue against what? Logic? What the hell are you talking about? I don’t occupy my entire life to getting into Heaven because I’m already going, it’s a signed deal and its already been sent. I believe God created this entire universe, and its beauty is a testament to his power, and I consider it a privilege to be alive in it and to be given the opportunity.

No you don't. All you've done is introduced more questions: "why is there a God" and "why did God create us". You haven't explained a damn thing, you just did a bunch of hand-waving and TADA!

God created us and everything because he could. If you were immortal, had infinite power and could create anything you wanted, wouldn’t you want to create something as complex and brilliant as the universe we live in?

And why does God exist? Why does anything exist? What it comes down to is that we do exist, as does the universe, and it’s just far too complicated and vast, more than any human being can comprehend. Science alone cannot carry the weight of all the questions that brings; it needs to work together with the concept of a creator.

So the life of unplanned children is bleak and meaningless? They weren't created to serve a purpose, they were just that roll of the dice that mommy and daddy lost when daddy got really drunk and fumbled with the condom and said "screw it".

So because it was a mistake on the part of the child’s parents, that child doesn’t serve any purpose? Maybe that child was always meant to be conceived? Everything and everybody serves a purpose in the grand scheme of time, even if it’s only a small purpose.

And in that sense, an atheist has far more reason to do something with it. The only logical reason you do anything on Earth is because God wants it.

Of course! Have fun having a better life than me then!

If you experience joy, I see no reason why that's not chemicals doing their work, or why introducing magic would make it more meaningful.

What about if I told you your desire to have sex with someone was purely driven by an animalistic instinct inside you that wants to have children with a mate? But oh guess what? Myself and my other half have no desire to have children at all yet we still have a desire to have sex, and that’s not simply down to our physicality, its also down to fact that we love each other. And ah yes love, that emotion controlled simply by chemical reactions in the brain, the emotion that can keep two people in a universal bond beyond all recognition…

Why, pray tell me, should we as mere animalistic machines, still be together? You know I thought for a long time that I simply would never find anyone, primarily because I was too picky, yet low and behold, someone came along who just happened to be my perfect partner. Oh of course, just mere coincidence, its not like it happens to pretty much every other bugger on the planet eventually…

I find the idea that my love for her is just the result of chemical process insulting to be honest.

My claim is that logically, every true Christian should wish to die as soon as possible.

The axiom here is that every person seeks to maximize their happiness.

Under Christian doctrine, maximum happiness is not found in life, but in the afterlife.

So therefor: a true Christian should want to be in the afterlife, because that's where he can maximize happiness. And to be in the afterlife requires you to die. .

You can say all you want that your life here on Earth is precious to you, and you know what? I believe you. But it shouldn't be the case. That's just cold hard logic.

Why is it I seem to be the only one who is looked on as stupid because of my beliefs, when you, gunning for the other side, sprout utter rubbish like this?

So because someone is Christian, they obviously have no desire to utilize the life God has given them? To appreciate his creation, to live in his name, to love their family, to start new families, to make new friends, to discover and experience everything that this beautiful life has to offer? They should throw all of that away because of the promise that Heaven is better? So should a guy who owns a basic car, is promised a super car in a months time, crush his old one immediately? If you were playing an awesome video game and were given a new one that is promised to be even better, would you immediately switch to new one? Or would you want to finish that one first before you went onto the better one?

Your ‘cold hard logic’ is so incredibly flawed I’m afraid.

Several things you've said are just false, like that it means an atheist must reject any form of "spiritual realm" which is simply bullshit.

To believe otherwise would be a massive contradiction.

But thats small muffins compared to your more heinous claim that all atheists must also agree with Dawkins about there being no good/evil/justice and there only being pitiless indifference. This notion is a ****ing travesty unto mankind, Dawkins is a fool for thinking it,

No I think Dawkins hit the nail on the head personally. If there is nothing to judge us, why the hell should we even think of a concept of good, evil and justice, all we have is this life and that’s it, who cares if someone stole 2 million quid and killed 8 people in the process and got away with it. He’s going to live the rest of his life in wealth.

Rather than basing our assumptions of morality on something a supernatural, non-existent being wants us to do, we can base it on an actually definable concept of human wellbeing. With a definable basis, we can then begin to make strides in understanding morality by observing the repercussions that actions have on people's wellbeing. We've begun doing this already. Does allowing people to murder each other whenever they want improve people's wellbeing? We've seen the outcome of such behavior, and it is not conducive to our wellbeing. Therefore we can check off "willy-nilly murdering" as "immoral."

And what does that prove exactly? Okay so morality is observable and bad decision in that sense will affect a person’s well being, I think that’s been perfectly obvious for a long time. My point is that if there were no God, no one to judge us, why should we even have morals? Why the hell should we care that we just murdered someone if we got a fat load of cash in the process, and I’m not talking about the fear of prison.

I don’t like Dawkins, but at least he can be honest with the repercussions of what he believes in. With no God, you are at the mercy of all the animalistic implications that come with Darwinism that Dawkins happens to be an expert in, so as an atheist, I’d start listening to what he has to say.

I find the "If you're an atheist you must agree with absolutely everything Dawkins says" assertion horrendously ironic because the main substance of this thread is Shift arguing against those trying to insist that all Christians must have the exact same narrow interpretation of the bible.

Actually I think all Christians DO need to have the same narrow interpretation of the Bible, the problem is that there are so many wrong interpretations of it, I was arguing against those wrong interpretations. And all people have to do is read the damn thing…

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'm surprised that you profess to know anything about Dawkins and yet continue asking "if there were no God, why should we even have morals?" (a non-sequitur) Isn't it his reckoning that morals evolved as communal norms in our pack dynamics?

You're really wounding yourself with the dichotomies you insist on. I'm not going to bother to try and explain to you how one can be a complete materialist and still believe in, respect, and participate in Love. You will continue to spout some nonsense about the divide between "cold hard logic" (okay) and enlightened love-recognising fancy-pants self-delusion. Just because you in your star-struck puppy love find it "insulting" that some kind of material process might somewhere be involved in your bliss, that doesn't mean a wizard did it. I mean, you have sex, right? What do you think that is? You defame love, besmirch it, debase it - you, you smug son of a bitch, insult it; you don't pay it proper respect. And love in its full animal complexity is going to fuck you up, pilgrim.

 

[flamingdts]

I don't know about you guys, but I smile every time I remind myself this is a forum about games, or more specifically Half Life 2.

ITS SO DEEP.

 

[Shift]

I'm not going to bother to try and explain to you how one can be a complete materialist and still believe in, respect, and participate in Love.

Oh please do. I would love to hear of your materialistic insights on love or indeed, any human emotion, especially considering what you posted below..

You will continue to spout some nonsense about the divide between "cold hard logic" (okay) and enlightened love-recognising fancy-pants self-delusion. Just because you in your star-struck puppy love find it "insulting" that some kind of material process might somewhere be involved in your bliss, that doesn't mean a wizard did it.

Then I implore to explain how two people can love each other their entire lives, or better yet lets give an example. If two people came together and one of them was injured, paralysed from waist down, explain to me from a Darwinistic perspective, why love should even play a part in that relationship. Why do care as much as we do for others, when if this life is all we have, it should be only ourselves we should be worrying about? You know, survival of the fittest and all that?

The reason you don't bother trying to explain things like morals or love from a materialistic perspective, is because you can't. You just disappear down and black hole of your own faulty logic, and materialism is just rank with it. Why do you think scientists pulled the multiverse theory out of their arses? Because if this is only universe in existence, the universe that just happens to be perfectly suited for our survival, and I'm talking PERFECTLY suited, then everything in it points to a creator. However, if you introduce the prospect of there being an infinite amount of universes then you avoid that problem, because eventually somewhere down the line a universe like ours will surely be created eventually. I mean hey, we are here now aren't we?

I mean, you have sex, right? What do you think that is?

Well its obviously not what you think it is.

You defame love, besmirch it, debase it - you, you smug son of a bitch, insult it; you don't pay it proper respect.

I pay it proper respect, because I DON'T debase it by linking it to mere animalistic qualities. It is you, and all your atheistic chummies, that takes away its meaning, especially with this comment:

And love in its full animal complexity is going to fuck you up, pilgrim.

Christianity teaches that the coming together between two people should be honoured throughout their entire lives, and that the emotion of love a trait we have inherited from God. You on the other hand link it to a bunch of chemical processes in the brain and that's it, and if your comment above is anything to go by, you will happily take it for granted. Or sorry, I couldn't possibly say that especially considering I don't know anything about you, although you seem to claim to know plenty about me, and my views on love and oh yeh, why I have sex!

 

[Absinthe]

"Science can't explain love, so Jebus dun did it"

What was that about disappearing down black holes?

 

[Krynn72]

And love in its full animal complexity is going to fuck you up, pilgrim.

Good lord, I laughed so hard.

When I have more time, I'll come back and reply to you shift. If you don't feel like waiting, feel free to go out and get that book I mentioned. It talks about the very thing you're saying (the "why is it immoral that I killed someone when I get a billion dollars for it?" thing)

 

[Shift]

You know I think I will find and read that book. Just out pure curiosity and see what the coherent arguments are for the other side.

 

[Bad^Hat]

First of all: thanks, Shift. Regardless of what I think of your arguments, I'm constantly impressed by how willing you are to go up against the odds (numerically speaking) to defend your views, so you have my appreciation... for whatever it's worth.

Anyway enough of that, onto the rape, lol!

And why does God exist? Why does anything exist? What it comes down to is that we do exist, as does the universe, and it’s just far too complicated and vast, more than any human being can comprehend. Science alone cannot carry the weight of all the questions that brings; it needs to work together with the concept of a creator.

This is the most confused statement you've made yet. "Why does anything exist?" According to you, because God made it. Are you saying God made God, or did you just accidentally use a practical explanation for his existence? You know, the same kind that can be applied to the universe.

Also, science needs do no such thing. You seem to be labouring under the assumption that science seeks to, or is required to conclusively explain the mysteries of the universe, or something equally lofty. Ideally, science looks only to what is natural and draws its conclusions through observation. If a God was evident in reality, perhaps science would have an interest in it. As it stands, the most rigorously held arguments for the existence of a creator are more philosophical in nature. Without corroborating evidence, science owes nothing to the concept, and in fact would be committing the exact folly you often accuse it of (making assumptions to fit preconceptions) by ham-fistedly applying it to our current understanding of reality.

So because it was a mistake on the part of the child’s parents, that child doesn’t serve any purpose? Maybe that child was always meant to be conceived? Everything and everybody serves a purpose in the grand scheme of time, even if it’s only a small purpose.

This is really lovely and poetic until you introduce the concept of salvation. That a child could be born into poverty and die of naturally occurring disease before it was even old enough to formulate an understanding of God, and then be condemned to an eternity of further suffering (unless you believe in purgatory, but I don't think you do) for not paying tribute to the same God who put it into that situation, paints a grim picture of this so-called "plan." Honestly, if you find that to be either good or just, I have a hard time taking you seriously on any moral matters.

What about if I told you your desire to have sex with someone was purely driven by an animalistic instinct inside you that wants to have children with a mate? But oh guess what? Myself and my other half have no desire to have children at all yet we still have a desire to have sex, and that’s not simply down to our physicality, its also down to fact that we love each other. And ah yes love, that emotion controlled simply by chemical reactions in the brain, the emotion that can keep two people in a universal bond beyond all recognition…

This is the part where I cite some statistic about christian divorce rates. :v

Why, pray tell me, should we as mere animalistic machines, still be together? You know I thought for a long time that I simply would never find anyone, primarily because I was too picky, yet low and behold, someone came along who just happened to be my perfect partner. Oh of course, just mere coincidence, its not like it happens to pretty much every other bugger on the planet eventually…

Sorry, what? Did that baseless assertion hurt when you pulled it out of your ass? It is a rather large one.

To believe otherwise would be a massive contradiction.

Nope. Atheism and agnosticism are quite compatible, as I've mentioned elsewhere. Personally, I don't believe in any kind of spiritual force behind reality, religious or otherwise, but I'm open to the possibility insofar as they're practically impossible to disprove. I just find it repugnant that an afterlife, or personal enrichment in this life, should be contingent on subscribing to an unverifiable deity, especially considering there are so many vying for your attention, and so many more that have fallen out of print. On the other hand, the existence of a deistic, non-interventionist God(s) who doesn't require my belief or knowledge of him/her/it seems much more within the purview of reasonable thought. Does that mean I think it's likely, or even that it makes sense? Hell naw - hence, atheist. However, there is no atheistic doctrine that requires you to reject any kind of spiritual or supernatural idea. It is not "more honest" to see it from Dawkin's purely materialistic point of view, any more than I might say fundamentalists are "more honest" for taking their holy book as the literal word of God.

No I think Dawkins hit the nail on the head personally. If there is nothing to judge us, why the hell should we even think of a concept of good, evil and justice, all we have is this life and that’s it, who cares if someone stole 2 million quid and killed 8 people in the process and got away with it. He’s going to live the rest of his life in wealth.

Would you act any differently if God turned a blind eye to you? If your actions had no consequence in his eyes, and would not be held against you in judgement, would you act any more sinfully in his absence? I'm going to assume you're not a psychopath and that your answer is therefore no. So, laying aside any perceived responsibility to God for a moment, what is the base, practical reason behind this? It's because you're compelled to act a certain way based on your own personality, the way your experiences have shaped you to be, whether it be through God's will or, as you say, pure random chance. So why the need for a root cause to motivate your actions if the actual, tangible result is essentially the same?

And what does that prove exactly? Okay so morality is observable and bad decision in that sense will affect a person’s well being, I think that’s been perfectly obvious for a long time. My point is that if there were no God, no one to judge us, why should we even have morals? Why the hell should we care that we just murdered someone if we got a fat load of cash in the process, and I’m not talking about the fear of prison.

Because other people are perfectly capable of judging you even if God isn't. Because the consequences of your actions are easily observable, and you'd have to be a supreme fool not to recognise, on some level, the harm you were doing. Because it feels bad.

Unless it doesn't, in which case you're a psychopath.

I don’t like Dawkins, but at least he can be honest with the repercussions of what he believes in. With no God, you are at the mercy of all the animalistic implications that come with Darwinism that Dawkins happens to be an expert in, so as an atheist, I’d start listening to what he has to say.

Again, you're kind of mangling his message. This video may interest you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PFrdfxdYPI

And as long as I'm linking videos, here's a lecture I found particularly interesting if you have the time for it; you can probably guess what it's about from the title. Of course it's largely hypothetical, but it puts forth a possibility that's based on observable facts, which at least shows that the idea isn't entirely inconceivable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

 

[Sheepo]

First of all, God isn’t a bearded old man, where the hell did this come from? There is no description of his appearance.

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought there was some infallible Christian doctrine behind that idea.

Second of all if there is no God, then we weren’t made by anything, we are all here by chance, a freak accident, mistake is probably the wrong word to be honest. And I fail to see what use purpose is if all we are doing is slowly heading to an eternal pit of nothingness. Why should we care about a legacy if eventually we simply won’t care if we are remembered or not, because you know, we will be dead?

"Why would we care if one day we'll be dead and therefore be unable to care?" What.

Actually I think all Christians DO need to have the same narrow interpretation of the Bible, the problem is that there are so many wrong interpretations of it, I was arguing against those wrong interpretations. And all people have to do is read the damn thing…

And almost completely disregard the Old Testament, of course. Not exactly the most logical thing to expect of some one.

 

[Llama]

Oh please do. I would love to hear of your materialistic insights on love or indeed, any human emotion, especially considering what you posted below..

This will be a lot easier than you seem to think.

Then I implore to explain how two people can love each other their entire lives, or better yet lets give an example. If two people came together and one of them was injured, paralysed from waist down, explain to me from a Darwinistic perspective, why love should even play a part in that relationship. Why do care as much as we do for others, when if this life is all we have, it should be only ourselves we should be worrying about? You know, survival of the fittest and all that?

First of, if you'd read Dawkins' work (Hint: I'm 99% sure you haven't) you'd know that the unit of natural selection is the gene, not the organism. Ergo, talking about what an 'organism' wants is not relevant.
Now, onto a possible purpose for love.
Firstly, let's consider:
- Human pregnancy is fairly long term.
- It takes a lot of effort and time to raise a human to a self-sufficient level.
- It's easier to raise a child if you have two parents.

Can you really not put these together in your head?
If it takes a lot of effort and time to raise a child, it will overall be highly beneficial to have two parents raising the child. Ergo, it makes sense to have long term partnerships from an evolutionary perspective, and something that enables that (Such as a reaction such as 'love' - Ie something that creates a strong bond between individuals) is probably going to be selected for.
You list rare cases where one partner is incapacitated. This makes NO difference. If something is evolutionarily selected for, it's not going to be 'switched off' because something goes wrong. It's the equivalent of a misfire, an unintended (Not suggesting there is any higher reasoning, just the phrasing I use) side effect of a beneficial adaptation.
If the purpose of life is passing on genes, what is most beneficial to the being might not be so for the genes. Certainly, worker bees killing themselves to save a hive are not acting out of personal self-preservation. Why do you think you're so different to every other living thing on earth?

The reason you don't bother trying to explain things like morals or love from a materialistic perspective, is because you can't. You just disappear down and black hole of your own faulty logic, and materialism is just rank with it. Why do you think scientists pulled the multiverse theory out of their arses? Because if this is only universe in existence, the universe that just happens to be perfectly suited for our survival, and I'm talking PERFECTLY suited, then everything in it points to a creator. However, if you introduce the prospect of there being an infinite amount of universes then you avoid that problem, because eventually somewhere down the line a universe like ours will surely be created eventually. I mean hey, we are here now aren't we?

Can you actually come up with a problem with this argument?
- If the conditions were wrong, we couldn't exist.
- If the conditions were right, we could exist.
- The conditions happened to be right, ergo we could exist.
Any attempt to try and get further than that is ridiculous. We do not know anything further than that, all else is simply guesswork. It comes down to what you think is more likely: Probability, or a giant inefficient sky-fairy.

Now, who says the universe is 'perfectly' suited to our survival?
We die. We live on a cooling planet supplied with energy by a star that won't last forever. We are at the mercy of natural events beyond our control, and we need to fight for resources to stay alive. Some 'creation'.
(Again, the idea that this HAS to be the only universe is ludicrous. Why must you be that important, that God created such a ridiculously large place only for you?)

I pay it proper respect, because I DON'T debase it by linking it to mere animalistic qualities. It is you, and all your atheistic chummies, that takes away its meaning, especially with this comment:

You. Are. An. Animal.
You are made of trillions upon trillions of cells, that over billions of years have managed to form into a complex, thinking creature that can go so far as to leave the planet that it came from. Stop with the 'mere' thing, it gives away a sense of self-importance and a general lack of understanding about just how incredible existence is.
What 'meaning' does something like love have, besides that which you give it yourself?
Hint: It doesn't.
Fact is, you're an animal. You are not special, the universe was not designed with you in mind, and you can't cheat death.

Christianity teaches that the coming together between two people should be honoured throughout their entire lives, and that the emotion of love a trait we have inherited from God. You on the other hand link it to a bunch of chemical processes in the brain and that's it, and if your comment above is anything to go by, you will happily take it for granted. Or sorry, I couldn't possibly say that especially considering I don't know anything about you, although you seem to claim to know plenty about me, and my views on love and oh yeh, why I have sex!

So why is 'love' special? Because you think it was handed down without your consent by some huge celestial dictator?
Why is it a bad thing simply to be 'a bunch of chemical processes'? Have you any idea how complicated the chemistry actually is?

 

[Asknoone]

I believe God created this entire universe, and its beauty is a testament to his power.

Beauty is a testament to the power of one man? Ah, theocracy.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Shift, if I may ask a question before I answer you: do you see the beauty and complexity of the world as a demonstration of God's glory and power?

 

[Shift]

First of all: thanks, Shift. Regardless of what I think of your arguments, I'm constantly impressed by how willing you are to go up against the odds (numerically speaking) to defend your views, so you have my appreciation... for whatever it's worth.

You have no idea how hard it is haha. I shall read and hopefully address all these arguments but to be honest I am getting increasingly overwhelmed by the sheer weight of arguments against mine, surely there are others on here who can help? 0_o

Shift, if I may ask a question before I answer you: do you see the beauty and complexity of the world as a demonstration of God's glory and power?

Well yes sort of. The world before this one was meant to be perfect before it fell, but I would say the sheer magnitude and complexity of the entire universe is certainly a demonstration of God's glory and power.

 

[Acepilotf14]

You have no idea how hard it is haha. I shall read and hopefully address all these arguments but to be honest I am getting increasingly overwhelmed by the sheer weight of arguments against mine, surely there are others on here who can help? 0_o

I used to. Then I tried to, without bias, weigh the arguments and non-theism came out miles ahead.

 

[Shift]

Ah well my faith shall never been wavered, I was more asking if there were any others on here who could help me out, I could continue tackling the arguments but when you have about 5 against 1 its rather draining...

 

[Llama]

Well yes sort of. The world before this one was meant to be perfect before it fell, but I would say the sheer magnitude and complexity of the entire universe is certainly a demonstration of God's glory and power.

Surely, surely, surely, you can't be referring to Adam & Eve, or to the fall of Lucifer?

Also, a whole universe seems a bit wasteful just for us to live in.

 

[Absinthe]

Ah well my faith shall never been wavered, I was more asking if there were any others on here who could help me out, I could continue tackling the arguments but when you have about 5 against 1 its rather draining...

Not to pile on or anything, but it's the mentality expressed in that first statement that buggers me sometimes.

If I ever say something to the extent of "You can't convince me God exists", the veiled statement is actually "You can't convince me unless you offer evidence". I am almost certain that there's no deity out there (at least not one described by human mouths), but if God were to drop down tomorrow morning and kick over the empire state building all glorious-like, I'd probably be a quick convert. I'd be open to that kind of thing since my lack of belief is borne primarily from an absence of evidence. On the other end of the argument, you've pretty much said that no amount of evidence, proof, or arguing is going to convince you. Suppose I were succeed at the impossible task of proving God doesn't exist, would you actually listen? Would any Christian or theist be receptive to that? My feeling is you'd probably turn your nose up, say it doesn't matter, and then persist in belief because "it makes your faith stronger". Competing theories, alternate explanations, straight-up logical fallacies and inconsistencies are ignored. You might play along and argue your stance on those things as well as you can, but it doesn't matter if your baseline assumption is that God (your particular version of him) exists regardless of anything else. And that effects any other religious viewpoint on science, morality, or whatever have you.

Our position, as stubborn and persistent it may be, is ultimately assailable in theory. Yours... not so much. It's not really a level playing field for debate.

 

[lord_raken]

Ah well my faith shall never been wavered, I was more asking if there were any others on here who could help me out, I could continue tackling the arguments but when you have about 5 against 1 its rather draining...

Indeed it can. Try arguing libertarian free market ideology here.

I pitched in a couple pages ago, but my specific faith does not gel well with a literal interpretation of the bible. However, I will say you have don a remarkable job staying consistent and your knowledge of the biblical texts is impressive. If it bring you happiness, believe and keep the faith.

I will add this. While I do believe in a personal god, when it comes to religion and science I take the Deists approach. Which is, God created the universe, but let it develop according to the laws of nature that came into being at the birth of our universe. These forces eventually lead to us and the universe we know today. Discovering and understanding how we got here is important. In this view evolution, the big band theory, and the idea of a universe billions of years old in NO way conflicts with the idea of God.

That is just how I see it.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Out of curiosity (I'm not really going anywhere with this, just wondered), do you believe man was created in God's image? If so, how does this gel with your acceptance of evolution? I suppose you could say he "planted the seed" for man's creation and let it slowly develop over time, but what of the other creatures that branched off from our common ancestry? Are chimps a failed version of man that just didn't quite make it? Why the need for multiple divergent species if he already knew that one would be his blessed creation? At what point did we evolve a soul, or was that placed there by God's hand when he deemed fit?

 

[Acepilotf14]

Out of curiosity (I'm not really going anywhere with this, just wondered), do you believe man was created in God's image? If so, how does this gel with your acceptance of evolution? I suppose you could say he "planted the seed" for man's creation and let it slowly develop over time, but what of the other creatures that branched off from our common ancestry? Are chimps a failed version of man that just didn't quite make it? Why the need for multiple divergent species if he already knew that one would be his blessed creation? At what point did we evolve a soul, or was that placed there by God's hand when he deemed fit?

The answer is simple.
God is a one-celled organism.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Whoa.

 

[Shift]

Not to pile on or anything, but it's the mentality expressed in that first statement that buggers me sometimes.

If I ever say something to the extent of "You can't convince me God exists", the veiled statement is actually "You can't convince me unless you offer evidence". I am almost certain that there's no deity out there (at least not one described by human mouths), but if God were to drop down tomorrow morning and kick over the empire state building all glorious-like, I'd probably be a quick convert. I'd be open to that kind of thing since my lack of belief is borne primarily from an absence of evidence. On the other end of the argument, you've pretty much said that no amount of evidence, proof, or arguing is going to convince you. Suppose I were succeed at the impossible task of proving God doesn't exist, would you actually listen? Would any Christian or theist be receptive to that? My feeling is you'd probably turn your nose up, say it doesn't matter, and then persist in belief because "it makes your faith stronger". Competing theories, alternate explanations, straight-up logical fallacies and inconsistencies are ignored. You might play along and argue your stance on those things as well as you can, but it doesn't matter if your baseline assumption is that God (your particular version of him) exists regardless of anything else. And that effects any other religious viewpoint on science, morality, or whatever have you.

Our position, as stubborn and persistent it may be, is ultimately assailable in theory. Yours... not so much. It's not really a level playing field for debate.

I've already heard all the main arguments against Christianity, I wasn't even a Christian when I heard them all. I made my choice logically and even now, despite the masses of opposition to everything I am saying I am still not anywhere near convinced of any of them, just like you aren't convinced of any of the arguments for Christianity. That being said, I guess it would be rather pointless to continue this debate because at the end of the day neither side shall be proven wrong in their own minds, I will however continue, because a) I enjoy it (as daunting as it is to be so immensely outnumbered) and b) I like to hear arguments from either side, like to get the full picture, maybe because it would help me get a better understanding of my position.

Out of curiosity (I'm not really going anywhere with this, just wondered), do you believe man was created in God's image? If so, how does this gel with your acceptance of evolution? I suppose you could say he "planted the seed" for man's creation and let it slowly develop over time, but what of the other creatures that branched off from our common ancestry? Are chimps a failed version of man that just didn't quite make it? Why the need for multiple divergent species if he already knew that one would be his blessed creation? At what point did we evolve a soul, or was that placed there by God's hand when he deemed fit?

That would be assuming that evolution from Darwin's perspective actually happened which I think is a massively debatable topic.

I've read all arguments and will reply later on

 

[Eejit]

So if you went from being a non-believer to a christian, why did you choose that one religion? What makes it more 'true' than the hundreds of others? Why is its creation myth more plausible? Or its miracles?

 

[Bad^Hat]

That would be assuming that evolution from Darwin's perspective actually happened which I think is a massively debatable topic.

There's another perspective?

 

[ríomhaire]

There's another perspective?

Conservapedia can explain it to you in depth.

 

[Bad^Hat]

No it can't.

 

[leib10]

So if you went from being a non-believer to a christian, why did you choose that one religion? What makes it more 'true' than the hundreds of others? Why is its creation myth more plausible? Or its miracles?

I became a Christian rather than a Muslim or Jew or whatever based on the evidence available to me. The (true, mind you, and by true I mean those who adhere to the faith rather than paying lip service to it) Christians I've known tend to live very fulfilling lives; they're genuinely happy, easy-going, kind, decent people whose lives both benefit others and themselves are benefitted by other Christians. Although they may not agree with you on something, you're not chastised or browbeaten for not seeing things their way. You feel genuinely loved and accepted not only by fellow Christians, but by a force that ultimately dwarfs the world and everything in it by comparison.

I don't like to stereotype, but for these purposes I have to. The practicing Jews I've met have an air of superiority about them, and treat you like a king might treat a serf. This stems from the fact that as God's chosen people, they (apparently) have a right to treat the Gentiles as second-rate individuals; just look at their journey from Egypt to their present-day homeland. The Muslims I've met immediately regard you with distrust and sometimes downright hostility; there's a certain lack of empathy and gentleness in that faith.

Now am I saying that all Jews and Muslims are like that, or that all Christians are as wonderful as I've painted them? Of course not; mankind has a great ability to twist religion to his own devices. But it IS possible to find a niche of people who are not that way. I think that critics of religion focus too much on the logic (or illogic) nature of the religion, and not nearly enough on the actual changes it brings in the lives of its practitioners. I think they'd find a lot more answers if they did that. My .02

 

[CptStern]

Christians I've known tend to live very fulfilling lives; they're genuinely happy, easy-going, kind, decent people whose lives both benefit others and themselves are benefitted by other Christians.

until you mention same sex marriage or abortion or evilution then it's all open hostility and hate

I don't like to stereotype, but for these purposes I have to. The practicing Jews I've met have an air of superiority about them, and treat you like a king might treat a serf. This stems from the fact that as God's chosen people, they (apparently) have a right to treat the Gentiles as second-rate individuals; just look at their journey from Egypt to their present-day homeland. The Muslims I've met immediately regard you with distrust and sometimes downright hostility; there's a certain lack of empathy and gentleness in that faith.

how many jews and muslims have you met? in my experience jews dont have air of superiority and muslims have never looked upon me with hostility. in fact the muslim at work looked upon me as an equal because at first he thought I was catholic and has said that all religions are too be respected. he's somewhat offended when I make fun of religion but has learned not too take me too seriously. and my sister in law is a jew. and an ex girlfriend is a jew and some of my parents neighbours are jews as are some of my coworkers. not one has ever displayed an air of superiority.

maybe it's you

there's a certain lack of empathy and gentleness in that faith

odd because the muslims that I know are far more gentle and emphatic than any christian I've ever met. hell the muslim at work doesnt like swearing and has a real hard time morally with pirated anything

I made my choice logically

lets be honest here. no you didnt or you would have chosen "none of the above"

 

[Eejit]

I became a Christian rather than a Muslim or Jew or whatever based on the evidence available to me. The (true, mind you, and by true I mean those who adhere to the faith rather than paying lip service to it) Christians I've known tend to live very fulfilling lives; they're genuinely happy, easy-going, kind, decent people whose lives both benefit others and themselves are benefitted by other Christians. Although they may not agree with you on something, you're not chastised or browbeaten for not seeing things their way. You feel genuinely loved and accepted not only by fellow Christians, but by a force that ultimately dwarfs the world and everything in it by comparison.

What has that got to do with whether their religion is 'correct' or not?

 

[Escaep]

until you mention same sex marriage or abortion or evilution then it's all open hostility and hate

Odd because none of the Christians I have asked about same sex marriage, abortion, or evolution have been hostile or become hateful.

 

[No Limit]

This mindset is astonishing to me. You picked what faith you are going to live by your entire life based on how people you talked to acted?

Have you ever met any buddhists? Because if we go off stereotypes (as you did) buddhists are some of the nicest people you will probably ever meet. So by your completely irrational logic you should be a buddhists.

Instead of going through everything point by point the most amazing thing about this thread is how it has been shown over and over how irrational the thinking of christians is (and religious people as a whole). Yet you guys [religious people] don't seem to have enough self-awareness to actually come to this conclusion. The ideas you have all presented in this thread have been shown over and over to be totally irrational. And when that happens you simply ignore it. This is the very definition of willful ignorance. And why? Because you are so scared of death you need to make up children stories to somehow allow you to pretend death isn't really death, it's just an extension of everything you are here on earth for infinity.

Odd because none of the Christians I have asked about same sex marriage, abortion, or evolution have been hostile or become hateful.

Do this. Google "christian forums". Pick one that seems most popular. Post there that abortion is okay as is being gay. Report back the results.

If you don't want to do that then simply look up Scott Roeder if you don't already know who he is. Or check out the God Hates Fags website.

 

[Escaep]

Do this. Google "christian forums". Pick one that seems most popular. Post there that abortion is okay as is being gay. Report back the results.

You can do that with any religion, so why single out Christianity? Do this. Google "Half Life 2.net" and go to politics and post that you are a Christian.

 

[Krynn72]

Do this. Google "christian forums". Pick one that seems most popular. Post there that abortion is okay as is being gay. Report back the results.

To be fair, the internet isn't exactly the most accurate focus group. But to be fair in the opposite, neither is Escaep's group of people hes talked to.

Either way, being against people's rights is an asshole position, whether hateful or not.

 

[No Limit]

You can do that with any religion, so why single out Christianity? Do this. Google "Half Life 2.net" and go to politics and post that you are a Christian.

That's exactly the point. Leib made the claim that he picked his religion based on how much hate he experianced from christianity. When the fact is you will find hateful people and good people in all religions (and lack of) as you will in all walks of life.

Also, your swipe at people here that have a dislike of christianity/religion isn't very fair in the context you just put that in. Is it your opinion that all of us (or even some of us) are hateful toward any christians here?

 

[Escaep]

That's exactly the point. Leib made the claim that he picked his religion based on how much hate he experianced from christianity. When the fact is you will find hateful people and good people in all religions (and lack of) as you will in all walks of life.

Also, your swipe at people here that have a dislike of christianity/religion isn't very fair in the context you just put that in. Is it your opinion that all of us (or even some of us) are hateful toward any christians here?

Yeah, I agree it isn't fair to take a handful of people from each religion and use it to generalize the entire religion. The Muslims that I know are very cool and reasonable people. And no I don't feel that all Atheists on this forum are hateful towards Christians, yes there are a few who's comments can sometimes be pretty hateful and condescending but I don't use it to generalize all Atheists. Just like people shouldn't Google "Christian forums" and go post about abortion or gay marriage and use it to generalize all Christians. I feel a lot of problems in this world could be solved if people didn't generalize so much.

 

[CptStern]

Odd because none of the Christians I have asked about same sex marriage, abortion, or evolution have been hostile or become hateful.

actual coversation with coworker:

me: hey who are you voting for in the federal election

my IT coworker: <between clenched teeth> screw the liberals for bringing their same sex marriage laws. did they ask us if we want THOSE PEOPLE to share our sacred institution?

me: oh ...I see. I was just making conversation


while not every christian are as unflinching in their views (to be fair they're either catholic or protestant and non practicisng) from my experience most christians are

You can do that with any religion, so why single out Christianity? Do this. Google "Half Life 2.net" and go to politics and post that you are a Christian.

except being christian has nothing to do with halflfe2. in essence you're declaring your alligiance and daring people to challenge it. it's no wonder christians are brow beaten so often on the interwebs/media. every other religion knows it's unwise to solicitate their religion in public