"You never accepted Jesus." - 'Ugly Betty' actor kills mother with samurai sword

[VirusType2]

You think the greatest sacrifice in history is a guilt trip?... Jesus took all the sin of the people he would save on himself in his death, abolishing the supposed belief that doing something wrong sends you to hell. No-one is perfect and that's why Jesus had to stand in our place. Keeping the rules and regulations does nothing to get a person into heaven, Jesus is the only gateway, the former is "salvation by works" which is continually spoken against in the gospels. I'm not saying you can be an evil person and go to heaven but what I am saying is that you don't have to be perfect.

I lol'd so hard.

This sounds like the story from a really bad Japanese anime. Or, Final Fantasy.

 

[CptStern]

According to my Christian friend, Christ would have looked at those crucifying him like you would look at a troubled child trying to beat the shit out of you. He's no actual threat to you as a being, so you only look upon him with pity and the love of wanting to help him.

lol I doubt that what was on his mind when they were driving 6" nails into his wrist

"my poor sheep how lost YEAARRRGHHHohgodHHHH ..how I pity you in your GAHHHHAKKKmakeitstopohlord ...child like SWEETMOTHEROFMERCYDIDYOUHAVETOUSETHERUSTYONE ..."

jebus was god made flesh with all of man's failings, weaknesses etc ..at least according to the bible

 

[PvtRyan]

Okay, it seems I'm a little late on the uptake here but just to reply to this;


You think the greatest sacrifice in history is a guilt trip?... Jesus took all the sin of the people he would save on himself in his death, abolishing the supposed belief that doing something wrong sends you to hell. No-one is perfect and that's why Jesus had to stand in our place. Keeping the rules and regulations does nothing to get a person into heaven, Jesus is the only gateway, the former is "salvation by works" which is continually spoken against in the gospels. I'm not saying you can be an evil person and go to heaven but what I am saying is that you don't have to be perfect.

The greatest sacrifice in history? Err.. nothing was lost.

 

[Shift]

It's fairly counter-productive to intelligent thinking.

Nope I think I'm looking at everything from an intelligent angle personally...

there is nothing logical in creationsim; it's all belief

Well thats ironic given the role you play by blind trust in your own beliefs, or the theories of scientists who claim they have the answers to how the universe started etc. You can twist it all you like but everything is based on belief when it comes to origins of life, or origins of the universe, it becomes nothing more than estimations of what happened.

Even Dawkins himself said when asked 'What do you believe is true even though you can't prove it?', he said 'Dawrwinism is the explanation of life on this planet but I believe (without proof) that all life, all inteligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection'

He also said 'There cannot be intermediate stages that were not beneficial...There's got to be a series of advantages all the way...If you can't think of one, then that's your problem, not natural selection's problem. Natural selection - well I suppose that's a matter of faith on my part...'

You can't claim the universe is too improbable a phenomenon to have come into existence by chance alone, then propose that the cause was the will of a god who by definition is infinitely more complex and infinitely more improbable. You can't have it both ways.

God is a supernatural being, the universe is a physical presence, it abides by physical laws. Things of this phyical world do not pop into existance by themselves, if people can say its completely mental to suggest that things around here don't just appear themselves in this physical universe, then why can people say that the entirity of the universe did? The same laws apply.

There are many verses saying that old testament law still applies, more than verses saying it doesn't apply. You are cherry picking.

Show me all these verses, because the very reason the Jews hated Jesus was because he was overwriting all the laws that they followed militantly and saying they didn't apply anymore. Any of the old laws he was fullfilling himself personally, that was the point of his death, hence why only confiding in him would grant people salvation.

I loathe to be the one to bring up an age old rebuttal, but sometimes they're the most significant and it's obviously not sinking in: so, God - BANG! out of 'nothingness' too, right? I don't sympathise with the need for a convenient fiction over the more evident and modest view that we simply cannot conceive of the before.

God didn't just BANG in existance, he was always there and will always be there, hell you can grasp the idea of the universe being infinite well enough, which is governed by physical laws, but can't grasp a supernatural being, being infinite, which exists outside of any phyical laws?

Time doesn't progress in the simple *tick tick* you perceive it to. If no matter is moving and no energy is being transferred, time doesn't progress. That being so, if before the Big Bang all matter was still in the smallest possible space, there would be no "time". Rendering your "Time must start and end" a moot point.

Stephan Hawking has specifically said that 'the universe has not existed for ever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago', I would say considering there isn't a person on the planet who has a better grasp of the concept than him, I would say it isn't a moot point at all.

I don't have very high hopes of your ability to understand this, but perhaps, if you spend time (read years) thinking about it, one day, it may all make sense to you, and you will be freed of your ethereal shackles of thought oppression.

And yet again I am patronised because I am obviously a lot less inteligent than your typical athiest because of my beliefs, I should start taking a tally chart so I can show agnostics or people on the neutral ground, some statistical evidence of what it is actually like to debate with athiests. And considering I've been on both sides of the debate in the past, right now I feel more at freedom with my thoughts about everything than ever before, so I'm afraid these 'ethereal shackles of thought oppression', no matter how poetic it sounds, does not apply.

Does it not bother you that your salvation is so tied up in wishy washy legislation that not even God can stick to? For millennium, his chosen people were required to abide by needlessly strict and seemingly arbitrary laws in order to enter his kingdom (and still do!), and then one day he's just like, "Hey guys I finished the revised edition! It's much easier now and you can pretty much throw out all that other crap. Haha, shellfish, what was I thinking?! Anyway I'll send down my secretary to tell you all about it k."

Well gee, how nice of you, God. Quick question: Are these rules retroactive, or do all the people who tried and failed to live by your horrible, horrible laws - laws so bad you yourself (apparently) redacted them - get to roast in hell some more? Cause, I mean, kudos on fessing up and everything, but let's face it, 2000 years isn't a whole lot of time in the larger scheme of things when the stakes are eternal ****ing damnation. Even if you're a creationist, that's still 2/3rds of forever that people have had to mess up in the worst way possible, and most likely did!

But yeah, keep saying you follow the "merciful god" of the New Testament. Jesus is such a saint. He, who was born of God, and died a total of once to make up for all the people who had died and suffered in the afterlife beforehand. What a guy!

What a guy indeed!

I would explain my views and opinions on the matters of God and the Bible, but to be honest that would be a complete waste of time giving that you really don't understand Christianity, and don't want to. Its like a girl going to her utterly masculine boyfriend while he is having a few beers and playing CoD with his mates online and trying to explain to him why women think they way they think, it just not going to work.

 

[Remus]

Oh my... *grabs popcorn*

 

[VirusType2]

Well thats ironic given the role you play by blind trust in your own beliefs, or the theories of scientists who claim they have the answers to how the universe started etc. You can twist it all you like but everything is based on belief when it comes to origins of life, or origins of the universe, it becomes nothing more than estimations of what happened.

Even Dawkins himself said when asked 'What do you believe is true even though you can't prove it?', he said 'Dawrwinism is the explanation of life on this planet but I believe (without proof) that all life, all inteligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection'

He also said 'There cannot be intermediate stages that were not beneficial...There's got to be a series of advantages all the way...If you can't think of one, then that's your problem, not natural selection's problem. Natural selection - well I suppose that's a matter of faith on my part...'

First you call Dawkins a "tool who has retarded ideas", and (if I'm not mistaken) you complain that people quote him all the time, but now you are quoting him to support your argument.

God is a supernatural being, the universe is a physical presence, it abides by physical laws. Things of this phyical world do not pop into existance by themselves, if people can say its completely mental to suggest that things around here don't just appear themselves in this physical universe, then why can people say that the entirity of the universe did? The same laws apply.

The Earth being round was a difficult concept to grasp at the time. Most called it ridiculous. So was the Earth not being the center of the universe. So was the planet rotating; if it's rotating at 1,674.4 km/h, how come we can't feel it moving? So were all those scientific discoveries and thousands more. Just because you don't understand how the universe works doesn't mean it's impossible or ridiculous.

 

[Warbie]

I would explain my views and opinions on the matters of God and the Bible, but to be honest that would be a complete waste of time giving that you really don't understand Christianity, and don't want to.

That's a bit of a cop out, no? That someone who doesn't agree simply doesn't understand, or that they are closed minded. This is what particularly frustrates me with theists. They are, with next to no exceptions, the dictionary definition of closed minded - and yet are the first to use that card whenever someone finds fault in their beliefs. I'm an Athiest in the strongest sense I think it's possible to be, but accept that it's impossible to be 100% certain of anything. I could be wrong, there could be a god, we could be in a matrix like simulation, or jibbering nutcases banging our heads against a padded wall somewhere. I think it's unlikely to the extent of not being worth considering, but sure, perhaps everything was started by a god. I haven't seen a shred of convincing evidence to suggest this, however, or any trace of a holy spirit - and not for the lack of looking.

 

[RidleyRockets]

Well thats ironic given the role you play by blind trust in your own beliefs, or the theories of scientists who claim they have the answers to how the universe started etc.

No scientists are claiming they know the processes that created the universe. They will have ideas but if you ask them they will say they don't know which is the only honest answer.

God is a supernatural being, the universe is a physical presence, it abides by physical laws. Things of this phyical world do not pop into existance by themselves,
if people can say its completely mental to suggest that things around here don't just appear themselves in this physical universe, then why can people say that the entirity of the universe did? The same laws apply.

Matter has been observed appearing for nothingness, this is a fact. What say ye now?

Your argument is a cop out. You cant claim that stuff doesn't just appear, except for god because he's magic. If god doesn't require an explanation why do you insist the universe does?

Show me all these verses, because the very reason the Jews hated Jesus was because he was overwriting all the laws that they followed militantly and saying they didn't apply anymore. Any of the old laws he was fullfilling himself personally, that was the point of his death, hence why only confiding in him would grant people salvation.

Genesis 17:19
And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

Exodus 12:14, 17, 24
And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. ... And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. ... And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.

Leviticus 23:14,21,31
It shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations.

Deuteronomy 4:8-9
What nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? ... teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons.

Deuteronomy 7:9
Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations.

Deuteronomy 11:1
Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway.

Deuteronomy 11:26-28
Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God.

1 Chronicles 16:15
Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ... an everlasting covenant.

Psalm 119:151-2
Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.

Psalm 119:160
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Malachi 4:4
Remember ye the law of Moses.

Matthew 5:18-19
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 16:17
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

God didn't just BANG in existance, he was always there and will always be there, hell you can grasp the idea of the universe being infinite well enough, which is governed by physical laws, but can't grasp a supernatural being, being infinite, which exists outside of any phyical laws?

It doesn't matter if i can grasp it, you have to prove it.

You have to prove there is a god, you have to prove he has all the qualities you are attributing to him and that this god is the correct one over the hundreds and hundreds of others worshiped.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Well thats ironic given the role you play by blind trust in your own beliefs, or the theories of scientists who claim they have the answers to how the universe started etc.

Haha, here we go. Equating "faith" in scripture to "faith" in science, classic theist argument there. So classic, in fact, that instead of attempting to formulate an actual rebuttal, I'm going to use one of your own arguments against you!

It's just a theory.

Boom.

God is a supernatural being, the universe is a physical presence, it abides by physical laws. Things of this phyical world do not pop into existance by themselves, if people can say its completely mental to suggest that things around here don't just appear themselves in this physical universe, then why can people say that the entirity of the universe did? The same laws apply.

Right. So a magic man done it. Sure, that's less mental.

Show me all these verses, because the very reason the Jews hated Jesus was because he was overwriting all the laws that they followed militantly and saying they didn't apply anymore.

I'd be kind of pissed too if all of the hard work and sacrifice of myself, my family and friends, and all of my ancestors throughout time were to be rendered meaningless because God was feeling merciful or something. Good thing they don't have to work themselves ragged for salvation any more!

Wait.

Stephan Hawking has specifically said that 'the universe has not existed for ever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago', I would say considering there isn't a person on the planet who has a better grasp of the concept than him, I would say it isn't a moot point at all.

What exactly in the post you quoted does this conflict with? Funny that you'll happily credit a scientist as having a good 'grasp' of a theory in one breath, and then dismiss it as blind faith the next.

I would explain my views and opinions on the matters of God and the Bible, but to be honest that would be a complete waste of time giving that you really don't understand Christianity, and don't want to.

Been there, done that. So no, I'm not really interested in truly understanding it, given I already tried at one point in my life. I'm merely interested in hearing different interpretations of religious concepts, if for no other reason than I find them amusing, or in some cases fascinating. Anyway, you have no obligation to discuss your personal beliefs with anyone, so no worries there.

 

[Gargantou]

And this is why Christianity should be abolished before the next generation learns of it.

Yes, because the vast majority of Christians kills their parents.*Rolls eyes*

P.S. I don't believe in God myself, but I think it's unfair to generalize like you do.

P.S.S. It would be interesting if there was statistics of what faith(or lack thereof) convicted murderers belong to in percentages.

 

[Asknoone]

God didn't just BANG in existance, he was always there and will always be there, hell you can grasp the idea of the universe being infinite well enough, which is governed by physical laws, but can't grasp a supernatural being, being infinite, which exists outside of any phyical laws?

So, God's existence is exempt from reason. He's just there, and always will be. Is that a sufficient rebuttal? Atheists and non-believers are often accused of arrogance, and although there is truth to that claim, I feel Christianity is riddled with significantly more of it. Why is your convenient fiction of an eternal father and designer being somehow more plausible and "ahh, yes, of course!" than a universe we don't understand and make no actual claim to? Our best and current scientific thinking isn't a path to the truth; absolute truth is an ideal, not an attainable goal. It's about glimpsing the truth, and the shapes it takes. Science is that path and we're proud to be on it. Atheism has no limit to what could be and the incomprehensible nature of the universe and why it's here is something to revel in. Christianity and other faith-based origins put a stopper on the possibilities, and posit an end, a finitism. Your faith is appalling.

What do you think will happen to us, Shift?

 

[Remus]

P.S.S. It would be interesting if there was statistics of what faith(or lack thereof) convicted murderers belong to in percentages.

Actually a study like that has been done, and it has been found that the vast majority of convicts are religious.

 

[Escaep]

Actually a study like that has been done, and it has been found that the vast majority of convicts are religious.

Meh, unless they can prove they committed those crimes because they are religious I really don't think it holds any weight. For example, if I happen to be religious and steal a car it is different than me stealing a car because I'm religious.

Something like that, can't find the right words for it.

 

[CptStern]

Well thats ironic given the role you play by blind trust in your own beliefs, or the theories of scientists who claim they have the answers to how the universe started etc.

not at all. no scientist has ever claimed they have the definite answer to the origian of the universe. the religious community has just oversimplified science fact/theory to mean one specific thing (the big bang) in an attempt to easily dismiss it with the same meaningless statement: "something cant come from nothing"

You can twist it all you like but everything is based on belief when it comes to origins of life, or origins of the universe, it becomes nothing more than estimations of what happened.

only because that's what you've been spoonfed by people who hold similiar views as your own; it's the best way to disarm the 800 lb gorilla in the room (science fact)

the origins of the unverse is not a "belief" it's based on observable evidence

Even Dawkins himself said when asked 'What do you believe is true even though you can't prove it?', he said 'Dawrwinism is the explanation of life on this planet but I believe (without proof) that all life, all inteligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection'

He also said 'There cannot be intermediate stages that were not beneficial...There's got to be a series of advantages all the way...If you can't think of one, then that's your problem, not natural selection's problem. Natural selection - well I suppose that's a matter of faith on my part...'

funny how the intelligent design camp has taken this quote way out of it's original context

he is not saying Natural Selection is a matter of faith but rather that there is a predetermined path as to where a species/cell will evolve to; that's the matter of faith not Natural selection. the very use of this proves that christians/creationists are all about smoke and mirrors: deceiving, manipulating, clouding over issues to discredit their opponents pov. pathetic if you ask me

 

[Shift]

First you call Dawkins a "tool who has retarded ideas", and (if I'm not mistaken) you complain that people quote him all the time, but now you are quoting him to support your argument.

I also said he is one of the main representatives of New Athiem and its not like I was supporting any of his ideas. I quoted him because he is as militant an athiest as they come, and something he himself said, actually supported my argument. I mean practically everyone on here listens to every word he has to say, so I may as well quote him to get a point across.

The Earth being round was a difficult concept to grasp at the time. Most called it ridiculous. So was the Earth not being the center of the universe. So was the planet rotating; if it's rotating at 1,674.4 km/h, how come we can't feel it moving? So were all those scientific discoveries and thousands more. Just because you don't understand how the universe works doesn't mean it's impossible or ridiculous.

Well thats just essentially saying that science will eventually proove everything, no matter how bizzare certain concepts are, which is just as big a cop out as the athiest argument of saying that God is behind everything that doesn't have an answer.

That's a bit of a cop out, no? That someone who doesn't agree simply doesn't understand, or that they are closed minded. This is what particularly frustrates me with theists. They are, with next to no exceptions, the dictionary definition of closed minded - and yet are the first to use that card whenever someone finds fault in their beliefs.

Darkshines gave everyone the biblical truth about Jesus and his mission, and people thought it was hilarious, that it sounded like something from a fantasy. I would say they really don't have any understanding of the concept at all, no matter how many times you explain it, an athiest will never take in what is being said about Jesus and his sacrifice, its always with a pinch of salt. I didn't say they were closed minded though, just that I think most athiests are simply incapable of understanding Christianity properly, because they disagree with it to such a huge extent.

No scientists are claiming they know the processes that created the universe. They will have ideas but if you ask them they will say they don't know which is the only honest answer.

So you put full faith in science when it doesn't even have a definitive answer for the origins of the universe?

Matter has been observed appearing for nothingness, this is a fact. What say ye now?

So because of this, something as amazingly complicated of the universe can obviously appear from nothing too? Hardly definitive evidence...

Your argument is a cop out. You cant claim that stuff doesn't just appear, except for god because he's magic. If god doesn't require an explanation why do you insist the universe does?

Because you base everything of science and think it has all the answers, but I'm saying it doesn't, because there is no final answer to the origins of the universe in scientific terms. My faith is based off the Bible, which says that God was always there and he created everything, its not about evidence with what I follow, its a faith. Your entire philosphy is based on what science says about it, and everything requires scientific evidence, so in your terms, yes, the universe DOES require an scientific explanation.

And you said there were many more verses saying that the old law still applied (in the NEW testament) than saying it didn't, all the verses you listed apart from the last two are from the OLD Testament, my argument was that Jesus and the apostles made it clear that we didn't have to follow the old law anymore, Jesus would fullfill all the laws of the Old Testment himself via his sacrifice (wow I must have said this about ten times now...). The verse in the New Testament that you mentioned stated that the old law is certainly still important, but the point of Jesus's death was that he himself fulfilled all of it, so that we had a scapegoat to get into heaven.

It doesn't matter if i can grasp it, you have to prove it.

You have to prove there is a god, you have to prove he has all the qualities you are attributing to him and that this god is the correct one over the hundreds and hundreds of others worshiped.

Well thats where a circular argument starts, because as a Christian I know he exists, and the fact that the universe exists, and we exists, is proof to me and many others. I think its a lot more logical to say that God exists, than suggesting that we are just one huge mistake in the progression of life, and the universe is just one huge accident. There is just far too much in this life, and in the universe, to suggest that everything is just one huge, beautiful accident.

Haha, here we go. Equating "faith" in scripture to "faith" in science, classic theist argument there. So classic, in fact, that instead of attempting to formulate an actual rebuttal

Whether its a 'classic theist argument' or not, its a fact. You criticize Christians for having faith in something that there is no scientific evidence for, but you put full faith in the science, which itself as I mentioned above, doesn't have a clear answer to the origins of the universe.

What exactly in the post you quoted does this conflict with? Funny that you'll happily credit a scientist as having a good 'grasp' of a theory in one breath, and then dismiss it as blind faith the next.

voodoospriest was trying to tell me from a scientific standpoint that time having a start and an end was a moot point, so I used someone viewed as the best in the scientific community, to state that he was wrong, whether I view it as blind faith or not, is irrelevant.

Been there, done that. So no, I'm not really interested in truly understanding it, given I already tried at one point in my life. I'm merely interested in hearing different interpretations of religious concepts, if for no other reason than I find them amusing, or in some cases fascinating.

Then what do you think gives you right to lecture or critisize any Christian or their beliefs, when you yourself don't understand it, and won't even try to understand it. The difference between me and you in this debate, is that I know the arguments from both sides, because I was an agnostic bordering athiest only a year ago, I think its pointless to debate with someone when you don't fully where they are coming from.

Our best and current scientific thinking isn't a path to the truth; absolute truth is an ideal, not an attainable goal. It's about glimpsing the truth, and the shapes it takes. Science is that path and we're proud to be on it. Atheism has no limit to what could be and the incomprehensible nature of the universe and why it's here is something to revel in. Christianity and other faith-based origins put a stopper on the possibilities, and posit an end, a finitism. Your faith is appalling.

Oh I've heard all this propaganda before, Christianity is slowing down our progression as a species, retarding the progression of your knowledge of the universe. Its doing no such thing, scientists are still researching the aspects of the universe, hell there are a considerable number of thiests who are helping them, the latter of which are convinced both the idea of God and science can mix effortlessly. Not to mention you are conforming to the science of the gaps ideology, the fact that you are essentially saying that science will progress forward and find more answers without religion being there, is laughable.

not at all. no scientist has ever claimed they have the definite answer to the origian of the universe. the religious community has just oversimplified science fact/theory to mean one specific thing (the big bang) in an attempt to easily dismiss it with the same meaningless statement: "something cant come from nothing"

But its a perfectly valid argument, one I will add, I haven't heard a single good rebuckle of.

only because that's what you've been spoonfed by people who hold similiar views as your own; it's the best way to disarm the 800 lb gorilla in the room (science fact)

I haven't been spoonfed anything, I saw and read the Bible, went to church services, from a highly skeptical standpoint, and everything made sense. I was on your side pretty much only a year ago.

the origins of the unverse is not a "belief" it's based on observable evidence

Evidence that doesn't apply a definitive answer as your fellow athiests have already said, so I would say you are putting belief in this evidence to provide the answers, when at the end of the day, its still what 'probably' happened.

the very use of this proves that christians/creationists are all about smoke and mirrors: deceiving, manipulating, clouding over issues to discredit their opponents pov. pathetic if you ask me

I think its pathetic that someone like Dawkins claims he wasn't out to hurt Christians directly, yet his book was just one blatant attack on the entirity of it, and everyone who follows it, when he could have very easily forwarded his scientific views on the subject, without directly offending any Christians.

 

[RidleyRockets]

So to sum up,

1. No one knows how the universe started, therefore god did it.
This is the god of the gaps fallacy. Find a gap in scientific knowledge and crowbar god in there.

2. The universe is too amazing, god must have made it.
You can't claim something is too complex to not have been designed then ignore the fact that the designer is infinitely more complex.

3. Something cant come from nothing.
I've already explained that matter has been observed coming from nothing. You also have the double standard of god coming from nothing. If you can say that then i can claim the universe came from nothing.

4. The universe is evidence of god.
No, the universe is evidence that there is a universe. You have to actually prove that a god made it instead of merely stating it.

I can claim the universe is evidence of all powerful space bats and it's just as valid as your claim.

5. Science doesn't have all the answers.
Neither does it claim to, but it's still the only method we have to investigate the universe that actually works.

Just because there isn't a scientific explanation for a phenomenon, it doesn't mean that a supernatural explanation or any other unproven explanation becomes more likely. The name of this particular fallacy escapes me for the moment but I'm sure someone can chip in.

 

[Bad^Hat]

New Atheism

Why do you keep saying this? What does this mean? I assume you're just talking about atheists who aren't afraid to speak out against fundies and combat policy changes based on scripture, but is this actually a term they apply to themselves? Either way it sounds dumb.

Well thats just essentially saying that science will eventually proove everything, no matter how bizzare certain concepts are

No, you kind of missed the point of that statement. He's saying that the universe is not necessarily limited to your understanding of it at the time, or anyone else's. You keep implying that scientists think they know everything about the inner workings of the universe, or that they think they will know everything in time, which isn't really true. I've most definitely heard Dawkins say he doesn't know if science will ever have a comprehensive understanding of everything... if that means anything to you.

I didn't say they were closed minded though, just that I think most athiests are simply incapable of understanding Christianity properly, because they disagree with it to such a huge extent.

Why do you think that is? I'm actually interested in hearing your hypothesis on this.

So you put full faith in science when it doesn't even have a definitive answer for the origins of the universe?

In what way is scripture's answer "definitive"? It cannot be verified in even the most basic of ways.

But yeah, let's dismiss science altogether because it can't even answer a basic question like "where'd the universe come from?" LOL dumbasses.

So because of this, something as amazingly complicated of the universe can obviously appear from nothing too? Hardly definitive evidence...

No one's ****ing saying it is. In fact, we've been repeatedly saying that we don't have definitive evidence. Several of the posts you quote said that.

Because you base everything of science and think it has all the answers, but I'm saying it doesn't, because there is no final answer to the origins of the universe in scientific terms.

UGH.

And you said there were many more verses saying that the old law still applied (in the NEW testament) than saying it didn't, all the verses you listed apart from the last two are from the OLD Testament, my argument was that Jesus and the apostles made it clear that we didn't have to follow the old law anymore, Jesus would fullfill all the laws of the Old Testment himself via his sacrifice (wow I must have said this about ten times now...).

And yet basically all of the verses he quoted from the old testament speak of how the law will apply "forever." Funny, for an omniscient being he doesn't really display a lot of foresight.

I think its a lot more logical to say that God exists, than suggesting that we are just one huge mistake in the progression of life, and the universe is just one huge accident. There is just far too much in this life, and in the universe, to suggest that everything is just one huge, beautiful accident.

Are we suggesting that? Because it sounds more like you're suggesting that. Not to mention, "accidents" and "mistakes" are very human ideas, and it seems clumsy to apply them to something as cold and uncaring as the universe (won't stop you from trying, though!).

Whether its a 'classic theist argument' or not, its a fact. You criticize Christians for having faith in something that there is no scientific evidence for, but you put full faith in the science, which itself as I mentioned above, doesn't have a clear answer to the origins of the universe.

Since when is having a full understanding of the universe a requirement for something to be credible or trustworthy? Seems like a pretty ****ing steep requirement to me. Is it possible you're just pulling this out of your ass so as to continue throwing the "faith" argument at us?

Also, what constitutes putting your "full faith" in something? In this instance, it kind of seems like the working definition is "bringing it up in an internet debate." Once again, no one is claiming science has all the answers, we're simply saying it is seeking them.

Then what do you think gives you right to lecture or critisize any Christian or their beliefs, when you yourself don't understand it, and won't even try to understand it.

Doesn't seem to stop you from criticizing scientific understanding.

The difference between me and you in this debate, is that I know the arguments from both sides, because I was an agnostic bordering athiest only a year ago, I think its pointless to debate with someone when you don't fully where they are coming from.

I just told you, in the very post you quoted, that I was christian at one point in my life - or at least that I tried to be. How exactly does this put me in a different position to you?

To be clear, when I say I don't wish to 'understand' your faith, I mean I don't care to know your personal or spiritual reasons for believing what you do. I'm still open to logical or reasonable arguments, and I'm certainly open to correction on matters of scripture.

science of the gaps ideology

What. No, seriously, what.

You guys remember when theists actually came up with their own arguments instead of just clumsily reappropriating atheist ones? Yeah, neither.

Evidence that doesn't apply a definitive answer as your fellow athiests have already said, so I would say you are putting belief in this evidence to provide the answers, when at the end of the day, its still what 'probably' happened.

Do you even know the definition of the word "theory"?

I think its pathetic that someone like Dawkins claims he wasn't out to hurt Christians directly, yet his book was just one blatant attack on the entirity of it, and everyone who follows it, when he could have very easily forwarded his scientific views on the subject, without directly offending any Christians.

And why the **** should he walk on eggshells to accommodate you or your belief?

 

[AKIRA]

I IMPLORE all of you to watch this:

 

[CptStern]

And you said there were many more verses saying that the old law still applied (in the NEW testament) than saying it didn't, all the verses you listed apart from the last two are from the OLD Testament, my argument was that Jesus and the apostles made it clear that we didn't have to follow the old law anymore, Jesus would fullfill all the laws of the Old Testment himself via his sacrifice (wow I must have said this about ten times now...). The verse in the New Testament that you mentioned stated that the old law is certainly still important, but the point of Jesus's death was that he himself fulfilled all of it, so that we had a scapegoat to get into heaven.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Matthew 5.17

that's definately Jesus saying he's here to uphold the old testament not just fulfill the being dead part

But its a perfectly valid argument, one I will add, I haven't heard a single good rebuckle of.

the word you're looking for is "rebuttle" ..and it's not a valid argument at all (see RidleyRockets post)

I haven't been spoonfed anything, I saw and read the Bible, went to church services, from a highly skeptical standpoint, and everything made sense. I was on your side pretty much only a year ago.

lol then you didnt look hard enough because logically speaking none of it makes sense; you have been spoonfed because despite the monumental mountain of evidence that says otherwise you still cling to superstition

Evidence that doesn't apply a definitive answer as your fellow athiests have already said, so I would say you are putting belief in this evidence to provide the answers, when at the end of the day, its still what 'probably' happened.

you know you cant use this line of reasoning without painting yourself into a corner; your entire pov is based on blind faith without a shred of any kind of evidence to back it up whether it's direct, indirect or even circumstantial.

I think its pathetic that someone like Dawkins claims he wasn't out to hurt Christians directly, yet his book was just one blatant attack on the entirity of it, and everyone who follows it, when he could have very easily forwarded his scientific views on the subject, without directly offending any Christians.

really dont blame him as he has a personal stake inthis (I completely agree and think he shouldnt pull any of his punches) he's a ethologist and evolutionary biologist; his very career hinges on his reputation and the reputation of his field because it is in direct attack by people who have absolutely no background in ethology or evolutionary biology. surprised he just dont tell them to stfu on a more regular basis. wouldnt you? if you had a company that made those globes of the world that are in every classroom in north america ..wouldnt you vehemently defend yourself from the quacks of the flat earth society who would picket your manufacturing plant with the goal of shutting you down and replacing you with something that is supportive of their pov? well this is essentially what dawkins is doing

 

[Warbie]

I IMPLORE all of you to watch this:

Good vid

 

[VirusType2]

6 digits

This is the kind of evolutionary mutation that, if beneficial or offered a survival advantage, well, we might all look like this today.

We all ended up with opposable thumbs because that shit absolutely rocks.


EDIT: I just found the photo recently and I'm assuming a lot here. But I found out what it is called: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly

 

[Remus]

Nah man, genetic mutation obviously exists as a result of the fall of creation, after the original sin.

 

[Acepilotf14]

holy shit are we still doing this?

 

[Remus]

Problem, Ace?

 

[VirusType2]

holy shit are we still doing this?

Until the end of time, if necessary.

 

[Acepilotf14]

I really like that video, it put into specific words a lot of the concepts I've been trying to build together myself.

 

[Llama]

Well thats ironic given the role you play by blind trust in your own beliefs, or the theories of scientists who claim they have the answers to how the universe started etc. You can twist it all you like but everything is based on belief when it comes to origins of life, or origins of the universe, it becomes nothing more than estimations of what happened.

Because we've never found any evidence or created and techniques for any of these things, like fossils for biological evolution, or measuring the age of the Earth using radioactive decay, or picked up background radiation from the big bang.

Oh wait...

Even Dawkins himself said when asked 'What do you believe is true even though you can't prove it?', he said 'Dawrwinism is the explanation of life on this planet but I believe (without proof) that all life, all inteligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection'

And what does this prove?
Natural selection is the theory of how life on this planet came about. It's based on a set of underlying theories that would be very easy to apply to any form of life, anywhere, as we know it.

He also said 'There cannot be intermediate stages that were not beneficial...There's got to be a series of advantages all the way...If you can't think of one, then that's your problem, not natural selection's problem. Natural selection - well I suppose that's a matter of faith on my part...'

Except it's also backed up by evidence, & a bit of common sense. Having a tiny flap of extra skin between your chest and upper limbs if you're a small mammal living in the treetops is better than nothing at all, and so on. Is this really hard to grasp?

God is a supernatural being, the universe is a physical presence, it abides by physical laws. Things of this phyical world do not pop into existance by themselves, if people can say its completely mental to suggest that things around here don't just appear themselves in this physical universe, then why can people say that the entirity of the universe did? The same laws apply.

So where did God come from? Oh, wait, you can't answer that and thus HE MUST BE REAL, AMIRITE?
This makes no sense. If the Universe abides by strict physical laws, is it really logical to propose a being that can bend these rules at will? No, it is not.

Show me all these verses, because the very reason the Jews hated Jesus was because he was overwriting all the laws that they followed militantly and saying they didn't apply anymore. Any of the old laws he was fullfilling himself personally, that was the point of his death, hence why only confiding in him would grant people salvation.

Not going to bother with this, most rational people know how hilariously stupid the bible is, so I don't really care to argue about it at anything other than a very high level.

God didn't just BANG in existance, he was always there and will always be there, hell you can grasp the idea of the universe being infinite well enough, which is governed by physical laws, but can't grasp a supernatural being, being infinite, which exists outside of any phyical laws?

Who says the Universe is infinite? No one, as far as I know.
It certainly hasn't been here an infinite amount of time, at any rate. So yeah, why should I grasp the idea of something 'always being there'? It's just moving the goalposts back one space.
(Thought experiment: If the Universe was infinite, and it's got a fairly constant distribution of space, why isn't the entire sky filled with starlight?)

Stephan Hawking has specifically said that 'the universe has not existed for ever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago', I would say considering there isn't a person on the planet who has a better grasp of the concept than him, I would say it isn't a moot point at all.

Well, thanks for showing us that what you talked about earlier being opposed by Hawking.

And yet again I am patronised because I am obviously a lot less inteligent than your typical athiest because of my beliefs, I should start taking a tally chart so I can show agnostics or people on the neutral ground, some statistical evidence of what it is actually like to debate with athiests. And considering I've been on both sides of the debate in the past, right now I feel more at freedom with my thoughts about everything than ever before, so I'm afraid these 'ethereal shackles of thought oppression', no matter how poetic it sounds, does not apply.

Intelligence and beleiving in stupid things aren't really linked. I'm sure you're intelligent, but that hasn't stopped you saying very very silly things.

I would explain my views and opinions on the matters of God and the Bible, but to be honest that would be a complete waste of time giving that you really don't understand Christianity, and don't want to. Its like a girl going to her utterly masculine boyfriend while he is having a few beers and playing CoD with his mates online and trying to explain to him why women think they way they think, it just not going to work.

First of all, nice bit of outdated thinking about genders.
Secondly, what a pathetic cop out argument.
"You don't get this and you never will so I'm not going to try, na na nanana!" Try harder.

Also

"Darkshines gave everyone the biblical truth about Jesus and his mission, and people thought it was hilarious, that it sounded like something from a fantasy. I would say they really don't have any understanding of the concept at all, no matter how many times you explain it, an athiest will never take in what is being said about Jesus and his sacrifice, its always with a pinch of salt. I didn't say they were closed minded though, just that I think most athiests are simply incapable of understanding Christianity properly, because they disagree with it to such a huge extent.

Biblical truth.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
This is the same book that can't (amongst other things) figure out the circumstances around Jesus birth? (Let's take an acceptable break here and assume he ever existed at all)

 

[VirusType2]

I would say they really don't have any understanding of the concept at all, no matter how many times you explain it, an athiest will never take in what is being said about Jesus and his sacrifice, its always with a pinch of salt. I didn't say they were closed minded though, just that I think most athiests are simply incapable of understanding Christianity properly, because they disagree with it to such a huge extent.

You might as well be talking about Zeus, or Thor, from the comic books. Yes, it's on the same level. This stuff is no different than a rain dance.

 

[Wanted Bob]

Oh I've heard all this propaganda before, Christianity is slowing down our progression as a species, retarding the progression of your knowledge of the universe. Its doing no such thing, scientists are still researching the aspects of the universe, hell there are a considerable number of thiests who are helping them, the latter of which are convinced both the idea of God and science can mix effortlessly. Not to mention you are conforming to the science of the gaps ideology, the fact that you are essentially saying that science will progress forward and find more answers without religion being there, is laughable.

Preposterous. While there are many concepts that Theists and Non-Theists can agree on in terms of science (physiology, anatomy, chemistry), there are some concepts that neither side will be able to agree upon due to some theistic ideas being based outside the realm of science. This is slowly becoming a problem with some theists trying to shoehorn their faith into textbooks that are meant to teach concepts within the realm of science.

 

[voodoospriest]

Shift, out of curiosity, were you brought up to be a Christian, or did you decide for yourself?

 

[Shift]

Decided for myself, after years of practically being an atheist, that obviously makes me an idiot herpderp

 

[Eejit]

Spoiler

Pretty much

 

[Remus]

^^What he said.

 

[Shift]

Well on that note I think shall leave the discussion then, I obviously can't compete with your incredible intelligence, but on a final word, I'll leave you with something interesting:

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seNrC4_5Xxs

 

[VirusType2]

Well on that note I think shall leave the discussion then, I obviously can't compete with your incredible intelligence, but on a final word, I'll leave you with something interesting:

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seNrC4_5Xxs

~Scares the hell out of me... ...afraid to die

I watched my Aunt die. She couldn't speak, but in her final breaths she seemed absolutely terrified. She looked more terrified than I had ever seen anyone, ever, and as she lie in her deathbed, she was breathing as hard as someone who had just finished sprinting a mile.

She was deeply religious and a Priest was there saying a prayer.

You can only hope (not pray) that you die easier than that. Sudden heart failure perhaps. To die in agony and sadness from a cancer that, over the years spreads to the bone is no way to die.

 

[Eejit]

Well on that note I think shall leave the discussion then, I obviously can't compete with your incredible intelligence, but on a final word, I'll leave you with something interesting:

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seNrC4_5Xxs

Yeah, I think the video posted a short while back was slightly more relevant. You seem to have done your best to ignore it though.

Since we're doing reducto ad Muse
"Come ride with me,
Through the veins of history,
I'll show you a god
Who falls asleep on the job."

 

[PvtRyan]

What's wrong with being afraid of death?

And while we're at it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DdlVi7XEbI

 

[Dodo]

Penis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K8bHm_OgzM

 

[GreatEmperor]

So bottom line is guy afraid of death, so therefore yada yada how dare you question beliefs, it took this long to drag it out from the faux logic

This is kinda disheartening

 

[Gargantou]

You can only hope (not pray) that you die easier than that. Sudden heart failure perhaps. To die in agony and sadness from a cancer that, over the years spreads to the bone is no way to die.

That's why modern countries should realize that assisted suicide should be allowed, if a person knows s/he will over the course of a year get very very sick and can do nothing but wait for an agonizing death they should have the right to enter death on their own terms at a time that they desire.

I know I'd rather die from a medical cocktail that just puts me to sleep than from cancer itself, and not like my grandfather who died from stomach cancer, towards the end of his life he looked like those starving African children you see on the news.