-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Then you would agree that the following statement is also true of yourself: "In the words of C.G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’ "
Directline, I suspect that many atheists reserve a place for a little doubt as to their certainty regarding God's non-existence, but I also know that many believers also have a kernel of doubt. Not all share the certitude exhibited by yourself and Carl Jung.
Addendum: the page number in my above post should read 50, not 100.
Directline, I suspect that many atheists reserve a place for a little doubt as to their certainty regarding God's non-existence, but I also know that many believers also have a kernel of doubt. Not all share the certitude exhibited by yourself and Carl Jung.
Addendum: the page number in my above post should read 50, not 100.
If you are looking for one objective fact that proves evolution, then I would have to agree with you, but it is the weight of all the evidence combined that becomes overwhelming. It is not just a couple fossil bones, there are many thousands and on top of that there are many lines of converging evidence from fields of study outside of the study of fossils.
You've perhaps not read Darwin's Origin of Species, but what he does is systematically build the argument with such a preponderance of information that by the end of the book his conclusion seems inescapable, and he does it without bones. In 1859 when he published there truly were only a couple of fossils, so he relied on other lines of investigation.
You've perhaps not read Darwin's Origin of Species, but what he does is systematically build the argument with such a preponderance of information that by the end of the book his conclusion seems inescapable, and he does it without bones. In 1859 when he published there truly were only a couple of fossils, so he relied on other lines of investigation.
Some scientists have been critical of Hawking for using the kind of language he does, because among some people it causes confusion. But Hawking follows in the tradition of men like Einstein who also invoked 'God language'. Einstein famously said, 'God does not play dice with the universe,' but in his private letters clearly stated he was an atheist. Hawking uses the same kind of language, but it does not mean he thinks the universe needs a creator. Dawkins too says nature looks designed but when you listen to him long enough you come to realize he does not mean it had to be created by a higher Being.
Don't read too much into what you think Hawking is saying in a video clip. Borrow his book, A Brief History of Time from the library, or read some of his other popular publications, and you will get a better handle on what he is truly meaning to say.
Don't read too much into what you think Hawking is saying in a video clip. Borrow his book, A Brief History of Time from the library, or read some of his other popular publications, and you will get a better handle on what he is truly meaning to say.
The Bible says, "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live," but I hardly think you want to execute all these New Age Wiccans. If you followed the Bible you'd be out stoning women along with the hardcore Muslims and chopping off hands. Christians do not follow huge swaths of the Old Testament and have arguments to explain why, but they still call themselves Christian. I think, more to the fact, Christianity is contained exclusively in the New Testament, though I don't think it speaks directly against evolution (How could it? Evolution wasn't known in that era).
Not following one aspect of a pronouncement in the Good Book does not mean a person is not a Christian. If it did I suspect there would be no Christians at all.
Not following one aspect of a pronouncement in the Good Book does not mean a person is not a Christian. If it did I suspect there would be no Christians at all.
G
I spend most of my days working around atheists... and a few of them are good friends. I get to communicate Christ often to them in a very mutual and respectful manner in the course of a week, or a month whenever the opportunity presents itself...Living in a marine environment (that has 90% of the men here being from very hard backgrounds, and put up with no BS what so ever), us Christians are a minority (and also the Christians here are just as hard edged) so getting along is imperative... My pier is known as the God dock, because we have several Christian boats here that house Christians on them, and the Atheists here (which are the majority) call it The God Dock with a friendly timber in their voices, not discourse... MY POINT is this, a loving respectful heart isn't just found in a Christians chest...Having said that...Ministering is something we do with atheists, and agnostics, not Christians, they already know Christ, well, hopefully anyway...how could I do that if I felt discourse in my heart for them?...The idea that Christians can take a stand against them contradicts what Christ teaches, (and yes I am aware that we are to shake the dust off our feet when its time). Where is the Love in condemnation? How can you bring someone to Christ with hate? Spreading the Word means dealing with non believers, not fellow believers...Christianity's not a self-service station...I was a foul minded, hot tempered thug that needed Christ in the worst way, if Christians turned their backs on me, where would I be? This is our Job, to Love our brothers, and bring the light of Christ to them...It can sometimes take years to bring a man to Christ...Cant do it with discourse brothers...
Not sure how his being human relates to your argument. Every significant advance in our knowledge and technology has been made by us moral humans.
He proposed only one theory. Philosophy is not part of it. What persuades people is the strength of the evidence. As I said previously, it is the accumulative weight of all the evidence brought together that is so compelling.
He proposed only one theory. Philosophy is not part of it. What persuades people is the strength of the evidence. As I said previously, it is the accumulative weight of all the evidence brought together that is so compelling.
G
Thank you for the kind welcome...This site is the first site I have been on that has so many different perspectives communicating with each other, with a pretty high level of respect...Most site would blow up with anger on these topics...I have to take my hat off to all you people, you keep it pretty civil, interesting, and worthwhile ... Glad to be here, and thanks again for the welcome...
I want to try a different approach. A few moments ago I Googled "gods of India." I wanted to find the name of a deity about which I had previously not heard. I found the name Parvati. All I know about this god is that it is female and belief in it is apparently very wide spread. That much I gleaned when I looked down the list of names presented. I don't believe this goddess exists for the simple reason that it is not part of my cultural heritage and I simply have no reason to think it is real. Let me ask you. Can this simple assumption that Parvati is not real constitute a true belief?
Last week I saw on the news that a new species of mammal has been found in South America. I don't recall anything about it except that is nocturnal and might be a cat. My understanding that this animal exists is based on the news report. Is this now a belief that I hold?
Beliefs, I think, are generally more nuanced than that, wouldn't you say? When we say that a Christian believes in God, that implies the holding of views that at the very least would be sufficient to fill a small pamphlet, or for some people something the size of a book would be required. If I were to tell you I don't think God exists do you need anymore information than if I were to say I don't think Parvati exists?
Christians have a system of belief that could fill many pages. Atheist are simply making a statement. They don't believe in the existence of God/Pavarti. Is that truly a belief or is it simply a statement of fact about an assumption being made?
Last week I saw on the news that a new species of mammal has been found in South America. I don't recall anything about it except that is nocturnal and might be a cat. My understanding that this animal exists is based on the news report. Is this now a belief that I hold?
Beliefs, I think, are generally more nuanced than that, wouldn't you say? When we say that a Christian believes in God, that implies the holding of views that at the very least would be sufficient to fill a small pamphlet, or for some people something the size of a book would be required. If I were to tell you I don't think God exists do you need anymore information than if I were to say I don't think Parvati exists?
Christians have a system of belief that could fill many pages. Atheist are simply making a statement. They don't believe in the existence of God/Pavarti. Is that truly a belief or is it simply a statement of fact about an assumption being made?
C
There has never been ONE missing link discovered
nor ONE example of a POSITIVE mutation in the genome
all you have is blind dogma being perpetrated by men who would rather believe ANYTHING than that they are answerable to a creator
the most intellectually honest geologists who really know their subject realise that Geology does not prove evolution but assume that it is the biologists who have the evidence
the most intellectually honest biologists who really know their subject realise that Biology does not prove evolution but assume that it is the geologists who have the evidence
nor ONE example of a POSITIVE mutation in the genome
all you have is blind dogma being perpetrated by men who would rather believe ANYTHING than that they are answerable to a creator
the most intellectually honest geologists who really know their subject realise that Geology does not prove evolution but assume that it is the biologists who have the evidence
the most intellectually honest biologists who really know their subject realise that Biology does not prove evolution but assume that it is the geologists who have the evidence
When I set down to play a game of chess for the first time with someone new I often know within the first couple of moves whether that person understands anything about the game beyond the basic rules. If you're familiar with chess you will know what I mean. So too when discussing evolution certain questions give away a great deal about the questioner's level of knowledge. This opening move tells me evolution is not your game. Would you agree?
Well then, just one should suffice: the gene that permits the digestion of lactose.
Well then, just one should suffice: the gene that permits the digestion of lactose.
I
hes human. he doesnt know. he has theorys. i would quote scripture, but you being an atheist, that doesnt mean much to you.
and his evidence will be old within the next year or so and scrapped for a new theory based on "new evidence"... the truth dont change, brother. science theorys change like the seasons. this is a fact.
and his evidence will be old within the next year or so and scrapped for a new theory based on "new evidence"... the truth dont change, brother. science theorys change like the seasons. this is a fact.