-
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.
An atheist will always claim that he is just seeking truth or trying to learn, but his agenda is really to try to make me doubt my faith. I'm not even gonna entertain that. I shut it down from the start. This is a christian chat and I refuse to give the enemy a platform. I cant stop them from posting, but i cam put them on ignore.
Stop the drama...
The only difference between a theist and atheist is the conclusion of a god. You can be the dumbest atheist in the world or you can be the most brilliant theist in the world. Truth seeking is not exclussive between them.
When i question your faith, i'm merely trying to get an idea of what you believe in and why. And also the clear definition of what you believe in.
When you say you avoid them, i can tell you either don't care, which i don't think is true, or you don't care about finding evidence for your beliefs. Feel free to reply
The only difference between a theist and atheist is the conclusion of a god. You can be the dumbest atheist in the world or you can be the most brilliant theist in the world. Truth seeking is not exclussive between them.
When i question your faith, i'm merely trying to get an idea of what you believe in and why. And also the clear definition of what you believe in.
When you say you avoid them, i can tell you either don't care, which i don't think is true, or you don't care about finding evidence for your beliefs. Feel free to reply
I dont see how that effects what i said.
If i take one person whos an atheist, record his personailities and whatnots, then converts to a theist: there will be no difference in that person with the exception of their conclusion to the god question.
There's nothing more to it. I'll admit it's more common to be a critical thinker as an atheist, but their not mutually exclussive.
If i take one person whos an atheist, record his personailities and whatnots, then converts to a theist: there will be no difference in that person with the exception of their conclusion to the god question.
There's nothing more to it. I'll admit it's more common to be a critical thinker as an atheist, but their not mutually exclussive.
Phew! Talk about subscribing to "a special pleading fallacy". What's your basis for this theory?
Well that's noble of you.
But again: basis?
Well that's noble of you.
But again: basis?
My basis is that the difference between atheism and theism is the conclusion to one question. You can logically conclude no other personality factors are in place.
And my basis for the second one is that a critical thinker would remain a skeptic after hearing the case for a god because there's no true scientific or rational reason to believe. Again, it's not required to be an atheist, its just the disbelief in god.
1) u can throw in whatever you want, that is the bottom line statement.
2) it is because critical thinking is exclusive with scientific thinking. As god is defined as a metaphysical being. As such we cannot really define a metaphysical thing, so rationally it's impossible to know of a god, let alone a loving god because thats a physical trait. You really can't deine a god because you can't define a metaphysical.
Metaphysical goes to the null hypothesis, can't be proven or disproven. A critical thinker would know this
2) it is because critical thinking is exclusive with scientific thinking. As god is defined as a metaphysical being. As such we cannot really define a metaphysical thing, so rationally it's impossible to know of a god, let alone a loving god because thats a physical trait. You really can't deine a god because you can't define a metaphysical.
Metaphysical goes to the null hypothesis, can't be proven or disproven. A critical thinker would know this
Love and traits are not physical things. How can one disprove a metaphysical deity with intangible vernacular? C'mon now... congruity!
I didn't think you meant anything degrading by it.
I didn't think you meant anything degrading by it.
This can easily be demonstrate with stimulating a portion brain and can artificially add more joy, love, depression, logic, etc.
Nothing supernatural about that. Just shows how marvelous our brains have evolved
S
The chemical reactions are interesting to watch. Technology has really come a long way to be able to show us that stuff. Artificially injecting joy, love, depression, etc... I'd love to know first hand how artificially induced joy compares to the real thing (not being cynical). Or how artificial love corresponds with the natural relation.
My only quibble here is that the observation is [still] an apparent thing that can be scientifically deduced (or reduced), rendering emotions academic (not that I'm saying there's something wrong with scientific deduction, per se). Do you personally attribute human emotion as little to nothing more than chemical stimulation?
My only quibble here is that the observation is [still] an apparent thing that can be scientifically deduced (or reduced), rendering emotions academic (not that I'm saying there's something wrong with scientific deduction, per se). Do you personally attribute human emotion as little to nothing more than chemical stimulation?
Yes i do. Hearing it sounds saddening, but it seems conclusive from experimentation. I mean, just look at a sociopath. They have the absense of remorse and no matter what they do, they will never feel remorse. Just from that, i can know emotions are triggered and sociopaths don't have a remorse trigger.
And when i say artificially enduced, i just mean we can add more joy or depression to someone by stimulating part of a brain. I'm sure there are a few sources that can verify this.
I know it might suck, but the evidence points to it. Glad to see you're a curious person
And when i say artificially enduced, i just mean we can add more joy or depression to someone by stimulating part of a brain. I'm sure there are a few sources that can verify this.
I know it might suck, but the evidence points to it. Glad to see you're a curious person
J
short answer: no.
you would know this if you looked up the definition of atheism.
atheism puts the burden of proof on theists, because they aren't actually making any claims. atheists believe that there has not been put forward sufficient evidence for the existence of a deity, but they do not deny the possibility of the existence of a deity. so no they cannot 'prove' anything because from their perspective there isn't anything for them to prove, they never claimed there's no god.
you would know this if you looked up the definition of atheism.
atheism puts the burden of proof on theists, because they aren't actually making any claims. atheists believe that there has not been put forward sufficient evidence for the existence of a deity, but they do not deny the possibility of the existence of a deity. so no they cannot 'prove' anything because from their perspective there isn't anything for them to prove, they never claimed there's no god.