The argument thread

[Grey]

to clean up thread spill over from here http://christianchat.com/miscellaneous/66538-whats-your-opinion-atheism-15.html

 

[damombomb]

Mine is that Jesus loves them too and want them to have a relationship with him and come to him for rest. To fill them
with his love and joy.To give them hope and show them his glory in them

 

[Grey]

I find it hilarous that you don't like it when I continually point out inconsistencies with your beliefs and behavior. Funny how before I posted that, you were all for arguing about abiogenesis.

The whole reason I began about abiogenesis was because Sunshineloving asked for a source on it, I added that organic material had been produced and an argument ensued.

 

[megaman125]

Well if you believe life came from non-life, then why don't you believe Jesus rose from the dead? At least with Jesus, we're talking about something that was once living coming back to life instead of something that was never living coming to life. Abiogenesis is more supernatural than the core belief of Christians.

 

[Grey]

Well if you believe life came from non-life, then why don't you believe Jesus rose from the dead? At least with Jesus, we're talking about something that was once living coming back to life instead of something that was never living coming to life. Abiogenesis is more supernatural than the core belief of Christians.

Once again, I haven't made up my mind on the topic enough to see abiogenesis as a valid explanation to why life is here. I don't see it likely that Jesus rose from the dead, because 1. its an ancient religious account as to what happened therefore the claim is difficult to validate. 2. A body rapidly breaks down and is decomposed, 3. there's a difference between something that was once alive returning and the organic building blocks of life culminating in an organism over millions of years in a volcanic atmosphere with lightning.

 

[megaman125]

Once again, I haven't made up my mind on the topic enough to see abiogenesis as a valid explanation to why life is here.

But yet you're trying to convince others of it.

I don't see it likely that Jesus rose from the dead, because 1. its an ancient religious account as to what happened therefore the claim is difficult to validate. 2. A body rapidly breaks down and is decomposed, 3. there's a difference between something that was once alive returning and the organic building blocks of life culminating in an organism over millions of years in a volcanic atmosphere with lightning.

So it's automatically not trustible because it's from religion.

149. You think Christians are narrow-minded for believing in only one religion, but atheists are open-minded for believing in absolutely none.

Yep, the "it's from religion so it much be wrong" mentality you have here is definately open-minded.

 

[Grey]

But yet you're trying to convince others of it.
So it's automatically not trustible because it's from religion.

149. You think Christians are narrow-minded for believing in only one religion, but atheists are open-minded for believing in absolutely none.

Yep, the "it's from religion so it much be wrong" mentality you have here is definately open-minded.

There seems to be a discrepancy between what I say, and what you think I say. The only part I tried to convince anyone of is that organic material, resulted from inorganic material, beyond that is my speculation.

Do most religions seem to be reliable sources as to how the earth was formed? But once again I never said the account was invalid, I am hesitant to qualify it as valid because of the reasons I mentioned.

I'm more open minded than you because I'm fine with saying that I don't know which religion is true or not because I lack absolute certainty. The same goes with the origin of life and the universe.

 

[damombomb]

There seems to be a discrepancy between what I say, and what you think I say. The only part I tried to convince anyone of is that organic material, resulted from inorganic material, beyond that is my speculation.

Do most religions seem to be reliable sources as to how the earth was formed? But once again I never said the account was invalid, I am hesitant to qualify it as valid because of the reasons I mentioned.


I'm more open minded than you because I'm fine with saying that I don't know which religion is true or not because I lack absolute certainty. The same goes with the origin of life and the universe.

Who is like God the master creator? There is none like him. The only true way is Jesus Christ and him crucified.
He is not a religion. All to the glory of God the Father

 

[megaman125]

Do most religions seem to be reliable sources as to how the earth was formed? But once again I never said the account was invalid, I am hesitant to qualify it as valid because of the reasons I mentioned.

No, you didn't say it was invalid, you just instantly dismiss it because it's from religion.

I'm more open minded than you because I'm fine with saying that I don't know which religion is true or not because I lack absolute certainty. The same goes with the origin of life and the universe.

127. You insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but you then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway.

45. Concerning the origins of life, you feel that though the chances of life forming without an intelligent creator are small it DID indeed happen that way.

208. You label all scholars that actually believe the Bible as "biased fundies" while those who don't believe it are known as "honest" and "accepted scholarship."

307. Your best argument against Christianity is the fact YOU don't believe in it.

That last one just about sums it up. You don't believe it, therefore no one should believe anything related to religion is true. And before you come back with your predictible "I never said that exactly," you're heavily implying it.

 

[basebool]

No, you didn't say it was invalid, you just instantly dismiss it because it's from religion.



127. You insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but you then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway.

45. Concerning the origins of life, you feel that though the chances of life forming without an intelligent creator are small it DID indeed happen that way.

208. You label all scholars that actually believe the Bible as "biased fundies" while those who don't believe it are known as "honest" and "accepted scholarship."

307. Your best argument against Christianity is the fact YOU don't believe in it.

That last one just about sums it up. You don't believe it, therefore no one should believe anything related to religion is true. And before you come back with your predictible "I never said that exactly," you're heavily implying it.

Mega why do u do this to yourself?

1) it doesn't matter where the source comes from, it needs validation. The bible is unvalidated so automatically we can assume everything in the bible to be unverified, so you need to provide proof of anything the bible says and if you can't, i can reject it as false until proven.

2) you love to assume things that people never said don't you

3) 1 has a good basis, one has nothing. Of course anyone would do that

4) because there's no proof the bible is truth and that can be disproved as there are plenty of contradictions in the bible. Anyone who believes in it has no good reason for it other then a personal experience or being brought up in the religion.

5) no there are plenty of arguements against christianity but grey never mentioned that reason at all. And i also like how you like to turn this into a personal thing.

6) that actually isn't what grey said at all. He's giving reasons that he doesn't believe in it and so far has countered most your points on why you believe in it and you have not done the same. This is not about: "i don't believe in it and that's why you shouldn't either", this is about "i don't believe in it, what good reasons do you have to believe in it?".

 

[megaman125]

4) because there's no proof the bible is truth and that can be disproved as there are plenty of contradictions in the bible. Anyone who believes in it has no good reason for it other then a personal experience or being brought up in the religion.

87. When Christians tell you that The Bible is inerrant you go on and list a bunch of "contradictions"; when the Christian shows to you that those are not contradictions but the result of taking things out of context you list more "contradictions" when the Christian does the same with those you complain that he/she is just making stuff up and/or that the answer the Christian gives you are not "satisfactory" and proceed of course to list more "contradictions".

89. You like to list contradictions to Christians like if you some how pretend that Christians are not aware of them or that they are igorant about their own religion.

217. When a Christian's interpretation of a passage (based on the social/literary context) solves one of your favorite contradictions, it is only their personal interpretation, and can be dismissed as such. But your interpretation (based on a "plain" reading of the text) to arrive at the contradiction in the first place is entirely objective, and is obviously THE correct interpretation.

6) that actually isn't what grey said at all. He's giving reasons that he doesn't believe in it and so far has countered most your points on why you believe in it and you have not done the same. This is not about: "i don't believe in it and that's why you shouldn't either", this is about "i don't believe in it, what good reasons do you have to believe in it?".

10. You consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen him but you reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives.

26. You believe in many things about history (the culture of the ancient Mayans, egyptians, etc.), yet you refuse to accept personal modern-day testimony from someone who has personally experienced God.

You've been given plenty of reasons by every Christian you asked why they believe, and you just plug your ears and say "it's not good enough for me." Guess what, it's not my job to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced.

 

[Grey]

No, you didn't say it was invalid, you just instantly dismiss it because it's from religion.



127. You insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but you then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway.

45. Concerning the origins of life, you feel that though the chances of life forming without an intelligent creator are small it DID indeed happen that way.

208. You label all scholars that actually believe the Bible as "biased fundies" while those who don't believe it are known as "honest" and "accepted scholarship."

307. Your best argument against Christianity is the fact YOU don't believe in it.

That last one just about sums it up. You don't believe it, therefore no one should believe anything related to religion is true. And before you come back with your predictible "I never said that exactly," you're heavily implying it.

 

[Grey]

No, you didn't say it was invalid, you just instantly dismiss it because it's from religion.
You insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but you then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway.

45. Concerning the origins of life, you feel that though the chances of life forming without an intelligent creator are small it DID indeed happen that way. (???)

208. You label all scholars that actually believe the Bible as "biased fundies" while those who don't believe it are known as "honest" and "accepted scholarship."

307. Your best argument against Christianity is the fact YOU don't believe in it.

That last one just about sums it up. You don't believe it, therefore no one should believe anything related to religion is true. And before you come back with your predictible "I never said that exactly," you're heavily implying it.

I said it was unlikely, I didn't dismiss it, unless you see most religious claims as valid, I think there is a due amount of skepticism.

There's just so much straw

 

[megaman125]

I said it was unlikely, I didn't dismiss it, unless you see most religious claims as valid, I think there is a due amount of skepticism.

There's just so much straw

And by skepticism you mean, plug your ears and just keep on rejecting.

 

[basebool]

And by skepticism you mean, plug your ears and just keep on rejecting.

No it means constantly question things. Talk about closed minded...

Why are there many interpretations? Why couldn't it be mote clear? Why sre there 2 testiments? You act as if these can be answered but your closed minded to thay fact

 

[Grey]

And by skepticism you mean, plug your ears and just keep on rejecting.

If plugging my ears is researching all religions, and attempting to read their holy books then by all means..

 

[megaman125]

No it means constantly question things. Talk about closed minded...

Why are there many interpretations? Why couldn't it be mote clear? Why sre there 2 testiments? You act as if these can be answered but your closed minded to thay fact

Are those serious questions or are you just trolling? If those are serious questions, then why is it you apparently did zero research into them? Obviously it's logical to pose a question, then stop right there and reject the religion.

 

[megaman125]

If plugging my ears is researching all religions, and attempting to read their holy books then by all means..

Can you demonstrate you've done that instead of just assert that you have?

 

[basebool]

Can you demonstrate you've done that instead of just assert that you have?

Oh boy....

 

[basebool]

Are those serious questions or are you just trolling? If those are serious questions, then why is it you apparently did zero research into them? Obviously it's logical to pose a question, then stop right there and reject the religion.

How bout answering the questions?