-
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.
In answer to the question, are you an agnostic or an atheist, I replied:
Sorry, but I may have made my answer too short, for I am not sure that you understood. Dawkins is not ‘my scale’, in fact that doesn't really mean anything.
He designed a scale displaying different types of religiosity and I am a 7 on that scale. You are on his scale as well, in fact everyone is. The scale is as follows:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical.’
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’
7. Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.’
Where would you place yourself? Are you a one, a two? Most atheists I’ve chatted with would put themselves down as a six, as in fact Dawkins himself does. If you read the scale through I think you would agree that there is nothing unreasonable about it.
Sorry, I don’t understand this comment.
Sorry, but I may have made my answer too short, for I am not sure that you understood. Dawkins is not ‘my scale’, in fact that doesn't really mean anything.
He designed a scale displaying different types of religiosity and I am a 7 on that scale. You are on his scale as well, in fact everyone is. The scale is as follows:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical.’
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’
7. Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.’
Where would you place yourself? Are you a one, a two? Most atheists I’ve chatted with would put themselves down as a six, as in fact Dawkins himself does. If you read the scale through I think you would agree that there is nothing unreasonable about it.
Sorry, I don’t understand this comment.
Hi Homeward, I think the hand was withered. It was not missing.
Which would be my position as well. I am guessing, however, neither of us would likely accept the claims made in the Koran, despite the promise that there were many witnesses. You have no trouble discerning with a critical eye claims of other holy writs, but I think lose the objectivity when it comes to biblical scripture. Or am I wrong?
Which would be my position as well. I am guessing, however, neither of us would likely accept the claims made in the Koran, despite the promise that there were many witnesses. You have no trouble discerning with a critical eye claims of other holy writs, but I think lose the objectivity when it comes to biblical scripture. Or am I wrong?
Can you demonstrate that? It is easy to say, but not so easy to prove. In fact I have no idea how you would go about arguing this. Let's be honest, the type of life that biochemists are arguing first arose on Earth you would need a powerful microscope to see. So if something did arise we would never know it.
I want you to think about something else as well. It is possible, I think, that new life forms of the type that first arose on Earth, still arise. There is a problem though. Life is now ubiquitous on the planet and anything new that might form is likely to almost immediately be eaten. How is it to get a foothold? Also, consider that it is microscopic, so who is going to notice it?
Your argument has not taken any of these issues into consideration.
I want you to think about something else as well. It is possible, I think, that new life forms of the type that first arose on Earth, still arise. There is a problem though. Life is now ubiquitous on the planet and anything new that might form is likely to almost immediately be eaten. How is it to get a foothold? Also, consider that it is microscopic, so who is going to notice it?
Your argument has not taken any of these issues into consideration.
Oh my goodness! Missufan, look up the definition of atheist and you will see it precludes belief in a god. Anyone you find who believes in God is by definition a theist.
As an atheist I reject belief in a god. I do accept that an historical Jesus in all probability existed (not all atheists would agree with me -- I think they are wrong), but I do not believe what the New Testament says about him.
Just to clarify, while atheists may believe in the existence of an historical Jesus they do not likely believe much scripture says about him.
A 3 on Dawkins' scale of religiosity.
I sorely miss Hitchens. I also encourage everyone to watch his debates.
PS. I didn’t respond to the end of your post but would like to when I have more time.
As an atheist I reject belief in a god. I do accept that an historical Jesus in all probability existed (not all atheists would agree with me -- I think they are wrong), but I do not believe what the New Testament says about him.
Just to clarify, while atheists may believe in the existence of an historical Jesus they do not likely believe much scripture says about him.
A 3 on Dawkins' scale of religiosity.
I sorely miss Hitchens. I also encourage everyone to watch his debates.
PS. I didn’t respond to the end of your post but would like to when I have more time.
I guess these words indicate how deceived atheists are. Whilst atheism says it precludes belief in a god, the fact is every atheist believes in a god of some kind.
Some believe in the god of self and all of life revolves around that fact. They say God doesn't exist and they are responsible for their own destiny which they are not because at the end of the day, they will give an account to God for what they did or did not do and what they believed or did not believe.
Soooooooooo, if you are responsible for everything, you are your own god.
Then there are those who believe in nothing as in we came from nothing, we go to nothing so all that matters is the bit in between. The here and now and that is why they can change the rules from day to day as it suits them.
Then there are those who believe in science to answer all of life's questions like where does my capacity to love come from. Now as science can't answer that question then it follows that none of us can love.
Then there are those who have absolute belief in evolution. You know, from goo to you via the zoo. The strange thing about evolution is that most of the conjecture is hypothesis and very little provable fact so that means they are putting their faith in that which cannot be proven, which is a bit strange because they constantly accuse Christians of having faith but the fact is you need an enormous amount of faith to believe in evolution.
I remember how everyone jumped for joy when they found the Piltdown Man in East Sussex in the UK. Here it is they said. The missing link that proves evolution. It turned out to be a complete hoax as this record said....
The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. These fragments consisted of parts of a skull and jawbone, said to have been collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, East Sussex, England. The Latin nameEoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man", after the collector Charles Dawson) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan deliberately combined with the cranium of a fully developed modern human.
The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleoanthropological hoax ever to have been perpetrated. It is prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.
So we see that evolutionists are not beyond forgery and lies.
So there are four gods that are central to the atheists theology, and add deception to forgery and forgery to lies, and you have a religion that has very little integrity and to be avoided at all costs if you don't want to be taken for a ride.
Some believe in the god of self and all of life revolves around that fact. They say God doesn't exist and they are responsible for their own destiny which they are not because at the end of the day, they will give an account to God for what they did or did not do and what they believed or did not believe.
Soooooooooo, if you are responsible for everything, you are your own god.
Then there are those who believe in nothing as in we came from nothing, we go to nothing so all that matters is the bit in between. The here and now and that is why they can change the rules from day to day as it suits them.
Then there are those who believe in science to answer all of life's questions like where does my capacity to love come from. Now as science can't answer that question then it follows that none of us can love.
Then there are those who have absolute belief in evolution. You know, from goo to you via the zoo. The strange thing about evolution is that most of the conjecture is hypothesis and very little provable fact so that means they are putting their faith in that which cannot be proven, which is a bit strange because they constantly accuse Christians of having faith but the fact is you need an enormous amount of faith to believe in evolution.
I remember how everyone jumped for joy when they found the Piltdown Man in East Sussex in the UK. Here it is they said. The missing link that proves evolution. It turned out to be a complete hoax as this record said....
The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. These fragments consisted of parts of a skull and jawbone, said to have been collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, East Sussex, England. The Latin nameEoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man", after the collector Charles Dawson) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan deliberately combined with the cranium of a fully developed modern human.
The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleoanthropological hoax ever to have been perpetrated. It is prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.
So we see that evolutionists are not beyond forgery and lies.
So there are four gods that are central to the atheists theology, and add deception to forgery and forgery to lies, and you have a religion that has very little integrity and to be avoided at all costs if you don't want to be taken for a ride.
And I bet this didn't even make the local newspaper. Let alone he national press or world news.
There would have been medical records of a missing hand. And then evidence of him Having A hand later. This one ain't difficult to prove if it's right but I'll wager all we'll get is hearsay and anecdotes.
There would have been medical records of a missing hand. And then evidence of him Having A hand later. This one ain't difficult to prove if it's right but I'll wager all we'll get is hearsay and anecdotes.
The human eye is a complex, highly efficient organ with multiple coordinated parts. Iris, retina, photoreceptors, cornea, lens, muscle all coordinate together. The complexity of the retina alone is many times greater than any silicon semiconductor in a computer.
The human eye is also expressive of human thought without a word. Card players get an indication of the value of cards that other players are holding by observing their eyes.
Coordinated development of the human eye could not happen by accident all at once. Development over multiple generations would require an intelligent purpose to be sustained across multiple generations. The chance of accidental formation of the human eye is not one in "trillions of billions of cajillions", the chance is: impossible.
The gender differences between men and women also required intelligent, coordinated design. All those feminine and masculine attributes had an intelligent designer.
Watches have watchmakers.
The faces of four US Presidents on Mount Rushmore in South Dakota USA were shaped in granite by intelligent designers and artists. Likewise and beyond in achievement, human faces in real life were shaped by an Intelligent Designer and Artist.
The human eye is also expressive of human thought without a word. Card players get an indication of the value of cards that other players are holding by observing their eyes.
Coordinated development of the human eye could not happen by accident all at once. Development over multiple generations would require an intelligent purpose to be sustained across multiple generations. The chance of accidental formation of the human eye is not one in "trillions of billions of cajillions", the chance is: impossible.
The gender differences between men and women also required intelligent, coordinated design. All those feminine and masculine attributes had an intelligent designer.
Watches have watchmakers.
The faces of four US Presidents on Mount Rushmore in South Dakota USA were shaped in granite by intelligent designers and artists. Likewise and beyond in achievement, human faces in real life were shaped by an Intelligent Designer and Artist.
J
Actually there are many reports in news articles throughout the ages of healings at revivals. The Azuza street revival and the Welsh revival to just name a few. Even the Charismatic Movement in the 70's had lots of miracles and coverage.
but I suppose it is a moot point with a athiest who is not open to The possibility of God. The testimonies of tens of thousands will simply be thrown out the door as religious propaganda and delusions.
but I suppose it is a moot point with a athiest who is not open to The possibility of God. The testimonies of tens of thousands will simply be thrown out the door as religious propaganda and delusions.
And to me is why Christ was so clear to Peter as to say put away thy sword that cut off the ear of the man, Malcus, that came to take away Christ
Christ restored this man's ear and told Peter that if this earth was his kingdom, he would have fought. So his kingdom is not of this fallen earth.
I am dead to this world and this world is dead to me, thanks for that post, reminding me of the truth
Christ restored this man's ear and told Peter that if this earth was his kingdom, he would have fought. So his kingdom is not of this fallen earth.
I am dead to this world and this world is dead to me, thanks for that post, reminding me of the truth