Atheists, can you explain this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter danschance
  • Start date Start date
  • 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.
Nope. More like how we use every other theory. We take what we know and form a hypothesis which offers an explanation for those facts. We test this hypothesis. After this hypothesis passes numerous tests, we call it a theory and use it to expand our knowledge. Thus, we use the little we know to help us know more in order to allow us to see farther.

I could not be more aware of how this process works. What I said still stands true. The knowledge is limited; hence, it's still called a theory. I'm sure I've taken all the science courses I needed to to know this. Until you can test any theory against every variable that came into play, a theory cannot rightfully be accepted as fact. My ecology professor, who has a doctorate in science told our class this on the first day of class. A theory is only a theory and no more than that, and that theory can only be based on what variables can be collected and tested in a laboratory setting. It's still a theory based on limited knowledge, no matter how you dance around that fact.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One can't expect to be treated better than they have treated others. Why is a simple apology to Ms. Elizabeth so difficult? I know he can do it. Then we can all move on.
It seems like a fair request, I would hope any show of humility would be reciprocated though.
 
It's still based on limited information. If the information necessary to test a theory against every variable that comes into play can not be collected and tested against it, any test based on anything lacking any amount of data is based on limited knowledge, which any logical person will tell you is not absolutely conclusive. I'm amazed you can't see that.
 
Do you all think that the differing views amongst Christians is why some reject God? We have people in a charismatic faith, pre trib, preterist, etc. we don't even agree on the bible at times. Does this not hurt the church and turn others away?
 
Do you all think that the differing views amongst Christians is why some reject God? We have people in a charismatic faith, pre trib, preterist, etc. we don't even agree on the bible at times. Does this not hurt the church and turn others away?

Honestly no, I don't believe that. Why? Because despite all that, we ourselves are still Christians. Also, Paul said in Romans that there's no excuses for denying God's existence. If people really wanted to learn and investigate, and reach their own conclusions about "which Christian beliefs are the correct ones" then they could do that. But some people love their sin too much and would rather throw their arms up and make excuses that "it's too complicated."
 
Do you all think that the differing views amongst Christians is why some reject God? We have people in a charismatic faith, pre trib, preterist, etc. we don't even agree on the bible at times. Does this not hurt the church and turn others away?

I agree with Megaman, Elizabeth. Our relationship is with Christ, not each other, when it comes right down to it. It's our love for Him because of His love love for us that keeps us. Certainly we should be kind to one another, but when debates take place, people get riled, and Christians disagree. I think any one of us would agree that if our first love is not Jesus Christ, we won't stick.
 
Honestly no, I don't believe that. Why? Because despite all that, we ourselves are still Christians. Also, Paul said in Romans that there's no excuses for denying God's existence. If people really wanted to learn and investigate, and reach their own conclusions about "which Christian beliefs are the correct ones" then they could do that. But some people love their sin too much and would rather throw their arms up and make excuses that "it's too complicated."

So what is it really all about for one calls this good and another calls it bad, thus we have all these different religions, divisions, and each claiming they are right. so is it about good and bad? Or whether one believes in the one true God or not?
All these different thoughts and beliefs of and where from and how are side railings from truth are they not?
Do we not all have the right to free choice? Has not God given this to us all?
So again is it about good and Bad, whether you are right or wrong?
Is not according to Christ GOD the only one that is good?
All I am seeing here is flesh fighting flesh, arguing over who is right and who is wrong, and tell me is this good?
Just some food for thought since God loves us all the same. So why can't we do the same and hear each other, not condemn each other as is what flesh does, does it not?
 
Please look up the definition of a scientific theory. Your response here screams that you are not aware of the definition.


Your response here screams that you are not aware of the definition. I'm sure I've taken enough science college courses to know that, unless science has (once again) changed their stance on an issue.
 
Flesh fighting flesh never has solved a thing and never will

I know what you're saying, homwardbound, but I've also found that people that accuse and battle in the way atheists do only understand a direct approach. In a debate, I've never seen them listen to anything else, if they even listen then, I'll admit. That's true of liberals too. Haha.
 
Some atheists are very understanding and listen to other people's opinions. Unfortunately, the Internet attracts mostly rabid, dangerous atheists.
 
I know what you're saying, homwardbound, but I've also found that people that accuse and battle in the way atheists do only understand a direct approach. In a debate, I've never seen them listen to anything else, if they even listen then, I'll admit. That's true of liberals too. Haha.

So then lets maybe ask God for this
[h=3]Matthew 10:16-21[/h]King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]16 [/SUP]Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
[SUP]18 [/SUP]And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
[SUP]19 [/SUP]But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
[SUP]20 [/SUP]For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
 
Some atheists are very understanding and listen to other people's opinions. Unfortunately, the Internet attracts mostly rabid, dangerous atheists.

And a many that claim to believe and do not, creating much confusion to the truth and dis honor God's miraculous Mercy given to us through Christ. Dis annulling the power of through the resurrection, where one receives new life, by putting works in front of Faith. When works of God's love to all is a by-product of belief
 
DannyC
IronChariots,

I learned the basics of the Evolution Theory in high school too (many years ago) but back then it was all about the survival of the fittest. If it's changed from that focus, I didn't know. I apologise. Where did Darwin get the idea of looking after the poor and needy? From the Bible. Sure he changed his beliefs but he was raised as a Christian and some of those truths stuck to him throughout his life. And I know he wasn't the first to propose the theory of evolution. There was a Greek philosopher thousands of years ago who suggested the idea, which didn't really take off. Then an ancestor of Darwin proposed the idea and it gained a few more followers. Darwin just popularized the belief.

I apologise if it came across that I was lumping you in with the Nazis because you believe evolutionary theory. That wasn't my intention. It was questioning why a world that largely believes in evolutionary theory believes we should look after those people. I wasn't equating you guys with Nazis. Still, there's no denying that Social Darwinism borrows heavily from Darwin's writings. The fact that you don't support eugenics, while believing in evolutionary theory, proves that your understanding and values are different and more grounded in a Judeo/Christian belief system.

Now as to whether or not the Nazis were Christian or not, I think it's safe to say that they weren't Bible-believing Christians. Yes, some belonged to Protestant and Catholic churches but attending church doesn't make you a Christian any more than sitting in a garage makes you a car (a tired illustration, I know - sorry). Also, the values and beliefs they shared were anything but Christian. They incorporated Gnostic, Germanic and Roman paganism and occult practices to create their own religion. Adolf Hitler was a deranged man. He hated Christians only less than he hated Jewish people. He and his party destroyed countless churches and art works, Bibles and other books and executed thousands of pastors and many Christians. Surely he saw them as a threat, especially since much of Germany and Austria claimed to be Christian (even if just socially or by name).
C

'Where did Darwin get the idea of looking after the poor and needy? From the Bible.'

Considering that you have just inserted that inference without even checking sources is extremely poor guess work on your part. Darwin may have been a struggling Chirstian but to suggest he lacked the ability to care about others, unless his holy book said so, tells more about your concept of Darwin than the real Darwin. Darwin was like anyone else apart from that he discovered the natural mechanism which explains how we get different species. He was a struggling Christian who later I believe became an agnostic and had some extremely bad illness's throughout his life. Was Darwin wrong about certain things? Yes obviously his work is 150 years old, but still the core of his work is correct. I don't idolise Darwin but I do consider him an extremely important and intelligent man and for that reason I will defend his work and his character.

'And I know he wasn't the first to propose the theory of evolution. There was a Greek philosopher thousands of years ago who suggested the idea, which didn't really take off. Then an ancestor of Darwin proposed the idea and it gained a few more followers. Darwin just popularized the belief.'

Not a single person until Darwin's time proposed The origin of species by means of natural selection. Nor did any one before Darwin propose an idea which fully supported the geological distribution of animals among the continents. I have read his works and his detail and the time which he put into his work is conveyed throughout The origin of species. You believe that some Greek philosopher who you didn't name at some time proposed his entire works? Either he proposed Darwins entire book and then you would have a point or he proposed some very vague idea which in any case is a straw man argument and a mis-representation of an entire theory. So do you have any Greek manuscripts which contain 18th/19th century data that Darwin had? No I highly doubt it. I find this has little relevance though to your original statement about Nazism.

'It was questioning why a world that largely believes in evolutionary theory believes we should look after those people.'

So you believe the acceptance of fact leads to abject morality? I would love to see your link between this. Does believing in something that is evident mean the entire population can resort to nilihism? Could it be morality can be accessed in a world that accepts morality? It is certainly evident that that is the case. Take any number of secular and atheistic countries in the majoritory sense, who accepts evolution.

'there's no denying that Social Darwinism borrows heavily from Darwin's writings. The fact that you don't support eugenics, while believing in evolutionary theory, proves that your understanding and values are different and more grounded in a Judeo/Christian belief system.'

Well I see the very evident confusion of Nazism to Social Darwinism. You are aware that eugenics is not actually part of natural selection and couldn't be further from the mechanism which Darwin discovered? I don't get my morality from the Judeo/Christian belief system. Again you must profess to know more that you possibly could to assume my morality is based on a system I think is false. The idea that morality comes from religion is an insult to moral philosophers both atheistic and religious, which you already credited one to 'discovering evolution' before Darwin yet you forget about them 5 or 6 lines after. Social Darwinism is something which Darwin himself in his own works said should not happen. Social Darwinism is not a by product of accepting evolution that is a non-sequitur.

'They incorporated Gnostic, Germanic and Roman paganism and occult practices to create their own religion.'

You have refuted yourself by originally stating Nazism was linked to Darwinian teaching then happily listing occults and religious teachings as their basis for their actions. You cannot have it both ways. Not to mention Hitler had a hatred for communism and guess who else in his public speeches and writings he also condemned? Yes atheists. He would lump atheists and communists into one group and would project his hatred to the German people. Now I don't mind if you want to say Hitler was not a christian, maybe he wasn't, the evidence is murky to say the least. But you don't get to say The theory of evolution or atheism was at any point the reason for Nazism. That is just completely unhistorical. I am completely aware of Blood rites and Nordic myths which Himmler and Hitler embraced, and with that in mind and with your reference to other religious/occultic practises we can safely say secularism/atheism and darwinian theory had no place in the 'blood purifying myths' which the Nazis believed in. Now I could go into the history of all this, but I really don't have the time to do so but I feel you think you can't have morals and the theory of evolution or at least if you accept evolution in some way that infers you must have morals from somewhere else. That may be true but you can't turn around and say then it must be christianity, because then you must be insisting no other moral system has every been proposed and that is completely false.
 
C

'Where did Darwin get the idea of looking after the poor and needy? From the Bible.'

Considering that you have just inserted that inference without even checking sources is extremely poor guess work on your part. Darwin may have been a struggling Chirstian but to suggest he lacked the ability to care about others, unless his holy book said so, tells more about your concept of Darwin than the real Darwin. Darwin was like anyone else apart from that he discovered the natural mechanism which explains how we get different species. He was a struggling Christian who later I believe became an agnostic and had some extremely bad illness's throughout his life. Was Darwin wrong about certain things? Yes obviously his work is 150 years old, but still the core of his work is correct. I don't idolise Darwin but I do consider him an extremely important and intelligent man and for that reason I will defend his work and his character.

'And I know he wasn't the first to propose the theory of evolution. There was a Greek philosopher thousands of years ago who suggested the idea, which didn't really take off. Then an ancestor of Darwin proposed the idea and it gained a few more followers. Darwin just popularized the belief.'

Not a single person until Darwin's time proposed The origin of species by means of natural selection. Nor did any one before Darwin propose an idea which fully supported the geological distribution of animals among the continents. I have read his works and his detail and the time which he put into his work is conveyed throughout The origin of species. You believe that some Greek philosopher who you didn't name at some time proposed his entire works? Either he proposed Darwins entire book and then you would have a point or he proposed some very vague idea which in any case is a straw man argument and a mis-representation of an entire theory. So do you have any Greek manuscripts which contain 18th/19th century data that Darwin had? No I highly doubt it. I find this has little relevance though to your original statement about Nazism.

'It was questioning why a world that largely believes in evolutionary theory believes we should look after those people.'

So you believe the acceptance of fact leads to abject morality? I would love to see your link between this. Does believing in something that is evident mean the entire population can resort to nilihism? Could it be morality can be accessed in a world that accepts morality? It is certainly evident that that is the case. Take any number of secular and atheistic countries in the majoritory sense, who accepts evolution.

'there's no denying that Social Darwinism borrows heavily from Darwin's writings. The fact that you don't support eugenics, while believing in evolutionary theory, proves that your understanding and values are different and more grounded in a Judeo/Christian belief system.'

Well I see the very evident confusion of Nazism to Social Darwinism. You are aware that eugenics is not actually part of natural selection and couldn't be further from the mechanism which Darwin discovered? I don't get my morality from the Judeo/Christian belief system. Again you must profess to know more that you possibly could to assume my morality is based on a system I think is false. The idea that morality comes from religion is an insult to moral philosophers both atheistic and religious, which you already credited one to 'discovering evolution' before Darwin yet you forget about them 5 or 6 lines after. Social Darwinism is something which Darwin himself in his own works said should not happen. Social Darwinism is not a by product of accepting evolution that is a non-sequitur.

'They incorporated Gnostic, Germanic and Roman paganism and occult practices to create their own religion.'

You have refuted yourself by originally stating Nazism was linked to Darwinian teaching then happily listing occults and religious teachings as their basis for their actions. You cannot have it both ways. Not to mention Hitler had a hatred for communism and guess who else in his public speeches and writings he also condemned? Yes atheists. He would lump atheists and communists into one group and would project his hatred to the German people. Now I don't mind if you want to say Hitler was not a christian, maybe he wasn't, the evidence is murky to say the least. But you don't get to say The theory of evolution or atheism was at any point the reason for Nazism. That is just completely unhistorical. I am completely aware of Blood rites and Nordic myths which Himmler and Hitler embraced, and with that in mind and with your reference to other religious/occultic practises we can safely say secularism/atheism and darwinian theory had no place in the 'blood purifying myths' which the Nazis believed in. Now I could go into the history of all this, but I really don't have the time to do so but I feel you think you can't have morals and the theory of evolution or at least if you accept evolution in some way that infers you must have morals from somewhere else. That may be true but you can't turn around and say then it must be christianity, because then you must be insisting no other moral system has every been proposed and that is completely false.

Atheists are accountable to no one but themselves and who ever they wish.