All over the place in America, we see believers responding with outrage and defiance when Christian beliefs are challenged or questioned. If the beliefs of Christianity are, in fact, the truth - the only truth, then shouldn't believers want it to be questioned, challenged and scrutinized so as to demonstrate the truth of their claims? How, then, can they claim that their beliefs are being attacked by questions, and say that they're being persecuted simply by being challenged? If a belief is true, shouldn't it stand up to any challenge that can be thrown at it, without claiming attack?
sort by best latest
A+, many religionists blindly accept their faith either through family or from religious authorities.They react vituperatively when asked to question their faith because they're quite fearful of WHAT they will/may discover re: their faith.
And what people DO DISCOVER when asking the hard questions is what leads many away from Christianity. There are two responses to hard ?'s in Christianity: (1) Ignore them or (2) find any little shred of the Bible to support what you WANT to believe.
You can't test evolution. You can only observe evidence and make assessments and speculations. Evolution is a hope against the Creator taken upon faith. To be clear, adaptation is not evolution.
Chris, I don't think you know anything about evolution, but thanks for stopping by. Perhaps some research is in order
Chris - you prove my point. Assessing evidence - scientific. Blind faith without evidence - religion. Prove God exists? speculation - no proof. Speculation ok for believers and not for the scientifically minded? doesn't make sense, sorry.
Yes, may I suggest brushing up on a science book, Chris. Evolution happens to be the best explanation of how everything came to be as it is, based on the available evidence. It does not necessarily preclude a god. The Bible story is lacking in eviden
Chris i think observing evidence and making assessments would count as testing. also Darwin ran hundreds of tests that brought him to his conclusions.
Robert I guess scientist like Henry Morris, John Morris, Larry Vardiman, Steve Austin, Andrew Snelling, Kurt Wise or how about Albert Einstein and Issac Newton aren't real scientist then for belief of a creator. Nothing can't create everything!
Coming from a Christian background, I can tell you that most believers do not think through most of the doctrines they claim to believe. They are content to have their salvation from "hell" and do not question the accuracy of the Bible (w/o evidence)
I've read all of cs Lewis. Typical apologist. Also read all of the early church fathers. Still not convinced. Asserting something does not make that something true.
Did you know that C. S. Lewis was an agnostic and became Christian through his interactions with John R. R. Tolkien and a few others at Oxford? To say that C. S. was a typical apologist warrants futher research by you. Research the Inklings, perhaps?
In theological school I read all of cs Lewis work. Yes, he covered to Christianity. After he did so, his written works are identical to typical apologists. Apologies if that was unclear.
i kind of agree with JM that you could say Lewis is a typical apologist. mainly because many if not most apologists, quote or use the same arguments offered by Lewis. Lewis is to apologetics what sex pistols are to punk rock. kind of the standard.
I would contend Clives was a writer/philosopher steeped in an ideal academic and philosophical environment during and after WWII. As an inkling member his intention was not apologetics and since Mere Christianity was a product of BBC WWII broadcasts
I think about and discuss it because I'm surrounded by it and my background, history and education are in it. My interest didn't disappear when I realized I no longer believed it.
Why did you stop believing JMcFarland? What was it that led you to trust Jesus in the first place?
christicue - that's entirely too long of an answer to fit in 250 characters, and it wasn't just one thing. It was a long, multi-year process in which I was dragged kicking and screaming out of belief. It started in Bible college, though.
JMcFarland, I understand. I wish there was more space for discussion. The search for truth is a complex one and sometimes it takes coming to the end before we can really discover it for ourselves. I hope you will still leave the door open.
I am always open to evidence of any kind, as long as it's not simply blind faith. I cannot simply choose to believe something anymore. More info is available throughout my hubs if you want to know more of the story. I wish there was more room.
Take a look at Bill Johnson, there are plenty of videos of him online, you may find him refreshingly different from whatever experiences you had that caused you to depart, just Google 'the resting place bill johnson' and be blessed! :)
It's funny - I don't know any atheist scientists or lay people who claim to have all of the answers, or even that having all of the answers are possible. What you said is true, though - the god of the gaps is disappearing as the gaps close.
JM are you saying that because you don't know them that there must not be very many? Are you judging the reality of statement on your limited experiences? I find this to be unsettling. I wonder, do you approach the truths of God in the same way?
No, I'm saying that in my experience within the community and my resources, I've never met any. Why must that necessarily equate to a doubt of you? How limiting do you think my experience is? Is that not a judgement?
"The existence of God and the reality that we know only what He wants us to know is unsettling to the atheistic scientist"
I feel you are judging the reality of that statement on your experiences as well, unless you know all atheistic scientists.
You would also have to define and substantiate the "truths of God" before I would accept your assertion of them.
JM Indeed, however, I judged according to what you have written. If you don't know any then, indeed, your experience, community, and resources are limited. God is like your elusive scientists, He exists despite your limited knowledge.
Abrush, are you saying god exists in general, or are you saying the biblical version of your god exists? If it is the latter, you have 0 proof to determine that as fact. If it is the former, the question is currently unanswerable.
Can you point me towards reputable, openly atheist, public scientists that claim outright that they have all of the answers to the mysteries of the universe and beyond? I'd like to see their work. Also, assertions do not make fact, nor do beliefs.
What do you believe in? If you don't believe in God how were you created? Big bang theory? Thats the biggest joke ever. It takes a fool to think nothing created everything. Eventually a fish gave birth to an elephant
Do you see? "Measuring" the Bible against the world only works if you already have faith that the Bible is the truth of god. When you realize that most of the stories and doctrines of the Bible CANNOT be proved to be true, then you have the problem.
Ok, so can you prove God doesn't exist? This science that you speak of can you prove the existence of this "God particle" your scientist havent found yet? Can you prove the evolutionist theory? Can you show me proof of a bird giving birth to a human?
Blake, I think you completely missed the "prove it back" point of this comment. The religion side claims absolute truth with no evidence, the science side comes up with demonstrable theories that may explain the absolute truth. See the difference?
Link I'm saying that science doesn't have all the answers Christianity has more proof than theorys, we have the facts. He said religion doesn't stand well with logic, I'm asking what the logic is in any alternative. I didn't miss anything buddy.
I dont think Ether claimed that science has all the answers. In fact, any scientist worth their salt should never claim that either, but I digress...
What proof and facts does Christianity have, exactly? Examples, if you would.
Proof in what? Existence of God? Jesus? Be more specific please and I'll be glad to answer if you are willing to listen.
I am asking you to clarify what proof and facts Christianity contains that you literally just claimed that it holds.
I already have a feeling of the general direction this conversation might go.
Scientific facts from the bible- earth is round Isa 40:22, most seaworthy ship design 30:5:3 Gen. 6, photons Job 38:7, Hubert Spencers scientific principles Gen 1, air has weight Job 28:25, matter is made of invisible particles Rom. 1:20
I doubt my ability to continue on with an extended amount of civility in regards to your...examples, so its probably best to take my leave now and avoid the headache later. Good night.
I urge you to open the bible and read the facts, Jesus is the only way. There's no logic no science nothing apart from him. Dont run from the truth the bible says you know him but it's your sin that makes you deny him. Jesus died for u and loves u
Is the entire Bible 100% true, or just the convenient parts?
Link.... is science 100 % or just the convenient parts?
Did I claim it was JT? I am pretty positive I claimed the exact opposite, but don't let silly details get in your way.
Obviously it was correct enough produce the computer you are using to talk to people thousands of miles away. Again, details...
Yes in your own condescending nature.
As far as your other question... what are you babbling about??
Link, the bible is 100 % truth without error. Even for Christians it isn't always convenient. It is the only book that you don't read it reads you. It's like a mirror showing us our flaws. I don't know everything about it but it has never been wrong
Nice to know you didn't read any of the above comments JT. Good job. Don't know what question you are referring to though.
Blake, does that mean you follow everything the Bible tells you to do, without fail?
No one does that Link we are sinful creatures I try to obey God and repent of my sins knowing that Jesus is the only way because he is the only one to follow the law of God without fail. I believe in Math too but I'm sure I fail it sometimes.
If the Bible is 100% true, then is it true that god comitted genocide with the Flood. Or no?
Genocide no, genocide is racially wiping out a group of people. He destroyed the people yes.
Link.... genocide? Look up the definition.
How about 1 Samuel 15:3. That is genocide, correct? And infanticide?
Read vs 2- God remembered what Amalek did to Israel to provoke Gods punishment on that Nation. If you want to label war as genocide then every war ever fought aside from civil wars would be genocide I call it war, judgement
Genocide - the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
So the entirety of mankind doesn't fall under that definition at all JT? Interesting view you have there.
So link your problem isn't belief in God it is a problem of him telling them to go to war with the Amaleks? It's not that you don't believe it's that you are either A-angry at God B-angry that you can't figure him out or C- you don't agree with him
God remembered what the unborn infants had done to the people of Israel, so they all had to die too? Stop making assumptions about atheists since you seem to know nothing about them or your comments may be deleted.
WOW. Disagree with her and she starts censoring. WOW!!
And they say we run and yell attack lol this is crazy
Blake.... welcome to their world. EGO!
It's not a disagreement to assume something about a group of people that you know nothing about. It is a lie, and I doubt you'd appreciate it if it was reversed.
First off, i have only been talking about the Flood. Second, my problem is that you assert truth with no evidence. What evidence may exist points to the opposite of what you claim, yet you still assert truth and denounce all other truths as false.
Link.. I challenge you to prove there is no God. Can you? Of course not. Just like us that know there is a God... there is not going to be divine intervention "AGAIN." Yes, Jesus has come to this world once. You people want to put him on the cross ag
Link what truth have I asserted with no proof? I say this creation is proof in a God you assert that its not with no proof you quote bible verses about God declaring war on a nation so obviously u know a little scripture thats why I said that about u
You ask me to disprove god when you cannot prove god either. The irony...
And Blake, I meant that comment to be in general terms but there wasn't enough character space. Again, I have only been talking about the flood. Never quoted scripture of war
Link.. you are an atheist. Nothing that can be said or shown you could change your mind. Wonder why? EGO
So why bother in debating something that you have already convinced yourself cannot be proven.
I agree that Link is angry. Most atheists are, for some reason. They know they are wrong, and they do not want to be.
Except that I'm not an atheist, at least not your specific definition of an atheist anyway.
Notice how I haven't denied the existance of god rather than ask for proof of your specific god? Or was your ego too big to notice?
Guys, play nice!!!
Lybrah..... I thought I was playing nice. Link is a very angry person. Easily behind a comp.
I was just playin', JT. :)
So intervening in a conversation of 2 other people and assuming baseless things, no matter how many times I correct you, is somehow me being angry.
Interesting take on things guys. What's your next comedy act? Ignoring facts? Wait, too late...
So was I Lybrah.. :)
Fun times all around. Free cookies for everyone.
I hope they're white chocolate macadamia!
Don't forget the milk.
And you shouldnt call people cowards unless they actually refuse to present you with those examples and facts.
And if you cant figure out the one, singular, hard hitting question any logical person asks of a christian, throwing stones is not for you
Romans 1:19-21 KJV
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
Do you really think that calling me a coward is going to get me to carry on an extended, reasonable and polite conversation with you? Once again, it seems you are incorrect.
Once again? I don't see where I've been incorrect yet. Here's 2 questions and dont yell attack like you claim we do.. 1)how did life start 2) why get mad about being called a coward when you believe we are just star dust or no better than animals?
1. I don't know, but until you can prove god did it neither do you. 2. Who said I was mad? I'm still a person, and if you want to be treated with respect, you have to reciprocate, which you don't seem to want to do.
JM.... why do you continue to censor my comments. Apparently you are "INTIMIDATED" by what I have to say and you know it is truth!!!!!!!
No, jt, but you don't get to tell people what to do on my questions. Attempts to do so will be deleted. You can accept it, or you can go elsewhere. You don't get carte Blanche on questions that are not yours, sorry.
Then keep deleting.
JT going on about censorship? Well that's a barrel of laughs. Hypocrisy at its best.
Link.. censorship should be used if someone is attacking, bashing, etc. I am only stating facts.
Although the hypocrisy is blinding, i agree with that.
But since this is you we are talking about, I doubt you simply stated facts in a decent manner.
Thank you link
Beliefs cannot get hurt feelings. The is nothing wrong with ridiculing beliefs. That is different than ridiculing believers. I'm truly sorry that you don't seem to understand the distinction. I do not have to respect beliefs. No one does.
Yes, you do. I don't sit around making fun of Hindu gods and their stories, out of respect for Hindu people. What if I wrote a hub blasting Hindu beliefs? I wouldn't.
I'm sorry, but you don't. Some people believe ridiculous things, like aliens are implanting chips in lucky charms. If a believer treats me with respect, I respect them. If not, I assume they want to be treated the same way they treat me.
So you are mad at the world, and lash out with your anti-Christian hubs. Do you assume all believers don't respect you? It is hurtful to call someone's belief ridiculous.
I'm not the least bit angry. I write my hubs because the topic interests me, and it falls in line with my past and my education. I see Muslims criticize Christians and visa versa. It's free speech. Don't read it if it offends you.
I would assume it would be equally as hurtful to tell random strangers they will burn in hell for eternity/suffer the consequences of not accepting jesus.
Two cents and all.
Agree with that, link, if that person is susceptible to fear as a motivator. Especially since hell of any sort had no evidence. Much like many other religious claims.
I'm with JM and Link on this - why is it okay to tell random strangers they will go to Hell for being who they were made to be, but when someone rebukes your belief (belief, NOT you personally..unlike the previous example) it's 'uncalled for"?
I don't normally outright tell people they are going to burn in conversation, but I admit I have written about it hubs and on forums. I don't do it to hurt people. I am just looking out for them--I'm warning them.
And atheists don't criticize beliefs with the intent of hurting the feelings of believers. Hurt feelings are a personal choice that a belief cannot make. We talk about it because it's important and to share a different side. Free speech.
Lybrah, it is hard to believe you are looking out for people when your "warnings" usually happen when you can't answer questions they ask you and you exit the conversation.
I agree with JM. Also if it can not be proven it shouldn't be there. Religion is just something humans made up to make themselves feel special.
Very well said Lybrah!
I see Christians in America claiming persecution all the time whenever anyone challenges or criticizes their beliefs. They are not being beheaded, jailed or anything else here. Yet they claim to have the 'moral majority'. Which is it?
Targeting is a form of persecution as mentioned above. The media calls Christians the moral majority, or used to and frankly I doubt there's a real Christian in the bunch. It's neither preassigned choice you provide. It's truth.
The question was specifically geared towards Christians because they're the majority in America and I used to be one. It's simple really. If the majority was jewish, it would be heated towards Jews. Some people see persecution anywhere.
As JM said, Christianity is most often the religion in question here because it is most dominant in western countries. No other religion comes close. Also, evolution makes sense of the available evidence. No, it does not say for sure what began every
It is targeted at christens because only no other religion cares enough to feel insulted when simple asked why. If they can't answer it they answer to something like "I don't know, but you may be able to find someone who does.
@JMcFarland what exactly are you trying to criticize? Give us an example what question are we running from? Turn the t.v. on you will see us being attacked- no bibles in school, 10 commandments gone, can't pray in Jesus name Iraq Christians beheaded
Upholding the law in the separation of church and state is attacking you? No Christians are being beheaded in America, dude. Don't mistake Christian privilege with constitutional rights, and don't claim that you're being persecuted.
First of all "dude" the law of the separation of church and state was designed to allow Christians the freedom to worship different denominations for fear that there would be a centralized u.s. church like England had where we left
Yes, but if the separation of state does not include freedom from religion, there can be no freedom of religion. This is not a wild concept. It's widely discussed and studied.
The very proof of the Son of God is these attacks. If you don't believe in God why can't we pray in school, why does Jesus bother an atheist, why are we hated who preach love? Because Satan has went to war with the remnant of Jesus' seed. Repent
We all know God from his creation that is why I keep going back to this but it is sin that seperates us from God and makes us deny the creator. Just because we can't UNDERSTAND God doesn't make him a myth it makes him GOD.
But what you're saying simply isn't true. You'll have to demonstrate it and prove it. Asserting something does not make it true, Blake. Simply saying that creation is proof of god because the Bible says so is circular logic - a fallacy.
JM... Do you believe in light? Do you believe in cold? Simple physics.
I don't have to believe in light/dark or cold/hot. It can be experienced, measured and demonstrated through physics. You cannot demonstrate god through physics.
And saying evolution is right isn't circular logic? You can't prove it. My question is what will it take for you to believe God? I'm about to write a hub that I hope helps you. I know God personally through events in my life but how can I help you?
I am afraid you are wrong JM. Light can be measured because light is the absence of darkness. Cold is simply the absence of heat. God is the absence of evil.
Evolution can be observed, tested and tested, Blake. Repeatedly. But evolution had nothing to do with the origin of life, nor is it supposed to. Try learning about it.
Jt, your assertion is just an assertion. Demonstrate and prove it.
JM... I am shocked that you would even question this. Albert Einstein has already done that.
I have studied it and evolution can't be observed. I challenge you to show me a change in kinds of species. You say species adapt but evolution teaches a change in species like the apeman (that's never been proven) if it can be observed then show me.
I'll bite, jt. Show me the peer reviewed, tested, demonstrable and repeatable scientific evidence that a) god exists and b) said god is defined scientifically as the absence of evil.
I cannot believe you claim to be so educated and informed that you already do not know this? WOW.
How can man figure God out? The creation is proof of a creator, the creator is made known through his written word, his written word contains prophecies written hundreds and thousands of years in advance that became true and eye witness accounts
Which eye witness accounts? Surely you're not taking about the gospels. Under what criteria for prophecy? Until you prove creation, calling it creation is the logical fallacy of being the question.
Haha prove creation man look around something created this right I mean we can agree on that right? You can't possibly answer it without God, in the beginning God created this that's more proof than you will ever have.
No, we can't agree on that. It's the argument from ignorance AND begging the question. You're just making an assertion and calling it fact. I'm sorry, you're going to have to do better than that, and you may want to learn about fallacies.
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Matthew 10:14
Ha, man so you are telling me that we don't exist? I'm saying rather you believe in God or not something or someone had to have created this and you are saying no?? The big bang, what created whatever banged? Are we imaginative or do we even exist??
I don't think you understand how debates work, Blake. You are claiming that the earth was created by a very specific god. You have the burden of proof to prove your claim true. I am withholding acceptance of your claim until proven.
I asked you a question and you said we don't exist that's not a debate that crazy talk. The debate is ended until you prove how evolution works, my view is proven God said and it happened your view is strange you don't think we even exist
Now you're putting words in my mouth and outright lying. I said no such thing. Evolution had nothing to do with the origin of life, nor does it claim to. The burden of proof for creation is on you. Can you prove it without lies or fallacies?
Yes God spoke the world into existence I'm not lying to you there are 2 possibilities one an intelligent creator or 2 nothing just happened to create everything you have 2 choices
False dichotomy. Another logical fallacy. You have to be able to demonstrate your assertions are true Blake.
JM.... can you prove there is no God? Absolutely not. As the OP of this question it is up to you to prove your stance. As many scientists have tried and cannot.
Jt, shifting the burden of proof, logical fallacy. Until you prove your positive claim, the burden of proof is on you. I'm not claiming no God exists. I'm saying that none has been sufficiently proven.
If you would stop trying to sound so correct and listen, the proof of God is in the creation! How many times must I make that clear. Even your non believing scientist accept that there are only two choices a creator or the nothing into something
No, that's a false dichotomy. You have no way of knowing those are the only two options, much less demonstrating it. Furthermore, you're begging the question and using circular logic. You have the burden of proof to prove creation.
Blake, the only person trying to sound correct is you. You are the one stating facts without properly backing them up but still claiming you are right.
There are only two possibilities as to how life arose one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution the other is a supernatural creative act of God there is no third possibility.Dr.George Wald, Evolutionist Professor Emeritus Biology Harvard
That's all neat and dandy Blake. You are admitting there are only 2 possibilities, cool.
So why are you claiming 1 possibility as fact over the other?
And then there's physicist laurence krauss, who maintains something came from something, not nothing. Your last post doesn't even day something came from nothing. The only one saying it is you.
on the show "how the universe works", Lawrence Krauss says right out that everything came from nothing.
Yes, but his nothing is really something, like the subtitle of his book states. And then there's this study:http://m.mic.com/articles/88441/cambridge-study-re...
interesting article, even though they use the term "nothing" very loosely. i havent read his book, but what i got from the show, Krauss literally meant nothing. what was the something he actually meant?
From what I understand, and I'm not a physicist, nothing in trends of physics is different from the phosphatase sense of the ten. It's kind of Luke the scientific theory vs colloquial theory. We have no concept of nothing, and have not seen it.
if its different in a certain manner, then the terms should be clearly defined when speaking or writing to the average person. to say something can come from nothing, when you mean something, is misleading. it also does nothing to explain origins.
I think that explanation was kind of the whole purpose of the book he wrote, what with the title and all.
possibly. i would have to actually read it.