You say you had Christ? They you grew up and had your own reasoning on how things really are. What a washout. Check Proverbs 14:12 > There is a way that seems righr unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
You lost your understanding somewhere along the "Way", John 14:6 > Jesus said, "Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me."
Also Jeremiah 17:9-10 says the human heart on its own worldly foundations is = verse 9
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
God says He has the answers for you: verse 10, the Lord searches the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
Why did you stop seeking him, Matthew 6:33? Why did you stop listening? Are you on your own ego trip?
Should Christians waste their time debating with unbelievers? from
I don't think the Christians if they are true believers in the Creator-God Allah YHWH; they should think that discussing things with the unbelievers is the time wasted. Why don't they put it that it is the time spent positively. Jesus and Muhammad discussed things with the unbelievers; they never thought that it was time wasted.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
Man , it's not something I would normaly do , debate with non- believers, Todays Liberal idealists love to argue , they don't know what they're talking about , but they love to argue. It's not even debate really , if you take them deeper into the questions you lose them in the knowledge section. They're not only shallow they're devoutely extinct in the common sense department.......
Should Christians waste their time debating with unbelievers?
If the unbelivers are reasonable people ; then it is time spent positively.
The problem is that believers aren't reasonable people.
What they believe in privately is their business.
What they project into the real world is subject to examination by the tools theists hopefully use in all other areas of their lives.
What these people posit fails at the slightest glance.
Druid Dude wrote:
And yes, you should debate with non-believers. God Loves a good argument!
I agree with you; if the unbelievers listen to reason; then it is a poistive activity.
Sometimes you can't even lead a horse to water. You can show the horse where the water is and leave it up to them to find it. Some horses may not even believe there's water or believe in water. Some horses have to be near death before they'll even drink of it. The up side of this is...you planted the seed.
just read every single persons comment. I still cannot understand and cannot ever understand, why people just come in here to argue, it is silly. Debating can be good. We can all agree to disagree, we can disagree without being disagreeable.
I believe that we as Christians (those of us who are) are more effective in our approach to non-believers through our lifestyle and actions. Yes, we can speak to non-believers, but not engage in arguments. We were called to speak the truth in love, and sharing words of edification. However, the time will come when Christ will come with his saints to judge the wicked. That is something we are to wait for. Until then, we are to love one another the same way Christ loved us. Debating may not win the unbeliever, but the Holy Spirit can. Remember, the gospel is not mere words, but is also power. Debating holds no power. That is not to say that Christians should not respond to people and accept challenges when it comes to defending what we believe. Even Christians are called to seek peace with all mankind. I respect everyone's right to their God-given free will, even if they choose not to believe, but I will not compromise my beliefs either. You don't believe, then that's fine, but don't hate me because I choose to believe. If you do, then you are the one who's intolerant. I personally believe Christians have every right to post their blogs on the internet like everybody else. We have the right to vote like anybody else. You take your stand, and I'll take my stand. The thing that bothers me is that everytime a Christian simply gives his/her testimony sincerely and humbly, the Atheist always attacks them with slanders ridicule. This is expected from people who always talk about morality, but will always attack a Christian whenever the opportunity arises. So much for the morale of Atheists.
I dont think anyone should bother arguing about anything religion-wise.
Now debate.. that's diff. Debating, as long as it isn't abusive, is a good thing. I enjoy a debate when my opponent uses verifiable facts in his (or her) rebuttal. But if you cant, and you try to prove the bible with the bible, then you're not worth a debate.
Otherwise, normal debate between christians and nonchristian people should be fine. Both sides can get heated, so thats the problem.
Good man. nonbelievers arguing w/ believers like KKK at a NAACP meeting/ vice versa. And I still say that no one has provided proof to me that some "Unknown Lifeform" could exist which literally fits the description of what SOME people call God. I really don't think I'm the spittin' image of DAD. None are, but , internally , we are indistinguishable from the entirety of creation. We are ONE. In this way, it is more accurate for me to call it "cosmic consciousness" or "Spirit" I choose the latter. I do believe that an earnest search beginning with self reveals all. But it's not EASY. It is dangerous and can be FATAL.
I believe that we all have the duty to spread a good word, so, if Christians debate with non believers is OK. You see it is only an exchange of their religious views and there is no harm in that?
"Debate" is the presentation of a reasoned argument. The difficulty with many Hubbers is that they do not attempt to present a reasoned argument. Insult, clever abuse and vulgar abuse are none of them an argument. Scan through the contributions above and very few of them are a reasoned argument.
One can have a reasoned debate "Does God Exist?"
Assuming God does exist, "Was Jesus The son of God?"
Then "Which of the current religions claiming to be the voice of Christ / God is the authentic word of Christ/God?"
When I was at University a lad in my College decided to try to bring me to Christ. I am pretty tolerant, but after a while I asked how he could reconcile being a Christian with support for the Conservative Party. After a few of these conversations he stopped bothering me.
In answer to the question, if you find that debating with Christians is not working for you (and presumably not for God either), do something constructive with your time instead. Praying is fine if it makes you happy. Or even try doing good works - which might involve you in engaging with real people with real problems.
I spent over 20 years working with refugees. When I see what people do to each other in the name of religion, I do not want to join!
Should Christians waste their time debating with non-believers?
If you're a Christian, I believe it is your responsibility to share the word with others. However, I also believe in the phrase, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink it. Past a point, it does no good to keep debating or fighting. After you've presented your beliefs, if they still don't want to believe, I think the best thing you can do is set an example with your own life and pray for them.
One of the tricks of the devil?
You are speaking of fellow persons not bloody demons.
Keep your ninth rate crud to yourself, or go and curse someone else.
Dirty slimy thoughts about others. Yeh real nice!
For me, unless I am Spirit lead, I will not bother to debate with unbelievers or even 'believers' for that matter.
Good afternoon. Personally, I have no beef with anyone. Yes, I am a Christian and yes we provide homes for homeless people and much else, but that is also done by many regardless of what belief system they follow. Actually, my own personal focus is to improve the quality of life for others.
One thing does bother me a bit is the widespread racial bias and profiling which occurs. This is not necessarily a religious viewpoint but one which results in division among people who could be working together for the common good. I realize this may be a bit offtopic, but I'm not here to debate the undebatable. I'm simply here to wish all a happy holiday and I hope your Thanksgiving went well.
No. Christians and others who believe should keep it to themselves.
It must be hard not to flog this stuff when the subconscious knows it is not true.
The constant harping about a fairytale being true is done to support their own inner lack of belief.
"Thou protesteth too much"
I ASK YOU TO TRY AND NEGATE THIS ARGUMENT SIR
The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Frederick Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.
Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.
To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”
In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:
1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.
So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.
Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.
Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:
• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?
To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.
Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.
Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:
• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.
Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”
But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).
One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.
Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.
This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”
So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).
Is that your argument? Or, did you lift if from here?
It was too much to hope for an original thought on the subject I guess.
You got that right.
Nice to see ya back, dude.
Nice to see you as well. 4 months is a long time.
I think the religious forums are little changed. Perhaps a few of the fundies have dropped off?
Yes, some have, but more have sprung up to take their places. Of course, they repeat the same tired arguments.
Hmmm. From the looks of this site, it appears that statement rings true for both sides.
Yes, I understand that the presenting of reality is a tired argument for believers.
But, what's interesting is that you are arguing with other believers about your beliefs. Why can't you all agree?
I know..I know. It probably confuses you. I do sympathize. Can't empathize.
It is not confusing at all. Any rational thinker knows exactly why you keep contradicting yourself and fight with every one.
This is what your religion does,.
It isn't confusing at all, in fact, it is easy to understand. It is actually hypocritical and contradictory, but I know you'll not try to explain the hypocrisy and contradictions because according to the believer, they all make sense, even when you folks pick out the hypocrisy and contradictions between your various beliefs of Jesus.
But if you don't believe that something can arise from nothing, then you've just disproved your own religion, because that means that God (something) would have to have been created from something else before he could create us.
Your argument doesn't work even on its own terms.
So many people assume that God was (somehow) created.
He is without beginning and without end.
He is Eternal.
I know it's a terribly difficult concept for some, but not any more difficult that trying to imagine absolute "nothing-ness", from which came something/everything.
So, WhatsTheDeal's argument is NOT negated at all!
Hi ernest. I would agree that religion should never be pushed on someone not interested in the topic; but a religious forum appears to me, by name, to be in place to discuss religion.
I would never say an atheist should not be here. I happen to be fascinated with the atheist view; but when that view includes the idea that people should not discuss religion, in a religious forum (as I have been told rather bluntly at times) I have to scratch my head and laugh.
Yep, it should be easy enough to believe that an invisible, no show god made himself from nothing, came back as his own son and killed himself for us. He did this because the people HE made were faulty therefore had to be murdered en-masse, tortured and fried alive because they did not "believe" in it.
Sure, that makes heaps of sense!
I do not believe in Santa either.
It's not about it being easy...it's about it making sense and being shown in a way that "intellectuals" can understand it. You have not tried to disprove the argument showed above that uses science and philosophy (things you consider the only sound way of proving a point) to prove that believing in a creator is in fact an intellectually sound belief. The fact that you can't even acknowledge that, shows just how lost and delusional you really are. It's not rocket science, and if other atheists (who are STILL atheists btw) can acknowledge that it makes sense I don't see why you just refuse to believe it when the evidence is clearly pointed out...moreover, the fact that there's a verse in the bible about people like you who refuse to believe despite the evidence is almost mind-boggling, and weirdly prophetic since you believe all of it is rubbish and written by people who you think are total idiots...food for thought.
Evidense? What evidence?
2,000 years and not one single piece of evidence has emerged.
Bronze aged hate fests written by a handful of goat herders to control the masses is hardly proof of anything other than the gullibility of the ignorant!
The scientific evidence presented above is what I'm referring to. You know, that really long passage about how the universe had to have been created by an eternal creator and why? You have not tried to disprove it. Since you rely on logic, I've challenged you to present with logic and philosophical or scientific evidence that there is NO WAY AT ALL that the universe had to have been created by an eternal creator....I presented the evidence, now it's your turn to prove it wrong. Otherwise, you're just moving your mouth and saying nothing. Go ahead, take a stab at it.....I encourage you to at least try.
Your idea of scientific evidence had me splitting my sides!
I wrote a hub about your "scientific evidence" based on two years of bible study in 3 languages when I was a "born again christian."
Have you even read the book?
Read my hub if you want to know. I strongly suspect you could not change your mind in the face of evidence, and won't read it.
I am prepared to change my beliefs in the light of better information in a heartbeat. My bet is that you are indoctrinated and have no will to learn anything else.
Indoctrination at an early age is the only way a person could "believe" the god story.
You are still moving your mouth and saying nothing...you aren't making an argument against the evidence that was presented...which is odd, because it's not even MY scientific evidence, it's the evidence that is believed by ALL scientists, that is taught in the majority of all classrooms...were you not taught about the big bang theory? I'm not making this stuff up...it's logic and philosophy from a non biased standpoint..I even reference people who are ATHEISTS...all the evidence is strictly taken from science, logic, and philosophy...This isn't me saying "The bible says" this is strictly what "Science and simple logic says".....again, PROVE IT WRONG...give me evidence that disproves ANYTHING that was put in that argument...quote me and rip the premise to shreds....go on, I'm inviting you to, or would you rather I break it down for you so you can try and shred it point by point?
You did not read my hub, you have presented no evidence, "all scientists" do not believe the myth, and what you accept as proof is laughable to me.
No proof of any type is presented in your arguments for me to address.
It is you who are moving your mouth and saying nothing.
Hey ernest. I read your hub. You do realize that you're apparently a car salesman, or you own a body shop. You aren't exactly an authoritative voice on the subject of religion. You wouldn't expect anyone to take the word of someone who was apparently in the middle of some emotional tirade would you?
I am a motor engineer, not a car salesman, and years after owning my businesses I still have the respect of the industry for taking a high moral stance in my endeavors resulting in being amongst the most successful businesses in my scope.
Track record has meaning to me. Your attempt to put me in a very small basket is typical. I have 6 grandchildren, write on parenting and dozens of other subjects.
Your half baked assumptions are insulting and narrow minded.
I bet you never read my hub any better than you did my profile.
I also have 35 0dd years of psychology and religious study which I learned formally and in depth. If you read my hubs you would know that. Have you had formal learning in religion? I doubt you have even read the bible.
Well, I had to scroll through 12 pages of car stuff to find the hub. Anyhoo, I think the primary question would be, since it appears the subject is such a sore spot; why do you read these threads? Wouldn't it be more peaceful to do something else?
I have read the bible however, I have one in my lap right now actually and study it fully...constantly looking up geological evidence that my study bible puts forth and finding out if it's legit...I haven't come across any problems so far (I'm halfway through the NT after reading the whole in it's entirety twice)....still, you have yet to negate the logical argument I put forth...you keep saying it's not logic, yet you refuse to quote any of it and explain why it doesn't make sense...you aren't really good at debating lol
Oh right, I hadn't realised you were that far removed from fact. Do you think that geography supports the idea that the world is 6000 years old?
LMAO the bible doesn't say the world is 6000 years old...what bible are you reading?
If it does say that ...PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE quote it I would really love to see which passage you got that from lmao...
It's not in a passage, it's taken by adding up the ages of the prophets back to Adam. It's magnificetly wrong.
Hey wags. Not to butt in, but those begets can easily be translated as ancestors of. Kind of like naming off just the famous people in your lineage, skipping the boring ordinary ancestors. Even if taken literally, it isn't necessarily true that one would have to agree that the Bible points to a young earth.
Well, ok - and after all the major christian denominations now agree that Adam never existed - but the oldest "calcuated" shows the earth to be no older tha 8000 years.
As someone once said; "This is so far away from the true age that it is an order of magnitude similar to believing the distance between New York and San Francisco is 17 feet".
People like this guy shouldn't be gettig their geogrphy lessons from the bible. I'm not sure the people who wrote it were fully qualified to discuss geography/ geology!
"It's not in a passage, it's taken by adding up the ages of the prophets back to Adam. It's magnificetly wrong."
First, the bible never specifies a specif number how long it took God to create the earth, nor does it pin point exactly how many years after the earth was created that God created man, so to say "6000" years or even infer based off of horrible math skills is really inaccurate. Besides, even if it was 6000 years between Adam until now that would still be irrelevant to how old the earth is since the creation of earth came before Adam.
Second, the bible doesn't even try to calculate or infer in how many years the earth was created or how old it is for that matter. All it says is it was created in 6 different instances, with a 7th instance where nothing new was created (In the original language the word Yom poorly translated to English as day, referring to any non literal span of time)...each "day" could have been any number of years.....
DO YOUR RESEARCH
So far I don't see that you are good at anything.
No hubs, no identity and casting aspersions on those who come here to write and contribute. No track record.
Funny that you feel free to make 14 posts on the religious threads without writing a word or showing yourself.
What does that have to do with the argument I proposed? I don't have a clue what RELEVANCE my aspirations or background has to do with the fact that I made an argument and you refused to quote and try to demolish. I stand firm what I said, you REALLY aren't good at debating for this reason . Turning this into a personal attack about me, when my argument has nothing to do with me or my background.
I'm not here to gloat about me or my accomplishments or lack there of, that isn't important and quite frankly none of your business lol. I came to prove a point and by you refusing to acknowledge my argument or even try to tear it down is still proving my point, since no one else can seem to prove scientifically otherwise.
Like many others who have been in these threads I have posted hundreds of refutations backed by scientific information. Not one religionist addressed the issues, and I am not likely to bother replying to such a feeble source of "proof"
You show me a scientist who supports a god, and I will show you that scientist has a background of religious indoctrination at an early age.
It is you who offer no argument. It seems that religious fanatics see hubpages as a place to espouse their beliefs and not a writers site where most of us do something other than defend a non existent invisible entity.
Still deflecting like always...it's okay, I wouldn't have wasted my time asking you to counter the argument if I knew you weren't at all interested in discussing it other than spewing feeble attacks to me or my background that you have no idea of. You don't have to be a scientist to use use scientific, philosophical logic. I was simply trying to get any form of rebutting with a sound explanation as to why "a,b,and c" cannot be true based on scientific fact. You failed miserably at it and kept deflecting the point at hand..while not once even linking me to any type of info that would put my premise to shame. So I shall conclude that my statements were sound. Also, it says a lot about people like you who attack claims to glorify themselves instead of a possible truth. ...I rest my case. I hope any people with struggling faith will see the claims in the argument and your reaction as an Atheist refusing to disprove it manifest and ignite their faith in the truth. I believe I have served my purpose on this thread...Off to another.
You have a purpose? If your purpose was to amuse us, you did OK for a few posts. But it was all downhill from there on!
Go and read something other than your "good book" or read it properly from cover to cover as I have.
Insulting people's occupations and implying they know nothing else won't cut it.
Maybe you should watch a few videos by Lawrence Krauss.
I didn't mean to insult you. I see no insult in honest work. I have read the Bible, thank you very much. I just didn't get the same message as you did. That's ok by me. I like diversity.
Nothing honest about your description. You attempted to put me down because of my occupation.
I also ran a successful business consultancy for 20 years, owned restaurants, drove trucks, repaired bulldozers and ran motorcycle shops, worked in a bicycle shop,ran a youth support group, managed 9 shops for Yamaha and spent a lifetime studying Jung.
Don't try to put me in one basket that you show no respect for.
Remember Carl Jung said the best psychological mind he met belonged to a truck driver.
Get out more!
You definitely appear to have a chip on you shoulder here. I went to read your hub. Not interested in your life history. I see you are extremely impressed with yourself. Good for you.
No, I am singularly unimpressed with your type casting. I believe it is you who is self impressed.
I don't do false humility nor do I feel like I should show any deference to your insulting words.
You say I have a chip on my shoulder but you are carrying the whole log.
I'm liking you more and more. Here's the drill I've learned so far from the atheists I've come across here. All atheists are unique. All theists are clones.
We're going to argue ridiculous points simply because you have no idea what the individual spiritual outlook is. You don't care. You want us all to go away.
I'll continue to argue with you. Simply because this whole blinders on stance amuses me.
Again I challenge you.....quote any 1 of the 4 points about reality that was presented.. quote it and explain to me why it doesn't make sense, not just because you don't think it does, but because you have proof that science says it's not possible...you have yet to do so...i'm waiting. Copy and paste if you have to.
What!!!!... there is no 'Santa Claus' ????
What a bummer
I am not an atheist.
It is a word used to describe people who don't believe that fairytales are truth by religionists.
Not believing that fairytales are truth does not make one an atheist, that is a religious construct.
You clearly need a definition of the word Atheist....
.a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Do you or do you not deny the existence of a supreme being or beings?...I rest my case.
YOU ARE AN ATHEIST..again refusing to believe it despite the evidence.
It's a complete waste of time debating a non-believer if your intention is to try to "convert" them. However if you are ready to grow up, open your mind to a bit of old fashioned logic and learn something then it might be worth your while.
I'm using logic and nothing but logic to try and have an open discussion, yet he's refusing to acknowledge it saying it's not evidence and not even trying to take apart the argument piece by piece and prove to me why it isn't.....that's not a conversation that's a typical "you're wrong, because I say so" response.....I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just proving a point that believing in a creator is actually an intellectually sound belief and I have shown the evidence to prove why. Unless he or someone else can literally quote and demolish, I'm still under the impression that there isn't any fallacy to what has been presented in my argument.
A creator of this universe (meaning everything in existence) is what I mean. whether it's called God, Allah, Yahweh, Sun God or whatever..I was simply showing that that belief isn't improbable and is actually definite and supported, based solely on what science and philosophy (not religion) tells us about the world and it's origins.
You mean a reason for the big bang? We don't know why the big bang happened, but that doesn;t mean that "god did it". There are inumerable exmples where we have believed "god did it" for the majoriy of our 200,000 years on this planet, but most have strong evidence to the contrary now.
Belief isn't a surprise, we're predisposed to it. In fact we're predisposed in a certain way. Read up on the cargo cults of the south pacific for example. (I've got a hub on John Frumism if you're interested). Unfortunatley though, just because something is fascinating and an insight on the human psyche it doesn;t mea that it's either true or logical in a modern sense of the word.
It's not about whether a God did it or not, the fact remains that "something" caused it..what that something is we don't know but ALL, EVERY SINGLE PIECE of evidence that we have points to only two facts, that whatever created it is eternal (was already there) and that it created it (the big bang)...
What piece of evidence points to the cause being eternal?
The cause/creator/initiator of the big bang had to be eternal, it had to already be there in order for the bang to have happened.. Since by scientific logic you cannot create someone out of nothing...it's simple really. No matter how you try and spin it, the fact remains that something was created and it had to have had a creator. Every effect has a cause.
Perhaps you are confusing a creator with a catalyst? The big bang is doubtless not unique in terms of it being the first. It may expand and contract countless times without any deity being responsible. Just because you cannot fathom this occurring doesn't mean some god, or group of gods are responsible.
In fact, there is absolutely no evidence of any entity being involved in the process. Ever heard of antimatter?
You say it may, yet there is no proof otherwise, the evidence we have all points to something creating the big bang or multiple bangs...and that something (whatever it is) is eternal...we don't live in an eternal universe because eternal means it has no beginning and our universe has a beginning, it has a start. Science says every cause has an effect. The effect would be the universe being created, and the question is what is the cause?..the cause has to be eternal meaning it has already been there to create the effect and eternal is infinite and you cannot have more than one infinite..so there is only ONE cause when it all boils down. Science says "I don't know because I can't see it"....Logic and reason says "Whatever that entity/cause is, is all powerful"..and in essence it is because it has the power to create.
No, merely YOUR logic and reason tells you that. As far as I know, there is no scientific literature stating there had to be a creator in order for the big bang to occur. There is a natural limit to both expansion and contraction in the theory. Gravity may be your creator. All hail gravity!
I agree. I used to enjoy learning about different religions to see which one would fit me the best, but after being bombarded by all these "devout" Christian and preachers...I've decided that I'd NEVER convert. The fact that they tell you that you're going to hell if you don't join, just smacks of intolerance. After all, even the best of Christians sin...so really, they have no right to pretend to hold the higher moral ground just because they read the Bible. I've met so many Christian hypocrites who have way less morals than I...so if they're the sort that will go to heaven, I'd gladly take hell.
Christians may debate with with others with rational and reasonable arguments if any; but I don't think they have any.
Trinity is false; Jesus was no god or son of god; so in debate they will always lose.
yes it is pointless to try. When theya are ready for the truth they will seek it all you can do is present the gospel and allow them to make their minds up for themselves.
Anything else is pointless and only undermines what you are trying to do.
I think many atheists and agnostics would be extremely relieved not to have Christians trying to argue with them all the time.
Should Christians waste their time debating with unbelievers?
There is no harm in bebating and convincing the non-believers with rational and reasonable arguments and only presenting Truth.
I think it can be healthy for believers to debate with non-believers. There is adifference between faith and facts. Atheists remind us Christians of that. I believe in God but I can't prove it with undeniable facts, I just believe it. That's what faith is.
I spent 6 months talking to atheists on hubs and forums all over the internet. I wasn't trying to convert anyone, just trying to get insights on their perspectives. Atheists view Christians as narrow minded, self righteous, opinionated, hypocrites. Unfortunately, they are right more often than not. If a Christian wants to minister to someone they need to know and inderstand how that person views Christianity or it will be difficult. More often than ot, I found myself saying "Holy Crap, this atheist is exactly right about their opinion of Christians."
Christians have done a lot of good things in the name of God. Unfortunately throughout history, several Christians have done unspeakable acts; in the name of the same God. If a Christian doesn't get outside of their "bubble" that "everyone wants to believe in God, they are just waiting for me to tell them how wrong they are and how right I am" then they will never be an effective witness.
In the Bible Jesus NEVER condemned the non-believer. He condemned the self righteous, hypocritical "religious" leaders of His day. With everyone else, he was patient, kind, and understanding with. Too many Christians do not tkae the same approach.
Engaging in a non-confrontational discussion with an atheist can give a Christian great insights on their own faith and their own belief system. I was forced to "second guess" my beliefs and dig deeper into the scriptures and studies.
At the end of my "experiment" I decided that my faith was mine. I didnt need to justify anymore than an Athesit needed to justify their belief; or lack there of. I could respect what they thought, and most of the time they respected my thoughts because I never attacked anyone or threatened to have my God send them to hell.
All in all, it was a good experience and I made some good contacts and some good friends. And who knows what will happen.
Incredibly well said, Victor. I wish we Christians were quicker to either A) Discuss with the intent of actually understanding and B) Keep our mouths shut when we should.
It simply isn't the goal of every Christian (nor should it be) to convert an atheist/agnostic! I think if fewer of our atheist/agnostic AND Christian friends believed that, we might actually be able to discuss. Nor is it the JOB of every Christian to PROVE that God exists. As you said, Christians are believers. Some of us are scientists, some are not. And, not all of us are Christians just because we're too dumb to understand the universe any other way. I know that'll come as a shocker!
I do, however, believe that it is the goal of every Christian to answer any question when asked and to answer it honestly. More importantly, it's the goal and the responsibility of the Christian to act, walk, talk, think, and behave as Jesus did. Insults, name-calling, condescension, and argumentative insinuation weren't things He took part in. Therefore, the Christian ought not take part in them either. Just my take.
And I've said this before, in a hub definitely, I'm not sure about the forums - but Christians do not hold the monopoly on hypocrisy. Hypocrisy sadly is a part of the HUMAN condition.
Again, very well stated!
Many Christians I have met have seemed very insecure and angry (and of course, the same is true for many atheists I have met). I think if more people took your tolerant, mature attitude to these discussions we would all come away with a much wider, more comprehensive view of things.
I'm an atheist but I quite like discussing religion. I may not believe in it but I find it an interesting topic all the same, and I enjoy hearing the viewpoints of those who are believers. I think it's only when I or the other person starts forgetting to respect the other's views that things become nasty.
Victor with an attitude like that you would have no trouble communicating with this non-believer.
I am an ex catholic/ ex C of E ex born again christian with a different outlook to you, but always willing to have a conversation with anyone who presents a moderate argument.
To answer the question, No we shouldn't debate the Scriptures. There's nothing to debate. They are what they are. The forum is especially not the place. The devil loves it.
Yeah, I get what you are saying.
I think it depends, it seems the majority of non-Christians that create arguments against the Christian views are not likely to open up to the gospel. Thus it would be better to not throw our pearls to the swine.
However, if someone is genuinely interested than I think she should invest our time into that persons questions.
I think the best way to win an argument with an unbeliever is to live your life as a Godly person. Let your lifestyle be your argument because it's difficult to argue with a fool - they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experiencel
Funny thing is, that is the advice I would give any non believer, just be yourself and live your normal moral life.
I don't think I would call the opposition fools though.
Hi Earnest, just passing through....
" I don't think I would call the opposition fools though. "
It's a scripture quote!
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God...
So in effect you would be correct, there would be no point in calling a believer in God a fool.
It was simpler for me, yes I know where it came from, I also know what it says about the person using it to claim authority to abuse "nicely" by claiming understanding from a bronze aged myth.
"I didn't say it, the bible did"
Hey ernest. I saw your first comment about not calling believers fools (I always think that's your intent in the heat of the discussion) and raised an eyebrow, but your followup about Jesus saying not to do it was such a zinger I had to laugh. Good one.
Regardless of my beliefs about religionists, they need no help from me to show their intent. It is on every page of these threads.
As is yours, mine and everyone else's. I thought that is why we post. Did I miss something?.
Maybe you did. The morals.
I propose that my motives are honest in opposing anything that seeks to control and restrict free thought and the right to disbelieve any myth or story that is without evidence.
When others seeks with manic fervor to make people less than them I object on moral grounds.
Quoting megalomanic verses from said myth as truth that I must follow to avoid being a victim of their particular belief is where I draw the line.
K.. I'm out of this thread though. It's very testy. And I think I may be contributing to the conflict, because I'm in agreement with you and you seem grumpy about it.
"religious" debates are to HP what football is to the Brazilians.
It looks like that doesn't it.
The thing is, if you pulled the equivalent number of players as a soccer team off these posts, there would be very few threads to reply to left.
One may think that discussing other views outside of your own would not only enhance one's understanding of said view, but offer insight into the unknown areas not previously explored. That being the case for the advancement of knowledge, it is set in history's stones that Christianity continually negates the human urge to understand and contemplate things that boggle the mind and thus offers a soul-degrading solution to not think for ones self and only to question the authority of those that ask questions outside of the ''Christian'' box.
To decide that having conversation with those who have a different mindset of life is useless and ''the devils work'' is absurd and only secures the fact that you are a slave to a single thought, that thought being just a few thousand years old compared to the exponentially longer time frame of known human occupation of this planet.
A better question would be is taking infant ideas seriously as compared to the 200,000 years of known human experience and exploration.
by notloc27 9 years ago
Does the way people view religion often get in the way of a relationship with Jesus??
by John Wilson 4 years ago
With the "liberal" movement in the U.S., should Christians feel persecuted or oppressed?Many of the decisions coming from the Supreme Court seem contrary to Christian beliefs.Many of the laws being passed in Washington, D.C. seem to be an affront specifically to Christians.If you're a...
by amolefi 10 years ago
Who came up with the idea of Christianity?I have searched the scriptures and nowhere does it say it came from Jesus! However, it seems to have been made up by the Romans, to help them find the Christians so as to punish them. This type of labelling method is common. It's a method police use today...
by cjhunsinger 3 years ago
As the President of the United States continues to refuse to identify on going acts of Islamic terrorism with Islam; is his refusal to do so a direct or tacit approval or support for the religion of Islam and Sharia law over the Constitution?The president of the United States has on several...
by graceinus 3 years ago
Should christians serve in a military?There are christians around the world serving in a military. Many do so because of obligation to their country. Even I, during my much younger years, served in the U.S. Army. During that time I concidered myself a christian. However, I also stumbled a few...
by PhoenixV 4 years ago
Should Christians Go To Church?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|