For atheists

original said:
Evolution and Christianity don't have to be mutually exclusive. Someone could believe in God and evolution with the assumption that God designed the universe to allow for such natural processes to develop over time. As far as the thought of "why don't people just believe in Christianity so they don't go to hell", that's an argument known as Pascal's Wager. Personally, I'm not trying to make you think anything, I just want you to ask your own questions instead of accepting what you're told. If you want to look for reassurances and strength in your beliefs, do more than read the Holy Bible...
Click to expand...

I actually have been, maybe not as much as I should have. But, half of what I am taught in philosophy. We would call it Bible class, but because when people transfer to a different school, we do not want to make any problems with non christian schools. Origionally, it was always what I was told. I was only a kid, I wasnt able to understand anything other than what I was taught. I have began to believe different than what I've been taught. I think I may have said this before, but I do believe in theistic evolutionists. Christians, that believe that God used evolution to create the world. Just like it was stated above.
 
original said:
Evolution and Christianity don't have to be mutually exclusive. Someone could believe in God and evolution with the assumption that God designed the universe to allow for such natural processes to develop over time. As far as the thought of "why don't people just believe in Christianity so they don't go to hell", that's an argument known as Pascal's Wager. Personally, I'm not trying to make you think anything, I just want you to ask your own questions instead of accepting what you're told. If you want to look for reassurances and strength in your beliefs, do more than read the Holy Bible...
Click to expand...

I know that many people believe in evolution, and don't believe in the bible.
 
flameofanor5 said:
I got these definitions off of dictionary.com
An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.
If you are denying it, then it is your job to prove theists wrong. Do not tell us to prove our religions correct, we make the statement, and you are supposed to rebut our beliefs.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, Christianity was not the defacto religion of the Human race. To say someone is supposed to refute a belief they do not hold is to say if they cant, then they must accept it as their own. I think they everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and if they do not intertwine with your own, accept it and move on.
 
I did suspect that you were young, and I don't think you are rude, just curious. I appreciate your ability to be self-critical, and to re-evaluate what you have been taught.

On the subject of evolution, it doesn't disprove God, but it does explain how complex life could have come about without a supernatural creator.
 
flameofanor5 said:
Another problem with people who say they are Christians, when they actually aren't. They often act innapropriately, and make Christians look bad. There are many strong Christians who can be very mean, not only to other religions, but to other groups of Christians. Noone is perfect, and unfortunately, since Christians main goal is to glorify our God, we tend to look worse doing something bad, than if a nonchristian did.
Click to expand...
according to bible you arent Real xian either ,
or do you give all your money to the poor,heal the sick,cast out demons,drink poisons and handle snakes without being hurt,etc etc..

http://home.earthlink.net/~realbadger/xtian-test.htm
 
Orleander said:
LMAO, yep 1 book :roflmao:
Click to expand...


There are actualy 66 books compiled into one collection that we know as the Bible. Four of which (the Gospels) were written by four seperate people from as early as 30 AD to the last around 70 AD, and are almost identical in content. Two of the Gospels are written in the first person and are assumed to be eyewitness accounts, two are second hand which were recieved from eyewitnesses.

If its historical evidence you want, 4 accounts of the same events from both eyewitness and second hand sources, written as early as 30 years after the death of Christ is pretty substancial. There is also less than a 100 year span between the writing of the original scripture texts and their copies. Compared to other historical documents like texts from Caesar, Aristotle, Sophocles, and Tacitus which range anywhere from 1000-1400 years between original and copy, the Bible is extremely reliable. Yet these other texts are taken as fact, when the Bible sometimes is not, despite its overwhelming advantage as an accurate document.
 
scorpius said:
and if Muslims are right guess where you're are going? :p
and what about all those other religions/gods
www.godchecker.com
what if they are the True ones.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Actually im pretty sure that muslims believe that Christians are people of the same god. So in their religion, some of us will be going to heaven to. =/
 
I got these definitions off of dictionary.com
An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.
If you are denying it, then it is your job to prove theists wrong.
Click to expand...

To deny something means that something has been claimed. The job of "proof" would rely on the claimant.
 
flameofanor5 said:
And please don't base your idea of Christians off of the mistakes I made. I'm still young, and I make a lot of mistakes. Noone is perfect.
Click to expand...

If you wish that Christianity be taken seriously, then you need to do a lot better than you have so far.

Your apologies and excuses do not make anything better.
 
nikkmon said:
There are actualy 66 books compiled into one collection that we know as the Bible. Four of which (the Gospels) were written by four seperate people from as early as 30 AD to the last around 70 AD, and are almost identical in content. Two of the Gospels are written in the first person and are assumed to be eyewitness accounts, two are second hand which were recieved from eyewitnesses.

If its historical evidence you want, 4 accounts of the same events from both eyewitness and second hand sources, written as early as 30 years after the death of Christ is pretty substancial. There is also less than a 100 year span between the writing of the original scripture texts and their copies. Compared to other historical documents like texts from Caesar, Aristotle, Sophocles, and Tacitus which range anywhere from 1000-1400 years between original and copy, the Bible is extremely reliable. Yet these other texts are taken as fact, when the Bible sometimes is not, despite its overwhelming advantage as an accurate document.
Click to expand...

That 30-100 years is not the difference between original and copy, it's the difference between the alleged events and their first written account.
 
spidergoat said:
That 30-100 years is not the difference between original and copy, it's the difference between the alleged events and their first written account.
Click to expand...


Reading comprehension 101. What I said was that the first written accounts were as early as 30 years AD and the last was 70 AD. First COPY was 100 years later. With other texts the copies are at minimum 1000 years after the originals. Reread in my opinion.
 
Nikkmon, if you believe that "4 accounts of the same events from both eyewitness and second hand sources, written as early as 30 years after the death of Christ is pretty substancial," then you need to spend some time actually reading the Bible before you try to defend it. The gospel accounts are NOT consistent with each other. Not only do the details conflict, but the basic theology does, too. There's not enough space here to list all the contradictions, but go to bibleblunders.com for a LONG list of contradictions, just from the New Testament. And yes, you can prove a negative, by showing that it leads to a contradiction. If it leads to MANY contradictions, then it is guaranteed to be false!
 
Granville York said:
Nikkmon, if you believe that "4 accounts of the same events from both eyewitness and second hand sources, written as early as 30 years after the death of Christ is pretty substancial," then you need to spend some time actually reading the Bible before you try to defend it. The gospel accounts are NOT consistent with each other. Not only do the details conflict, but the basic theology does, too. There's not enough space here to list all the contradictions, but go to bibleblunders.com for a LONG list of contradictions, just from the New Testament. And yes, you can prove a negative, by showing that it leads to a contradiction. If it leads to MANY contradictions, then it is guaranteed to be false!
Click to expand...


You have actualy helped to prove my point. The Gospels were written by four seperate people with no collaberation between them, yet the message is consistant. Yes there might be some errors or the occassion contradiction and I am not disputing that, but the majority of the written accounts are consistant with each other. Eyewitness accounts are never identical because eyewitness accuracy may be reduced by errors that occur within the memory process, so contradictions are expected. And now that we agree there was no collaberation between the four, since there are some discrepencies, we can also agree that there are now four VALID accounts of ACTUAL events.

We can play these games all day, but the fact remains that on paper, as far as validity and dependability, the Gospels stand apart from other ancient texts which are taken as fact. If you can take a document that has a 1400 year gap in between original and its first copy and written by one person as fact, then you can should also take as fact events that were seperately documented by four individuals with no collaberation between them, written one generation at most after the death of Christ and only 100 years between original and copy.
 
nikkmon said:
You have actualy helped to prove my point. The Gospels were written by four seperate people with no collaberation between them, yet the message is consistant.
Click to expand...

With a statement as ignorant and as ill-informed as this one, what reason would anyone have to continue reading the rest of your post? I sure didn't. While the anonymous authors of the gospels were, indeed, four separate people, there is very clear evidence that these were works copied from each other, embellished down the chain with some very inconsistent messages. Indeed, one of the authors didn't even have a good understanding of the geography of Region

1. The author of Mark states that Jesus cast out demons from a man and into a couple thousand pigs while in Gerasa. The pigs then ran down a steep place and into the Sea of Galilee. Galilee is about 30 miles from Gerasa.

2. Matthew’s author changed the earlier Mark to Gadara, which is still 5 miles from the shore of Galilee. The earliest manuscripts are Mark, which state Gerasa. But even if it were Gadara and Mark’s author was wrong (leaving one to wonder why we should trust “as gospel” the word of either since they cannot agree -one is obviously deluded), did Mark’s author run to keep up with the pigs for 5 miles just to watch their fate?

3. The author of Mark also wrote that Jesus traveled from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee, about 30-50 miles (depending on the route) in order to reach Sidon, which was back on the Mediterranean coast, yet another 40-50 miles! The wisest of wise men took a 70 mile journey, on foot, to reach his destination. Talk about taking the scenic route. A more likely explanation is that the gospel was invented by an author that was simply ignorant of Palestinian geography (in other words, had never been there; in other words, wasn’t an ‘apostle’) and thought Sidon was on the coast of the Sea of Galilee.
 
flameofanor5 said:
I got these definitions off of dictionary.com
An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.
If you are denying it, then it is your job to prove theists wrong. Do not tell us to prove our religions correct, we make the statement, and you are supposed to rebut our beliefs.
Click to expand...

Ok something you need to understand is the burden of proof. Something like a god is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an god, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is a god I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.
 
flameofanor5 said:
Another problem with people who say they are Christians, when they actually aren't. They often act innapropriately, and make Christians look bad. There are many strong Christians who can be very mean, not only to other religions, but to other groups of Christians. Noone is perfect, and unfortunately, since Christians main goal is to glorify our God, we tend to look worse doing something bad, than if a nonchristian did.
Click to expand...

I hate when christians do this. Whenever a christian does something that makes christianity look bad, he is all of a sudden not a christian. I'm sorry but that is not how it works. If a man accepts christ into his heart as his savior and all that bull, he is a christian. Christianity teaches that everyone sins, so just because a bunch of christians do not follow all the teachings does not mean they are not christian. And actually if you're not out there executing homosexuals, then you too are earning your place in hell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top