'True lies of new Atheism'.

That statement is born from gross ignorance. It and it’s various cousins are the most common (mis)used by those that criticize the bible and or Christianity. They are all resplendently wrong and fifty to a hundred years outdated! Modern theology has advanced a bit from the time those silly arguments were invented. The sad fact is that most people who attack Christianity and theology do not have a working knowledge of it or the philosophy that 'frames' it. FYI, the core message of Christianity has not changed for 2000 years. It’s description of God has not changed in over 5000 years. The entire bible is primarily a manual of how to save your soul. You could pick up a copy of the bible written a thousand years ago or today and it would read the same. No other document in history has been reproduced so accurately.

.

Sadly, I already have, but I did not leave you without having a feeling of remorse. As I said, when I meet someone I tell them of my beliefs and that fulfils my obligation to minister. If you or anyone rejects it I will not follow them around like a puppy. However, if you change your mind God takes backsliders or those that continually reject him, I don't. Just don't wait until its too late.

Ummm' when were we talking about miracles?

Well that was what the Google results were for. Some people are more receptive to certain evidences. I have no way of knowing what your preferences are. However my favorites (for the third or fourth time) are; The KCA, The Penrose calculations, Fulfilled prophesy, such as Israel becoming a state in ONE DAY, etc. To be sure, you have not even tried to scrutinize one evidence because you are so sure your world view is correct, as I said before I hope you are correct, because if you aren't, well, lets say it may not be pleasant. And if you are correct ie that there is no God we wont know who was right or wrong eh? BTW, I do not believe in a burning hell. If you choose not to believe in God you will go right to Sheol as per scripture. Sheol is the grave. In other words you will cease to exist.

That is correct. I don't remember making a statement etc to support that observation. Nevertheless, I worship the Hebrew God because the evidence is there to support that God. My life experience tells me that there is a supreme power that designed this universe, and for some reason allows us to live in it. But to keep this short, the God I worship has the attributes of God. It created a universe, and designed it that against all odds it was capable of producing life and was not just a seething white hot mass of energy. No, when the universe began it beat all the odds and was able to form mass and fields particles and such. The odds against that happening were ten to the power of ten to the one hundred and twenty third power to one!* Oh btw and you should already know this; that is the Penrose calculation.

No, in fact I won several debates because God could very well be the FSM! Or a kitchen table, or a burning bush, or a mortal man called Jesus! If it had the attributes of God it does not matter what it looks like. That is an argument so easy to defeat that its like taking candy from a baby. The reason I do not believe in Zeus for example is that Zeus doesn’t have the attributes of the God explained in the bible. And I choose the bible and Christianity over the other religions because it has more archeological evidence to support it as well as the prophesy I mentioned earlier. Religion is a way to describe God. No religion is 100% correct, because man created religion. However I feel Christianity best describes the creator of the universe for many reasons.

See my response above

No, you lose. You said no evidence for the existence of God was out there. I displayed the Google result so you could educate yourself. So your example is invalid and meaningless and not even in the scope of the question.

I wouldn’t say that! There are many different religions. As I said archeology and cosmology as well as astronomy and physics all contribute to the evidences I use. For example the modern version of the KCA uses astronomy (it relies on the big bang). Again I choose Christianity because the evidences fit the religion.

I can agree that its difficult to use empirical science to prove Gods existence. However science itself has concepts that do not yield to empirical testing. I gave examples of that in the last reply

I would highly suggest that you take a course in basic philosophy before you go on the professional debate circuit.

reva

 

Ha ha yes I could do a lot of convincing with a big stick and a rock!~

 

why do christians think violence is the answer?

 

And that is my position on god. I had to hear about it before I could dismiss it.

I didn't make up the statement "God does not exist" I had to hear of the idea of god first. The burden of proof is on the ones that come up with the idea.

How very cryptic of you. Bravo.

I think you just helped me prove my point.

I don't view your god. Gods are not real.

 

I would imagine there are plenty of books out there that match that description and are false. Have you ever read the Book of Mormon or the Quran?

Does that mean you are going to act like religious people all over America don't push religion on others on a daily basis?

You just proved it for me.

I think it's funny that religious people only ask for proof when you don't want to believe something.

Really? Where is he?

Logic is on my side whether you like it or not.

How would I be angry at something I don't believe in? lol Why do you think I'm angry? Because I disagree with you?

Why would I not want God to be there? It was fairly hard to lose my faith when I was a child. That thought of an all powerful being making sure things are just and fair is a nice safety net to have.

I really would like to believe it. I would also like to believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

Because what I said had anything at all to do with spaghetti.

Reread the paragraph and replace FSM with "my god". Maybe you will catch the relevant bits.

[qote]Its called expressing an opinion like a jack ass. We already know you don;t believe in God, really, you don;t have to be a jerk about it. The more disparaging your comparisons, the more they simply express the emotional, not factual, state of your conlcusions.[/quote]

And that is called ad hominem attacks. A sure sign that you can't support a real argument.

You go ahead and lay that out for me. Maybe it will help you learn to wield logic as a tool instead of cowering from it as though it is the big bad monster that wants to kill your god.

You realize that I wasn't actually claiming that as proof. More to the point I was making fun of the idea that someone might use the number of results returned by a google search as evidence.

It can't even be tested. There is nothing scientific about it. While I realize that you may not claim scientific evidence of god, your little counterpart, Rev, does. I'm just trying to let him know that it isn't science.

Yeah, you can beat your ideas into people like religion has always historically done.

 

See the last line of my last post.

 

Well, that is a very interesting challenge that you set forth. I wish you well on making your demands known to the right people, but I would not advise you holding your breath until they give you what you would be demanding... ie... Proof. Let me see now... Who was it that came up with the idea of God? Hmmmm? Well, anyway, I appreciate you releasing any of the modern day Theists of any obligation to provide any proof of God, because none of these modern day Theists are the people who came up with the idea of God. To my understanding, that event (coming up with the idea of God) took place many thousands of years ago.

Well, Thank you.

Actually, you just helped all of the Theists in this modern day world, by releasing us from any responsibility or obligation to provide any proof of the existence of God, because it was not any of us modern day Theists who came up with that idea. Thank You, and have a blessed day.

 

Wouldn't it be easier just to show the proof you falsely claim to obtain.


Where is the proof? Or are you now trying to wiggle your way out of the lie since you have none. Lying is not going to set well with God you know? And you being a preacher and all you would think you already knew that??

 

That is a most unusual claim that you have made. Are you ready to prove that claim? Where is your proof?

 

ME.

I am your proof.

I am a human being that has learned enough to identify a liar and with such information can teach another 'the truth'. To enable all of, any of, the children of mankind; your type will be judged.


ie..... release the kracken.

read the fatima prophecy #3....................

read revelation(s)

read daniel

ezekial


You liars will be destroyed!

By 'we the people'(mankind)

the judgment is not from magic, ya goof.

the four horseman are the four colors of mankind: we the people

 

That is not PROOF of anything except the fact that you have learned how to jack your jaws and express unverifiable opinions.

 

Will you grunt while using it too?

 

Still living in that fantasy world of cartoons I see. Maturity seems to be lacking in your growing process.

 

the incorporeal belief is the unverifiable.

the last word is the name to know (the math describing how the 3 (mass, energy, time) operate) and only one idiot on the earth has it 'upon the head' (to start with)

and i keep telling you, that you dont have to believe me, as you can feel truth when it slaps you in the face.

Your biggest problem is selfishness.

When you come to realize knowledge evolves and thereby combine that with what the religions had taught (that someday a man will walk who knows (holds the key)) and the sciences (the quest of seeking) and the philosophies (each are a part of the quest of life);

to combine the disciplines of knowledge with the underlying fact that 'we' are all just learning what we are, then you should comprehend that one day the pinnacle would be achieved (mankind will understand)


And i so happen to be that idiot. ie.... of theological prophecies, of the quest of science (has the math; last word) and capable of representing into words the intent of life (to continue)

Life: purposed to continue (once started has an innert 'intent')

Life: the energy (light/em) upon mass

good and bad: actions a (conscious) life can cause to exist (good: support life to continue, Bad: loss to the common)

from confucius to einsten, from jesus to darwin............. the knowledge of mankind has evolved and the pinnacle of that evolution;

existence comprehending itself and capable of creating life, by choice.


your problem is you are so fcked up with yourself, you could care less about others to give of yourself for others to live!


as i may come across as arrogant but be clearly in understanding; it is because i hate people like you (them who impose a loss to the common, by choice)

 

There is another old saying that is even more appropriate, "ignorance is bliss". You have a habit of avoiding any and all tough questions regarding your faith. Belief in spite of refuting evidence is insanity.

You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

Are you seriously trying to argue that lying is an acceptable quality in the eyes of your god?

Sometimes I think you just argue for argument's sake, without any real point.

 

By itself yes but when you read the entire statement it's not unusual at all. But you knew that already.
　
　
　
It's his claim he believes in God and has actual proof (unfortunately he is not sharing) God exists. Now if he made the statement but cannot back it up he wasn't being truthful with us. That would be a lie. As a man of God he should be familiar with the ten commandments, where it says God disapproves of lying. So "IF" he actually believes in God he knows he will have to answer for his lies whether they are made up to favor God or not, it's still a lie.
　
　
Best not to make crap up and eliminate that problem, don't you think?

 

Here's another good one. Facts sometimes has little to do with the actual truth.

 

In science, they never do. Science doesn't deal in truth. It deals in explanatory models based on facts.

 

typical fricken liar

You have never seen me say a word!

 

remember the guy claims he 'talks' to god

Basically lying is the main thing he has learned from his religion

living an incorporeal life

 

Did I say that it was? NO? Then you have made another error in your use of logic. Asking a question does not constitute the act of making a positive claim. Whereas the positive claim that I am requiring the production of proof was made, NOT BY ME, but by one of the Atheist/non-Theist members of this forum.

What would be the problem with that? Atheists and other non-theists on this forum are equally guilty of the same thing. Debate = Argument (check your dictionary).

 

Your use of the expression "I do not think....." is indicative of a negative state of knowledge regarding a particular subject matter, subsequently forming the declarative proof of a condition of 'ignorance'. You use "I don't think...." in contrast to and within the same sentence as "....what you think"; thus indicating that you are assigning to me the positive attribute of 'think'ing while maintaining your own condition of a negative thought process.

I can believe that.

 

Are you making the claim that I do not talk to God?

As for your conclusion "living an incorporeal life"... I only wish that were true.. but unfortunately, I am still inhabiting this physical body which has form and is therefore not 'incorporeal' by definition, while at the same time, Yes I am living an incorporeal life (which by the way is eternal) and it is absolutely magnificent. You ought to try it sometime.

 

I can verify this...Here is a classic quote from him:

I think the quote says it all about the poster