Why defend ourselves [Archive]

Kalvaer

18-01-2007, 08:05 PM

I know I've had many a religious discussion on these forums before, but was amused today to see they had their own section (thanks BTW Cara, it clears the forums up to be used for what they are intended).

I was thinking about something while driving home though and was wondering why is it always (or at least 99% of the time) us Christians called up to prove what we believe in. I have many times posed questions back and most times I dont get an answer and it quickly disappears into the spam of replies.

It always seems like the Athiests and Agnostics are asking us Christians to defend ourselves. (Agnostics BTW I dont really understand at all. At least Athiests have the balls to stand up for what they believe in, ie: that there are no gods at all. yet Agnostics seem to sit on the fence defending what ever side they they want to at any given point in time.. is it fear that you might just be wrong and are to scared to admit it?)

Of course there are some people on the otherside of the scale again that just go overboard in my books and end up playing right into the hands of the athiests by proving exactly what they are usually saying about religon being forced down their throats from birth and truly understanding what they believe

As I said before, I'm a Catholic. I wasn't one up until last year though. I also believe in "Science", I can also give you reasons to how and why it is possible and how these things can be true.. It will take way to much time to type, and even longer to read. I will gladly sit down for a drink or two on a friday afterwork with anyone who wants to discuss it though

I'm going to try ask here now and hopefully somebody can awnser me..

Why must we (as Christians) always prove to you that God exists?
Instead, please prove to me that God doesn't exist! (and 100% conclusive proof as is always asked of us)

Skeptik

18-01-2007, 08:18 PM

Because the concept of God requires the use of an imagination. Athiests cannot see anything except nature and other real things.
Try and disprove that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden, for example.

Kalvaer

18-01-2007, 08:29 PM

But then why must we Christians always defend ourselves because they cant imagine. Its something which has made the world what we live in today, if people never imagined themselves flying it would still be something of "Myth and Legend". One has to imagine and believe in something for it happen.

But still, its BS I want proof that God doesn't exist

Nick333

18-01-2007, 08:32 PM

Religion wouldn't have to prove a damn thing (as far as I'm concerned) if it wasn't for the fact that a lot of the time it is being forced into peoples lives. We have to contend with religion being forced on us by everyone from the more benign JW's knocking on our doors and the street preacher to nastier religious types who think they should have the right to prescribe how others should live (gay marriage critics as e.g.) and those who think their religion should be taught as scientific theory. There are plenty more examples many of them far worse.

So if someones going to tell me that their god says we must all do this or that, or believe this or that then they'd better be able to prove it.

Highflyer_GP

18-01-2007, 08:40 PM

Kalvaer to answer your question very shortly, the onus falls on the person making a claim to provide proof, otherwise they are in the wrong by talking about it to others as though it's a fact. Atheists are not required to prove or disprove anything, because they lack a belief in a supreme being.

Let's put it another way - if a scientist makes a claim of discovering an infinitely re-usable fuel source, the onus falls on him to prove it before it can become accepted. The onus is not on everyone else to disprove that he hasn't made such a discovery. Hope you can see the difference.

Xarog

18-01-2007, 08:44 PM

Kalvaer

18-01-2007, 09:14 PM

@Nick333, I have many times said myself that forcing your belief on others is wrong, I told our Muslim friend today they exact same thing in his spam fest and I said it above in my original post above, In all the discussions I have had here, I have stepped in to "defend" my belief, not force it on others.
You have however side stepped the question :D, If you believe with all your heart that God does not exist.. can you prove it to me? and how?

@ Highflyer GP, Sometimes proving something doesn't exist is just as important as proving it does. To use a simular scientist example, There was an experiment in physics called the Michelson-Morely experiment where scientists basically had to prove if ether existed or not, the experiment ended up in a Null resulted. Proving it didn't exist at all..

By the same token, do Atheists not talk about the lack of a supreme being as if it is a fact?, A Belief is "to accept something as true", for it to be true it must be based on fact. Saying that Athiest dont have to prove anything is as bad as some of the posts I have seen saying that Christians who blindly believe the existance of God is proof of their ignorance

I would therefore like to know what proof and facts athiests have that prove God does not exist for thier "belief"

@ Xarog.. go check up on that experiment I just mentioned that proves you can prove a negative or a "non-existance", People in court also have to prove all the time that they are not guilty and hence a negative.

As too Agnostics.. it seems to me they are too weak to stand up for anything and would rather sit on a fence waiting for one of the two sides to do the work for them

Aqua_lung

18-01-2007, 09:31 PM

Finally I don't see what's so mystifying about Agnostics. They know there isn't proof for god, and yet they are unwilling to assume that means that God does not infact exist. :)

Correction...
Agnostics don't know if God exists, Atheists believe there is no proof

As too Agnostics.. it seems to me they are too weak to stand up for anything and would rather sit on a fence waiting for one of the two sides to do the work for them

Sounds like the smarter option to me...
Sit back, relax, and watch the show unfold :)

Kalvaer

18-01-2007, 09:43 PM

Everyone is avoiding the question

And you just proved my point though rob333 about agnostics not having any balls. Do you really think if God turns out to be true for an agnostic he is going suddenly smile and say "its ok you took the safe option"...

The smarter option sounds like the stupid option to me. Of people who cant think for themselves and would rather us Christians and Athiests battle it out. If thats the case.. I dont see how Agnostic arguments are worth thier salt and can be completely ignored

Nick333

18-01-2007, 09:48 PM

Nick333

18-01-2007, 09:54 PM

One cannot prove a negative. It's like asking Saddam to prove that he doesn't (well, didn't) have nuclear weapons. There's always some possible cavern where the nuclear weapons *may* be hidden.

Atheists assume God does not exist because they have never seen anything which would prove God's existence. But this doesn't prove them right, afterall - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Finally I don't see what's so mystifying about Agnostics. They know there isn't proof for god, and yet they are unwilling to assume that means that God does not infact exist. :)

The reason I reject the agnostic stance is that it implies a certain validity to the god hypothesis.

Its as if you are saying that there is a better chance of god existing than say fairies at the bottom of your garden, which I assume you would have no qualms in denying.

Kalvaer

18-01-2007, 10:04 PM

No I can't and I don't need to. Just as you don't need to prove that he does exist. My atheism doesn't require anything of you and I would hope that your faith doesn't require anything of me. If my belief required something of you then I would require proof for my belief and vice versa.One of the best anwsers I've ever heard to tell the honest truth. But I can bet you now that everyone else here is going to ignore the question I asked and just use your answer as thier as well.. more than likley the agnostics fence sitters.

The thing with religon or any "belief" is that you only really have to proof it to yourself, but it feels so good to have somebody else "understand"

You also mentioned how you hate having other beliefs forced on you, is it not the same for us Christians having to jump up and defend outselfs all the time by others trying to force thier "non-belief" on us.. looking at this forum here and reading through it is simple proof of that in its own right? Even your signiture (no offence of course) is trying to force your views on us.. and is the same as you said you dislike

But can you maybe tell me why Christians are always asked, and have been numerous times on these forums to suddenly jump up prove their reasoning for existance, when the otherside cant even prove their side of the story?

icyrus

18-01-2007, 10:07 PM

Why must we (as Christians) always prove to you that God exists?
Instead, please prove to me that God doesn't exist! (and 100% conclusive proof as is always asked of us)

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't require proof that god exists as there is none.

Your question of "prove that god doesn't exist" can be turned around again and say that christianity should prove that allah doesn't exist or that yhwh doesn't exist or that even zeus or odin don't exist.

You can believe what you want, but most atheists see the natural world and require no super-natural interference. Religions introduce this interference, and that is probably why it is normally religious people being asked to justify their stories.

icyrus

18-01-2007, 10:09 PM

But can you maybe tell me why Christians are always asked, and have been numerous times on these forums to suddenly jump up prove their reasoning for existance, when the otherside cant even prove their side of the story?

What side of the story? We look at the natural world and require no super-natural explanations, but religious people do. Isn't it then fair to say that they may, more often than not, be asked to provide some proof as to why they are introducing the super-natural?

LoneGunman

18-01-2007, 10:12 PM

Xarog

18-01-2007, 10:12 PM

@ Xarog.. go check up on that experiment I just mentioned that proves you can prove a negative or a "non-existance", People in court also have to prove all the time that they are not guilty and hence a negative.
BS. You're presumed innocent until *proven* guilty. That means the onus is on the state to prove your guilt. The accused defense consists merely of showing why the state's evidence does not prove their case.

As too Agnostics.. it seems to me they are too weak to stand up for anything and would rather sit on a fence waiting for one of the two sides to do the work for them
Then you obviously don't understand agnosticism.

Correction...
Agnostics don't know if God exists, Atheists believe there is no proof

Wrong.

Atheists believe that God does not exist, not merely that there is no proof. A person could believe that there is no proof for God's existence and yet still believe that God exists.

An agnostic will believe that there is no proof either way, and thus not believe either alternative.

Kalvaer

18-01-2007, 10:15 PM

@Icyrus As I said above...Michelson-Morely experiment ... It works both ways.

You said their is no proof that he exists yet cant give me anything in return.. your theory is flawed since there is much more proof that he does than there isn't.

and I find this funny.. 3 people here who cant even decide what the meaning of athiest and agnostic is ?????

xarog, fine ignore the court example.. explain the Michelson-Morely experiment

icyrus

18-01-2007, 10:17 PM

LoneGunman

18-01-2007, 10:18 PM

"proof"(noun)
1- The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2.a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or
deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.
a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an
employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

------

Using the dictionary definition of 'proof' - there is ZERO proof that can be displayed and presented, 'proving' the
existence of any supernatural being called 'god'. (or anything else actually)
Sorry. Your idea's are fairy stories. Present 'proof' or accept that its a delightful fairy story that seems to make you feel better,
but which has no basis in reality.
:)

Kalvaer

18-01-2007, 10:22 PM

icyrus

18-01-2007, 10:26 PM

Icyrus... u've just done exactly what I said in the beginning.. twisting it around .. why must I prove it.. I asked the question to prove he doesn't exist now you come here to my thread I started and turn it around.. no offence but thats lame.

I am trying to point out the problem in your thinking here. We have science that explains our world. Your religion goes against things that science holds as true. So if we look at the natural world through our scientific knowledge, there is not proof of god.

What would be proof of the non-existence of god in your mind? Can we say the age of the earth? The size of the universe? Evolution? What exactly is proof that something super-natural doesn't exist? What proof is their that unicorns don't exist? Or ghosts?

LoneGunman

18-01-2007, 10:27 PM

I'm not attempting to present an explanation for our existence in reality.
Therefore, I am possessed of no 'fairy stories'.

Saying that because someone chooses not to believe in a fairy story for which there is
NO evidence (and calls it that, because of a lack of evidence) is somehow in itself, a 'fairy story' ?
That's twisting reality, to make it feel better for the believer in some fairy story explanation
for existence. That's illogical.

mooK

18-01-2007, 10:29 PM

What are you people doing?

'proof' has no place in a religious discussion because no spiritual belief can be proven. People can be convinced to believe in something, yes, but it's done in a more equivocal manner.

Kalvaer

18-01-2007, 10:32 PM

I am trying to point out the problem in your thinking here. We have science that explains our world. Your religion goes against things that science holds as true. So if we look at the natural world through our scientific knowledge, there is not proof of god.

What would be proof of the non-existence of god in your mind? Can we say the age of the earth? The size of the universe? Evolution? What exactly is proof that something super-natural doesn't exist? What proof is their that unicorns don't exist? Or ghosts?You obviously dont understand my religon at all or didn't read my first post about science now did you? Is it so hard for you to believe that I can believe in science and the universe and be able to comprehend how God put it into play.

If scientist can not prove something either way its left as an unknown until somebody proves it otherwise.

My point is again, you can not say conclusively that God doesn't exist in any form and can not prove it, Maybe just as I can not conclusively prove that he does. But think about that next time all the athiests jump on thier high horse declaring victory for something that they have facts or evidence to do

Nick333

18-01-2007, 10:32 PM

One of the best anwsers I've ever heard to tell the honest truth. But I can bet you now that everyone else here is going to ignore the question I asked and just use your answer as thier as well.. more than likley the agnostics fence sitters.

The thing with religon or any "belief" is that you only really have to proof it to yourself, but it feels so good to have somebody else "understand"

You also mentioned how you hate having other beliefs forced on you, is it not the same for us Christians having to jump up and defend outselfs all the time by others trying to force thier "non-belief" on us.. looking at this forum here and reading through it is simple proof of that in its own right? Even your signiture (no offence of course) is trying to force your views on us.. and is the same as you said you dislike

But can you maybe tell me why Christians are always asked, and have been numerous times on these forums to suddenly jump up prove their reasoning for existance, when the otherside cant even prove their side of the story?

Sorry, thats just not the way it is. The point is you don't have to jump up and defend your beliefs. We may be deriding them but we're not attacking your right to have them. No ones knocking on your door or buying TV time to air tele ads on morning TV to tell you about the non existence of god. No ones trying to teach your kids that there is no god. No ones trying to tell you that you have to marry a certain type of person. No ones telling you that you have to have an abortion. No ones trying to tell you that the only decent form of government denies the existence of god. No ones telling you you're going to burn in hell if you don't use a condom.

As to why the onus is on Christians to prove the existence of god. The other guys have valid points.
But who cares if they do ? If you want to convince them then you'll have to prove it wont you? If you don't feel the need to convince them, then you don't.

Brenden_E

18-01-2007, 10:33 PM

Icyrus... u've just done exactly what I said in the beginning.. twisting it around .. why must I prove it.. I asked the question to prove he doesn't exist now you come here to my thread I started and turn it around.. no offence but thats lame.

and LG everyone here is using the same arguments over and over used in all the other pointless threads here.. you just did it again, and its just as bad as the bible bashers going of on a tangent.. I never once said I was victim, just wanted to know why it cant be the other way.. and now that i've asked a question in return to have all you Athiest defend your belief.. nobody can give me a valid anwser.. Nick got close though

edit LG you also have no "proof" that your "fairy tales" are true so therefore athiesism is also a fairy tale?

You're being really stupid here. If you make a claim that something exists, it's natural that you should provide proof. If we lived by the hypothesis "disprove me" we'd get nowhere. It's laughable, and it contradicts common sense. And this is the argument that you brought forward, so you should expect the common, logical answers.

Your narrow minded approach to this debate is painfully obvious. Kalvaer, if I made the claim that fairies do exist in your garden, but you can't see them - would you believe me? Furthermore, would it make more sense for me to prove that they exist, or for you to disprove that they exist (which is kinda hard cause you can't see them). Like I said, this entire argument is really stupid.

Kalvaer

18-01-2007, 10:39 PM

Brenden i've never forced my belief on anyone, and I dont believe the Church should either.. you have the right of choose.

I'm sorry if I appeared to be narrow minded, and ended doing what I was trying to show is done by others the whole time myself. I guess some of the stupid replies by some people here drove me insane.

Lets see if I can try get this right. and make sense without somebody Fing it up again and twisting it. As I said above just before you.. I cant conclusively give evidence to Gods existance other than how I believe. Athiest by the same token can not give conclusive evidence that God doesn't exist other than what they believe...

So why then do we always argue and fight in circles for a pointless cause?

icyrus

18-01-2007, 10:41 PM

You obviously dont understand my religon at all

I think I understand catholicism well enough.

or didn't read my first post about science now did you? Is it so hard for you to believe that I can believe in science and the universe and be able to comprehend how God put it into play.

I read it but it doesn't matter. You believe god is behind all things without proof but science does not require god, thats your add in.

If scientist can not prove something either way its left as an unknown until somebody proves it otherwise.

Due to your insistence I have come up with and performed a test for god: I say aloud "god, please materialize into my house and reveal yourself to me" and then I wait. So far nothing. So from this I can conclude that god doesn't exist. Now for peer review. I encourage you and anyone else reading this to conduct the same experiment and see if your findings differ from mine. If they do not can we then safely conclude that god does not exist?

My point is again, you can not say conclusively that God doesn't exist in any form and can not prove it, Maybe just as I can not conclusively prove that he does. But think about that next time all the athiests jump on thier high horse declaring victory for something that they have facts or evidence to do

No one can conclusively prove that zeus, the FSM, casper, Harry Potter, unicorns, leprechauns, ghosts, Peter Pan or fairies don't exist either, but that is not a reason to believe that they do.

Kalvaer

18-01-2007, 10:47 PM

Due to your insistence I have come up with and performed a test for god: I say aloud "god, please materialize into my house and reveal yourself to me" and then I wait. So far nothing. So from this I can conclude that god doesn't exist. Now for peer review. I encourage you and anyone else reading this to conduct the same experiment and see if your findings differ from mine. If they do not can we then safely conclude that god does not exist?Thats just Pathetic and you know it, i'd like to see you try do a scientific experiment like that and have the whole physics community piss themselves laughing at you. I also dont think you understand Catholism at all, but thats not the point here

I'll say again.. In science which you all claim to believe above all "fairy tales" You need Evidence, and Facts, and a way to get those across to an audience to conlusively prove an experiment. I cant do it. Athiests cant do it.. SO its a HUGE MOTHER OF UNKNOWNS...

So why they heck are we always fighting about something that is going to get us all no where. And by the way.. most of you athiests get a lot more defensive than any Christian i've ever seen about your belief

icyrus

18-01-2007, 10:53 PM

Thats just Pathetic and you know it, i'd like to see you try do a scientific experiment like that and have the whole physics community piss themselves laughing at you. I also dont think you understand Catholism at all, but thats not the point here

I'll say again.. In science which you all claim to believe above all "fairy tales" You need Evidence, and Facts, and a way to get those across to an audience to conlusively prove an experiment. I cant do it. Athiests cant do it.. SO its a HUGE MOTHER OF UNKNOWNS...

So why they heck are we always fighting about something that is going to get us all no where. And by the way.. most of you athiests get a lot more defencive than any Christian i've ever seen about your belief

You're not listening or you are intentionally ignoring what people are telling you. How many books of fiction have been written by humans over the years? Millions? Would you have atheists prove that every single one of them is not true?

The bible and your entire religion are nothing more than man-made fiction to me, why should I bother trying to prove that your super-natural fiction is not real?

Your problem is that you cannot separate your world view from religion and see that the world was around before christianity. I don't know how else to put this. I mean, I could say I see the following: 1 + 1 = 2 but you see 1 + 1 + god = 2. You introduce it and then clamor for us to prove that it isn't true. There is no more I can do. You are free to believe what you want.

Kalvaer

18-01-2007, 11:01 PM

Icyrus are you intentially mis-reading everything I say...

I asked for you to provide proof for one simple thing, that what you believed in was the truth. Yet you can not at all can you. Just as I admitted I cant either

Stop being so damn defensive about something that you cant provide any form of evidence to show is the truth and accept it just as you are trying to tell me to do..

See the topic of this subject... WHY DEFEND OURSELVES.. You cant proof it ... we have come to that conclusion here with everyone.. so why start making it personal.

Nick333

18-01-2007, 11:02 PM

Kalvaer I know you're not a stupid person, I think you just can't let yourself let it go even though you know you are wrong.

If no one had ever claimed that there is a god then we could never have claimed not to believe in one. We would all be atheists by default. Theists made the initial claim regarding god, why should atheists have to prove anything?

Aqua_lung

18-01-2007, 11:05 PM

@ Kalvaer
You don't need to defend yourself, we not questioning you or forcing you to belief us, you are the only one doing the attacking anyway

Let me explain my Agnostic view...
To me an Agnostic is like a detective that starts an investigation without a belief or bias, but allows the facts to speak for themselves based on the evidence available
Now I don't believe in the religious God of an old man with a beard

To me God means existence

For eg. The big bang theory states...

In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The theory is based on the observations indicating the expansion of space (in accord with the Robertson-Walker model of general relativity) as indicated by the Hubble redshift of distant galaxies taken together with the cosmological principle.

Good, But to me as an agnostic that does not answer my questions...
1. What created/caused the tremendously dense and hot state?
2. Why does the Universe exist?

As long as I cannot find the answers for those questions I cannot be an Atheist and will remain Agnostic

Wrong.

Atheists believe that God does not exist, not merely that there is no proof. A person could believe that there is no proof for God's existence and yet still believe that God exists.

An agnostic will believe that there is no proof either way, and thus not believe either alternative.
That's what I meant

Kalvaer

18-01-2007, 11:06 PM

LOL Nick I've said it so many times above.. Not one of us can prove anything or the otherside conclusively wrong or right on any count.. so we are we all trying defend ourselves? and as you said.. why should we have to?

Brenden_E

18-01-2007, 11:07 PM

Brenden i've never force my believe on anyone, and I dont believe the Church should either.. you have the right of choose.

I'm sorry if I appeared to be narrow minded, and ended doing what I was trying to show is done by others the whole time myself. I guess some of the stupid replies by some people here drove me insane.

Lets see if I can try get this right. and make sense without somebody Fing it up again and twisting it. As I said above just before you.. I cant conclusively give evidence to Gods existance other than how I believe. Athiest by the same token can not give conclusive evidence that God doesn't exist other than what they believe...

So why then do we always argue and fight in circles for a pointless cause?

Kalvaer, the reason this is going in circles is because people wouldn't change their view regardless of what the opposing party says. And, unfortunately, the guilty party to this is mostly the devout.

I think it was LG that already answered your last question. Atheists don't have to prove that God doesn't exist. Just as I don't have to prove that fairies or leprechauns don't exist. It's assumed they don't because the claim defies logic. If I say I can jump 2 meters I most likely won't have to prove it. We know most people can jump this far, so it won't be refuted.

However, if I claim I'm a fairy (which is "impossible" according to logic), then it's only natural that I should present proof, right? You're making the claim that God exists, so it rests on you to prove this. This is what it boils down to.

icyrus

18-01-2007, 11:09 PM

Icyrus are you intentially mis-reading everything I say...

I asked for you to provide proof for one simple thing, that what you believed in was the truth. Yet you can not at all can you. Just as I admitted I cant either

No you are asking for proof of the improvable. Like I have tried so painfully to point out there can be no proving or disproving something super-natural by its very definition.

So it its place I present this: there was life before christianity, there were other beliefs before christianity. If god is real why wait so long to "reveal" himself and create christianity? I don't recall ever hearing about them finding bibles, crosses, churches or other religious paraphernalia in amongst the dinosaur bones.

Kalvaer

18-01-2007, 11:13 PM

@ Rob.. Ok I admit I did attack agnostics.. but the way you explained it makes a lot more sense, its actually a lot how I feel about things even with the big bang and everything else concerned.

Though while you feel you are still searching for that one answer.. I believe I have found it. Certain things like how the whole idea of the big bang happening first, and the formation of the universe, then the Suns, and earth blah blah. are all explained basically in the story of creation. It boggles my mind that somebody could of explained something like that when writting the book of genesis so many hundreds of years ago with out the scientific evidence we have today when they still thought the world was flat.

Of course I'm being told its a Fairy tale, by people who cant give me facts to say I'm wrong, while I cant give them facts to say they are wrong. Its a lose lose situation on both ends, and that was my point.. why defend ourselves to a losing battle

Kalvaer

18-01-2007, 11:24 PM

I think it was LG that already answered your last question. Atheists don't have to prove that God doesn't exist. Just as I don't have to prove that fairies or leprechauns don't exist.

and

No you are asking for proof of the improvable. Like I have tried so painfully to point out there can be no proving or disproving something super-natural by its very definition.

Have a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

Its what I was talking about early and what I meant. Sometimes proving something doesn't exist or ending up with the most famous failure in History proves something else and ends up disproving everything else, previously thought to be fact

I guess I see the point you are all trying to make that since I'm the one saying he does exist its up to me to prove he does.. Though you must admit, you all have the easy option sitting back waiting for me to try prove it when you cant technically prove your belief either.

We both have two beliefs (lets pretend its got nothing to do with religon now) and Not one of us can disprove the other, its an unknown on both sides of the scale, but if we were scientists we would both TRY at least to make our "Theory" the valid and right one, If we couldn't prove ours, by disproving the other, we at least know ours is possible the right answer, Yet nobody can (I respect those that tried though.. but lost some for those who just said it was my responsibilty and well it proves something to me in its own way)

PS: Icyras there is a reason for what you asked about why Christinaty took so long to show up but its gonna take more than me typing to explain... I think parts if it can be found here though http://www.everystudent.com/menus/forum.html

mooK

19-01-2007, 12:19 AM

Strictly speaking, I personally don't think you should define agnosticism or atheism as a 'belief'.

It's an absence of belief, we have nothing to prove.

Nanfeishen

19-01-2007, 02:01 AM

To answer the original question, i dont think it is so much to do with proving whether god does exist or doesnt exist, whether religion is right , or science is right, or atheism etc.
I think what most people are asking of the religious ones, is to please justify why you believe in something that doesnt exist in a physical form, and that the belief in a higher metaphysical being or deity is not grounded in logic or on any factual basis.
I think people like to debate the reasoning behind ideas, the thought's or convictions that led them to make the decisions to believe in the things they do, but what is puzzling i think to many, is the utter belief that many of the religious people portray, in the fact that they are correct and everybody else is wrong, and that they are not very open-minded about the possibility even remotely that there may be more to life other than what they have been told by their spiritual leaders
Most of us at some point make a choice as to what we wish to believe, but many religious people are brought up in households, communities and societies that have ingrained belief systems, that they themselves take on or follow through tradition, peer pressure, family pressure or pressure from the community.
Those of us who grew up with the right to choose our beliefs find it hard and down right difficult to comprehend how intelligent thinking individuals can simply just accept something as it is, without having explored, read or investigated anything else. Some do ,and some return to their original point , but at least then it is from an informed decision, and is of their own choosing.
Proving or disproving the existence of God is not the point , the discussions, debates and arguments are what is enjoyed, how else do we learn?, how else do we gather information? and how else can we put our ideas or beliefs across to other people.

jarr

19-01-2007, 02:24 AM

the only reason Christians find themselves 'defending' anything - is because deep down, they know
that what they're believing in, is an absurd, insane and downright laughable collection of fairy stories.

And this going to make those folks very very very insecure, defensive, and inherently threatened
(not surprisingly, given a reliance on imaginative fairy tales without proof, in order to sustain their
reality) - causing threads like this, where the 'attackers' try and paint themselves as being 'the victims'..

Aww, the poor Christians are under attack? Are being 'forced' to defend themselves? Well there's a simple answer and solution..

Don't defend yourself. Forgive your 'attackers' (as you call them)
and
Turn the other cheek. Just like someone in your religion once said everyone who believes in him, should do.
:P

If your fairy story has 'rules' - please obey them - or give up your fairy stories.
Don't try twisting reality around to make yourself feel better, that's not going to work :)you know, if christians were merely people who believed some supernatural stories because that is what they were taught when they were young, or because of some cult-like indoctrination, we would, rightly (to quote paul out of context), of all people be the most pitiable (1 Cor 15:19). and sadly, in some cases, this is the truth. the bible would call this 'having a form of godliness but denying its power' (2 Tim 3:5) - ie religion which is just a set of beliefs and rules, and nothing else.

but, christianity is not blind faith in the stories of some old book, it's a living relationship with the god who created us. a god we can experience and interact with (1 Cor 2:5). so no, i'm not insecure or threatened, because my faith is in a reality that i can experience every day. that is what i know deep down ;)

as for why christians are called on to defend themselves so often, i think it is because of christianity's claim to be the only truth - anytime you do that, i think you set a huge bullseye on your back, and people will go for it... ;)

edit: @ nanfeishen: nice post

Kalvaer

19-01-2007, 09:20 AM

WOW Nanfieshen, that was the most logical and well thought out and explained posts of the whole damn lot. Loved yours as well Jarr

I'm one of those who never used to believe in anything, and now I do.. Why I do, and why I believe I'm right is an impossible task to try and explain in words.. it is just a feeling... thats there and makes you smile inside.

Maybe I used the wrong wording because I see people who dont really know what they are talking about (IMO) use the same arguments over and over again. Specifically.. I dont have a Belief, its a non-belief. Are people prehaps hung up on the words "belief"

If we look at what the EOD says about the words:

belief n. 1 firm opinion; acceptance (that is my belief). 2 religious conviction (belief in the afterlife; has no belief). 3 (usu. foll. by in) trust or confidence. [related to *believe]

believe v. (-ving) 1 accept as true or as conveying the truth (I believe it; don't believe him). 2 think, suppose. 3 (foll. by in) a have faith in the existence of (believes in God). b have confidence in (believes in homoeopathy). c have trust in as a policy (believes in telling the truth). 4 have (esp. religious) faith. believable adj. believer n. [Old English]

To believe something or to have belief is to accept something as true. Thus if Athiests/Agnostics think that they are right, then truely that is a Belief in its own right, Why do people try to side step the question though, is if fear of being wrong?

Maybe If I had said "Why is my Theory of God, Different to your Theory of a Non-God?" We both can not deny that both are Theories, which on both sides we have arguments to try substantiate our Theories, though niether party can however give conslusive evidence as to why we are right. Its the same discussion I've seen my Wife have with others about string theory. I've even sat with her having a conversation with an Atomic Physicist (she is a High Energy Nuclear Physicist BTW) and asked them why and if the believe in God. Thier answer was Yes..that at their level of understanding of Physics, it was the only "logical" explaination to the unexplainable that there had to be something else out their

Debates and Discussions are great, and as you said are enjoyed.. Maybe I dont enjoy them on these forums because people become arrogant in their replies which is also why I said I would gladly like to discuss this with anyone over a few beers. I guess niether of us will ever have the other party's answer, until our death, but hopefully we can remember that in our discussion, before we blindly shoot down the other party in these "discussions"

I leave you all with 2 quotes from Albert Einstien:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims."

PostmanPot

19-01-2007, 09:50 AM

IMO all prior posts were also logical, and based on the exact same thoughts of Nan.. it's just you needed it to be explained in the most basic way possible to grasp the concept.

what is the exact purpose of the quotes? to show that he was a religious man?

einstein the atheist:

Einstein was an Atheist, but the press and the church wanted people to believe that he was a man of faith, and they succeeded.

http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html

Claim: While a student, Albert Einstein humiliated an atheist professor by using the "Evil is the absence of God" argument on him.

Status: False.

some propaganda it seems, perhaps you've read about it?

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

einstein the agnostic:

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment"

it's rather ambiguous as to what einsten believed. it's strange because you quote him as if you're sure you know what he believed.

Kalvaer

19-01-2007, 10:40 AM

Read carefully what you posted... and what I did before trying to assume you know what I posted and why

You claim Einstein was a Athiest, in one link, and in another you post he is an agnostic, yet the difference between the two has clearly been explained here by all sides, or should we repeat ourselves again? :rolleyes:

Yet in the quote I gave above he says himself HE IS NOT and HATES athiests who tried to use him as proof of their existance. Einstein might not of been a religious person, I never claimed him to be. I would of loved to of asked him things, but since he is dead I cant. So I will rather believe his own words out of his mouth from when he was alive and could speak for himself.

But you seem to think that science is your answer when certain people who are true scientists, (not google search bots) in fact also believe in "something". Even Einstein was such a man, that was my reason for posting what I did.

Something else he said if it explains it to you:

Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man.... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

In every true searcher of Nature there is a kind of religious reverence, for he finds it impossible to imagine that he is the first to have thought out the exceedingly delicate threads that connect his perceptions.

I have found no better expression than "religious" for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason. Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired empiricism. Einstein

My reason for the second quote was to show how Einstein himself said that "certain" Athiests are worse than Religious Fanatics,

Use that google search everyone loves so much and find a converstation between Einstein and Peter A. Bucky, to give you an idea of what he meant in his own words.. not some 1997 babble by an unknown source

A true scientist will NOT sit back and believe the first article they "google" they will do some research and experimentation into the matter until they have conclusive prove, anything less would be the same as lying to oneself

Nan's Post gave a clear logical explaination to his believe, all you are trying to do is say.. "see told you so, your just to stupid to understand", Nan's reply replied to the question, not to my integrity of which you know nothing Or are you one of those "fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source" Einstein spoke about.

Play the Ball.. Not the Man, or else I'll return the favour but that is not going to help our discussion, only prove our arrogance

noxibox

19-01-2007, 10:45 AM

It always seems like the Athiests and Agnostics are asking us Christians to defend ourselves. (Agnostics BTW I dont really understand at all. At least Athiests have the balls to stand up for what they believe in, ie: that there are no gods at all. yet Agnostics seem to sit on the fence defending what ever side they they want to at any given point in time.. is it fear that you might just be wrong and are to scared to admit it?)

Why must we (as Christians) always prove to you that God exists?
Instead, please prove to me that God doesn't exist! (and 100% conclusive proof as is always asked of us)
Theist means having a belief in god(s), otherwise you're an atheist. You can be an agnostic theist - you believe that there is a god, but you have no knowledge one way or the other. You will also get gnostic atheists - someone who declares that they know without a doubt that there is no god. Most atheists are agnostic - they have seen no evidence for a god and therefore do not have a belief in one.

Generaly scientific claims are required to be falsifiable. i.e. a way to prove it wrong. When it comes to gods there are always a lot of excuses - didn't pray enough, can't see him all the time, he chooses to whom he'll reveal himself. Psychics and astrologers have their own variations on these excuses. Evolution for instance is falsifiable - just present evidence of something else.

Because the concept of God requires the use of an imagination. Athiests cannot see anything except nature and other real things.
On the contrary religion requires no imagination. Seeing and investigating the world as scientists do requires great imagination.

fivelza

19-01-2007, 10:55 AM

Kalvaer, I think that most Christians try to get stuck into such debates/discussions without truly having the ability or knowledge to properly do it.....I know you have studied much which is evident from your posts.

For example, in my case, I am in no position to have a proper discussion with anyone who wants to discuss evolution etc, many topics which are out there and 'appear' to contradict the Bible.

What I have appreciated the way the majority of forumites have on balance been very mature about this. I have no problem discussing and debating, but I don't feel the need in anyway to defend my faith...it remains deeply personal. I have been challenged in many ways to understand a lot of stuff a whole lot more which relate to my faith ;)

I attended an Alpha course at church which deals with the basics of Christianity and the first topic was 'Did Jesus really exist' which referred to the work by FF Bruce http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm which talks to the authenticity of the New Testament from historical sources.

PostmanPot

19-01-2007, 11:00 AM

Read carefully what you posted... and what I did before trying to assume you know what I posted and why

You claim Einstein was a Athiest, in one link, and in another you post he is an agnostic, yet the difference between the two has clearly been explained here by all sides, or should we repeat ourselves again? :rolleyes:

Yet in the quote I gave above he says himself HE IS NOT and HATES athiests who tried to use him as proof of their existance. Einstein might not of been a religious person, I never claimed him to be. I would of loved to of asked him things, but since he is dead I cant. So I will rather believe his own words out of his mouth from when he was alive and could speak for himself.

But you seem to think that science is your answer when certain people who are true scientists, (not google search bots) in fact also believe in "something". Even Einstein was such a man, that was my reason for posting what I did.

Something else he said if it explains it to you:

My reason for the second quote was to show how Einstein himself said that "certain" Athiests are worse than Religious Fanatics,

Use that google search everyone loves so much and find a converstation between Einstein and Peter A. Bucky, to give you an idea of what he meant in his own words.. not some 1997 babble by an unknown source

A true scientist will NOT sit back and believe the first article they "google" they will do some research and experimentation into the matter until they have conclusive prove, anything less would be the same as lying to oneself

Nan's Post gave a clear logical explaination to his believe, all you are trying to do is say.. "see told you so, your just to stupid to understand", Nan's reply replied to the question, not to my integrity of which you know nothing Or are you one of those "fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source" Einstein spoke about.

Play the Ball.. Not the Man, or else I'll return the favour but that is not going to help our discussion, only prove our arrogance

again, you miss the total point of my post. hopefully someone like Nan will be able to explain it to you in such a way that it makes sense to toddlers.

rather not going to get involved because you have gone way off path in your post, bringing other instances to the table other than what i asked about. if you are in denial, then please tell us!

nthdimension

19-01-2007, 11:04 AM

Kalvaer

19-01-2007, 11:34 AM

@Noxibox... your never to old to learn.. and thats whats great about who we are, I never realised there are so many different forms of Atheisim and Agnostics. Which of course should of been the logical explaination since there are also many forms of other Religion

And so true you are about Imagination, without it Science wouldn't exist at all

@ Fivelza, I've always tried to learn as much as I can about any subject before I stick my foot in my mouth, Of course I still do it often. But learning from our mistakes is what makes us Human, not learning or refusing to want to learn is just stupid (reminds me of somebody here it does). I love science and have a incredibly smart wife, who is involved in this field every day, so she wont let me forget it :) She is planning on doing her PHD in Cosmology this year as well which is a change from high energy nuclear physics, But is also a Catholic and can quiet easily explain both sides and give reason for how she can believe in both. I've also recently done part of a Degree leaning towards Computer Science and Nuclear physics (in order to understand the wife better for most parts), but have put it on hold until she has finished her PHD, we cant have two students in the house if we want to eat :)

Its maybe this that pisses me off immensely when I read certain peoples posts splitting Science and Religion in two seperate catagories and trying to use Science to back up their claims of "Non-Belief" To me its easy to see how Evolution and God fit in together and are one in the same, yet its hard to try get that across in certain of the debates held here with all the bashing of the "other side" and of course requires the understanding of both God and Science or else its a pointless task to discuss.Especially when you give valid reaons to somebodies stupid argument and the decide to attack you and show their lack of intellegence. I did however try with my Priest during my conversion.. and you know what.. he agreed

@ Postman.. you asked two questions. How much more must I read your post???.. I answered them both giving explainations as to why I posted what I did.. learn to read, or does this help

1) What was the point of my quotes, Answered and explained in detail
2) Am I sure I know what Einstein believed, I quoted his DIRECT words, not some babble I google searched.

Are you in denial maybe as well as you claim me to be about being a "fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source?" I'll ask again.. play the ball not the man, or is that beyond your comprehension

@ Nth, you need to understand though, that not all Religious people are like that. Its like me saying all Athiests are like postman ;) One thing I learnt during my conversion is that the Catholic church knows and admits their mistakes.. they also know that simple saying sorry.. is not going to let them be forgiven and make 1000 years go away

fivelza

19-01-2007, 12:09 PM

Religious people ultimately have to accept that their religious institutions violently forced their religion on society for a long time. Over a thousand years in the case of Christianity. Even today we have lunatics like George Bush who would love to once again have his religion forced on the people of the United States. And in many places Muslims are all still brutally forcing their religion on people. It is for this reason that there is a great deal of anger directed at religion. Looking at the past I would do everything possible to stop religion from once again gaining and exercising state power.

I agree that historically it was literally believe or be burned, but we are also seeing that for example church attendance in Europe is at an all time low indicating that people are possibly more enlightened and have total freedom in choosing what they want to believe. What irks me continually is the proposition that Christians are stupid or unable to make a 'sensible choice' because they have been indoctrinated from birth. Being brought up in a Christian home does not make you a Christian as much as being born in a garage does not make you a car ;)

noxibox

19-01-2007, 02:21 PM

LoneGunman

19-01-2007, 02:38 PM

in 1980 in the SADF, I got some severe beatings and yells of 'You still believe in Buddha now?' for having put 'athiest' as my choice under religion on the official forms when you first 'klaar in' to basic training..
aah, memories :)

fivelza

19-01-2007, 02:39 PM

In South Africa, until the end of the 80s, Christianity was the state-imposed religion. Yes you could choose not to be Christian, but there were many situations in which you were not given an option or where expressing the opinion that it was rubbish would lead to overt harassment.

in 1980 in the SADF, I got some severe beatings and yells of 'You still believe in Buddha now?' for having put 'athiest' as my choice under religion on the official forms when you first 'klaar in' to basic training..
aah, memories :)

I agree that is shameful :(

nthdimension

19-01-2007, 03:15 PM

Being brought up in a Christian home does not make you a Christian as much as being born in a garage does not make you a car
You'll need a better analogy than that.

fivelza

19-01-2007, 03:23 PM

You'll need a better analogy than that.

Kind of cheesy I know, but works for me :rolleyes:

Kalvaer

19-01-2007, 05:22 PM

Kind of cheesy I know, but works for me :rolleyes:Its also very true though.. Look what happens when you force something on somebody... they will hate it and pull away. It happens in hundreds of facets of life not just religion.

Could be why there are so many here that hate religion in the first place after having it forced down their throats for so many years in SA ???, Not sure how true it is, but i've heard the AGS church in SA used to preach that Catholism was a sect of the devil as well.. There is so much fighting between not only non-believers but within the Christian community itself, which is really funny, stupid and upsetting at the same time.

There is a book I read called "Christ Among Us" where the Catholic Religion and basic Christianity is explain. In this book ther speak about where at the Vatican Council II it was discussed and concluded that most teenagers brought up with a Christian backround would all rebel against the church at some point. It makes sense when you think as a teenager you dont want anyone telling you what to do, and you think you know better than your parents and everyone else around you.

The final outcome was to let them leave and go on with their lives, that forcing them to return to the church would only weaken the church from within, and let them return if they wanted to on their own accord, since that would be the choice of freewill as all mankind should have.. The end result.. most of these teenagers returned to the Church in later years, anything from 5 - 50, but return most did.

Now I know most think that this is another way the Church is fooling you, but in fact if you think about it, its given you exactly what you wanted.. the choice of freewill to make up your own mind.

As Fivelza said what has happened is shameful, The Church has much to do too correct its past mistakes, though sometimes I wonder if its to late.. Only time will tell I guess

noxibox

19-01-2007, 05:34 PM

The final outcome was to let them leave and go on with their lives, that forcing them to return to the church would only weaken the church from within, and let them return if they wanted to on their own accord, since that would be the choice of freewill as all mankind should have.. The end result.. most of these teenagers returned to the Church in later years, anything from 5 - 50, but return most did.
It's only a real free choice if you either told them about all the religions available while they were growing up or refrained from teaching them any religion. It is highly likely that many are just falling back into whatever religion was fed to them while they were growing up.

You don't commit atrocities for hundreds of years and expect to be forgiven overnight. The Catholic church in particular as they only stopped covering up pedophilia amongst the priesthood in the last few years. Even once it was exposed they carried on protecting the guilty priests.

And as long as there are politicians who attempt to or do ride into power on the back of their religious belief we should all be wary.

Kalvaer

19-01-2007, 08:16 PM

As I admitted in another thread.. I am one of those you speak about. I wasn't a christain all my life. I choose it. In todays information age if you dont try learn other things.. your damned to be stupid all your life and its your own fault.

One thing that I learnt last year was that, Yes, the Catholic Church has made many mistakes. Though one thing that is really interesting is that there are a few years where the church was what I would call "corrupt" Especially during the times of the reformation. Where popes and so on did many things against the church, and used it to their own benefit. The interesting part I learnt was that during these years.. NO MAJOR changes were ever made to the church. It was as if the corrupt people cared more about thier own benefit than that of the people. When this was realised and changes made to the structure, Nothing about the "faith" had been changed and in essense still remained as it was 100's of years prior.

I can not deny the pedophilia, but again that is not a fault of the church, it is a problem of the people. As to the covering up. That is to be expected. Can you however show in anyway that even though this has come about.. that the meaning behind the church has changed or its message has altered. They people themselves are wrong I agree 100%, The went against the teachings of an institute they were ment to uphold. That doesn't make the insitute evil or wrong.. it makes the people evil.

The same as people in SA covering up for Zuma. People protect what is theirs, You can not deny if the Athiests had a "church" they would not try to protect thier own. I have seen it here on these forums where people dont usually agree with other athiests, but put underfire, the still try change the subjects to make it disappear or give other perspectives.

Nanfeishen

19-01-2007, 09:23 PM

The went against the teachings of an institute they were ment to uphold. That doesn't make the insitute evil or wrong.. it makes the people evil.

Why did you change the wording from church to institute? Any way it doesnt really matter.
Actually by association to those people, or by the fact that those people weren't removed, or excomunicated from that institute, it also places the blame on that very institute. That institute continued to harbour individuals, who committed offences, that went against the very core of that institute, they should have been removed, or in the old days "done away with".
The fact remains that , yes the core of the "apple" may be ok, but the outside is rotten, and that rot is eating away at the substance of the "apple", and will over time destroy it.
You said earlier , that the Church is more open minded about the youth, that is well and good , but that is one small gesture, and as i previously mentioned ,as well as another postee, growing up in a society, that follows a certain belief structure , people will graduate back towards it often through peer pressure, family pressure etc.
Personally , i believe in something completely different, but what i do feel is the "church", and probabily more so for the Catholic church, is that they have a lot to answer for, they need to answer for, or defend themselves against the accusations made by many people from many walks of life, as to why they permitted, or turned a blind eye to the destruction of books, scientific knowledge, and human rights violations and atrocities, through the ages, and through WW2.
It is situations like this, that make people question, if the people who belong to an institute, that is, or was founded on virtue and love for mankind, as is written, can become rotten or corrupt, then how real is this "message", how true is the idea of "salvation from sin", if the very people who are meant to uphold that message dont practice it themselves.
When a religious institute or group, becomes self serving rather than simply being a service, or no longer services the community purely from compassion, or goodwill, it becomes questionable, and its teachings and doctrines become questionable.
I mention the Catholic Church, because they have the history, and feature prominently through the ages.

Kalvaer

19-01-2007, 10:03 PM

I changed "Church" to "Institute" because I realised many people would jump on the word "Church" and begin bashing the word instead of the context of the post which seems to be a big problem and I am actually enjoying the discussion without having to fend of the fanatics. Plus I am learning at the same time as you put it :) I will also explained further below. It was meant to bring about further discussion, but well spotted none the less and here is what I meant.

What you have said.. I can not deny at all, The facts are there and that is what this whole thread started about.. FACTS.... Even if we have gone off the original question, but you answered that well enough and I doubt anyone else here will be able to as well as you did (yeah go ahead and try flame my intellegence if you want)

The Catholic "Institute" has a very bad history when it comes to what has happened in the past, as mentioned above, sometimes I think its gone to far, only time will tell. The "Church" however is made up of much more than this

My only real consolation (for me personally) is that it is not the "core that is rotten" The core to the "Church" is the faith. The faith has not changed, the message from Jesus has not changed.. It is this that I base my Religion on... Not the Institute, which was the same as Jesus said to the Rabbi's and why they hated him and in the end.. crucified him

There are few factors you mentioned that can and WILL destory the Insitute.. but never the faith. Something has to be done to cut those out before it will cause its destruction. Of cause again... There is nothing I can do about it.

I do know much is being done to change it, but if somebody suddenly had to jump up and throw down an entire new set of ideas can you imagine what it would to to the "Church", or what for example it would do to something like Athiesm if the same thing happend. (and to the trolls, think about what I mean, please dont jump on certain parts of my post), It would destory it all in an instant..

Sometimes I'm glad I can sit back in my corner and be happy in my belief, than to have to defend not only myself, but to sort out the crap from the past cause by a corrput institute

But it wont change my Faith or the "Church"

PS:(Off Topic) Doesn't this sound like the SA government :D (On Topic)

Nanfeishen

20-01-2007, 01:37 AM

(yeah go ahead and try flame my intellegence if you want)

I might flame your spelling of INTELLIGENCE ;) , but i certainly dont doubt your INTELLIGENCE :D

I do notice you use the word faith , rather than belief, in your description of your relationship with your religious convictions.
It isn't something i have seen too often in many of the discussions, people tend to throw the words together, or around a little willy-nilly.
I have always looked at faith as having a trust in something , or placing your trust in something that you cant define yet has a sense of worth, or that brings peace of mind to the individual, whereas a belief to me , is something you have to think about, something the mind needs to mull over, something that stems more from the emotional side of the individual.
Faith is about having no doubt , whereas belief in and of itself has doubt, and therefore individuals who have faith in a religion, or in their religious convictions, feel secure in their belief, whereas people who have a belief in the same religion, or in their religious convictions, tend to get a bit "touchy" when their belief is questioned.
Faith provides security whereas belief is insecure.
I think for the church to grow, and move with the times so to speak, it will need to redefine the teachings in such a way as to promote the issue of faith over simply believing, to teach about faith, not trying to get people to believe in the message they wish to pass on, but to have faith in the message they are passing on. they will also need to drop the ceremony, the glitz and the glammer, and get out from behind their pulpits, come out from their buildings, and mix with the people, let the people in, show the people they are out there, not hidden inside, not hiding from the world, but a part of it.
In other words , come out of the closet:D

Kalvaer

20-01-2007, 02:38 AM

My spelling of the word Intelligence is Indirectly proportional to the amount vodka comsumed at the time of typing, Unfortunately, it also directly effects my Spelling at the same time :D

I must say I love the way you describe the two words and what they mean to you. More so because its so damn true and fully portrayed what I was trying to get at.. I hope the others reading this understand the significance of the words.

When writing the above I thought for a while how to best put my mind too paper in a way that could not be mis-interpreted. Especially since the debate about "belief" and "non-belief" earlier. Using belief to explain my understanding, and Faith to explain my convictions seemed the logical way without having people cut and paste and mis-quote what I had said

What you have explained for the church to do to fix its mistakes though.. I dont think ... no... I dont believe I could have said it in a better way :).

I also just wish the "Church" could see what you have typed and understand it as easily... maybe they do.. the problem is how the whole world would react. More than likely because of todays times and the world we live in, it would be questioned and destroyed in a manner quicker than any athiest could dream of :(

Anyway, It time to hit the sack before the wife hits me over the head with the vodka bottle and drags me to bed, and then too show my young cousin who turns 18 today (Saturday) what a real headache is all about (his father did it me on mine so its only fair that return the favour)

Hopefully the forums wont be over run with spam when I get back on Monday.. and Have a great weekend everyone

edit Ninja edited to correct spelling and wording that didn't make sense.. still more but i'm late and need to leave

Mr TB

28-01-2007, 07:02 AM

I might flame your spelling of INTELLIGENCE ;) , but i certainly dont doubt your INTELLIGENCE :D

In other words , come out of the closet:D

I believe this thread can accommodate my quote. QUOTE:

“Secular humanists tend to speak out both sides of their mouths. We have heard them make comments that Christians are not tolerant of other people's beliefs. But will they ever be tolerant of Christian's beliefs?

One time I asked a non Christian (secular humanist) high school teacher if he would like to hear a creation scientist speak on the scientific evidences that this world was created. He said to me that he does not want to hear someone thump him with the Bible. I would like to of said to him. "You mean that you thump school kids with Darwinism (evolution origin species thumper) 5 days out of the week and you are not open minded enough to hear the other view point for 1 hour?"

You see when you do not have Jesus Christ in your heart you are not able to think rationally. This is just one of the many reasons why I don't want to be a humanist (non-christian)

One time I asked a school teacher if I could speak on Creation Science in his class. He said to me that if I spoke they would have to invite someone else to speak that believes in evolution to GIVE EQUAL TIME. I thought..... equal time! you teachers thump kids with evolution 5 days a week and I just want one hour and you talk about equal time.

Here is another reason why I would rather be a Christian then a humanist. Because they are always talking about self-esteem but then they speak out the other side of their mouth and teach we all came from a monkey and the monkey got here by chance. Sounds like no purpose to me; no wonder why so many kids commit suicide.
Humanists say that Christianity is just a religion that causes people to be biased towards certain things. If that is true, then why are most atheists, communists, socialists, nazis, cultists, occultists, and humanists all evolutionists. BOTTOM LINE: evolution is a biased religious belief.
At the time The Origin of Species was published about half of all surgical patients typically died from infections which physicians assumed arose spontaneously. It was the work of creationists like Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) and Joseph Lister (1827-1912) that proved infections are always spread, leading to the modern concept of sterile technique.

Evolutionists were slow to accept this discovery because evolution, ruling out creation by God, requires that life can arise by itself. IT IS A FACT WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT ORIGINS DICTATES HOW WISE OR UNWISE YOU WILL THINK ABOUT LIFE. THAT IS ANOTHER REASON WHY I AM GLAD I AM A CHRISTIAN.

Evolutionists will swallow the idea that Mars had a world wide flood with no evidence of water on the planet. Yet (they will strain at the idea that the Earth experienced a world wide flood) the Earth is covered with 2/3 water and yet it is a fact that if all the mountains were pushed down and the ocean basins were lifted up the whole earth would be covered again with water at least a mile and a half deep.

THAT IS WHY I AM GLAD TO BE A CHRISTAN, SO I DON'T STRAIN AT A NAT AND SWALLOW A CAMEL.”

I apologise that part of dodo’s quote is included,find the quote www.davidgoliathministries.com .

Neo

28-01-2007, 08:22 AM

“Secular humanists tend to speak out both sides of their mouths. We have heard them make comments that Christians are not tolerant of other people's beliefs. But will they ever be tolerant of Christian's beliefs?

The difference is when atheists argue a point, the tend to use scientific method. And it stays an arguement. Fundamentalists threatens with ever lasting damnation in hell if you don't agree with them.

You see when you do not have Jesus Christ in your heart you are not able to think rationally. This is just one of the many reasons why I don't want to be a humanist (non-christian)

In other words you don't tolerate their thinking, exactly what you accuse the secular humanists of, above.

Here is another reason why I would rather be a Christian then a humanist. Because they are always talking about self-esteem but then they speak out the other side of their mouth and teach we all came from a monkey and the monkey got here by chance. Sounds like no purpose to me; no wonder why so many kids commit suicide.

Now you're just talking nonsense. If you want to argue, use concrete statements, that at least have some base.

Humanists say that Christianity is just a religion that causes people to be biased towards certain things. If that is true, then why are most atheists, communists, socialists, nazis, cultists, occultists, and humanists all evolutionists. BOTTOM LINE: evolution is a biased religious belief.

Please proof this statement. I always thought most Nazi's were Christians, for example? (two can play this game....)

At the time The Origin of Species was published about half of all surgical patients typically died from infections which physicians assumed arose spontaneously. It was the work of creationists like Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) and Joseph Lister (1827-1912) that proved infections are always spread, leading to the modern concept of sterile technique.

What the heck has sterile conditions have to do with disproving evolution? Are you nuts?

Oh, I see. You're playing the 'my scientist is better than your scientist' game. Don't go there, thust me. Not on this forum.....

Evolutionists were slow to accept this discovery because evolution, ruling out creation by God, requires that life can arise by itself. IT IS A FACT WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT ORIGINS DICTATES HOW WISE OR UNWISE YOU WILL THINK ABOUT LIFE. THAT IS ANOTHER REASON WHY I AM GLAD I AM A CHRISTIAN.

AND NOW IN ENGLISH, PLEASE? (see I can also type in caps, cool eh?)

Evolutionists will swallow the idea that Mars had a world wide flood with no evidence of water on the planet. Yet (they will strain at the idea that the Earth experienced a world wide flood) the Earth is covered with 2/3 water and yet it is a fact that if all the mountains were pushed down and the ocean basins were lifted up the whole earth would be covered again with water at least a mile and a half deep.

It's called geology, you don't have to 'strain' at any idea. You go out and look for evidence. So far, many localised floods have been discovered, but no global one. People will however 'strain' at the idea that all the creatures on the planet fitted into one boat and were tended by a few humans.

THAT IS WHY I AM GLAD TO BE A CHRISTAN, SO I DON'T STRAIN AT A NAT AND SWALLOW A CAMEL.”

Or rather, THAT IS WHY I AM GLAD TO BE A CHRISTIAN, SO I DON'T HAVE TO THINK FOR MYSELF BUT JUST ACCEPT WHATEVER I'M BRAINWASHED WITH.

Claymore

28-01-2007, 09:49 AM

Evolutionists will swallow the idea that Mars had a world wide flood with no evidence of water on the planet.

Firstly, that topic would be geology, not evolution. Secondly, I don't know of any evidence to suggest Mars-wide floods. Thirdly, recent findings do support some water on Mars.

Yet (they will strain at the idea that the Earth experienced a world wide flood) the Earth is covered with 2/3 water and yet it is a fact that if all the mountains were pushed down and the ocean basins were lifted up the whole earth would be covered again with water at least a mile and a half deep.

Sure, if the earth's surface was smooth, it would be covered with water. However, the earth's surface is not smooth, has never been smooth, and there is zero evidence to suggest a world-wide flood.

In the battle of facts, you're arriving unarmed.

Mr TB

28-01-2007, 09:57 AM

Or rather, THAT IS WHY I AM GLAD TO BE A CHRISTIAN, SO I DON'T HAVE TO THINK FOR MYSELF BUT JUST ACCEPT WHATEVER I'M BRAINWASHED WITH.

YOUR QUOTE:
“The difference is when atheists argue a point, they tend to use scientific method. And it stays an arguement. Fundamentalists threatens with ever lasting damnation in hell if you don't agree with them.”
MY REPLY:
Fundamentalists threatens you… Christians however explain to you the option of eternal life or eternal death but leave the option to you.
Christians tend to explain also why the scientific metod used by the atheist is not true scientific method but rather a believe… the religion of scientism…
YOUR QUOTE:
“In other words you don't tolerate their thinking, exactly what you accuse the secular humanists of, above.”
“Or rather, THAT IS WHY I AM GLAD TO BE A CHRISTIAN, SO I DON'T HAVE TO THINK FOR MYSELF BUT JUST ACCEPT WHATEVER I'M BRAINWASHED WITH.”
MY ANSWER:
….mmm…as an atheist I consider myself tolerant reacting in this way to another man’s thinking. Proves a double standard set by non-christians…
YOUR QUOTE:
Now you're just talking nonsense. If you want to argue, use concrete statements, that at least have some base
MY QUESTION:
Why are so many kids committing suicide if there are purpose in their lifes?
YOUR QUOTE:
Please proof this statement. I always thought most Nazi's were Christians, for example
? (two can play this game....)
MY ANSWER:
Hitler a christian?...If you believe that you will be believe any fairytale…like evolution…
….may be you should read a book by corriie ten boom called The Hiding Place.
YOUR QUOTE:
“What the heck has sterile conditions have to do with disproving evolution? Are you nuts?
Oh, I see. You're playing the 'my scientist is better than your scientist' game. Don't go there, trust me. Not on this forum
AND NOW IN ENGLISH, PLEASE? (see I can also type in caps, cool eh?)”
MY ANSWER:
In plain english(I am not the scientist or bioligist), infection contradicts the origin of species because it is spread…
YOUR QUOTE:
It's called geology, you don't have to 'strain' at any idea.
MY QUESTION:
Do you strain at the idea of a global flood? How many species developed due to adaptation?... not evolution

Mr TB

28-01-2007, 10:06 AM

Firstly, that topic would be geology, not evolution. Secondly, I don't know of any evidence to suggest Mars-wide floods. Thirdly, recent findings do support some water on Mars.

Sure, if the earth's surface was smooth, it would be covered with water. However, the earth's surface is not smooth, has never been smooth, and there is zero evidence to suggest a world-wide flood.

In the battle of facts, you're arriving unarmed.

Did NASA find the evidence, or are they making that suggestion...?
Do you really believe matter thought itself into life...?

Neo

28-01-2007, 11:33 AM

MY QUESTION:
Why are so many kids committing suicide if there are purpose in their lifes?

So you're saying they're commiting suicide because there is no purpose in their lives? Where's God then?

YOUR QUOTE:
Please proof this statement. I always thought most Nazi's were Christians, for example
? (two can play this game....)
MY ANSWER:
Hitler a christian?...If you believe that you will be believe any fairytale…like evolution…

Now slowly read my sentence again. Most Nazi's were indeed Christians. Or is Germany a Muslim country? Hitler himself was strongly connected to the Pope.

“What the heck has sterile conditions have to do with disproving evolution?

MY ANSWER:
In plain english(I am not the scientist or bioligist), infection contradicts the origin of species because it is spread…

Please try another language. I still don't understand how the spread of infection contradicts evolution?

YOUR QUOTE:
It's called geology, you don't have to 'strain' at any idea.
MY QUESTION:
Do you strain at the idea of a global flood?

I'll happily accept a global flood if we have evidence of it. Just like I accept the proven localised floods we know about.

How many species developed due to adaptation?... not evolution

You tell me, I always though 'adaptation' was a component of natural selection.

Mr TB

28-01-2007, 03:13 PM

.

YOUR QUOTE:
So you're saying they're commiting suicide because there is no purpose in their lives? Where's God then?
MY ANSWER:
You are one that wish parents and schools not to teach children about the existence of the living god. You must answer this question not me…

YOUR QUOTE:
Most Nazi's were indeed Christians.
MY ANSWER:
I am not even make any further statement concerning this, but to ask you a question, if the jewish declared himself christian would that save him from the holocaust in Hitler’s Nazism regime… It was not about religion was it?

YOUR QUOTE:
Please try another language. I still don't understand how the spread of infection contradicts evolution?
MY ANSWER:
With your knowledge of evolution it should not be that difficult to grasp…

YOUR QUOTE:
I'll happily accept a global flood if we have evidence of it. Just like I accept the proven localised floods we know about.
MY ANSWER:
Evidence…like the evidence on Mars?

YOUR QUOTE:
You tell me, I always though 'adaptation' was a component of natural selection.
MY ANSWER:
Oh really?, you jumped over my question….:D

ToxicBunny

28-01-2007, 03:46 PM

I think I'm gonna jump into this debate..

Mr TB : You're now going to blame the loss of religious education at school as the main cause of the high suicide rate amongst teenagers now?

You were the one that brought "nazism" into a religious debate, and we are discussing the holocaust at all... it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

I have put the question of evolution and infection control to an atheistic Masters student of biology, and she looked just as confused as me, I fail to see how the spread of infection contradicts evolution..... diseases spread inside a host, they evolve to be able to leave that host and infect(live on) in other hosts. All seems to pretty much be a part of evolution, even in a small way to me.

There's evidence of a global flood on Mars? Where? Again you were the one that brought up the flood on Mars issue first. I will say there is compelling evidence that at one stage there was free flowing water on the surface of Mars, but a global flood... I dunno.

and saying adaptation is a component of natural selection and therefore evolution isn't jumping your question. Adaptation is but a small subset of the process of evolution.

LoneGunman

28-01-2007, 03:54 PM

just to throw a conceptual curveball - there are schools of thought in
evolution, which suggest that 'humankind' is potentially just an effective transport system
for bacteria. In other words, 'we' as humans evolved so that bacteria would have a means
of moving around. We're just a byproduct and transport method for evolving microbes that
needed to gather together and find new bugs.
Other theories suggest that we're an accidental but necessary byproduct of sperm
that wants to duplicate itself.. but that's just too crazy :P

Neo

28-01-2007, 06:02 PM

Neo

28-01-2007, 06:07 PM

Turtle

28-01-2007, 06:12 PM

I was thinking about something while driving home though and was wondering why is it always (or at least 99% of the time) us Christians called up to prove what we believe in. I have many times posed questions back and most times I dont get an answer and it quickly disappears into the spam of replies. It always seems like the Athiests and Agnostics are asking us Christians to defend ourselves.
I think it just feels that way to you because you are a Christian, so nobody asks you to defend the atheist position ('sampling bias'). I'm an atheist (well, technically an agnostic but for most debates with Christians the distinction is of little relevance), and believe me, if I had a Rand for every time *I* was asked by a Christian to defend my position, I'd be very wealthy.

ToxicBunny

28-01-2007, 06:34 PM

Neo : It are a pleasure...:)

Mr TB raised my hackles when its first post was kinda "attacking" me.... or at least trying to invalidate my feeling that we all just cease to exist when we die, by spouting nonsense.

Mr TB

28-01-2007, 08:32 PM

I think I'm gonna jump into this debate..

You were the one that brought "nazism" into a religious debate, and we are discussing the holocaust at all... it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

I am not lost for words and have the sneaky feeling that some of the atheists tried to pin the holocaust on the christians leading to a fair response:
YOUR QUOTE:
“You were the one that brought "nazism" into a religious debate, and we are discussing the holocaust at all... it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion”
MY REPLY
QUOTE:
“Unfortunately for mankind, Haeckel’s evolutionism laid the foundation for the intense German militarism that eventually contributed to World War I. And then,
‘Social Darwinism, racism, militarism, and imperialism finally reached their zenith in Nazi Germany under the unspeakable Adolph Hitler … Hitler himself became the supreme evolutionist, and Nazism the ultimate fruit of the evolutionary tree.’23
Thus, through his obsession with the anti-God precepts of evolution and his shameful fabrication of spurious data, Haeckel provided the malign influence and pernicious inspiration that were the indirect cause of two world wars and the atrocities of the holocaust.24 “
German darwinism diectly caused the HERERO genocide in africa if you are interested…

ToxicBunny

28-01-2007, 08:40 PM

Kalvaer

29-01-2007, 10:55 AM

I think it just feels that way to you because you are a Christian, so nobody asks you to defend the atheist position ('sampling bias'). I'm an atheist (well, technically an agnostic but for most debates with Christians the distinction is of little relevance), and believe me, if I had a Rand for every time *I* was asked by a Christian to defend my position, I'd be very wealthy. I guess it works both ways, both being asked to defend our positions. I really enjoy discussions regarding the topic when both parties can give valid arguments. On these forums lately it just seemed to be the Christians being asked to defend themselves all the times, but I was wrong.. it is in fact both parties as you stated.

Of course the worst is that everyone seems to be repeating themselves over and over on boths sides. No new Data is being input into the discussions but rather just somebody new coming in all the time and repeating something said previously (I'll admit, I've believe I might of done this as well). I've gotten to a point where I just try to ignore somebodies post when they just repeat something already stated (unless they bring something new to the disccusion and use it as a bases for their argument)

Cant we just all agree to disagree? .. Or at least discuss it rationally without the name calling and people bashing.

Claymore

29-01-2007, 11:07 AM

Did NASA find the evidence, or are they making that suggestion...?

They have found recent flow marks on Mars ("recent" being not in the last pictures taken, and there now).

Do you really believe matter thought itself into life...?

No.

Claymore

29-01-2007, 11:09 AM

‘Social Darwinism, racism, militarism, and imperialism finally reached their zenith in Nazi Germany under the unspeakable Adolph Hitler … Hitler himself became the supreme evolutionist, and Nazism the ultimate fruit of the evolutionary tree.’23

German darwinism diectly caused the HERERO genocide in africa if you are interested…

I think you're thinking of eugenics, not Darwinism. They're very different things.

And was this "Adolph Hitler" any relative of Adolf Hitler?

The_Librarian

29-01-2007, 11:14 AM

Adolf, Adolph, the same.

Adolf is the correct, German spelling.

Adolph is the British spelling.

Mr TB

29-01-2007, 07:57 PM

No, I don't know of any atheists who have tried to pin the holocaust on christians, it is known to have been caused by the Nazi's... irrespective of what their religious leanings were.

Which scientific journal did you get that quote on evolutionism from?..... because I definately disagree that evolutionism had anything to do with the Holocaust, or genocide in Africa.

I would have respected your statement , Lonegunman’s quote however points in the opposite direction. Read it and decide for yourselves…

Originally Posted by LoneGunman
here's a lovely quote from a famous Christian - to demonstrate what happens when the dodo's have any political power..

"QUOTE:
""My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922

MY REPLY:
So certainly genocide and the holocaust are pinned on christianity by LG.
That is my humble conclusion…Research and look for Ernst Haeckel, Alfred Ploetz, Julius Lehmann. Eugenics and Darwinism fit into each other…

Another shocking quote based on darwinism concerning involuntary euthanasia:
“Sadly, today, the very philosophy that was foundational to Nazism is taught as fact in Western media and educational circles. And atheistic philosophers such as Peter Singer and James Rachels have applied the same reasoning as the Nazis—that Darwinism has undermined the sanctity of human life, so involuntary euthanasia should be allowed, e.g. for disabled newborns. This shows that if we don’t learn from history, we are likely to repeat it.”

ToxicBunny

29-01-2007, 10:11 PM

Eugenics and Darwinism do not fit in to each other at all, even in the slighest....

Mr TB

30-01-2007, 11:05 AM

Eugenics and Darwinism do not fit in to each other at all, even in the slighest....

QUOTE:
“In 1895 Alfred Ploetz had, as we have seen, introduced Social Darwinism into Germany and founded Racial Hygiene”
QUOTE:
“They felt that the physically and mentally defective should be painlessly eliminated and demanded the nullification of the religious and legal barriers which stood in the way.”

As you can see , the above quotes dear origin of species –thumper it is clear that the religious is a barrier in obtaining the goals of darwinism and eugenics the hidden agenda.
The Babilon of old when everyone spoke the same tongue….
You as origin of species-thumper should read the quote from the following article. From this you will realize that eugenics and darwinism is very much related. Both subjects calls for weakening the church…
QUOTE:
“The elites apparently are easy to influence. In a Sept. 23, 1969, letter, Hugh Moore recalled his recruitment of former Sen. Kenneth Keating, R-N.Y., as chairman of the Population Crisis Committee. "The senator knew nothing about population problems at that point," Moore said. "But I told him not to worry. I would get him the best men in the field to write his speeches." q
Meehan, who writes from Maryland, has done extensive research on eugenics in many archives
Advice: 'Weaken' the Church
Population controller Hugh Moore relied heavily on his aide, T.O. Griessemer. In a Jan. 5, 1965, strategy memo to his boss, Griessemer suggested: "Weaken and divide the opposition to a sound U.S. population policy, the major source of which still is the Catholic Church." Referring to "an incipient revolution within the Catholic Church with regard to birth control," Griessemer said that "we should encourage the rebels."
Moore and others did that, and were generally pleased with the results. In a Sept. 20, 1969, letter to William H. Draper Jr., Moore boasted that "we have pretty well won the battle with the old men in the Vatican."
In the same letter, however, Moore doubted that voluntary methods of birth control "can do the job in time to save civilization." He suggested: "Involuntary birth control would have to be approached step by step, perhaps starting in the United States by wiping out the tax benefits accorded parents of large families. . . And go on from there!" -- Mary Meehan”

The litarature is available, if you want a real wide view surf the WWW!

The Cosmos

30-01-2007, 11:52 AM

Why defend ourselves ? The Bible says "The truth shall set you free" We all believe we posess the one and only truth.
In saying that, there can only be one truth. So, 99/100 are then wrong. In my opinion, Christ is the one and only Truth !

Claymore

30-01-2007, 01:37 PM

QUOTE:
“In 1895 Alfred Ploetz had, as we have seen, introduced Social Darwinism into Germany and founded Racial Hygiene”
QUOTE:
“They felt that the physically and mentally defective should be painlessly eliminated and demanded the nullification of the religious and legal barriers which stood in the way.”

Whichever way you cut it, that is not natural selection.

Xarog

30-01-2007, 03:13 PM

As you can see , the above quotes dear origin of species –thumper it is clear that the religious is a barrier in obtaining the goals of darwinism and eugenics the hidden agenda.
Those would be the religious and legal barriers against MURDER. :rolleyes:

LoneGunman

30-01-2007, 04:06 PM

"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not
the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no
one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian.
We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep
distress of our own people."
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf,

well thank God that the Nazi's were Christians - and thus managed to avoid all that evil naughty darwin-inspired eugenics stuff :P
'hitlers christianity': http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
http://nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

Turtle

30-01-2007, 06:43 PM

Cant we just all agree to disagree? .. Or at least discuss it rationally without the name calling and people bashing.
Agreed. Admittedly as the years go by the 'debates' start to all 'look and feel' the same to me. For various reasons I nowadays just try to aim more for a "live and let live" philosophy (not entirely successfully though :)).

Why defend ourselves ? The Bible says "The truth shall set you free" We all believe we posess the one and only truth.
In saying that, there can only be one truth. So, 99/100 are then wrong. In my opinion, Christ is the one and only Truth !
What's so bad about just letting people "be wrong". You call it "defending yourself" but that's not entirely accurate, because nobody is actually "attacking" you - we live in a (by typical Western standards) free society where anyone can practice (and preach) Christianity all they want. I can't remember when last anyone was killed or physically hurt for being Christian in SA, in fact I don't even know of any incidents of it. Christianity is not under attack here, in fact at +/- 60% of the population, and with churches on just about every other corner and Christian programming/services being most common on TV and with bibles in every hotel and with Christian holidays being very publicly celebrated etc., it's by far the dominant religion, if anything it's the opposing views that are 'on the defence'. Christianity isn't going anywhere soon. Of course freedom of speech of course allows us all to preach our opinions anyway, to a large degree. One sometimes encounters a bit of a martyr mentality though where people think their religion is "under attack", and I'm not sure where it really comes from (someone posting on a forum doesn't really qualify as much of an "attack" in my view, that's just expression, and we all get our say). On another note, it's interesting that most Eastern religions do not come with this "our religion is the only right one and everyone must be converted" mentality that you see so often with Christianity and Islam.

PeterCH

02-02-2007, 07:45 PM

Why must we (as Christians) always prove to you that God exists?
Instead, please prove to me that God doesn't exist! (and 100% conclusive proof as is always asked of us)

Of course not. We don't have to prove anything. People argue for
the sake of arguing but since their arguments are poor, they haven't
turned anyone away from religion. Remeber just because someone
says they're Agnostic or Atheist, it doesn't mean that they're
rational people either. For example, people involved in science,
must keep up to date of current developments, because if
they don't they rapidly start believing in myths (disproven theories
or fallacious concepts) as knowledge changes virtually all the time.
The same goes for Agnostics or Atheists, unless they're a walking
encyclopedia of how and why, they have to to be spoonfed
scientific knowledge about the world. They believe it because
some institute proved it or conceptualised it but later on
someone comes along and discovers that the proof was incorrect
or maybe even just invalid under some circumstances. In a way you have to believe the scientific community, the politicians, the mass media, your lawyer, your boss, your car maker even your supermarket
and instead of trusting in God, you turn your blind trust and obedience to governments, corporations, adverts, scientific journals (where even the best articles are biased) and so on.
So instead You Magazine, or CNN becomes the pulpit for these peope or Britney Spears or something else.

Other point is that Money is a god too for many people. People become power and money crazed, imagining what they will do with the dough, but once they
get it, they're either disappointed or yearn for more. The concept of unimaginable riches is an attractive one.

Mr TB

02-02-2007, 08:37 PM

Of course not. We don't have to prove anything. People argue for
the sake of arguing but since their arguments are poor, they haven't
turned anyone away from religion. .

The argument is not even about the existence of god.

The question actually is am i willing to be held accountable in front of the most fair judge for my actions on earth?

The non-christian refuse to accept accountability, whilst the christian accept such accountability, understand his/her position is hopeless, and is justified by faith in christ crucifiction and by grace receives eternal life...the non-christian because of his/her rebellion eternal death...

The_Librarian

02-02-2007, 08:50 PM

Mr TB

02-02-2007, 08:57 PM

We, as Christians, must set examples to the rest of the world.

This is very difficult, as the rest of the world won't understand why.

This also includes the task of telling other people about the Lord, and what He means for you. BUT it does NOT give you the right to FORCE your beliefs down other people's throats.

If they are not interested, let them be. After all, how would you feel if an agnostic, Wiccan, Pagan or whatever decides to force his/her belief onto you? Jesus did the same - He did not forced others to believe in Him, but simply proved by example.

Yes i indeed agree with you and although i may seem like a rude bum sometimes i am learning to defend the faith. You will agree there are a lot of blatant lies concerning G-D thumped into this forums and nothing is said...

The "bible quotes" section for instance is good example...