The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Deep Discussion (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   The existence of God (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=364155)

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 9:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmonie (Post 9151479)
No matter what reason the slavery may have come about, it is immoral, and that is concrete. Slavery was NOT all sunshine and rainbows in Biblical times. Even in the Bible, it is not prescribed that way. There is one verse that states that you can beat a slave, as long as they live, for a day or two, without punishment.

Exodus 21:20-21

[/I][/COLOR]
Who said a child is involved? Even if a child was involved, you absolutely do not punish a rapist by tying him to the woman he raped. It's bad enough for a woman to know her rapist hasn't been locked away, but to have to see the face of that man everyday as your husband, I can not imagine. This is a completely absurd way of punishing a rapist.


Oh, so if he had a woman - who might have been completely innocent and did not know a thing about what he was going to do - she will be punished alongside him... by death. You have not done a thing to prove that women were given any rights. Quite obviously both orders do nothing but punish the woman.


You mean like the verse I quoted to Marugi above? That is absolutely not a law about treating them "fairly as human beings". I stand by my case: No just God with absolute morality would have ever supported this, much less ordered it.

In that case, I hope you never get a job. After all, that would be slavery, because without the money you earn from a job, you cannot live anywhere but on the street as a beggar.

...Do you see my point yet? You're still defining ancient slavery by the same terms as recent slavery. You are also not paying any attention to our answers.

By the way, you do understand how children come to be, right? You are completely misunderstanding the context of pretty much the entire case. For one, and this is true even to this day, Jews live in a very tightly-knit community. Everyone knows who is married to whom, so it stands to reason that things like who raped whom and who had sex with whom aren't exactly things one can hide.

I stand by what I said earlier. You don't get to impose your own morality on the One who created it to begin with, no matter what you may think of Him.

Kanzler March 7th, 2016 9:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9151492)
I stand by what I said earlier. You don't get to impose your own morality on the One who created it to begin with, no matter what you may think of Him.

Why not? What consequence is there for questioning anything? Insofar as there is no penalty for doing something, we "get" to do something. So I don't see the problem of "imposing" morality. But "imposing" really has to be the wrong word, for I don't exactly see how one could even impose on an omnipotent god.

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 9:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mana (Post 9151489)
I tried to resist but :c.

I'm not really sure where your information is coming from :s It's simply ignorant to deny natural selection and evolution in this decade. Both have sufficient evidence and Natural Selection can be observed in labs, in nature, and even artificial selection practised on every farm proves the existence of genetic inheritance and speciation.

The fact that Atheist's "believe" in evolution is a horrible misuse of words on the part of religion. Atheists accept evolution/natural selection as the most likely cause due to the evidence available, Religious belief is not based on worldy facts. Since Atheists do not tend to have spiritual believes, they often fall into the "believe in the evidence suggested by decades of vigorous scientific testing" bracket.

ICR, Answers in Genesis, and many more organizations regularly publish in scientific journals and demonstrate that evolution is a load of bunk. You should also understand that the theory of evolution is not the same as natural selection.

I disagree. The first definition of the word "religion" given by the link I posted (to dictionary.com no less) is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Atheists believe the universe's purpose, if any, is to be, that it was caused by random chance, and that it evolves slowly over trillions of years. I am not misusing the word at all, and the fact that atheism is built on blind faith in a dead man who stayed dead merely proves my point further.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9151496)
Why not? What consequence is there for questioning anything? Insofar as there is no penalty for doing something, we "get" to do something. So I don't see the problem of "imposing" morality. But "imposing" really has to be the wrong word, for I don't exactly see how one could even impose on an omnipotent god.

Okay, maybe I chose my words poorly there. From a philosophical standpoint, when you compare the typical human being to the God of the Bible, obviously He is superior to the human. Certainly the human has every right to question, but if the human's not going to accept the answers given, what was the point of the question? To take what God says out of context and try to make Him look like a villain? Because, no offense, that's exactly what everyone who is against Christianity does, without exception. "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

I guess, from my own point of view, it would be better if we all remembered our place.

Kanzler March 7th, 2016 9:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9151497)
Okay, maybe I chose my words poorly there. From a philosophical standpoint, when you compare the typical human being to the God of the Bible, obviously He is superior to the human. Certainly the human has every right to question, but if the human's not going to accept the answers given, what was the point of the question? To take what God says out of context and try to make Him look like a villain? Because, no offense, that's exactly what everyone who is against Christianity does, without exception. "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

I guess, from my own point of view, it would be better if we all remembered our place.

Aren't you assuming that God exists?

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 9:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9151509)
Aren't you assuming that God exists?

Aren't you assuming He doesn't?

Kanzler March 7th, 2016 9:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9151512)
Aren't you assuming He doesn't?

Well, I have no reason to believe that he exists, so I don't. It's as if you asked me "aren't I assuming my mother is not Donald Trump?" I have no reason to believe that my mother is Donald Trump.

Marugi March 7th, 2016 9:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmonie (Post 9151479)
No matter what reason the slavery may have come about, it is immoral, and that is concrete. Slavery was NOT all sunshine and rainbows in Biblical times. Even in the Bible, it is not prescribed that way. There is one verse that states that you can beat a slave, as long as they live, for a day or two, without punishment.

Exodus 21:20-21



[/I][/COLOR]
Who said a child is involved? Even if a child was involved, you absolutely do not punish a rapist by tying him to the woman he raped. It's bad enough for a woman to know her rapist hasn't been locked away, but to have to see the face of that man everyday as your husband, I can not imagine. This is a completely absurd way of punishing a rapist.



Oh, so if he had a woman - who might have been completely innocent and did not know a thing about what he was going to do - she will be punished alongside him... by death. You have not done a thing to prove that women were given any rights. Quite obviously both orders do nothing but punish the woman.



You mean like the verse I quoted to Marugi above? That is absolutely not a law about treating them "fairly as human beings". I stand by my case: No just God with absolute morality would have ever supported this, much less ordered it.

I've noticed that you are mostly attacking the Old Testament section of the Bible. Christians follow the New Testament, since the OT is the Jewish law. Jesus never told people to own slaves, or kill people as a punishment. However, Christians do follow the ten commandments.
I'm not trying to attack your beliefs, I'm just defending mine.

Mana March 7th, 2016 9:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais
ICR, Answers in Genesis, and many more organizations regularly publish in scientific journals and demonstrate that evolution is a load of bunk. You should also understand that the theory of evolution is not the same as natural selection.

I'm a Biology teacher, trust me I know! However, they are closely linked. Natural Selection leads to Evolution. One supports the other. Both can be demonstrated and observed in bacterial species (hence diseases like MRSA and other resistant strains) and in species with fast reproductive cycles, such as Drosophila species.

Journals equivocally support evolution, not deny it. Whilst I don't think linking specific journals and articles would help, here's some quick stats I could come up with using my own scholar.google.co.uk searches.

> "Evidence for Evolution" - 9,050 hits
> "Evidence against Evolution" - 251 hits (<3%)

This covers both scientific and non-scientific journals (philosophical journals, for instance). I'm afraid if you haven't found this yourself, you perhaps haven't looked in the right places, but from this the numbers are fairly clear.

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 9:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9151518)
Well, I have no reason to believe that he exists, so I don't. It's as if you asked me "aren't I assuming my mother is not Donald Trump?" I have no reason to believe that my mother is Donald Trump.

Actually, we all have every reason to believe that He exists, so I do and the rest of you should. It's as if you're arguing vocally that air doesn't exist while expecting me to hear you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mana (Post 9151528)
I'm a Biology teacher, trust me I know! However, they are closely linked. Natural Selection leads to Evolution. One supports the other. Both can be demonstrated and observed in bacterial species (hence diseases like MRSA and other resistant strains) and in species with fast reproductive cycles, such as Drosophila species.

Journals equivocally support evolution, not deny it. Whilst I don't think linking specific journals and articles would help, here's some quick stats I could come up with using my own scholar.google.co.uk searches.

> "Evidence for Evolution" - 9,050 hits
> "Evidence against Evolution" - 251 hits (<3%)

This covers both scientific and non-scientific journals (philosophical journals, for instance). I'm afraid if you haven't found this yourself, you perhaps haven't looked in the right places, but from this the numbers are fairly clear.

Then I would challenge you to demonstrate evolution to me with a simple experiment. Go outside, set up a video camera that I can connect to from my home, and train its focus on a pile of rocks lit by sunlight. Then all we have to do is wait, and the rubble should eventually become life. After all, that's what the theory of evolution claims happened, so surely you can just demonstrate it again, right?

If that sounds ridiculous to you, that's because it is. All that can possibly result from such an experiment is rubble, potentially dust if we waited long enough. If we add design to the equation, however, presto! Life! Thank science for the addition of information!

Except that for design, you require a Designer, which is an idea you and every other secularist seems to hate. Oh well.

By the way, since when does the majority dictate what is true? If a society as a whole unanimously decided that 1+1=892365892375892738947293857892345789023748923798523, would that make it true? Of course not. I think here I can refer back to the reference to Galileo in the thread about homosexuality.

Furthermore, as a biology teacher, how do you explain the existence of animals such as the beaver or giraffe from an evolutionary standpoint? The way I see it, they would have had to have been created as they are today in order to survive at all. Evolution claims small changes happened over time, but if that's true, these animals couldn't have survived at all.

Anyone who supports evolution either does so blindly or hasn't looked at the ridiculous assumptions made by the theory itself. I do not state this as an insult, but as a fact, no more or less charged than "1+1=2."

Elysieum March 7th, 2016 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9151457)
This is a very common response from skeptics and atheists. It's also very misguided. Real critical thinking would require that you consider where logic itself came from, see that naturalistic atheism cannot explain it, and seek a different path. You may be happy now, sure, but this life is a mere moment compared to eternity.

I am going to ignore the smug pedestal you've put yourself on and ask you to introduce some humility in the way that you write. Telling people they are on the wrong path (and I suppose you are ready to tell me about the right one too?) is unpleasantly preachy.

I see you imply that your god is where logic comes from. That a vast number of people live and have lived their lives according to it without ever having heard of your god is evidence enough that the two are unrelated.

Naturalistic atheism? What does that mean? Just so we are clear, atheism means without a god. Nothing more. To draw a parable, let's say Christians watch The Amazing Race on television. Catholics watch Real Housewives of Atlanta. Jews watch House of Cards.

Atheism is the equivalent of turning the television off.

Kanzler March 7th, 2016 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9151540)
Actually, we all have every reason to believe that He exists, so I do and the rest of you should. It's as if you're arguing vocally that air doesn't exist while expecting me to hear you.

Such as?

Palamon March 7th, 2016 10:08 AM

I'm Jewish, and I only believe in God because I like the feeling of someone higher than me keeping me in check. That doesn't mean I'm a diehard believer, nor does it mean I'm gonna shove god up your throat. I like the feeling that I'm not any center of power, but someone else might be. HOWEVER, I don't beleive in Jesus. I never really did. Maybe this is a bit perplexing or something, I don't know, but I just never believed that someone like that existed. I believe in God in that one sense, and one sense only--that someone with some sort of power is watching over me. But only the power, not all that other stuff in the bible, etc, just that one thought.

Mana March 7th, 2016 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais
Then I would challenge you to demonstrate evolution to me with a simple experiment. Go outside, set up a video camera that I can connect to from my home, and train its focus on a pile of rocks lit by sunlight. Then all we have to do is wait, and the rubble should eventually become life. After all, that's what the theory of evolution claims happened, so surely you can just demonstrate it again, right?

If that sounds ridiculous to you, that's because it is. All that can possibly result from such an experiment is rubble, potentially dust if we waited long enough. If we add design to the equation, however, presto! Life! Thank science for the addition of information!

Well there's one fallacy, right there. Evolution is not the theory that accounts for the Beginning of Life. That's completely different.

But then we could talk about how Scientists are working to replicate such a thing. They have already found that cell membranes can form spontaneously from their component molecules to form spherical 'bubbles' in the correct conditions. We also know that DNA can operate on an incredibly simple level. I won't go as far to say science can "prove" how life started, but we're slowly connecting together the dots.

You're suggesting that rock (not what kind of rock, but lets say calcium carbonate in general) is going to spontaneously gain atoms, deconstruct its molecules and recombine to form a rabbit. You have some huge misconceptions about what Scientists put forth as the beginning of the life - they start incredibly small.

Quote:

By the way, since when does the majority dictate what is true? If a society as a whole unanimously decided that 1+1=892365892375892738947293857892345789023748923798523, would that make it true? Of course not. I think here I can refer back to the reference to Galileo in the thread about homosexuality.

Furthermore, as a biology teacher, how do you explain the existence of animals such as the beaver or giraffe from an evolutionary standpoint? The way I see it, they would have had to have been created as they are today in order to survive at all. Evolution claims small changes happened over time, but if that's true, these animals couldn't have survived at all.

Anyone who supports evolution either does so blindly or hasn't looked at the ridiculous assumptions made by the theory itself. I do not state this as an insult, but as a fact, no more or less charged than "1+1=2."
The Giraffe is like the standard explanation of Natural Selection. Giraffe's ancestors favoured longer necks to reach areas where food was under less competition > Long neck Giraffe Ancestors were more likely to breed and pass on their genes > alleles for longer necks become more prominent > overall necklength slowly increases as the generations pass.

I have a degree in Biology, I teach it, I still study further in my own time. How can I possibly be looking at this 'blindly' when you're refuting Science that the vast majority of Scientists agree on. In the UK knowledge of Evolution and Creationism are both covered by the curriculum. I believe I've been dealt a fairly balanced hand when it comes to information.

Interestingly, I don't know any Christians IRL who outright deny Evolution or believe in Creationism as in The Bible.

manego90 March 7th, 2016 12:32 PM

maybe this will help:

We Were Once Gods
By Leo

We were once Gods,
living high in the mountain tops
Free of order, roaming the free land,
The day was young, but it had yet to grow,
Giving time the opening to run aimlessly

But then the day grew old,
Time limited itself, order became my captor
holding me with its bare hands as time marks my new boundaries,
I now sit on a flat land with no ups and downs
Restricted to travel a day's worth abroad my new land,
Never again are we to reach our beloved land

The mountains were high
And the Greenland was low,
Never again we were to access our beloved land,
Foreign to us as we now know it,
But still strong in our roots
To only serve as a reminder to what kind of life we once lived,
As our only option we helped these new Gods grow,
Nurturing the Gods because they remind us of what was once ours,
For we too were once in their land,
As we had fallen from the mountain tops,
They will do accordingly,
Side by side in the land where time age,
No longer in the Mountains where youth persist
For this is the life of us Gods

Pokemon Game Fan March 7th, 2016 4:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9151457)
It's usually other religions that try to brainwash people, atheism and Islam chief among them right now, especially in the USA. It's against the law to not go to public school, but over 99% of public schools indoctrinate children into secular naturalism through the textbooks used that claim "only the natural matters, don't look into the hocus-pocus supernatural," and the teachers aren't allowed to teach anything different whatsoever. At the very least, public schools should fairly present both worldviews and let the children choose for themselves.

Atheism isn't a religion. Saying Atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting rocks is a hobby, or abstinence is a sexual position.

Also, I agree that they should have a religious studies class. But you do realize that would cause more people to become Atheists, right? I was a Christian until I actually started reading the bible and realized it was complete nonsense. I was a Christian cause I was raised to be one, then I became my own person and started actually thinking critically about things.
Disregarding that, religion has no place in a science class. Science is our understanding of the world through facts, logic, and comprehension. Religion is based on faith, not facts.

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 6:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elysieum (Post 9151543)
I am going to ignore the smug pedestal you've put yourself on and ask you to introduce some humility in the way that you write. Telling people they are on the wrong path (and I suppose you are ready to tell me about the right one too?) is unpleasantly preachy.

I see you imply that your god is where logic comes from. That a vast number of people live and have lived their lives according to it without ever having heard of your god is evidence enough that the two are unrelated.

Naturalistic atheism? What does that mean? Just so we are clear, atheism means without a god. Nothing more. To draw a parable, let's say Christians watch The Amazing Race on television. Catholics watch Real Housewives of Atlanta. Jews watch House of Cards.

Atheism is the equivalent of turning the television off.

You should take your own advice about the humility.

Actually, no it's not. If the Bible is true, then it's also a fact that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. They'd teach all of their children about God and morality and why it's based on Him and everything else, and that would continue all the way down until about Noah's time. Then the flood happens, and Noah's family repeats the lessons until we get to Exodus, and you can just read the Bible to see the rest.

Atheism is just another example of watching the TV rather than going outside, actually.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9151548)
Such as?

I actually already gave that answer. Without God, there's no reason for reason, the laws of nature, love, morality, etc. to exist. The fact they do is proof that He exists. There is no other worldview, religion, belief, or anything else that explains that in a way that makes any sort of rational sense. As a student of political science, I'm sure you and I could argue this for eternity, but as a student of philosophy and religion, I can promise you that you aren't capable of winning this debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mana (Post 9151558)
Well there's one fallacy, right there. Evolution is not the theory that accounts for the Beginning of Life. That's completely different.

But then we could talk about how Scientists are working to replicate such a thing. They have already found that cell membranes can form spontaneously from their component molecules to form spherical 'bubbles' in the correct conditions. We also know that DNA can operate on an incredibly simple level. I won't go as far to say science can "prove" how life started, but we're slowly connecting together the dots.

You're suggesting that rock (not what kind of rock, but lets say calcium carbonate in general) is going to spontaneously gain atoms, deconstruct its molecules and recombine to form a rabbit. You have some huge misconceptions about what Scientists put forth as the beginning of the life - they start incredibly small.

The Giraffe is like the standard explanation of Natural Selection. Giraffe's ancestors favoured longer necks to reach areas where food was under less competition > Long neck Giraffe Ancestors were more likely to breed and pass on their genes > alleles for longer necks become more prominent > overall necklength slowly increases as the generations pass.

I have a degree in Biology, I teach it, I still study further in my own time. How can I possibly be looking at this 'blindly' when you're refuting Science that the vast majority of Scientists agree on. In the UK knowledge of Evolution and Creationism are both covered by the curriculum. I believe I've been dealt a fairly balanced hand when it comes to information.

Interestingly, I don't know any Christians IRL who outright deny Evolution or believe in Creationism as in The Bible.

The assumptions in the theory of evolution are often given as conclusions, so it can be tricky to see them. They are as follows.
  • The basic principle, evolution, is taken for granted.
  • Evolution is a universal principle.
  • One should not drag in a creator.
  • This world, including all living organisms, is based exclusively on matter and materialistic principles.
  • Matter is taken for granted.
  • As far as scientific laws are concerned, there is no difference between the origin of the earth and of all life.
  • Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the more complex, from non-life to life, from lower to higher life-forms.
  • The following factors are assumed as the driving forces of evolution: Mutation, selection, isolation, and mixing.
  • Death is an undisputed essential factor in evolution.
  • There is no plan in evolution, neither is there any purpose.
  • There are no definite beginning and end points on the time axis.
  • The present is the key to the past.
  • There was a smooth transition from non-life to life.
  • Evolution will persist in the distant future.
From what I understand of science, nothing should ever be taken for granted, and everything is free game to be studied and dissected, whether logically or empirically. However, it should be mentioned that there has never been an instance of a beneficial mutation, nor has there ever been an instance of a mutation adding information to the genetic material that was already there, both of which are assumed by evolutionists to be obviously there. What we do see are harmful mutations and the changing/rearranging of genetic information that's already present.

So, because evolution is wrong, why do we exist? We have that answered in Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."


Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokemon Game Fan (Post 9152047)
Atheism isn't a religion. Saying Atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting rocks is a hobby, or abstinence is a sexual position.

Also, I agree that they should have a religious studies class. But you do realize that would cause more people to become Atheists, right? I was a Christian until I actually started reading the bible and realized it was complete nonsense. I was a Christian cause I was raised to be one, then I became my own person and started actually thinking critically about things.
Disregarding that, religion has no place in a science class. Science is our understanding of the world through facts, logic, and comprehension. Religion is based on faith, not facts.

Atheists have a blind faith in their own capabilities, so much so that they believe there's nothing that they can't see. Christians have a rational faith in God, because He's already proven Himself several times over. If we say that a religion is based on faith instead of facts, then atheism is much more of a religion than Christianity is, because Christianity has both while atheism has nothing but blind faith.

I would say it would be more likely people would become Christians, actually. It's simply too easy to poke holes in any other worldview. You claim to have come to atheism through reason, but in fact you've misled yourself.

Kanzler March 7th, 2016 6:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9152282)
I actually already gave that answer. Without God, there's no reason for reason, the laws of nature, love, morality, etc. to exist. The fact they do is proof that He exists. There is no other worldview, religion, belief, or anything else that explains that in a way that makes any sort of rational sense.

Be that as it may, you haven't explained anything that makes any sort of rational sense. How do the laws of nature, love, morality prove that God exists? Is there a mark of his creation on them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9152282)
As a student of political science, I'm sure you and I could argue this for eternity, but as a student of philosophy and religion, I can promise you that you aren't capable of winning this debate.

You haven't been arguing. You've made claims that you haven't supported. Apparently the existence of nature, love, morality = God exists, QED. Surely, as a student of philosophy and religion, you're aware that an acceptable standard of argument is much higher than what you've offered so far.

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 6:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9152316)
Be that as it may, you haven't explained anything that makes any sort of rational sense. How do the laws of nature, love, morality prove that God exists? Is there a mark of his creation on them?

You haven't been arguing. You've made claims that you haven't supported. Apparently the existence of nature, love, morality = God exists, QED. Surely, as a student of philosophy and religion, you're aware that an acceptable standard of argument is much higher than what you've offered so far.

Simply put, it's a matter of worldview. My ultimate standard by which I interpret and interact with reality is the Bible, and I have several secondary and tertiary standards that go along with that. For example, you cannot prove that your physical senses are reliable, you can only assume that they basically are. I say "basically" here because everyone knows physical senses can be fooled (just stick a straw into a glass of water for an example). Your ultimate standard is empiricism, which is great as a secondary standard, but fails as an ultimate standard because you cannot empirically observe a truth claim, so the entire world of the abstract goes unexplained rationally as a result.

Just in case readers don't know what I mean by "worldview" here, it's a set of presuppositions that are necessary to be.

At any rate, because the Christian worldview better explains the abstract, because the empirical evidence confirms the Bible is accurate, and because I refuse to accept assumptions that are contradicted by the empirical evidence, I am a Christian and a creationist.

Earlier, you said you didn't have a reason to believe God exists. I'll refer again to Pascal's wager as a reason you do have: it's the safer bet.

Kanzler March 7th, 2016 7:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9152331)
[COLOR="Crimson"][I]Simply put, it's a matter of worldview. My ultimate standard by which I interpret and interact with reality is the Bible, and I have several secondary and tertiary standards that go along with that. For example, you cannot prove that your physical senses are reliable, you can only assume that they basically are. I say "basically" here because everyone knows physical senses can be fooled (just stick a straw into a glass of water for an example). Your ultimate standard is empiricism, which is great as a secondary standard, but fails as an ultimate standard because you cannot empirically observe a truth claim, so the entire world of the abstract goes unexplained rationally as a result.

Just in case readers don't know what I mean by "worldview" here, it's a set of presuppositions that are necessary to be.

At any rate, because the Christian worldview better explains the abstract, because the empirical evidence confirms the Bible is accurate, and because I refuse to accept assumptions that are contradicted by the empirical evidence, I am a Christian and a creationist.

But why would you assume that the Bible is true? There's so many things to question there. The Bible is a document - documents can be forged. The Bible is the word of God, but compiled by man - how do we know if it faithfully represents God's intent, should he exist? How do you know that you know God, should he exist? How do you know that you haven't merely created an image that misleads you from the true God, should he exist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9152331)
Earlier, you said you didn't have a reason to believe God exists. I'll refer again to Pascal's wager as a reason you do have: it's the safer bet.

If I were to believe in God, then I would be ashamed in myself if that was the reason I had. Pascal's wager would be the cause of the most faithless belief.

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 7:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9152343)
But why would you assume that the Bible is true? There's so many things to question there. The Bible is a document - documents can be forged. The Bible is the word of God, but compiled by man - how do we know if it faithfully represents God's intent, should he exist? How do you know that you know God, should he exist? How do you know that you haven't merely created an image that misleads you from the true God, should he exist?

If I were to believe in God, then I would be ashamed in myself if that was the reason I had. Pascal's wager would be the cause of the most faithless belief.

The Bible claims that a man rose from the dead, and yet it survives to this day. How would that be? Couldn't the government of the time simply produce the body? Don't people know that you can't raise people from the dead?

I believe this is referred to as the "embarrassment principle." The church simply couldn't survive if the Resurrection could be proven to be an error. Paul even points that out in the Bible itself. And yet, Christianity survives.

The only logical answer for that is the Bible is correct, and if that's true, that changes everything. Suddenly it's no longer a question whether homosexuality is or is not natural, to use the topic's example.

Consider Pascal's wager a starting point. I'm sure someone with a mind as inquiring as yours (and that's a good thing) would find plenty of additional reasons.

Also, thank you very much for being as courteous throughout all of this as I should have been. I apologize for my rudeness earlier. Hopefully there will be no hard feelings, whether from those who posted or from the person deleting posts with comments like "let's not stoop to his level."

Pokemon Game Fan March 7th, 2016 7:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais (Post 9152282)
Atheists have a blind faith in their own capabilities, so much so that they believe there's nothing that they can't see. Christians have a rational faith in God, because He's already proven Himself several times over. If we say that a religion is based on faith instead of facts, then atheism is much more of a religion than Christianity is, because Christianity has both while atheism has nothing but blind faith.

I would say it would be more likely people would become Christians, actually. It's simply too easy to poke holes in any other worldview. You claim to have come to atheism through reason, but in fact you've misled yourself.

Blind faith? No we don't. We say that we don't know the answers to everything, but we're trying to figure it out. Religion says "we don't know the answer to everything, so it must be God." That sounds a lot more like blind faith.

Being an atheist only means you dont believe in any gods. It doesn't matter what else you believe but that. How has god proven himself, by the way? What are the facts that prove Christianity is real? Almost everything in the bible has been proven to be wrong or impossible in one way or another.

No lol. We're not living in the 14th century anymore. We are entering a new age of enlightenment. Atheism is rising in numbers. Because people have more access to information and realize that religion is a load of bull. Religion can't be used to control people as much anymore. If you teach someone about the similarities between Christianity and the older Greek religions, they'll realize that they are all fairy tales. With as much access to information, more people are becoming rational thinkers especially when exposed to people who come up with irrefutable arguments like Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins.

Gilles de Rais March 7th, 2016 7:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokemon Game Fan (Post 9152366)
Blind faith? No we don't. We say that we don't know the answers to everything, but we're trying to figure it out. Religion says "we don't know the answer to everything, so it must be God." That sounds a lot more like blind faith.

Being an atheist only means you dont believe in any gods. It doesn't matter what else you believe but that. How has god proven himself, by the way? What are the facts that prove Christianity is real? Almost everything in the bible has been proven to be wrong or impossible in one way or another.

No lol. We're not living in the 14th century anymore. We are entering a new age of enlightenment. Atheism is rising in numbers. Because people have more access to information and realize that religion is a load of bull. Religion can't be used to control people as much anymore. If you teach someone about the similarities between Christianity and the older Greek religions, they'll realize that they are all fairy tales. With as much access to information, more people are becoming rational thinkers especially when exposed to people who come up with irrefutable arguments like Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins.

It's more accurate to say Christianity says, "We don't know the answers to everything, but we have been shown that God is benevolent and omnipotent through several types of evidence, so we'll have faith in Him, come what may."

Your evaluation of the Bible demonstrates that you haven't really done any research on it at all. I have posted on this thread and/or the homosexuality thread about prophesies that were fulfilled, how science confirms what the Bible says happened, and so forth.

We're living in the 21st century, and yet we still hold to things like "murder is wrong" and "do to others as you'd have them treat you," which are concepts from much farther back than the 14th century. Just because we understand more of God's creation doesn't mean we don't need God anymore, and your claim of the opposite flies in the face of all human progress in terms of both science and morality.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9152374)
If God himself stood before me today I'd at the very least do a double take.

How do you know the Bible is inerrant? Who decides that? Did you decide it? Probably not, so where did you hear it from? I'm not putting my reason over anything. All I want to know is how we know that Christianity is true. Is that too much to ask?

Anyways, we're already having this conversation in another thread, so let's try bringing this back to homosexuality.

I apologize. The two debates tend to blur together for me.

No, that's not too much to ask. However, I've been going over logical examinations of the Bible versus several other worldviews, so I'd say you should read those over again and think about it.

gimmepie March 7th, 2016 9:23 PM

So, I'm just going to share my views a bit. I identify myself as an agnostic theist. Basically what this means is that I believe there is a higher power beyond our comprehension, I believe in the soul and I believe that there's a higher plane of existence after death. I also acknowledge that these are beliefs. I fully admit that I cannot prove the existence of God and I acknowledge that, like all beliefs, my belief in a higher power may be false.

Her March 7th, 2016 9:45 PM

I simply think that if you are spiritually inclined, you will find something to assuage your fears and give you understanding, release or control, depending on what you are looking for. There is nothing wrong with that. I prefer to analyse the world without a spiritual viewpoint and I think that works fine for me. I accept the possibility of being wrong or not seeing wonders other might, but I just have little interest in things I cannot measure. I leave the evaluation of miracles to those more qualified to understand the subject - there may be a heavenly reason why statues of the Virgin Mary cry/bleed, there might not be. I'm not particularly interested beyond simple curiosity.

KorpiklaaniVodka March 10th, 2016 4:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyroot Argument #3
Christianity’s invention of Hell is a gift to anyone seeking truth because it decisively reveals the man-made nature of the faith. Hell is not discussed in the Old Testament, but that didn’t stop Jesus from announcing it many times in the Gospels, mostly in a very threatening tone. He made sure to let us know that most people will be sentenced there to suffer unending physical pain. Here are three of the forty-five Gospel scriptures where Jesus mentions Hell:
Matthew 5:28-29:
“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”
Matthew 13:41-42:
“The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Mark 9:45-46:
“And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”
A belief in Hell is unavoidable if one is to believe in Jesus. If Hell doesn’t exist, then why would God have allowed it to be so prominently addressed in the Bible? This point cannot be overstated. If God is as most Christians claim, all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful, then he would not have allowed a concept so ultimate and absolute as Hell to be documented in the most important scriptures of the faith (the Gospels) if it was not a factual place of post-life punishment.
This elicits an unsettling comparison. Hitler dispatched Jews to the concentration camps and gas chambers for no reason other than their ethnic identity. This was a temporal punishment; it sometimes lasted only a few days. God, on the other hand, is prepared to send good, well-accomplished, and generous people to a place of everlasting punishment and torture for the ‘crime’ of not believing in something for which no credible evidence exists. The god of the Bible is, in effect, worse than Hitler.
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/God+vs+hitler+description_45928b_3714182.jpg
This brings up another interesting point. Christians claim that the Bible is the backbone of the United States Constitution. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution states that “cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted”. It should be obvious that placing a person in Hell is both cruel and unusual. Consequently, Christianity violates the United States Constitution.
Any person possessing critical thinking skills can understand that a magnificently powerful god would have no incentive, interest, or even the slightest inclination to inflict pain and suffering on dead people. Hell makes no sense and it represents an ill-fated and entirely avoidable error in the foundation of Christianity.




Let's discuss this. Do you believe hell really exists, or is this just a concept created with the purpose of striking fear into non-believers or something?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:37 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.