Answering an Atheist part 1

[GUNWOUNDS]

Answering an Atheist - Part 1

[GUNWOUNDS]

Answering an Atheist - Part 2

[GUNWOUNDS]

continued...............

I fear all right. Not of God, but of theists who are so convinced they are doing what God wants when they kill abortion doctors. Or bomb the World Trade Center. Or legislate that Creationism should be taught as science. Or refuse to take their child to the hospital for treatment because God will save him.

I know perfectly well that not all theists are like this. I have many Christian and Muslim friends, who are reasonable about practical things, and tolerant of others beliefs. It's the militant few who are intolerant and absolutely committed which scare me.

Then you should fear atheism more. Hitler

[Acriku]

Sorry that I could only read the beginning, but I do not like this guy's definition of faith. Everybody I know besides him that is a Christian has used faith as believing that something is true without any reason, or evidence. What authoritative figure is he to redefine their faith?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Sorry that I could only read the beginning, but I do not like this guy's definition of faith. Everybody I know besides him that is a Christian has used faith as believing that something is true without any reason, or evidence. What authoritative figure is he to redefine their faith?

Well all the Christians i know use his definition

[Acriku]

Who are you to judge these Christians? Are you not a Christian yourself? Judge not lest ye be judged. And judged you will be soon.

[Wolf]

That might be a Bible quote...

[GUNWOUNDS]

Who are you to judge these Christians? Are you not a Christian yourself?

That was a completely ignorant statement ... you're better than that Acriku ... i am saddened that your arguements have degenerated into tired critical cliche' responses as evident above..

nowhere did i judge them.

[Acriku]

I'm not making any arguments here, I was commenting on a section. You were jumping to conclusions that the Christians that I know of only believed in it because of their parents, that they don't think critically, nor do they investigate their beliefs, just from what they define as faith. And your insenuations and implications were in the tone of someone who is judging somebody, which is what you were doing, not to mention how impolite they were.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I'm not making any arguments here, I was commenting on a section. You were jumping to conclusions that the Christians that I know of only believed in it because of their parents, that they don't think critically, nor do they investigate their beliefs, just from what they define as faith. And your insenuations and implications were in the tone of someone who is judging somebody, which is what you were doing, not to mention how impolite they were.

you mentioned that their faith was not based on any reason or evidence or anything.

thus you were implying that they did not investigate their beliefs, think critically, or simply did what their parents told them.

[Acriku]

you mentioned that their faith was not based on any reason or evidence or anything.

Because that's what they defined as faith.

thus you were implying that they did not investigate their beliefs, think critically, or simply did what their parents told them.  Because that is the only logical explanation for what you described. Honestly its one or the other.  Its not judging or insulting  its simply stating a fact.

But you have no idea what they have done. Just because you infer something from a statement that I made gives you no right to jump to conclusions about their beliefs in a condescending manner and tone. They may have had a beautiful experience, or a terrifying experience, that made them believe in the Christian God and how powerful he can be in their life, where they still don't have any evidence for their belief exactly, but personal experiences cloud their beliefs enough for them to not need any evidence on the God itself.

And I never said that they held the authoritative power to define faith, if you would stop putting words in my mouth you might actually listen to what I am saying. I was questioning his definition because no one else that I knew had that definition. Wouldn't you question something if it contradicted what you saw everywhere else? We could also have a more constructive discussion if you grew up a little and stopped making things personal.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Because that's what they defined as faith.

But you have no idea what they have done. Just because you infer something from a statement that I made gives you no right to jump to conclusions about their beliefs in a condescending manner and tone. They may have had a beautiful experience, or a terrifying experience, that made them believe in the Christian God and how powerful he can be in their life, where they still don't have any evidence for their belief exactly, but personal experiences cloud their beliefs enough for them to not need any evidence on the God itself.

And I never said that they held the authoritative power to define faith, if you would stop putting words in my mouth you might actually listen to what I am saying. I was questioning his definition because no one else that I knew had that definition. Wouldn't you question something if it contradicted what you saw everywhere else? We could also have a more constructive discussion if you grew up a little and stopped making things personal.

You want me to grow up and stop taking things personal? .. after you used some bastardized version of scripture to try to guilt-trip me into backing down ?

[Wolf]

I think that last paragraph there makes sense. It almost seems that we need to assume that God exists before we begin debating anything, and, in many posts we've had, I find myself saying that "assuming this is...". I wonder if that has any deeper meaning, or I'm just in a way-too-reflective mood.

[sneezer3]

Answering an Atheist - Part 1

[GUNWOUNDS]

Who is Dan Adkins? We had somebody by that name vist our church once.

Is he a singer?

i am sure its a common name.

[sneezer3]

I thought such.

[Anathema]

Hitler did what was legal in Germany at that time. Was he still right? Of course not, but why? Ultimately, to have an ethical standard that transcends all governments or man-made institutions, one has to look above mankind. That again brings us to God. The Nuremberg trials that convicted many Nazis for war crimes argued the same. They had committed crimes against God and man.

That's not the basis of the jurisdiction of the Neurenberg tribunal (notice how he spelled the city's name wrongly). I made a pretty big post about natural law recently, wich pretty much sums it up.

Dan is in error on a couple of points: God does not relent (change His mind) as humans think of it. He is unchanging or immutable (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17). When passages of scripture speak of God as "changing His mind", it is only from the human point of view.

Of course, if God had ful knowledge of the future he would not be able to change his mind, since nothing occurs that he didn't know already. I don't know the exact verses, but God at one time wanted to cast Israel away, but Moses changed his mind. And he regretted his decision to make Saul king of Israel. I'm sure there are others.

The resurrection of Christ is a historical fact.

Lol

If the Bible is an accurate source of history, then those supernatural events must have been thought to be real by the writers. They either actually happened, or were a mass delusion in which all those involved jointly witnessed. Which scenario you believe depends upon your prejudices, but regardless of which you choose, you must admit that the writers believed that what they recorded was actual. In my opinion, it takes far less faith to believe the events happened than to create mass-hypnosis scenarios.

This quote assumes that the writers were not deliberately lying. It also assumes the writers wrote independantly from another and didn't just write it together. And it assumes that their writings weren't edited later on to erase any inconsistencies.

I have to mention I'm merely pointing out the writer is trying to make the Bible's case stronger then it actually is.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Of course, if God had ful knowledge of the future he would not be able to change his mind, since nothing occurs that he didn't know already. I don't know the exact verses, but God at one time wanted to cast Israel away, but Moses changed his mind. And he regretted his decision to make Saul king of Israel. I'm sure there are others.

i agree with the writer.. God probably doesnt change his mind... God "changing his mind" and "regretting" are just an anthropomorphism .... basically descriptive writing to make the reader understand a course of events.

[Acriku]

There lies the problem. If you can't take certain parts literally, like for example the anthropomorphism located throughout the bible or the entire Genesis book (pro-evolution Christians would take it as non-literal), then what should you take as one or the other? What if the entire book is some metaphor for life? Wouldn't that be funny!

[GUNWOUNDS]

There lies the problem. If you can't take certain parts literally, like for example the anthropomorphism located throughout the bible or the entire Genesis book (pro-evolution Christians would take it as non-literal), then what should you take as one or the other? What if the entire book is some metaphor for life? Wouldn't that be funny!

thats where discernment comes in.