Adam was made from the dust of the ground.....

[KWCrazy]

Radiometric dating doesn't disprove God. It disproves your young earth though.

No it doesn't. Maybe to you. The earth was created more or less as it is today. Life was created. It didn't evolve.

In my op
inion, it's wishful thinking for those who are terrified to face their mortality.

Your opinion was noted. I just happens to be incorrect.

If there is no afterlife like you claim, then it won't matter.

And if there is?

I don't lead a life of evil. I live my life in the most positive way I can.

You're slowly being crushed by the weight of your own sins because none of them have been lifted from you. A lifetime of good deeds won't get you into Heaven.

There is no evidence for an afterlife.

Research NDE's.

Even if there is a God who judges you after death, i'd imagine that he or she will recognize that i've lived a positive life and didn't harm anyone.

You stand accused of rejecting the sacrifice of His son and blasphemy on a regular basis by denying that God exists and giving credit for His creation to the creation itself; not the Creator.

Threatening someone is immoral.

Refusing to warn them is immoral. Christ spoke more about Hell than He did about heaven. Look it up.

If there is a God and he punishes me for simply not being convinced of their existence, than I am morally superior to them and they deserve no respect.

The basis for morality is God's law. You are not superior to it.

And according to Christianity, a serial killer can get away with it during his or her life and then come to Jesus on their death bed and be rewarded with paradise. They escape punishment there and in the afterlife. Meanwhile, I would be condemned for hell just for not believing. Is that moral? Is that right?

Yes. All sin is rebellion against God. You're on a Christian website telling Christians there is no God. Think about that for a moment. What you are doing is as evil in God's eyes as any other sin. What makes you think a serial killer would turn to God anyway? Most likely their heart is too hardened to change. If they did, great. It doesn't excuse the consequence of their actions, but serial killer who finds the Lord in the end will fare better in the afterlife than an atheist who tries to lead a moral life while rejecting the Lord on a daily basis.

Populations that produce the most offspring survive.

Not if the offspring are eaten before they can reproduce.

I could be wrong. If you can show verifiable evidence that what you believe is true, i'd happily change my mind. Is there a possibility you could be wrong?

To the last part, no there isn't. To the first part, I have a standing challenge to any atheist. Find a Christian clergyman of any faith with at least 20 years in the ministry, look him in the eyes and ask him specifically about supernatural occurrences he witnessed personally. I believe that interaction with the supernatural is so frequent you won't find one who has not. You can't tell who is lying on a message board, but you can tell when they are face to face. Nobody ever accepts this challenge, because they know they will lose; and losing means having to face the fact that there is more to life than our current existence. There are forces and entities all around us that we simply do not detect.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

No it doesn't. Maybe to you. The earth was created more or less as it is today. Life was created. It didn't evolve.

Sorry, the evidence says you are demonstrably wrong. I have no problem with people denying reality, just as long as they aren't making important policy decisions for citizens based on their denial of reality.

And if there is?

Then there is. What am I going to do about it? There is no evidence that there is so I have no reasonable reason to believe it. I could of course be wrong.

You're slowly being crushed by the weight of your own sins because none of them have been lifted from you.

Whatever you say, bud. I personally live a pretty happy life. Are you surprised atheists roll their eyes at you when you talk to them in a demeaning manner?

A lifetime of good deeds won't get you into Heaven.

But a psychopath who spent their life raping and killing children can get into heaven by simply asking for forgiveness but an atheist who spent their life caring for the poor goes to hell for simply not being convinced of the claim for the existence of a God. That is pretty twisted.

Research NDE's.

Only if you research Dimethyltryptamine. You'll learn more about near death experiences.

Refusing to warn them is immoral. Christ spoke more about Hell than He did about heaven. Look it up.

Go see what the Qu'ran says about hell. Explain why you're not threatened by that and then you'll understand why i'm not threatened by the Christian hell

You're on a Christian website telling Christians there is no God.

Please cite any of my posts where I say there is no God. I never said anything of the sort. You're bearing false witness.

What makes you think a serial killer would turn to God anyway? Most likely their heart is too hardened to change.

Ever heard of Jeffrey Dahmer? He committed rape, murder and dismemberment of 17 men and boys. He converted to Christianity in prison. Is he in Heaven? Do you think I deserve to go to hell and he gets an eternity of paradise?

Find a Christian clergyman of any faith with at least 20 years in the ministry, look him in the eyes and ask him specifically about supernatural occurrences he witnessed personally. I believe that interaction with the supernatural is so frequent you won't find one who has not.

You can ask this of anyone of any religion and you'll get the same answers of them claiming to experience the supernatural that they claim demonstrates their faith is true. Argument from personal experience is a logical fallacy.

Do you believe the personal experience testimonies of the many people who say they've been abducted by aliens and had experiments performed on them. If you think that personal testimonies are valid evidence, then you have to accept all the supernatural claims from religions you don't believe in.

James Randi has a $1 million dollar reward for anyone who can demonstrate a supernatural experience in a controlled environment. Nobody has attempted to take on this challenge.[/QUOTE]

 

[DogmaHunter]

Again, you're limiting your definition of reality to physical existence

Because I have no other choice. It's the only thing that can be verified objectively. If you have a method to objectively verifiy claims about non-physical existence (whatever that means), I'm all ears.

, which has never been the case in the history of man.

History of man is then also, unsurprisingly, littered with superstition and false beliefs about the world.

You don't know what I know or what I've experienced.

Exactly the point.
And you also don't have any way to verify these things you claim to have seen or experienced. You could be mistaken about your interpretation of those events. Couldn't you?

Frankly, I think the majority of Christians have had experience with the supernatural.

Frankly, those that claim to have had such experience are not different then those who make claims about completely different religions or alien abductions or whatever.
They are just that: claims

I would like to say all, but I'll stick with my qualifier. God, you see, is supernatural; as is the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I know that that is what you believe.

So, by the way are demons and angels. I've never seen an actual angel, though I've seen some pretty cool pictures that arouse the imagination.

Yes... imagination. Exactly.

When you see something spiritual

How can you "see" something spiritual?
What does it look like and how can it be differentiated from something physical?
How does one verify, objectively, that that which was seen is actually that which it is claimed to be?

and you KNOW at the time exactly what it is, you have your own evidence.

The other day, I saw a bald guy with a head made from solid gold. Seriously. It was an actual golden head. No doubt about it. I KNOW what I saw.

Then the light turned green and I saw the dude from another angle.
As it turns out, it was a bald asian guy whose head merely looked like gold due to sunlight reflections coupled with some spotlights in the store he was standing in front off.

What I see or don't see may not be evidence for you, but what you see is. Supposing you personally saw a UFO. You would tend to believe what you saw. It may be a drone or experimental aircraft, but it remains unidentified until it is actually identified.

??????

The "u" in UFO indeed stands for "unidentified".
Essentially, you're saying that you saw "something", but don't actually know what it was, nore do you claim to know.

Which doesn't work to support the point you're trying to make. In fact, it does the opposite. Funny how that turned out....

Not all evidence is testable.

Then it's not evidence. The whole point of evidence is to be able to share it.
If it can't be verified, then what you call "evidence" are just claims.

If I show you the Ace of Spades and put it in my pocket, you might know what you've seen, but if you don't get to hold the card you can't test it or prove it to anyone else.

Indeed. And then it would be just another claim.

Now, have you ever seen a shadow walking in a lighted hallway without anyone there to block the light? You know what a shadow is and what causes it, but seeing the shadow moving of its own accord is something quite different. That steps beyond the boundaries of the natural and into the supernatural.

Or.... you are just mistaken and are missing some crucial information on the environment where you think to have seen such a shadow.

Or perhaps there was no shadow at all, and your eyes are feeding you with false information. Or your brain is falsely interpreting the input it is getting. Or you are just hallucinating.

An inumerable amount of potential explanations exist, all of which are infinitly more likely then "magic happened".

The list of people with such experiences would amaze you.

Not really. I'm very aware that humans are extremely likely to error, have tendencies of superstition and are very prone to the cognitive error of "the false positive".

I fully expect plenty of people to hold false beliefs. Beliefs that are so out of the ordinary that many would call them "crazy".

In fact, I doubt you could get a very large gathering without SOMEONE having an experience they couldn't explain.

Indeed. And the key part of that statement is the part that says "...couldn't explain".

 

[Armoured]

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

The "dust of the ground" is mostly made up of silicon dioxide and various silicates. So, if we are invited to believe that the above verse is literally true, how is it that the human body is 18% carbon by weight, with only trace amounts of silicon present.

If humans descended from dust, why is there still dust?

 

[Nithavela]

If humans descended from dust, why is there still dust?

The ground had more carbon, but god took it all out for the humans.

Checkmate, atheists.

 

[lesliedellow]

The ground had more carbon, but god took it all out for the humans.

Checkmate, atheists.

In the first place I'm not an atheist. In the second place, less than 1% of soil is carbon.

 

[Nithavela]

In the first place I'm not an atheist. In the second place, less than 1% of soil is carbon.

"Checkmate, atheists" is a running gag, marking an inane argument against atheism.

 

[AV1611VET]

If humans descended from dust, why is there still dust?

Humans didn't "descend" from dust.

 

[KWCrazy]

I have no problem with people denying reality,

Of course not. You deny the reality of God and His creation.

I personally live a pretty happy life. Are you surprised atheists roll their eyes at you when you talk to them in a demeaning manner?

I'm just pointing out the facts. You didn't come to a Christian forum to have us embrace your denial of God.

But a psychopath who spent their life raping and killing children can get into heaven by simply asking for forgiveness but an atheist who spent their life caring for the poor goes to hell for simply not being convinced of the claim for the existence of a God. That is pretty twisted.

Let's put this in a proper perspective.
A person who spent their committing sin can get into heaven by simply asking for forgiveness but an atheist who spent their life committing sin who does NOT ask for forgiveness goes to hell for rejecting God's offer of salvation.
Let me be even more blunt. A man kills a small child, innocent in God's eyes. He regrets his sin, pleads for forgiveness and takes responsibility for the pain he caused. Another person goes to those seeking God and convinces them that He does not exist. By his words they are led astray and three souls are lost to destruction. He never bows a knee or feels remorse; rather he is proud to have won them to his side. Both men stand before God on judgment day. Who should be saved and who should be damned?

Only if you research Dimethyltryptamine. You'll learn more about near death experiences.

I'm aware of the chemical argument. Now tell me how a person describes events that happened from a vantage point he could not have used at a time when he was in cardiac arrest.

Go see what the Qu'ran says about hell.

I'm sure Mohammed understands a great deal more about it now than when he made up Islam.

Please cite any of my posts where I say there is no God.

Faith: Atheist

Ever heard of Jeffrey Dahmer? .... He converted to Christianity in prison. Is he in Heaven?

If his conversion was genuine, then yes. He received his earthly punishment when he was stabbed to death. Doesn't it say much about the forgiving power of the Lord if even the likes of Dahmer can be forgiven?

Do you think I deserve to go to hell and he gets an eternity of paradise?

If He accepted the Lord and you reject Him, then yes.

You can ask this of anyone of any religion and you'll get the same answers of them claiming to experience the supernatural...

Kind of invalidates your claim that the supernatural doesn't exist, doesn't it?

Argument from personal experience is a logical fallacy.

No, argument from personal experience is testimony.

Do you believe the personal experience testimonies of the many people who say they've been abducted by aliens and had experiments performed on them.

I believe they believe it. There is nothing in the Scriptures which say we are alone in the universe. Maybe we are, maybe we're not. Most of the people making such claims appear to be crackpots, but I've never been much interested in it.

James Randi has a $1 million dollar reward for anyone who can demonstrate a supernatural experience in a controlled environment.

Fortunately, God doesn't do floor shows.

 

[Armoured]

"Checkmate, atheists" is a running gag, marking an inane argument against atheism.

Still my favourite one:

Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims.


Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example... sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we'd all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let me be even more blunt. A man kills a small child, innocent in God's eyes. He regrets his sin, pleads for forgiveness and takes responsibility for the pain he caused. Another person goes to those seeking God and convinces them that He does not exist. By his words they are led astray and three souls are lost to destruction. He never bows a knee or feels remorse; rather he is proud to have won them to his side. Both men stand before God on judgment day. Who should be saved and who should be damned?

Who should be "damned"?
Nobody. Because finite crimes don't deserve infinite punishment.

Having said that, punishment would be appropriate for those who actually committed a crime. Like killing a child, for example.

Beliefs aren't crimes.

Faith: Atheist

Atheism is not the claim that there are no gods.
An atheist can make that claim, but it's not what defines atheism.

Atheism is just the disbelief of deities. Not believing X is true, is not the same as claiming that X is not true..

If his conversion was genuine, then yes. He received his earthly punishment when he was stabbed to death. Doesn't it say much about the forgiving power of the Lord if even the likes of Dahmer can be forgiven?

Actually... assuming for a second that such is the reality, then it says more about the unjust and immoral nature of this Lord then anything else.

If He accepted the Lord and you reject Him, then yes.

Then you are morally bankrupt as well.

Kind of invalidates your claim that the supernatural doesn't exist, doesn't it?

No. It validates how humans are prone to superstition and cultural indoctrination.

No, argument from personal experience is testimony.

Otherwise also known as the claim.
When you use your claim to validate your claim, then that is fallacious arguing.

I believe they believe it.

But you don't believe they are correct in these beliefs, right?
If yes, do you believe every claim, if the claimer really believes his claims?
If no, then clearly you agree that people can have experiences, draw conclusions from those experiences, REALLY believe those conclusions to be true... and yet be completely mistaken in their beliefs?

Most of the people making such claims appear to be crackpots, but I've never been much interested in it.

How about people who make claims about reincarnation?
People claiming to have lived past lives and remember them?
People claiming to have seen bigfoot?
People claiming to speak to the dead?

Are they crackpots too?

Fortunately, God doesn't do floor shows.

Assuming your particular religion, out of the thousands known to man, is correct...
Then the correct thing to say would be "God doesn't do floor shows anymore", because according to the bible, he quite frequently did back in the day.

However, it needs to be said, a god not doing any floor shows is exactly what I would expect from a god that doesn't actually exist. ;-)

 

[AV1611VET]

Still my favourite one:

Are you LightHorseman?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Not your stupidity, but from your ignorance. They are not the same thing. Ignorance can be cured with education, stupidity can't be cured. The U.S. used to be on top of the world when it came to education. Creationists and their ilk are part of the huge problem that we face. If we have poorly educated children the future of our country is much bleaker than if we have well educated children.

I see, it's all about the children.

Like I said, maybe some day I'll ask the right question.

In the meantime, on poorly educated Children, did you happen to notice what happened to those Children since they started educating them the right way and took God out of the Schools?

You were good enough to assume I didn't know the difference between ignorance and stupidity and to educate me on that difference. So, to further that lesson, can you tell me if it's ignorance or stupidity that completely misses the definition of poor education? Which of the two describe the inability to see what is right there in front of one? neither?..only denial? And "common sense" needs to be thrown in here as well just for general purposes.

Today is that future you mention and only 50 or so years into it, and your "well educated" children? you decide if their future is comparatively bleak or not.

I should add this:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition (2 Thessalonians 2:3)

 

[expos4ever]

Not your stupidity, but from your ignorance. They are not the same thing. Ignorance can be cured with education, stupidity can't be cured. The U.S. used to be on top of the world when it came to education. Creationists and their ilk are part of the huge problem that we face. If we have poorly educated children the future of our country is much bleaker than if we have well educated children.

I think I may have previously expressed the opinion that I suspect the real problem here is neither stupidity nor poor education. I read of a study whose results indicated that rejection of man-made global warming did not correlate with education level at all. Surprising to me, but that was the finding.

I suspect the reason why many Christians reject evolution has little to do with their intelligence or their education, but has more to do with a deeply entrenched desire to preserve a "tribal marker": they see rejection of evolution as a way of declaring to the world and to themselves that they are members of a particular group (tribe). And we humans have an intense, arguably evolutionarily-grounded desire to belong to a "tribe". If they give up rejection of evolution, that shakes up their sense of belonging to the "tribe that rejects evolution".

 

[Kenny'sID]

I suspect the reason why many Christians reject evolution has little to do with their intelligence or their education, but has more to do with a deeply entrenched desire to preserve a "tribal marker": they see rejection of evolution as a way of declaring to the world and to themselves that they are members of a particular group (tribe). And we humans have an intense, arguably evolutionarily-grounded desire to belong to a "tribe". If they give up rejection of evolution, that shakes up their sense of belonging to the "tribe that rejects evolution".

Well, at least that a new thought.

Or it could be as it always has with some of us... evolution is simply a lie.

 

[expos4ever]

Well, at least that a new thought.

Or it could be as it always has with some of us... evolution is simply a lie.

The problem is that you very likely accept myriads of other findings produced by science yet you, and many others tend to exclusively pick out evolution from among the many others and call it a "lie".

Very suspicious for reasons that are stunningly obvious: you choose to reject the one scientific pronouncement that challenges your literal interpretation of the Scriptures. How can that not raise suspicions that your reasons for rejecting evolution have nothing to do with the actual validity of the scientific findings but are instead based on the threat that evolution poses to your worldview?

 

[Kenny'sID]

The problem is that you very likely accept myriads of other findings produced by science yet you, and many others tend to exclusively pick out evolution from among the many others and call it a "lie".

Very suspicious for reasons that are stunningly obvious: you choose to reject the one scientific pronouncement that challenges your literal interpretation of the Scriptures. How can that not raise suspicions that your reasons for rejecting evolution have nothing to do with the actual validity of the scientific findings but are instead based on the threat that evolution poses to your worldview?

No raised suspicions at all.

I accept science that logically proves something as fact to me... things I can see, and not conjecture over something that happened so long ago it can't be seen, just speculated by men.

Believe it or not, it's not all about science to some of us, and though creation cannot be seen ether, there is a point where some of us allow faith in a God that is quite capable of getting the truth across to those who choose to see it, and with nothing lost in translation, to take precedent when it comes to the question in question...

 

[expos4ever]

No raised suspicions at all.

I accept science that logically proves something as fact to me... things I can see, and not conjecture over something that happened so long ago it can't be seen, just speculated by men.

Can you "see" World War 2? Do you believe it happened?

Science, of course, is not even about "logical proof" - it is about developing testable models of our world.

Do you deny the big bang? It happened "long ago" and was observed by no one.

 

[Kenny'sID]

WW2 was close enough to where I can logically accept it as fact, and for just one of the several reasons... we have people that were there at the time. Actually, I'm a little surprised you'd make that comparison but no matter.

Verifiable testable models provide logical proof.

Deny the big bang? Not sure how much noise God made when he created the universe? As to all of this coming to be by a chance explosion, I think that's absolutely absurd. Things are created, we all do it, they don't just come into being on their own. Not sure if that works with your rules of determining fact but that's all I have for you and it sure beats "Boom! presto change O, and millions of years later, here we are."

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

As to all of this coming to be by a chance explosion, I think that's absolutely absurd.

Your incredulity doesn't falsify all the evidence for the big bang.

Things are created, we all do it, they don't just come into being on their own.

Quantum fluctuations. Particles pop into empty space all the time and cancel each other out.
Who created God?