Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you're talking about examples like Sodom and Gomorrah- you're right- we have a God who has little tolerance for evil.
I guess I'm not going to convince you to embrace a faith that two billion people in the world subscribe to.
Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
Well, first of all that's wrong. Buddhists are also generally atheists, and the "non-religious" group hasn't been properly defined, so the the number of believers according to that image is somewhere between 91.6% and 78.5%.The more important observation I would make here is that 97.5% of the human race believe in the existence of God. They may call Him by different names, but nevertheless believe that the universe is created, rather than an accidental happening.
Look, you seem like a rather nice person. Why, then, do you have such an arrogant opinion as this? You claim to know the thoughts and minds of atheists better than themselves. It's as if, when buying a chocolate ice cream, the ice cream salesman stubbornly insists on only selling you vanilla because he claims that's your favourite, a claim he makes eventhough he's never met you before. It's a ridiculous position and only shows that you are unable to accept other peoples beliefs and opinions.Of course, I have already stated that I believe that there is no such thing as a true atheist- only 2.5% of the world's population that deny that God exists.
You claim to be for now- but as a Christian, I believe you will eventually come to believe.
But you have the free will to determine whether it will be from the vantage point of Heaven or hell.
I urge you to continue learning, and to keep an open mind.
Including the evil children and livestock. Evil, I say!
Huh? Where did He do this?Yes, Jesus so loved the little children he ordered their brains to be smashed out.
SUCH LOVE!
Yet abortion is somehow wrong...
Whenever I ask someone that is pro-choice whether they believe it is a mother's right to abort a fetus just because it is one sex or the other, they express outrage. But pro-choice is pro-choice- you either believe in it, or you don't.
Same goes when I ask a pro-choice person whether they believe that abortion is o.k. until a moment before a baby is born- again, this usually meets with outrage. But a fetus is a fetus- if you think it is a human being a moment before it is born, then it is also a human being a moment after it is conceived.
This is not the place for abortion discussions, but you seriously need to think over your position above, because you are presenting a strawman.Whenever I ask someone that is pro-choice whether they believe it is a mother's right to abort a fetus just because it is one sex or the other, they express outrage. But pro-choice is pro-choice- you either believe in it, or you don't.
Same goes when I ask a pro-choice person whether they believe that abortion is o.k. until a moment before a baby is born- again, this usually meets with outrage. But a fetus is a fetus- if you think it is a human being a moment before it is born, then it is also a human being a moment after it is conceived.
This is not the place for abortion discussions,
Pro-choice people don't draw the line at birth, because it wouldn't make sense to do so. The line is drawn at the first trimester, because before that the fetus has no brain activity. In other words, there is nothing in the fetus capable of sustaining thought, emotion or feelings during the first trimester. It's not yet a person.
Also, the argument "you either believe in it, or you don't" shows a seriously warped worldview. By that very same argument, people in favour of capital punishment should have no problem with executing shoplifters. After all, you either believe in capital punishment, or you don't, right?
Huh? Where did He do this?
And I do think abortion is wrong because it is murder. The problem is that we don't perceive something we can't see- a fetus- as being a human being.
Oh- and who has arbitrarily decided that a fetus that apparently has no brain activity is not a human being?
That's really post-modern straw-grasping. Christianity has historically never been promoted internally as merely one way out of hundreds or thousands to become closer to the creator. You are using it now as a rhetorical point, but I doubt you think Muslims or Hindus or Sikhs are in God's favor.The more important observation I would make here is that 97.5% of the human race believe in the existence of God. They may call Him by different names, but nevertheless believe that the universe is created, rather than an accidental happening.
So there are no "true atheists" except for the 150 million represented by that figure?Of course, I have already stated that I believe that there is no such thing as a true atheist- only 2.5% of the world's population that deny that God exists.
The more important observation I would make here is that 97.5% of the human race believe in the existence of God. They may call Him by different names, but nevertheless believe that the universe is created, rather than an accidental happening.
Of course, I have already stated that I believe that there is no such thing as a true atheist- only 2.5% of the world's population that deny that God exists.
...If you believe in God, then you believe that God not only created a human being at the moment of conception, but even before:....
Noone. It was concluded after very careful study of the development of fetuses in the womb.Oh- and who has arbitrarily decided that a fetus that apparently has no brain activity is not a human being?
That's just a belief though, and an unsupported one at that. The same source says prayer can heal all kinds of illnesses, but all evidence points to the contrary.If you believe in God, then you believe that God not only created a human being at the moment of conception, but even before:
Of course not. But that has nothing to do with brain activity. The growth of a baby (or any other organism) has nothing to do with brains - after all, most of the organisms on this planet don't have brains at all, and they are growing quite happily anyway. Even after birth, our growth has little to do with our brains. We mature and become adult whether we want to or not. It is not regulated by our brains.And as for no brain activity- maybe not detectable brain activity- but there must be something going on that is directing the multitude of cells to continue to grow and multiply, and ultimately to develop into a fully-formed baby. Surely no atheist believes that not only did life just accidently begin, but that even after a baby is conceived, the growth of that tiny human being into a fully-formed adult is due to a series of amazing accidents that just happen to all coincide to make the baby develop and grow (I jest, of course)?
Don't you get it? You claimed that pro-choice is an all-or-nothing stance. I used that very same logic to point out what happens when you apply it to other beliefs. Of course the bible doesn't claim that all crimes should be punished by death, just like pro-choice advocates don't claim that all abortions are okay - but you claimed they did or should. Do you see the error of your reasoning now?I really don't understand your reasoning here- where did God ever suggest that we should execute anyone that has ever sinned, no matter what the crime.
1 Samuel 15:3 (King James Version) 3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
god is one of the biggest fiends in the bible
do you know how many pregnant women, young children, babies ect.. god has orderd killed?
heck god doesnt even care about fetus, he will kill you even after your born.
How can you justify existance without a divine Creator? How did the heavens and the earth come to form out of a vast expanse of nothing? Surely there was a divine beginning and initial creation set in motion by a higher power.
That is not an argument from ignorance. Arguments from ignorance are of the form "A has not been disproven, therefore A is true" or "A has not been proven, therefore A is false".Depends on the basis of their belief. What if the reason for believing was a logical fallacy? If the atheist exclaims, "I do not believe in God because there is no evidence for God's existence, or God has not been shown to exist," then it may not be logical, as the reasoning error here constitutes as the fallacy of the argument from ignorance.
For the record (if one exists), I agree with Corey here.Now, I want to address this remark made by Corey.
In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence.
Indeed. The statement is "deities exist", and the question is whether or not there is any evidence for or against this statement.This may not rehabilitate the atheist's position. First, we must ask ascertain what is the "event". I suppose the event is "God" but this does not quite make sense, as God is not an "event" but an entity.
Presumably, anyone who sets out to find evidence of deities.The next question to be answered is whether or not evidence could be discovered of God's existence, and who would constitute as "qualified investigators"?
That is not an argument from ignorance. Arguments from ignorance are of the form "A has not been disproven, therefore A is true" or "A has not been proven, therefore A is false".
While weak atheists would make the statement "The existance of deities has not been proven", they do not conclude that "therefore "Deities exist" is false", and thus are not committing the fallacy of ignorance. Indeed, the weak atheists I have talked to fully accept the possibility that dieties might exist.
Indeed. The statement is "deities exist", and the question is whether or not there is any evidence for or against this statement.
Presumably, anyone who sets out to find evidence of deities.
True, the fallacy is this general. But since weak atheists affirm neither the existance nor non-existance of deites, they still do not commit the fallacy. Strong atheists, on the other hand, are susceptible: they claim deities do not exist, for whatever reason.The argument of ignorance, also called the appeal to ignorance, is not this narrow. The argument from ignorance/appeal to ignorance includes your definition along with the one I provided. (Parker and Moore, Critical Thinking). There is no evidence against p. Therefore, p.
There is no evidence for p. Therefore, not-p.
http://http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
There is no evidence for P, where P is God exists. Therefore, not P (-P) God does not exist.
Because we are talking about atheists, of which weak atheism is by far prevalent.I never made any remarks about the beliefs of weak atheists and consequently, I am not quite sure how it benefits you to bring them up when addressing my post.
No, because that's not my argument. If you'll notice, I agreed with you when you said a deity is an entity, not an event. Indeed, I made the point of rephrasing it to the statement "deities exist", rather than the event "deities".Assuming "God," can qualify as an "event," not sure he can, then the question is whether there is evidence for God's existence. Please explain to me how "God" is an "event"?
Yes. A court of law probably won't accept your testimony, since your qualifications are likely spurious at best. Nevertheless, proof beyond reasonable doubt (or even all doubt) is still proof beyond reasonable doubt, regardless of the author.Really? So, setting out to find evidence of a crime makes you a qualified detective?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?