- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,717
- 52,529
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
Okay, Puritans were Christians who refused to celebrate Christmas.Doesn't change the fact that they were Christians who refused to celebrate Christmas.
So what's your point then?No need for any grumpiness. I'm just giving a specific example of what Redrook said.
It's not a flaw, it's just the way things are. We define everything which exists against the benchmark of what can be comprehended by the senses. Such things exist, everything else doesn't. This isn't a problem if Genesis is understood correctly but becomes a stumbling block when it is misconceived by both Christians and atheists.But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses.
A lot of you do.I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should.
Some do, sure, but people are just people. We're all different. Their choices don't reflect on other Christians, imho. Don't get too down on yourselves. My beliefs are not the result of Christians being mean.We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia.
Certain sects, yes, but not as a whole. To me, it's just a theistic religion like any other.To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.
I don't see how that's a flaw.But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses.
It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion.Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.
I think if you understood atheism, you would no longer call yourself theist.I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.
But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.
No need since there are millions of Christian women today who don't celebrate Christmas.So what's your point then?
That Radrook is praying to find a wife from the 1600's?
(See Post 147)
I don't have a problem with ID. It doesn't conflict with reality the way Creationism does.Their aversion to an ID is what I find to be their main stumbling block.
I'm religious.Religious aversions stem from it.
Arguably there may be as many reason people are atheists, as there are atheists. You are probably overreaching yourself on this one.I think I can understand why atheists are atheists.
You credit many atheists as having a significant interest in Christianity. Many are - and have always been - disinterested in the religion.After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.
I don't know of any atheists who make this assumption. It seems likely that some do, but they fall into that sub-set of atheists called fools.But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.
I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.
But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.
Because we can all see in your profile that you're a Christian...I never insert a deity of choice when discussing an ID. The ones who insist on inserting deities into the discussion are the atheists.
I would say virtually all atheists are aware of the attributes attached to a god of diffferent religions. Christians on this site, make claims about those attributes constantly. Also, atheists likely tend to analyze these claimed attributes and overlay them with well evidenced reality, when they reach certain conclusions.An atheist/agnostic is simply someone who claims to not believe in God or admits they don't know if God is real or not.
However, this doesn't mean they have no knowledge of the attributes or characteristics of God as being loving and caring for His creation.
So what's your point then?
That Radrook is praying to find a wife from the 1600's?
(See Post 147)
I don't have a problem with ID. It doesn't conflict with reality the way Creationism does.
ID can mean that abiogenesis and evolution happened and were simply part of God's plan. It doesn't go against what actually happened. It just adds meaning to it. Creationism, on the other hand, says that species were brought into existence in their present form.I'm curious - what difference do you see between the two that allows ID to remain consistent with reality while still having creationism be inconsistent?
What you are describing is not ID but theistic evolution. ID holds that while most of life's diversity is the result of the variation and selection of evolution, certain biological structures (including, in some versions, the first life forms) are beyond the power of natural forces to produce and require specific acts of divine (excuse me, designer) intervention.ID can mean that abiogenesis and evolution happened and were simply part of God's plan. It doesn't go against what actually happened. It just adds meaning to it. Creationism, on the other hand, says that species were brought into existence in their present form.
Well, then I wasn't referring to you I guess. Apologies if I gave that erroneous impression.I don't have a problem with ID. It doesn't conflict with reality the way Creationism does.
I'm religious.
I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.
atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.
Sounds like an agnostic to me.An atheist/agnostic is simply someone who claims to not believe in God or admits they don't know if God is real or not.
However, this doesn't mean they have no knowledge of the attributes or characteristics of God as being loving and caring for His creation.
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?