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.
Then again, not liking someone and not believing they exist are two entirely different things.Maybe the stumbling block for atheists is certain people claiming to be Christians going around describing the God they expect atheists to believe in as sending people to be roasted alive forever. That would rightfully cause any human who is familiar with ethics to recoil in horror.
Doesn't help to go around describing the one that you are attempting another person to accept as existing as a holy entity as being criminally insane either. I have heard atheists bring that up as an objection and I don't blame them.Then again, not liking someone and not believing they exist are two entirely different things.
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.
Yes, exactly: his theory has been the foundation.
Not sure what your point is in mentioning his non-scientific beliefs.
Well, if you think all they offered were their irrational religious beliefs...ok.
That wasn´t in dispute.He postulated a "creation" (of all matter) event which was consistent with his "faith".
That isn´t a claim I made.How do you know the two aren't related?
Well, I do happen to believe that LCMD is rather irrational, certainly more irrational than most religious beliefs. I'm not sure I could blame Lemaitre for all of it.
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.
It gets worse. We also are often told that this same entity will roast people alive who believe in him but don't believe in the literal inerrancy of scripture.That might indeed be true, however, it isn't a rational to expect atheists to accept an entity who is described as being just and holy, but who is also described as roasting people alive forever in a torture chamber because those people disagree with him as believable.
Who are you and what have you done with the real Radrook?
That wasn´t in dispute.
That isn´t a claim I made.
They don´t ignore their scientific findings. Their metaphyiscal beliefs have never been the foundations of science.
Nah. It was based on an unusual coherency of the post.Please note that the real Radrook never approved of roasting people alive forever.
Neither did the real Radrook judge people's eternal destiny based on what they might believe now without having been provided with a fair chance.
Neither did the real Radrook believe that everyone who claimed Christianity is right 100% of the time and that atheists are wrong 100% of the time.
So I guess your question is based on a misperception of what the real Radrook believed.
I wasn't aware of that fine nuance to the hell-firist doctrine.It gets worse. We also are often told that this same entity will roast people alive who believe in him but don't believe in the literal inerrancy of scripture.
That doesn't make sense. If we assume there is more than what can be detected, why does the pink unicorns disappear but God becomes appearant? What ever logic that can be used to justify pink unicorns disappearing,that same logic can be used to justify God disappearing. Whatever logic that can be used to justify God becoming appearant, that same logic can be used to justify pink unicorns becoming apparent alsoThe undetectable part of our universe can't be detected.
There is no evidence for the existence of pink unicorns.That doesn't make sense. If we assume there is more than what can be detected, why does the pink unicorns disappear but God becomes appearant? What ever logic that can be used to justify pink unicorns disappearing,that same logic can be used to justify God disappearing. Whatever logic that can be used to justify God becoming appearant, that same logic can be used to justify pink unicorns becoming apparent also
Do you know of any examples of atheists doing this?That was my point. They infer the directly undetectable part from the detectable but refuse to use the same line of reasoning if the concept of God is involved.
then there is no evidence for the existence of the Christian God eitherThere is no evidence for the existence of pink unicorns.
Romans 1:19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.
Well, as the scripture I posted points out-there is really no excuse to be claiming such a thing.There is no evidence for the existence
then there is no evidence for the existence of the Christian God either
Okay so your book says there is no excuse for dismissing your Gods existence, and my book says there is no excuse for dismissing pink unicorns. Why does your book trump mine?Well, as the scripture I posted points out-there is really no excuse to be claiming such a thing.
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?