The stumbling block for atheists.

[user385]

Atheism is a religion. Atheists have chosen to believe the words of men. They aren't willing to acknowledge that there is information to prove that what they believe is false. They won't admit they have been lied to by the world. They don't see the things that go on in this world as having an effect on the spiritual realm. There is no hope to be found in the religion of atheism. They need to acknowledge that they have been lied to. Believe on Jesus Christ. Look at all the things happening on this earth today. Look at how Bible prophecy is being fulfilled. Anyone can choose to read Bible prophecy and see how prophecy is being fulfilled and can choose to believe on Jesus Christ.

 

[user385]

Atheism is a religion. Atheists have chosen to believe the words of men. They should believe the words of God. Atheists aren't willing to acknowledge that there is information to prove that what they believe is false. They won't admit they have been lied to by the world. They don't see the things that go on in this world as having an effect on the spiritual realm. There is no hope to be found in the religion of atheism. Believe on Jesus Christ. Look at all the things happening on this earth today. Look at how Bible prophecy is being fulfilled. Anyone can choose to read Bible prophecy and observe how prophecy is being fulfilled and can choose to believe on Jesus Christ.

 

[quatona]

Atheism is a religion.

You almost make it sound like you feel religion is a bad thing.
Whatever - atheism is a religion only if you use a very uncommon definition of "religion". Maybe you would like to provide this definition?

 

[Skreeper]

Atheists have chosen to believe the words of men.

People don't choose what to believe, people become convinced of something.

They should believe the words of God.

I've never seen these "words of god". So far I've only seen the words of men claiming to be the words of god.

Atheists aren't willing to acknowledge that there is information to prove that what they believe is false.

I'm willing to be convinced that my position is false. No believer has been able to convince me so far. What information are you talking about?

They won't admit they have been lied to by the world.

People lie and not the world. You're poisoning the well by saying that just because people can lie that every person on the planet only lies.

They don't see the things that go on in this world as having an effect on the spiritual realm.

Nobody has been able to demonstrate that this "spiritual realm" actually exists.

There is no hope to be found in the religion of atheism.

It's not the job of Atheism to offer hope. If you want false hope, you can stick with your religion.

Look at how Bible prophecy is being fulfilled.

Can you be specific? I've not come across any prophecy that actually rocked my socks off.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm more bothered by the shallow moralism and lack of real ethics among many Christians here.

 

[JD16]

Atheism is a religion. Atheists have chosen to believe the words of men. They aren't willing to acknowledge that there is information to prove that what they believe is false. They won't admit they have been lied to by the world. They don't see the things that go on in this world as having an effect on the spiritual realm. There is no hope to be found in the religion of atheism. They need to acknowledge that they have been lied to. Believe on Jesus Christ. Look at all the things happening on this earth today. Look at how Bible prophecy is being fulfilled. Anyone can choose to read Bible prophecy and see how prophecy is being fulfilled and can choose to believe on Jesus Christ.

 

[AV1611VET]

I actually think atheists mock Christians because a lot of Christians cannot reconcile science with belief; and to distinguish between evidence and belief.

Are you bragging or complaining?

When Christians hold to a point at all costs, despite objective evidence it amounts to putting your fingers in your ears and screaming no no no no.

I don't need to put my fingers in my ears.

"No" isn't that hard to say.

I believe in God.

What's His name?

But I dont feel the need to be so rigid as to refute what's proven.

Then refute what isn't proven.

To do so in my view makes a Christian look like a kook.

And what does it make a scientist look like when he's refuted?

For example, what did downgrading Pluto make Clyde Tombaugh look like? a kook or a steppingstone to progress?

Just look at the age of the earth as an example.

Okay.

If carbon decay is a proven process, and the error margins are known, then we start to have fragile arguments when we retort... its wrong because thats not what it said in the bible.

Well for the record, carbon dating is not a proven process: ask any scientist.

It is a process that convinces beyond a shadow of a doubt; but it is not a proven process.

But, of course, that means nothing, does it?

We still kooks, ain't we!?

And admitting that doesnt have to destroy your faith.

Even scientists won't admit it, so why should we?

Its simply accepting that we have additional information now to compliment our belief....

And additional information can refute previous information, can't it?

... faith is based on a belief that matures with with an open heart to facts.

Not according to scientists, who believe faith is believing something you know isn't true.

 

[AV1611VET]

You almost make it sound like you feel religion is a bad thing.

Religion can go to Hell.

Whatever - atheism is a religion only if you use a very uncommon definition of "religion". Maybe you would like to provide this definition?

Just as weight occurs when gravity is resisted, religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm more bothered by the shallow moralism and lack of real ethics among many Christians here.

But not the shallow moralism and lack of real ethics among scientists?

Did you look the other way when Roe v. Wade legalized a scientific holocaust? one that's still going on today?

 

[Zoii]

Are you bragging or complaining?I don't need to put my fingers in my ears.

"No" isn't that hard to say.What's His name?Then refute what isn't proven.And what does it make a scientist look like when he's refuted?

For example, what did downgrading Pluto make Clyde Tombaugh look like? a kook or a steppingstone to progress?Okay.Well for the record, carbon dating is not a proven process: ask any scientist.

It is a process that convinces beyond a shadow of a doubt; but it is not a proven process.

But, of course, that means nothing, does it?

We still kooks, ain't we!? Even scientists won't admit it, so why should we?And additional information can refute previous information, can't it?Not according to scientists, who believe faith is believing something you know isn't true.

Hey your opinion is fine. For you it seems you cannot reconcile science and your religion...but I can, thats all I was saying.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey your opinion is fine.

Thank you.

For you it seems you cannot reconcile science and your religion...

No ... you must mean for you I can't.

For me, it's a piece of cake:

My Boolean Standards:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.

... but I can, thats all I was saying.

Neat.

Care to show us what standards you go by?

 

[Zoii]

Thank you.No ... you must mean for you I can't.

For me, it's a piece of cake:

My Boolean Standards:

1. 1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. 2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. 3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. 4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.Neat.

Care to show us what standards you go by?

Hey just because you cant reconcile God and Science...doesnt mean I cant...and no need to then translate my view into a passive aggressive response. Now you know my view so there no need for me to repeat it...and I know yours so no need to repeat that either

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey just because you cant reconcile God and Science...doesnt mean I cant...and no need to then translate my view into a passive aggressive response. Now you know my view so there no need for me to repeat it...and I know yours so no need to repeat that either

Okay.

Mind if I take your bragging or complaining with a grain of salt then?

 

[Zoii]

Okay.

Mind if I take your bragging or complaining with a grain of salt then?

whats with this personal attack stuff u have going on. If you dont agree with people fine but stop taking it all so personally

 

[AV1611VET]

whats with this personal attack stuff u have going on.

It's not a personal attack, Zoii.

What I said to you applies to everyone on this site, including administration.

I'm not going to answer you one way and others another.

You didn't answer excellent questions I asked, and right after I gave you my method of how I reconcile science with Scripture, you acted like I didn't.

You gave science credit for proving things, when they'll tell you themselves they don't.

What's up with all that?

 

[Zoii]

If you want to debate my view thats fine Vet - just eliminate the personal stuff. So OK I'll look at some of the points u said....okies well I believe in the science behind the the statement that the universe is 13.77 billion years old. Thats based on Plancks work. I believe in evolution because I cannot ignore the existence of fossil evidence and I cannot ignore that carbon dating is based on the chemical decomposition of carbon isotopes.

Now I know you take a more literal translation from the bible and so refute all that...Ok thats fine.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want to debate my view thats fine Vet - just eliminate the personal stuff. So OK I'll look at some of the points u said....okies well I believe in the science behind the the statement that the universe is 13.77 billion years old. Thats based on Plancks work. I believe in evolution because I cannot ignore the existence of fossil evidence and I cannot ignore that carbon dating is based on the chemical decomposition of carbon isotopes.

Now I know you take a more literal translation from the bible and so refute all that...Ok thats fine.

Zoii, I could be wrong, but what I just heard you say amounts to this: SCIENCE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT.

But just like my THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT slogan, it doesn't reconcile science with religion.

So I posted a list of standards I use to reconcile them.

Remember what you said?

You said, "I actually think atheists mock Christians because a lot of Christians cannot reconcile science with belief;"

Well as far as I know, I am the only one here who has done that.

I even get ridiculed for it, but that's fine, because those that ridicule it don't have standards themselves [that reconcile science with religion].

So in a sense, you're right, atheists mock us because we can't (or haven't) reconcile science with belief.

But when someone (like I) does, it would be nice if you recognized it as such.

 

[Michael]

I already pointed out believing in the same nature as today in the far past cannot be done. You need to prove it was so, not just believe it.
Your dates are belief based. Prove the same state past first or there are no dates, just a religious interpretation of isotopes.
Only if time exists the same there. Prove it or there can be no years or distances claimed.
Or Old ages and your Adam came from a womb of animals thing.

There you go dad. I just showed you three specific areas of "science" (pure empirical physics) which support an ancient Earth, and you simply handwaved at all of them based upon your belief in your own personal infallibility as it relates to interpreting *one chapter/book* of the Bible.

There's no way anyone can deal with pure denial, and you can't even fully explain why you're in a minority on this topic, *even among Christians*.

 

[quatona]

Religion can go to Hell.Just as weight occurs when gravity is resisted, religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.

If I remember correctly, I wasn´t talking to you.

 

[AV1611VET]

If I remember correctly, I wasn´t talking to you.

You're welcome.