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.
The Bible predicts what we should expect from Christianity. So far, in my own personal experience, all the predictions have been proven to be true, including my obtaining a sixth sense (Holy Spirit) just as was predicted.What is your "proof" that Christianity and the bible are true?
The Bible predicts what we should expect from Christianity. So far, in my own personal experience, all the predictions have been proven to be true.
But remember, we want proof, not just evidence.
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen Jay Gould
Atheism:Examples...?
Atheism:
*The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. * - (1 Cor 2:14).
It explains why atheists don't believe in God and cannot believe in God.
Then science can take a hike.
Science can't handle the truth.
Proof also determines what is true and what isnt.
Truth requires proof.
Both the Bible and Christianity have been proven to be true. We do not hold our faith tentatively like you guys hold theories.
*As for God, His way is perfect; The word of the LORD is proven* (2 Sam 22:31).
Science is fine. Evidence can take a hike. Proof is all that matters. If science can prove it, then I'm fine with it.
I can prove my computer exist, and I can prove it does what I want. Thats why I use it.
Or to put it in different words, "The man who is not insane does not accept the delusions that arise from insanity, and he cannot understand them because they arise from insanity."Atheism:
*The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. * - (1 Cor 2:14).
It predicts why atheists don't believe in God and cannot believe in God.
Gracchus said:Or to put it in different words, "The man who is not insane does not accept the delusions that arise from insanity, and he cannot understand them because they arise from insanity."
You all realize that the Atheist's drive to prove that God doesn't exist is proof in itself for God's existence right?
It's a basic psychological case of denial
"Denial is probably one of the best known defense mechanisms, used often to describe situations in which people seem unable to face reality or admit an obvious truth (i.e. "He's in denial.")."
What Is Denial? - Defense Mechanisms
How defensive or how desperately you want proof shows me psychologically 1 of 2 things.
1. You subconsciously know God exists. Thus yearning for evidence which explains your drive to find proof.
2. You know consciously that God exists, but are experiencing denial.
I've been there too.. It's okay
You all realize that the Atheist's drive to prove that God doesn't exist is proof in itself for God's existence right?
It's a basic psychological case of denial
"Denial is probably one of the best known defense mechanisms, used often to describe situations in which people seem unable to face reality or admit an obvious truth (i.e. "He's in denial.")."
What Is Denial? - Defense Mechanisms
How defensive or how desperately you want proof shows me psychologically 1 of 2 things.
1. You subconsciously know God exists. Thus yearning for evidence which explains your drive to find proof.
2. You know consciously that God exists, but are experiencing denial.
I've been there too.. It's okay
Most atheists are not trying to disprove God. Most atheists are smart enough to know that you cannot disprove God, leprechauns, the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.You all realize that the Atheist's drive to prove that God doesn't exist is proof in itself for God's existence right?
That is a classic psychological case of projection.It's a basic psychological case of denial
"Projection is a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people. For example, if you have a strong dislike for someone, you might instead believe that he or she does not like you. Projection works by allowing the expression of the desire or impulse, but in a way that the ego cannot recognize, therefore reducing anxiety.""Denial is probably one of the best known defense mechanisms, used often to describe situations in which people seem unable to face reality or admit an obvious truth (i.e. "He's in denial.")."
What Is Denial? - Defense Mechanisms
You seem to be under the impression that I am an atheist. If that is your understanding, then you are mistaken, and should disabuse yourself of that notion.How defensive or how desperately you want proof shows me psychologically 1 of 2 things.
1. You subconsciously know God exists. Thus yearning for evidence which explains your drive to find proof.
2. You know consciously that God exists, but are experiencing denial.
If you were where I am you would be me, so ... No! You have never been where I am, and you have never lived my life.I've been there too..
[sarcasm]How nice of you to condescend to my level! I am so grateful![/sarcasm]It's okay
Shemjaza said:Another explanation is that we are sincere in our beliefs and reasons and that we disagree with a god belief because we think it is wrong. It's as sensible as accusing Christians of being devout in their belief because they are too cowardly to admit that they have disappointed the Allfather Odin.
So you,
1. Disagree with God
2. And say we're too cowardly to admit the existence of another God
Yet...
1. There are over 100 Atheists registered on Christianforums.com
2. Over 1,000 videos on YouTube trying to disprove God
3. A culture of Atheists who make a point to make fun of Christians and disprove God
4. Atheists who use the excuse of "Christians preaching" to justify their actions of persecuting ones belief system.
And...
1. Christians taking together on christian forums
2. Only speak to atheists when they
A. Are spreading the gospel
Or
B. getting persecuted by atheists and who want to defend their God.
Seems legit... The odds of your argument don't look good from my perspective, but what do I know?
"Some might think that atheists would be content with simply not believing in God and leave the theists to themselves. After all, if God doesn't exist then what's the big deal? Why not let the theists believe in God the way a child believes in the tooth fairy? To the atheist, neither exists. So why bother?"
Concerning atheist attacks on Theism | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Not to mention the bible mentions this as well, even the feelings expressed towards our beliefs.
"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first." (John 15:18, NIV)
Have you ever considered that you're looking in the wrong direction? Sure there are Christians who preach hell instead of love, but the overall message is that God wants to keep people out of hell. You realize that the cultural shift is bias towards Atheism, right? Do some sociological research and you'll be surprised. I'm not saying Atheists are immoral, because when I was atheist I was a good guy and I'm sure all of you are (and gals) but especially in the United States, capitalism, media and entertainment are supporting the decline in morals, how can these giants thrive without pushing people more deep into a world without a foundational moral system? I might have worded that oddly. Lol I'm extremely scattered brain today.Shemjaza said:Yes. Do you have a response? I put it there as ridiculous example to show you how your own argument failed. Please feel free to demonstrate that being our motivation and behavior. Also, please show me all this persecution you face. The last piece of persecution I saw touted on the media was a religious employer resenting not being able to forbid their employees from getting contraception from a third party. I don't know, what do you know? In this very thread we had a discussion about the rudeness of assuming you know why someone believes... now here you are playing the tragic victim majority. Has anyone ever tried to teach children not to use tooth brushes because that would be bad for fairies? It is not an uncommon belief that unrepentant atheists deserve hell... eternal torture. Can you really not see why we might find that offensive? "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain (1979)
NickCamp said:I would also like to say this, 1. Personal experiences are proof to the individual who is involved. 2. There are thousands of testimonies of former Atheists who've experienced these things. 3. A study is usually conducted based off experience regarding a particular topic. 4. Since there are enough accounts to parallel a number of studies that were concluded based on experiences. 5. Couldn't we conclude that these experiences are real, are not delusions and there's something going on with this "unbelievable" Christianity? While the typical non believer, atheist, agnostic, weak atheist, strong atheist, (I don't know why I bother pointing out the different types while Christians are all the same, borderline racism mentality btw) base their opinions on science which has no initial beginning when looking at the creation of the universe (leaving science open ending on the deciding factor of Gods existence). And have no means of proof, couldn't we conclude God exists from the number of testimonies that discuss personal interaction from God? Non believers don't even have experiences that can say God doesn't exist, so wouldn't that give believers more proof than non believers? The problem is balance in argument, they all cancel out, yet we have people's experiences. Are we all deluded? Insane? Fooled? In the USA only 2.4 percent of Americans are atheist. (Fun fact) And you can say, 1. We haven't had experiences thus God doesn't exist... Though how can you have experiences if your mind isn't truly opened to the possibility of God's existence? There are two ways in which a person experiences God, a miracle, which can be produced only through God himself or an unbiased search through reason and logic. You cannot find answers with eyes closed to possibilities. It's basic science! Have you seen the basketball gorilla video? A psychological study that shows that If you're too busy paying attention to one detail, you'll miss a big detail that's right in front of your face. If you're zoned out and somebody calls your name, you don't hear it at first because you're not listening. If you place your hand (I did this when I was 12) on a hot stove but don't register it because you're focused on something else, you don't feel it. The proof is in the creation. http://christisthecure.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/how-to-find-god/
Well, I didn't overlook it. It just took me some time to respond.I don't want anyone to overlook this post..
I would refer you to On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not by Robert Burton. You might even want to check out this:I would also like to say this,
1. Personal experiences are proof to the individual who is involved.
Those who report this experience report perceptions that are almost identical, but, like the blind men and the elephant, they interpret the thing in the form they are predisposed to by personal history and social milieu. Thus, Buddhists report enlightenment, lapsed Christians become born again, Muslims become Sufis. It can't really be put into words but people try. It is rather like trying to explain fire to someone who doesn't have the concept or experience. As time passes the experience fades, and the rationalization becomes the certainty.2. There are thousands of testimonies of former Atheists who've experienced these things.
Could you cite some of these studies?3. A study is usually conducted based off experience regarding a particular topic.
4. Since there are enough accounts to parallel a number of studies that were concluded based on experiences.
I will grant that the experiences are not delusional. As I have pointed out, these experiences are not interpreted as Christian in nature by Hindus, Muslims, Jews or Buddhists. They are at least real experiences. But they are a feeling. It has nothing to do with intellect. When the experience is over, people rationalize it, cast it into terms they can communicate, into metaphors, into similes, and those are all you can take from the experience.5. Couldn't we conclude that these experiences are real, are not delusions and there's something going on with this "unbelievable" Christianity?
I know that conservatives like nice, neat, clearly defined pigeon holes, but of course Christians are not all the same. There are over ten thousand denominations and if you walked into any Christian church and did a confidential survey you would find even those of the same denomination would differ widely on the details of what they believe. The history of Christianity is a tale of arguments, schisms, heresies, reformations and contentiousness.While the typical non believer, atheist, agnostic, weak atheist, strong atheist, (I don't know why I bother pointing out the different types while Christians are all the same, borderline racism mentality btw) base their opinions on science which has no initial beginning when looking at the creation of the universe (leaving science open ending on the deciding factor of Gods existence).
You could conclude that, but I could then point out that regardless of these experiences, the historical evidence does not point to an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god.And have no means of proof, couldn't we conclude God exists from the number of testimonies that discuss personal interaction from God?
Believers may have experiences in their heads. But anyone can experience getting hit in the head with a rock. Epileptics sometimes experience God in their seizures. Is that evidence?Non believers don't even have experiences that can say God doesn't exist, so wouldn't that give believers more proof than non believers?
Short easy, if unpleasant, answer: Yes!The problem is balance in argument, they all cancel out, yet we have people's experiences. Are we all deluded? Insane? Fooled?
The figures I have seen suggest it is more like 15%.In the USA only 2.4 percent of Americans are atheist. (Fun fact)
Most atheists do not maintain a positive assertion that God doesn't exist, although a few do. Most simply find no credible reason to believe he exists.And you can say,
1. We haven't had experiences thus God doesn't exist...
Atheists can have all sorts of experiences. They may, however, interpret those experiences differently than believers.Though how can you have experiences if your mind isn't truly opened to the possibility of God's existence?
I have seen strange things. Some could be explained. Some could not. I did not need to postulate gods, pixies, or angels (all equally likely) to explain those that I could not make sense of. I could just say, I don't know.There are two ways in which a person experiences God, a miracle, which can be produced only through God himself...
Aquinas tried it, and others since, with unsatisfactory results.... or an unbiased search through reason and logic.
Well, you do have to keep an open mind, but that means being skeptical. You don't want your mind so open your brain dribbles out of your ears.You cannot find answers with eyes closed to possibilities.
I'll bet you noticed it later though! But Ken Hamm would call that historical science and call it therefore, unreliable. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Is it that God is less noticeable than a hot stove?It's basic science! Have you seen the basketball gorilla video? A psychological study that shows that If you're too busy paying attention to one detail, you'll miss a big detail that's right in front of your face. If you're zoned out and somebody calls your name, you don't hear it at first because you're not listening. If you place your hand (I did this when I was 12) on a hot stove but don't register it because you're focused on something else, you don't feel it.
If there is a creation there must be a creator? Does that mean that if there is a "reality" there must be a "realtor"?The proof is in the creation.
Gracchus said:Well, I didn't overlook it. It just took me some time to respond. I would refer you to On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not by Robert Burton. You might even want to check out this: 1. Introduction to Human Behavioral Biology - YouTube Certainty is a state of mind that has only passing coincidence with reality. Neuroscientists can stimulate your brain and give you the religious experience. It can also be the product of acute or chronic stress. It can even be deliberately induced by electromagnetically stimulating certain areas of the brain. Those who report this experience report perceptions that are almost identical, but, like the blind men and the elephant, they interpret the thing in the form they are predisposed to by personal history and social milieu. Thus, Buddhists report enlightenment, lapsed Christians become born again, Muslims become Sufis. It can't really be put into words but people try. It is rather like trying to explain fire to someone who doesn't have the concept or experience. As time passes the experience fades, and the rationalization becomes the certainty. Could you cite some of these studies? I will grant that the experiences are not delusional. As I have pointed out, these experiences are not interpreted as Christian in nature by Hindus, Muslims, Jews or Buddhists. They are at least real experiences. But they are a feeling. It has nothing to do with intellect. When the experience is over, people rationalize it, cast it into terms they can communicate, into metaphors, into similes, and those are all you can take from the experience. I know that conservatives like nice, neat, clearly defined pigeon holes, but of course Christians are not all the same. There are over ten thousand denominations and if you walked into any Christian church and did a confidential survey you would find even those of the same denomination would differ widely on the details of what they believe. The history of Christianity is a tale of arguments, schisms, heresies, reformations and contentiousness. You've made the point that Christians aren't all alike. Just so, there is no "typical" atheist. What atheists all have in common is that they don't believe in a god. They do tend to be smarter, better educated, and more liberal than conservative. And, interestingly enough, most atheists seem to know more about religion than most religious people. You might want to think about some of this. You could conclude that, but I could then point out that regardless of these experiences, the historical evidence does not point to an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god. Believers may have experiences in their heads. But anyone can experience getting hit in the head with a rock. Epileptics sometimes experience God in their seizures. Is that evidence? Short easy, if unpleasant, answer: Yes! The figures I have seen suggest it is more like 15%. Most atheists do not maintain a positive assertion that God doesn't exist, although a few do. Most simply find no credible reason to believe he exists. Atheists can have all sorts of experiences. They may, however, interpret those experiences differently than believers. I have seen strange things. Some could be explained. Some could not. I did not need to postulate gods, pixies, or angels (all equally likely) to explain those that I could not make sense of. I could just say, I don't know. Aquinas tried it, and others since, with unsatisfactory results. Well, you do have to keep an open mind, but that means being skeptical. You don't want your mind so open your brain dribbles out of your ears. I'll bet you noticed it later though! But Ken Hamm would call that historical science and call it therefore, unreliable. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Is it that God is less noticeable than a hot stove? If there is a creation there must be a creator? Does that mean that if there is a "reality" there must be a "realtor"? Maybe you should think about word trickery.
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?