In fact you believe you made a point. That's another example of how beliefs may differ.I'm making a point.
Arguements from the fined tuned constants of physics. Explain why it's not evidence of God. Cause I could give you evidence more and more, but if you don't say why it's not true but instead just say it's not evidence then I'm sorry you lost the debate.
Arguements from the fined tuned constants of physics. Explain why it's not evidence of God. Cause I could give you evidence more and more, but if you don't say why it's not true but instead just say it's not evidence then I'm sorry you lost the debate.
You look at the founder of the religion to see the truth. Jesus taught to Love others.
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.
- John 13:34
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.
-Matthew 5:43
He taught to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile in helping others, denying yourself to be willing to sacrifice for others.
Those people who commit acts of violence are not following Jesus nor have the love of God in them. Therefor how can one blame the faith that teaches the complete opposite of such things. Instead blame the men who do them.
And thus if we look at the founder of Islam Muhammad, we do find someone who actually unlike Jesus, endorsed such violence. So we look to the founders to see if it's the faith that's at fault, or men who claim to follower something they obviously do not.
First, several atheists contended that you cannot really compare the crimes of Christian regimes of the past to those of atheist regimes of the twentieth century.
the same can be said of those who don't want there to be a God as they'd rather not be held accountable for there life.
So they look at life and the evidence for God or Jesus or otherwise, through the filter of atheism.
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.
Winston Churchill
Humanism or atheism is a wonderful philosophy of life as long as you are big, strong, and between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five. But watch out if you are in a lifeboat and there are others who are younger, bigger, or smarter.
William Murray
Prove that God doesn't exist, otherwise you rely on faith just as believers rely on it
The truth is you have no proof to back up your beliefs, so its a bit hypocritical to talk down to the faithful.
Wrong, Aethist are MAKING THE CLAIM God DOESN'T EXIST.
PROVE your claim and stop being such a glaring hypocrite.
Huh ?
Lol !! I guess I'm not going to get a honest answer out of someone who celebrates Marx.
Wow! Stunning....If this is reviewed, and verified, what, and how do you see this effecting Christianity? Especially considering the open attack it is under today?
The argument of fine tuning always goes on and on about the infinitesimal chance that the universe would exist as it is without some creator deity making it perfect just for us. Unfortunately, the argument on the other side seems to be a bit more logical. We and the world/universe that we know couldn't exist in any other form. The natural actions of every teeny, tiny bit of matter have resulted in our existence. So the chance of it all happening is 1 in 1.
A good guesstimate says that if every star we know of had a habitable planet around it, then there would still be only one billionth of one billionth of one millionth of one percent of the volume of the universe that would be inhabitable. How is that "fine-tuning"? When the vast majority of the universe can't support any life form, that is supposed to make it the best place for us to exist?
SIGH
Yes believing something without proof requires faith, your point?
Why WHY?
Lets examine the 4 example claims from my post and apply your logic:
- The moon is made of cheese. Prove that it isn't
- There is an invisible pink unicorn looking over your shoulder as you type. Prove that there isn't.
- AGW is happening. Prove that it isn't.
- You have milk on your face. Prove that you don't.
- There is a god. Prove that there isn't.
This is called 'shifting the burden of proof'. You demand refutation of a claim as if it were an established fact. This you cannot do. If every claim, especially the extraordinary claims like my example #2 above, are to be considered fact, then all sorts of nonsense suddenly becomes fact simply because someone claims it.
And finally what does agnosticism have to do with belief?
For every claim made, there are 2 possible stances: Belief and non-belief. The default is always non-belief, as I just explained.
You can believe but not know why you believe. (eg.: you believe because like most religious people you are born into it; you have never really looked into it)
You can disbelieve and not know why precisely (eg.: the evidence from hinduism, judaism, christianity, islam etc is not compelling)
In both cases, these people, theist and atheist alike, are agnostic.
Those were written long after Jesus died. To attribute EXACT QUOTES to a person is ridiculous...
I don't care about this argument in the slightest... it is just you grasping.
...ridiculous. How am I not accountable for my life?
God gave us logic. God gave us curiousity. God gave us the drive to seek evidence. God and people like you then scoff when my curiousity leads me to seek evidence through logic?
No offense but that is totally stupid.
Those were written long after Jesus died. To attribute EXACT QUOTES to a person is ridiculous...
How Close Were the Authors to the Actual Events?
In conclusion, the authors were men who indirectly witnessed extraordinary events that dramatically changed their lives and the world. It was the events that made the men, and not the men that made the events. There is no room for these men to be deceived about the events because of their closeness to them and because of how deeply they were affected by them.
The apostles must have been good at taking shorthand.
We are supposed to give credit to the author when we post a quote in these forums - JFish123
It must be JFish123 who wrote the following: "All of contradictions in the New Testament that I know about are in the not important category."
Not Very Important: Date of Jesus birth, escape to Egypt or return to Nazareth, geneology of Joseph, Jesus - a descendant of David?, are just a few "not very important" contradictions
We are supposed to give credit to the author when we post a quote in these forums - JFish123
It must be JFish123 who wrote the following: "All of contradictions in the New Testament that I know about are in the not important category."
Not Very Important: Date of Jesus birth, escape to Egypt or return to Nazareth, geneology of Joseph, Jesus - a descendant of David?, are just a few "not very important" contradictions
The argument of fine tuning always goes on and on about the infinitesimal chance that the universe would exist as it is without some creator deity making it perfect just for us.
Actually it's not. The Communist party wanted the people to believe in Communism, that that is where their faith should reside. Communists believed, and with some justification, that only one sincere belief was possible and that others should be controlled or avoided.
Not a serious response, bud.
1: How can there be free will in a purely materialistic universe?
2: on what basis can we make moral judgments?
3: what explains the fine tuning of the universe?
4: what accounts for the resurrection of Jesus?
5: What caused the universe to exist?
Why not ?
On the basis of civilised societal norms
Why does it need an explanation ? Its nature doing what it does
Superstitious mumbo jumbo written by men centuries after the alleged event
What caused its alleged creator to exist before it ?