Identity still dubious, if you are so confident in your argument why do you hide behind aliases, and vagueness? I kind of assumed you know ursa, but It is nice to know for sure.
The definition of religion says concerns not explains nature and purpose of the universe, which I know you don't offer an explanation on creation, you only explains what I know to be God's work, but you seem to be concerned about these things or you wouldn't be having this discussion. Now, as to whether or not atheism is a religion, this is a point that I think we will have to agree to disagree on for the sake of the main point.
I think you misinterpreted what I mean by "stand for nothing", although I will admit it sounds more harsh then I intended it to. Let me clarify, you have no platform to explain the start of the universe, ergo no contrary system of idea to prove the phenomenon of creation. Still I ask again if you admit you DON'T KNOW how then how do you KNOW I am wrong? Consider this if I am wrong we both rot no harm no foul, if you're wrong... Are you willing to take that risk?
I hate assuming things, but due to the lack of ways to communicate my hands are tied, I am going to assume you never heard of neither Hank nor Grant. You looked them both up after I mentioned them in my blog, which is what I want you to do, your own research, however you couldn't find anything to discredit Hanegraaff, so you didn't mention your findings. Speaking of Jeferry, and his predictions, yes he was wrong, he is just human born to be flawed, but the predictions in the Bible are true, many of them already fulfilled.
Regarding the Bible verses, they are to be interpreted by the reader, as I mentioned (in my other blog posts) so I find it will be futile to dispute these points farther, you are reading them Godless and I am reading them God filled, and it does not take a scholar to turn a verse. If any of you find this an "easy out" I would humor you by frolicking in this futile activity.
To turn this to an Islamic debate, which I am sure was not your objective when using that quote from the Qur'an, you were just making a point that other religion had observations you find similar to that in the Bible.
Nick, ignorance, lack of knowledge, is what you admit you have in the area of how the universe was created; moreover it’s the epitome of ignorance to disregard a hypothesis without proof.
Creepy and undesirable, are points you make against Christianity, not only are they not scientific your views on Christianity are naive. God could control everything, but He gave us free will so we can choose to love Him or not, He only leads us to the best path of our life he does not force us down it, and God has always been, is and always will be, He is everlasting.
As for the age of the earth for it to be an error of mine, I must also think that the earth is 6k years old, to answer you statement you don't know how old I think the earth is. Are you just searching for what some Christian’s think that you can disprove. I could also find some disproven ideas that SOME Atheist believe.
[God sits above the circle of the earth...] Isaiah 40:22 the earth is round which Christians knew before scientist discovered it. The more knowledge learned, the more that is proven true in the bible, once all information is known, the Bible and God will be proven. Example many scientist made a case that the universe was always here there for nullifying the need for a creator. As we have already discussed the earth was formed at one time, but Christian already knew that, and simply waited for scientist to catch up. Four corners is a metaphor in this verse, four corners is a fairly common metaphor for all over the place/spread out
That was in Nebuchadnezzar's dream [“‘While I was lying in my bed, this is what I dreamed. I saw a large tree in the middle of the earth.] Daniel 4:10 please read context clues surrounding the verse before making yourself look foolish. I find this to be work of God you picked this verse out of the whole Bible read Daniel 4 in its entirety then try to tell me with a pure heart it does not speak to you. Read carefully and not with a vengeful heart.
The earth does not move, from its orbiting course around the sun.
When your sole objective is to dispute whatever evidence I bring to you, no you are not going to believe in Christ. A relationship takes respect, and trust. God wants us to have a chance to truly love Him so He did not force us to respect nor trust Him. I will say, I brought up enough evidence that it would take more faith for me to be an Atheist than a Christian, as I am. I must have faith, that Jesus did rise, and masses of people including persecutors of Christ did not switch to Christianity to worship a died guy. If I was Atheist on the other hand I would have to have faith that the very same people who wanted Jesus dead, decided to follow Him, after his death without Him rising, just because.
I welcome your responses, still we have debated this point, and my blog is not an apologetic one, so I would like to continue with why I started my blog, to share my experience as a Christian, while giving what I find to be helpful tips, a testimony can be the strongest evidence one could give to support God. So I urge you to keep on reading my blog, I will try to slip in scientific evidence feel free to add your two cents. If I thought pointing out more evidence of His existence, would let you see the light I would never stop this debate.
Note: that if you have questions for me I will answer them I am simply stating that I have laid out a lot of evidence, non of which disproven, just disputed, and anything can be disputed, even scientific laws.
So either you're at the point in your life where you are able to accept God in your life or you're not, or merely wont, yet. Most importantly I don't want the teaching to turn to quibbling. [Some people may contradict our teaching, but these are the wholesome teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. These teachings promote a godly life. Anyone who teaches something different is arrogant and lacks understanding. Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, division, slander, and evil suspicions.] 1 Timothy 6:3-4
I'm sorry- I posted my response on another blog entry. It's been that kind of day... Anyway, on to it.
ReplyDeleteI sense from the tone of this response that you've reached the end of this discussion. No worries, I respect that. Here are my final thoughts.
"Identity still dubious, if you are so confident in your argument why do you hide behind aliases, and vagueness? I kind of assumed you know ursa, but It is nice to know for sure."
I've given you just as much information as your blog gives me. Your name is Kevin, mine is Andrew. You're in high school, I'm in high school. I chose to omit my lack of an occupation to go along with your "Rue 21" stuff, because I thought my words could be better directed at making some sort of logical point. Obviously I failed. I think it's pretty self-explanitory that I'm an atheist. There we go. No alias here.
"Now, as to whether or not atheism is a religion, this is a point that I think we will have to agree to disagree on for the sake of the main point."
Your ignorance impresses me. Moving on.
"you have no platform to explain the start of the universe, ergo no contrary system of idea to prove the phenomenon of creation. Still I ask again if you admit you DON'T KNOW how then how do you KNOW I am wrong?"
Just because I don't have a better explination to something doesn't mean I can't label it as bullshit. I don't know where I put my credit card when I stopped at Chic Fil a this morning for breakfast, but if you told me it was because of evil elves that steal your ability to remember where things are, I would say you're wrong. Can I prove definitively that such elves don't exist? No. Is it absurd and probably not the real cause of why my card has gone missing? Absolutely.
"Consider this if I am wrong we both rot no harm no foul, if you're wrong... Are you willing to take that risk?"
Quite interesting that you've gone this long without bringing in Pascal's Wager. I think, if this god you worship is as all-knowing and all-powerful as you say he is, he'll see right through my pretending and know I'm faking it. I refuse to pretend to believe something that makes no sense at all. I won't spend my life jumping through hoops to please someone that I have SERIOUS doubts even exists. So yes, I will take that risk. To me, it's like betting on a full house in Poker. The odds are on my side.
"I am going to assume you never heard of neither Hank nor Grant. You looked them both up after I mentioned them in my blog, which is what I want you to do, your own research, however you couldn't find anything to discredit Hanegraaff, so you didn't mention your findings."
You know what they say about assumptions. Don't assume I'm an idiot. Don't assume that I don't know just as much about your faith as you do. Just because I don't believe it doesn't mean I don't know it. Yes, I do know of "Hank," because I do get a kick out of reading kooky people, which he would qualify as. I haven't read any of his stuff on religion, because I don't have time to read fiction that I'm not really interested in. The difference between him and a fortune teller is a book that's had 2000 years of people saying it's correct.
"Speaking of Jeferry, and his predictions, yes he was wrong, he is just human born to be flawed, but the predictions in the Bible are true, many of them already fulfilled."
Like...
"Regarding the Bible verses, they are to be interpreted by the reader, as I mentioned (in my other blog posts) so I find it will be futile to dispute these points farther, you are reading them Godless and I am reading them God filled, and it does not take a scholar to turn a verse. If any of you find this an "easy out" I would humor you by frolicking in this futile activity."
God filled. That's a new one on me.
Let's set the record strait here. The Bible was written by man. Not God. Not Jesus. Perhaps the writers of it were "inspired," or perhaps they were simply stoned out of their minds, but they were HUMAN. Humans like using fluffy language and intelligently crafted phrases. Hence the term "rhetoric." Wikipedia that term if you're not sure what it means.
"To turn this to an Islamic debate, which I am sure was not your objective when using that quote from the Qur'an, you were just making a point that other religion had observations you find similar to that in the Bible."
Don't nuttin' get by you, Slick!
"Nick, ignorance, lack of knowledge, is what you admit you have in the area of how the universe was created; moreover it’s the epitome of ignorance to disregard a hypothesis without proof."
It's even stupider to accept one without proof. You've proven our point.
"Creepy and undesirable, are points you make against Christianity, not only are they not scientific your views on Christianity are naive. God could control everything, but He gave us free will so we can choose to love Him or not, He only leads us to the best path of our life he does not force us down it..."
Naive? You're seriously going to say WE are the naive ones? You're the one that believes in a flying spirit man who can hear us all muttering to him at once.
"and God has always been, is and always will be, He is everlasting."
Okay, so it's completely impossible for the universe to have ALWAYS existed, but God can. Why's God so special?
"As for the age of the earth for it to be an error of mine, I must also think that the earth is 6k years old, to answer you statement you don't know how old I think the earth is."
How old is the earth? Be careful, best not contradict your precious BIble.
"Four corners is a metaphor in this verse, four corners is a fairly common metaphor for all over the place/spread out"
Okay, so you DO recognize that rhetorical devices are loaded throughout the Bible. Okay, duly noted.
"God sits above the circle of the earth...] Isaiah 40:22 the earth is round which Christians knew before scientist discovered it."
Perhaps you've found another metaphor! And if you're going to play the semantics game about the definition of atheism, I'll have you know that the earth is not round. It's spherical. Considering Christianity was the predominant religion in western civilization, I refuse to believe that Christianity knew the earth was spherical when western science didn't until long after the death of Christ.
"I find this to be work of God you picked this verse out of the whole Bible read Daniel 4 in its entirety then try to tell me with a pure heart it does not speak to you."
It didn't speak to me. Send a snake to tell me about it and we'll see.
"The earth does not move, from its orbiting course around the sun."
...What? The writers of the Bible didn't even know the earth orbited the sun, so I seriously doubt this is what they meant.
"When your sole objective is to dispute whatever evidence I bring to you, no you are not going to believe in Christ. A relationship takes respect, and trust."
My sole objective is for you to THINK about religion, and I was trying to do so by refuting what evidence (if you could call it that). That's kinda the idea of a debate: you present evidence, I try to refute it. I present evidence, you try to refute it. And I don't want a relationship. I gave up the imaginary friend thing when I finished 3rd grade.
"I will say, I brought up enough evidence that it would take more faith for me to be an Atheist than a Christian, as I am. I must have faith, that Jesus did rise, and masses of people including persecutors of Christ did not switch to Christianity to worship a died guy. If I was Atheist on the other hand I would have to have faith that the very same people who wanted Jesus dead, decided to follow Him, after his death without Him rising, just because."
I'm pretty sure I have no idea what the hell you just said. Really. Firstly, you've given us no real evidence. You've given us a few Bible verses, a kooky guy, and some uninformed beliefs about physics. The entire IDEA of atheism is to NOT have faith. It's AGAINST religious faith. It doesn't take faith to be an atheist, it takes thought. You need to have faith that your beliefs, out of the hundreds of religions of the world, are wrong. I'd really like to say something about that final sentence, but I'm not really sure what you said. As I mentioned before, I don't need to have faith in anything.
It's been nice getting to have this chat, and if you're ever interested in talking more, feel free to contact me or Ursa at our blog: http://livingthemystery.wordpress.com.
In the second to last paragraph it means to read "You need to have faith that your beliefs, out of the hundreds of religions of the world, are NOT wrong." Sorry- quick typing.
ReplyDeleteWell, you know. It's been fun. But it seems this correspondence has to come to a close. An emotional loss, for sure.
ReplyDeleteListen, Mus pretty much took the words out of my mouth in his response. The bible isn't proof of anything you've asserted, it was written by people. You can't prove it was written by God, sorry. End of story. So take that out of the equation and what do you have left? An incorrect understanding of atheism that you try to use against us, some really ill-informed scientific mutterings, and illogical mystical musings.
I appreciate your willingness to respond and chat, I really do, but it's not worth it. You can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed person, your fundamental lack of knowledge in evolution, physics, and logical thinking are a real hindrance to your cause. We'll be out celebrating life, while you're in church celebrating death and submission to your cosmic Jewish zombie.