Checkmate atheists

Well thats idiotic. The fact that half of a math text book isn't true doesn't make the other half any less true.
 
You're right, but I wouldn't take the other half on faith when half of it can be disproven ya know? The bible does ask you to take the other half on faith, and if I know many things are not true, I would have a hard time doing that.
 
Thats true but he's not saying he believes the stories hes saying he believes the lessons taught by Catholicism. He's not taking them on faith their just good ways too live.
 
That's fair, though at this point I would wonder why even refer to the religious texts (while they do have a lot of good info) when you can just make up your morals for yourself. Also while it's true that there are some generally accepted positive moral teaching in the bible, there are also many generally accepted negative teachings (so I've heard, but cannot give examples)
 
Instead of pointless bickering here, I'm just going to say take a look at some of William Lane Craig's articles, books, and debates if you want to see some real Christian apologetics. His work has had a huge impact on me for sure.

www.reasonablefaith.org

Also check out]Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.
 
video was awesome:

if i didn't have gods judgement to fear i would have killed many many times

mice dna is more similar to humans than human dna ????

 
Actually, at the very least, deism is a very arguable position to hold, and its certainely not rediculous to believe in God. I'm not going to bother copying and pasting arguments in this thread, so just check out William Lane Craig's stuff for starters. See link in my first post.
 
tumblr_m833wn9IHH1qbqa24o1_500.jpg
 
Deism has no evidence supporting it. I listened to some of those podcasts and in the ones that I listened to he never states any actual evidence for god he just says different ways god could possibly fit into science. That being said it is impossible to disprove the idea of god, but it is very possible to disprove religious texts like the bible.
 
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-ultimate-question-of-origins-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/design-from-fine-tuning

I realize the existence of a God can never be proven. There will always be an element of faith involved. However there are some good arguements and logical reasons for believing in God, IMO. I'm curious what parts of the Bible you consider to have been disproven? Yes, certain interpretations of certain parts of the Bible have been essentially disproven, but overall the Bible has proven to be pretty historically accurate in most regards.
 
Eh, partially true. I would say it's more like religious interpretations of mostly accurate historical events.

But when people flat out deny that Jesus existed I facepalm hard. Whether or not he was the son of god is another story...
 
I didn't say the existence of god could never be proven. I said the existence of god could never be disproven. Im curious what specifically you think is a good argument or logical reasoning for believing in god. One part of the bible disproven by science is chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. The creation story states that god created the heaven and the earth. This contradicts one of the most basic theories of science, the big bang. In chapter 2 the bible claims that god created man out of dust, along with every other creature on this world. Science has shown that animals were not created by god as stated in chapter 2, but instead started as single celled organisms in a "pool" of muck containing all necessary components of life. Also the bible claims that all language was merely created in the story of the tower of babel. It has been proven that languages did not miraculously appear, but evolved over time.
 
I never said that absence of evidence is evidence of absence i just disagreed with his claim that there is evidence supporting god.
 
I agree with the historical part. Jesus was an actual person that got crucified. But I do not believe that Jesus had magical powers and the existence god because I find it to be ridiculously unreasonable.
 
Like I said, there are many different intrepretations of the Bible, and many Christians have no problem reconciling both modern science and their Christian faith. Its important to realize that a lot of biblical intrepretation boils down to how the original texts should be translated.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/old_earth_creationism.html

This idea of God creating over long periods of time is not new, and in fact dates back to even before the theory of evolution ever saw the light of day. In fact, Aristotle believed that God "created the world with potentencies that unfolded over time."

So yes, well some current intrepretations of Biblical text are very hard to defend in this day and age, it does not deal a death blow to Christianity.

Anyway, while we are on the topic of biblical evidence, this debate between William Lane Craig and John Shelby on the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ is pretty interesting.
 
Whoops, I apologize, that wasn't the debate I was thining off.

Here it is, William Lane Craig vs. Bart D. Ehrman

is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman
 
Thats fair. You seem sensible enough to realize that not every word of the bible is literal. I personally don't see any logic but people are free to believe what they want.
 
In the last three months you've come from out of nowhere to run away with the "worst member" title. There's no way you have an IQ above 80. You literally routinely make the worst posts imaginable, I don't even look at people's icons, or names, but I read your posts (which are everywhere), I look left and I think, "fuck....again?".

It's time to take a break, lil guy. And, one last thing, you're a crazily conservative, "very religious" (in your words) spoiled teenager, for the love of god you hold, lose that idiotic rasta icon you goddamn clown shoe.
 
I really just can not grasp this argument. How can you say something that is supposed to be infallible and basically the word of god is subject to interpretation?

To me its basically saying: It doesn't matter how much the of the bible is proven to be wrong, or is immoral, or hateful, we are going to just "interpret" those things in ways which make them seem nice or not really intended to be literal, and just leave the good stuff in there.

If you really need a book to remind you whats right and wrong and think the Bible is an appropriate source for that just get the Jefferson Bible, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. Its cuts all the supernatural BS out of it (miracles, divinity, resurrection etc.) because even in the 18th century people knew that was stupid.
 
its not bullshit. About 20 percent of the U.S. now is non-religious or atheist. We are now a larger minority than African Americans, Jews, Muslims, Asians, and Gays. and we are growing fast.
 
Haha this shit was good. I have been to a few churches and once you go south shit starts getting more ignorant. They start preaching against science and talk about how athiests are thier enemy trying to defame the word of god.
 


First of all, the underlying THEME of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven.

No test has ever been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by God, and one that appeared without Him. Only certain interpretations of Genesis can be disproven.

What if I asked you "If the story of the prodigal son didn't really happen, then is the whole Bible wrong?" Of course not! Remember that the Bible is a collection of both stories and historical accounts. Because one part is a figurative story does not make the entire Bible so. Even if it did, the underlying message of the Bible would remain.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

I see you mentioned the resurrection. If you would like to see an excellent debate between two Hebrew scholars on the subject, check out my other post.
 
Not going to lie I love the idea and I totally support and believe the message but honestly I thought it could have been better done and had better arguments... like meh wasn't impressed with it's coverage of refutal
 
Although that is a great movie I would suggest that if anyone wants to educate themselves on the atheist end of things they should read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins or god is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens.

 
I think the point of it wasn't to refute religion, it was to show how ridiculous it can make you. Like the guys in the church down south, or the guy who "was" gay and now isn't.
 
yeah it was great because Bill Maher didn't even make a joke throughout the whole thing. The joke was peoples ridiculous response.

This is my favorite part, best priest ever.

 
That does not tell me why he talks about communism so much. Names are not anayltical judgments a priori. If his name had any value it would further draw my interest into his obsession with Communism.

Are you stating that he likes communism because his name is a reference to a communist leader? Once again, not analytical a priori
 
I agree, however, the burden of proof goes to the creators. If I were to say "there is a giant undetectable teapot floating around Saturn." I would have to prove that it does exist, you would not have to prove that it doesn't. In this context its guilty until proven innocent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top