One question for Christians

[Ryantology]

For I have no one like him, who will be genuinely concerned for your welfare. For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ.

[Esquilax]

So... now you are telling me what I know? How is it somebody with so many, many questions and "maybe's"....knows so much about what he doesn't know?

I'm not making any claim to knowledge. I'm just noting that when it's convenient for you, god is some unknowable being that sees no reason to provide information about himself, but that doesn't stop you all from making numerous declarative statements about him and his attributes. Which is it? Is he unknowable, or can he be known?

It can't be both.

Do you believe even in your wildest dreams that GOD needs to answer to you? "One day...every knee will bend and every lip profess the Lord Jesus."

That day... I cannot wait for my friend!

This has always puzzled me: do you really picture your god as that egotistical and vain that he would refuse to approach a conversation with a human with even the vaguest pretense of equality? Why would a god mind so much that I'm curious about his creation even after death?

And if this is the case, what's the deal with prayer? Why would any of you bother entreating god for anything, if he's that completely up his own ass that the very idea that one of his creations would dare to want to know more sends him into hysterics?

How do you square your god's supposed benevolence with this complete unwillingness to engage in one of the cornerstones of conversation, and how does one forge a personal relationship with him if he's unavailable for conversation by choice?

I see some glimmer of hope here my friend? If you could just ponder that one statement: "I love you so much, that I paid the price for sin." You may get the TRUE answer!

I don't care what the answer is, so long as it's the true answer. I just can't square the idea of a blood sacrifice as payment for anything, nor does anything in this scenario make sense. But then, things are often nonsensical to start with. Now, I just need actual evidence.

Its not petty BS otherwise you wouldn't be talking to me. IF you really want answers, ask! The real teacher isn't anyone you can see. Its the Holy Spirit which was sent after Jesus died, to teach ALL MEN! We are all students. There is only one teacher. Because there is only one who knows everything!

That feels a little empty. Not to mention, directly contradictory to your statement about god not needing to answer to me. Does he provide answers, or not?

"REALITY" Have we not had this conversation before?! Everything is based on Theory. Reality is even a theory, and is in the eyes of the beholder!

Not so much. There are certain things we can know to be true, assuming we discard solipsism as a useless proposition. I mean, I could be a brain in a jar, but what use is that?

And you've made persumptions about most everything [I've] said! At least I'll admit to mine!

Mine aren't personal in nature, however. There are some assumptions one can safely make, but as my sig and the post above attest, you have no compunction about doling out ad hominem attacks despite not even knowing my name. That's a far cry from deconstructing argumentation.

So, you give to a charity and that makes you what? Do you want a list of the charities I have? Or the places I've gone to volunteer, and help? No!

Of course not! And that's not the point! I'm not trying to have a holier than thou contest with you, I'm just pointing out that you're awfully quick to label me a selfish monster despite not knowing anything about me beyond the fact that I'm an atheist. One doesn't follow from the other, and I'd be awfully appreciative if you'd quit with the stereotypes. I haven't called you a pedophile for being catholic, after all.

I'm not that high on myself...nor do I feel its ever enough! And.... my purpose isn't for man's approval. "...For you have already received your reward, here on earth."

I explained my rationale in the thread. I'm not doing my work for approval, I'm doing it to share the gift of reading and writing, something I appreciate on many levels. I brought it up to show the inaccuracy of reading the word atheist under my name and calling me selfish or only concerned with me. It's just demonstrably wrong, and furthermore not really conducive to conversation, now is it?

And what praytell is the intelligent answer that you are looking for? God in the form of an Quadratic Equation? Or so grand phenomenon in the sky? All would be deemed as a trick! That's why Jesus never performed miracles as proof! NEVER!

Well, anything other than empty platitudes and appeals to faith would be a good start.

And that is why He came in humility. Because it's not about seeing with the mind...It's about seeing with the heart!

Ooh, like that!

I know what you don't have. I also know your motives. And they are not for answers. They are to tell me whats wrong with me. There are only 2 atheists that I met here that truely have open minds.

I haven't said a word about you, personally. In fact, you were the one who initiated this exchange with a lengthy ad hominem, telling me all about what you thought was wrong with me. It's why your first words to me in this thread were "hate to butt in..."

Besides, my motives here are as they've always been: to expose myself to new positions, and to deconstruct the bad ones. It's got nothing to do with you, or with christianity in general.

I like using Jesus' words! No one has a good comeback!

Preaching is generally fairly unassailable in an argument, being that it has nothing to say.

Hey I'm glad for you! I pray for you and the others every night! So, maybe God had something to do with your new job?

I think my hard work had something to do with my new job. If there's a creator god, then he deserves credit for creating a universe conducive to my achievements, not credit for each individual thing that I do.

I wouldn't brag about that muffin.... Especially if you have a little one or a dog that's not house broken!

The muffin came out fine.

Ok! I do get excited once in a while! But I'm only guilty of presumption and being rude! It rubs off from being around here too much.

I didn't hate myself when I was without God... it just sucked! thats true [for me]. My life is much better now that I have Him. And I truely wish everyone could experience His Divine Love!

It's great that you're feeling better, it just kind of bums me out that some people can't see they can have that level of happiness independent of a god. We all have that capacity in us, after all.

Seriously.... Good Luck with the new job! I hope..and pray, all works out for you!

Okay, legitimate thanks for that, that's nice.

---

Not all, when one is in a relationship with Him we are able to see His truths on those things that are important to our lives.

Unless he's lying. That's the thing, a sufficiently powerful being would be able to convince you of anything, truthful or not. It's entirely possible that life is a test, just not the one you're expecting it to be, and you're failing. How would any of us know?

Add to that, the human mind is really susceptible to suggestion and trickery, and we tend to hold onto ideas really tightly, become invested in them even if they're wrong.

We do not need to know more than God, we only need to know Him and accept what was done for us. Then we have the mind that created the universe to enlighten us, so the little drab and drool that escapes from your Satan controlled mouth can not nor does not impress us in the least, a thing we learned from Job.

And if the whole thing, the entire new testament, was another, higher stakes trick? You'd be guilty of violating the first commandment by worshiping Jesus the false idol.

Mohammed has the more recent revelation from god, what if his turns out to be right, a warning from the one true god that Jesus was a false prophet? I mean, you guys accepted that Jesus came down to correct certain biblical laws, so you clearly think that it's not only possible, but plausible; what is it about these other revelations that makes them false?

[The Reality Salesman01]

What absurdities, the things you deem that way, why should your opinion dictate what is absurd in scriptures, does my opinion hold less value than your's?.

Precisely. Since you offer your opinion to others, it is us, "the others", opinion of what is absurd that you can expect to continue to hear. Your opinion is exactly that, and is no more valuable than mine or anyone else's! (When did I say otherwise?). However, until you strengthen your opinion with a logical argument, it will remain an opinion that sounds absurd to people with a certain standard for truth. Do you understand now?

Well I do think that science would say the sun would not be omnipotent, seeing how it is in a stationary position and can't effect most of the universe. Science has determined it has a limited life.

Shame on you GC. You can't honestly expect me to accept that! Who is this "Science" you are referring to? Do you have a good reason to provide from your own data bank of knowledge? How do YOU know that? How do you know that the Sun, being omnipotent, couldn't suspend its powers for a determined amount of time so that it can remain close to us, giving us life, and watching over us? I'm asking you. Don't hide behind answers you don't have or fail to understand.

That seems quite unreasonable. We reject your Bible as a circular support for your God. If you think that there is merit to your God or your Bible you must establish truth in one or the other before you can expect anyone else to acknowledge them as credible sources of truth.

The scriptures never try and prove God, so how can you say you can see that the Bible tries to.

Is that what you read? I don't see it. Perhaps its easier to respond to the comments of your choosing, rather than my actual thoughts. Proceed...

Just because you reject the Bible that's suppose to make it false, a bit uppity on your part wouldn't you say.

Again, I don't see where I said that, but I would be happy to clarify for you. I don't believe lots of things. I never said they were false. The bible is among a list of many things of which I don't view as credible sources of information. Are you confusing my words with someone else's? It may be beneficial for you to make sure you are responding to things I actually say.

Try this for truth God promised to restore the nation of Israel where it once stood when Rome destroyed it. The nation of Israel is the only nation restored to it's original place after 2000 yrs. no other nation has come back after that amount of time, this is Biblical prophecy. Just a bit of truth from scripture..

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc...You may want to research how this little fallacy can be deceitful to the untrained mind.

My question to you is quite simple:
How do you know that anything the bible says about things not yet proved by science, are true?

I'm asking you a direct question. Before you can expect me to open your book and even read a sentence of it, you will need to provide a good answer to this question with a solid logical foundation.

Who are you to demand an answer from me, frankly I couldn't care less if you never responded to any of my post, your uppityness is showing up again.

Oh, I do apologize. You must not be aware that when you publically solicit your beliefs, you will sometimes be expected to be able to support them. It is not uncommon to ask for good reasons before accepting a claim as true. In fact, in some circles, it's a requirement and an expected requirement. Some even show proof while presenting their ideas in order to avoid confusion or pesky requests for such a thing. I can see how it can appear to be rude to you, if you are not akin to such formalities and are clearly not familiar with my weird standard for truth. You, of course, do not have to have good reasons to believe anything. But, for future reference, if you are going to solicit your beliefs and ideas around here, you will need to back them up to avoid the sort of ridicule you continue to endure. You have a belief, this belief cannot be proven true or false, because of this, you have no good argument or evidence for it. Because of this, certain people with a particular standard for truth think your claims sound absurd. This combined with the former leaves you with the type of discourse you find to be unpleasant. I hope you understand.

Here's your answer do with it as you wish. I do not use the Bible for science, I use what I consider viable science and evolution is not it, there are scientist who do not believe in a God who do not believe evolution is the answer, very respected scientist at that. The Bible is a spiritual book about life with God and since there is no other about the God of Christians it's the only book you can use in an argument. I do not use the Bible in scientific argument, I do state I'm a creationist.

I'm sorry, but when did we start talking about evolution? You are right about the bible being a book for Christians and their God, you are mistaken however when you think that non-Christians will be at all interested in anything your book says though. You can, of course, defend anything you want that's written in the bible, your error comes in when you expect others to read it before recognizing their right to reject it. If you wish to defend the bible, that's fine, but I don't need to read a single sentence of it before I can decide it's not worthy of my attention. If you think otherwise, feel free to convince me, but you won't convince me with circular logic. That's all i'm trying to tell you.

[Godscreated]

What absurdities, the things you deem that way, why should your opinion dictate what is absurd in scriptures, does my opinion hold less value than your's?.

Precisely. Since you offer your opinion to others, it is us, "the others", opinion of what is absurd that you can expect to continue to hear. Your opinion is exactly that, and is no more valuable than mine or anyone else's! (When did I say otherwise?). However, until you strengthen your opinion with a logical argument, it will remain an opinion that sounds absurd to people with a certain standard for truth. Do you understand now?

I have opinions about scriptures, most of what I state is truth through scripture, if you can not disprove what I say then all you have is opinion.

---

Well I do think that science would say the sun would not be omnipotent, seeing how it is in a stationary position and can't effect most of the universe. Science has determined it has a limited life.

---

Shame on you GC. You can't honestly expect me to accept that! Who is this "Science" you are referring to? Do you have a good reason to provide from your own data bank of knowledge? How do YOU know that? How do you know that the Sun, being omnipotent, couldn't suspend its powers for a determined amount of time so that it can remain close to us, giving us life, and watching over us? I'm asking you. Don't hide behind answers you don't have or fail to understand.

Surely you're not serious, an atheist who doesn't know that science has determined the sun will burn out in the future, scientist have discovered that other suns through observation die, right. So I say again the sun can not be omnipotent it will burn out.

---

That seems quite unreasonable. We reject your Bible as a circular support for your God. If you think that there is merit to your God or your Bible you must establish truth in one or the other before you can expect anyone else to acknowledge them as credible sources of truth.

---

The scriptures never try and prove God, so how can you say you can see that the Bible tries to.

Is that what you read? I don't see it. Perhaps its easier to respond to the comments of your choosing, rather than my actual thoughts. Proceed...

Prove me wrong.

Just because you reject the Bible that's suppose to make it false, a bit uppity on your part wouldn't you say.

Again, I don't see where I said that, but I would be happy to clarify for you. I don't believe lots of things. I never said they were false. The bible is among a list of many things of which I don't view as credible sources of information. Are you confusing my words with someone else's? It may be beneficial for you to make sure you are responding to things I actually say.

So do you reject the Bible in whole or in part, and why?

Try this for truth God promised to restore the nation of Israel where it once stood when Rome destroyed it. The nation of Israel is the only nation restored to it's original place after 2000 yrs. no other nation has come back after that amount of time, this is Biblical prophecy. Just a bit of truth from scripture..

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc...You may want to research how this little fallacy can be deceitful to the untrained mind.

Stumped are you, there's no fallacy, prophecy fulfilled.

---

My question to you is quite simple:
How do you know that anything the bible says about things not yet proved by science, are true?

I'm asking you a direct question. Before you can expect me to open your book and even read a sentence of it, you will need to provide a good answer to this question with a solid logical foundation.

---

Who are you to demand an answer from me, frankly I couldn't care less if you never responded to any of my post, your uppityness is showing up again.

Oh, I do apologize. You must not be aware that when you publically solicit your beliefs, you will sometimes be expected to be able to support them. It is not uncommon to ask for good reasons before accepting a claim as true.

Asking for an answer or evidence is what I would expect, you however made a demand, as you can see I do not care for that.

In fact, in some circles, it's a requirement and an expected requirement. Some even show proof while presenting their ideas in order to avoid confusion or pesky requests for such a thing. I can see how it can appear to be rude to you, if you are not akin to such formalities and are clearly not familiar with my weird standard for truth.

I've seen no such requirements on this forum and some atheist here avoid answering questions period. If you have questions ask them but do not demand them if you want an answer.

You, of course, do not have to have good reasons to believe anything. But, for future reference, if you are going to solicit your beliefs and ideas around here, you will need to back them up to avoid the sort of ridicule you continue to endure. You have a belief, this belief cannot be proven true or false, because of this, you have no good argument or evidence for it. Because of this, certain people with a particular standard for truth think your claims sound absurd. This combined with the former leaves you with the type of discourse you find to be unpleasant. I hope you understand.

What I understand there's rude and there's polite, if you think rude will get you somewhere with me keep it up.

---

Here's your answer do with it as you wish. I do not use the Bible for science, I use what I consider viable science and evolution is not it, there are scientist who do not believe in a God who do not believe evolution is the answer, very respected scientist at that. The Bible is a spiritual book about life with God and since there is no other about the God of Christians it's the only book you can use in an argument. I do not use the Bible in scientific argument, I do state I'm a creationist.

---

I'm sorry, but when did we start talking about evolution? You are right about the bible being a book for Christians and their God, you are mistaken however when you think that non-Christians will be at all interested in anything your book says though.

Really, I've meet non-christians who find interest in the Bible, my brother for one.

You can, of course, defend anything you want that's written in the bible, your error comes in when you expect others to read it before recognizing their right to reject it.

Most atheist that bring up evolution tell me I can not reject without studying it, so are they in error also, or are you fine with that.

If you wish to defend the bible, that's fine, but I don't need to read a single sentence of it before I can decide it's not worthy of my attention. If you think otherwise, feel free to convince me, but you won't convince me with circular logic. That's all i'm trying to tell you.

If you want to reject scripture or any other writing is your choice, but if you reject it out of ignorance we can not ever have a discussion on the truth of scriptures.

[The Reality Salesman01]

I have opinions about scriptures, most of what I state is truth through scripture, if you can not disprove what I say then all you have is opinion.

Hmm...Wrong again. I can see this logic-thing is giving you trouble. You seem to think that you can say whatever you want, claim that it is true, and then claim victory if others cannot disprove it. I'm sorry to tell you that this theory is fraught with logical flaws.

Surely you're not serious, an atheist who doesn't know that science has determined the sun will burn out in the future, scientist have discovered that other suns through observation die, right. So I say again the sun can not be omnipotent it will burn out.

Because you say it twice, it must be true. At any rate, if the Sun "burns-out", how does this in anyway discredit my claim? What if The Sun decided it necessary for reasons unknown to us? I'm sorry, but you haven't disproved The Sun's omnipotence my trying to convince me it will burn out. For all we know, it's part of The Sun's plan to do so. Try again.

---

That seems quite unreasonable. We reject your Bible as a circular support for your God. If you think that there is merit to your God or your Bible you must establish truth in one or the other before you can expect anyone else to acknowledge them as credible sources of truth.

---

The scriptures never try and prove God, so how can you say you can see that the Bible tries to.

Is that what you read? I don't see it. Perhaps its easier to respond to the comments of your choosing, rather than my actual thoughts. Proceed...

Prove me wrong.

If you would have re-read the above text, you'd see you did that by copying them. Where did I say the bible tries to prove God? Saying that you think The Bible supports God, is not at all the same as saying it tries to prove it. Are you saying The Bible doesn't support your God now? Do I need to quote you again? Pay attention kiddo.

Just because you reject the Bible that's suppose to make it false, a bit uppity on your part wouldn't you say.

So do you reject the Bible in whole or in part, and why?

This is the best part! I can give you any reason I want and it's valid. I don't like the bible because I despise all books that have the letter "B" in their title. If you care to make a more convincing reason to accept the bible, it is on you to do so. Are you keeping up?

Try this for truth God promised to restore the nation of Israel where it once stood when Rome destroyed it. The nation of Israel is the only nation restored to it's original place after 2000 yrs. no other nation has come back after that amount of time, this is Biblical prophecy. Just a bit of truth from scripture..

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc...You may want to research how this little fallacy can be deceitful to the untrained mind.

Stumped are you, there's no fallacy, prophecy fulfilled.

I can see you are going to need more tutelage than I thought. Ok, I will entertain you.

The fallacy you failed to understand or even google for that matter is actually quite simple. You assume that because an event occurs in succession after another, that they are linked causally.

A) The Bible makes a claim
B)The claim comes into fruition
C) The Bible predicted it

You leave no room for either coincidence or for the operation of an outside factor which separately influences the event.

Suppose you and I were on a train, and we were both about to eat a banana. We go through a tunnel just as I take a bite of mine, everything goes dark. In the darkness, I yell to you..."Don't eat your banana, you'll go blind!". Do you understand? C doesn't always follow in every instance, your claim is of zero relevance to me.

---

My question to you is quite simple:
How do you know that anything the bible says about things not yet proved by science, are true?

I'm asking you a direct question. Before you can expect me to open your book and even read a sentence of it, you will need to provide a good answer to this question with a solid logical foundation.

---

Asking for an answer or evidence is what I would expect, you however made a demand, as you can see I do not care for that.

My deepest apologies.

I've seen no such requirements on this forum and some atheist here avoid answering questions period. If you have questions ask them but do not demand them if you want an answer.

I'm pretty sure i've already asked, but apparently, I was too demanding. Let me try again...

How do you know anything you claim to know about God is true?

Really, I've meet non-christians who find interest in the Bible, my brother for one.

Yes, and I've met vegetarians that eat animal crackers. What's your point?

Most atheist that bring up evolution tell me I can not reject without studying it, so are they in error also, or are you fine with that.

If what you say is true, Yes. They too are in error. I don't care at all about what you study before rejecting. Evolution is not a fact, no matter how likely some may think it is. One should not pretend to KNOW something they cannot show to be TRUE.

If you want to reject scripture or any other writing is your choice, but if you reject it out of ignorance we can not ever have a discussion on the truth of scriptures.

You can't call me ignorant and hope that gives credibility to your opinion of the scriptures. I've never eaten fecies either, I tell you I don't believe it's a good idea, you can't come back as and tell me that because i've never tried it, I can't know if my prejudice is correct. You'll need to use logic. You've read it, I haven't. Tell me why I should. If you think they're so valuable, it must be easy. Why does it appear to be so difficult for you?

[Godscreated]

I have opinions about scriptures, most of what I state is truth through scripture, if you can not disprove what I say then all you have is opinion.

Hmm...Wrong again. I can see this logic-thing is giving you trouble. You seem to think that you can say whatever you want, claim that it is true, and then claim victory if others cannot disprove it. I'm sorry to tell you that this theory is fraught with logical flaws.

You sure are good at declaring people wrong, to bad your incorrect in your opinion. I have no problem with logic, just with those who believe they are the only ones who have it. You can not disprove what I bring from scripture because you're afraid of the word of God, you understand the power it has, that's why you avoid it and act this way.

Surely you're not serious, an atheist who doesn't know that science has determined the sun will burn out in the future, scientist have discovered that other suns through observation die, right. So I say again the sun can not be omnipotent it will burn out.

Because you say it twice, it must be true. At any rate, if the Sun "burns-out", how does this in anyway discredit my claim? What if The Sun decided it necessary for reasons unknown to us? I'm sorry, but you haven't disproved The Sun's omnipotence my trying to convince me it will burn out. For all we know, it's part of The Sun's plan to do so. Try again.

I said it twice because you're hard of hearing. An omnipotent power can not get rid of itself, that would be contrary to it's omnipotent power. You having trouble with omnipotence are you.

---

That seems quite unreasonable. We reject your Bible as a circular support for your God. If you think that there is merit to your God or your Bible you must establish truth in one or the other before you can expect anyone else to acknowledge them as credible sources of truth.

---

---

The scriptures never try and prove God, so how can you say you can see that the Bible tries to.

---

---

Is that what you read? I don't see it. Perhaps its easier to respond to the comments of your choosing, rather than my actual thoughts. Proceed...

---

Prove me wrong.

Where did I say the bible tries to prove God? Saying that you think The Bible supports God, is not at all the same as saying it tries to prove it. Are you saying The Bible doesn't support your God now? Do I need to quote you again? Pay attention kiddo.

I didn't, I said it. The scriptures deal with a real God whether you want them to or not. Supporting who God is and giving proof of God are two totally different things. I can support someones works without trying to prove they exist.

So do you reject the Bible in whole or in part, and why?

This is the best part! I can give you any reason I want and it's valid. I don't like the bible because I despise all books that have the letter "B" in their title. If you care to make a more convincing reason to accept the bible, it is on you to do so. Are you keeping up?

Good intelligent answer never thought you would get there, keep up the good work.

Try this for truth God promised to restore the nation of Israel where it once stood when Rome destroyed it. The nation of Israel is the only nation restored to it's original place after 2000 yrs. no other nation has come back after that amount of time, this is Biblical prophecy. Just a bit of truth from scripture..

Stumped are you, there's no fallacy, prophecy fulfilled.

I can see you are going to need more tutelage than I thought. Ok, I will entertain you.

The fallacy you failed to understand or even google for that matter is actually quite simple. You assume that because an event occurs in succession after another, that they are linked causally.

A) The Bible makes a claim
B)The claim comes into fruition
C) The Bible predicted it

You leave no room for either coincidence or for the operation of an outside factor which separately influences the event.

You believe google has all the answers, good you are making this easy.
You and other atheist that believe in evolution are the kings of believing in succession being causality. Tell me sir, do you know of another prophecy of that magnitude that came to fruition after 2500 years, can you? That would surly eliminate coincidence if you can't.
There was an outside force that influenced the event, GOD. Even if it had been another outside force, which it wasn't, the prophecy was still fulfilled, omniscience of God took care of that.

Suppose you and I were on a train, and we were both about to eat a banana. We go through a tunnel just as I take a bite of mine, everything goes dark. In the darkness, I yell to you..."Don't eat your banana, you'll go blind!". Do you understand? C doesn't always follow in every instance, your claim is of zero relevance to me.

Your stupid suppose event has no meaning to me, it's just plain stupid.

---

My question to you is quite simple:
How do you know that anything the bible says about things not yet proved by science, are true?

I'm asking you a direct question. Before you can expect me to open your book and even read a sentence of it, you will need to provide a good answer to this question with a solid logical foundation.

---

---

Asking for an answer or evidence is what I would expect, you however made a demand, as you can see I do not care for that.

---

---

My deepest apologies.

---

I've seen no such requirements on this forum and some atheist here avoid answering questions period. If you have questions ask them but do not demand them if you want an answer.

I'm pretty sure i've already asked, but apparently, I was too demanding. Let me try again...

How do you know anything you claim to know about God is true?

Simple really, God through experiences has proven Himself to me, the experiences I have line up with the scriptures so I have my proof of God. There is no other way to find God's truth, anyone who tries to find truth outside of scripture are fooling themselves.

Really, I've meet non-christians who find interest in the Bible, my brother for one.

Yes, and I've met vegetarians that eat animal crackers. What's your point?

My points simple, you said non-christians, have no interest in the Bible, I pointed out that's just not true. Vegetarians do eat products of animals, vegan would been the choice example.

Most atheist that bring up evolution tell me I can not reject without studying it, so are they in error also, or are you fine with that.

If what you say is true, Yes. They too are in error. I don't care at all about what you study before rejecting. Evolution is not a fact, no matter how likely some may think it is. One should not pretend to KNOW something they cannot show to be TRUE.

Well almost all the atheist on this site say evolution is factual, even though they've never proven it. I on the other hand have never claimed I can prove God and I certainly did not come here to do something I knew I couldn't, so why do people keep insisting that's why I'm here.

If you want to reject scripture or any other writing is your choice, but if you reject it out of ignorance we can not ever have a discussion on the truth of scriptures.

You can't call me ignorant and hope that gives credibility to your opinion of the scriptures. I've never eaten fecies either, I tell you I don't believe it's a good idea, you can't come back as and tell me that because i've never tried it, I can't know if my prejudice is correct. You'll need to use logic. You've read it, I haven't. Tell me why I should. If you think they're so valuable, it must be easy. Why does it appear to be so difficult for you?

Calling you ignorant of the scriptures wasn't to show my credibility, it was to show you are not able to discuss scripture or reject it with credibility.
I believe you should read the scriptures to find God's truth through Christ, then they will be open to you so you can see who God really is. Did you expect a different answer?

[Michael Schubert]

Post like the four above this one is what derails an OP, people parroting the same ol' tired things, why can't you go to scripture and try to disprove what Christians believe. You expect us to go to science to disprove what you believe about evolution, are we asking anything differently than you are, NO we are not. Many atheist have said to me in the last few days they read and study scripture, if that is so then prove it in conversations you have with Christians.

Which came first: Adam or animals?
Adam or trees?
Adam or Eve?

Also, the authors of Noah's Ark plagiarized the story from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/b...radictions

---

The bible is not evidence of god. The Holy Bible is a geo-centric book written by people who claimed to have spoken to god. They ancient writers knew nothing about the process of creation, and they believed the world was flat.

[The Reality Salesman01]

I have opinions about scriptures, most of what I state is truth through scripture, if you can not disprove what I say then all you have is opinion.

Hmm...Wrong again. I can see this logic-thing is giving you trouble. You seem to think that you can say whatever you want, claim that it is true, and then claim victory if others cannot disprove it. I'm sorry to tell you that this theory is fraught with logical flaws.

You sure are good at declaring people wrong, to bad your incorrect in your opinion. I have no problem with logic, just with those who believe they are the only ones who have it.

To address the first part, you’re right. “Wrong” was not at all the proper word. Your statement is fallacious and logically invalid. I can’t say for certain it is wrong, only that the means by which you arrived at your statement are illogical. “A man that holds a true belief without knowledge, is like a blind man that happens to find the right road” -Plato

You can not disprove what I bring from scripture because you're afraid of the word of God, you understand the power it has, that's why you avoid it and act this way.

I didn't say I could disprove anything you believe. Look back at my initial post. I said that in the first sentence. I respect that you really think this stuff is true, I just find it odd that you put so much stock in an old book. It baffles me. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how any educated adult could say such things as you have above. It’s wildly entertaining to speak to yourself and others, but only in the sense that it would also be entertaining to stroll through an insane asylum and speak to the criminally accused.

I said it twice because you're hard of hearing. An omnipotent power can not get rid of itself, that would be contrary to it's omnipotent power. You having trouble with omnipotence are you.

Before you respond, read very carefully. Address my claims and don't just start spouting off words. I'm making specific claims about the sun and your ability to percieve it. This is your third and last chance to recognize an unfalsifiable claim. Here we go...

The Sun is of unlimited power. The state in which you perceive It, makes it difficult for you to fathom Its potential. You perceive The Sun as a mere ball of burning gasses and elements, and so to you, it seems to have a life expectancy. But, that only shows that The Sun YOU THINK you understand cannot be omnipotent. But a truly omnipotent Sun has no limits, and can even suspend its own existence to be both eternal in actuality, and temporary in human perception. The Sun cannot be understood by you, so you think what I say is impossible. But, if you would only A/S/K, The Sun It would show you its TRUE light.

Get it yet?

I can support someones works without trying to prove they exist.

No kidding. That’s what you’ve been doing all along. Whether or not you are trying, is still up for debate. You are so defensive of your belief, you haven’t even noticed that I said that 3 posts ago. I realize you aren’t establishing any credibility in your claims, and yet, you are still willing to support them. What I’m telling you is: I reject claims that are founded on unreliable processes such as the one you are describing right now. I do! If I needed to know the measurements of my bedroom door, I wouldn’t accept a measurement that wasn’t taken of the exact door that I needed to measure, or the measurement from the company, given I had the specific part number, or from the man that built my house, and installed my door personally, as he has done several times over. These are all examples of reliable (some more than others) processes that can reveal truth. If I simply guess, or pretend to know what size my door is, I am more likely to be wrong than right. I am interested in increasing the amount of TRUE beliefs I have, and decreasing the amount of FALSE beliefs.

You believe google has all the answers, good you are making this easy.

Google has some answers, such as critical thinking terms and definitions. These things would be very useful to you about now. I’m reading this stuff you wrote below, and I’m baffled at the impact you seem to think this has. It’s actually kind of sad how little you understand about logic. Like this for example…

You and other atheist that believe in evolution are the kings of believing in succession being causality.

When exactly did I say any of this? This is called a red-herring. And this one…

Tell me sir, do you know of another prophecy of that magnitude that came to fruition after 2500 years, can you? That would surly eliminate coincidence if you can't.

Argument from ignorance. Another fallacy.

There was an outside force that influenced the event, GOD. .

False Cause Fallacy (ignores alternative solutions), Affirming the antecedent

Even if it had been another outside force, which it wasn't, the prophecy was still fulfilled, omniscience of God took care of that. .

Denying the consequent. You don’t seem to care whether your brain is moving forwards or backwards.

Suppose you and I were on a train, and we were both about to eat a banana. We go through a tunnel just as I take a bite of mine, everything goes dark. In the darkness, I yell to you..."Don't eat your banana, you'll go blind!". Do you understand? C doesn't always follow in every instance, your claim is of zero relevance to me.

Your stupid suppose event has no meaning to me, it's just plain stupid.

I don’t doubt for a second that you thought that. Given the above logical errors, how in the world could you be expected to understand any other example of one?

Simple really, God through experiences has proven Himself to me, the experiences I have line up with the scriptures so I have my proof of God. There is no other way to find God's truth, anyone who tries to find truth outside of scripture are fooling themselves.

Circulus in probando ( Reasoning in a circle) Classic defense tool for Christianity. Another fallacy by the way. You're up to 7 or 8 in this response alone.

Well almost all the atheist on this site say evolution is factual,

I haven't brought up evolution once, and I'm not quite sure why you insist on having this side argument, but, I will agree with you that they have mistaken if what you say is true, and not misinterpreted. I would be willing to bet its the latter. Are you sure they don't say that Evolution is supported by facts? Evolution, as a theory, is not FACTUAL. It is supported by reproducible data that makes evolution plausible. It doesn’t make it true, just reasonably possible.

even though they've never proven it. I on the other hand have never claimed I can prove God and I certainly did not come here to do something I knew I couldn't, so why do people keep insisting that's why I'm here.

Great! Then why are you attempting to use the faculties of logic to defend it? Butchering the method for proof in your defense of God is a good way to make people think you are trying to prove God, but are failing miserably. Not saying you ARE trying, but if you were, you ‘d be doing a terrible job of it.

Calling you ignorant of the scriptures wasn't to show my credibility, it was to show you are not able to discuss scripture or reject it with credibility.

Again, not so. I can reject the validity of your scriptures on the basis of an unreliable process. I don’t need to read any of them. If you think it is better to read them, you need to show why. That is the burden of proof. I’m sorry, but it’s on your shoulders, not mine.

I believe you should read the scriptures to find God's truth through Christ, then they will be open to you so you can see who God really is.

This is an opinion. If you would like to strengthen it with an argument by giving reasons to believe what you say is true, I will be happy to entertain it. Otherwise, this is no different than me telling you: I believe Strawberry is the best flavor of ice cream, if you eat it the way I do, I’m sure you will agree. WHY???? How do you know what you say is true? Why should I believe you? That’s how this works!!!

Did you expect a different answer?

How could I? You haven’t given a single reason to expect much more.

[Dionysius]

Why does blood sacrifice make anything better?

I read the first view pages and found just as I have elsewhere an inability to answer a question that is foundational to the tradition. I often asked why was it necessary for Jesus to be crucified? How were men saved? The answer invariably was, you are saved from God's wrath. To which just opens a string of question begging.

Let us give thanks and the proferring of gifts to one another that Jesus did use a metaphor that is entirely absurd, that is devoid of noticeable meaning for if he had made it more rational then it wouldn't be as easy to ridicule re-educate the underdeveloped.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Why does blood sacrifice make anything better?

I read the first view pages and found just as I have elsewhere an inability to answer a question that is foundational to the tradition. I often asked why was it necessary for Jesus to be crucified? How were men saved? The answer invariably was, you are saved from God's wrath. To which just opens a string of question begging.

Let us give thanks and the proferring of gifts to one another that Jesus did use a metaphor that is entirely absurd, that is devoid of noticeable meaning for if he had made it more rational then it wouldn't be as easy to ridicule re-educate the underdeveloped.

Welcome to our personal attempt to disrupt the rings of circular logic being solicited within this little community. I too have been annoyed by the very same perpetuated non-sense myself lately. I even started a thread about it.