RE: Christ's birthday
December 10, 2009 at 10:07 pm
(This post was last modified: December 10, 2009 at 10:21 pm by tackattack.)
but the test would only be testing the limited field of view registered by the camera. Not the fact that you caught him humping an elk and couldn't get your lens cap off before he started running.
Not only is the evidence in question based on the method of capture (no cameras in christ's time)but it doens't encompass the entire scope of the "experience".
I think that's why people agree that God can't be proven or disproven emphatically. Hence I believe he does and you believe he doesn't. I can allow that he might not exist, but by the definition of atheism I was given you can not even allow for the possibility that it does. Am I way off on the nail here?
little add before I go to bed. I think it's the level of creditbility we disagree on the most. You see the fuzy picture of "bigfoot" and can prove that it could be a man in a suit. I'm telling you you weren't there and didn't see him humping the elk as well. I think thhat, in general, atheists (as it has occured to me in the RW) just dismiss God despite not seeing the whole picture (which does require a predeposition to believing in God) and wonder why Christians get so frustrated and some even get angry. "But you didn't see him hump the elk!" and just chalk it up to coincedence. So I guess Atheists believe in Coincidence and Christians believe that not everything is just random? Wow I'm sure that doesn't make sense and I'm very tired. Night everyone.
Not only is the evidence in question based on the method of capture (no cameras in christ's time)but it doens't encompass the entire scope of the "experience".
I think that's why people agree that God can't be proven or disproven emphatically. Hence I believe he does and you believe he doesn't. I can allow that he might not exist, but by the definition of atheism I was given you can not even allow for the possibility that it does. Am I way off on the nail here?
little add before I go to bed. I think it's the level of creditbility we disagree on the most. You see the fuzy picture of "bigfoot" and can prove that it could be a man in a suit. I'm telling you you weren't there and didn't see him humping the elk as well. I think thhat, in general, atheists (as it has occured to me in the RW) just dismiss God despite not seeing the whole picture (which does require a predeposition to believing in God) and wonder why Christians get so frustrated and some even get angry. "But you didn't see him hump the elk!" and just chalk it up to coincedence. So I guess Atheists believe in Coincidence and Christians believe that not everything is just random? Wow I'm sure that doesn't make sense and I'm very tired. Night everyone.
