Quote:But you really can't. It is a faith-based system, so whatever evidence you find that doesn't follow your predetermined answers is thrown out. If you were to look at it objectively, especially 1st and 2nd century christianity and the wide variety of doctrines that were both combined and eradicated by the orthodox church, you wouldn't believe in christianity anymore. Before christianity was ironed out by the church, before the various permutations of it were crushed by the church, it was a very weak, and widely varied system of beliefs that did very little to substantiate the historical accuracy of the modern bible. The Christianity you believe in was created over the course of centuries, it wasn't a set doctrine or a set cannon from the beginning, which would be what it was were the effects of the 12 apostle's preaching accurate in relation to the bible. The actual history of christianity was a very brutal, very bad larve like consumption and destruction of itself to create a single uniform doctrine.
Very true. If I was back when western christianity was killing Christianas (Pretty much its entire history) I would of been classified as a heretic or as a 'Judaizer'. Anyway you are correct. It didnt take long for Western Christianity to call anyone a heretic, Neostrians, Arrainsm, Assyrians etc. (Great book to read is, 'The Lost History of Christianity.')
But I dont see how this proves anything to be honest with you. People were manipulated to do the churches bidding, but people can arise. The only reason why people can be manipulated is because people dont want to think and question as the famous saying goes, 'Religion is an opium for the people.' I doubt most Christians in the west understand their bloody history or even their theology. But this isnt what everyone is like.
Quote:Because I used rational, skeptical, and logical reasoning to come to my conclusion. What did you use? If any of your conclusions are a result of faith, you were not rational. End of story.
Lets try it again.
Me: How are you more rational than me?
You: I dont believe in faires or santa or A big invisible monster.
Me: I dont see your point, neither do I?
You: God is on that line
Me: Why? Perhaps you arent being open minded enough? You still havent shown me how you are more rational than me?
You: Lalalalala logic lalalala rational lalalala me skeptic
You dont listen. You dont think theism is on the same line as atheism, for no reason.
Quote:Ah, fine tuning. That old chestnut. This argument seems to presuppose its conclusion, though, in maintaining that there's anything significant about life as a phenomenon. From a non-religious viewpoint, life is just a biochemical phenomenon. Besides, we'd be more justified in saying that the universe is fine-tuned to produce vast amounts of empty space. Given that most of our planet is covered in water, thus uninhabitable for us, and those bits which aren't are filled with other species that can kill us, or temperatures that are either too hot or too cold, the universe begins to look distinctly undesigned for life.
Imagine if we didnt have all that water, do you think we would still be around. You can only push the equilibirum to a certain degree. I dont see how you have refuted the fine tuning arguement at all.
Quote:So are you saying that atheism is equivalent to theism as a faith position? If so... guess again.
Funny, its only athesits and fundies who say religion is based on blind faith. There is evidence for a God, it just depends how you interpret.
Quote:The single dumbest thing you have said.
Perhaps what you have just said is dumb as well. Theists, Agnostics and Atheitsts mostly agree that this universe does appear to be designed, it just depends on how you interpret it with your philosphical bagage.
