Evidence for God from Science

JackEvolution wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Again, not Biblically speaking. And if you want to argue against Christianity, you kind of have to use something that isn't a straw man. Your definition is not the Christian definition, so you aren't arguing with the Christian definition. You are arguing against a Deist's god.

Well I'm not a Christian and don't want to argue against Christianity either.

You argued against Christianity on the basis of a straw man. It doesn't matter if you are a Christian or not, it was logically fallacious.

My thoughts are that you should take a look at our board purpose and discussion guidelines and either work within them or move on to somewhere else that can serve for you to enlighten others with your views about religion. We're not a public debate board for those who wish to come making generic and oft repeated, non-original accusations of this sort and frankly all you've done so far is condemn and accuse in your posts.

FFS dry your eyes! Come on! Whats wrong with you people?
I had a look at your board purpose and discussion guidelines.
I DON'T want to enlighten others with my views of religion. I merely expressed MY opinion! I'm not trying to say that Christianity is wrong! I think you all know very well what I mean. Why do you think I'm accusing you or condemning you? You are judging me like judging a book by it's cover! I admit that I'm a bit angry. But no wonder when i just get replies of people who think they have to defend and protect themselves. I'm trying to have a conversation with Christians here.

ONCE AGAIN I RESPECT YOUR BELIEF AND I'M NOT ACCUSING ANYONE! Got it?

JackEvolution wrote:FFS dry your eyes! Come on! Whats wrong with you people?
I had a look at your board purpose and discussion guidelines.
I DON'T want to enlighten others with my views of religion. I merely expressed MY opinion! I'm not trying to say that Christianity is wrong! I think you all know very well what I mean. Why do you think I'm accusing you or condemning you? You are judging me like judging a book by it's cover! I admit that I'm a bit angry. But no wonder when i just get replies of people who think they have to defend and protect themselves. I'm trying to have a conversation with Christians here.

ONCE AGAIN I RESPECT YOUR BELIEF AND I'M NOT ACCUSING ANYONE! Got it?

What do you propose other than defend our beliefs? Forsake them because the arguments you are making (that all of us have seen many times before)?

I don't think so.

You did not express your opinion alone; you made accusations. You didn't follow up by actually responding to our responses, you just made more. So, settle down, stop writing in caps, stop taking offense and then feigning innocence, and start acting a bit more responsible. You have questions? Do you want us to try and answer them? Then listen to the answers.

JackEvolution wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Bad, because to deny truth has consequences--the more profound the truth, the more serious the consequences; wrong, because God does exist, so to disbelieve is to hold an incorrect position; evil, because we have an obligation to uphold truth. With regard to the last of these, the only way to argue that it is not evil to reject God is to argue that one is invincibly ignorant of His existence, a position that, given the historical agreement of the human population on this issue, proves to be hard to do.

You see I totally disagree with that.

I doubt that. Let's look at my words . . . so you disagree that

• to deny truth has consequences--the more profound the truth, the more serious the consequences?

You disagree that

• to disbelieve [something true--I missed those words, but they should have been rather obvious from the context] is to hold an incorrect position?

You disagree that

• we have an obligation to uphold truth?

If you really disagree with those as general principles, then I'll just say that you can have your emotional response to God. I'm not one who tends to think that emotions make good arguments for truth, but on this, I'll follow your lead--I don't want anything to do with a world where denying the truth has no consequences, where to disbelieve something true isn't incorrect, and where we have no obligation to uphold truth. I'll keep my God, which is based on Truth, and you keep your irrational world.

So if I live my life believing there is no god. I'm an evil and a bad human being?

Oh, the picture is worse than that. You're an evil and a bad human being even if you live your life believing in God. The best Christians in this world are evil and bad human beings. Paul called himself the chief of sinners and insisted that the best of our righteousness is but rubbish (in Gk., lit. animal excrement), and Isaiah counted it as filthy rags (in Heb., a reference to the rags women used during their cycles). So you go be as good as you want. God isn't impressed in the least by it. Still less is He impressed by your belief or disbelief in Him.

And then when I die God will punish me and send me to hell?

I'm glad to see you make the proper distinction. I note you did not say He will punish you by sending you to Hell. That would have been incorrect. So there is hope for you yet. You got something right that a good many get wrong. But, yes, you are right. If you die without Christ, you will be punished for your sins, and you will go to Hell. Those who sinned worse will be punished worse, of course. That's all a matter of justice. Hell itself is not the punishment. It's just the place you go when you tell God you don't want anything to do with Him. Would you rather Him force Himself on you for all of eternity? God is something of a gentleman in this regard. He's offered you His hand. You can accept it or reject it. If you reject it, He'll let you have your way. You will finally get what you really want. You'll be your own god. You'll get all you can from yourself. Forever.

Good luck getting any goodness, though, from yourself when the source of Goodness is God.

Everybody should be allowed to believe what they want.

You don't believe that, or if you do, only in a very limited and hollow way. Do you think people should be allowed to believe that blacks are inherently inhuman and deserve to be enslaved? Do you think people should be allowed to believe that evolution teaches that we just popped up here as a result of millions of completely random, unguided changes? Should people be allowed to believe that the Holocaust never happened?

Perhaps you'd just amend your statement to insist that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to act on certain beliefs. But that doesn't help you, because what about people who believe that they should be allowed to act on their beliefs? You are, in effect, forcing your morality--your beliefs--on them. What gives you that right? Who do you think you are? God?!? Oh wait . . .

A god who punishes those who don't believe in him is an evil God in my eyes.

In your eyes? So what? Why should I care what's evil in your eyes. I think abortion is evil. I think premarital sex is evil. Do you give a care about my personal opinion about what is evil? Pray tell, why should care any more about your measly opinion on evil? Again, who do you think you are, telling me what's evil and what isn't . . . God? Oh wait . . .

You seem to misunderstand the difference between asking for a peaceful atmosphere and attacking other peoples beliefs. Nobody is "attacking you" for being atheist, you stated things they disagree with so they responded, you can respond to them as well; in a controlled, and peaceful atmosphere may I add.

And poyol looked to debate us for no other reason than to debate., As I remember this a christian forum open to people seeking questions about Christianity, not people coming to start arguments. From what I've heard the old forum on here was pretty much nasty debating that went nowhere but more arguing.

I'm usually pretty able to differentiate between when it's raining and when someone is peeing on my shoes ... even when the one doing it is is making thunder noises and looking up at the clouds.

A conversation is quite a bit different than an interogation; it involves both parties listening and interacting with what is being said and not just one attempting to answer while the other ignores answers and goes on to level more criticisms.