I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done. I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
You're probably right Mage but I think it's possible that he just doesn't understand that science has specific evidence to back up their claims. It sounds to me like he doesn't pick either side and has set them both equally on fair ground. So maybe he just doesn't understand that the evidence science uses is different from the evidence used by religon.
You're probably right Mage but I think it's possible that he just doesn't understand that science has specific evidence to back up their claims. It sounds to me like he doesn't pick either side and has set them both equally on fair ground. So maybe he just doesn't understand that the evidence science uses is different from the evidence used by religon.
What I'm saying is that to assume that they can be thrown against eachother is stupid. They're not on fair ground, they're on different planes, and thus attempting to debate them serves no purpose
@ Mostly I wanted to cover the clearly false statements that were bound to come up, such as "evolution doesn't happen"
Ok yes i understand why you would do that.... but no one has ever proved evolution so yeah u cant rightfully say that evolution doesent happen because no one has ever proved it wrong.... but u cant rightfully say it does happen because again, its never been proved.
Ok yes i understand why you would do that.... but no one has ever proved evolution so yeah u cant rightfully say that evolution doesent happen because no one has ever proved it wrong.... but u cant rightfully say it does happen because again, its never been proved.
Nobody's forcing you to talk with me. If you can't back up your claims in English, and simply resort to isults and conformation of other's words, than it seems a little pointless to be here, no?
what beter way to learn english then to use it?
I think it's possible that he just doesn't understand that science has specific evidence to back up their claims
i do know. i know that for very long already xD
it sounds to me like he doesn't pick either side and has set them both equally on fair ground.
not at all. religion = non-sense, nothing to backup any of it's claims. science = sense, evry claim must be backed up whit proof from multiple sources.
not at all. religion = non-sense, nothing to backup any of it's claims. science = sense, evry claim must be backed up whit proof from multiple sources.
That's what I'm saying. You can't compare them with each other, because religion is faith based and science is logic based. You can't explain religion with logic in the same way that you can't explain science with faith. It's like trying to determine how much money you have to pay for a car when the country your in only trades in philisophical ideas.
faith is not gullibility. Gullibility is gullibility. Faith is believing in something because to you it feels true, regardless of what other's say, and regardless of where things point.
How is just believing something regardless not gullible?
faith 1b (merriam webster): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
gullible: easily duped or cheated
If you believing something without proof you can be easily duped and cheated.
You can't explain religion with logic in the same way that you can't explain science with faith.
We can explain religion with logic. Many of the conclusions though turn out that most if not all of it is made up.
How is just believing something regardless not gullible? faith 1b (merriam webster): firm belief in something for which there is no proof gullible: easily duped or cheated If you believing something without proof you can be easily duped and cheated.
As far as I can tell, those meanings don't cross unless you make them cross. While it's true that people who have faith can be gullible, they don't have faith because they are gullible.
Making a generalization like that is like me saying all Atheists are closed minded because they refuse to view religion from a religious standpoint, and make no attempts to understand the faith of a believer. Keep in mind I don't believe this, but faith and gullibility do not go hand in hand, and making a generalization like that serves no purpose but to reinforce what I just said.
We can explain religion with logic. Many of the conclusions though turn out that most if not all of it is made up.
I don't see how religion can be explained with logic, because in my understanding, religion is basically the abandoment of conventional logic and the acceptance of faith. So, again, trying to use logic to explain belief in a religion makes no sense.
I'm not talking about the religion itself, which of course has many fallacies. I'm saying that for anyone to believe in a religion, it requiers the absense of logic and the complete acceptance of faith.
Keep in mind I don't believe this, but faith and gullibility do not go hand in hand, and making a generalization like that serves no purpose but to reinforce what I just said.
Given me an example where it doesn't? I can give plenty where it does. In fact further back somewhere in here I have.
I don't see how religion can be explained with logic, because in my understanding, religion is basically the abandoment of conventional logic and the acceptance of faith. So, again, trying to use logic to explain belief in a religion makes no sense.
I'm not talking about the religion itself, which of course has many fallacies. I'm saying that for anyone to believe in a religion, it requiers the absense of logic and the complete acceptance of faith.
Yes it does take a lack of logic, however that doesn't mean someone else can't examine those beliefs in a logical manner. That also doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get those who do believe to look at those beliefs logically.
Yes it does take a lack of logic, however that doesn't mean someone else can't examine those beliefs in a logical manner. That also doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get those who do believe to look at those beliefs logically.
What I'm saying is that when one examines those beliefs in a logical manner, they can't achieve any fulfillment because that exemplifies a complete lack of understanding towards the believers point of veiw, and serves no purpose towards furthering either party's understanding of the other.
Given me an example where it doesn't? I can give plenty where it does. In fact further back somewhere in here I have.
I'd actually love to see these examples, not that I doubt they exist or anything. But I'm sure it will reach the same problem any other religious argument reaches:
They can't be looked at the same way.
A cancer survivor who accepts God because they were told by doctors the disease would kill them doesn't see that as gullibility. I assume they think it logical that God saved them, because science and doctors gave up. Regardless, someone who doesn't have faith can say "AHA! Another gullible fool, thinking 'God' saved them" when the existence of God can't be determined. Gullibility can't even be defined here, because no matter how unlikely the existence of God is, He still can't be proven or disproven (although most religious dogma can).
Yes, logically God probably doesn't exist, but there is no way to know that, short of dying and meeting Him.
What I'm saying is that when one examines those beliefs in a logical manner, they can't achieve any fulfillment because that exemplifies a complete lack of understanding towards the believers point of veiw,
both my parrents are christians. i do understand how they think it is real. i know how to see and speak whit "god" (it's kinda like having a imaginary friend.) but this doesn't mean that i can't look at what the bible says in a logic way.
logically God probably doesn't exist, but there is no way to know that.
but the bible is the word of god. we can proof the word of god wrong in many ways whit the use of logical thinking. (not interested to give examples here. plz. don't ask. they often enoufg pass by on this forum)
