When Christians use Science to prove Atheist wrong.
Options
Comments
-
thats what I believe. Like for instance, when you think, your thoughts are in 2D while you exist in 3D. The same can be applied to the eternal substance which exists in a higher dimension but the universe, a manifestation of this eternal substance, exists in the lower dimension. Like the example of an eternal sea producing temporary or finite waves and foam. The water is in the wave, but the wave itself is not the sea. Likewise, the eternal substance exists in you and I but you and I are not "? ". At the same time, "? " is not the ? as theism describes
-
lol...you know more about what the bible say in the hebrew thought than more than a few hebrews i know and you an atheist or agnostic or something (i forgot which one). top reason why ? and crackas dont like this is because this conceptualization does not abdicate personal responsibility and accountability to all the dimensions you exist in like a white,bearded lightning bolt good or a magnetic personality who is sposed to be an intercessor or some other kind of lame human sacrifice deal.Jaded Righteousness wrote: »thats what I believe. Like for instance, when you think, your thoughts are in 2D while you exist in 3D. The same can be applied to the eternal substance which exists in a higher dimension but the universe, a manifestation of this eternal substance, exists in the lower dimension. Like the example of an eternal sea producing temporary or finite waves and foam. The water is in the wave, but the wave itself is not the sea. Likewise, the eternal substance exists in you and I but you and I are not "? ". At the same time, "? " is not the ? as theism describes
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »...but, you are assuming that ? is "testable" like that water bottle; that ? can be reduced to a science project. If ? is responsible for why everything exists, then it is not "enough" to say that ? exist because science says so. It is not even enough for me to say ? exist because of any assumptions on what I think the Bible (or any other religious texts) says. The existence of ? is much bigger than that.
If you or I (or anyone else) can't observe ? physically or mentally (directly or indirectly) concretely enough to test the theory that he exists, or if we can't rely on the very texts that introduce him to humanity in the first place, why even assume he exists at all? Anything, if it exists, influences or is influenced by something else, either directly or indirectly. Therefore we can observe it directly or through its manifestations or the phenomena it influences.
Not to say that I'm looking for "science experiments" on ? , complete with lab coats and test tubes but just the simplicity of KNOWING that something is there by direct or indirect observation. Again, what benefit do we have in religious faith? Like I said earlier, you don't understand the universe any better assuming there is a ? in the sky than you would understand the universe if you were not a believer.
Observing ? is one thing. Trusting ? is another thing. In most (if not all) religious texts, ? has something to say about life and how people should live. They talk about promises and rewards as well the consequences of disobedience. I like to think that the reason why people believe that ? doesn't exist isn't because ? can't be observed, but because people can't trust the deity that the religious serve; that the promises of goodness, righteousness, and justice that ? supposedly provides for people doesn't exist.
Now if ? exists, we are not just to take heed to form...but we are to take heed to the nature; the essence.
How can we trust something/someone we can't observe?
I've never heard ? say anything on the topic of morality (or any topic whatsoever). If ? is saying things to us, he must be observable in some way. If ? is not observable, as you agree with me that he is not, then how do we know he has given any advice on morality or made any promises that would give us the idea that we should trust him?
Believe it or not...it is easy to do. We do it all the time. We can't observe things like love, peace and happiness, yet we trust we know what they are.
Maybe you are not familiar with the Bible, but there are things that suggest that there is a certain way in which to live. And there are things that suggest that people will be "blessed" if they live in that certain way and cursed if they don't.
I'm going to go out on a limb here. It may not be the best example of "knowing" someone, but it's worth a shot. Have you ever read a book by your favorite author and by reading their books, you get a glimpse into who this person may be like. You can gauge what they like or dislike, what they value and their integrity. Sure it doesn't paint the entire picture, but if you ever get a chance to meet the author that wrote the book, you already have expectations that this person can be trusted. This is much what goes on with the Bible. There are things in the Bible that strangely convinces me that ? exists. -
Real ?
2012= Atheism is cool
Its absolutely mind boggling how much atheists ? is going on now. I never judge any type of belief, but the label of me being stupid or dumb and childish because i believe in ? contradicts to what man tells atheists about science.
Bottom line is, yes some Christians do give believers of ? a bad name, but regardless of how much ? atheists narcissists think they are above with knowledge told by a man, its a waste of time because the ? will never change my view. So yall can proceed with the jokes, but i will never joke about atheism or Scientology because i have a general respect for people beliefs and i know some ? u just dont joke about. Until then, u can find me in lala land
-
alissowack wrote: »I'm going to go out on a limb here. It may not be the best example of "knowing" someone, but it's worth a shot. Have you ever read a book by your favorite author and by reading their books, you get a glimpse into who this person may be like. You can gauge what they like or dislike, what they value and their integrity. Sure it doesn't paint the entire picture, but if you ever get a chance to meet the author that wrote the book, you already have expectations that this person can be trusted. This is much what goes on with the Bible. There are things in the Bible that strangely convinces me that ? exists.
what kind of book? Fiction or non fiction?
You may be able to get an idea of what kind of person I am, but it depends on what I'm writing and how I'm writing. I can read Shakespeare and come to a general conclusion of what kind of person Shakespeare was but that doesn't mean I should necessarily trust the book or the story itself as fact. Additionally, If Shakespeare were alive today and I had a chance to meet him, it would be naive (or to put it bluntly, maybe just plain stupid) of me to trust him in important matters based off my reading of Hamlet.
Just because I could write a book about kindness and friendliness doesn't mean I'm a warm-hearted person. I could write books about gruesome murders and horror stories but my personality doesn't have to match up with what I write. A lot of MC's, for example, rap about things they really wouldn't partake in, in real life.
Just because you know the BOOK.. doesn't mean you "know" the AUTHOR -
alissowack wrote: »Believe it or not...it is easy to do. We do it all the time. We can't observe things like love, peace and happiness, yet we trust we know what they are.
we can observe love, peace, and happiness all the time, either within ourselves or through the actions of others
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »I'm going to go out on a limb here. It may not be the best example of "knowing" someone, but it's worth a shot. Have you ever read a book by your favorite author and by reading their books, you get a glimpse into who this person may be like. You can gauge what they like or dislike, what they value and their integrity. Sure it doesn't paint the entire picture, but if you ever get a chance to meet the author that wrote the book, you already have expectations that this person can be trusted. This is much what goes on with the Bible. There are things in the Bible that strangely convinces me that ? exists.
what kind of book? Fiction or non fiction?
You may be able to get an idea of what kind of person I am, but it depends on what I'm writing and how I'm writing. I can read Shakespeare and come to a general conclusion of what kind of person Shakespeare was but that doesn't mean I should necessarily trust the book or the story itself as fact. Additionally, If Shakespeare were alive today and I had a chance to meet him, it would be naive (or to put it bluntly, maybe just plain stupid) of me to trust him in important matters based off my reading of Hamlet.
Just because I could write a book about kindness and friendliness doesn't mean I'm a warm-hearted person. I could write books about gruesome murders and horror stories but my personality doesn't have to match up with what I write. A lot of MC's, for example, rap about things they really wouldn't partake in, in real life.
Just because you know the BOOK.. doesn't mean you "know" the AUTHOR
In my response, I did stress that reading a book on an author "doesn't paint the entire picture". But on the "Author" tip, your quote should be applied as well to the Bible. Just because someone knows the Bible doesn't mean they "know" ? . -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Believe it or not...it is easy to do. We do it all the time. We can't observe things like love, peace and happiness, yet we trust we know what they are.
we can observe love, peace, and happiness all the time, either within ourselves or through the actions of others
Really? So if someone shows the actions, does it mean that it is their intentions? People can fake it you know. -
alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »I'm going to go out on a limb here. It may not be the best example of "knowing" someone, but it's worth a shot. Have you ever read a book by your favorite author and by reading their books, you get a glimpse into who this person may be like. You can gauge what they like or dislike, what they value and their integrity. Sure it doesn't paint the entire picture, but if you ever get a chance to meet the author that wrote the book, you already have expectations that this person can be trusted. This is much what goes on with the Bible. There are things in the Bible that strangely convinces me that ? exists.
what kind of book? Fiction or non fiction?
You may be able to get an idea of what kind of person I am, but it depends on what I'm writing and how I'm writing. I can read Shakespeare and come to a general conclusion of what kind of person Shakespeare was but that doesn't mean I should necessarily trust the book or the story itself as fact. Additionally, If Shakespeare were alive today and I had a chance to meet him, it would be naive (or to put it bluntly, maybe just plain stupid) of me to trust him in important matters based off my reading of Hamlet.
Just because I could write a book about kindness and friendliness doesn't mean I'm a warm-hearted person. I could write books about gruesome murders and horror stories but my personality doesn't have to match up with what I write. A lot of MC's, for example, rap about things they really wouldn't partake in, in real life.
Just because you know the BOOK.. doesn't mean you "know" the AUTHOR
In my response, I did stress that reading a book on an author "doesn't paint the entire picture". But on the "Author" tip, your quote should be applied as well to the Bible. Just because someone knows the Bible doesn't mean they "know" ? .
? didn't write the Bible. Even Christians will tell you the Bible was written by man -
alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Believe it or not...it is easy to do. We do it all the time. We can't observe things like love, peace and happiness, yet we trust we know what they are.
we can observe love, peace, and happiness all the time, either within ourselves or through the actions of others
Really? So if someone shows the actions, does it mean that it is their intentions? People can fake it you know.
They aren't always faked and scientists can observe emotions in ? activity -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »I'm going to go out on a limb here. It may not be the best example of "knowing" someone, but it's worth a shot. Have you ever read a book by your favorite author and by reading their books, you get a glimpse into who this person may be like. You can gauge what they like or dislike, what they value and their integrity. Sure it doesn't paint the entire picture, but if you ever get a chance to meet the author that wrote the book, you already have expectations that this person can be trusted. This is much what goes on with the Bible. There are things in the Bible that strangely convinces me that ? exists.
what kind of book? Fiction or non fiction?
You may be able to get an idea of what kind of person I am, but it depends on what I'm writing and how I'm writing. I can read Shakespeare and come to a general conclusion of what kind of person Shakespeare was but that doesn't mean I should necessarily trust the book or the story itself as fact. Additionally, If Shakespeare were alive today and I had a chance to meet him, it would be naive (or to put it bluntly, maybe just plain stupid) of me to trust him in important matters based off my reading of Hamlet.
Just because I could write a book about kindness and friendliness doesn't mean I'm a warm-hearted person. I could write books about gruesome murders and horror stories but my personality doesn't have to match up with what I write. A lot of MC's, for example, rap about things they really wouldn't partake in, in real life.
Just because you know the BOOK.. doesn't mean you "know" the AUTHOR
In my response, I did stress that reading a book on an author "doesn't paint the entire picture". But on the "Author" tip, your quote should be applied as well to the Bible. Just because someone knows the Bible doesn't mean they "know" ? .
? didn't write the Bible. Even Christians will tell you the Bible was written by man
Well...what is a Christian? Anybody can be one nowadays. But not to avoid your point, the book was written by man...however, it becomes a matter of influence or essence of the Bible. Man wouldn't write such a book as the Bible if given a choice. -
A Christian is someone who believes in Christianity. A Christian can come in many shapes and sizes. A Christian can be just about anybody or perhaps, anybody can be a Christian would be a better way to put it. What makes the Christians who wrote the Bible more believable or trustworthy than DMX?
Man can write anything man wants to write. Why WOULDN'T man write the Bible if given the choice? -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Believe it or not...it is easy to do. We do it all the time. We can't observe things like love, peace and happiness, yet we trust we know what they are.
we can observe love, peace, and happiness all the time, either within ourselves or through the actions of others
Really? So if someone shows the actions, does it mean that it is their intentions? People can fake it you know.
They aren't always faked and scientists can observe emotions in ? activity
I wasn't suggesting that there are always faked. I'm saying it can be faked. And what does observing ? activity have to do with defining what love, peace, and happiness is ultimately? I can have some perverted emotions where I love to hate, find peace in starting wars and try to achieve happiness through making someone sad. I can think doing bad things is actually good. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »A Christian is someone who believes in Christianity. A Christian can come in many shapes and sizes. A Christian can be just about anybody or perhaps, anybody can be a Christian would be a better way to put it. What makes the Christians who wrote the Bible more believable or trustworthy than DMX?
Man can write anything man wants to write. Why WOULDN'T man write the Bible if given the choice?
Well, let me give you a definition of a Christian...a person who believe that Jesus (the Christ) was the Son of ? , who came into the world to save the world from sin; believed that he was crucified and died on the cross, was buried, and on the third day he rose again.
If this is the true definition of a Christian, then it narrows things down for even some "Christians" don't subscribe to this. They may just think that because they don't drink, smoke and whatever else that they are a Christian. -
alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Believe it or not...it is easy to do. We do it all the time. We can't observe things like love, peace and happiness, yet we trust we know what they are.
we can observe love, peace, and happiness all the time, either within ourselves or through the actions of others
Really? So if someone shows the actions, does it mean that it is their intentions? People can fake it you know.
They aren't always faked and scientists can observe emotions in ? activity
I wasn't suggesting that there are always faked. I'm saying it can be faked. And what does observing ? activity have to do with defining what love, peace, and happiness is ultimately? I can have some perverted emotions where I love to hate, find peace in starting wars and try to achieve happiness through making someone sad. I can think doing bad things is actually good.
The sources of love, peace, and happiness depend on the person who experiences them but the definitions remain. And we can still observe them -
alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »A Christian is someone who believes in Christianity. A Christian can come in many shapes and sizes. A Christian can be just about anybody or perhaps, anybody can be a Christian would be a better way to put it. What makes the Christians who wrote the Bible more believable or trustworthy than DMX?
Man can write anything man wants to write. Why WOULDN'T man write the Bible if given the choice?
Well, let me give you a definition of a Christian...a person who believe that Jesus (the Christ) was the Son of ? , who came into the world to save the world from sin; believed that he was crucified and died on the cross, was buried, and on the third day he rose again.
If this is the true definition of a Christian, then it narrows things down for even some "Christians" don't subscribe to this. They may just think that because they don't drink, smoke and whatever else that they are a Christian.
..which says something about Christianity. None of it is solid, including the existance of the ? it claims to be real -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Believe it or not...it is easy to do. We do it all the time. We can't observe things like love, peace and happiness, yet we trust we know what they are.
we can observe love, peace, and happiness all the time, either within ourselves or through the actions of others
Really? So if someone shows the actions, does it mean that it is their intentions? People can fake it you know.
They aren't always faked and scientists can observe emotions in ? activity
I wasn't suggesting that there are always faked. I'm saying it can be faked. And what does observing ? activity have to do with defining what love, peace, and happiness is ultimately? I can have some perverted emotions where I love to hate, find peace in starting wars and try to achieve happiness through making someone sad. I can think doing bad things is actually good.
The sources of love, peace, and happiness depend on the person who experiences them but the definitions remain. And we can still observe them
So it depends on the person...and I guess it would be alright to have someone have a mistaken perspective on love, peace and happiness as longs as it feels right to that person. Someone may love to hate. Someone may find peace in starting wars. Someone might achieve happiness in making people sad...or making themselves sad. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »A Christian is someone who believes in Christianity. A Christian can come in many shapes and sizes. A Christian can be just about anybody or perhaps, anybody can be a Christian would be a better way to put it. What makes the Christians who wrote the Bible more believable or trustworthy than DMX?
Man can write anything man wants to write. Why WOULDN'T man write the Bible if given the choice?
Well, let me give you a definition of a Christian...a person who believe that Jesus (the Christ) was the Son of ? , who came into the world to save the world from sin; believed that he was crucified and died on the cross, was buried, and on the third day he rose again.
If this is the true definition of a Christian, then it narrows things down for even some "Christians" don't subscribe to this. They may just think that because they don't drink, smoke and whatever else that they are a Christian.
..which says something about Christianity. None of it is solid, including the existance of the ? it claims to be real
No...it just says a lot about people. We are not "solid". Even apart from religion, we had to deal with the notion that not everybody has our best interest in mind. Some (if not all) people will use anything and everything to their advangtage...even at the expense of saying something doesn't exist or that something didn't happen. And we can even justify things by telling truths about things to cover up a lie that we secretly hold to. We lie, cheat, steal, ? ...whenever we can get away with it. -
alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Believe it or not...it is easy to do. We do it all the time. We can't observe things like love, peace and happiness, yet we trust we know what they are.
we can observe love, peace, and happiness all the time, either within ourselves or through the actions of others
Really? So if someone shows the actions, does it mean that it is their intentions? People can fake it you know.
They aren't always faked and scientists can observe emotions in ? activity
I wasn't suggesting that there are always faked. I'm saying it can be faked. And what does observing ? activity have to do with defining what love, peace, and happiness is ultimately? I can have some perverted emotions where I love to hate, find peace in starting wars and try to achieve happiness through making someone sad. I can think doing bad things is actually good.
The sources of love, peace, and happiness depend on the person who experiences them but the definitions remain. And we can still observe them
So it depends on the person...and I guess it would be alright to have someone have a mistaken perspective on love, peace and happiness as longs as it feels right to that person. Someone may love to hate. Someone may find peace in starting wars. Someone might achieve happiness in making people sad...or making themselves sad.
Again, the definition of happiness doesn't change. The SOURCE of happiness depends on the person. -
alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »A Christian is someone who believes in Christianity. A Christian can come in many shapes and sizes. A Christian can be just about anybody or perhaps, anybody can be a Christian would be a better way to put it. What makes the Christians who wrote the Bible more believable or trustworthy than DMX?
Man can write anything man wants to write. Why WOULDN'T man write the Bible if given the choice?
Well, let me give you a definition of a Christian...a person who believe that Jesus (the Christ) was the Son of ? , who came into the world to save the world from sin; believed that he was crucified and died on the cross, was buried, and on the third day he rose again.
If this is the true definition of a Christian, then it narrows things down for even some "Christians" don't subscribe to this. They may just think that because they don't drink, smoke and whatever else that they are a Christian.
..which says something about Christianity. None of it is solid, including the existance of the ? it claims to be real
No...it just says a lot about people. We are not "solid". Even apart from religion, we had to deal with the notion that not everybody has our best interest in mind. Some (if not all) people will use anything and everything to their advangtage...even at the expense of saying something doesn't exist or that something didn't happen. And we can even justify things by telling truths about things to cover up a lie that we secretly hold to. We lie, cheat, steal, ? ...whenever we can get away with it.
That answer would be great if Christians did not claim that ? works through them. But they do, so if Christians are not "solid", we can't expect ? to be -
alissowack wrote: »Some (if not all) people will use anything and everything to their advangtage...even at the expense of saying something doesn't exist or that something didn't happen..
or in Christianity's case, saying something DOES exist or that something DID happen..
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Some (if not all) people will use anything and everything to their advangtage...even at the expense of saying something doesn't exist or that something didn't happen..
or in Christianity's case, saying something DOES exist or that something DID happen..
I don't particularly have a problem with Christianity saying what happened or something does exist...I know...you may say a Christian wouldn't have a problem by default. The point I want to make is this. People take the claims of the Bible as a means to support a cause that has nothing to do with the Bible. I think of the tragedies that have happened like 9-11, the Haiti earthquakes, and others where there were sincere efforts to provide aid to the victims. However, there were also people using thoses events to manipulate the masses; getting them to think they were supporting the actual event.
Though it isn't about money all the time, some churches are making a profit by using the Bible as a front for some unknown selfish cause. If they were honest, they would probably admit that they don't really support it's claims. They could care less to even open the Bible to read any text...maybe to glance over the Ten Commandments, the "tithe" passage, doomsday passages, and a little John 3:16. They just like the "authority" they feel the Bible represents in the lives of people but could care less what it may mean to them. -
That's not what we're talking about
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Believe it or not...it is easy to do. We do it all the time. We can't observe things like love, peace and happiness, yet we trust we know what they are.
we can observe love, peace, and happiness all the time, either within ourselves or through the actions of others
Really? So if someone shows the actions, does it mean that it is their intentions? People can fake it you know.
They aren't always faked and scientists can observe emotions in ? activity
I wasn't suggesting that there are always faked. I'm saying it can be faked. And what does observing ? activity have to do with defining what love, peace, and happiness is ultimately? I can have some perverted emotions where I love to hate, find peace in starting wars and try to achieve happiness through making someone sad. I can think doing bad things is actually good.
The sources of love, peace, and happiness depend on the person who experiences them but the definitions remain. And we can still observe them
So it depends on the person...and I guess it would be alright to have someone have a mistaken perspective on love, peace and happiness as longs as it feels right to that person. Someone may love to hate. Someone may find peace in starting wars. Someone might achieve happiness in making people sad...or making themselves sad.
Again, the definition of happiness doesn't change. The SOURCE of happiness depends on the person.
But, the definition of happiness would be misrepresented...unless it doesn't matter if one's perspective on happiness corrupts what happiness means for all. It's not that I don't want to be happy, but at what expense? Addicts want to be happy, but they will destroy themselves and others trying to be it. -
The definition does not change and the point is, happiness can be observed within human beings. Don't believe me, look it up. Stay on topic.
