I haven't read the whole of the Christian bible, or any of the Quran, or any of pretty much every other religious book (only one I've actually read more than half of was the Tanach), as it doesn't really interest me. I've read about many arguments people have in favor of a creator, but none of them seemed convincing and some didn't even seem to be based on reality as we know it. For instance, asking questions like 'How did this happen? How did that happen?' I don't consider evidence, because it's just asking questions. Saying 'How did this happen? GOD DID IT' doesn't really add to it, since it doesn't answer the how at all, and doesn't provide evidence as to how you came to the conclusion that the god in question must have done it.
It's nothing really deep, it's just that since I was little, when some kid in school first asked me if I believe in God, I thought about it and answered that I don't. It just that the idea of gods doesn't make much sense to me based on what I know. To be fair, I haven't really looked deeply into the subject, and I'm sure a thousand years ago if someone asked me if I believe all living things are built of millions upon millions of tiny organisms which can't be seen by themselves with a naked eye, I wouldn't believe it either. But I've seen convincing evidence for the Cell Theory, while I've seen none pertaining to the existence of gods. I don't necessarily believe that gods don't exist, but as it is I see no reason to believe that they do.
Ignoring natural selection's effect on evolution is similar to ignoring quality control's effect on production and saying that whether you get a working product or not is based on chance. Natural selection greatly reduces the effects random processes have on evolution.
Actually, what you're describing is a hypothesis, not a scientific theory. For instance, if there really isn't any evidence for the idea of a multiverse (I haven't done research on the subject, and so don't know if there is or isn't any available), then it would technically be called a hypothesis, no matter how many people would call it a theory.
The first is stretched, yes - the second, not really. Let's say he stole five hundred thousand dollars, then.
How can an amount change anything? If you murder, you're murderer. If you rape, you're a rapist. I am sure you agree that it only takes one committing of these actions to make you a "murderer" or a "rapist"; I know you do with the first.
It makes no sense to say someone who steals only a few times is not a thief or "stealer", someone who lies only a few times is not a liar, and, in contrast, someone who commits one murder is a murderer. Crushmaster
It doesn't make sense for every action to denote some sort of permanent quality on a person, since by your logic a man who did one good deed, one just deed, and one righteous deed would be a good, just and righteous man. Since you'll have to disagree with that as it conflicts with what you perceive to be absolute truth, your argument ends up falling to special pleading (that is, only bad deeds leave a permanent mark on a person).
Also, what about someone who is a compulsive liar, or a kleptomaniac? Such a person has a mental problem which forces him to lie/steal. Would such a person still be a liar/thief based on actions imposed on him by a psychological problem?
Atheists just believe in too many coincidence lol. First the universe was formed by chance. Then a planet perfectly habitable for life was chance. Us being the highest life form, caring about our history or learning it, and having the gift of music,reading books,enjoying games or any imaginiation is chance(these gifts aren't necessary for survival, even that is chance). Us holding the fate of the Earth in our hands as far as pollution or helping take care of the Earth is chance. Our so called evolution was chance(keyword) to become humans and have all the gifts I said in my 3rd point(i'm not sure on evolution but I think we were planned toevolve from "cavemen" but I mean the rest of the evolution process). Us being just far enough from the sun for the sunlight to help life on the planet was chance. Our planet having an atmosphere that can shield just enough sunlight etc.was chance. Life forming on the planet was chance. I saw a ghost once as a kid once so I have no doubts about life after death.Anyways i'm just saying Atheists believe in way too much coincidence.Just my view on it all. I'm sure there's a ton of more points about too many coincidences
ghostelite88
I'm pretty sure the only people who believe what you claim atheists believe are made out of straw.
I'm afraid I have to get off now, as I've been on almost thirty minutes too long. I should be back on tomorrow, though probably not until 2:00 P.M. or something. We'll see.
Thanks for your help, Maheo, Lansdowne, and J-man.:) Bye, all.
Crushmaster
Have a good trip. Seems like it took you about an hour and a half to reach the Genesis Union Board yesterday after you left this thread.
You called the doctrine of man's total depravity ludicrous which includes man unable to choose God. I stated our society as proof. I wasn't putting words in your mouth and it wasn't irrelevant. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it irrelevant. maheo30
Wait, what? If a man is unable to choose God, how can a man become a Christian?
I'm pretty sure the commandment was "Thou shalt not kill." Said nothing about murder...
chessmaster1989
Actually, the correct commandment concerns murder, not any type of killing. The word used is of the root 'razach' (reish, tzadi, chet), which denotes murder, rather then 'harag' (hei, reish, gimel) which refers to killing.
Log in to comment