Users Online Now:
Donate To GLP
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Thread for Atheists & Christians - STFU
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Anonymous Coward 10792566:MV8yMTI2NzkzXzM1OTE5Mzk3X0Q3NUEzQTZC] [quote:Don'tBeAfraid:MV8yMTI2NzkzXzM1OTE5Mjk1XzM4OTYzMTcw] [quote:Anonymous Coward 10792566:MV8yMTI2NzkzXzM1OTE5MTM1X0MwM0Y2N0Ez] Let me get this straight. So, the same people who argue that the mothods we currently use for dating are so inacurate they will believe none of it, because it disproved the bible as historical fact, now are using that same dating method to support their biblical artifact dates? I shouldn't have to point out the irony in your logic. [/quote] Explain what you mean please. Are you meaning carbon dating? I'm not one of those silly Christians who believes the Earth is 6000 years old. The vast majority of Christians don't believe that nonsense. There are some Christians who believe in such things, but I'm not one of them. Such methods are used to date the historical papyrus that we have and serious Bible scholars rely upon such methods. Only some recent fundamentalists say post 1960 or so would argue that carbon dating is not valid. Usually those folks are not scientists or have any scientific training whatsoever. [/quote] Yes, I was under the assumption that you were, in fact a creationist, making an argument for the correct dating of parchment, whilst denying wholly the use of any other dating models. I am agnostic, and happen to promote those having spiritual epiphanies. It's beautiful. I am, however, with the original poster in his sentiment that the argument here has no hope of being a mature affair, so it is actually quite pointless to keep the threads coming. Again, I should be resting, so I say good day sir. [/quote]
Let's get right to it.
No one can prove that "God" or any variation thereof the concept is real.
No one can prove that "God" or any variation thereof the concept is NOT real.
All arguments are moot without assuming a "given".
How can I say all this with certainty?
BECAUSE NO ONE CAN PROVE THAT THEY'RE NOT DREAMING RIGHT NOW, with fabricated memories and all.
No matter what, FAITH is required just to participate in whatever you think is reality.
Both atheists and God-believers base their beliefs on FAITH in experiential data.
A true atheist "lacks a belief" and that is a perfectly honest position to hold. However, the rabid atheists who argue endlessly that "there is no God" are taking the same leap of faith that the proselytizing Christians are.
SO--is there a GOD?
My experiential data (a near-death experience that was seemingly as "real" as anything else I've experienced) says YES.
That's why I believe in God.
But I'd be a liar if I said that my NDE provides "proof"--even to myself. After all, my dreams are as "real" as anything even when I'm walking on the ceiling and lightsaber fighting and flying a MIG--all with a head full of outlandish memories.
So...all of you know-it-alls arguing FOR or AGAINST the concept of "God" need to
because your arguments ARE DEMONSTRABLY FLAWED.
Pictures (click to insert)
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Misc Small Smilies
View All Categories
Next Page >>
Disclaimer / Copyright Info
with questions or comments about this site.
"Godlike Productions" & "GLP" are registered trademarks of Zero Point Ltd. Godlike™
Website Design Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Godlikeproductions.com
Page generated in 0.006s (5 queries)