Some atheist say the ancient Jewish people were stupid illiterate savages running around with sheep in the desert. However in their first 2000 year history they had a written language,numbers,government,agriculture&animal husbandry, metalurgy(iron,copper,brass,bronze,gold,silver,tin,lead)adobe&clay brick&stone,multi-story buildings,tax system,education&literacy,money&banking,weights&measures a period of royalty,urban towns&cities, rural farming. The other 2000 years they were wandering til 1948.
There is another aspect of religion of the Bible than Judaism/Christianity&excisted in various cultures into the 20th century First in the Bible in Genesis Adam thru Abraham&really to Moses Job in the book of Job lived centuries before Abraham but had the same God Cornelius in the book of Acts was neither a Jew or Christan nor a pagan,heathen,or infidel but "devout" This devout monotheism was in all cultures early in human history but most fell away from it but some cultures held on it longer.
Many atheist say that the Bible is a fairy-tale. However the Hebrew/Jewish people are so intertwined with the Bible,if you remove them you also remove most of the Bible. If the Bible is fake what then of the Jewish people with their, culture,language,heritage,cuisine,music,religion&history both modern&ancient? Atheist beleive histories of most others but Jewish history is flawed to them Are there any atheist scholars,professors,archiologist working on finding the correct ancient history ofIsreal
Are there any atheist scholars,professors,archaeologist working on finding the correct ancient history of Israel
Atheists archaeologists etc seem to only be interested in finding way they cannot attack the bible even going so far as to say that the people of Israel once believed in many gods and actually worshiped the gods of babylon
They will say that the dates are wrong and deny the Jews were ever slaves LOL
In the futility of their thinking they become fools
Back in 1949 when Mao&the communist came to power in China, there were only 1 million Christians in China.Mao was gung-ho on wiping out all religion in China. After 63 years of an iron-fisted policy against religion, now there are 130 million Christians in China. The Chinese are converting at a rate of 30000 a day.BTW Mao also reduced much illiteracy. We need some "atheist missionaries" to get chairman Mao's little red book&try to re-convert these Chinese Christians back to atheism.Any volunteer
It is no wonder you militant atheist dogfaces are the most hated amoung all social classes in this Country.You have no respect for others beliefs and attack anyonw who does not accept your sick world view where you do what you please and watch porn all day
You say that to anyone who says their believe in God
Not much of an argument for your world view is it LOL
@mrlucky1232002 Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side. "Militant atheist dogfaces" sounds alot like hate speech, and leads me to believe you're on step two, though careful analysis and deductive reasoning most likely places you in step three.
by Militant atheist I simply mean atheist who not only lack belief in God but attack God and His children with a white hot hate calling believers stupid and insane simply for having a different world view
Back in 1970 when I was in the 8th grade, I had a teacher who was part of a group of Christians that smuggled a suitcase of Bibles into Moscow during the summer of 1969. His story was amazing, how they prayed that the suitcase with the Russian Bibles would not be open for inspection. He said that every other suitcase was opened&this suitcase was the last one but the Russian customs workers let this last one pass through. Then some Russian Christians in Moscow got these Bibles. GOD ANWSERS PRAYER
In the former USSR1917-92 atheism/evolution was taught daycare-university The Bible was banned&it was illegal to teach it to kids Within months of the fall of the USSRin 92 the Bible was put back in Russian schools Olga Lutsenko an atheist was the one behind it Death threats made her go to Canada in 96&she is a Christian now BTWshe is on youtube&I support her work financially putting Bibles in Russian&Ukranian schools. Amazing the Bible was absent 75 years from Russian schools, back now 20 years
John Wycliffe1330-1385 who translated the Bible from Latin to the early-middle English of the day in 1382 felt that the Bible should be in the tongue of the common folk as well as in their hands.In 1442 his remains were dug up&a trial was held condemming his work. His bones were burned to powder&dumped in a river. I read his lifestory&i have the book.This was done by evil hypocritical religious folk in high places back in those days. Many now don't know these facts both Christian&atheist.FYI.
The Bible has been accessible to the common man less than 500 years. William Tyndale1486-1542 was the first to mass publish Bibles for the common man in 1525. It cost a week's wage.He smuggled them into England from Belguim. He was a hunted man, caught,tried&executed in Brussels.It took 10 months to handwrite a Bible. For over 1000 years the Bible was under lock&key, even many clergy had no access to it. I read Tyndale's lifestory&I have the book. Many don't know these facts about the Bible. FYI
Europeans&Orientals have 2 things in common. A large atheist population&a declining birth rate below replacement. The blacks&muslims are exploding&there are not many atheist&it looks that there are not going to be many of these peoples becoming atheist soon. So the white&yellow peoples are diminishing where the bulk of the worlds atheist are while non-atheist peoples are continuing to increase. Look at the future demographics of the world&see this. BTW where are the large atheist families?
Yeah I just watched the movie and I was quite shocked. It is full of misrepresentation, lies and propaganda. I sincerely hope people don't let themselves be manipulated by it...
You'd be surprised. I've run into people who say Google is part of a conspiracy (seeing as the first few pages on "Expelled" contain facts they carelessly omitted) and Ben Stein is right.
@TheZooCrew Really? That's really crazy. It is amazing how they warp reality to fit their worldview. I wonder how many generations it will take before it goes away. I hope they make some real progress in abiogenisis within my lifetime.
It IS crazy. I've maintained for a while that the majority of creationists are mentally ill in some capacity and I've only encountered evidence that strengthens that notion. Most are some combination of paranoid, delusional, pathological liars, bipolar, psychotic, or depressed.
You can use the same arguments you put forth here against creationist and use them for climate change deniers. Funny how the scientific method works and how stupid people don't understand it.
@mrlucky1232002 hahaha, you are wrong. You only prove my point. The Earth has not being 'cooling' over the last 11 years; you have no idea what you are talking about. Last decade was the warmest n recorded history, since surface temperature measurements begun. Mrlucky, you can barley write, let alone understand the scientific evidence, why go you go read a book and educate yourself.
you think you know something but show yourself to be a great fool The meeting in South Africa showed the world is not buying you buddy Al Gore"s ideas any longer. Canada and the US are scaling back all Global warming laws as the science has been found to be questionable at best
you have no evidence for your assertion that the last decade was the warming in history
HAHA in a pigs eyes it was
The last few years have seenb record cold winters in Autralia, England and the US
@mrlucky1232002 Nice one, You know nothing of what I know. You only show ingnorance. You know change the subject and bring up AL Gore. You have already lost this debate. "you have no evidence for your assertion that the last decade was the warming in history" I didn't even say that. There is much evidence for what I did say 'Last decade was the warmest n recorded history, since surface temperature measurements begun.'
The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960's and 70's were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people's lives and for financial gain.
@mrlucky1232002 Haha, now you lie. The WHO doesn't say that. who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/. I hope you are not bearing false witness, as it's a sin and god hates that.
There are not many individuals, groups, or organizations willing to stand up against this fraud that is being perpetuated for fear of being persecuted, harassed, and ostracized by those who support global warming within the scientific and other communities. But fortunately, a few have decided to do the right thing and take a stand against dumb ass atheist bullshit, proving just how unscientifically founded global warming is and exposing those who are behind it.
Micro occurs. But I believe in the genetic 'lessening' of the gene pool through time, not its increase. Also, when I look at the eye, the heart, etc. The complexity is simply too vast. Abiogenesis is an absurdity, mathematically. I just can't buy the change of DNA info on such levels it is too complex.
“But I believe in the genetic 'lessening' of the gene pool through time, not its increase. Also, when I look at the eye, the heart, etc. The complexity is simply too vast. Abiogenesis is an absurdity, mathematically.”
Even this has been cut and pasted from CARM. You are utterly pathetic.
Naw, I am not pathetic mr troll. What you assume to be true will sometimes be proven to be true if all you seek is what you want to be true. There is far more to this world than you are aware of.
“What you assume to be true will sometimes be proven to be true if all you seek is what you want to be true. There is far more to this world than you are aware of”
And you’ve cut and pasted this from CARM as well. Anyone can google the phrase and see what a pathetic parrot you are.
I had an atheist tell me, "A person has value as long as someone values them.
What an admission! If I was an atheist and believed that, I don't think that I could look people in the eye. Of course if I was an atheist, I wouldn't believe in right or wrong. All I'd have are opinions - so . . .
It does make me wonder though, am I correct in assuming that ALL atheists think like the one I quoted above? If there was only one human being in the whole universe, would that person have value and worth?
I've noticed that a significant number of atheists who profess a desire for rational debate often degenerate their own arguments into accusations and insults. When this happens, it means they have nothing rational to offer. I point that out and if they don't calm down, I just leave.
“I've noticed that a significant number of atheists who profess a desire for rational debate often degenerate their own arguments into accusations”
You’ve noticed fuck all seeing as how you’ve lifted this word for word from CARM (Christian apologetics & research ministry). Once again. Cutting and pasting from bollocks web-sites and passing them off as your own words is dishonest. Are you still claiming an IQ of 135? You are a typical lying creationist scumbag.
When you stack the cards, you always win….or think you do. The scientific method is not flawless. It is only as good as those who are using it. You are a sinner. You're mind is affected by sin as is your will.
“When you stack the cards, you always win….or think you do. The scientific method is not flawless. It is only as good as those who are using it. You are a sinner. You're mind is affected by sin as is your will”
Even your response has been cut and pasted. Is it an obsession with you or something? You’d think a person with a claimed IQ of 135 would be able to have an original thought.
using terms like sky daddy are insulting and show you cannot accept any evidence for God because of you desire to believe in your world view where God does not exist
Then, I must ask you, what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence? I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them.
@mrlucky1232002 have god show himself. have god create a man from dirt or have him create creature out of no were. Show me that the supernatural is real. start there.
what would you accept as evidence for God within reson? What you assume to be true will sometimes be proven to be true if all you seek is what you want to be true. There is far more to this world than you are aware of.
@mrlucky1232002 Prove the supernatural is real. Prove there was once a flood. Prove The earth is 10,000 years old. Is that within reason enough for you?
Proof is a negotiable thing. Different people require different amounts of verification before is considered proof. And, I agree. Just because it is written in the Bible doesn't mean it's true. There would have to be something about the Bible, or contained in the Bible, that would set it apart from other works. If you're interested, I could tell you some of those things. And you could look them up for yourself.
“Proof is a negotiable thing. Different people require different amounts of verification before is considered proof.” Etc.
Come on everyone. Try and guess where this has been lifted from? Here’s some clues. Four letters it starts with a C and ends in an M and the rest of his posts have come from there.
@mrlucky1232002 again your changing the subject. The same thing can be said about you can the supernatural. Tell me something though whats more logical. Believing in something you experience all the time and have proof of its existence (natural) or believing in something you never experience and there is no proof for (supernatural)
If you say that naturalism is supported by the lack of evidence for the supernatural, then it is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against the supernatural, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for the supernatural
@mrlucky1232002 Prove those experience were the supernatural and not something else. I never said that naturalism is supported by lack of evidence of the supernatural. What i actually said was that i don't believe in the supernatural because i see no evidence for it. Show evidence of the supernatural.
@mrlucky1232002 Provide the the evidence for the supernatural. Everyone i never talked to about has failed to provide this evidence thats why i don't believe.
@mrlucky1232002 I disbelief in the supernatural just like you disbelief in evolution. Denying something is to know something is real and just close your eyes, point your fingers in your ears and go la la la la. No i don't think the supernatural is impossible.
@mrlucky1232002 When i say i don't see evidence for it i am not talking about actual sight. I am talking about anything that will prove it. Again i will ask you for what the 5th time to show evidence of the supernatural.
@mrlucky1232002 First micro and macro are the same thing just different time frames. But since that isn't enough for you here it is. DNA evidence, fossil record, observation of all necessary factors that go into "macro" evolution, and finally evolutionary predictions. And whatever happened to not needing proof to belief in something.
you are the one who keeps asking for proof for God and I wanted to show you evidence
it would be basically illogical to state that miracles cannot occur. You say miricles are possible but don't believe in them because you have not seen the evidence yourself however, it is not enough to state that there is no evidence for the miraculous since a person's experiential base is limited. It may very well be that miracles have occurred and this person is simply not aware of it.
@mrlucky1232002 "miracles cannot occur" I never said this. "It may very well be that miracles have occurred and this person is simply not aware of it." This isn't enough to convince that miracles are real. "Show proof of the supernatural." For now on until you do i will only response with this.
@mrlucky1232002 when i was talking about the fossil record i wasn't talking about trans fossil, but how it lines up with what evolution predicts. Also some trans fossils tiktaalik roseae, archaeopteryx, Australopithecus afarensis, homo erectus. DNA does show how mamals are closer related to lizards than amphibians, how lizards are more closely related to amphibians than they are to fish, etc. Again this matches up to what evolution predicted.
If someone believed that miracles were possible because he believed that God exists, then all he needs to do is look at the Bible, weigh the evidence and decide to believe or not believe in miracles -- After all, the Romans, who were expert at crucifixion, killed Jesus, and put guards on the tomb. Yet, the tomb was found empty.These same disciples risked life and limb in order to teach that Jesus had risen. Why would they do that for a lie unless it really happened?
so do you think God may exist? you said the supernatural is possible after all, why not have the possibility that Jesus who claimed to be God, who fulfilled Old Testament prophecies, who predicted his own death and resurrection, appeared to people after his public execution, did indeed actually rise from the dead? Since the eyewitness accounts have been accurately transmitted to us, would it not be logical to believe the witnesses who described what they saw? It would seem so
@mrlucky1232002 Well first only 33% of the world believe Jesus rose from the dead. Second Christians have even written books explaining how Jesus never rose form the dead.
people have opinions about Jesus not really rising from the dead true
How do you explain the disciples giving up everything refusing to deny Jesus rose from the dead even when they were tortured and murdered for their faith in Jesus
“I believe in the evidence fof micro evolution because there is evidence for it
how do you know Macro evolution is real since you don't have proof for it?”
This has already been explained to you. So repeating it makes you dishonest. But then having seen the rest of your posts no one will be surprised by your dishonesty.
Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.
“Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.”
@stewpotb62 "Just to let you know he has cut and pasted this from CARM again."
Good for you! Nice to see someone else caught it, as well. That's one reason I decided to stop discussing things with mrlucky1232002. He does not have any of his own opinions, but rather he simply regurgitates things he finds on creationist sites. (e.g. CARM)
And this is what you get when he tries to bring the immense intellect of his supposed 135 IQ to an original thought. Anyone else feel like they’ve been transported to the playground? I think you might have misplaced the decimal point on that IQ. If you were any stupider you’d have to hand back your opposable thumb
@mrlucky1232002 YOu don't even know when the flood took place. Come on thats sad. The flood apparently around 7,000 years ago not 1,000 years ago. Show me any evidence for the age of the earth and the flood that you have. Never educate me on the scientific method again. You should be educating your fellow creationist not me.
Anyway, I was just trying to demonstrate that your logic was not very good. If that is the criteria that you are using to demonstrate truth, then you are being inconsistent. If you are being inconsistent, then how can you know what truth really is?
I would like to put some verses in here and have you tell me what it's about. I won't hint or do anything, okay?
@mrlucky1232002 when was i ever trying to demonstrate truth. You were the one doing this not me. Also every time i gave you different option for demonstrating truth you changed the subject. Also you didn't demonstrate my logic was not good. When was i being inconsistent?
you won't believe in God unless you see a miricle yourself?
you need proof before you can believe in God?
Well, I don't think that is a very logical statement for you to make. I mean, you can't prove your mother is your mother? Did you watch or give birth? Do you remember it? Can you prove it? If you will not believe anything unless you see it for yourself, then how do you know you have internal organs?
@mrlucky1232002 DNA test, birth certificate that's how i can prove my mother is my mother. I can feel my heart. Thats one way to determine i have internal organs. I can see my chest being expanded, I can conclude thats my lungs. I have x rays taken of my bodie. If i really wanted too and if i had the money can pay a doctor to open me up and record the process. So yes i do need proof before i believe in something.
Will you watch them do the DNA test and will you see the results and comprehend them? Or will you simply trust what someone tells you?
did you know the person who provided the birth certificate? Do you really believe humans never make error? You don't have proof no one switched the babied as has been done, I'm only trying to point out that you're not being logically consistent.
", I'm only trying to point out that you're not being logically consistent."
Wrong. In this case, most people trust the experts, but not because they need to...it's for convenience. They absolutely COULD get enough of an education to do the test and read it for themselves; they just don't want to.
@mrlucky1232002 you need proof before you can believe in evolution?
Well, I don't think that is a very logical statement for you to make. I mean, you can't prove your mother is your mother? Did you watch or give birth? Do you remember it? Can you prove it? If you will not believe anything unless you see it for yourself, then how do you know you have internal organs? Isn't sarcasm a b***h
Christopher Hitchens suggests that atheists become the defenders of the world’s children, “Parents don’t literally own their children . . . [Christian parents] ought to be held accountable by outsiders (read atheists, perhaps the drunken Hitchens himself) for their guardianship, which does imply that outsiders have a right to interfere.”
No, the path of logic that follows this statement is "there is no aspect of belief in a god that makes you a good person that cannot be achieved by someone who does not believe in god." So b) is total bs. Unless you can demostrate why we need god to be a good person.
The problem with that is, the bedrock of human problems isn’t reasonable, rational or logical. That is why reason and logic will never be able to solve our problems, our hatreds, our bitterness, pettiness and corrupted self-love.
Atheists are infamous for saying:
“I don’t need God in order to be a good person.”
The path of “logic” that follows that belief is:
a) “I don’t need God.”
b) “Therefore I must see myself as a good person.”
outside the bible sources? Of course not, coz' there's none.
wrong there any many outside sources that 90% of the world accept as evidence for Jesus Christ. Militant Athiests like you and your ilk reject evidence that does not support your world veiw no matter how strong the evidence. You think you are the lonly ones who can decide what is good evidence and what is rejected. Of course you reject Jesus and have no intention of accepting Him as Lord and Savior as you love your sin and the dark
@mrlucky1232002 "Militant Athiests like you and your ilk reject evidence that does not support your world veiw no matter how strong the evidence."
Militant means violent its what we use to describe terroists so why are you implying we are militant. Where is this evidence you are talking about. The bible doesn't count as evidence for us the same way greek mythological texts don't count for you
"90% of the world accept as evidence for Jesus Christ." LOL wtf only 30% of the planet is christian.
@mrlucky1232002 "Of course you reject Jesus and have no intention of accepting Him as Lord and Savior as you love your sin and the dark"
..facepalm... Are you REALLY so desperate to be right that you have to resort to THAT old argument? If you consider all of the wars, murder, genocide through the last 2000 years most of it was done in the name of Jesus. Seems YOU are the one that will "reject evidence that does not support your world veiw no matter how strong the evidence".
Peter shows us two things about preaching and teaching. First, preaching is very often reminding a man of what he already knows. It is the bringing back to his memory that truth which he has forgotten, or at which he refuses to look, or whose meaning he has not fully appreciated. Second, Peter is going to go on to uncompromising rebuke and warning, but he begins with something very like a compliment. He says that his people already possess the truth and are firmly established in it.
@mrlucky1232002 "Peter shows us two things about preaching and teaching."
Most New Testament scholars agree that it was NOT written by Peter the apostle. Even schloars like Daniel Wallace admit that the concensus is 2 Peter was NOT written by Peter. Using a frogery as evidence is a pretty foolish things to do.
Evangelical historians D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo wrote that "most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author. Despite this broad denial by the majority of modern scholars, other scholars view the arguments of the majority of scholarship to be largely inconclusive.
@mrlucky1232002 "this broad denial by the majority of modern scholars,"
That is, the "majority of modern scholars" believe that 2 Peter was NOT written by Peter. It claims to be written by Peter. So, if not written by Peter, the author was lying! You beleive a priori that the bible is the world of god, so naturally you are not going to accept claims that it contains forgeries, despite the evidence. My belief is based soley on the evidence.
@mrlucky1232002 "So, if not written by Peter, the author was lying!...at best you have only your assertion and the opinons of other"
No! It is a completely valid syllogism if the premises are true.
P1: Peter was not the author.
P2: It claims to be written by Peter
C: The author was lying.
If p1 and p2 are correct, it is a logical argument. Most scholars agree with P1, P2 is in the bible. YOU can accept the opinion of the **minority**, if you want. I don't.
In other words, a number of apostolic fathers (as well as others, such as Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus) seem to allude to this letter. If so, then the external evidence for 2 Peter is not nearly as weak as has been supposed. In the least, Picirilli’s evidence needs to be given a full hearing by NT scholars, even if it might turn over the apple cart of one the assured results of higher criticism.
Does not mean they are refering to the same letter, nor does it prove it was written by Peter. "apostolic fathers " also beleived that the Gospel of Peter was written by Peter but removed it becasue they did not like the theology, **even though* they believed it was written by Peter!
apostolic fathers " also beleived that the Gospel of Peter was written by Peter but removed it becasue they did not like the theology
No there is is no evdence 2 Peter was removed by the apostolic fathers
2. One thing has been proved, even if negative: one cannot dogmatically affirm that there certainly are no allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers; the common material is too obviously there.
@mrlucky1232002 "No there is is no evdence 2 Peter was removed by the apostolic fathers"
...facepalm... More reading comprehension problems or simply that you really don't have a clue? I said "Gospel of Peter" was removed and NOT "2 Peter". They are **different** books.
@mrlucky1232002 "If so, then the external evidence for 2 Peter is not nearly as weak as has been supposed"
...facepalm...You really shouldn't make comments about things you don't have a clue about. If you had actually looked into it of simply cutting-n-pasting from some website (which you DID) you would know it is more than just the external evidence. I have read the article by Daniel Wallace that you plagiarised and while I respect his work greatly, I was not convinced.
An atheist was aghast that I would “shamelessly indoctrinate” my children regarding Jesus It’s very tempting to look at others who think differently than we and then assume or feel that they are part of another species. It’s easier to denigrate and demonize that way. Truly, Christians and atheists are similar in many areas.
. Both think the other is unbelievably stupid
. Both think the other is living out wishful thinking
. Both are obsessed with the concept of a Creator God
I think a lot of Christians are very intelligent. I don't think you are stuoid, only that you have NO CLUE about the basic issues were were talking about here. YOU know your own beleifs so poorly that you need to run to some webstie to find out what YOU believe.
"Both are obsessed with the concept of a Creator God "
Uh, no. We object to people forcing their beliefs on us.
@mrlucky1232002 "95% of the world beleive in god/gods or some higher power"
You made that number up. Making things up is called lying. 1) Check the studies done by the PEW group or the UN. They calculate it as low as 68%, however, that includes Buddhism. 2) What is this "higher pwoer" BS. That would also include buddhists, taoist, patheists, shintos, and south american shaman, just to name a few. Is THAT what you are tying to support?
@mrlucky1232002 "You don't mind acception minority opinon in regard to God do you?"
You're a dishonest little bugger aren't you? First you mention "god/gods or some higher power" then you talk about "God". There is a big diffrence between a "higher pwoer" and "god". Or are you really THAT naive? Is it simple desperation? Lack of understanding of the basic concepts?
the reason Peter is questioned by most scholars is that no church father either quoted or alluded to 2 Peter. For example, E. A. Abbott argued that “Up to the time of Clement of Alexandria (i.e. c. 200) there is no trace of its existence.’2 But recently, Robert E. Picirilli has written an illuminating essay, “AIIusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers,”3 in which he challenges such opinion. His conclusion is well worth quoting:
@mrlucky1232002 "But recently, Robert E. Picirilli has written an illuminating essay...."
This is really sad. It demonstrates that you simply lap up anything a person barfs onto the floor, so long as it supports your position. Are you REALLY so naive to think that by plagiarising an article I already ready, I would be magically convinced of what you say?
1) You really have no clue about the topics were are discussing. 2) You are incapable of understanding it. 3) You know you are wrong, but cannot admit it.
Here's another one:
4) You naively think that because YOU don't bother to research both sides, that non-believers do the same.
To paraphrase Isaac Asimov, the best way to become an atheist is to read the bible.
@mrlucky1232002 "So now you agreed with me the bible is true and you are an atheist because you don't like the way God rolls?"
Uh, nooooo...I would not begin to believe in elves, wizards and orcs by reading the "Lord of the Rings". That by no means imply I believe, but do not like it. Rather, the bible itself is pretty convincing evidence that it is NOT the world of god,
Atheists’ faith is in their powers of intellect, science and pride
Christian faith is in the person of Jesus the Christ.
Atheists maintain that position throughout their lives by adhering to evidence that supports their position and discarding evidence that doesn’t.
Christians have come to free their thinking and change their minds through spiritual and intellectual exploration. Christians come to their position by admitting and accepting evidence that cannot be successfully challenged
I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time
Of course, you're grossly ignorant of what that Asimov quote means in today's context.
Nearly all modern atheists follow Asimov's train of thought here. "Atheist" no longer carries that connotation.
But you probably know this and are merely projecting your own faults onto others. You pointlessly cling to dogma you KNOW is wrong, so you must label others with this same fault to rationalize it.
@mrlucky1232002 Name a SINGLE atheist that has died in the "name of atheism." "show me even one contradiction or error" Pi is not three. Bats are not birds. You can't cure leprosy with dead birds. The planet was never flooded. Earth does not revolve around the sun. Earth is not flat. Jericho was not ruined by Hebrews. You'll probably lie about everything in this list, but you'll either be forced to copy and paste from creationist sites or babble incoherently. You're incapable of anything else.
Atheism is a negative position and you can't died for a negative position just as you can't prover a negative sir
Think how much you would love it if I were dead right now
Now imagine if you have the power to wipe out everyone who die not share your world view. Maybe you could accept some differences but certainly not Christianity. NO
Atheism don't die for atheism but atheist leaders kill millions of people for believing in Christ.
@mrlucky1232002 "kill millions of people for believing in Christ. "
Examples? As ALREADY pointed out to you and based on the historical facts, they were NOT killed "for believing in Christ", but rather they belong to an organized group. Such organized groups were a threat to the government. As ALREADY pointed out to you, they also killed people with other religions as well as intellectuals. Were THEY killed for "believing in rational thought"? Your argument is absurd!
The present location of Mt. Sinai, according to the locals in their account, is known as Jabal Al Laws as is traditionally known by them as the mount of Moses. The Saudis have the area fenced off with warning signs in Arabic is and English telling people not to enter. If this is so, why would the Saudis not want anyone to know about the place? It might be because if Mt. Sinai is located in Muslim territory then one of the most holy places is off limits
and it might also be because Aliens landed there. Maybe it was one of the UFOs sent by Satan that Christian apologist Norman Geisler believes in.
You should stay away from the CARM site. It's a joke! No references and the few names they mentioned are not qualified to make any judgements about archaeology. But then again, you seem to believe credential are not necessary as long as it supports your position.
While the universe came into being by a force that operated outside the Laws of Physics, and while this is a working definition of a miracle, in atheist dogma, No Miracles Are Allowed As Lee Smolin says, “Must all of our scientific understanding of the world really come down to a mythological intelligence . . that wills matter into being? It seems to me that the only possible name for such an observer is God, and that the theory is to be criticized as being unlikely on these grounds.”
Teaching Christianity is harmful, even abusive to children.
Christopher Hitchens writes, “How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?” The atheist answer? Inculcate all children with atheist beliefs.
@mrlucky1232002 "Teaching Christianity is harmful, even abusive to children."
I am not Christopher Hitchens. In addition this further proves you have a comprehension problem. Htichens says "maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith". He is obviosuly not talking about the the forced indoctrination of a specific belief. You are simply making things up. (and we both know it)
Christian Children are not the property of their parents.
Daniel Dennett, “How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents? Should [Christian parents] be free to impose their beliefs on their children?”
Again, the atheist answer is to impose atheist beliefs upon not just their children but upon everyone’s children.
@mrlucky1232002 "Again, the atheist answer is to impose atheist beliefs upon not just their children but upon everyone’s children."
Once again you are projecting YOUR beliefs and behaviour to others. I know of no atheist families where the chilrend are forced or even expected to beleive the same thing has the parents. Watch "Jesus Camp" for examples of brain washing that is similar to what was done by the north in the korean war.
That is quote mining. You take a single snipit from someone and pretend that it has a different meaning than the person intended.
Seeing as this is yet another example of you simply plagiarizing someone, it is pretty clear you have absolutely no thoughts of your own. While I admittedly reply on expert opinion in many cases, I do not simply regurgitate anything they vomit on the floor. You, only other hand,continue to lap it up and smile!
Some atheist say the ancient Jewish people were stupid illiterate savages running around with sheep in the desert. However in their first 2000 year history they had a written language,numbers,government,agriculture&animal husbandry, metalurgy(iron,copper,brass,bronze,gold,silver,tin,lead)adobe&clay brick&stone,multi-story buildings,tax system,education&literacy,money&banking,weights&measures a period of royalty,urban towns&cities, rural farming. The other 2000 years they were wandering til 1948.
RonSafreed 1 week ago
There is another aspect of religion of the Bible than Judaism/Christianity&excisted in various cultures into the 20th century First in the Bible in Genesis Adam thru Abraham&really to Moses Job in the book of Job lived centuries before Abraham but had the same God Cornelius in the book of Acts was neither a Jew or Christan nor a pagan,heathen,or infidel but "devout" This devout monotheism was in all cultures early in human history but most fell away from it but some cultures held on it longer.
RonSafreed 1 week ago
Many atheist say that the Bible is a fairy-tale. However the Hebrew/Jewish people are so intertwined with the Bible,if you remove them you also remove most of the Bible. If the Bible is fake what then of the Jewish people with their, culture,language,heritage,cuisine,music,religion&history both modern&ancient? Atheist beleive histories of most others but Jewish history is flawed to them Are there any atheist scholars,professors,archiologist working on finding the correct ancient history ofIsreal
RonSafreed 1 week ago
@RonSafreed
Are there any atheist scholars,professors,archaeologist working on finding the correct ancient history of Israel
Atheists archaeologists etc seem to only be interested in finding way they cannot attack the bible even going so far as to say that the people of Israel once believed in many gods and actually worshiped the gods of babylon
They will say that the dates are wrong and deny the Jews were ever slaves LOL
In the futility of their thinking they become fools
mrlucky1232002 1 week ago
Back in 1949 when Mao&the communist came to power in China, there were only 1 million Christians in China.Mao was gung-ho on wiping out all religion in China. After 63 years of an iron-fisted policy against religion, now there are 130 million Christians in China. The Chinese are converting at a rate of 30000 a day.BTW Mao also reduced much illiteracy. We need some "atheist missionaries" to get chairman Mao's little red book&try to re-convert these Chinese Christians back to atheism.Any volunteer
RonSafreed 1 week ago
@RonSafreed
Get professional help. You are extremely sick.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew
It is no wonder you militant atheist dogfaces are the most hated amoung all social classes in this Country.You have no respect for others beliefs and attack anyonw who does not accept your sick world view where you do what you please and watch porn all day
You say that to anyone who says their believe in God
Not much of an argument for your world view is it LOL
mrlucky1232002 1 week ago
@mrlucky1232002
Let's just throw a tantrum and blatantly lie about other people. Also, fuck grammar.
TheZooCrew 6 days ago
@mrlucky1232002 Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side. "Militant atheist dogfaces" sounds alot like hate speech, and leads me to believe you're on step two, though careful analysis and deductive reasoning most likely places you in step three.
transcendtient 5 days ago
@transcendtient
sure what ever you say Yoda
You don't even know what a dogface is do you
it is my own word and not a word of hate BTw
by Militant atheist I simply mean atheist who not only lack belief in God but attack God and His children with a white hot hate calling believers stupid and insane simply for having a different world view
mrlucky1232002 2 days ago
Back in 1970 when I was in the 8th grade, I had a teacher who was part of a group of Christians that smuggled a suitcase of Bibles into Moscow during the summer of 1969. His story was amazing, how they prayed that the suitcase with the Russian Bibles would not be open for inspection. He said that every other suitcase was opened&this suitcase was the last one but the Russian customs workers let this last one pass through. Then some Russian Christians in Moscow got these Bibles. GOD ANWSERS PRAYER
RonSafreed 1 week ago
In the former USSR1917-92 atheism/evolution was taught daycare-university The Bible was banned&it was illegal to teach it to kids Within months of the fall of the USSRin 92 the Bible was put back in Russian schools Olga Lutsenko an atheist was the one behind it Death threats made her go to Canada in 96&she is a Christian now BTWshe is on youtube&I support her work financially putting Bibles in Russian&Ukranian schools. Amazing the Bible was absent 75 years from Russian schools, back now 20 years
RonSafreed 1 week ago
John Wycliffe1330-1385 who translated the Bible from Latin to the early-middle English of the day in 1382 felt that the Bible should be in the tongue of the common folk as well as in their hands.In 1442 his remains were dug up&a trial was held condemming his work. His bones were burned to powder&dumped in a river. I read his lifestory&i have the book.This was done by evil hypocritical religious folk in high places back in those days. Many now don't know these facts both Christian&atheist.FYI.
RonSafreed 1 week ago
The Bible has been accessible to the common man less than 500 years. William Tyndale1486-1542 was the first to mass publish Bibles for the common man in 1525. It cost a week's wage.He smuggled them into England from Belguim. He was a hunted man, caught,tried&executed in Brussels.It took 10 months to handwrite a Bible. For over 1000 years the Bible was under lock&key, even many clergy had no access to it. I read Tyndale's lifestory&I have the book. Many don't know these facts about the Bible. FYI
RonSafreed 1 week ago
Europeans&Orientals have 2 things in common. A large atheist population&a declining birth rate below replacement. The blacks&muslims are exploding&there are not many atheist&it looks that there are not going to be many of these peoples becoming atheist soon. So the white&yellow peoples are diminishing where the bulk of the worlds atheist are while non-atheist peoples are continuing to increase. Look at the future demographics of the world&see this. BTW where are the large atheist families?
RonSafreed 1 week ago
8:03
That pretty much sums up every one on foux news lol
cjdragon1988 1 week ago
Yeah I just watched the movie and I was quite shocked. It is full of misrepresentation, lies and propaganda. I sincerely hope people don't let themselves be manipulated by it...
Floortjahh 1 week ago
@Floortjahh
You'd be surprised. I've run into people who say Google is part of a conspiracy (seeing as the first few pages on "Expelled" contain facts they carelessly omitted) and Ben Stein is right.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew Really? That's really crazy. It is amazing how they warp reality to fit their worldview. I wonder how many generations it will take before it goes away. I hope they make some real progress in abiogenisis within my lifetime.
Floortjahh 1 week ago
@Floortjahh
It IS crazy. I've maintained for a while that the majority of creationists are mentally ill in some capacity and I've only encountered evidence that strengthens that notion. Most are some combination of paranoid, delusional, pathological liars, bipolar, psychotic, or depressed.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@Floortjahh
I hope they make some real progress in abiogenisis within my lifetime
not bloody likely
sorry Life does not occur on its own
You will likely still believe that magic fairy dust from space became life when you die LOL
mrlucky1232002 1 week ago
@mrlucky1232002 and you will likely die believing some entity sprinkled magic fairy dust to make life.
transcendtient 5 days ago
love your vids. love the humour. i hope you keep up the good work. humans hopefully will brake away from ignorance.
mrpinkroo 2 weeks ago
You can use the same arguments you put forth here against creationist and use them for climate change deniers. Funny how the scientific method works and how stupid people don't understand it.
tushara01 3 weeks ago
@tushara01
You can use the same arguments you put forth here against creationist and use them for climate change deniers.
everyone agrees that the climate changes fool
what has never been proven along with evolution is that men driving their cars has cause the climate to change.
the planet has been cooling for the past 11 years and this is why atheists changed the name from global warming to climate change.
Oh no what out for climate change LOL
The world rejects it except atheists
mrlucky1232002 3 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002 hahaha, you are wrong. You only prove my point. The Earth has not being 'cooling' over the last 11 years; you have no idea what you are talking about. Last decade was the warmest n recorded history, since surface temperature measurements begun. Mrlucky, you can barley write, let alone understand the scientific evidence, why go you go read a book and educate yourself.
tushara01 3 weeks ago
tush
you think you know something but show yourself to be a great fool The meeting in South Africa showed the world is not buying you buddy Al Gore"s ideas any longer. Canada and the US are scaling back all Global warming laws as the science has been found to be questionable at best
you have no evidence for your assertion that the last decade was the warming in history
HAHA in a pigs eyes it was
The last few years have seenb record cold winters in Autralia, England and the US
mrlucky1232002 3 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002 Nice one, You know nothing of what I know. You only show ingnorance. You know change the subject and bring up AL Gore. You have already lost this debate. "you have no evidence for your assertion that the last decade was the warming in history" I didn't even say that. There is much evidence for what I did say 'Last decade was the warmest n recorded history, since surface temperature measurements begun.'
tushara01 3 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002 youtu(dot)be/2T4UF_Rmlio
Madpolis7 1 week ago
@tushara01
haha you prove my point and atheists being naive
The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960's and 70's were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people's lives and for financial gain.
mrlucky1232002 3 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002 Haha, now you lie. The WHO doesn't say that. who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/. I hope you are not bearing false witness, as it's a sin and god hates that.
tushara01 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tushara01
I hope you are not bearing false witness
to bear false witness means to falsely accuse someone of a crime as you have done to me here
telling a lie makes one a lying but not not one who bears false witness as that is against someone else you ignorant fool
JK
mrlucky1232002 3 weeks ago
@tush
There are not many individuals, groups, or organizations willing to stand up against this fraud that is being perpetuated for fear of being persecuted, harassed, and ostracized by those who support global warming within the scientific and other communities. But fortunately, a few have decided to do the right thing and take a stand against dumb ass atheist bullshit, proving just how unscientifically founded global warming is and exposing those who are behind it.
mrlucky1232002 3 weeks ago
@mrlucky1232002 and I won’t debate with you anymore, you points have shown you bare false witness twice now. God hates that.
tushara01 3 weeks ago
Micro occurs. But I believe in the genetic 'lessening' of the gene pool through time, not its increase. Also, when I look at the eye, the heart, etc. The complexity is simply too vast. Abiogenesis is an absurdity, mathematically. I just can't buy the change of DNA info on such levels it is too complex.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
“But I believe in the genetic 'lessening' of the gene pool through time, not its increase. Also, when I look at the eye, the heart, etc. The complexity is simply too vast. Abiogenesis is an absurdity, mathematically.”
Even this has been cut and pasted from CARM. You are utterly pathetic.
stewpotb62 1 month ago
@stewpotb62
Naw, I am not pathetic mr troll. What you assume to be true will sometimes be proven to be true if all you seek is what you want to be true. There is far more to this world than you are aware of.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
“What you assume to be true will sometimes be proven to be true if all you seek is what you want to be true. There is far more to this world than you are aware of”
And you’ve cut and pasted this from CARM as well. Anyone can google the phrase and see what a pathetic parrot you are.
stewpotb62 1 month ago
I had an atheist tell me, "A person has value as long as someone values them.
What an admission! If I was an atheist and believed that, I don't think that I could look people in the eye. Of course if I was an atheist, I wouldn't believe in right or wrong. All I'd have are opinions - so . . .
It does make me wonder though, am I correct in assuming that ALL atheists think like the one I quoted above? If there was only one human being in the whole universe, would that person have value and worth?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 As long as that person gave his know life meaning and not wait for an invisible in the sky to do it for him then yes.
AWEF321 1 month ago
@AWEF321
I've noticed that a significant number of atheists who profess a desire for rational debate often degenerate their own arguments into accusations and insults. When this happens, it means they have nothing rational to offer. I point that out and if they don't calm down, I just leave.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
“I've noticed that a significant number of atheists who profess a desire for rational debate often degenerate their own arguments into accusations”
You’ve noticed fuck all seeing as how you’ve lifted this word for word from CARM (Christian apologetics & research ministry). Once again. Cutting and pasting from bollocks web-sites and passing them off as your own words is dishonest. Are you still claiming an IQ of 135? You are a typical lying creationist scumbag.
stewpotb62 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stewpotb62
you keep commiting a logical fallacy
are you aware you never disupt my argument ,how could you but all you seem to do with anyone is attack them and this is called poisoning the well
how can you be anything but a troll?
Poisoning the Well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@stewpotb62
When you stack the cards, you always win….or think you do. The scientific method is not flawless. It is only as good as those who are using it. You are a sinner. You're mind is affected by sin as is your will.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
“When you stack the cards, you always win….or think you do. The scientific method is not flawless. It is only as good as those who are using it. You are a sinner. You're mind is affected by sin as is your will”
Even your response has been cut and pasted. Is it an obsession with you or something? You’d think a person with a claimed IQ of 135 would be able to have an original thought.
stewpotb62 1 month ago
@AWEF321
using terms like sky daddy are insulting and show you cannot accept any evidence for God because of you desire to believe in your world view where God does not exist
Then, I must ask you, what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence? I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 have god show himself. have god create a man from dirt or have him create creature out of no were. Show me that the supernatural is real. start there.
AWEF321 1 month ago
@AWEF321
what would you accept as evidence for God within reson? What you assume to be true will sometimes be proven to be true if all you seek is what you want to be true. There is far more to this world than you are aware of.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 Prove the supernatural is real. Prove there was once a flood. Prove The earth is 10,000 years old. Is that within reason enough for you?
AWEF321 1 month ago
The bible does not mention AOE
Prove there was once a flood
What would you accept
Proof is a negotiable thing. Different people require different amounts of verification before is considered proof. And, I agree. Just because it is written in the Bible doesn't mean it's true. There would have to be something about the Bible, or contained in the Bible, that would set it apart from other works. If you're interested, I could tell you some of those things. And you could look them up for yourself.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 whats AOE. What sets it apart from everthing else. Please share.
AWEF321 1 month ago
@AWEF321
Age Of earth
sorry I did not mean to confuse you
No one knows the ago of the earth sir
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 scientist can conclude its around 4.6 billion years. Whats wrong with the methods they use?
AWEF321 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AWEF321
scientist can conclude its around 4.6 billion years.
I can conclude as well but concluding is not proof is it
My bad if by proof you must mean something like concluding
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
“Proof is a negotiable thing. Different people require different amounts of verification before is considered proof.” Etc.
Come on everyone. Try and guess where this has been lifted from? Here’s some clues. Four letters it starts with a C and ends in an M and the rest of his posts have come from there.
stewpotb62 1 month ago
@stewpotb62
smelly cat
why do you stink so much?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 WOW what an clever and intellectual response.
AWEF321 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AWEF321
'WOW what an clever and intellectual response. "
Thank you
you are too kind
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@AWEF321
How do you know nature is all we have?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 prove theres more. Until then i see no reason to believe other wise.
AWEF321 1 month ago
@AWEF321
you believe that nature is all we have but you cannot prove this is true
can you? Therefore
you hold to naturalism by faith.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 again your changing the subject. The same thing can be said about you can the supernatural. Tell me something though whats more logical. Believing in something you experience all the time and have proof of its existence (natural) or believing in something you never experience and there is no proof for (supernatural)
AWEF321 1 month ago
Comment removed
stewpotb62 1 month ago
@AWEF321
many have experience the supernatural over time
How do you know their experiences did not occur
in other words
If you say that naturalism is supported by the lack of evidence for the supernatural, then it is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against the supernatural, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for the supernatural
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 Prove those experience were the supernatural and not something else. I never said that naturalism is supported by lack of evidence of the supernatural. What i actually said was that i don't believe in the supernatural because i see no evidence for it. Show evidence of the supernatural.
AWEF321 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AWEF321 "Show evidence of the supernatural. "
- The bible says so.
- The holy spirit says so
- I read it in one of William Lane Craig's books.
- My pastor says so.
Isn't that enough?
jimmo42 1 month ago
@AWEF321 i see no reason to believe other wise.
so you believe in there is nothing supernatural then?
There isn't? You're sure there is NO evidence for anything else?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 Provide the the evidence for the supernatural. Everyone i never talked to about has failed to provide this evidence thats why i don't believe.
AWEF321 1 month ago
@AWEF321
so do you lack belief in the supernatural because you have not seen the evidence for it?
You hold to a disbelief? How do you do that? I affirm or deny things...
You hold to a disbelief...interesting... explain how you hold to that.
do you think the supernatural is possible then?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 I disbelief in the supernatural just like you disbelief in evolution. Denying something is to know something is real and just close your eyes, point your fingers in your ears and go la la la la. No i don't think the supernatural is impossible.
AWEF321 1 month ago
@AWEF321
No i don't think the supernatural is impossible.
good than perhaps you would agree that you merely have not seem the evidence for youself
This just means you are ignorant about the world beyond what you can see with your own eyes
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 When i say i don't see evidence for it i am not talking about actual sight. I am talking about anything that will prove it. Again i will ask you for what the 5th time to show evidence of the supernatural.
AWEF321 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AWEF321
"And whatever happened to not needing proof to belief in something."
"I am talking about anything that will prove it"
now you are being inconsisstent again
you claim to believe in Macro evolution without proof because there is evidence for micro . I know you claim they are the same thing
Again what evidence would you accept?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@AWEF321
I believe in the evidence fof micro evolution because there is evidence for it
how do you know Macro evolution is real since you don't have proof for it?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 First micro and macro are the same thing just different time frames. But since that isn't enough for you here it is. DNA evidence, fossil record, observation of all necessary factors that go into "macro" evolution, and finally evolutionary predictions. And whatever happened to not needing proof to belief in something.
AWEF321 1 month ago
@AWEF321
you are the one who keeps asking for proof for God and I wanted to show you evidence
it would be basically illogical to state that miracles cannot occur. You say miricles are possible but don't believe in them because you have not seen the evidence yourself however, it is not enough to state that there is no evidence for the miraculous since a person's experiential base is limited. It may very well be that miracles have occurred and this person is simply not aware of it.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "miracles cannot occur" I never said this. "It may very well be that miracles have occurred and this person is simply not aware of it." This isn't enough to convince that miracles are real. "Show proof of the supernatural." For now on until you do i will only response with this.
AWEF321 1 month ago
@AWEF321
The fossil record does not show any transitional links and DNA does not show any species transformed into another .similar DNA proves nothing
rat DNA is most similar to humans you may not know
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 when i was talking about the fossil record i wasn't talking about trans fossil, but how it lines up with what evolution predicts. Also some trans fossils tiktaalik roseae, archaeopteryx, Australopithecus afarensis, homo erectus. DNA does show how mamals are closer related to lizards than amphibians, how lizards are more closely related to amphibians than they are to fish, etc. Again this matches up to what evolution predicted.
AWEF321 1 month ago
If someone believed that miracles were possible because he believed that God exists, then all he needs to do is look at the Bible, weigh the evidence and decide to believe or not believe in miracles -- After all, the Romans, who were expert at crucifixion, killed Jesus, and put guards on the tomb. Yet, the tomb was found empty.These same disciples risked life and limb in order to teach that Jesus had risen. Why would they do that for a lie unless it really happened?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
“If someone believed that miracles were possible because he believed that God exists, then all he needs to do is look at the Bible” Etc.
Hi Ho, Hi Ho it’s cut and paste we go.
stewpotb62 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stewpotb62
“If someone believed that miracles were possible because he believed that God exists, then all he needs to do is look at the Bible” Etc."
your comment makes alot of sense.
Do you beleive miracles are possible because you don't like the idea of God existing?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AWEF321
. And whatever happened to not needing proof to belief in something.
so you believe in evolution by faith?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
so do you think God may exist? you said the supernatural is possible after all, why not have the possibility that Jesus who claimed to be God, who fulfilled Old Testament prophecies, who predicted his own death and resurrection, appeared to people after his public execution, did indeed actually rise from the dead? Since the eyewitness accounts have been accurately transmitted to us, would it not be logical to believe the witnesses who described what they saw? It would seem so
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 Well first only 33% of the world believe Jesus rose from the dead. Second Christians have even written books explaining how Jesus never rose form the dead.
AWEF321 1 month ago
@AWEF321
people have opinions about Jesus not really rising from the dead true
How do you explain the disciples giving up everything refusing to deny Jesus rose from the dead even when they were tortured and murdered for their faith in Jesus
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
“I believe in the evidence fof micro evolution because there is evidence for it
how do you know Macro evolution is real since you don't have proof for it?”
This has already been explained to you. So repeating it makes you dishonest. But then having seen the rest of your posts no one will be surprised by your dishonesty.
stewpotb62 1 month ago
@AWEF321
Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 this is was a quote from a website so iam not responding to it.
AWEF321 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AWEF321
“Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.”
This is cut and pasted as well
stewpotb62 1 month ago
@AWEF321
“You hold to a disbelief? How do you do that? I affirm or deny things...
You hold to a disbelief...interesting... explain how you hold to that”.
Just to let you know he has cut and pasted this from CARM again. Just google the above phrase and up it comes.
stewpotb62 1 month ago
@stewpotb62 Thanks for the info. That probably explains why half of the things he says don't match up to what he is replying to.
AWEF321 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AWEF321 "That probably explains why half of the things he says don't match up to what he is replying to. "
ROTFLOL! Thanks!!! I had been thinking that very same thing.
jimmo42 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stewpotb62 "Just to let you know he has cut and pasted this from CARM again."
Good for you! Nice to see someone else caught it, as well. That's one reason I decided to stop discussing things with mrlucky1232002. He does not have any of his own opinions, but rather he simply regurgitates things he finds on creationist sites. (e.g. CARM)
jimmo42 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
“smelly cat
why do you stink so much?”
And this is what you get when he tries to bring the immense intellect of his supposed 135 IQ to an original thought. Anyone else feel like they’ve been transported to the playground? I think you might have misplaced the decimal point on that IQ. If you were any stupider you’d have to hand back your opposable thumb
stewpotb62 1 month ago
@AWEF321
you have not said what evidence you would accept for the flood or the age of the earth
It is not reasonable to ask for proof of events that happen 1,000s of years ago
you must not know how the Scientific Method works.
In science we rarely prove anything and in fact
Proof is for math and New year drinks but not science
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 YOu don't even know when the flood took place. Come on thats sad. The flood apparently around 7,000 years ago not 1,000 years ago. Show me any evidence for the age of the earth and the flood that you have. Never educate me on the scientific method again. You should be educating your fellow creationist not me.
AWEF321 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AWEF321
"YOu don't even know when the flood took place. Come on thats sad. The flood apparently around 7,000 years ago not 1,000 years ago"
Where do you get you infomation about the flood?
You say apparently the flood happened 7,000 years ago
how do you know .
please show me the evidence you have that tells you when the flood happened?
I said 1,000s as in many and not a 1,000 years btw
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@AWEF321
Never educate me on the scientific method again.
I do need to educate you the the SM is about observing and not about concluding as you seem to think
Testing events again and again .Now how is that done with any past event?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@AWEF321
Anyway, I was just trying to demonstrate that your logic was not very good. If that is the criteria that you are using to demonstrate truth, then you are being inconsistent. If you are being inconsistent, then how can you know what truth really is?
I would like to put some verses in here and have you tell me what it's about. I won't hint or do anything, okay?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 when was i ever trying to demonstrate truth. You were the one doing this not me. Also every time i gave you different option for demonstrating truth you changed the subject. Also you didn't demonstrate my logic was not good. When was i being inconsistent?
AWEF321 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AWEF321
"Also you didn't demonstrate my logic was not good. When was i being inconsistent?"
When I asked you to prove you are your mother's son you offers documents that you have not proof for and I asked the questions below
Will you watch them do the DNA test and will you see the results and comprehend them? Or will you simply trust what someone tells you?
seems you require differnet thing for proof and this is inconsistent
I have document as evidence for Jesus Christ after all
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@AWEF321
you won't believe in God unless you see a miricle yourself?
you need proof before you can believe in God?
Well, I don't think that is a very logical statement for you to make. I mean, you can't prove your mother is your mother? Did you watch or give birth? Do you remember it? Can you prove it? If you will not believe anything unless you see it for yourself, then how do you know you have internal organs?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 DNA test, birth certificate that's how i can prove my mother is my mother. I can feel my heart. Thats one way to determine i have internal organs. I can see my chest being expanded, I can conclude thats my lungs. I have x rays taken of my bodie. If i really wanted too and if i had the money can pay a doctor to open me up and record the process. So yes i do need proof before i believe in something.
AWEF321 1 month ago
@AWEF321
Will you watch them do the DNA test and will you see the results and comprehend them? Or will you simply trust what someone tells you?
did you know the person who provided the birth certificate? Do you really believe humans never make error? You don't have proof no one switched the babied as has been done, I'm only trying to point out that you're not being logically consistent.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrlucky1232002
", I'm only trying to point out that you're not being logically consistent."
Wrong. In this case, most people trust the experts, but not because they need to...it's for convenience. They absolutely COULD get enough of an education to do the test and read it for themselves; they just don't want to.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrlucky1232002 you need proof before you can believe in evolution?
Well, I don't think that is a very logical statement for you to make. I mean, you can't prove your mother is your mother? Did you watch or give birth? Do you remember it? Can you prove it? If you will not believe anything unless you see it for yourself, then how do you know you have internal organs? Isn't sarcasm a b***h
AWEF321 1 month ago
Atheists know best what children need to learn.
Christopher Hitchens suggests that atheists become the defenders of the world’s children, “Parents don’t literally own their children . . . [Christian parents] ought to be held accountable by outsiders (read atheists, perhaps the drunken Hitchens himself) for their guardianship, which does imply that outsiders have a right to interfere.”
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrlucky1232002 "Atheists are infamous for saying:
I don’t need God in order to be a good person.
The path of “logic” that follows that belief is:
a) I don’t need God.
b) Therefore I must see myself as a good person."
No, the path of logic that follows this statement is "there is no aspect of belief in a god that makes you a good person that cannot be achieved by someone who does not believe in god." So b) is total bs. Unless you can demostrate why we need god to be a good person.
mancno1 1 month ago
The problem with that is, the bedrock of human problems isn’t reasonable, rational or logical. That is why reason and logic will never be able to solve our problems, our hatreds, our bitterness, pettiness and corrupted self-love.
Atheists are infamous for saying:
“I don’t need God in order to be a good person.”
The path of “logic” that follows that belief is:
a) “I don’t need God.”
b) “Therefore I must see myself as a good person.”
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
outside the bible sources? Of course not, coz' there's none.
wrong there any many outside sources that 90% of the world accept as evidence for Jesus Christ. Militant Athiests like you and your ilk reject evidence that does not support your world veiw no matter how strong the evidence. You think you are the lonly ones who can decide what is good evidence and what is rejected. Of course you reject Jesus and have no intention of accepting Him as Lord and Savior as you love your sin and the dark
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "Militant Athiests like you and your ilk reject evidence that does not support your world veiw no matter how strong the evidence."
Militant means violent its what we use to describe terroists so why are you implying we are militant. Where is this evidence you are talking about. The bible doesn't count as evidence for us the same way greek mythological texts don't count for you
"90% of the world accept as evidence for Jesus Christ." LOL wtf only 30% of the planet is christian.
mancno1 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "Of course you reject Jesus and have no intention of accepting Him as Lord and Savior as you love your sin and the dark"
..facepalm... Are you REALLY so desperate to be right that you have to resort to THAT old argument? If you consider all of the wars, murder, genocide through the last 2000 years most of it was done in the name of Jesus. Seems YOU are the one that will "reject evidence that does not support your world veiw no matter how strong the evidence".
jimmo42 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimmo42
1. We do not have the originals but they were copied accurately
2. We do know what was in the originals
3. We do know all scripture was directed by God
4. We know that people who wrote the bible did not lie about events
5. We know the early church kept accurate records of the 66 books of the bible to preserve God's word
6. We know that the early church provided 1,000s of copies of originals books so all would know what was and was not God's word
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
1. Demonstrably false. We KNOW they ere NOT "copied accurately"
2. We can only conclude what was likely in the oldest copies, NOT the orginals.
3. And we know Santa Claus puts presents under the tree.
4. Exactly how do we know they didn't lie? Oh, yes, they told us they didn't lie. However, you forget about the pastoral epistles and 2 peter.
5. We know that the church did NOT keep accurate records, otherwise we would be able to look at them, but we can't.
jimmo42 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
all you have is your assertion without supporting evidence
do you never tired of airing your opinions?
1. Demonstrably TRUE We KNOW they ARE copied accurately"
2. We can only conclude the copies agreed with the originals.
3. And we know Santa Claus is fiction and Jesus is a real person 4. Peter did lie when he denied he know Jesus
so what? the bible condemns lying
5. We know that the church did keep accurate records, even know we could reconstruct the entire new testament with them
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
Peter shows us two things about preaching and teaching. First, preaching is very often reminding a man of what he already knows. It is the bringing back to his memory that truth which he has forgotten, or at which he refuses to look, or whose meaning he has not fully appreciated. Second, Peter is going to go on to uncompromising rebuke and warning, but he begins with something very like a compliment. He says that his people already possess the truth and are firmly established in it.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "Peter shows us two things about preaching and teaching."
Most New Testament scholars agree that it was NOT written by Peter the apostle. Even schloars like Daniel Wallace admit that the concensus is 2 Peter was NOT written by Peter. Using a frogery as evidence is a pretty foolish things to do.
jimmo42 1 month ago
Yet Wallace says Peter wrote Peter
Evangelical historians D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo wrote that "most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author. Despite this broad denial by the majority of modern scholars, other scholars view the arguments of the majority of scholarship to be largely inconclusive.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "this broad denial by the majority of modern scholars,"
That is, the "majority of modern scholars" believe that 2 Peter was NOT written by Peter. It claims to be written by Peter. So, if not written by Peter, the author was lying! You beleive a priori that the bible is the world of god, so naturally you are not going to accept claims that it contains forgeries, despite the evidence. My belief is based soley on the evidence.
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42
It claims to be written by Peter. So, if not written by Peter, the author was lying!
at best you have only your assertion and the opinons of other
Show me evidence that Peter did not write the book
you must not know that for 1,800 years no one doubted Peter wrote the book
called 2 Peter Why do you think this claim came so late?
It I commited a crime even 50 years ago evidence would be almost impossible to find
This is why we have limits on accusations
Yours comes 2,000 years
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "So, if not written by Peter, the author was lying!...at best you have only your assertion and the opinons of other"
No! It is a completely valid syllogism if the premises are true.
P1: Peter was not the author.
P2: It claims to be written by Peter
C: The author was lying.
If p1 and p2 are correct, it is a logical argument. Most scholars agree with P1, P2 is in the bible. YOU can accept the opinion of the **minority**, if you want. I don't.
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42
In other words, a number of apostolic fathers (as well as others, such as Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus) seem to allude to this letter. If so, then the external evidence for 2 Peter is not nearly as weak as has been supposed. In the least, Picirilli’s evidence needs to be given a full hearing by NT scholars, even if it might turn over the apple cart of one the assured results of higher criticism.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "seem to allude to this letter."
Does not mean they are refering to the same letter, nor does it prove it was written by Peter. "apostolic fathers " also beleived that the Gospel of Peter was written by Peter but removed it becasue they did not like the theology, **even though* they believed it was written by Peter!
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42
apostolic fathers " also beleived that the Gospel of Peter was written by Peter but removed it becasue they did not like the theology
No there is is no evdence 2 Peter was removed by the apostolic fathers
2. One thing has been proved, even if negative: one cannot dogmatically affirm that there certainly are no allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers; the common material is too obviously there.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "No there is is no evdence 2 Peter was removed by the apostolic fathers"
...facepalm... More reading comprehension problems or simply that you really don't have a clue? I said "Gospel of Peter" was removed and NOT "2 Peter". They are **different** books.
jimmo42 1 month ago
it is far from conclusive that Peter did not write 2 peter
you can believe in or not depending on your world view about such things
You fail to consider 2 peter is not really your issue at all
You deny Jesus when you could accept Him is you just believed the Book of John
Therefore you are arguing a non issue
you don't accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and would not even if you were convince Peter wrote 2 Peter
again you receive the face-palm for you are just wasting time chasing rabbits
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "If so, then the external evidence for 2 Peter is not nearly as weak as has been supposed"
...facepalm...You really shouldn't make comments about things you don't have a clue about. If you had actually looked into it of simply cutting-n-pasting from some website (which you DID) you would know it is more than just the external evidence. I have read the article by Daniel Wallace that you plagiarised and while I respect his work greatly, I was not convinced.
jimmo42 1 month ago
atheist vs Christians
Both think the other lacks reason and intellectual honesty
Both think the quality of their lives is enhanced by their beliefs
Both accept and believe things that they simply don’t understand
Both think the other is making the world a worse place in which to live
Both formulate “logical” reasons why they don’t believe what the other one believes
Both sides rarely admit to the fact that they indoctrinate their children with their beliefs
Both beliefs require faith
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
An atheist was aghast that I would “shamelessly indoctrinate” my children regarding Jesus It’s very tempting to look at others who think differently than we and then assume or feel that they are part of another species. It’s easier to denigrate and demonize that way. Truly, Christians and atheists are similar in many areas.
. Both think the other is unbelievably stupid
. Both think the other is living out wishful thinking
. Both are obsessed with the concept of a Creator God
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
"Both think the other is unbelievably stupid"
I think a lot of Christians are very intelligent. I don't think you are stuoid, only that you have NO CLUE about the basic issues were were talking about here. YOU know your own beleifs so poorly that you need to run to some webstie to find out what YOU believe.
"Both are obsessed with the concept of a Creator God "
Uh, no. We object to people forcing their beliefs on us.
jimmo42 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimmo42
no. We object to people forcing their beliefs on us.
you just made 45 comments trying to force your belief on others
the hypocrisy is amazing
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@jimmo42
YOU can accept the opinion of the **minority**, if you want. I don't.
Being in the majority is not what you do as far as belief in God
95% of the world beleive in god/gods or some higher power and only about 5% deny it is possible that God exist
You don't mind acception minority opinon in regard to God do you?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "95% of the world beleive in god/gods or some higher power"
You made that number up. Making things up is called lying. 1) Check the studies done by the PEW group or the UN. They calculate it as low as 68%, however, that includes Buddhism. 2) What is this "higher pwoer" BS. That would also include buddhists, taoist, patheists, shintos, and south american shaman, just to name a few. Is THAT what you are tying to support?
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42
Ok if you want to use 68% as the low number of people that believe in God
Why do you not want to be in the majority?
I am not lying to give my opinion
How can anyone know what exact percent of the people beleive in God
you militant atheist are quick to call people liars it seems
BTW Do you beleive in Morals absolutes are all so that you can say lying in wrong?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "You don't mind acception minority opinon in regard to God do you?"
You're a dishonest little bugger aren't you? First you mention "god/gods or some higher power" then you talk about "God". There is a big diffrence between a "higher pwoer" and "god". Or are you really THAT naive? Is it simple desperation? Lack of understanding of the basic concepts?
jimmo42 1 month ago
the reason Peter is questioned by most scholars is that no church father either quoted or alluded to 2 Peter. For example, E. A. Abbott argued that “Up to the time of Clement of Alexandria (i.e. c. 200) there is no trace of its existence.’2 But recently, Robert E. Picirilli has written an illuminating essay, “AIIusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers,”3 in which he challenges such opinion. His conclusion is well worth quoting:
Three conclusions seem justified.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "But recently, Robert E. Picirilli has written an illuminating essay...."
This is really sad. It demonstrates that you simply lap up anything a person barfs onto the floor, so long as it supports your position. Are you REALLY so naive to think that by plagiarising an article I already ready, I would be magically convinced of what you say?
jimmo42 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "Three conclusions seem justified." Agreed.
1) You really have no clue about the topics were are discussing. 2) You are incapable of understanding it. 3) You know you are wrong, but cannot admit it.
Here's another one:
4) You naively think that because YOU don't bother to research both sides, that non-believers do the same.
To paraphrase Isaac Asimov, the best way to become an atheist is to read the bible.
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42
To paraphrase Isaac Asimov, the best way to become an atheist is to read the bible.
So now you agreed with me the bible is true and you are an atheist because you don't like the way God rolls?
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "So now you agreed with me the bible is true and you are an atheist because you don't like the way God rolls?"
Uh, nooooo...I would not begin to believe in elves, wizards and orcs by reading the "Lord of the Rings". That by no means imply I believe, but do not like it. Rather, the bible itself is pretty convincing evidence that it is NOT the world of god,
jimmo42 1 month ago
Atheists’ faith is in their powers of intellect, science and pride
Christian faith is in the person of Jesus the Christ.
Atheists maintain that position throughout their lives by adhering to evidence that supports their position and discarding evidence that doesn’t.
Christians have come to free their thinking and change their minds through spiritual and intellectual exploration. Christians come to their position by admitting and accepting evidence that cannot be successfully challenged
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "Christians come to their position by admitting and accepting evidence that cannot be successfully challenged"
For example?
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42
By challenged i don't mean idiots asking someone to prove a negative like
Prove no one ever embellished a part of any book
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrlucky1232002 "By challenged i don't mean idiots asking someone to prove a negative like"
Or you mean like Christians idiots who ask atheists to "prove a negative" like
prove god doesn't exist?
jimmo42 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "Christian faith is in the person of Jesus the Christ"
and the belief in bronze mythology passed throught a book that is demonstrably unreliable.
jimmo42 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimm
and the belief in bronze mythology passed (THOUGHT) a book that is demonstrably unreliable.
if you can demonstrate the 66 books of the bible are unreliable you could make a fortune
No one has been able to prove the is even one error or contradiction
You only make assertion you have no way to back up with evidence and expect to be taken seriously
very funny
Try again
Where is this asserted unreliable scripture I would like to see it
Oh I am sorry you have only your opinion
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time
Isaac Asimov
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
Of course, you're grossly ignorant of what that Asimov quote means in today's context.
Nearly all modern atheists follow Asimov's train of thought here. "Atheist" no longer carries that connotation.
But you probably know this and are merely projecting your own faults onto others. You pointlessly cling to dogma you KNOW is wrong, so you must label others with this same fault to rationalize it.
The problem is that you're lying.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002
To paraphrase Isaac Asimov
There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death. atheist are such a group
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew
Atheism is a negative position and you can't died for a negative position just as you can't prover a negative sir
Think how much you would love it if I were dead right now
Now imagine if you have the power to wipe out everyone who die not share your world view. Maybe you could accept some differences but certainly not Christianity. NO
Atheism don't die for atheism but atheist leaders kill millions of people for believing in Christ.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrlucky1232002
"Think how much you would love it if I were dead right now"
Why do you assume I'm a terrible person?
"Maybe you could accept some differences but certainly not Christianity."
Why do you assume I'm as judgmental as you?
"atheist leaders kill millions of people for believing in Christ."
This would require rewriting history. When have Christians been massacred en masse by atheists?
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "kill millions of people for believing in Christ. "
Examples? As ALREADY pointed out to you and based on the historical facts, they were NOT killed "for believing in Christ", but rather they belong to an organized group. Such organized groups were a threat to the government. As ALREADY pointed out to you, they also killed people with other religions as well as intellectuals. Were THEY killed for "believing in rational thought"? Your argument is absurd!
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42
The present location of Mt. Sinai, according to the locals in their account, is known as Jabal Al Laws as is traditionally known by them as the mount of Moses. The Saudis have the area fenced off with warning signs in Arabic is and English telling people not to enter. If this is so, why would the Saudis not want anyone to know about the place? It might be because if Mt. Sinai is located in Muslim territory then one of the most holy places is off limits
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "It might be because if Mt. Sinai..."
and it might also be because Aliens landed there. Maybe it was one of the UFOs sent by Satan that Christian apologist Norman Geisler believes in.
You should stay away from the CARM site. It's a joke! No references and the few names they mentioned are not qualified to make any judgements about archaeology. But then again, you seem to believe credential are not necessary as long as it supports your position.
jimmo42 1 month ago
While the universe came into being by a force that operated outside the Laws of Physics, and while this is a working definition of a miracle, in atheist dogma, No Miracles Are Allowed As Lee Smolin says, “Must all of our scientific understanding of the world really come down to a mythological intelligence . . that wills matter into being? It seems to me that the only possible name for such an observer is God, and that the theory is to be criticized as being unlikely on these grounds.”
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@jimmo42 THEY killed for "believing in rational thought"? Your argument is absurd!
So believing in rational thought gets you killed if an atheist is leading the govt with abslute power and no moral reason not to kill you
I think you have proven my point
Good job
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@jimmo42
atheist have dogmas
Teaching Christianity is harmful, even abusive to children.
Christopher Hitchens writes, “How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?” The atheist answer? Inculcate all children with atheist beliefs.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "Teaching Christianity is harmful, even abusive to children."
I am not Christopher Hitchens. In addition this further proves you have a comprehension problem. Htichens says "maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith". He is obviosuly not talking about the the forced indoctrination of a specific belief. You are simply making things up. (and we both know it)
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42
atheist dogmas
Christian Children are not the property of their parents.
Daniel Dennett, “How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents? Should [Christian parents] be free to impose their beliefs on their children?”
Again, the atheist answer is to impose atheist beliefs upon not just their children but upon everyone’s children.
mrlucky1232002 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "Again, the atheist answer is to impose atheist beliefs upon not just their children but upon everyone’s children."
Once again you are projecting YOUR beliefs and behaviour to others. I know of no atheist families where the chilrend are forced or even expected to beleive the same thing has the parents. Watch "Jesus Camp" for examples of brain washing that is similar to what was done by the north in the korean war.
jimmo42 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrlucky1232002
"Christian Children are not the property of their parents" children are not property, humans are not property. WTF is wrong with you.
kotoroshinoto 1 month ago
@mrlucky1232002 "Daniel Dennett..."
That is quote mining. You take a single snipit from someone and pretend that it has a different meaning than the person intended.
Seeing as this is yet another example of you simply plagiarizing someone, it is pretty clear you have absolutely no thoughts of your own. While I admittedly reply on expert opinion in many cases, I do not simply regurgitate anything they vomit on the floor. You, only other hand,continue to lap it up and smile!
jimmo42 1 month ago