Can you name anything that had a beginning that had no cause? Big bang clearly indicates a beginning for the universe in finite time. you claim that I have made a logical error but you are the one with the position that everything came from nothing for no reason.
You are confusing "rights" with "being right". I am not infringing on your right to have any wrong opinion you choose. I am challenging your belief you hold these opinions less on evidence and more on faith.
There is no freedom "from" religion, only freedom "of" religion in the US constitution. The video is to counter an atheist video demanding Christians answer questions.
I am fully aware that you are not infringing on my rights, I wouldnt presume you would like to, but frankly some people probably would, and the Constitution does protect me from the proslytizing efforts of others, thank God for that ^^
My "belief" is actually a position, and is based on much more evidence than you can probably provide for me; perhaps I am being unfair, I challenege you to provide me with evidence for your side
I find it ironic that you charge me with having faith while your God demands just that, wouldn't that make you a hypocrite?
I intend the irony but the fact is that most atheists hold their beliefs on blind faith that what they have heard is true without ever entertaining the idea it oculd be wrong or mastering the arguments supporting it. I encounter this constantly when they offer false information in support. Bottom line is the hypocrasy is on the atheist side.
I have abundant evidence and reason supporting my side. It starts with a little faith but I have faith in evidence not blind faith.
No, no faith is required in acknowledging commonly held notions. Natural principles demonstrate themselves, repeat themselves, can be explained with laws, and predicted by them. I need faith in order to believe in God because he does not manifest him/her/itself
I used to be a Catholic, so far from never entertaining the notion of a God, I was a devout Christian for almost half my life---thats the SECOND time Im saying that, Im repeating myself
False information? Bear in mind that arguments like Intelligent Design and Pascal's wager are thouroughly wrought with conceits and error.
I hope you realize the incredible arrogance of saying that hundreds of years of scientific discovery and the most brilliant minds alive are wrong because they make no mention of God?
You and I couldnt disagree more on this, there is far more hypocrisy on your side
You need to specify what you think is wrong with paschal's wager, not just say it is wrong.
Most of science is not wrong. most of it was built on the work of devout Christians like Newton. In modern times, they tend to say things in denial of God a la Carl Sagan. This is where they are wrong. They choose to promote an ideology instead of facts. You said there could be no scientific proof that God is not there but many of them keep insisting it is proven. Many scientists are believers.
Have you invited the homeless to your house for supper or donated your wealth to the poor yet? Have you abandoned your warm home for the road to preach your message? Because Jesus wants that too.
You have no evidence, if you had some, you would be rubbing my face in it right now. Evidence requires no faith, your argument is special pleading, faith is blind by definition
PLEZ let's continue this in PM, the comment boxes are too SMALL
I have not hosted homeless but have donated to their aid. We are all called to do different things not the same thing. This is my calling to talk to people like you.
I have answered you on evidence many times but you have yet to engage on that.
I am glad to use the PM but if you keep posting things here that need answering, guess what, I'll answer here.
okay, guess what...you have officially pissed me off now
You are truly ignorant and nothing I can say to you will make any sense to you because you are so brainwashed by your religion that you cant even think for yourself anymore
You can be a flaming troll all you want, but not here
I tried to be civil, but you are being rude by polluting my vid comment section with your BS when we could be having an intelligent discussion in PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I was fairly well educated in American history and politics, and aware that the founding fathers wanted a secular nation. Nowhere in the First amendment is there anything about a Christian nation, and thank God for that
The founding fathers explicitly wanted to avoid a state church. The first clause is plain about that and also plain about not interfering. We are on the verge of trashing that one and the one after it with the advent of the government being able to define "hate speech" and penalise those who say things they don't like.
Still, no freedom from religion. So what point are you making?
My interpretation is hardly radical or left wing, the church and state seperation issue is different from the freedom of religion issue
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" --- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
What point do you think you have made with that quote? Did he mean that if the church had no power at the time, Jesus might have stayed longer or become king and solved all the problems of the world?
"No man [should] be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor [should he] be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor ... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief ... All men [should] be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and ...
I agree with jefferson. "All men [should] be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and ... " as you said. So what point are you trying for now?
Atheists should be familiar with a broad range of relevant topics unless they are willing to admit they hold their beliefs on blind faith.
The relevance is in the fact that atheists generally seek refuge in evolution, cosmology, abiogenesis, and anywhere they think there are facts that support the denial of God. That makes these issues critical to defending the atheist position if in fact they insist on reason and evidence as a source for truth.
No we should not, and I have already established that it is merely a viewpoint and not a belief. If we were brain surgeons we should be expected to be expected to study a broad range of medical topics
we have no faith, blind faith doubly so
I have already mentioned that not all atheists support evolution, so that argument is a Red Herring - the same applies to cosmology and abiogenesis
Perhaps not all but nearly all do support evolution and abiogenesis because to not do so leaves uncomfortable gaps. The cosmology is decidedly in favor of the theists since big bang is consistent with biblical content.
Now, a person can hold a belief on whatever basis they wish but if they intend to have discussion about it, they will need to have the ability to defend it.
I wholeheartedly agree, I think Ive been on the defensive for most of this exchange - and while I dont particularly enjoy being questioned on my beliefs I never do it to theists (I think Im doing a pretty good job at it, what do you think?
O__o.)
It's okay, I forgive you - although I hope you realize if I were to confront a theist and call their beliefs blind faith I'm sure you can imagine how warmly they would regard me - wouldn't you agree Gunne?
That is the point. We hear that daily. the irony is that you don't get that it is not true because you are not adequately acquainted with the arguments for my side. To say there is no evidence is to simply dismiss the discussion and thereby betray prejudice and ignorance.
I simply am challenging atheists in the same vein to show that they have solid reasons for their beliefs and that those reasons stand up to scrutiny. Given what is at stake, don't you think both sides should be heard?
You are still saying no evidence on my side. You are assuming your evidence will stand.
For the origin of the universe, you have nothing. you are left with everything came from nothing for no reason. I have the scientific observation that everything that had a beginning had a cause. Clearly the cause for the universe had to be outside our time and space and have extreme power and knowledge just like the bible describes God. the fulfilled prophecy it contains validates the bible.
Hmm, I wouldnt say that scientific facts support a denial of God, because some scientists are devout theists
Science has no official stance on God, and NEVER has
Its like asking why history is in favor of abortion - it does not make much sense does it
So, if you think that atheists using reason and evidence to support the reason why they lack a faith in a god is a failing on our part what do you suggest we use?
?
Reason and science has lead to the computers that we are using Gunne
Scientific facts do not support such a denial although the atheist side has done its best to convey that idea.
The failing on the atheist side is in not understanding the reason and evidence they presume to offer as support. They also fail by putting forth the strawman that the theist side has only faith in support and pretending that all of science is in conflict with the bible which is in fact opposite with the exception of evolution. If you notice, I use reason & evidence for my arguments.
No one can disprove God, with science or otherwise - but science and reason can punch holes in your arguments.
It's not that I dont understand your reasons or evidence - we either find inconsistencies or there IS no evidence
All that the theist side has is faith, that is not a straw man, that is a fact and observation - I have noticed that you are very calm and clear in your vids, but you actully use lofical fallacies, old canards, and lack any evidence.
Comment removed
GunneLPercher 2 years ago
Q1
Can you name anything that had a beginning that had no cause? Big bang clearly indicates a beginning for the universe in finite time. you claim that I have made a logical error but you are the one with the position that everything came from nothing for no reason.
GunneLPercher 2 years ago
You are confusing "rights" with "being right". I am not infringing on your right to have any wrong opinion you choose. I am challenging your belief you hold these opinions less on evidence and more on faith.
There is no freedom "from" religion, only freedom "of" religion in the US constitution. The video is to counter an atheist video demanding Christians answer questions.
GunneLPercher 2 years ago
Hey Gunne thanks for writing
I am fully aware that you are not infringing on my rights, I wouldnt presume you would like to, but frankly some people probably would, and the Constitution does protect me from the proslytizing efforts of others, thank God for that ^^
handofnergal 2 years ago
My "belief" is actually a position, and is based on much more evidence than you can probably provide for me; perhaps I am being unfair, I challenege you to provide me with evidence for your side
I find it ironic that you charge me with having faith while your God demands just that, wouldn't that make you a hypocrite?
handofnergal 2 years ago
I intend the irony but the fact is that most atheists hold their beliefs on blind faith that what they have heard is true without ever entertaining the idea it oculd be wrong or mastering the arguments supporting it. I encounter this constantly when they offer false information in support. Bottom line is the hypocrasy is on the atheist side.
I have abundant evidence and reason supporting my side. It starts with a little faith but I have faith in evidence not blind faith.
GunneLPercher 2 years ago
No, no faith is required in acknowledging commonly held notions. Natural principles demonstrate themselves, repeat themselves, can be explained with laws, and predicted by them. I need faith in order to believe in God because he does not manifest him/her/itself
I used to be a Catholic, so far from never entertaining the notion of a God, I was a devout Christian for almost half my life---thats the SECOND time Im saying that, Im repeating myself
handofnergal 2 years ago
Just wondering how did you know you were a Christian during that time? Did you ever actually ask Jesus to forgive you and be your Lord and Savior?
GunneLPercher 2 years ago
False information? Bear in mind that arguments like Intelligent Design and Pascal's wager are thouroughly wrought with conceits and error.
I hope you realize the incredible arrogance of saying that hundreds of years of scientific discovery and the most brilliant minds alive are wrong because they make no mention of God?
You and I couldnt disagree more on this, there is far more hypocrisy on your side
handofnergal 2 years ago
You need to specify what you think is wrong with paschal's wager, not just say it is wrong.
Most of science is not wrong. most of it was built on the work of devout Christians like Newton. In modern times, they tend to say things in denial of God a la Carl Sagan. This is where they are wrong. They choose to promote an ideology instead of facts. You said there could be no scientific proof that God is not there but many of them keep insisting it is proven. Many scientists are believers.
GunneLPercher 2 years ago
Have you invited the homeless to your house for supper or donated your wealth to the poor yet? Have you abandoned your warm home for the road to preach your message? Because Jesus wants that too.
You have no evidence, if you had some, you would be rubbing my face in it right now. Evidence requires no faith, your argument is special pleading, faith is blind by definition
PLEZ let's continue this in PM, the comment boxes are too SMALL
^^ ~ Hand
handofnergal 2 years ago
I have not hosted homeless but have donated to their aid. We are all called to do different things not the same thing. This is my calling to talk to people like you.
I have answered you on evidence many times but you have yet to engage on that.
I am glad to use the PM but if you keep posting things here that need answering, guess what, I'll answer here.
GunneLPercher 2 years ago
okay, guess what...you have officially pissed me off now
You are truly ignorant and nothing I can say to you will make any sense to you because you are so brainwashed by your religion that you cant even think for yourself anymore
You can be a flaming troll all you want, but not here
I tried to be civil, but you are being rude by polluting my vid comment section with your BS when we could be having an intelligent discussion in PM
Im putting you on ignore, have a nice life
handofnergal 2 years ago
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I was fairly well educated in American history and politics, and aware that the founding fathers wanted a secular nation. Nowhere in the First amendment is there anything about a Christian nation, and thank God for that
handofnergal 2 years ago
The founding fathers explicitly wanted to avoid a state church. The first clause is plain about that and also plain about not interfering. We are on the verge of trashing that one and the one after it with the advent of the government being able to define "hate speech" and penalise those who say things they don't like.
Still, no freedom from religion. So what point are you making?
GunneLPercher 2 years ago
I believe I have already made my point, despite your radical right-wing conspiracy opinions to the contrary
The founding fathers wanted a secular nation, and if anyone is having their rights trampled on at the present, is those free of gods
handofnergal 2 years ago
Radical left wing propaganda. They simply wanted the government and church out of each other's business. You point has failed.
GunneLPercher 2 years ago
My interpretation is hardly radical or left wing, the church and state seperation issue is different from the freedom of religion issue
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" --- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
handofnergal 2 years ago
What point do you think you have made with that quote? Did he mean that if the church had no power at the time, Jesus might have stayed longer or become king and solved all the problems of the world?
GunneLPercher 2 years ago
"No man [should] be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor [should he] be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor ... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief ... All men [should] be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and ...
handofnergal 2 years ago
...the same [should] in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers, 2:546 (see Positive Atheism's Historical section)
handofnergal 2 years ago
I agree with jefferson. "All men [should] be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and ... " as you said. So what point are you trying for now?
GunneLPercher 2 years ago
Atheists should be familiar with a broad range of relevant topics unless they are willing to admit they hold their beliefs on blind faith.
The relevance is in the fact that atheists generally seek refuge in evolution, cosmology, abiogenesis, and anywhere they think there are facts that support the denial of God. That makes these issues critical to defending the atheist position if in fact they insist on reason and evidence as a source for truth.
GunneLPercher 2 years ago
No we should not, and I have already established that it is merely a viewpoint and not a belief. If we were brain surgeons we should be expected to be expected to study a broad range of medical topics
we have no faith, blind faith doubly so
I have already mentioned that not all atheists support evolution, so that argument is a Red Herring - the same applies to cosmology and abiogenesis
handofnergal 2 years ago
Perhaps not all but nearly all do support evolution and abiogenesis because to not do so leaves uncomfortable gaps. The cosmology is decidedly in favor of the theists since big bang is consistent with biblical content.
GunneLPercher 2 years ago
Now, a person can hold a belief on whatever basis they wish but if they intend to have discussion about it, they will need to have the ability to defend it.
GunneLPercher 2 years ago
I wholeheartedly agree, I think Ive been on the defensive for most of this exchange - and while I dont particularly enjoy being questioned on my beliefs I never do it to theists (I think Im doing a pretty good job at it, what do you think?
O__o.)
It's okay, I forgive you - although I hope you realize if I were to confront a theist and call their beliefs blind faith I'm sure you can imagine how warmly they would regard me - wouldn't you agree Gunne?
handofnergal 2 years ago
That is the point. We hear that daily. the irony is that you don't get that it is not true because you are not adequately acquainted with the arguments for my side. To say there is no evidence is to simply dismiss the discussion and thereby betray prejudice and ignorance.
I simply am challenging atheists in the same vein to show that they have solid reasons for their beliefs and that those reasons stand up to scrutiny. Given what is at stake, don't you think both sides should be heard?
GunneLPercher 2 years ago
To not support something that actually has evidence in favor of something that does not is called rational IMO
Yes, not knowing where the universe and life came from is an uncomfortable gap - both religion and science have attempted to fill it
One came became the other, and one luckily makes much more sense than the other! ^^
handofnergal 2 years ago
You are still saying no evidence on my side. You are assuming your evidence will stand.
For the origin of the universe, you have nothing. you are left with everything came from nothing for no reason. I have the scientific observation that everything that had a beginning had a cause. Clearly the cause for the universe had to be outside our time and space and have extreme power and knowledge just like the bible describes God. the fulfilled prophecy it contains validates the bible.
GunneLPercher 2 years ago
Hmm, I wouldnt say that scientific facts support a denial of God, because some scientists are devout theists
Science has no official stance on God, and NEVER has
Its like asking why history is in favor of abortion - it does not make much sense does it
So, if you think that atheists using reason and evidence to support the reason why they lack a faith in a god is a failing on our part what do you suggest we use?
?
Reason and science has lead to the computers that we are using Gunne
handofnergal 2 years ago
Scientific facts do not support such a denial although the atheist side has done its best to convey that idea.
The failing on the atheist side is in not understanding the reason and evidence they presume to offer as support. They also fail by putting forth the strawman that the theist side has only faith in support and pretending that all of science is in conflict with the bible which is in fact opposite with the exception of evolution. If you notice, I use reason & evidence for my arguments.
GunneLPercher 2 years ago
No one can disprove God, with science or otherwise - but science and reason can punch holes in your arguments.
It's not that I dont understand your reasons or evidence - we either find inconsistencies or there IS no evidence
All that the theist side has is faith, that is not a straw man, that is a fact and observation - I have noticed that you are very calm and clear in your vids, but you actully use lofical fallacies, old canards, and lack any evidence.
Plez PM me, I wanna talk more ^^
handofnergal 2 years ago