Re: How to Convert an Atheist

A brief response to Fighting Atheist's claims that certain evidences would convert him. But this is not about evidence; we filter such through our belief system. This conflict is about which worldview makes knowledge possible. Atheism, as a starting point, only leads to absurdity.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Fighting
• Atheist
• How
• to
• Convert
• an
• Bible
• Jesus
• Christian

[vito1964]

You can't use the bible because it is NOT proof!

Please look up "scientific method." If any material purporting to prove God's existence passes the rigors of scientific method then please call me. Till then just shut the heck up.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@vito1964 FYI: You can't use your emotional bias to defend your own bias. Your brash ignorance of the Bible is startling. Its fulfilled prophecy, archaeological confirmations, internal consistency, extra-biblical witnesses, and scientific accuracy --to name a few witnesses--thoroughly establish the Bible's claims with more rigor and evidence than any scientific method. Just because you don't like what the Bible says does not discredit it. Investigate the issue before shutting anyone else up.

[vito1964]

No, the simplest explanation is that you are deluded and gullible and unable or unwilling to use your critical faculties, you know, the ones "God" gave you. You choose to believe a mish-mash of folk tales and obsolete laws from the stone age and you have that right. Just don't expect me to live by that pustulant mass of obscenity called the Bible. Murder, incest, dung eating, mass murder, temple prostitutes for the Lord of both sexes (Check out Samuel I and II) yep, the good nd nasty book has it

[zer0tolirance]

haha what an idiot u are, foolish

[nathanielselby]

1. Ummm ... Well aside from the fact that the average Christian world view is neither Absolutist nor Objective by the technical definitions of those words and aside from the fact that Atheism is not based on the idea of random chance ... I'm a ethical non-cognitivist and consequentialist. 2. Chemistry 3. The Universe ( constrained by the prob of induction). -- I consider the start of any reasonable debate agreement on core presuppositions ... i.e. both side have to debate by mutual agreed state

[shanara99]

@JesusIsUrSaviour You insist on eastern philosophy. If being european makes me eastern... You keep insisting that I say relatives are absolutes... No. What YOU call absolutes are actually relatives. And I'm not saying that you need the RIGHT perspective, just that everything can be right from a particular perspective, thus something can be wrong or right if you change th perspective. If you can't understand this even like this, sorry, but 500 chars don't allow me to dumb it more than that.

[shanara99]

@JesusIsUrSaviour Well, you see. I just made so e calculations, just based on the bible, gen5:5-20... they lived for 800+ years each. you add their ages, and they lived more than 9000 years in total. consider they having a kid at 1/3 of their age.they add to 3000 years then. that contradicts any other historical record in the world. There are records of a flood in many religious books, yes, but they date it coinciding with the last glaciation. The bible sets the timaframe wrong

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@shanara99 Your reasoning here is strange. The Bible is a historical record; why do you discount it in favor of your other texts? You could read the Bible at your house if you like...how do you know your texts are not false? I don't have access to those (your logic turned around). Even so, there are over 200 flood legends from cultures all over the globe, many of which mirror the Bible narrative closely. That is just one of many evidences that there was a flood, just as the Bible says.

[JesusIsUrSaviour]

@shanara99 Your eastern philosophy here is self-refuting. First, on the moral question. You keep asserting that these relatives are absolute, which puts you in a bind. By saying that morals demand the right perspective, you are NOT being relative; you are making an absolute statement that morals are relative. This is illogical, contradictory, and self-refuting. Second, your appeal to something being good and bad at the same time, or even true or false at the same time, violates basic logic.

[shanara99]

@JesusIsUrSaviour Actually, my die is not fixed... or it'd bring always same number. Now. Saying "any moral is relative" is NOT a moral judgement. That is not relative, because it's not moral. it's factual. there's no good/evil decision there.

You got the point, tho, on morals being relative. Yes, indeed, those things will affect any judgement. Everything is good AND bad at same time, come to think. We just have to find the right perspective. You know.for cannibals, eating their victims is GOOD