the bible...fairytales? Options

[kimmytree]

^ Aww, its okay.

LOL yeah, that's true. It's impossible to have a real debate when you dont back yourself up with proof. But it's actually kinda amusing to read her posts.

[cori-catastrophe]

^ Aww, its okay.

LOL yeah, that's true. It's impossible to have a real debate when you dont back yourself up with proof. But it's actually kinda amusing to read her posts.

as well as yours.
it doesn't even matter if i give historical proof. your so close-minded that you refuse to believe anything other than what your stubborn brain has come up with.

Proof Against Atheism
1. Atheism hold that no deity or supernatural reality exists. All that exists is that which exists in nature.
2. Because only nature exists, nature has always existed, for nothing greater than nature exists in which to bring it into being.
3. Nature is comprised of the known universe only. Anything more is conjecture.
4. The known universe is comprised of matter and energy.
5. The total amount of matter and energy in the universe is constant (E = MC2).
6. Matter and energy are in motion.
7. Motion can only exist if set in motion.
7a. Ex.: A book does not fall off a table unless knocked off. The earth does not revolve around the sun without gravity.
7b. Motion, thus, exists due to force.
8. Force is exerted only at precise points in time.
9. If the universe, including all matter and energy, has existed for all time, no force was ever initially exerted, nor could the universe exert force upon itself.
9a. In other words, if the universe existed for all eternity, it had eternal potential energy, but no way to turn potential energy into kinetic energy.
9b. To say that kinetic energy has always existed in an eternal universe is to apply an effect without a cause.
10. All known movement in the universe is the effect of some force being exerted upon it. No known movement exists solely "because it does."
11. It is thus impossible for the universe to have existed eternally yet have been eternally in motion.
12. Therefore, atheism is false.

[kimmytree]

as well as yours.
it doesn't even matter if i give historical proof. your so close-minded that you refuse to believe anything other than what your stubborn brain has come up with.

Hey, I wasnt claiming to be thoroughly debating, but I think I'm throwing out more proof / reason than you are.

How the hell would you know, when you havent even given me a chance? I'm a fairly open-minded person. My life would be so much easier if I believed in Christianity. Seriously, it would. Most of my family is Baptist, and attends church regularly. I've already been criticized for my beliefs being different than theirs. It's hard not being able to believe in a specific religion. So I'm definately not trying to be stubborn, rebellious, or close minded. If I could I would believe in Jesus. I really would. But I cant force myself to believe something that I deep down completely disagree with.

But please, go ahead and show us your proof.

Who is that "proof against Athiesm" list for, me? It better not be... I've already told you, I'M NOT A FREAKING ATHIEST.

[cori-catastrophe]

Hey, I wasnt claiming to be thoroughly debating, but I think I'm throwing out more proof / reason than you are.

How the hell would you know, when you havent even given me a chance? I'm a fairly open-minded person. My life would be so much easier if I believed in Christianity. Seriously, it would. Most of my family is Baptist, and attends church regularly. I've already been criticized for my beliefs being different than theirs. It's hard not being able to believe in a specific religion. So I'm definately not trying to be stubborn, rebellious, or close minded. If I could I would believe in Jesus. I really would. But I cant force myself to believe something that I deep down completely disagree with.

But please, go ahead and show us your proof.

Who is that "proof against Athiesm" list for, me? It better not be... I've already told you, I'M NOT A FREAKING ATHIEST.

it wasn't.
look, i'll get back to this when i feel decent. right now, i'm just not feeling up to standards for personal reasons.

[misoshiru]

My apologies, I just checked and saw you didn't use Jesus. I just assumed you did after reading hazardous' posts and after seeing you defend the fact that you didn't use 'Jesus' so enthusiastically. Hazardous, in any case, should not be allowed to debate.

HAHA Ariel, I love you.

[jeam]

" FAITH "

[Simba]

" FAITH "

Anyone can have faith in anything. Heck, I could have faith that Scientology is THE religion. But without factual proof, I would have no way of proving myself. See? Faith isnt enough to prove or debate something.

Anyone could have faith in anything. You need to have evidence in debate.
For example, it's like me saying that I have faith that the Bible is made up of fairytales. And obviously, this is not a valid point.

Did somebody say faith?

[*Podomaht*]

Why are we arguing about this, then? So you guys can bash on Christians and then say " HAHA YOU GUYS HAVE NO PROOF LOLZ WE WIN "

[kimmytree]

Why are we arguing about this, then? So you guys can bash on Christians and then say " HAHA YOU GUYS HAVE NO PROOF LOLZ WE WIN "

Uhmm no. Why do Christians always insist on that? I'm happy for a person whenever they have faith in something, whether its Christianity, Judaism, or whatever. By debating, I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm just stating my own beliefs.

I dont think anyone can really win a debate like this, so why accuse people of thinking like that? Oh and we're debating on it because SOMEONE CREATED A THREAD ON IT. Retard.

[Simba]

I just find it bothersome when people go into threads such as this one and literally, the only thing they say is "faith," and then leave.

[*Podomaht*]

I just find it bothersome when people go into threads such as this one and literally, the only thing they say is "faith," and then leave.

That's what religion is, fool.

[Simba]

That's what religion is, fool.

Sure. Just don't do this:

" FAITH "

[*Podomaht*]

Then why are you trying to make ' prove God is nothing but an imaginary friend bull shit ' when you know Christians are going to post " FAITH " type answers?

[cori-catastrophe]

Sure. Just don't do this:

i don't see very much point in it either.

[Simba]

Then why are you trying to make ' prove God is nothing but an imaginary friend bull shit ' when you know Christians are going to post " FAITH " type answers?

I was just interested if anything else would come up.

It's not really that big of a deal. Just, people shouldn't be posting here with one post replies.

[kimmytree]

That's what religion is, fool.

Then why post here then? No one's forcing you to. And plus, we arent the ones who created the thread to begin with.

Then why are you trying to make ' prove God is nothing but an imaginary friend bull shit ' when you know Christians are going to post " FAITH " type answers?

But faith doesnt prove ANYTHING.

[kimmytree]

^ Eeeeek sorry I didnt mean to double post.

it wasn't.
look, i'll get back to this when i feel decent. right now, i'm just not feeling up to standards for personal reasons.

Ready to respond to what I said earlier? lol.

[Ington]

as well as yours.
it doesn't even matter if i give historical proof. your so close-minded that you refuse to believe anything other than what your stubborn brain has come up with.

If that 'Proof Against Atheism' can be taken as true, then there's much more proof against religion. I'm a religious Jew, that I am, but I will still argue against you because your views on faith are completely warped.

When you're asking for proof, you're setting yourself up to fail. Historical evidence of certain events in the Bible occurring is one thing, but that itself isn't proof the Bible is, in its entirety, true. The evidence could support it, but it is not PROOF of it. Proof is an unquestionable truth that explains it completely. Thus, when you build on your 'proof' against atheism, you're setting yourself up to fail. You can't use things we don't know as proof. We don't know how the universe started, we have a slight idea of something that COULD HAVE happened. Your 'proof' is a work on educational guessing based on what we know as of now.

Here's a counterargument: "I think we didn't discover, nor are we intelligent enough to discover, the actual birth of the universe, which allows me to still believe it had nothing to do with a supreme deity."

However, therein lies an argument against atheism. "If you haven't discovered the truth, or are not intelligent, as humans, to discover the truth, why is the possibility of a God canceled out?"

I have a question directed towards both parties. "Why are you still arguing about something neither side can possibly prove, and why does it please you so?"

[cori-catastrophe]

Ready to respond to what I said earlier? lol.

well, you never posted those verses so i'm not quite sure.

If that 'Proof Against Atheism' can be taken as true, then there's much more proof against religion. I'm a religious Jew, that I am, but I will still argue against you because your views on faith are completely warped.

When you're asking for proof, you're setting yourself up to fail. Historical evidence of certain events in the Bible occurring is one thing, but that itself isn't proof the Bible is, in its entirety, true. The evidence could support it, but it is not PROOF of it. Proof is an unquestionable truth that explains it completely. Thus, when you build on your 'proof' against atheism, you're setting yourself up to fail. You can't use things we don't know as proof. We don't know how the universe started, we have a slight idea of something that COULD HAVE happened. Your 'proof' is a work on educational guessing based on what we know as of now.

Here's a counterargument: "I think we didn't discover, nor are we intelligent enough to discover, the actual birth of the universe, which allows me to still believe it had nothing to do with a supreme deity."

However, therein lies an argument against atheism. "If you haven't discovered the truth, or are not intelligent, as humans, to discover the truth, why is the possibility of a God canceled out?"

I have a question directed towards both parties. "Why are you still arguing about something neither side can possibly prove, and why does it please you so?"

well, no one can have complete "proof" if god is real or isn't. so my religion is just as questionable as yours. it's the historical evidence and faith to base their belifs on. oh no. i said the f-word. i'm sure people are going to bash me for it but i could care less at this point. i know this so why are you telling me?
i've actually been wondering about that question, but i think it's because both parties are so determined to have their beliefs accepted. i'm not completely against either though.

[cori-catastrophe]

eh, i'll go ahead and answer it.
i've seen your posts. you believe the same as i on proving if my God is real or not. it's impossible to actually have all information about god. we'll never know for sure if he's real of not so why are you asking me a non-answerable question?
however, there is proof against other beliefs of how we got here.
for example, some of the concepts of evolution are very believable.
but evolution is when a species adapts to their environment and changes over time to survive and reproduce fertile offspring, correct?
an example of this would be moths. my science teacher gave me this example.
say that there are gray moths in an environment. they're gray so that they can blend in with the gray bark on the trees for camoflauging themselves. suddenly, factories open up and they spread black soot throughout the air, therefore gradually changing the trees to a darker color. all of the lighter moths can't blend in anymore, so the predators can see them better, therefore getting eaten. so all of the lighter moths get wiped out and the darker ones survive and reproduce. gradually, the moths get darker because usually darker colors are dominant rather than lighter colors which are recessive. so now there are black moths instead of gray ones because they were better adapted. after all, it is survival of the fittest. after all this, there were only dark gray moths or black moths left because the ones that weren't adapted died. if we evolved from monkeys, then why aren't the monkeys dead?

[xoxo_proud]

We didn't evolve from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with them (actually we're more closely related to apes). Eventually that common ancestor broke off into two seperate lines. Thus monkeys and humans

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

From PBS

[AngelinaTaylor]

I have a question directed towards both parties. "Why are you still arguing about something neither side can possibly prove, and why does it please you so?"

Because humans are by nature curious. We want to know where we came from. Why not debate? Many people think it IS possible to prove/disprove the existance of god, based on what we know right now. Without a past, there's hardly a future. IMO.

[Simba]

And maybe we'll learn something completely new.

[cori-catastrophe]

We didn't evolve from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with them (actually we're more closely related to apes). Eventually that common ancestor broke off into two seperate lines. Thus monkeys and humans
From PBS

ohh. i see.
but if the belief of evolution is true, why aren't we still evolving? accoring to the belief, we should be still evolving.

[Mulder]

We are.

The Y chromosome is shrinking. There are less and less genes. When the cells divide the chromosomes always lose a few genes. However, only the Y chromosome is shriking at such a high rate, while the X remains relatively stable.

happy?