New christianity post (others are way too long)

[the lugal]

i am a christian.....yet if i were given abslute proof that christianity is false i would change

so saying that, i would like to be given some proof of any atheistic belief......evolution, im assuming, is the main atheistic belief.......so explain how we got life, and where we got it from?.........

a simple request,
JP

[soliloquy]

We got it from high concentrations of heat and pressure at the beginning of Earth that caused chemical reactions, forming proteins millions of years ago.  It's been artificially replicated.

[counterpoint]

atheistic belief - this is self contradictory.

Atheism is not about believing, but about things, that you are able to know (to explore), and things, that you do not know at the actual state of science. There are many things in science, that we do not know for sure - hence they are called theories - not facts.

[ahinton]

You want short posts? OK - here's one.

Susan.

She'll likely be here soon.

In the meantime, let he who is without five loaves and two temple moneychangers cast the first cross (now that abbreviates quite a lot, does it not?)...

Best,

Alistair

[maul]

Quit leeching off topic popularity you little rat.

[the lugal]

We got it from high concentrations of heat and pressure at the beginning of Earth that caused chemical reactions, forming proteins millions of years ago. It's been artificially replicated.

i know all about about the protien experiment......it was a mix of complex chemicals which were created to have the potential of making proteins.....when the protein was made during the experiment, it was immediately filtered out........because if that protein had stayed in the mix of the experiment, it would have been destroyed.......scientists have yet to discover a self-sustaining microcosm........and so what if a protein could be created, a protien on its own can do nothing........it has no potential to grow or be used in any way without a working body to inhabit

as for the high concentrations of heat and pressure.........what caused these inordinate conditions?  and where exactly had these chemicals come from?

atheistic belief - this is self contradictory.

Atheism is not about believing, but about things, that you are able to know (to explore), and things, that you do not know at the actual state of science. There are many things in science, that we do not know for sure - hence they are called theories - not facts.

which is one of my main points........ atheism is a theory, in fact christianity is less of a theory than any other belief.......because there is a basis of origin so old that it is difficult to trace, tho' we have done a fine job of doing so.........and also, there is nothing in the Bible that doesnt make sense.....in fact, it makes perfect sense.........there are absolutely no contradictions throughout the whole book........thats alot more than we can say about other religious doctrines..........

sorry if i got a little off track, but my point is.......there is more evidence of Christianity than anything else........albeit a theory, but a very plausible one

i dont know how to respond to you, ahinton

uhhh.......actually my post was much different than yours, your started off degrading religion, i starting off praising it.......my attention couldnt stick with ur entire post, so i decided to make my own........

JP

[ahinton]

Quit leeching off topic popularity you little rat.

To which of the previous posts (if any) is that one intended to allude?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

which is one of my main points........ atheism is a theory, in fact christianity is less of a theory than any other belief.......because there is a basis of origin so old that it is difficult to trace, tho' we have done a fine job of doing so.........and also, there is nothing in the Bible that doesnt make sense.....in fact, it makes perfect sense.........there are absolutely no contradictions throughout the whole book........thats alot more than we can say about other religious doctrines..........

Possibly the funniest post i have ever seen on pianostreets.

Thanks for the laugh.

We have been over this a million times before and a lot recently. Although you are new and obviously wish to engage in conversation, you may wish to utilise the search function a little.

I have left a space for pianistimo's response.


















































































































































Thal

[ramseytheii]

i am a christian.....yet if i were given abslute proof that christianity is false i would change

Phil Donahue once asked Ayn Rand if she was "smart enough" to know that God didn't exist.  She said she was; and after the audience gasped disapprovingly, she said that they were smart enough as well.  She said you can't ask her to prove a negative; the onus is on those who believe to prove the positive. 

In the above, I assume you mean by "Christianity," the belief that Jesus is the Christ, God made man, who was born of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, suffered under Pontius Pilate and died, and on the third day rose again according to the Scriptures; and that his death redeemed mankind from the transgressions of Adam.  Can you prove any of this to be true?  You cannot ask someone to prove a negative, to prove that it is false.

so saying that, i would like to be given some proof of any atheistic belief......evolution, im assuming, is the main atheistic belief.......so explain how we got life, and where we got it from?.........

a simple request,
JP

It's a typical and absurd conflation: evolution is the belief system of the atheist.  First of all, evolution is a scientific theory, not a belief system.  There is nothing to worship, noone to whom you can pray, no confession, and no redemption.  Second of all, an atheist means simply someone who doesn't believe in God.  An atheist cannot prove that God does not exist; but noone can prove a negative.  The onus is on the believer to prove the positive: prove that God exists.

Walter Ramsey

[the lugal]

why must christianity be defined as negative? as a matter of fact, i find it absurd to think that the world was made any other way.....because it makes no sense that something could come of nothing.....bread wont rise without yeast, and the world didnt become what it is without a creator

so your basis for not being able to disprove creation is because you have already preassumed that it is false.......but how can you assume something is false, if you havent disproved it.......thats circular reasoning.....if science is devoted to finding truth then why hasnt it searched out something very abvious and simple?

JP

[pianistimo]

thanks, JP   

i really couldn't say this in such a concise manner as you.  but, i do see the world differently after having experienced some unexplainable things in my life.  miracles - as one would say.  and, others have confirmed their own.  so - i prefer to see the glass as half full.  more to come.  instead of a movie that says 'the end' - i think there is more after death.

interestingly - even the egyptians did.  just visited the 'king tut' exhibit and found it extremely interesting and thought provoking that they too (wherever the idea was introduced) thought there would be a life after death.

[ahinton]

Possibly the funniest post i have ever seen on pianostreets.

Thanks for the laugh.

We have been over this a million times before and a lot recently. Although you are new and obviously wish to engage in conversation, you may wish to utilise the search function a little.

I have left a space for pianistimo's response.


















































































































































Thal

You're such an old meanie, Thal; why did you leave SO little space for this?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

(cannot delete this errneous post)

[ahinton]

thanks, JP   

i really couldn't say this in such a concise manner as you.

You really aren't kidding, are you, Susan?!

but, i do see the world differently after having experienced some unexplainable things in my life.  miracles - as one would say.  and, others have confirmed their own.  so - i prefer to see the glass as half full.

But why do inexplicable things that happen in one's life necessarily have to be accorded "miracle" status (as in the Biblical sense thereof)? Anyway, I've just emptied that glass (and very pleasant its contents were, too - albeit not "holy" in the sense that Thal might describe)...

more to come.

I bet that there will be!

instead of a movie that says 'the end' - i think there is more after death.

More what? Interminable rolling of credits? Detailed information as to the relationship between best boy, composer, gaffer and music supervisor? Or more time to have to read Biblical outpourings on celestial piano fora? Or am I misunderstanding it all completely?

even the egyptians did.  just visited the 'king tut' exhibit and found it extremely interesting and thought provoking that they too (wherever the idea was introduced) thought there would be a life after death.

Just because they were brilliant and built astonishing structures, etc. does not mean that they were necessarily correct about that...

Best,

Alistair

[ramseytheii]

why must christianity be defined as negative? as a matter of fact, i find it absurd to think that the world was made any other way.....because it makes no sense that something could come of nothing.....bread wont rise without yeast, and the world didnt become what it is without a creator

I didn't define Christianity as a negative, I said you can't expect me to prove a negative, that negative being: God doesn't exist.  Since however, you believe in God, if you want others to believe it, the onus is on you to prove that he does exist.  You cannot ask others to prove that he does not exist.

I find it equally absurd to believe in the Genesis story, or stories, so there is no further debate.  If you can prove that is true, by all means go ahead and try.  It is not my responsibility to prove that it is false, since I choose not to believe.

so your basis for not being able to disprove creation is because you have already preassumed that it is false.......but how can you assume something is false, if you havent disproved it.......thats circular reasoning.....if science is devoted to finding truth then why hasnt it searched out something very abvious and simple?

JP

You can assume something false if there is no evidence to prove it.  If the evidence arises, I should hope you allow the person the option to change their mind.  After all, in a secular democracy, we have freedom of thought.  You assume that the creation story, or stories, are true, and all the other things in the creed besides, without proof.  Unless you have it, then by all means give it to us.

Walter Ramsey

[prometheus]

i am a christian.....yet if i were given abslute proof that christianity is false i would change

There is no proof that something doesn't exist. The whole reason why you belief without proof is the reason why I don't belief without proof.

so saying that, i would like to be given some proof of any atheistic belief......evolution,

First off, the theory isn't an atheist belief. It's not even a 'belief' at all. It's a foundation of biological science. One of the most successful scientific theories ever. No, not a theory, a scientific theory; something totally different.

im assuming, is the main atheistic belief.......

The definition of atheist is a lack of beliefs. You don't know what atheism is?

so explain how we got life, and where we got it from?.........

What has this got to do with it? You are a Christian because you don't know how we came for. Non sequitur.

If you already have a Christian religion, and let's assume you have a good reason to be one, I don't see why you should change this because you know how life came here.

You should evaluate the reason why you are a Christian.


Darwinian evolution does not explain how life came into existence. It explains the development of all the variation in life. And if you want to step away from your faith if evolution is true then you should by your own logic do so because Darwinian evolution is  very solid science.

Ignore those that dispute it and read a book about evolution written by someone from the field yourself.

[prometheus]

i know all about about the protien experiment.....

Abiogenesis is not very well understood. But it is pretty clear life arouse at least somewhere out of complex chemicals that did create themselves in this experiment by Miller and Urey.

which is one of my main points........ atheism is a theory

Atheism is not a theory. It is a lack of belief. We are all born with a lack of belief.

, in fact christianity is less of a theory than any other belief.......

Now here you go on a rant that is quite pointless.

If Christianity is a theory then how can we know Christianity is false? What can we examine to refute Christianity? If Christianity is false we should be able to find out. How do we do that?


Also, there is no historical source for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Sure, there's references  to the Christ myth and to Christianity. But no contemporary documentation of Christ.

[thalbergmad]

I am glad you got involved in this.

Thal

[diminished2nd]

I haven't read everything in this thread, but nothing I read in this thread is going to change my mind anyway. I am a Christian. My question is:

If atheists are right, and Christians are wrong, what have we lost? BUT if Christians are right, and atheists are wrong, they're going to spend their lives in eternal suffering, pain, and general unhappiness and torture. Why risk it? 

[maul]

i was just playin alistar* hilton hotel. peace out my brotha

[prometheus]

*Points*

"Look, someone making the Pascals wager argument. Hahaha."


No seriously, it's a very bad argument.


Now you don't claim that one should just bet on Christianity, but still a problem with this argument is that Christians do risk something. They either risk living their lives in delusion or even wasting their lives. On top of that, if there is actually a god then the chance atheits end up in hell, if such a god even requires a hell, is just as big as the christians ending up in hell.


I could just right now make up a god that rewards atheists for solid reasoning and that burns Christians for stupid faith. And that equals the whole thing completely. It even takes away the absurd little difference on which you can actually base that.


I am not really sure if you were totally serious about this. But really, is there any Christian that is a Christian for this reason?

[prometheus]

why must christianity be defined as negative?

Uuh, no. Atheism is a negative position; you don't take a position. You propose the concept of god. You need to make it probable. If you can't then atheism is the best position to take. Even if it actually turns out to be false in the end.

If we don't follow this logic we will never be able to know that a god exists if she actually exists because we will be ignoring evidence.



You can't disprove the existence of anything. You are an atheist to all gods but one, I assume. Can you proof that all those other gods don't exist? I can't.

as a matter of fact, i find it absurd to think that the world was made any other way.....because it makes no sense that something could come of nothing.....

Uuh, something must have come from nothing at some point. This argument is made a lot. I can't imagine this is meant seriously. I mean, this argument has such a huge leaping gap in it, it is so obvious.

We don't actually know how the big bang started. But there is a big chance that indeed it did came from nothing. You find this hard to accept.

But at the same time your god came from nothing.


You claim god created this world because something basic as energy and matter couldn't have come from nothing. But you claim that god came from nothing and god is more complex than the universe itself.

So really, you worsened the ex nihilo problem.

Now you may claim that god just was and is, that god is outside time or outside reality and all that stuff. But that is just pointless. I could claim the same about the big bang.

Also, even if god is on a different plane of reality, god still requires a beginning in that other plane of reality.



So either way, since we have an universe right now, created by god or not, at some point something came from nothing.

Now I think it was one of the simplest things in the universe; a single quanta of energy. You think the most complex entity in the universe came from nothing.


If there is actually a god, chance is very small to put it in an understatement, but not fundamentally impossible, then this god will also have arisen through an evolutionary process of some kind.

Now I don't mean that god is an alien. But I also think that the supernatural is defined as something that doesn't exist or is outside of reality. So god must be a non-supernatural non-biological entity. No idea how such a being could evolve. But that must have been the process that caused a god to exist, might there be one.

so your basis for not being able to disprove creation is because you have already preassumed that it is false

Uuh, I will define this as gibberish. I don't understand what you mean. I can disproof biblical creation quite easily. Sure, I could invent tons of different creation stories that I can't disproof. But the biblical one is falsifiable and refuted.

Why don't you propose a new theory of creation. To know if this theory of creation can be true it must be falsifiable. Otherwise, we can't know if it is true or has any relevance to this world. We must be able to refute this theory of creation if this world did not arise through the creation described in that theory.
Propose such a theory and we will see if we can rule it out. If we can't then maybe it happened.


Until you do we have no theory of creation. Up to now no one has been able to do this. People say: "God did it." but that is a meaningless statement. It doesn't make any claims about this reality. It doesn't explain anything.

.......but how can you assume something is false, if you havent disproved it

How can you assume something is true if you can't make it probable with evidence.

No, really. If you can accept something without evidence then I can refuse it without evidence. And yes, there we have a problem. But let me propose we use the scientific method to find out what is true or not. It has worked so well in the past and as there has never been proposed an alternative way.

.......thats circular reasoning.....

It's not actually circular reasoning. You seemed to be quite confused.


You don't assume it is false. You just assume it is not true because you have no reason to believe it is true.

If you are going to believe anything you can imagine to be true unless you can proof it to be false then you will go nuts. Plus, you will have to worship all gods ever imagined as well.

Clearly you need to propose a concept or idea that is falsifiable. Otherwise there is no way to distinguish fiction or fantasy from reality.

if science is devoted to finding truth then why hasnt it searched out something very abvious and simple?

I don't know what you mean. But since it is simple; why don't you do the science.

[shortyshort]

If atheists are right, and Christians are wrong, what have we lost? BUT if Christians are right, and atheists are wrong, they're going to spend their lives in eternal suffering, pain, and general unhappiness and torture. Why risk it? 

I think that's why most religious people actually believe. They're scared of being wrong.

How do you manage to do anything if you don't take any risks.

[thalbergmad]

I haven't read everything in this thread, but nothing I read in this thread is going to change my mind anyway. I am a Christian. My question is:

Yep, you are definately a Christian.

Don't read everything and make up your mind before not reading everyting.

Perfect fit.

Thal

[timothy42b]

i am a christian.....yet if i were given abslute proof that christianity is false i would change

so saying that, i would like to be given some proof of any atheistic belief......evolution, im assuming, is the main atheistic belief.......so explain how we got life, and where we got it from?.........

a simple request,
JP

Either you are not being honest or you have not carefully thought through your position, maybe a little of both. 

You claim you will change if it is proven Christianity is false.  You have not defined what you mean.  For scientific theories, it is required to state what evidence would prove them false, and if you can't then it isn't really a theory.  So, be fair.  Tell us what you want disproven.  I'll make a couple of guesses to help you out.  If you are basing your beliefs on the Bible (true of some but not all Christians) then is it necessary to disprove the whole Bible, or will any part of it do?  For example, Mark Ch 16 says Christians can drink poison and be bitten by snakes without harm.  If you believe this then show us.  If you do not then I have proven the Bible false.

You would like to be given proof of any atheistic belief.  Well, beliefs in general don't require proof or even evidence.  Theories require evidence, and it is considered impossible to prove them (proof doesn't apply to science, only to math.)  Science doesn't require any belief at all, just evidence;  scientific theories are just organized statements of the current best evidence.  So what are you asking?  You are demonstrating your own confusion here. 

No, evolution isn't an atheistic belief.  First of all it isn't a belief at all.  It's just a massive amount of evidence for how life diversified, neatly packaged into a coherent theory.  And it isn't atheistic in any way.  Worldwide there are as many religious acceptors of the evidence as there are atheistic ones.  In the US, the hotbed of fundamentalism, there are Christians who don't believe you can believe and accept scientific evidence, but that is a local aberration that astounds most of the world. 

And you know very well evolution has nothing to do with where life came from.  Evolution is about diversification from a common ancestor. 

In some cases it is hard to prove a negative.  If you are careful with definitions, you can usually show something is unlikely beyond a reasonable doubt.  For example, if I have a screen with half inch mesh, I cannot prove there are no BBs in my sandbox, but I can rule out bowling balls.  If God has no interaction with us in the present but saves us in the afterlife, there is no way i can see to prove or disprove.  If you assert interaction, then it becomes a scientific question which we could study (but would probably choose not to.)  In the sandbox of life, is God a BB or a bowling ball?  If he answers prayers for healing, then we can measure it.  People prayed for will heal faster than those not prayed for.  It might be 10%, or 1%, or .00001%, but it can be measured by science.  If we do this measurement and find no improvement, we have not disproved God, but we have ruled out the type of God who answers prayers. 

So now tell us, what would you accept for proof of falseness?  You started this thread, and you made a pretty strong claim about what you would do, you have an obligation to respond here. 

[thalbergmad]

Mark Ch 16 says Christians can drink poison and be bitten by snakes without harm.  

Excellent idea.

I will send a rat poison cocktail to Lugal.

He can then film himself drinking it and post it on you tube.

If it does not harm him and he can get a doctor to verify this, even i will be converted to this nonsense.

Thal

[chidi]

a simple request,
JP

Oh how we hope that would be. I'm still wondering what was going in your mind when you posted this with such an expectation. See I too am a christian and to me this question screams out insecurity. I rather run with one then drag 20.

-Chidi

[timothy42b]

There are many things in science, that we do not know for sure - hence they are called theories - not facts.

Perhaps it is worthwhile to clarify this.

In common every day speech a theory is a guess for which certainty is low.

In scientific terminology a theory is very different.  A theory is the current best detailed explanation for all the available facts.  All parts of a theory have been subjected to rigorous analysis and no evidence has been found to dispute it.  When new evidence arrives it may be necessary to modify the theory.  A scientific theory has a high degree of certainty; it generaly grew out of a hypothesis. 

It is common for laypersons to confuse the two different uses.  Some do so deliberately and dishonestly. 

[prometheus]

I have also posted a lot in this topic. First off all I didn't read everything before I started to reply, causing me to be redundant. But now I see Timothy being redundant as well and making the same excellent points I made and giving the same solid explanations I gave.




In science theories explain facts. Facts are observations. Theories explain why you observe what you observe. The fact is; the apple falls from the tree to the surface of this planet. The theory is the theory of gravitation which includes laws of gravity.

Therefore, theories are better than facts. I'll take a good theory over a billion of facts any day.

Theories will never become facts or laws. Those are all different things, though laws and theories are similar.


The it's theory, not fact is really one of the lamest arguments one will ever and often often hear. But it seems that people are honestly confused about this, making it even worse.

[prometheus]

Excellent idea.

I will send a rat poison cocktail to Lugal.

He can then film himself drinking it and post it on you tube.

Actually, some atheists on youtube have challenged some fundamentalist christians on youtube to do this. They didn't, luckily.

[thalbergmad]

What a lack of faith.

Thal

[counterpoint]

The it's theory, not fact is really one of the lamest arguments one will ever and often often hear. But it seems that people are honestly confused about this, making it even worse.

What I wanted to say: scientists are honest, therefore they call their theories theories.
That's the difference to religious people, who call their believes (whatever it is) knowledge or facts. It's the most important thing to be able to differentiate between facts and beliefs.

It seems, that even some advocates of science can't distinguish between  facts and beliefs. That's disturbing  

A Cyclic Model of the Universe
https://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/

[prometheus]

Hmm, you need to be careful with this.


Scientific theories are models of reality totally made up by men. They don't actually exist. But nature operates in harmony with those theories. Well, only the successful ones of course.

But that doesn't make these theories 'facts' in the technical sense.


They are still models of reality made up by humans to describe the way nature works. The fact that they describe nature accurately, now that is a fact. But the models themselves are not facts.

[timothy42b]

Hmm, you need to be careful with this.


Scientific theories are models of reality totally made up by men.

True.  But specific to evolution, we have both theory and fact.

The definition of evolution is "change of frequency of alleles in a population."

This is observed daily, and was even  before we sequenced DNA and knew what the code meant.  So evolution is a fact.  We observe it happening.  H5N1, anyone? 

The theory of evolution is a detailed explanation of how and why, a scientific model constantly being refined. 

[counterpoint]

True.  But specific to evolution, we have both theory and fact.
 

Which fact do we have, that an amoeba turned into a parrot - and how many years did it take? 

Besides that, which I don't think is impossible, but extreme vague from the science knowledge of today - the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolution theory.

[mcgillcomposer]

i am a christian.....yet if i were given abslute proof that christianity is false i would change

How can Christianity be true or false? It is a belief, and like all beliefs (including those of a scientific nature), is subject to daily scrutiny. From this examination one can determine its current validity. Something can be demonstrably false, but the 'truth' of something cannot be infinitely ensured. This is one of the fundamental principles of the scientific method.

[thalbergmad]

Which fact do we have, that an amoeba turned into a parrot - and how many years did it take? 

Look at Frank Bruno, an ameoba that turned into a boxer.

Did not take many years.

Thal

[timothy42b]

Which fact do we have, that an amoeba turned into a parrot - and how many years did it take? 

We have H5N1. 

That is a fact.  It proves evolution occurs.

It does not prove the Theory of Evolution.  After all, it didn't have to happen by mutation and natural selection, it could be a miracle directed by God.  We could come up with a thousand other explanations.  The Theory of Evolution is supported when we look at all the evidence.

So that is why I say we have both Theory and fact.  The theory is complex, I'll admit.  It may be beyond some people's understanding, perhaps even yours.  But the fact is pretty obvious to anyone willing to look. 

[counterpoint]

We have H5N1. 

That is a fact.  It proves evolution occurs.

I do not dispute evolution theory, but I don't understand, what a virus has to do with it?

[prometheus]

I do not dispute evolution theory, but I don't understand, what a virus has to do with it?

Without evolution such a new virus could not exist.

We would have all the virusses we have, but no more. No new strain could ever evolve without Darwinian evolution.

[diminished2nd]

I am not really sure if you were totally serious about this. But really, is there any Christian that is a Christian for this reason?

I wasn't saying that I'M a Christian for this reason... I too think it would be stupid to only be a Christian for this reason.

[the lugal]

there was so much said, im sure i'm going to miss something, so remind me if i do........

when i read over all the posts, i saw that i accidentally wrote "atheism is a theory" instead of "evolution is a theory", so sry if that threw anyone off........

To start off.......i would like to say this.......when i said that i would be swayed if i saw evidence of the fallacy of christianity.......i was telling the truth.........however, the evidence for creation and for the Bible is so strong that i am thoroughly convinced that it is true.........

Personally, i think the saying that diminished used is a horrible thing to say when arguing for christianity, cuz all it does is turn people off........as it so obviously did........noone can be saved just because they want to cover all their bases, its just stupid........their is a smidgeom of sense however.........so i wont comment on anything mentioned about this statement as it does not represent my point of view.....

another thing that was mentioned was that some christians believe evolution and say they are christians.......i think that its complete idiocy personally.........but anyways.........i believe that everything the Bible says is true.....i believe in a literal translation.........

its hard for me to remember all that was said.........ummm.......

atheism........atheism is the "belief" that their is no god.........it is something you have to believe in.......you could argue that it is the absence of belief.........but it it still believing in something.......even if its nothing........atheists all have main beliefs.........even if they may differ from one person to another........they most believe that their isnt a god........and they most believe that we have become what we are through a series of random genetic processes.......evolution....

oh yeah.......another of the things prometheus said......btw, you seem like a very smart guy, but a few things you said were kinda........well............anyways........here i go........you said that their is no evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazereth........i actually did a reasearch paper on it this year........and if my laptop hadnt gone phfft! a few months ago, i would attach it........

the first one i can think of is the text of Flavius Josephus called Antiquities.........he very clearly mentions Jesus by name and mentions that he led a movement of people called christians.........but oh (you might say)........alot of the text was added later, it is very clear........i have no comment on the addition of text, but even if it was added, the name of Jesus wasnt one of the parts added.........here is a link of an article written by a secular person........i just found it....... https://ptet.dubar.com/ecw/josephus.html

Jesus is also mentioned in the Talmud.....in the writings of Tacitus as "Christus,” who “was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius” (XV.44)...........also........the existence of Jesus has very rarely been questioned.........in the second century AD.........a man named Celsus completely denied and wrote all he could about Jesus being God........but he never said that he didnt exist........this is very early, when these kind of facts were common knowledge.........there are other sources.......but im tired of thinking

and also.......have anyone heard of the saying "innocent until proven guilty"?........can we not parrallel this to say "true until proven false"?

gaaah.......my brain hurts........but i will continue....

prometheus said that i cant prove that other religions are false.....however........many religions very clearly are........i have never researched other religions in alot of depth, but i know that they all have a founder, and that that founder was nobody special........well.......i meant that as the fact that they couldnt do things such as miracles.......of course you may say, how do we know Jesus did miracles.........well some of the texts i mentioned mention that he performed "odd" things.......to put it lighlty.........anyways, im rambling.......the founders of other religions can be traced and it can be proven that they couldn't do anything special, as they are more modern.......but the origins of christianity go back to the beginning of time (so i believe)........

Timothy mentioned Mark 16.........you are talking about verses 15-18....where he mentions this.....but if you read verse 14, you realize that he was talking to his 11 disciples........his 11 disciples were amazing people indeed, since they could do this........dont you think?.......of course there is no way to prove this........

Oh how we hope that would be. I'm still wondering what was going in your mind when you posted this with such an expectation. See I too am a christian and to me this question screams out insecurity. I rather run with one then drag 20.

-Chidi

all i can say to this is....."ye of little faith".....maybe you should be a little more aggressive........

somewhere before h5n1 was mentioned (ill get to that in a second).......someone said that evolution was a collaboration of facts that have been proven true (or something to that effect).......but the truth is that evolution doesnt make a lick of sense.......if you look at every proposed progression of animals......they are quite ludicrous........may i mention the horse series?........the progressions in the horse series were taken from fossils found all over the world on different continents..........so they must have migrated alot huh?.........anyways.....it primarily starts with a small animal called a coney (which would have been killed off by natural selection if it was the first step of a higher progression)........anyways.......they have these fossils in order of size......coney being the smallest, a horse being the biggest.......as the progression proggresses (lol, sounds funny) the number of the toes are erratic, so are the number of ribs.........some have more, some have less.....it shows no progression.......one less likely to survive (bases on a hypothesis) was placed after the one before it because it was larger and shows the progression better........for me, the different continent collection fact was enuff........theres alot more i can say about evolution, but ill spare you, unless someone asks........and why havent we found any missing links?.......i cant remember the common reply to that, so remind me.....

so now h5n1.....everyone knows about a pidgeon.......and most know that their are hundreds of types of pidgeons........the same thing can adapt to its surroundings........such as dogs.......their is a poodle and a husky......yet they are both dogs.........h5n1 is a type of flu........their is many types of flu, but they are all nonetheless......the flu....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H5n1...somewhere on this page there is a listing of all the variations..........so timothy, the theory of evolution is not supported when we look at all the evidence.....it is the exact opposite.........

wow.......sorry that it was so long, but there was alot to respond to........ill be away at a camp all next week, so i might not be on for a while........cuz i might not be able to get on tomorow.....so.........im expecting a big surprise when i come back...........well alot of replies anyways.........

have fun
JP

[prometheus]

Dotszzz...

[jlh]

Dotszzz...

I totally agree........


......
...
.


Anyway, you keep pointing to viruses as your proof that evolution occurs.  Read my post in the other thread where I have explained this, but I will make a short and sweet  statement here just to be sure:

Viruses mutate.  That is true, but has anyone EVER observed a virus evolve into a new species?  Seen any virus mutate into bacteria or a plant seed, for example?  No.  Mutations happen all the time, but species stay the same.  There is no proof that species evolve to new species.

[ramseytheii]

  Mutations happen all the time, but species stay the same.

Sounds like a refrain to a Thomas Pynchon song.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

another thing that was mentioned was that some christians believe evolution and say they are christians.......i think that its complete idiocy personally.........but anyways.........i believe that everything the Bible says is true.....i believe in a literal translation.........
god........and they most believe that we have become what we are through a series of random genetic processes.......evolution....


prometheus said that i cant prove that other religions are false.....however........many religions very clearly are........i have never researched other religions in alot of depth, but i know that they all have a founder, and that that founder was nobody special........well.......i meant that as the fact that they couldnt do things such as miracles.......of course you may say, how do we know Jesus did miracles.........well some of the texts i mentioned mention that he performed "odd" things.......to put it lighlty.........anyways, im rambling.......the founders of other religions can be traced and it can be proven that they couldn't do anything special, as they are more modern.......but the origins of christianity go back to the beginning of time (so i believe)........

I love it!  Keep it up.

Walter Ramsey

[thalbergmad]

prometheus said that i cant prove that other religions are false.....however........many religions very clearly are........i have never researched other religions in alot of depth, but i know that they all have a founder, and that that founder was nobody special

Incredible post, which puts....... Christians in a bad..........light.....

Not only do you believe in your religion, based on a ridiculous ..........badly put together.........book of fairy stories..........but without an in depth analysis of others.........you claim many clearly are false.........and they all have a founder,.............that was nobody special.

I think i will pass this nonsense............... onto the Muslim council of Great Britain............who hopefully will take out ..............a "Fatwah"........... Clearly................ you think........Mohammed and Buddha were..........nobody special.......

I would be inclined..........to either shut up............or.........do some more research............preferably..........the former...

Please be advised..........that i am the "Forum Idiot".........and i don't take kindly..........to people......trying to take .......... my........ position.

Th......al.......

[the lugal]

No disrespect should be made to those who have different beliefs. 

Worldwide, people have written or oral histories of a catastrophic flood (Noah's flood) which explains many of our landforms and the scattering of animal and human remains.

There are more copies of the Bible than any other historical document that we believe to be originals.

Lee Strobel, a reporter that used to be an atheist,  wrote a book called The Case for Christ.

Answersingenesis.org is a great website that gives scientific explanations that support creationism.

Debby

[the lugal]

that was my mom lol

not sure if what you said is good or bad (Ramsey)

i didnt say that the religious leaders didnt have political power, but they didnt have the same power as Jesus

I havent heard any good arguments yet, just threats and insults

try to disprove the Bible when im gone

JP

[thalbergmad]

No disrespect should be made to those who have different beliefs. 

Worldwide, people have written or oral histories of a catastrophic flood (Noah's flood) which explains many of our landforms and the scattering of animal and human remains.

There are more copies of the Bible than any other historical document that we believe to be originals.

Lee Strobel, a reporter that used to be an atheist,  wrote a book called The Case for Christ.

Answersingenesis.org is a great website that gives scientific explanations that support creationism.

Debby

1. Agreed, and no disrespect should be made to those who don't share yours.

2. There are well over 150 different flood stories, but how that explains landforms and human/animal remains is beyond me.

3. The reason there are more copies of the Bible than anything else, could be due to the fact that Christians have done an excellent job of burning other peoples books.

4. Try googling Christian turned atheist and you will get 1,630,000 hits.

5. Answeringenesis.org supports creationism!!!!!!. Wow i would never have guessed just by the title.

Now, for the last time: I DO THE FUNNIES ON THIS FORUM.

Understand?

Thal