They think every christian takes the bible word for word. They should back off, and only talk about real issues and problems.
Atheists are so obsessed with their inability to recognise that religion isn't necessarily a bad thing that they spout of ridiculous claims.
I have lost my patience with most atheists, if you're an atheist that's fine, but gtfo if you're going to act like every christian believes in the bible or if you think all christians believe in god. Some Atheists with little minds seem uncapable to grasp such anomalies. You can believe in whatever you want if you don't hurt anyone.
Some atheists are nutjobs. They think every christian takes the bible word for word. They should back off, and only talk about real issues and problems. Atheists are so obsessed with their inability to recognise that religion isn't necessarily a bad thing that they spout of ridiculous claims. I have lost my patience with most atheists, if you're an atheist that's fine, but gtfo if you're going to act like every christian believes in the bible or if you think all christians believe in god. Some Atheists with little minds seem uncapable to grasp such anomalies. You can believe in whatever you want if you don't hurt anyone.
So what you are saying is that there are christians that don't believe in the bible which is their holiest book and in their God? And what exactly makes them christians if you don't mind me asking? An organised religion means that you accept such facts to be part of it. It's not cherry picking. Unless of course you make a cult then you can I guess.
There are nutjobs in every religion, belief and system and I doubt atheists have it any more special than others do. So I don't see why you should attack them for believing in one less god than others.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Originally posted by sniperg So what you are saying is that there are christians that don't believe in the bible which is their holiest book and in their God? And what exactly makes them christians if you don't mind me asking? An organised religion means that you accept such facts to be part of it. It's not cherry picking. Unless of course you make a cult then you can I guess.
Just leave people alone, especially mild christians who are mostly (I said mostly) peace loving people. 99% of people in Europe are christians and almost all of them also believe in Darwin and the Big-Bang theory.
So there goes your theory of christians needing to believe everything from the bible. For the most part I see atheists as annoying towards christians.
Believe it or not, there's no rules to be christian, you can believe whatever you want. There's no master, book, wikipedia definition or guide you absolutely need to follow to be a christian and anyone who tells you differently should get a grip. There's some basic values like compassion and some bible sections you might want to read, but no one will force you.
You can walk into any christian church here and no one will ask you if you're a christian, no one will ask you if you read the bible or if you believe it. We listen to stories and tales. That's all I do, and I wear a cross and I'm a christian, I'm baptised, and I don't believe a lot of the things written in the bible.
I don't know where this idea came from that christianity is dictated like a forced set of rules but it certainly didn't came from my town because people from everywhere are christian, people who believe 100% of the bible and people who believe 1%. So chill out.
Originally posted by sniperg So what you are saying is that there are christians that don't believe in the bible which is their holiest book and in their God? And what exactly makes them christians if you don't mind me asking? An organised religion means that you accept such facts to be part of it. It's not cherry picking. Unless of course you make a cult then you can I guess.
Just leave people alone, especially mild christians who are mostly (I said mostly) peace loving people. 99% of people in Europe are christians and almost all of them also believe in Darwin and the Big-Bang theory.
First of all if as you put it "99% of europe is christians" (which is not, unless you consider the rest 1% to be muslims and what not,but I will assume you are exaggerating to make a point) I doubt that the others "bother" them.
So there goes your theory of christians needing to believe everything from the bible. For the most part I see atheists as annoying towards christians.
Theory of what? That to be a Christian of the organised religion you need to adhere basic rules? You can't be a Catholic and not accept that the pope is infallible for example. Atheists are no more or less annoying to Christians as Christians are to Atheists.
Believe it or not, there's no rules to be christian, you can believe whatever you want. There's no master, book, wikipedia definition or guide you absolutely need to follow to be a christian and anyone who tells you differently should get a grip. There's some basic values like compassion and some bible sections you might want to read, but no one will force you.
Believe it or not "new age" christian is like that. Yes there is a master. God/Jesus. Yes there is a book , The holy bible. Sorry to break it to you but just because you have compassion or just say you are christian doesn't mean anything. Just because I don't lie or commit adultery doesn't make me a buddist monk to give you a different example.
I don't know where this idea came from that christianity is dictated like a forced set of rules but it certainly didn't came from my town because people from everywhere are christian, people who believe 100% of the bible and people who believe 1%. So chill out.
I am chill friend. Organised religion has a "forced set of rules" as you put. You can follow certain principles but you can't say you are a christian if you don't follow all or at least accept all of them. Like a buddist has to accept the whole thing and like the muslims the same. You may belong to different sects that have different definitions but that's about it. It's not others people fault that some people just follow religion when it is convinient or just pay lip service to it.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
You can't be a Catholic and not accept that the pope is infallible for example.
You can be a protestant then. No one will care here, we don't even make a difference anymore. We even allow gay marriage under god. There was never one rule or one mindset for us here.
This might be different in the US, but people are really forgiving here and we support churches for all the good work they do and that's why people and schools baptise kids too, not for the bible, or for christianity, but for the values that it brings with it.
I am chill friend. Organised religion has a "forced set of rules" as you put. You can follow certain principles but you can't say you are a christian if you don't follow all or at least accept all of them.
Nope, they're not forced at all. Priests educate people about safe sex in the oldest churches of Europe and by the blessing of the church. Are you going to tell them they're not real christians? This is what annoys us about atheists mostly and why there's so few in Europe. Here you either are christian or you're not, there's no in between, there's no "atheism".
Maybe you're an atheist because you don't believe in a god, but that's semantics, people don't come out and say "I'm an atheist", no one cares here.
I can debunk the theory that there's a forced set of rules for christianity in a million and one ways.
I am chill friend. Organised religion has a "forced set of rules" as you put. You can follow certain principles but you can't say you are a christian if you don't follow all or at least accept all of them.
Nope, they're not forced at all. Priests educate people about safe sex in the oldest churches of Europe and by the blessing of the church. Are you going to tell them they're not real christians? This is what annoys us about atheists mostly and why there's so few in Europe. Here you either are christian or you're not, there's no in between, there's no "atheism".
Maybe you're an atheist because you don't believe in a god, but that's semantics, people don't come out and say "I'm an atheist", no one cares here.
I can debunk the theory that there's a forced set of rules for christianity in a million and one ways.
Priests of which part of Christianity? Catholics, Orthodox, protestants ,something else?
Sorry to bust your bubble, but for example a Catholic would never teach "Safe sex" and still be considered a Catholic. Just saying you are christian means little. Unfortunately or not there is not ONE christianity. And stop saying what most of Europe are or are not please unless you have statistics to prove it. Noone says and I never implied that they are not "real" christians. But I argue the fact that people believe Christianity is some free form religion where everyone can adapt it or customise it to suit their personal needs or wants and then used to attract more people to the church. I only disagree with that. And btw atheism is not "in between".
Also I don't know in what village you live in Germany but Europe is not Christianity VS all others. You got it right though. Noone cares.
As long as Christianity has the 2 testaments, those are your rules that you follow. How you interpret them it's different subject all together. There are no "million ways", if you don't have the will to follow them or if they are not in your advantage just say you believe in a God not that just because you do that you are suddenly a christian.
PS. And no I don't like the term atheist either.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Calm down people. The man asked a question on how to avoid sparking heated religious debates, and ended up having one anyways. Seem kind of ironic?
Waterlily, most of the more reasonable atheists (using the term loosely, in this case I mean the broad category of people who reject/give up on faith in general) attack the concepts behind the faith itself, rather than the people who follow it. We know very well that the majority of christians consider the Bible as a guideline rather than an exactly literal accounting. Draenor on these boards in particular is one of the few exceptions, he is a fascinating man to be honest.
The problem we have is when a Christian quotes the bible for his or her own purposes, but ignores other portions because it does not fit their views. It is a hypocritical viewpoint to take portions of a document as literal truth, while declaring others to be irrelevant and/or a metaphor for something entirely else, at least barring some kind of evidence for the differentiation. For instance, people use Leviticus (Old Testament, pretty much a book of rules for the Hebrews) in their arguments against a wide variety of topics, Homosexuality in particular. They tend to be rather shocked somehow that the same book, just a few passages over, declares slavery to be quite acceptable so long as there is a minimum of fair treatment, and even more so when I ask them the last time they made a sacrifice of livestock to the temple.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
Well, being agnostic, I do believe in a higher power, just none of these religions.
Being an atheist, you shouldnt have to view a point on religion. nuff said. You dont beileve in anything. Thats it. Dont view points or topics on someones religion. You have no say in anything to do with religion. Which is why you so happen to get into heated battles with someone religious. No religious person is going to have a religious discussion with someone who is not.
______________________________
What if Paul Revere was like the boy who cried wolf....?
Originally posted by Hazmal
What does he say when people ask what he did? "My mommy was irking me yo - I wanted to keep pwning nubs on my xbox, so I roughed her up with a hardshell. That is just how I roll."
Priests of which part of Christianity? Catholics, Orthodox, protestants ,something else?
Sorry to bust your bubble, but for example a Catholic would never teach "Safe sex" and still be considered a Catholic. Just saying you are christian means little. Unfortunately or not there is not ONE christianity.
Ah but there is only ONE christianity as you put it. Being a christian means u believe in Christ, his life's work, his sacrifice through crucifiction and most importantly his resurection three days later. It means u believe Christ came to earth and sacrificed himself for every one's salvation. That is what the crhtistian religion is based upon.
As far as the rest, believing that the pope is infalable, communing with wine and bread or the costia etc. it is all just dogma.
As far as salvation the new testamony clearly states that all that is required is repenting for your sins. The first man who entered paradise was thief after all.
p.s. i hope my point did not get lost due to my poor use of english
I just don't get it. You atheists hate it when we Christians press our views on you but you be a hyperciete and mock us? Bah you.
Well, He's a big enough God to handle mockery. He died for that sin as well. However the "joke" here shows a very weak understanding of any Christianity as it is believed or practiced.
What athiests do is they argue against fundamentalism, and assume that fundamentalists are correct. They themselves are fundamentalists and have no understanding, or refuse to acknowledge that Christianity is the most diverse religion on earth with the widest range of opinions on things.
Well, being agnostic, I do believe in a higher power, just none of these religions.
Being an atheist, you shouldnt have to view a point on religion. nuff said. You dont beileve in anything. Thats it. Dont view points or topics on someones religion. You have no say in anything to do with religion. Which is why you so happen to get into heated battles with someone religious. No religious person is going to have a religious discussion with someone who is not.
A.) I don't have to believe in something to point out facts concerning it. For exactly the same reason creationists are able to argue against evolution, hardcore Liberals against Conservatives, etc.
B.) People are constantly altering laws and regulations, and/or preventing laws from being changed according to their personal beliefs. According to your argument, I have no say in laws that will affect my life simply because I don't believe in the reasoning behind them?
C.) Most of us reject religion because of one or more things we felt were false about it, that implies, and in fact requires a viewpoint and opinion of the subject. The fact that it is negative is largely irrelevant.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
Well, being agnostic, I do believe in a higher power, just none of these religions.
Being an atheist, you shouldnt have to view a point on religion. nuff said. You dont beileve in anything. Thats it. Dont view points or topics on someones religion. You have no say in anything to do with religion. Which is why you so happen to get into heated battles with someone religious. No religious person is going to have a religious discussion with someone who is not.
Well according from what I hear agnostics are considered wusses by both theists and atheists:P Hehe joking of course:)
I don't agree though that a person who is not religious can't view or have a say in religious matters. Many theologists are not theists yet they debate theology and holy manuscripts. So if you study the subject you should be excluded because of your chosen beliefs? Atheists don't believe in any god, not in "anything" unless I understood the meaning wrong in which case i am sorry.
If a religious person excludes a non religious one and vice versa then maybe their heads are too deep inside their behinds to actually have a conversation you know. Maybe I am used from the conversations with Fishermage so I am a bit of idealist it seems, but I don't see why 2 people of opposite ideals can't have a normal discussion.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Priests of which part of Christianity? Catholics, Orthodox, protestants ,something else?
Sorry to bust your bubble, but for example a Catholic would never teach "Safe sex" and still be considered a Catholic. Just saying you are christian means little. Unfortunately or not there is not ONE christianity.
Ah but there is only ONE christianity as you put it. Being a christian means u believe in Christ, his life's work, his sacrifice through crucifiction and most importantly his resurection three days later. It means u believe Christ came to earth and sacrificed himself for every one's salvation. That is what the crhtistian religion is based upon.
As far as the rest, believing that the pope is infalable, communing with wine and bread or the costia etc. it is all just dogma.
As far as salvation the new testamony clearly states that all that is required is repenting for your sins. The first man who entered paradise was thief after all.
p.s. i hope my point did not get lost due to my poor use of english
So you mean Christ died for ALL sin EXCEPT the sins of non-repentance and disbelief? I find THAT hard to believe. That flies in the face of the fact that He died for ALL sin.
Now you have chosen certain sins that are special sins and THOSE are the sins that still damn you, no matter what Christ did. That is the problem I have with limted Grace Christianity.
If things are as you say, then Christ does not forgive sin. His death on the Cross is a failure, and God lost the battle with evil.
WE can BOTH pull out plenty of quotes to back up our claim -- scripture clearly says, paradoxically, BOTH. However, if we look at the character of God in Christ I feel my outlook is more consistent with an infinite being with infinite forgiveness. Your view is of a finite being giving conditional love and conditional forgiveness.
It also brings up some odd notions.
Imagine if you will Batman. A man is hanging by a wire, about to die. Batman saves him from certain death. The man doesn't have to ASK Batman to save him, he doesn't have to know Batman is really Bruce Wayne, and he doesn't have to live as Batman would like Him to.
Essentially you are saying that Batman, or any firefighter, or any doctor, has more Grace than God.
I find that hard to believe, regardless of how one interprets scripture.
Again what you describe is not Grace, it is not Love, it is a transaction -- a deal. You are saying God REPAYS you for believing in HIm with salvation. Again I find that hard to believe, and against the essense of what Christ taught.
Any statements that seem to the contrary must be viewed through THAT thought. What I find to many Christians, is that they START with damnation, assume THOSE quotes are the ones to be taken literally -- and then they have to water down the infinite love and grace passages.
When they read Christ died for ALL sin, they must erase the word ALL, and believe that CHrist died for MOST sins.
Well, being agnostic, I do believe in a higher power, just none of these religions.
Being an atheist, you shouldnt have to view a point on religion. nuff said. You dont beileve in anything. Thats it. Dont view points or topics on someones religion. You have no say in anything to do with religion. Which is why you so happen to get into heated battles with someone religious. No religious person is going to have a religious discussion with someone who is not.
Well according from what I hear agnostics are considered wusses by both theists and atheists:P Hehe joking of course:)
I don't agree though that a person who is not religious can't view or have a say in religious matters. Many theologists are not theists yet they debate theology and holy manuscripts. So if you study the subject you should be excluded because of your chosen beliefs? Atheists don't believe in any god, not in "anything" unless I understood the meaning wrong in which case i am sorry.
If a religious person excludes a non religious one and vice versa then maybe their heads are too deep inside their behinds to actually have a conversation you know. Maybe I am used from the conversations with Fishermage so I am a bit of idealist it seems, but I don't see why 2 people of opposite ideals can't have a normal discussion.
Aye, Nihilism, not Atheism, is the belief in absolutely nothing, and those guys have a hard time convincing themselves they aren't just a brain in a lab jar "dreaming" about the world.
And yeah, you could say Agnostics are the fence sitters in this topic.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
Well, being agnostic, I do believe in a higher power, just none of these religions.
Being an atheist, you shouldnt have to view a point on religion. nuff said. You dont beileve in anything. Thats it. Dont view points or topics on someones religion. You have no say in anything to do with religion. Which is why you so happen to get into heated battles with someone religious. No religious person is going to have a religious discussion with someone who is not.
Well according from what I hear agnostics are considered wusses by both theists and atheists:P Hehe joking of course:)
I don't agree though that a person who is not religious can't view or have a say in religious matters. Many theologists are not theists yet they debate theology and holy manuscripts. So if you study the subject you should be excluded because of your chosen beliefs? Atheists don't believe in any god, not in "anything" unless I understood the meaning wrong in which case i am sorry.
If a religious person excludes a non religious one and vice versa then maybe their heads are too deep inside their behinds to actually have a conversation you know. Maybe I am used from the conversations with Fishermage so I am a bit of idealist it seems, but I don't see why 2 people of opposite ideals can't have a normal discussion.
Well, I was an agnostic/soft athiest (a soft athiest is one who simply does not believe in God, rather than a hard atheist who makes the unproveable assertion that God does NOT exist) from around the age of twelve or so until the age of 36 -- when following a long trail of evidence led me to belief.
Everyone has a reason and right to explore these things -- in fact -- from my reading of scripture, God wants us to.
I just don't get it. You atheists hate it when we Christians press our views on you but you be a hyperciete and mock us? Bah you.
Well, He's a big enough God to handle mockery. He died for that sin as well. However the "joke" here shows a very weak understanding of any Christianity as it is believed or practiced.
What athiests do is they argue against fundamentalism, and assume that fundamentalists are correct. They themselves are fundamentalists and have no understanding, or refuse to acknowledge that Christianity is the most diverse religion on earth with the widest range of opinions on things.
Diverse religion it is with many opinions but it's like giving a ferrari to a new driver. He will trash it sooner than later. Most people from each side just pick what's convinient for them and go along with it imo. Basically they shape their religion around them and not expanding themselves in their belief. Stagnation then follows.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Well, I was an agnostic/soft athiest (a soft athiest is one who simply does not believe in God, rather than a hard atheist who makes the unproveable assertion that God does NOT exist) from around the age of twelve or so until the age of 36 -- when following a long trail of evidence led me to belief. Everyone has a reason and right to explore these things -- in fact -- from my reading of scripture, God wants us to. Come, let us reason together.
Personally, so long as the discussion remains reasonable, a debate of this type is an interesting catalyst. It can reveal a great deal of information about others, and yourself. I never consider convincing another that I am right to be a primary goal. Instead, getting the opponent to think about his/her position, and to reinforce/adjust for the next time is all I am after.
Many people on both sides of any argument are quite unshakable in their beliefs, unwilling to even listen to arguments. Others have "built" a standing point from a very weak set of arguments, and often don't realize how transparent their faith is. Niether is a healthy viewpoint. It is far better to know and understand all sides to a debate, and make a reasonable decision based on such.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
The only thing religion has going for it is that it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist.
I could tell you there are 30 invisible pink zebras in your room right now and you couldn't prove me wrong. You could logically assume I am wrong, but never completely prove.
I just don't get it. You atheists hate it when we Christians press our views on you but you be a hyperciete and mock us? Bah you.
Well, He's a big enough God to handle mockery. He died for that sin as well. However the "joke" here shows a very weak understanding of any Christianity as it is believed or practiced.
What athiests do is they argue against fundamentalism, and assume that fundamentalists are correct. They themselves are fundamentalists and have no understanding, or refuse to acknowledge that Christianity is the most diverse religion on earth with the widest range of opinions on things.
Diverse religion it is with many opinions but it's like giving a ferrari to a new driver. He will trash it sooner than later. Most people from each side just pick what's convinient for them and go along with it imo. Basically they shape their religion around them and not expanding themselves in their belief. Stagnation then follows.
Interesting thoughts, and yeah I see a lot of that. If you WANT a God of wrath that puts you in an exclusive club, you will cling to that evidence. If you WANT a God of infinite love and inifinite forgiveness, you will cling to that evidence.
I openly choose the latter, knowing that the mystery is greater than me. Again, as I said above -- I feel that which I hold to seems to me to fit better with a Great and Loving God, rather than a small and petty one. The minute dudes like Batman and Superman start to seem like better men than Jesus, I start to question the dogma.
Plus, I feel the "hell threat," if true, destroys itself, It makes repentance insincere, because you are "repenting" so you can get something. Therefore it is not "saving repentance." If you need belief to save you, and you believe because you are scared of Hell -- than your belief is not genuine, and again, it would not be "saving belief."
It forces you into being a purchaser of eternal life insurance rather than a participant in the Grace and Love of the Almighty.
Either way, I am always open to contrary evidence that trumps mine. I haven't found any. In fact, I feel, no matter how deeply I study scripture, the notion of an infinite being with infinite forgiveness trumps everything else. Infinity trumps the finite -- at least in my view.
The only thing religion has going for it is that it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist.
I could tell you there are 30 invisible pink zebras in your room right now and you couldn't prove me wrong. You could logically assume I am wrong, but never completely prove.
That is the frustrating part of arguing religion.
Evolution is not proven either and its impossible to prove this even exists either. And I can find 3 layers of rock that no one has ever seen and say the 1st later is 3 years old, the 2nd is 130 years and the 3rd is 4000 years. Just stating how your statement is flawed as well.
Off topic, but my friend compares Christians to EQ and SWG players and Athiests to WoW players. Why? Immaturity reasons.
The only thing religion has going for it is that it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist.
I could tell you there are 30 invisible pink zebras in your room right now and you couldn't prove me wrong. You could logically assume I am wrong, but never completely prove.
That is the frustrating part of arguing religion.
Evolution is not proven either and its impossible to prove this even exists either. And I can find 3 layers of rock that no one has ever seen and say the 1st later is 3 years old, the 2nd is 130 years and the 3rd is 4000 years. Just stating how your statement is flawed as well.
Off topic, but my friend compares Christians to EQ and SWG players and Athiests to WoW players. Why? Immaturity reasons.
You can prove how old rock is. Unless you're trying to get really deep saying that you can't prove anything 100%. Which is true.
Either way I don't know how my statement is flawed when you provided no reasoning to why it is.
The only thing religion has going for it is that it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist.
I could tell you there are 30 invisible pink zebras in your room right now and you couldn't prove me wrong. You could logically assume I am wrong, but never completely prove.
That is the frustrating part of arguing religion.
Evolution is not proven either and its impossible to prove this even exists either. And I can find 3 layers of rock that no one has ever seen and say the 1st later is 3 years old, the 2nd is 130 years and the 3rd is 4000 years. Just stating how your statement is flawed as well.
Off topic, but my friend compares Christians to EQ and SWG players and Athiests to WoW players. Why? Immaturity reasons.
You can prove how old rock is. Unless you're trying to get really deep saying that you can't prove anything 100%. Which is true.
Either way I don't know how my statement is flawed when you provided no reasoning to why it is.
I will tell you after you stated why mine was =D. (Because you posted first).
The only thing religion has going for it is that it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist.
I could tell you there are 30 invisible pink zebras in your room right now and you couldn't prove me wrong. You could logically assume I am wrong, but never completely prove.
That is the frustrating part of arguing religion.
Evolution is not proven either and its impossible to prove this even exists either. And I can find 3 layers of rock that no one has ever seen and say the 1st later is 3 years old, the 2nd is 130 years and the 3rd is 4000 years. Just stating how your statement is flawed as well.
Off topic, but my friend compares Christians to EQ and SWG players and Athiests to WoW players. Why? Immaturity reasons.
You can prove how old rock is. Unless you're trying to get really deep saying that you can't prove anything 100%. Which is true.
Either way I don't know how my statement is flawed when you provided no reasoning to why it is.
I will tell you after you stated why mine was =D. (Because you posted first).
Sabian is making a good point. To say "there is no God" is a thoroughly unproveable assertion. To say "a rock is X years old" there are scientific methods to determine this. Now, in the second case, you can chose to dispite the science, but you don't have to leave the known universe to prove it.
To prove that there is no God, one must step outside of Spacetime and look down and see if this God can be observed.
This is why someone saying "there is no God" is an absurd statement, but someone saying, "I do not believe in God" is perfectly reasonable.
One interesting thing to note however is that the main athiests who are out there publishing came to their conclusions about God when they were very young (Hitchens for example was 12). many, many people who believe in God come to that conclusion at the height of their intellectual power (I was 36, CS Lewis was mature -- there are many cases of this).
Most people who lose faith in later life either do not become full atheists and merely doubt the dogma of religion.
Again this doesn't count for all of anything, but most of the people publishing in these areas seem to work this way.
Now, to say that this unproveable assertion concept is all that religion has going for it is kinda odd, considering religion brought us civil rights, ended slavery, gave us the notion of human equality, the notion of having a government of Laws and not men, and pretty much everything we hold dear.
No doubt a lot of bad as well, and this counts against religion, but religion has a great deal going for it.
The only thing religion has going for it is that it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist.
I could tell you there are 30 invisible pink zebras in your room right now and you couldn't prove me wrong. You could logically assume I am wrong, but never completely prove.
That is the frustrating part of arguing religion.
Evolution is not proven either and its impossible to prove this even exists either. And I can find 3 layers of rock that no one has ever seen and say the 1st later is 3 years old, the 2nd is 130 years and the 3rd is 4000 years. Just stating how your statement is flawed as well.
Off topic, but my friend compares Christians to EQ and SWG players and Athiests to WoW players. Why? Immaturity reasons.
You can prove how old rock is. Unless you're trying to get really deep saying that you can't prove anything 100%. Which is true.
Either way I don't know how my statement is flawed when you provided no reasoning to why it is.
I will tell you after you stated why mine was =D. (Because you posted first).
Sabian is making a good point. To say "there is no God" is a thoroughly unproveable assertion. To say "a rock is X years old" there are scientific methods to determine this. Now, in the second case, you can chose to dispite the science, but you don't have to leave the known universe to prove it.
To prove that there is no God, one must step outside of Spacetime and look down and see if this God can be observed.
This is why someone saying "there is no God" is an absurd statement, but someone saying, "I do not believe in God" is perfectly reasonable.
One interesting thing to note however is that the main athiests who are out there publishing came to their conclusions about God when they were very young (Hitchens for example was 12). many, many people who believe in God come to that conclusion at the height of their intellectual power (I was 36, CS Lewis was mature -- there are many cases of this).
Most people who lose faith in later life either do not become full atheists and merely doubt the dogma of religion.
Again this doesn't count for all of anything, but most of the people publishing in these areas seem to work this way.
Now, to say that this unproveable assertion concept is all that religion has going for it is kinda odd, considering religion brought us civil rights, ended slavery, gave us the notion of human equality, the notion of having a government of Laws and not men, and pretty much everything we hold dear.
No doubt a lot of bad as well, and this counts against religion, but religion has a great deal going for it.
I am not saying carbon dating is wrong, I just believe the time frame is way off. Yes there may be scientific methods, however, someone thought of how old that layer or rock is and then the assumption was born for that. How do you know for certian, that layer of rock is 4 million years old? Was there a man, living and recorded it 4 million years ago? No.
Comments
Some atheists are nutjobs.
They think every christian takes the bible word for word. They should back off, and only talk about real issues and problems.
Atheists are so obsessed with their inability to recognise that religion isn't necessarily a bad thing that they spout of ridiculous claims.
I have lost my patience with most atheists, if you're an atheist that's fine, but gtfo if you're going to act like every christian believes in the bible or if you think all christians believe in god. Some Atheists with little minds seem uncapable to grasp such anomalies. You can believe in whatever you want if you don't hurt anyone.
So what you are saying is that there are christians that don't believe in the bible which is their holiest book and in their God? And what exactly makes them christians if you don't mind me asking? An organised religion means that you accept such facts to be part of it. It's not cherry picking. Unless of course you make a cult then you can I guess.
There are nutjobs in every religion, belief and system and I doubt atheists have it any more special than others do. So I don't see why you should attack them for believing in one less god than others.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Just leave people alone, especially mild christians who are mostly (I said mostly) peace loving people. 99% of people in Europe are christians and almost all of them also believe in Darwin and the Big-Bang theory.
So there goes your theory of christians needing to believe everything from the bible. For the most part I see atheists as annoying towards christians.
Believe it or not, there's no rules to be christian, you can believe whatever you want. There's no master, book, wikipedia definition or guide you absolutely need to follow to be a christian and anyone who tells you differently should get a grip. There's some basic values like compassion and some bible sections you might want to read, but no one will force you.
You can walk into any christian church here and no one will ask you if you're a christian, no one will ask you if you read the bible or if you believe it. We listen to stories and tales. That's all I do, and I wear a cross and I'm a christian, I'm baptised, and I don't believe a lot of the things written in the bible.
I don't know where this idea came from that christianity is dictated like a forced set of rules but it certainly didn't came from my town because people from everywhere are christian, people who believe 100% of the bible and people who believe 1%. So chill out.
Just leave people alone, especially mild christians who are mostly (I said mostly) peace loving people. 99% of people in Europe are christians and almost all of them also believe in Darwin and the Big-Bang theory.
First of all if as you put it "99% of europe is christians" (which is not, unless you consider the rest 1% to be muslims and what not,but I will assume you are exaggerating to make a point) I doubt that the others "bother" them.
So there goes your theory of christians needing to believe everything from the bible. For the most part I see atheists as annoying towards christians.
Theory of what? That to be a Christian of the organised religion you need to adhere basic rules? You can't be a Catholic and not accept that the pope is infallible for example. Atheists are no more or less annoying to Christians as Christians are to Atheists.
Believe it or not, there's no rules to be christian, you can believe whatever you want. There's no master, book, wikipedia definition or guide you absolutely need to follow to be a christian and anyone who tells you differently should get a grip. There's some basic values like compassion and some bible sections you might want to read, but no one will force you.
Believe it or not "new age" christian is like that. Yes there is a master. God/Jesus. Yes there is a book , The holy bible. Sorry to break it to you but just because you have compassion or just say you are christian doesn't mean anything. Just because I don't lie or commit adultery doesn't make me a buddist monk to give you a different example.
I don't know where this idea came from that christianity is dictated like a forced set of rules but it certainly didn't came from my town because people from everywhere are christian, people who believe 100% of the bible and people who believe 1%. So chill out.
I am chill friend. Organised religion has a "forced set of rules" as you put. You can follow certain principles but you can't say you are a christian if you don't follow all or at least accept all of them. Like a buddist has to accept the whole thing and like the muslims the same. You may belong to different sects that have different definitions but that's about it. It's not others people fault that some people just follow religion when it is convinient or just pay lip service to it.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
You can be a protestant then. No one will care here, we don't even make a difference anymore. We even allow gay marriage under god. There was never one rule or one mindset for us here.
This might be different in the US, but people are really forgiving here and we support churches for all the good work they do and that's why people and schools baptise kids too, not for the bible, or for christianity, but for the values that it brings with it.
And that's all that matter for me.
Nope, they're not forced at all. Priests educate people about safe sex in the oldest churches of Europe and by the blessing of the church. Are you going to tell them they're not real christians? This is what annoys us about atheists mostly and why there's so few in Europe. Here you either are christian or you're not, there's no in between, there's no "atheism".
Maybe you're an atheist because you don't believe in a god, but that's semantics, people don't come out and say "I'm an atheist", no one cares here.
I can debunk the theory that there's a forced set of rules for christianity in a million and one ways.
Nope, they're not forced at all. Priests educate people about safe sex in the oldest churches of Europe and by the blessing of the church. Are you going to tell them they're not real christians? This is what annoys us about atheists mostly and why there's so few in Europe. Here you either are christian or you're not, there's no in between, there's no "atheism".
Maybe you're an atheist because you don't believe in a god, but that's semantics, people don't come out and say "I'm an atheist", no one cares here.
I can debunk the theory that there's a forced set of rules for christianity in a million and one ways.
Priests of which part of Christianity? Catholics, Orthodox, protestants ,something else?
Sorry to bust your bubble, but for example a Catholic would never teach "Safe sex" and still be considered a Catholic. Just saying you are christian means little. Unfortunately or not there is not ONE christianity. And stop saying what most of Europe are or are not please unless you have statistics to prove it. Noone says and I never implied that they are not "real" christians. But I argue the fact that people believe Christianity is some free form religion where everyone can adapt it or customise it to suit their personal needs or wants and then used to attract more people to the church. I only disagree with that. And btw atheism is not "in between".
Also I don't know in what village you live in Germany but Europe is not Christianity VS all others. You got it right though. Noone cares.
As long as Christianity has the 2 testaments, those are your rules that you follow. How you interpret them it's different subject all together. There are no "million ways", if you don't have the will to follow them or if they are not in your advantage just say you believe in a God not that just because you do that you are suddenly a christian.
PS. And no I don't like the term atheist either.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Calm down people. The man asked a question on how to avoid sparking heated religious debates, and ended up having one anyways. Seem kind of ironic?
Waterlily, most of the more reasonable atheists (using the term loosely, in this case I mean the broad category of people who reject/give up on faith in general) attack the concepts behind the faith itself, rather than the people who follow it. We know very well that the majority of christians consider the Bible as a guideline rather than an exactly literal accounting. Draenor on these boards in particular is one of the few exceptions, he is a fascinating man to be honest.
The problem we have is when a Christian quotes the bible for his or her own purposes, but ignores other portions because it does not fit their views. It is a hypocritical viewpoint to take portions of a document as literal truth, while declaring others to be irrelevant and/or a metaphor for something entirely else, at least barring some kind of evidence for the differentiation. For instance, people use Leviticus (Old Testament, pretty much a book of rules for the Hebrews) in their arguments against a wide variety of topics, Homosexuality in particular. They tend to be rather shocked somehow that the same book, just a few passages over, declares slavery to be quite acceptable so long as there is a minimum of fair treatment, and even more so when I ask them the last time they made a sacrifice of livestock to the temple.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
Well, being agnostic, I do believe in a higher power, just none of these religions.
Being an atheist, you shouldnt have to view a point on religion. nuff said. You dont beileve in anything. Thats it. Dont view points or topics on someones religion. You have no say in anything to do with religion. Which is why you so happen to get into heated battles with someone religious. No religious person is going to have a religious discussion with someone who is not.
______________________________
What if Paul Revere was like the boy who cried wolf....?
Originally posted by Hazmal
What does he say when people ask what he did? "My mommy was irking me yo - I wanted to keep pwning nubs on my xbox, so I roughed her up with a hardshell. That is just how I roll."
Priests of which part of Christianity? Catholics, Orthodox, protestants ,something else?
Sorry to bust your bubble, but for example a Catholic would never teach "Safe sex" and still be considered a Catholic. Just saying you are christian means little. Unfortunately or not there is not ONE christianity.
Ah but there is only ONE christianity as you put it. Being a christian means u believe in Christ, his life's work, his sacrifice through crucifiction and most importantly his resurection three days later. It means u believe Christ came to earth and sacrificed himself for every one's salvation. That is what the crhtistian religion is based upon.
As far as the rest, believing that the pope is infalable, communing with wine and bread or the costia etc. it is all just dogma.
As far as salvation the new testamony clearly states that all that is required is repenting for your sins. The first man who entered paradise was thief after all.
p.s. i hope my point did not get lost due to my poor use of english
I just don't get it. You atheists hate it when we Christians press our views on you but you be a hyperciete and mock us? Bah you.
Well, He's a big enough God to handle mockery. He died for that sin as well. However the "joke" here shows a very weak understanding of any Christianity as it is believed or practiced.
What athiests do is they argue against fundamentalism, and assume that fundamentalists are correct. They themselves are fundamentalists and have no understanding, or refuse to acknowledge that Christianity is the most diverse religion on earth with the widest range of opinions on things.
fishermage.blogspot.com
A.) I don't have to believe in something to point out facts concerning it. For exactly the same reason creationists are able to argue against evolution, hardcore Liberals against Conservatives, etc.
B.) People are constantly altering laws and regulations, and/or preventing laws from being changed according to their personal beliefs. According to your argument, I have no say in laws that will affect my life simply because I don't believe in the reasoning behind them?
C.) Most of us reject religion because of one or more things we felt were false about it, that implies, and in fact requires a viewpoint and opinion of the subject. The fact that it is negative is largely irrelevant.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
Well according from what I hear agnostics are considered wusses by both theists and atheists:P Hehe joking of course:)
I don't agree though that a person who is not religious can't view or have a say in religious matters. Many theologists are not theists yet they debate theology and holy manuscripts. So if you study the subject you should be excluded because of your chosen beliefs? Atheists don't believe in any god, not in "anything" unless I understood the meaning wrong in which case i am sorry.
If a religious person excludes a non religious one and vice versa then maybe their heads are too deep inside their behinds to actually have a conversation you know. Maybe I am used from the conversations with Fishermage so I am a bit of idealist it seems, but I don't see why 2 people of opposite ideals can't have a normal discussion.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Priests of which part of Christianity? Catholics, Orthodox, protestants ,something else?
Sorry to bust your bubble, but for example a Catholic would never teach "Safe sex" and still be considered a Catholic. Just saying you are christian means little. Unfortunately or not there is not ONE christianity.
Ah but there is only ONE christianity as you put it. Being a christian means u believe in Christ, his life's work, his sacrifice through crucifiction and most importantly his resurection three days later. It means u believe Christ came to earth and sacrificed himself for every one's salvation. That is what the crhtistian religion is based upon.
As far as the rest, believing that the pope is infalable, communing with wine and bread or the costia etc. it is all just dogma.
As far as salvation the new testamony clearly states that all that is required is repenting for your sins. The first man who entered paradise was thief after all.
p.s. i hope my point did not get lost due to my poor use of english
So you mean Christ died for ALL sin EXCEPT the sins of non-repentance and disbelief? I find THAT hard to believe. That flies in the face of the fact that He died for ALL sin.
Now you have chosen certain sins that are special sins and THOSE are the sins that still damn you, no matter what Christ did. That is the problem I have with limted Grace Christianity.
If things are as you say, then Christ does not forgive sin. His death on the Cross is a failure, and God lost the battle with evil.
WE can BOTH pull out plenty of quotes to back up our claim -- scripture clearly says, paradoxically, BOTH. However, if we look at the character of God in Christ I feel my outlook is more consistent with an infinite being with infinite forgiveness. Your view is of a finite being giving conditional love and conditional forgiveness.
It also brings up some odd notions.
Imagine if you will Batman. A man is hanging by a wire, about to die. Batman saves him from certain death. The man doesn't have to ASK Batman to save him, he doesn't have to know Batman is really Bruce Wayne, and he doesn't have to live as Batman would like Him to.
Essentially you are saying that Batman, or any firefighter, or any doctor, has more Grace than God.
I find that hard to believe, regardless of how one interprets scripture.
Again what you describe is not Grace, it is not Love, it is a transaction -- a deal. You are saying God REPAYS you for believing in HIm with salvation. Again I find that hard to believe, and against the essense of what Christ taught.
Any statements that seem to the contrary must be viewed through THAT thought. What I find to many Christians, is that they START with damnation, assume THOSE quotes are the ones to be taken literally -- and then they have to water down the infinite love and grace passages.
When they read Christ died for ALL sin, they must erase the word ALL, and believe that CHrist died for MOST sins.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Well according from what I hear agnostics are considered wusses by both theists and atheists:P Hehe joking of course:)
I don't agree though that a person who is not religious can't view or have a say in religious matters. Many theologists are not theists yet they debate theology and holy manuscripts. So if you study the subject you should be excluded because of your chosen beliefs? Atheists don't believe in any god, not in "anything" unless I understood the meaning wrong in which case i am sorry.
If a religious person excludes a non religious one and vice versa then maybe their heads are too deep inside their behinds to actually have a conversation you know. Maybe I am used from the conversations with Fishermage so I am a bit of idealist it seems, but I don't see why 2 people of opposite ideals can't have a normal discussion.
Aye, Nihilism, not Atheism, is the belief in absolutely nothing, and those guys have a hard time convincing themselves they aren't just a brain in a lab jar "dreaming" about the world.
And yeah, you could say Agnostics are the fence sitters in this topic.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
Well according from what I hear agnostics are considered wusses by both theists and atheists:P Hehe joking of course:)
I don't agree though that a person who is not religious can't view or have a say in religious matters. Many theologists are not theists yet they debate theology and holy manuscripts. So if you study the subject you should be excluded because of your chosen beliefs? Atheists don't believe in any god, not in "anything" unless I understood the meaning wrong in which case i am sorry.
If a religious person excludes a non religious one and vice versa then maybe their heads are too deep inside their behinds to actually have a conversation you know. Maybe I am used from the conversations with Fishermage so I am a bit of idealist it seems, but I don't see why 2 people of opposite ideals can't have a normal discussion.
Well, I was an agnostic/soft athiest (a soft athiest is one who simply does not believe in God, rather than a hard atheist who makes the unproveable assertion that God does NOT exist) from around the age of twelve or so until the age of 36 -- when following a long trail of evidence led me to belief.
Everyone has a reason and right to explore these things -- in fact -- from my reading of scripture, God wants us to.
Come, let us reason together.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I just don't get it. You atheists hate it when we Christians press our views on you but you be a hyperciete and mock us? Bah you.
Well, He's a big enough God to handle mockery. He died for that sin as well. However the "joke" here shows a very weak understanding of any Christianity as it is believed or practiced.
What athiests do is they argue against fundamentalism, and assume that fundamentalists are correct. They themselves are fundamentalists and have no understanding, or refuse to acknowledge that Christianity is the most diverse religion on earth with the widest range of opinions on things.
Diverse religion it is with many opinions but it's like giving a ferrari to a new driver. He will trash it sooner than later. Most people from each side just pick what's convinient for them and go along with it imo. Basically they shape their religion around them and not expanding themselves in their belief. Stagnation then follows.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Personally, so long as the discussion remains reasonable, a debate of this type is an interesting catalyst. It can reveal a great deal of information about others, and yourself. I never consider convincing another that I am right to be a primary goal. Instead, getting the opponent to think about his/her position, and to reinforce/adjust for the next time is all I am after.
Many people on both sides of any argument are quite unshakable in their beliefs, unwilling to even listen to arguments. Others have "built" a standing point from a very weak set of arguments, and often don't realize how transparent their faith is. Niether is a healthy viewpoint. It is far better to know and understand all sides to a debate, and make a reasonable decision based on such.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
The only thing religion has going for it is that it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist.
I could tell you there are 30 invisible pink zebras in your room right now and you couldn't prove me wrong. You could logically assume I am wrong, but never completely prove.
That is the frustrating part of arguing religion.
The Official God FAQ
I just don't get it. You atheists hate it when we Christians press our views on you but you be a hyperciete and mock us? Bah you.
Well, He's a big enough God to handle mockery. He died for that sin as well. However the "joke" here shows a very weak understanding of any Christianity as it is believed or practiced.
What athiests do is they argue against fundamentalism, and assume that fundamentalists are correct. They themselves are fundamentalists and have no understanding, or refuse to acknowledge that Christianity is the most diverse religion on earth with the widest range of opinions on things.
Diverse religion it is with many opinions but it's like giving a ferrari to a new driver. He will trash it sooner than later. Most people from each side just pick what's convinient for them and go along with it imo. Basically they shape their religion around them and not expanding themselves in their belief. Stagnation then follows.
Interesting thoughts, and yeah I see a lot of that. If you WANT a God of wrath that puts you in an exclusive club, you will cling to that evidence. If you WANT a God of infinite love and inifinite forgiveness, you will cling to that evidence.
I openly choose the latter, knowing that the mystery is greater than me. Again, as I said above -- I feel that which I hold to seems to me to fit better with a Great and Loving God, rather than a small and petty one. The minute dudes like Batman and Superman start to seem like better men than Jesus, I start to question the dogma.
Plus, I feel the "hell threat," if true, destroys itself, It makes repentance insincere, because you are "repenting" so you can get something. Therefore it is not "saving repentance." If you need belief to save you, and you believe because you are scared of Hell -- than your belief is not genuine, and again, it would not be "saving belief."
It forces you into being a purchaser of eternal life insurance rather than a participant in the Grace and Love of the Almighty.
Either way, I am always open to contrary evidence that trumps mine. I haven't found any. In fact, I feel, no matter how deeply I study scripture, the notion of an infinite being with infinite forgiveness trumps everything else. Infinity trumps the finite -- at least in my view.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Evolution is not proven either and its impossible to prove this even exists either. And I can find 3 layers of rock that no one has ever seen and say the 1st later is 3 years old, the 2nd is 130 years and the 3rd is 4000 years. Just stating how your statement is flawed as well.
Off topic, but my friend compares Christians to EQ and SWG players and Athiests to WoW players. Why? Immaturity reasons.
Evolution is not proven either and its impossible to prove this even exists either. And I can find 3 layers of rock that no one has ever seen and say the 1st later is 3 years old, the 2nd is 130 years and the 3rd is 4000 years. Just stating how your statement is flawed as well.
Off topic, but my friend compares Christians to EQ and SWG players and Athiests to WoW players. Why? Immaturity reasons.
You can prove how old rock is. Unless you're trying to get really deep saying that you can't prove anything 100%. Which is true.
Either way I don't know how my statement is flawed when you provided no reasoning to why it is.
The Official God FAQ
Evolution is not proven either and its impossible to prove this even exists either. And I can find 3 layers of rock that no one has ever seen and say the 1st later is 3 years old, the 2nd is 130 years and the 3rd is 4000 years. Just stating how your statement is flawed as well.
Off topic, but my friend compares Christians to EQ and SWG players and Athiests to WoW players. Why? Immaturity reasons.
You can prove how old rock is. Unless you're trying to get really deep saying that you can't prove anything 100%. Which is true.
Either way I don't know how my statement is flawed when you provided no reasoning to why it is.
I will tell you after you stated why mine was =D. (Because you posted first).
Evolution is not proven either and its impossible to prove this even exists either. And I can find 3 layers of rock that no one has ever seen and say the 1st later is 3 years old, the 2nd is 130 years and the 3rd is 4000 years. Just stating how your statement is flawed as well.
Off topic, but my friend compares Christians to EQ and SWG players and Athiests to WoW players. Why? Immaturity reasons.
You can prove how old rock is. Unless you're trying to get really deep saying that you can't prove anything 100%. Which is true.
Either way I don't know how my statement is flawed when you provided no reasoning to why it is.
I will tell you after you stated why mine was =D. (Because you posted first).
Sabian is making a good point. To say "there is no God" is a thoroughly unproveable assertion. To say "a rock is X years old" there are scientific methods to determine this. Now, in the second case, you can chose to dispite the science, but you don't have to leave the known universe to prove it.
To prove that there is no God, one must step outside of Spacetime and look down and see if this God can be observed.
This is why someone saying "there is no God" is an absurd statement, but someone saying, "I do not believe in God" is perfectly reasonable.
One interesting thing to note however is that the main athiests who are out there publishing came to their conclusions about God when they were very young (Hitchens for example was 12). many, many people who believe in God come to that conclusion at the height of their intellectual power (I was 36, CS Lewis was mature -- there are many cases of this).
Most people who lose faith in later life either do not become full atheists and merely doubt the dogma of religion.
Again this doesn't count for all of anything, but most of the people publishing in these areas seem to work this way.
Now, to say that this unproveable assertion concept is all that religion has going for it is kinda odd, considering religion brought us civil rights, ended slavery, gave us the notion of human equality, the notion of having a government of Laws and not men, and pretty much everything we hold dear.
No doubt a lot of bad as well, and this counts against religion, but religion has a great deal going for it.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Evolution is not proven either and its impossible to prove this even exists either. And I can find 3 layers of rock that no one has ever seen and say the 1st later is 3 years old, the 2nd is 130 years and the 3rd is 4000 years. Just stating how your statement is flawed as well.
Off topic, but my friend compares Christians to EQ and SWG players and Athiests to WoW players. Why? Immaturity reasons.
You can prove how old rock is. Unless you're trying to get really deep saying that you can't prove anything 100%. Which is true.
Either way I don't know how my statement is flawed when you provided no reasoning to why it is.
I will tell you after you stated why mine was =D. (Because you posted first).
Sabian is making a good point. To say "there is no God" is a thoroughly unproveable assertion. To say "a rock is X years old" there are scientific methods to determine this. Now, in the second case, you can chose to dispite the science, but you don't have to leave the known universe to prove it.
To prove that there is no God, one must step outside of Spacetime and look down and see if this God can be observed.
This is why someone saying "there is no God" is an absurd statement, but someone saying, "I do not believe in God" is perfectly reasonable.
One interesting thing to note however is that the main athiests who are out there publishing came to their conclusions about God when they were very young (Hitchens for example was 12). many, many people who believe in God come to that conclusion at the height of their intellectual power (I was 36, CS Lewis was mature -- there are many cases of this).
Most people who lose faith in later life either do not become full atheists and merely doubt the dogma of religion.
Again this doesn't count for all of anything, but most of the people publishing in these areas seem to work this way.
Now, to say that this unproveable assertion concept is all that religion has going for it is kinda odd, considering religion brought us civil rights, ended slavery, gave us the notion of human equality, the notion of having a government of Laws and not men, and pretty much everything we hold dear.
No doubt a lot of bad as well, and this counts against religion, but religion has a great deal going for it.
I am not saying carbon dating is wrong, I just believe the time frame is way off. Yes there may be scientific methods, however, someone thought of how old that layer or rock is and then the assumption was born for that. How do you know for certian, that layer of rock is 4 million years old? Was there a man, living and recorded it 4 million years ago? No.