a case for christ

[Balloon guy 158]

wow, are you serious???????RE: Former Athiests...I said 'based on my experience' meaning that it is anecdotal and... based on my experience... I never said this was absolutely 100 pct the way it was.I also said that based on my experience, the majority of those trying to argue against things like evolution have less than a high schoolers understanding of what they are (this would include people like Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron etc.... I could go on and on... can you honestly say these people understand the theory of evolution?)I also stated that it is my PERSONAL belief ( as in, this does not have to be shared by you) that it is unhealthy to believe things that do not have evidence of being true. I never said anybody was stupid for believing in god... why do you insist on spinning everything I said? I posed a serious question, on what basis do you believe what you believe? What on earth is biased about that?I have chosen my words very carefully, unlike you. I stated over and over that this is my viewpoint on the matter and does not apply universally... however, in all of your dishonest glory, you managed to twist every word I said into some attack on faith, making me the evil athiest and you the good righteous Christian whose duty it is to take him down. Setting up false dichotomies such as this is a staple of dishonest creationists, such as yourself, so I am not very surprised.honestly, get a clue.also, when the hell did I say anything that resembles this:"but in general it is exactly the same as having a disease and pretending it will go away on it's own".???

Man you atheist are a constipated lot.You come to a religion section, go to a thread about religion, and begin your diatribe about how dumb we all are, then act all weak and innocent for being told you are an idiot.Then you begin the word dance..."Oh, I said only in my PERSONAL experience are Christians lying cheats who base their worldviews on stupidity."See, here's the thing, in my personal experience atheist are largely angry little people with chips on their shoulders wishing their daddy would have hugged them more as a child. Of course this should not be taken in ANYWAY except that this is just my PERSONAL opinion. The fact that it is true doesn't matter, because I clarified PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, therefore I can call you anything I want. You cannot get take this as anything but exactly what my words mean, exactly.And if you do I will write a long post where I cry about how misunderstood my intentions were when I went into your thread and started a fight just to show how dumb you are.Go find crow and hug it out

[Mills 0]

True?Whether or not you think athiests are... whatever you think they are is an OPINION.... and yes... you are allowed to hold personal OPINIONS.. even ones that I *gasp* don't happen to agree with.and what I think about christianity is also my... say it with me... OPINION.. that's right.I never said anyone was dumb... However, you have once again twisted my words and make it look like I tried to condescend to ChristiansI know some very intelligent Christians, sir. You, however, Have displayed yourself to be a dishonest little toad time and time again.I would also like to point out that not all Christians are science hating creationist liars, like yourself. So please, don't try to lump all Christians in with your particular brand of crazyso, that's about it.. good luck at poker

[Balloon guy 158]

True?Whether or not you think athiests are... whatever you think they are is an OPINION.... and yes... you are allowed to hold personal OPINIONS.. even ones that I *gasp* don't happen to agree with.and what I think about christianity is also my... say it with me... OPINION.. that's right.I never said anyone was dumb... However, you have once again twisted my words and make it look like I tried to condescend to ChristiansI know some very intelligent Christians, sir. You, however, Have displayed yourself to be a dishonest little toad time and time again.I would also like to point out that not all Christians are science hating creationist liars, like yourself. So please, don't try to lump all Christians in with your particular brand of crazyso, that's about it.. good luck at poker

Tell you what , try this experiment, take the following post to a NASCAR forum in the Gun Lovers section:I know that the last post in this thread was a while ago, and it is entirely possible no one is reading....still....I have absolutely no problem with what anyone believes in the 2nd amendment being good as long as they acknowledge that it is, in fact, a personal belief. That is, it is not based on evidence. These people who think that the 2nd amendment has been proven scientifically good often have less than a highschoolers understanding of the material they are trying to argue for or against.It is entirely possible (as is anything) That some sort of 2nd amendment should exists.. however, up to this point, we have absolutely no evidence of such a positive thing, so the question I would ask gun enthusiast is "on what basis do you believe the 2nd amendment is postive?"Personally, I don't think it is very healthy to have guns without better evidence for them... If I told you I could fly, you would ask me to prove it... I think most would agree that gun ownership is not good practice in general, so why the exception? If you have to stop a robber, do you rely on guns to save you, or will you instead go with what is proven to fight criminals? The Police?I would also be very skeptical of so called "former anti-gun people.." Most of the time (from my experience) this is a ploy to make gun nuts seem less biased than they are.Then when you compare their responses to mine, let me know how open armed they were...

[Mills 0]

This is quite possibly the biggest false analogy I have ever seen in my entire life... it dosent even make snese.I know from your posts and the quality of your writing that you are a reasonably intelligent person, so why are you playing games like this?

[Balloon guy 158]

This is quite possibly the biggest false analogy I have ever seen in my entire life... it dosent even make snese.I know from your posts and the quality of your writing that you are a reasonably intelligent person, so why are you playing games like this?

I might have been a little testy before, but I don't think you are being honest either.You randomly post a thread with nothing but your opinion about how you believe that people who believe in God have little actual education, and the ones that did go to school and convert afterwords are probably not being honest.And now you are trying to defend your posts as 'just my opinion'?You sound like Ricky Bobby: " With all do respect...you sir are an idiot""You can't just say 'With all due respect' and then get away with anything you want to say"Ricky Bobby: "Of course you can, that's what it means"

[Mills 0]

"....your opinion about how you believe that people who believe in God have little actual education, and the ones that did go to school and convert afterwords are probably not being honest".Never said this. Ever Ever EverCmon man, you either aren't reading the posts, or you are trying to run a game.What I said was the majority ( and, quite frankly, I think it's close to 100 percent... but hey, nothing is absolute) of people who try to "disprove" evolution have little to no understanding of what it is. I then named people in the public eye who I feel exemplify this, and I could probably name a dozen more. Can you point me to even one creationist who has a solid, concrete understanding of how the theory of evolution works, what it actually states? If you can't, then explain to me how i'm not justified in feeling the way that I do.I never said people who believe in God have little to no education. In fact, If I did, I would be incorrect and pretty ignorant. Because the fact of the matter is there are some pretty brilliant men of science who consider themselves Christians... Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and Bob Bakker to name a very few...You have to understand there is a difference between a creationist and a christian, they are not implictly one in the same.I respect that a person has a right to a belief, and opinion. What I don't respect, however, are any and all people who are dishonest and attempt to impeade intellectual progress because they think that it contradicts what they personally believe. I say this with pride, and will continue to uphold truth in the face of such dishonesty.that's pretty much where i'm coming from.

[Balloon guy 158]

"....your opinion about how you believe that people who believe in God have little actual education, and the ones that did go to school and convert afterwords are probably not being honest".Never said this. Ever Ever EverCmon man, you either aren't reading the posts, or you are trying to run a game.

Well you did such a good job of disguising your point that you can't really blame me for missing it can you?"These people who think that god has been proven scientifically often have less than a highschoolers understanding of the material they are trying to argue for or against."

What I said was the majority ( and, quite frankly, I think it's close to 100 percent... but hey, nothing is absolute) of people who try to "disprove" evolution have little to no understanding of what it is.

See your above quote that we are discussing, and then explain to me how any reasonable person should have known you were talking about creationist, especially given that you posted your post in a thread called A Case for Christ, not a Case for Creationism.

I then named people in the public eye who I feel exemplify this, and I could probably name a dozen more.

Uhh...mind if you point to the place where you mentioned a single person by name?

Can you point me to even one creationist who has a solid, concrete understanding of how the theory of evolution works, what it actually states? If you can't, then explain to me how i'm not justified in feeling the way that I do.

Why does my ability to name people confirm, deny or in anyway excuse your feelings? If you base your feelings on bad logic, does my inability to know a person's name make your logic better?

I never said people who believe in God have little to no education.

No, you implied it clearly though, the fact that you are trying to distance yourself should give you an understanding why I smacked you down for making such lame comments.

In fact, If I did, I would be incorrect and pretty ignorant. Because the fact of the matter is there are some pretty brilliant men of science who consider themselves Christians... Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and Bob Bakker to name a very few...

You forgot me and brvheart

You have to understand there is a difference between a creationist and a christian, they are not implictly one in the same.

Yea..but we know....

I respect that a person has a right to a belief, and opinion. What I don't respect, however, are any and all people who are dishonest and attempt to impeade intellectual progress because they think that it contradicts what they personally believe. I say this with pride, and will continue to uphold truth in the face of such dishonesty.

You mean like when they say they have listed people BY NAME, when in fact they haven't, or when they say "these people who think that God has been proven scientifically", when you really meant creationist ( even though I have never heard of a single creationist who says God has been proven scientifically ) That kind of dishonesty?

that's pretty much where i'm coming from.

Tell you what, you want a pass for the above and want to start over, I will grant you a pass. You start being more clear as to your point s, and stop with the backhanded pejoratives, and I will try to answer/debate you with a more reasonable tone.Otherwise I will continue to treat you like every other troll who comes in, throws a firebomb, then runs like a girl when they get called on it. ( not accusing you per se, just letting everyone know my motivation for being a bit of a jerk )

[Mills 0]

I don't want a pass for anything. I've said nothing that requires one.... You really think I never named a person who attempts to glorify creationism in the public eye... not even in my second post, when I said this? "also said that based on my experience, the majority of those trying to argue against things like evolution have less than a high schoolers understanding of what they are (this would include people like Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron etc...." at this point I have to assume you aren't in fact reading the posts, or perhaps you just started to because you thought i was a jerk before... You just called me dishonest for not naming a single personKent Hovind actually thinks science proves the voracity of things in the bible, while guys like Ray and Kirk think that because evolution is "wrong" god must exist. See his 'design must have a designer' argument for some of his 'proofs'. There are also things like this:http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12...od_equation.phpmore sophisticated, for sure, but no less full of holes.I think you took exception to my statement that I personally believed that belief without evidence is, in general, not a good practice. Well, sorry but... I stand by that one too. The same way you stand by your opinion that a life without god is fundementally flawed... I really don't see what the problem is there either in terms of diverging opinion.You mean like when they say they have listed people BY NAME, when in fact they haven't, or when they say "these people who think that God has been proven scientifically", when you really meant creationist" Sorry but your gonna have to explain to me how these two things are not the same. I have never heard any scientist who is a christian say that Science can find god... creationists say that regularly. They say things like "the complexity of the eye is proof of gods creation" etc etc etc.

[Balloon guy 158]

I don't want a pass for anything. I've said nothing that requires one.... You really think I never named a person who attempts to glorify creationism in the public eye... not even in my second post, when I said this? "also said that based on my experience, the majority of those trying to argue against things like evolution have less than a high schoolers understanding of what they are (this would include people like Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron etc...." at this point I have to assume you aren't in fact reading the posts, or perhaps you just started to because you thought i was a jerk before... You just called me dishonest for not naming a single personKent Hovind actually thinks science proves the voracity of things in the bible, while guys like Ray and Kirk think that because evolution is "wrong" god must exist. See his 'design must have a designer' argument for some of his 'proofs'. There are also things like this:http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12...od_equation.phpmore sophisticated, for sure, but no less full of holes.I think you took exception to my statement that I personally believed that belief without evidence is, in general, not a good practice. Well, sorry but... I stand by that one too. The same way you stand by your opinion that a life without god is fundementally flawed... I really don't see what the problem is there either in terms of diverging opinion.You mean like when they say they have listed people BY NAME, when in fact they haven't, or when they say "these people who think that God has been proven scientifically", when you really meant creationist" Sorry but your gonna have to explain to me how these two things are not the same. I have never heard any scientist who is a christian say that Science can find god... creationists say that regularly. They say things like "the complexity of the eye is proof of gods creation" etc etc etc.

Yea...you're not making any sense, and you are your typical non-believer who thinks if they will never make a mistake.This is a very common trait...I wonder why that is.I have my theory, but it would be impolite to say. And unlike you guys, saying something impolite just because I 'feel it' isn't a free pass.

[Mills 0]

This is typical of your responses when you have nothing to say...so I will assume as muchYou ask where I name, I point it out, you shut up....good try at being honest though, you actually had me fooled for a couple of posts.

[Spademan 94]

If you gentlemen cannot get along and follow the proper protocol while presenting your respective cases, I will have no choice but to hold you both in contempt and have you thrown from my fucking courtroom.

[colonel Feathers 5]

My own uneducated thoughts,Why do atheists find it necessary to seek out religion forums at all,they must not be totally secure in their points of view.I cant speak for BG, but if there was an atheist forum I wouldnt waste my time in itThe entire point of religion is faith,which is why God doesnt just open up the skies and proclaim his glory.When Jesus walked the earth, he had more respect for those who believed without proof, than even his own disciples.He never promised paradise to his disciples or anyone with direct witness to him, he only promised it to a thief who was crucified for his crimes, but had faith.So if you want me to scientificly prove Gods existence, not only wont I try, Ill just tell you to have a nice afterlife.

[Mills 0]

So if you want me to scientificly prove Gods existence, not only wont I try, Ill just tell you to have a nice afterlife. Well, you can try all you want... that's what science is about. But don't pretend to have the answer if you don't, that's all i'm saying.Do you guys really want this forum to only be comprised of people who think the same way you do? I read the open post, Daniel was talking about how he was led to christianity, and talking about his view on the subject.... why should I not be able to express mine?also, I was hardly 'seeking out' a religion forum... I come on this site for poker stuff, this is a part of the site

[colonel Feathers 5]

So if you want me to scientificly prove Gods existence, not only wont I try, Ill just tell you to have a nice afterlife. Well, you can try all you want... that's what science is about. But don't pretend to have the answer if you don't, that's all i'm saying.Do you guys really want this forum to only be comprised of people who think the same way you do? I read the open post, Daniel was talking about how he was led to christianity, and talking about his view on the subject.... why should I not be able to express mine?

Cause most of the time the atheists are just here to destroy, Why not start your own thread about the greatness of atheism ?Also God is not about science.

[Mills 0]

The greatness of Athiesm? I posed an honest question in my OP that has yet to recieve a response, if you do have one I would be interested to hear it:"On what basis to you believe what you believe"? In other words, "why?"

[colonel Feathers 5]

The greatness of Athiesm? I posed an honest question in my OP that has yet to recieve a response, if you do have one I would be interested to hear it:"On what basis to you believe what you believe"? In other words, "why?"

It is difficult to articulate "Why" I believe wat I do. It just makes more sense to me that there is a purpose for life, If mankind and all the incredible strides we have made are just the result of totally random and haphazard circumstances of cosmological chance, I dont see the point of life at all.As I staated in a previous post, faith is all that matters. I dont believe you can be good enuf for heaven. Only by forgiveness and grace do we enter heaven.Then again I have trouble in believing in a Hell that lasts for an eternity, especilly based on what we do in our short lives here.If there is a hell, Im sure its reserved for a select few, like Hitler, stalin, pelosi, and spademan.

[Mills 0]

Then again I have trouble in believing in a Hell that lasts for an eternity, especilly based on what we do in our short lives here.We agree on this..In regards to not seeing the point in life, why does there have to be a 'point'? Why does life have to have a deeper meaning beyond what you personally ascribe to it?

[crowTrobot 2]

Cause most of the time the atheists are just here to destroy

getting people to think more critically about religious dogmatism is progress, not destruction.

Also God is not about science.

your god certainly is, since his existence depends entirely on the bible being empirical truth.

[crowTrobot 2]

The entire point of religion is faith,which is why God doesnt just open up the skies and proclaim his glory.When Jesus walked the earth, he had more respect for those who believed without proof, than even his own disciples.He never promised paradise to his disciples or anyone with direct witness to him, he only promised it to a thief who was crucified for his crimes, but had faith.So if you want me to scientificly prove Gods existence, not only wont I try, Ill just tell you to have a nice afterlife.

cult speak. the "insert god of choice here" values faith over evidence-based belief argument can be used to justify belief in anything, including things that are objectively false. it's an excuse to believe in something, not a reason.

[crowTrobot 2]

If you gentlemen cannot get along and follow the proper protocol while presenting your respective cases, I will have no choice but to hold you both in contempt and have you thrown from my fucking courtroom.

BG hasn't been playing nice while you were gone. he needs to be spanked. or dismembered. or something.

[crowTrobot 2]

It is difficult to articulate "Why" I believe wat I do. It just makes more sense to me that there is a purpose for life, If mankind and all the incredible strides we have made are just the result of totally random and haphazard circumstances of cosmological chance, I dont see the point of life at all.

that's cool, but it's a massive jump from believing we are here for a purpose to believing in fundamentalist christianity.

[colonel Feathers 5]

that's cool, but it's a massive jump from believing we are here for a purpose to believing in fundamentalist christianity.

You will have to define fundamentalist christianity before I will say if I ascribe to it. I believe in the Divinity of Jesus, salvation by faith and the resurection. Why I believe this in real time? Probably for the same reason I believe the sun will rise tomorow. I cant prove it will, but I still believe it. Then some will say, why not believe in santa claus ? Maybe cause their aint one, and his existence couldnt stand the test of time, whereas Jesus Has.

[Mills 0]

Why I believe this in real time? Probably for the same reason I believe the sun will rise tomorow.youve also seen the sun "rise" over and over again.... that is what's known as empirical evidence,When was the last time you saw jesus?

[colonel Feathers 5]

Why I believe this in real time? Probably for the same reason I believe the sun will rise tomorow.youve also seen the sun "rise" over and over again.... that is what's known as empirical evidence,When was the last time you saw jesus?

When I was 9. Wont go into details cause it would do no good.

[Mills 0]

I almost didnt even ask that question, because I knew I was gonna get an anecdotal response.....point is... Millions of people see the sun rise, every day, and have for millions of years.. There is no debate about this.. No one could possibly deny that they see the sun...can the same really be said for jesus?