Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
I recommend you get your facts straight and not judge based on what they told you or what you heard but to actually see for yourself because otherwise you are nothing bot a mindless drone instead of having your own opinions.
Even though they get made fun of yelled at, not getting paid they feel its the right thing to do so they go out and do it and I have a lot of respect for them.
Well than we`re way of base aren`t we. Besides I said before my concern is mainly with the damnation of people not givent he chance to be advised by the bible.
Oh and am I completely wrong or did God not punish the egyptians by killing their innocent children?
This is a bunch of crap. I`m sorry, but your run around on words is just confusing manipulation to make a point that isn`t there. Whatever similarities you might acertain, they have nothing to do with the specific way in which your comparing the two.
I didn`t say that.
On a side note, questions like the justice of God, although I am intellectually convinced on how natural disasters and such can coexist with God, I am always emotionally unconvinced (Haiti, 911, Tsunamis, etc.).
I think the similarities between logic and God are important enough to make that analogy, and the differences between logic and God does not refute the analogy. They are both immaterial or conceptual by nature, they are independent of the physical world for existence, but their manifestation to the physical world does not have a bearing on its existence. The fact that logic can be defined this way and that God can be defined another way, or better yet, math can be defined this way and art can be defined that way doesn`t preclude their analogies.
This in itself is conflicting, because it implies that God makes judgment without reason. I am not a believer but I live, and live well despite God. God chooses to kill innocent believers to control population? That doesn`t even make any sense since "God" has been "killing" innocents for thousands of years, and only in the age of industrialization and medical advancement our population has boomed, with a decrease in mor
Again, no it`s not. Logic is method of thinking and problem solving, while "God" is a conceptual being who`s "rule" over the masses is not to be contested as stated by the bible. You are trying to make comparisons between unlike things. You`re not really a lawyer are you? If you are, you are robbing people of their hard earned money, because you clearly do not understand how to make appropriate analogies and logical comparisons.
Ok, it`s also like saying. Logic is used to justify killing millions of innocents, therefore logic is not real. Logic is not physical, it is immaterial.
The justice of God, to be honest with you, is the toughest aspect of God. Also, to only describe God as kind and fair, although is necessary, but not sufficient to describe God. God, by definition is also just. The thing that helps me, and you can just simply disagree with me on this, is that theists believe that death is not the final outcome. You can probably at this point think of the Marxian definition of `opiate of the masses` to control the population, etc. But that explanation does not necessarily preclude the existence of God.
No it`s not, because Hitler was physical man. He was here. It`s a fact. God is a faith. The God concept also purports that he kind and fair, so yes the killing of innocents raises issues for me. It`s sort of conflicting don`t you think? It`s not a fallacy.
I`m gonna sleep now.
A common fallacy that atheists like to assert is that they deny the existence of God because the Judeo-Christian concept of God does not meet their expectations. They will ask questions like, I don`t believe in God because God is a murderer of innocents. It`s like me saying, I don`t believe in the existence of Hitler because he committed such atrocities.
I have more concern with the ignorance of sin. Is this not a problem?
I`m not dogmatic about this issue because this is a pretty "sticky" gray issue in the Bible. Passages like Second Samuel 12:23 shows that David wanted to be with his dead baby and expects to be reunited with him. We know that David was a believer and united with God. Admittedly, this is less than stalwart.
Also, Matthew 18:1-6, and 19;13-15 affirms Lord`s love for them.
This sort of segways into your question BumbleBB, and if anything, we know that Scripture teaches that condemnation is based on the clear rejection of God`s revelation--whether general or specific--not simple ignorance of it. Luke 10:16; John 12:48; 1 Thess. 4:8.
I would have to refer you to a minister of the faith.
I know you`re just kind of randomly tossing balls here, but you`ve sort of unwittingly entered a game a murder ball. Just a heads up.
Seriously, are you high?
The first comment about the Nihilist was just rambling.
The point I`m trying to make now is that there`s the possibility that we aren`t born a clean slate. Such as with genetics.Though, I know next to nothing about the science of genetics, so I`m just throwing it out.
BUT WHAT ABOUT MY EXAMPLE OF PEOPLE NOT EXPOSED TO CHRISTIANITY!?!?!?! Someone please address it.
I believe in that statement because I believe it reasonably follows from the Bible, which I hold as an authoritative source of the truth. There are many supernatural things in the Bible that seem contrary to the naturalistic explanation that the scientific method offers. My biggest point is probably that if you presume the view that everything can only be explained naturalistically, then yeah, it is rubbish to believe that babies are born as Christians. However, keep in mind that if you adhere to the view that the naturalistic explanation is omniscient and the sole arbiter of truth, you have presumed it and defined out any supernatural explanation.
Though, in irony, the belief that we were not born as a blank slate led to genetics.
So, before you throw the "r" word, don`t discount anything as retarded because it contradicts your view.
I`m not trying to get at anything, bub. I`m trying to point out how retarded your statement of "I believe babies can be born Christians" is.
What levels?Also, what about my question?
In part this is incumbent upon which definition of atheism we are employing. Obviously, we are not born positively asserting God’s non-existence. Thus, the claim is that we are all born lacking a belief in God. Logically, this claim is accurate only at this point and is actually not successfully applicable beyond this point.
If you want to define atheism as "blank slate," then go on ahead. If so, then your claim "we are all born atheists" follows. Further, I agree that environment plays a role in your religion, but we both know that`s not what you`re trying to get at.
Atheists who make this argument claim that this argument demonstrates that man is not God-made but that God is man-made. In other words, they claim that we only believe in God because someone taught us to believe in God, often during childhood before we were able to consider the claim rationally. Yet, this claim is faulty on many levels.
Wouldn`t it be more accurate to say we`re Nihilists in that line of thought?
i just need this one question answered for me. Christianity was never a religion that ruled the entire world. In fact it`s following was initially a pathetically small portion of Europe until an egomaniac who`s narcissism rivaled "God" forced the masses to conform. So what about the people who are born into cultures where there is no knowledge of the Christian God? Where they do things like practice polygamy and cannibalism. Are these people just unfortunate enough to be doomed to eternal damnation? Never given a chance to be "right" in Gods eyes? How can this happen?
> You: Why do you presume atheism is the default? Just because you believe so doesn`t mean it is so. I believe babies can be born Christians. Like how you say you believe babies are born atheists, I believe I have the right to say babies can be born Christians.[/quote]
Excuse me for a second... *takes off Mod hat, dons regular user hat*
Are you actually retarded? So a baby born in Saudi Arabia, Mumbai, or a village in the Serengeti is born Christian? No, they`re born atheist, they`re blank hard drives, they don`t belive anything until they`re indoctrinated with whatever religion they get surrounded by.
You statement is one of most f*cking retarded things I have ever witnessed. And believe me, I see more retarded sh*t than most, on a daily basis. Jesus. (no pun intended)
cause if he does exist he is an evil greedy bastard :D
If you are always going to fall back on a faith argument, don`t waste anyone`s time trying to argue religion/spirituality on any other grounds, because you cant. Instead you just concede small points that `nobody can disprove` and you regard this as evidence and a rationalization for your faith, because your faith isn`t really faith at all. It is a belief based on horrible horrible logic and evidence, or more aptly, quips.
Here is where your argument falls apart. I can show you an airplane. I can show you a picture of one (not an interpretation of what one might be...an actual photograph of a real airplane), I can have you touch an airplane, sit in an airplane, fly an airplane, hell, I can even have you jump out of an airplane. The belief in "god" however requires faith. My belief in the existence of airplanes does not require faith as it`s appearance can be demonstrated and reproduced for others. Belief in a deity cannot be.
And death is rather permanent after about 5 min. after one expires, so that kinda makes the "resurrection" a lie as well.
Religion as a whole needs to evolve, for all the preaching about `sin` and `salvation` from the early myth makers, are just that, MYTHS.
That`s interesting. Aren`t all babies born into original sin, as Psalms 51:5 suggests?Also, what about babies that are born into different cultures with different religions? Are they born Muslim? What about babies that are born into secular families? Are they just untapped Christians? If they stay untapped Christians their whole lives, shouldn`t they go to heaven just as a baby would?
And I nearly held in the laugh. It was so close.
Nah, you need intelligence on both sides to have a debate.. :)
Sometimes it takes a bit of torture and threats of eternal damnation.. But eventually the position holds... for a while.
and I like LOL-ing at you. All`s fair on the internet! :D
when will i learn? you cant EVER say the word god around here without pages and pages of rants.
"The point made is that no child has ever known of a god before being introduced to the concept by other people. No child has never said "Jesus Christ died for my sins" without being told so by a priest or their parents or whatever. So how can you claim they are born Christian when they`ve never heard of Jesus until they`re told?"
Thanks for your follow up questions, and I believe you bring up good points. Also, I thank you for not resorting to ad-hominems.
This is just my belief, and you can take it for what it`s worth. If Christians assume that infants can go to heaven, then we have to assume that infants are Christians from conception. This is a big field in Christianity called (don`t laugh) "paedofaith." It seems consistent with Biblical accounts, for example, John the Baptist was "filled with the holy spirit" at birth.
However, before you`re convinced of that, you must assume God exists, that God is the Christian God, an
Just because belief in God is something that is taught does not discredit belief in God. It would be fallacious to claim that God does not exist because human beings invented the idea of God’s existence. Likewise, just because belief/knowledge in airplanes is something that is taught does not mean that airplanes does not exists.
They key phrase here is "in a debate". There is no debate within the scientific community that evolution happens as both theory and fact. So I am not an evolutionist, any more than I am a gravityist, an Ohmist, a thermodynamicist, a Maxwell`s equations-ist, a Becquerelist, a Pythagorist (or should that be Pythagorasist? Just add -ist right?), a Faradayist etc etc etc.
The point made is that no child has ever known of a god before being introduced to the concept by other people. No child has never said "Jesus Christ died for my sins" without being told so by a priest or their parents or whatever. So how can you claim they are born Christian when they`ve never heard of Jesus until they`re told?
Atheism IS, at its basics, the lack of belief in god. That`s IT. Whether or the idea of god is rejected is up to the adult. Look at it this way: Let`s say there`s a society that believes in the Great Gshngihr. You happen to have never heard of such a being. With you having not even an idea of it, would it be right to say that you reject Gshngihr? No, you simply have no belief IN such a being. As an adult, one can both lack belief IN Gshngihr AND believe that it does not exist (given that you HAVE heard of Gshngihr).
Do continue commenting and showcasing your stupidity.
Even if it were true that people are born atheists and not theists, it would have no bearing on whether or not atheism is true, and ultimately have no bearing on actual truth. For example, if infants are born without the knowledge of airplanes, that has no bearing on the validity of airplanes.
lol @ mercedzdanz and his incredible stupidity. You know what, I guess babies CAN be born with the thought that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was the Son of God sent down to pay the price for all of mankind`s sins. Actually, no, babies don`t think that. What to babies do? Could they simply be born without a belief in god? BINGO! Just like they are born without a belief in Santa, it`s taught to them.
If you`re going to say because it goes against all of science, then my reply is why is science omniscient?"
Why do you presume atheism is the default? Just because you believe so doesn`t mean it is so.
"No baby was ever born Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu."
I believe babies can be born Christians. Like how you say you believe babies are born atheists, I believe I have the right to say babies can be born Christians.
If you`re going to say because it goes against all of science, then my reply is why is science omniscient?
"Male, 18-29. 18 hopefully. If 29, is stupid."
...and absolutely nothing else to contribute to either side of the argument. (Hell he could have at least checked my profile and seen that I`m 21!)
But yes, this is IAB home of the slightly-NSFW. I probably shouldn`t have expected a ton more.
...but then this is a site for bad tattoos, FBI-quality hard drive content, and games with balls.
Hells yeah! Give me the respect I C~R~A~V~E. Oh, and I guess I could throw a little back your ways...
oh and almightybob1... yes if you accept anything you are an ist. If you identify yourself as a subscriber of a particular belief in a debate you are that plus ist. This is how language works. Now that you have been educated on the matter you may call your self a lingu... wait for it... ist!
You can`t "convert" to atheism. You can only "revert" to atheism. Atheism is simply the default starting condition. No baby was ever born Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu. We`re taught how to be that way by our parents, society and religious leaders. Atheism is vanilla.
Second point, Pui, don`t be an arse with your "I LOL @ you guys" and your popcorn-munching. Some of us here at IAB enjoy getting into these interesting, intelligent debates (I mean that with genuine (I hope mutual) respect to all involved, including Farside). Maybe you`d prefer to see a site full of comments like "ROFLcopterz!, LOL!, I agree, F1RsT, and REPOST!", but I for one value IAB for what it is. And the engaged users don`t like to be LOL`d at for standing up and expressing their beliefs, whatever they may be.
The point you completely missed was that it doesn`t work as a point of argument against atheist because they don`t believe in it, just as saying "prove god exists" isn`t gonna work on christians because they do. The word "done" did not cement either of these arguments, just as it didn`t cement your anger laced comment just now.
You must work at my local McD`s, because THEY do.
I`m sorry this is too funny to pass up on...
DUDE. Your debate skills are so pro, you should drop that one on everybody! Before you know it, the whole world will have converted to atheism!!! And the "DONE" part just cements it at so solid, there`s no way anyone could argue with it!
Here, let me try!
What, why didn`t it work?
But anyways, you might want to learn how to spell exist first...I pass typically on mispellings for the sake of speed, but really?
What I can`t observe however is the origins of man which is what evolution is trying to explain, and I also have never heard of someone observing monkeys turning into people over the course of generations, or anything in between, so how can it be called a law? It`s a theory with partially proveable segments to it."
Observed does not mean `seen in real-time with my own two eyes`. Evolution has been observed to occur through the fossil record.
And, as any high-school biology student can tell you, you don`t prove theories. You can`t. There is no way to conclusively prove that a theory will apply at all times and at all places in the universe- science does not claim absolute truth. If you want proof, take a math class. Science deals only in evidence, and the appellation of theory indicates that there is a boatload of evidence in its favor and not a bit of contradictory data.
I`m also sorry for going back when I said I wouldn`t post anymore, but I wanted to clear a few things up.
I`ve relatively enjoyed posting on IAB, even the arguments, but if people are going to be "asshats" and act all hostile (including a mod...way to set an example!) and tell me to kill myself because of my beliefs (btw, I don`t go to church or even pray...it`s just a very mellow set of values), I can just go back to 4chan, where all the mature people who hate goatse are.
If you want I`ll change my statement to "I disagree with the possibility that we came from the same line as apes." I linked the image as it was the first to pop up on google images, and I thought it funny that it was a simplified kids version and fit the situation.
Oh and the earth isn`t a perfect sphere. It`s an oblate spheroid. Suck on that. But of course I must be making a bunch of idiotic points because my IQ is that of a complete retard, yet I scored a 2170 on the SAT four years ago. Surely a teenager who still watches Invader Zim must know better.
bumbleBB, you need to do some reading too. A fact is not some level-up of a theory or law.Also, what`s with the "evolutionist"? If I accept that V=IR would you call me an Ohmist?
That should straighten out a few of the biggest problems.
Holy Drat, that`s unusual for a religious post on IAB!
that is all. bye
-uses that line forever from now on-
Vindictive, I don`t think Farsidedown has an IQ higher than the number of toes he has.
p.s. did he really just link an image from a kids` website advising how to do a science fair project as an explanation of Scientific Theory? I believe he did...
Gay Hippie: They called me crazy for building this ark. Old Hippie: You ARE crazy. You filled it with same sex animal couples. Gay Hippie: Hey, there are parts of the Bible I like and parts I don`t like
a theory is on par with a law. a law is based on quantitative (ie. numerical) data, while a theory is qualitative (observed and proven through the use of the scientific method) data. both are accepted in the scientific community as being legitimate. i thought we all learned this in the third grade.
No sh*t, Sherlock. You`re the asshat who thinks that one must have 100% absolute certainty of something to consider it a fact. The facts are these, Farsidedown: the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, as is the evidence of the Earth being a sphere. Good day asshat!
Ok, so why do you believe in god?did you see him make the universe?why do you believe there was a global flood?did you see that?
Also, it`s ape-like creatures that became human, not monkeys.
Oh, and just because I caught it...
There it is, broken down in it`s simplest form just for you! You can only partially prove it, so it remains a theory until you have 100% evidence. Calm down good sir!
Same to you BB! Happy V-Day!
Alright NOW I`m done!
Farsidedown, you fail epically.
Evolution is both a theory AND a fact, you moron. Read a goddamn biology book for once.
"Also, you shouldn`t provide evidence that is actually incomplete and not evidence, but hypothetical. I don`t have a problem with faith on the whole. I just have a problem with people trying to pretend faith is science, and trying to prove science is wrong with faith."
I agree, it isn`t a science, and I`m sorry if I ever made it appear that it was.
And @ catbarf:
Both nuclear science and gravity can be observed and laws explain them. That`s fine.
What I can`t observe however is the origins of man which is what evolution is trying to explain, and I also have never heard of someone observing monkeys turning into people over the course of generations, or anything in between, so how can it be called a law? It`s a theory with partially proveable segments to it.
and finally Mornaf:
what did you expect? I didn`t ask you to try to prove evolution to me and I have no problem with you believing it, yet you have a problem with me believin
Farsidedown, that statement alone shows your ignorance of the scientific method. F*ck your asshattery.
oh, sorry I don`t see how perfectly intelligent it is to believe in an all-powerful being who can read minds.
Actually, that statement probably reduced our size by at least half a percent. I should sue you for causing large, irreparable damage to my religion, you little Hitler youth.
But when your proof against Christianity is evolution (a theory-not a law-it can`t be entirely proven according to the scientific method) then I`ve got to make a point.
You don`t see me going, "Evolution isn`t true, because of creation!" I was only saying that you cannot concretely prove it, and thus was merely drawing parallels between both of our dilemnas.
But of course now it`s broken down into kids going, "Yeah? Prove God exists!"...which is just stupid. Sorry BB, I was having fun (I really think it turned into a cool little debate and was good practice for me), but you`ve got to calm your people down. I`m done here.
That said t
Jews suck!... well, I don`t think any Jews died from my statement, so STFU, videogamer.
Also, you shouldn`t provide evidence that is actually incomplete and not evidence, but hypothetical. I don`t have a problem with faith on the whole. I just have a problem with people trying to pretend faith is science, and trying to prove science is wrong with faith.
On that note, we Jews should get added protection from similar libel, since a single, well-placed remark could spell the end of Judaism.
It`s not hypocrisy. That which is already the most powerful does not deserve further protection.
Where`s your evidence that there isn`t a God?[/quote]
Ummmmm, welcome to the 21st Century, Farsidedown. That`s not how the f*ck we advance. Thanks for holding us back.
They are just as strong because they deal with different phenomena.
Fact: An observed event.
Law: Observation of a process. Laws describe facts and make predictions regarding them, but do not explain how or why the facts occur.
Theory: An explanation of a process. Theories can never become law, nor are they ever `proven`. They can only be demonstrated to be accurate in a variety of circumstances and scenarios, and are ideas that have never been found wanting. If they are ever discarded, it will be because they are replaced with a more accurate model that yields the same results in the existing scenarios the older theory was used in.
Evolution, gravity, and nuclear theory are all theories accepted by the scientific community and supported with large volumes of evidence. Denying that speciation occurs is like denying that nuclear bombs function.
Where`s your evidence that there isn`t a God?
I have faith, is that not enough for me?[/quote]
Good god I was hoping you wouldn`t use that.not because it wins, but because that is just a stupid argument.here,
I AM A GIANT FLYING TURTLE! I HAVE ADAPTED TO USE THIS CLEVER COMPUTER AND TYPE THIS!Now, proof I`m not. I have faith I am, isn`t that good enough?
now doesn`t that just sound stupid?The burden of proof does not rest on atheist shoulders.it rests on you, and your religion.until you find proof, I will continue to believe your god is fiction.
Sticking to this flood thing for a second- Weil is mostly publicised through the website "Green Prophet" which includes among it`s affiliates The Alliance of Religions and Conservation, Green Zionist Alliance, and The Evangelical Ecologist. Not exactly what I would call an impartial scientific institution.
Besides, there are many more researchers that say the area flood of the Danube Delta which you speak of to be more like 2000km2, not "four times the size of Israel" as Weil (a philanthropist with no scientific qualifications whatsover) states. That`s about half the size of Long Island, NY, hardly a global flood.
Put in perspective, the area of the flood you`re referring to covered the light blue area in the top left of this pic:
The thing is, if this being is "perfect" why would he create the universe?If something is perfect, it is at equilibrium: in other words, it needs nothing.So why did god create the universe?So why are humans, his most perfect creation, flawed by his standards?
I have faith, is that not enough for me?
No it`s not, that was dumb.
and BB...that was just a study done for the area, they were operating from a boat, so it`s kind of hard for them to go on land and take the same samples, though like I said, similar deposits of sediment have been found all over the world.
In our system, the bible may have been written by men, but they were inspired by directly by God to write what they did. It may sound crazy but that`s what I believe, and there`s no proving or disproving it. I just think it sounds more sane than that we all spawned from atoms that randomly decided to form together into proteins and come alive.
Wheres your evidence of a god?
It is a law AND a theory, as is evolution. The law observes the process. The theory explains it. It`s an observed fact that speciation occurs- the theory of evolution is the well-documented, uncontroversially-supported explanation of the process by which speciation occurs.
Whatever goodness their prophet (if he even existed) spoke has been wiped away by over 2000 years of unremitting ignorance, repression and evil.
THAT "is what`s with all the any-Xian posts lately". Some people are awake to this fact and post their disgust here.
Look I don`t want to argue semantics with you because you clearly are not understanding me. My point is that the degree of evidence is totally different. Say I have a box of Smarties and they go missing. The only evidence is a blue hand print. You happen to believe that there is blue ink leaking God and that he has done it. I don`t and see a bucket of blue paint by the front door, with drip marks all over. I draw the conclusion someone with blue paint their hands probably did it. My argument has more weight.
Nontheless. This is a bullpoo argument because it has nothing to do with anything. Do you see how easy it is to make confusing seemingly logical arguments? I`ve even confused myself.
But then you go and demand we find irrefutable proof of our not 100% certain things.
I submit to you..., Find proof the biblical god exists.and it better be irrefutable.also, the bible is just a book until you find him, no cheating.
It doesn`t change the fact that evolution is still just a theory...requiring belief without 100% certainty, just as Christianity is a religion...requiring belief without 100% certainty.
You have evidence that we may have spawned from primordial soup, and I have evidence that God may have gone and dropped a ton of water on us.
It`s called the law of gravity not theory.
"We found the missing link already..."
I`m guessing you googled that cuz it was the first thing to pop up. Congrats you may have just linked lemurs to primates. Now try linking primates to humans. It MAY be a "missing link" but it`s sure not THE missing link.
"EcoOcean and an international team believe they have found evidence to substantiate what is written in the Bible.Says Weil, "We found that indeed a flood happened around that time. From core samples, we see that a flood broke through the natural barrier separating the Mediterranean Sea and the freshwater Black Sea, bringing with it seashells that only grow in a marine environment. There was no doubt that it was a fast flood -- one that covered an expanse four times the size of Israel."
I also read about it in my geology book a ways back...of course there`s a lot of arguments going on in the scientific community whether it`s true evidence of not, but I can`t really link that. That and I didn`t want to link something directly off a christian site(or youtube), because that would be biased..
You mean like the theory of gravity?Guess you don`t believe in that either.sooooo we are obviously held to the earth by god`s love for us..., isn`t dat sweeeeet.
"Oh MAN does if that didn`t just piss me off more than any other single thing I`ve ever read on IAB. Grade-A, top-class, utter, pure unadulterated bullsh*t."
Sounds more like something you`d find on youtube than coming out of the mouth of a mod.
And while we`re at it, while I tried to make a factual statement about atheist vs christian comments on fb, evolution being a theory not a law, and evidence of the flood, you`ve done nothing but make false assumptions and whine about my claims...and love on Darwin.
But of course somewhere you missed that I`ve just been trying to have a typical fun IAB discussion, which I step into knowing full and well that there are some MASSIVE differences between people on here.
I can have evidence for the flood without an arc while you can have evidence for evolution without the missing li
Sure you guys don`t look like indoctrinated sheep. You just typically act like *ssholes
I`ve watched most of them. They`re from a youtube user called Thunderf00t (that link below was just a mirror). You can find others on his channel if you`re interested- There`s about 30 or so in this series, and they`re all they`re all well-informed, factual and interesting.
Isn`t this the way any religious script is meant to be used?
"God" forbid that anyone would use it in context...
I wouldn`t say it make us cool, but it certainly doesn`t make us look like indoctrinated sheep!
Ha, I love the world... it`s thanks to people like that that I seem way smarter than I really am!! Thanks for making the rest of the world seem less stupid in comparison Farsidedown, ur a true hero!
Oh MAN does if that didn`t just piss me off more than any other single thing I`ve ever read on IAB. Grade-A, top-class, utter, pure unadulterated bullsh*t.
Are you referring to this CRAP?
I had a similar question myself. If God makes everyone in his own image, and we are all his children, then if he didn`t want to create something, he wouldn`t have. It`s like I can make characters in my own stories love me or hate me, and I don`t hate them for being who they are, because I -made- them that way, and I like how they turned out.
Well... you could try to make fun of people who understand evolution by talking about how you think it is silly we evolved from monkeys, but you would actually look like a fool for displaying how very little you know about evolution.
No, but I see atheist friends post just as often. But that`s ok, being atheist makes you cool, right? RIGHT? :/
*looks around* Sorry, who believes that?
You can make fun of Christianity all you want, but, when someone wants to defend what they believe in you shouldn`t slap them down. If you believe in something that`s what you`re supposed to do. Defend it.
Maybe, we aren`t the defensive ones.I could make fun of people who believe we evolved from monkeys, but I don`t. So, what`s the point in making fun of us? We haven`t done anything but stand up for what we believe in.
The Bible says to WORK, from the very beginning.
If there is a God I`m sure he/she/it has a sense of humor.
Actually, no, he didn`t. He did not believe in a personal god, but rather that nature was "god" in a sense.just to make this clear"God does not play dice with the universe"could be said in a more scientific way as"Probability is not at the heart of all things."
Albert Einstein for example believed in God. So to say such things are for stupid people is ignorant.
Leave them alone. Do you make fun of Jews too for not eating certain foods and believing in a flood?
THAT "is what`s with all the any-Xian posts lately". Some people are awake to this fact and post their disgust here.
Christianity = false, thats why.
They get a lot of hits and comments. So, seeing that IAB exists solely for the purpose of making money, they put up links that they think will get a lot of hits.