The Case for Christianity -- Part 1

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by mclaren777, Apr 11, 2006.

  1.  
  2. why are you even having this discussion? proving God exists, even if one does, will never happen, and it's hardly the focal point of any major world religion.
     
  3. "I wouldn't say that atheists are scared. I do believe, however, that atheists warrant no greater level of attention when it comes to them expounding their views, over Christians."

    no kidding, in the real world christian views have a lot more influence than athiest by far.

    "Athiests, like every group in a society, contains members who believe the core of atheism for varying reasons."

    The only core of atheism is believing there is no God.

    "Contrary to popular opinion however, atheists do have faith, just not in the same place that Christians (or any other form of theism). Atheists have their views, Christians have theirs and atheists are certainly not, be any means, WHATSOEVER, of greater intelligence, wisdom, understanding, education or willpower over Christians."

    Please elaborate on "Athiests have faith" because they certainly do not in a higher power.

    I always consider christians opinions and do not consider them intellectually inferior, I just debate them because I believe they are generally wrong but respect their choices.

    Also if anything the real world is opposite to sc.net. If you publically admit that you are an athiest, you're considered an outcast of sorts. In the political arena (USA) if you claim to be an athiest, that's a sure fire way not to get voted for.
     
  4. dont mind him. his thinking is that christianity is under ever-present attack, including in all intellectual realms. but then at the same time differentiates between "christian" and "secular" science, when there is no such delineation- just bullshit and not bullshit, and they're not exclusive to either faux-category.
     
  5. Because he said atheism is based on faith not the most logical conclusion based on availible evidence. If there was evidence proving a god then atheism would be based on faith.
     
  6. I agree with them that athiests do have a faith of sorts. I (like the guy in the audio clip) define faith as making a step of trust or belief when presented with good reason to do so. You cannot prove there is no God, but atheists make that step of belief based upon their view evidence presented to them, just like Christians choose to believe what they do based upon what is presented to them.
     
  7. Unfortunately I have yet to find the time to listen to the whole clip and analyze it, so I really cannot comment on what he says other than the accounts given on SC.Net. Hopefully I'll get the time to do it later tonight.
     
  8. but see you're playing a game of semantics. "faith" isnt just "belief in that which doesn't rest on logical proof". faith also is confident belief in the truth of something, regardless of the level of its veracity.

    for example, i have faith in a divine being. a true atheist has faith no such being exists. it doesnt mean atheism is a "faith" aka a religion, but it's all just semantics. -see, ive managed to use the word "faith" in three different ways here in just two paragraphs.

    anyways, this holds up because proving the existence of a god one way or the other is never going to happen unless whatever may be there makes itself blatantly known to those of us here and alive to witness it.
     
  9. I see your point, then it would be agnostics who really have no belief.
     
  10. even then i'd disagree. i mean at best, agnosticism claims that certainty of absolute truth of the divine is something we can never attain, and frankly that's the point of view i hold, though i still have a belief.

    unless you count within the definition of agnostic also those who say "well, because there can be no proof one way or the other that God exists, ill just not bother either way"...
     
  11. I believe that most rational people to some degree, of any faith, would agree with that first statement.

    I take agnoticism as more of "I've looked at both sides and I cannot draw a conclusion either way". I also see it as more of a scale rather than a set point like thiest or athiest. Ultimatly I would classify myself as agnostic leaning towards athiest. While I don't believe that a God Exists I do believe that the possibility for one is there.
     
  12. yea, im just going on a more literal definition i guess.
     
  13. But the majority of atheists would probably change their mind if shown any convincing evidence that there is a god whereas the majority of christians believe in their god while freaquently facing evidence that their god doesn't exist. Does it require any faith to believe that Xenu doesn't exist and isn't locked away in his underground prison? Neither of us can completely disprove that but it doesn't mean theres any rational reason to believe it. I can't see how not believing in something because there is no evidence availible can equal faith.
     
  14. what is the evidence that God doesnt exist? that such a being is not readily obvious? furthermore, how do we even test for the existence of God? sit on top of a steeple and flick of the heavens?

    no. it cant be proven or disproven, and it never will. you say it doesnt mean there's a rational reason, but one can philosophize on the concept and make a pretty rational idea of the existence and/or nature of a God. hell, i did it. and there's absolutely no way you or anyone can slap it down because it's just as possible as the next guy's theory, based on what little we know beyond our own universe.
     
  15. - He admits good people will go to hell just because they arn't christians and infers to some degree that this isn't a very nice thing for jesus to do.

    Yeah, that's what the Bible teaches. People have one of two choices. They can either pay the price for their own actions, in which case God's judgment will fall on them. Or they can accept the free gift of forgiveness through trust in Jesus, in which case God's judgment will fall on him.
    ___________________________

    - He assumes his religion is the only correct one and provides no evidence to support this.

    Like I've mentioned a couple times before, that comes in Part 2. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
    ___________________________

    - Claims that faith in christianity isn't really important and that there is ample evidence capable of proving it to be true.

    I really think you need to re-listen to the last half of his presentation. True biblical faith is evidence which produces knowledge in which people can place their trust. It's not that faith isn't important--it's that our modern definition has become rather weak. Here, check out this verse from Romans 3: "Men's sins can be forgiven through the blood of Christ when they put their trust in Him."
    ___________________________

    - Claims that the OT is literal and various miracles actually occured.

    Yeah, so?
    ___________________________

    And let's take a look at the performance of miracles from a biblical perspective...

    Who used to perform miracles back in the day? Jesus, for sure. The Apostles did some in the name of Jesus. The OT prophets performed a few to display God's power to the nation of Israel. And a select handful of men who God specifically singled out for a chosen purpose (like Moses).

    But even back when crazy things were happening (like donkeys speaking to people, or dudes walking on water) not everybody knew about it. The purpose of miracles has always been to bring glory to God, but they are still limited by time and space (not everybody gets to enjoy them first-hand). So who's to say that miracles still aren't happening, and perhaps we're just not aware of them? Talk to any missionary and they'll tell you of all sorts of crazy things that God has done in their midst. So I contend that they're still happening, in spite of our cluelessness.
     
  16. Acts 10:44–48. that's all ill say (for now <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/tongue.gif"></A>).
     
  17. I think I know what you're implying, but let's save that discussion for anothet time/place.
     
  18. haha, fine.
     
  19. It may be a bit off, but there's something to be said for how few people have downloaded this file. It's been 24 hours and still only 18 people have downloaded it, but once you consider that I've download it once (just to check that the link worked) and a couple of my Christian friends have as well, that means probably only 12 people from here have actually listened to it. So either they just don't care (which is definitely a possibility) or they're scared of what they may hear. But whatever the case, I really hope a lot more people listen to Part 2 because that's the primary segment in this series.
     
  20. #170 Orange F1LM, Apr 12, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  21. Yeah this pretty much sums it up.
     
  22. My point is proved.
     
  23. I'm not an atheist, but I would still disagree. There is no "faith" in atheism. It isn't required. Without any real evidence to the contrary, no "step" is required. It is just a conclusion, as much as I can conclude that I will eventually die. Can I prove this unequivocally? No. Do I need "faith" to know this? No.


    What gets me about your post...if someone were to come to the average person claiming Wiccan was the true path, or that they converse with the dead, would they be held not to have "greater intelligence, wisdom, understanding, education etc"?

    I see Christianity, Wiccan, Greek "Myth"ology etc all in the same light...each, no more right than the other. Your post seems to validate this exact point.
     
  24. i make a motion that religion is never mentioned on scnet again
     
  25. Good luck with that.
     

Share This Page