We think; therefore, God exists
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#21 Apr 5, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
At least it proves that atheism isn't true.
I'm cool with that. I will join all fellow abiders at the Holy Beer Volcano.
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>And I'm honestly saying, my uncle is a scientist, he is a Christian, he had done it for 20years, so just because you're a theist, doesn't mean you don't know science.
Indeed. Many Christians accept evolutionary biology also. This includes Ken Miller who brought evidence to the Dover court trials in 2005, and Francis Collins, former head of the Genome Sequencing Project.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#22 Apr 6, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
And I'm honestly saying, my uncle is a scientist, he is a Christian, he had done it for 20years, so just because you're a theist, doesn't mean you don't know science.
Lots of theists know science. But it doesn't mean that they apply scientific thinking to their beliefs.

Usually theist scientists just can't make the connection - its called cognitive dissonance. 95% of the worlds most respected scientists are athiests.

These are the people who understand what makes up our universe and they have access to more evidence than anyone else.

And they are atheist. This should tell us all something.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#23 Apr 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm cool with that. I will join all fellow abiders at the Holy Beer Volcano.
<quoted text>
Many Christians accept evolutionary biology also.
It's easy for any theist to accept evolutionary biology, especially so if they you don't understand that how it works to disprove religious beliefs.
spandexxx

Voorhout, Netherlands

#24 Apr 6, 2013
Brother Edward wrote:
In his book, There is a God, ex-atheist Anthony Flew writes:
“Even if one subscribes to some far-fetched scenario of the origin of life, one would have take leave of one’s senses to suggest that, given certain conditions, a piece of marble could produce concepts. And, at a subatomic level, what holds for the table holds for all the other matter in the universe.”
The bottom line is that matter cannot give rise to mind. It’s not possible. For the very thoughts we possess would have to be triggered by neurons, and those neurons would have to be triggered in such a way that one neuron or one set of neurons would trigger another in a chain until the thought was finally manifested.
But somewhere the thought has to originate and that would take us all the way to the very first neuron that fires. That first neuron would have to hold all the information about that thought in such a way that it knew just how to start the chain reaction. The very simplest thought would require a miracle from a single neuron, and that simply isn’t possible.
The existence of thoughts are ultimately the poof of the spiritual world. And if there is a spiritual world, and we know that we came to exist at our birth, then there must be a creator who is also spiritual in nature.
Therefore, because we think, God exists.
Br. Edward Gordon
http://veridican.org
There are many parts wrong about this story like the neuron part but lets just forget all that and name the elifant in the room.
If the mind and character of a human is sepperate from the body/ matter like you state please explain how people after having a stroke can have a completly change in their personality...or when a person has dementia that person can not even remember their own childrens name or even remember that they have children?
If mind and matter are sepperate this could not happen.
Imhotep

Hernando, FL

#25 Apr 7, 2013
This forum title is an oxymoron.

This looks like something that should belong on church marquee.

Today’s scholars can only use the known, that is historical reigning Roman Emperors as a reference in determining dates.

So, since the Bible clearly and unambiguously claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the King, then he, Jesus, had to have been born no later than 4 B.C.

What a delicious irony!

Jesus could only have been born a minimum of four years before the birth of Jesus.

After you stop laughing though, consider the import of this paradox.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#26 Apr 7, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
This forum title is an oxymoron.
...Today’s scholars can only use the known, that is historical reigning Roman Emperors as a reference in determining dates.
So, since the Bible clearly and unambiguously claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the King, then he, Jesus, had to have been born no later than 4 B.C....
This supposes that Jesus was one individual, but he is arguably a composite character. Most of what is attributed to Jesus (like that attributed to Mohammed) was actually written long after he died. We don't actually know anything they said for sure.'Christ's/Mohammed's teaching' possibly owes little or nothing to Jesus/Mo'- assuming such a prophet(s), leader(s) or orator(s]are identified correctly and consistently by all those who wrote their 'works'.
Lincoln

United States

#28 Apr 7, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>This supposes that Jesus was one individual, but he is arguably a composite character. Most of what is attributed to Jesus (like that attributed to Mohammed) was actually written long after he died. We don't actually know anything they said for sure.'Christ's/Mohammed's teaching' possibly owes little or nothing to Jesus/Mo'- assuming such a prophet(s), leader(s) or orator(s]are identified correctly and consistently by all those who wrote their 'works'.
footnotes missing :-)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#30 Apr 9, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
It's easy for any theist to accept evolutionary biology, especially so if they you don't understand that how it works to disprove religious beliefs.
Nothing in science disproves religious beliefs because religious beliefs are non-falsifiable. Ergo they are not scientific. Evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, sure. In that sense it's falsifiable and therefore scientific. And falsified. But then the part comes in where fundies claim that Genesis was still possible cuz GODMAGIC. That bit's NOT falsifiable. Therefore it's not scientific. Hence it's not taken seriously. Now in the case of theists who accept evolution, they accept evolution because of the evidence and think stories like Genesis and others are allegory, metaphor, parable - meant to convey religious meaning. Therefore they are not claiming their religious beliefs trump reality. Crux of it is if someone's religious beliefs don't contradict reality then there's no problem. If they do contradict reality then they have a problem. But ultimately it's THEIR problem, not science's.
Imhotep

Stuart, FL

#31 Apr 9, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>This supposes that Jesus was one individual, but he is arguably a composite character. Most of what is attributed to Jesus (like that attributed to Mohammed) was actually written long after he died. We don't actually know anything they said for sure.'Christ's/Mohammed's teaching' possibly owes little or nothing to Jesus/Mo'- assuming such a prophet(s), leader(s) or orator(s]are identified correctly and consistently by all those who wrote their 'works'.
Here is the site I think you'll find interesting

http://jesusneverexisted.com/

It contains a wealth of interesting sources and articles thoroughly documented

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 min Eagle 12 9,168
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 20 min NoahLovesU 243,007
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Secret Admirer 19,741
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 11 hr lozzza 6,160
Should atheists have the burden of proof? Mon Thinking 15
Atheists have morals too! Sun par five 3
News Atheism 101: The anti-intellectualism of religion Sun QUITTNER Jne 28 2015 53
More from around the web