Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Do you believe in god?


  • Please log in to reply
1730 replies to this topic

#876 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 July 2010 - 12:36 AM

because people say it is impossible to walk on water and that it is illogical for him to have walked on water. But according to the apostles Peter did walk on water and they were actually there when it happened so yes Peter did walk on water God is real and yes Christianity is the one true religion. Logic and reason cannot refute this



Were you there when Peter walked on water? How can you be so sure that these people even existed? They exist in a book, but you have never met them.

Besides, if I was in a room with 20 people, and at the same time everyone in the room thought that I was floating a foot above ground. Would I actually float a foot above ground? No. But they would swear on their lives that I did float above the ground. You cant trust something that you cannot see with your own eyes.

#877 outsidedream86

outsidedream86
  • 457 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 12:42 AM

Here's a link that may help you =) http://lmgtfy.com/


No, you're making a claim. I'd like to know what you believe and where you're getting your ideas/sources from. Please tell me what you believe are the criticisms of these theories. You must know them, or you wouldn't make such a statement.

#878 emerkeng

emerkeng
  • 561 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 12:51 AM

Were you there when Peter walked on water? How can you be so sure that these people even existed? They exist in a book, but you have never met them.

Besides, if I was in a room with 20 people, and at the same time everyone in the room thought that I was floating a foot above ground. Would I actually float a foot above ground? No. But they would swear on their lives that I did float above the ground. You cant trust something that you cannot see with your own eyes.


Look at other sources besides the bible that confirm that Peter did exist and you'll find it easily, wonder why? Because Jesus and his disciples did exist the bible is not just a book of fairy tales it is an historical account of God's word. The second paragraph you wrote just killed pabs argument too you never saw the big bang did you? You never saw a dinosaur turn into a bird did you? Even so if it is written In the word of God it did happen just because athiests choose not to believe in the truth does not mean it did not occur.


No, you're making a claim. I'd like to know what you believe and where you're getting your ideas/sources from. Please tell me what you believe are the criticisms of these theories. You must know them, or you wouldn't make such a statement.


Or better yet you tell me why the Big Bang and Evolution theory are right first if you can't don't call me out on my sources =)


#879 artificial

artificial
  • 186 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 July 2010 - 01:02 AM

Look at other sources besides the bible that confirm that Peter did exist and you'll find it easily, wonder why? Because Jesus and his disciples did exist the bible is not just a book of fairy tales it is an historical account of God's word. The second paragraph you wrote just killed pabs argument too you never saw the big bang did you? You never saw a dinosaur turn into a bird did you? Even so if it is written In the word of God it did happen just because athiests choose not to believe in the truth does not mean it did not occur.


Equally, it does not mean it did.

You seem to be walking on shaky ground. For the most part, science is based on fact; we can scientifically analyse and verify the validity of certain claims until enough evidence is compiled to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that a particular statement holds true - evolution being one example. The same can not be said about the Bible: we have to rely on scripture that has been passed down thousands of years, translated from one language to another, its original meaning misconstrued no less then a game of Chinese whispers.

That's not even mentioning the role the Catholic church played in shaping the Bible and, unless you subscribe to the idea that child molestation is acceptable in the eyes of God, you should agree the organisation isn't quite as Holy as many would like to believe. :rolleyes:

#880 outsidedream86

outsidedream86
  • 457 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 01:08 AM

First, about science:

Scientific theories comply with observable facts. That is to say, theories are supported by evidence. Theories can change as new facts and evidence emerges. Theories can never be laws. Laws only explain observed phenomena and do not make predictions. Theories are used to make predictions. A hypothesis, meanwhile, is an idea that has no proof of being correct. When the average person talks about a “theory,” what they actually should be saying is “hypothesis.” What are examples of a scientific theory? Gravity, evolution, germ theory of disease, plate tectonics, relativity, kinetic theory of gasses, atomic theory, Big Bang theory, probability theory (of mathematics).

Cool with that so far? I'm working on writing about evolution next. It'll probably take me a little while to get my thoughts in order.

Edited by outsidedream86, 22 July 2010 - 01:09 AM.


#881 neopedi2

neopedi2
  • 37 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 01:15 AM

That's not even mentioning the role the Catholic church played in shaping the Bible and, unless you subscribe to the idea that child molestation is acceptable in the eyes of God, you should agree the organisation isn't quite as Holy as many would like to believe. :rolleyes:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxPCxvxzujo

ahaha its simple you guys.. there is a god. You meet with god when this body dies and agree on where your next reincarnation will be, based on your past life experiences/lessons. everybody living on earth consciously chose to come here. you all have a purpose.

Edited by neopedi2, 22 July 2010 - 01:17 AM.


#882 emerkeng

emerkeng
  • 561 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 01:19 AM

Equally, it does not mean it did.

You seem to be walking on shaky ground. For the most part, science is based on fact; we can scientifically analyse and verify the validity of certain claims until enough evidence is compiled to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that a particular statement holds true - evolution being one example. The same can not be said about the Bible: we have to rely on scripture that has been passed down thousands of years, translated from one language to another, its original meaning misconstrued no less then a game of Chinese whispers.

That's not even mentioning the role the Catholic church played in shaping the Bible and, unless you subscribe to the idea that child molestation is acceptable in the eyes of God, you should agree the organisation isn't quite as Holy as many would like to believe. :rolleyes:


Honestly I'm done arguing on this thread all you guys are athiests or agnostics none of you guys are Christians or you may be a hypocritical Christian like Pabs who says he's Catholic when in reality he doesn't even believe the bible is just a book of fairy tales. I've never thought I'd say this but none of you guys are worth saving, the way you guys make up bs that goes against the Lord saying he doesn't exist or that the bible isn't his word. But guess what even in the scientific community people are arguing about the validity of evolution theory and Big Bang theory. And no Artificial there is reasonable doubt on those theories science is not all facts people are disputing on the validity of theories everyday. And your last sentence does not make sense Artificial everyone knows that child molestation violates the ten commandments and the earthly church can be sinful while the true church of god is not. God did not create the organization man did the true followers those who follow God's way as it is written in the bible which contrary to your belief has not been changed by the Catholic church would not commit child molestation. Man is sinful God is not. The organization of the Catholic church isn't sinless but while those men were weak of flesh does not mean that true Christians are.


#883 outsidedream86

outsidedream86
  • 457 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 01:52 AM

Panthentic, I don't know if you're still going to be around or not, but I'll keep posting in the hope that maybe someone will learn something new.


Introduction to evolution:

One thing I want to make clear from the get-go, evolution cannot and does not try to explain how life originated. In its simplest definition, evolution is genetic change over time. Natural selection, endosymbiotic events, gene acquisition, gene recombination, gene mutation, and pre-cellular events are all the proccesses of evolution which result in new species emerging over time. The theory of evolution has been revised countless times since Darwin as new evidence emerges. These revisions have made the theory more accurate in making predictions.

As the genes of a group change, they may split into different species, typically as a result of physical isolation. As their evolutionary paths grow more distant, they grow more and more different. This means that some species are more closely related genetically to some species than other species. This can be observed by coding the DNA for various species. This is why the evolutionary tree is like a branch rather than a ladder. Sub-species are constantly splitting off from the main species. There are no “higher” or “lower” organisms—only organisms that are better or not better at surviving a given condition.



Evidence of speciation (one group becoming a different species from the main group):

Around 1500, mice were introduced to the island of Madeira. Six distinct populations of mice were found containing chromosomal differences that prevent breeding with one another.

In 1905, De Vries found a variant of Oenothera lamarckiana (evening primrose) that had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. This variety could not breed with the standard of 2N = 14. It became a new species.

Three species of wildflowers were introduced to the US from Europe around 1900. Within a few decades their populations grew and they began inhabiting the same areas, yet they did not produce fertile offspring (definition of a species).

There is a fruit fruit fly which is a parasite of the hawthorn tree. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees. The flies breed on either apples or hawthorn apples, but not both. Each variety of fly can be forced to breed (sperm and egg can produce viable offspring) but they do not do so naturally in the wild. This is evidence of speciation in progress.

A naturally occurring speciation of a plant species was observed in Oregon. You can read it here: Gottlieb, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeria. American Journal of Botany 60(6):545-553

There are so many other examples (with sources from scientific journals) which can be found at http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html. Unforunately I’m not a biologist and some of the explanations are difficult to understand.

Edited by outsidedream86, 22 July 2010 - 01:53 AM.


#884 artificial

artificial
  • 186 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 July 2010 - 02:08 AM

And your last sentence does not make sense Artificial everyone knows that child molestation violates the ten commandments and the earthly church can be sinful while the true church of god is not. God did not create the organization man did the true followers those who follow God's way as it is written in the bible which contrary to your belief has not been changed by the Catholic church would not commit child molestation. Man is sinful God is not. The organization of the Catholic church isn't sinless but while those men were weak of flesh does not mean that true Christians are.


Your paragraph is a bit of a mess, but I'll attempt to decipher it.

You seem to agree then that the 'earthly' church is flawed. 'Man is sinful God is not'. Here's a fun fact: the scriptures you read in the New Testament were selected and compiled by Men of this flawed, earthly church. There were hundreds of scriptures vying for a position in the New Testament, many with conflicting messages they were attempting to convey. The Church selected those they felt would best convey their message and burnt the rest. Moreover, it was declared heresy to reproduce any of those disbanded scriptures, and yet the individuals who wrote them were all supposedly guided by 'the hand of God'.


There doesn't seem to be any hope arguing with you about whether or not there is a God, so let's try a new approach. Assuming there is a God, tell me why Christianity is more valid than any other religion?

#885 emerkeng

emerkeng
  • 561 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 02:14 AM

Your paragraph is a bit of a mess, but I'll attempt to decipher it.

You seem to agree then that the 'earthly' church is flawed. 'Man is sinful God is not'. Here's a fun fact: the scriptures you read in the New Testament were selected and compiled by Men of this flawed, earthly church. There were hundreds of scriptures vying for a position in the New Testament, many with conflicting messages they were attempting to convey. The Church selected those they felt would best convey their message and burnt the rest. Moreover, it was declared heresy to reproduce any of those disbanded scriptures, and yet the individuals who wrote them were all supposedly guided by 'the hand of God'.


There doesn't seem to be any hope arguing with you about whether or not there is a God, so let's try a new approach. Assuming there is a God, tell me why Christianity is more valid than any other religion?


Last post I'm going to put on this thread I think. You're full of bullshit you don't think I as a Christian for 18 years haven't done research on the church and its origins? I have and you're full of bs the beginnings of the church started with Jesus's disciples men who Jesus himself trusted to be good advisors for the church and no the church did not do those atrocities that you speak of. Do some actual research instead of looking up some anti-church websites that have anti-religious propaganda.


#886 outsidedream86

outsidedream86
  • 457 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 02:18 AM

Evolution:

Ok, many deeply religious people and creationists don’t really care about speciation. They say, “Why haven’t we seen a fish grow legs and walk out of the water and become amphibians/birds/mammals/whatever?” Well, evolution takes place over millions of years, so we cannot possibly observe large-scale changes in our lifetime. However, evidence for evolution does not depend on direct observation. There are many other types of evidence to support it.

As mentioned previously, speciation (aka microevolution) has been thoroughly documented both in the wild and in the lab countless times. As far as we know, there is no known reason why microevolution is any different from microevolution. It makes sense that small-scale changes, accumulating over time, would result in large-scale differences in species. What, then, is the evidence for macroevolution? All of these examples are taken from scientific journals (sources provided if you want):

The fossil record of titanotheres show horns that appear progressively larger, from non-existent to prominent.

Over 10 million years, the fossils of planktonic forminifera show long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change (known as punctuated gradualism).

Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with developed hind limbs. Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis.

Mososaur jaws are intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards.

The sequence from land mammal to whale: Pakicetus inachus, Ambulocetus natans, Indocetus ramani, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, early baleen whale, whale.


There are countless other examples of transitional fossils, but I'm getting too tired to keep going. Hope this helps some, pathentic.

#887 emerkeng

emerkeng
  • 561 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 02:44 AM

I think it would be a good idea for all of us to stop arguing and just be friends =). I may be Christian you may be creationist, athiest, agnostic, muslim, hindu or whatever but we're all humans and I guess we should respect each other's point of views even if we do believe that you or I may be right and that you or I may be wrong.


#888 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 July 2010 - 05:09 AM

Maybe just me, but I don't actually want to be friends with people I can't respect on an intellectual level.

#889 pabs123

pabs123
  • 498 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 10:21 AM

Maybe just me, but I don't actually want to be friends with people I can't respect on an intellectual level.


not even an intellectual level, i don't want to be friends with someone with zero logic...your posts simply consist of blind statements with no evidence and wild accusations with no sources. it's understandable that there isn't much for you to cite since all you have is the bible and your circular reasoning consists of only your beliefs. the only time someone has taken the time to actually show you the scientific evidence which you have so confidently shunned supporting evolution you choose to ignore it, after all the clear work and understanding he portrays (ps +1 ;)) ...you have nothing but childish insults and dumbfounded remarks, accompanied by cries of "you atheists will think of anything to deny god" and "you're laughably hilarious" when in truth you sadistic, extremist, zealous, fanatics are the ones who will twist and skew logic in order to support arguments which are otherwise , for lack of a better word, retarded. get off your high horse and realize that no one here agrees nor accepts your views so stop trying to "save" us...

#890 neopedi2

neopedi2
  • 37 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 01:36 PM

I think it would be a good idea for all of us to stop arguing and just be friends =). I may be Christian you may be creationist, athiest, agnostic, muslim, hindu or whatever but we're all humans and I guess we should respect each other's point of views even if we do believe that you or I may be right and that you or I may be wrong.

"you're laughably hilarious" when in truth you sadistic, extremist, zealous, fanatics are the ones who will twist and skew logic in order to support arguments which are otherwise , for lack of a better word, retarded. get off your high horse and realize that no one here agrees nor accepts your views so stop trying to "save" us...



Pathentic at least accepts others.

I am with him, lets all just stop arguing. Dancing will free you from negative behaviors.

Watch as the bright loving forgiving positive energy travels through everybody. This was a recent event. Woman and men from all background and ages celebrate (some hot females too)

This is what its all about, being a human of good will, dancing, and not talking down others or telling them they are wrong. Can you feel the people? The happiness is contagious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkAzCVSMfiA

Edited by neopedi2, 22 July 2010 - 01:37 PM.


#891 Mr. Hobo

Mr. Hobo
  • 8152 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 July 2010 - 01:45 PM

I think it would be a good idea for all of us to stop arguing and just be friends =).


Indeed...

… Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have …with gentleness and respect. (I Peter 3:15 NIV).


. I may be Christian you may be creationist, athiest, agnostic, muslim, hindu or whatever but we're all humans and I guess we should respect each other's point of views even if we do believe that you or I may be right and that you or I may be wrong.


Is that before or after we slaughter each other?

Chronicles 15:13
Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.


Deuteronomy 13:6-10
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.



#892 pabs123

pabs123
  • 498 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 02:07 PM

Pathentic at least accepts others.

I am with him, lets all just stop arguing. Dancing will free you from negative behaviors.

Watch as the bright loving forgiving positive energy travels through everybody. This was a recent event. Woman and men from all background and ages celebrate (some hot females too)

This is what its all about, being a human of good will, dancing, and not talking down others or telling them they are wrong. Can you feel the people? The happiness is contagious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkAzCVSMfiA


lol i respect you're beliefs,i really do...but for real what are you smoking :)

#893 Lychee

Lychee
  • 633 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 02:13 PM

Dancing will free you from negative behaviors.


Have you ever been in a club? If anything, it could be said to exacerbate negative behaviours.

#894 pabs123

pabs123
  • 498 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 02:16 PM

Have you ever been in a club? If anything, it could be said to exacerbate negative behaviours.


i wouldn't really call what happens in a club "dancing" though Posted Image

#895 pabs123

pabs123
  • 498 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 02:16 PM

Have you ever been in a club? If anything, it could be said to exacerbate negative behaviours.


i wouldn't really call what happens in a club "dancing" though Posted Image

#896 Lychee

Lychee
  • 633 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 02:21 PM

i wouldn't really call what happens in a club "dancing" though Posted Image


There's always some dancing. Just because some of it is of the horizontal variety or, more commonly, the toilet tango, it doesn't invalidate that the main activity is regular dancing.

Well, one of the main activities. Drinking is probably a bigger activity.

#897 pabs123

pabs123
  • 498 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 02:31 PM

Just because some of it is of the horizontal variety


haha that's one way to describe it :) well regardless it definitely is not the same dancing as that video :)

#898 Lychee

Lychee
  • 633 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 02:42 PM

haha that's one way to describe it :) well regardless it definitely is not the same dancing as that video :)


I watched the video. It didn't contain dancing. It contained people following each other around the room, occasionally waving. Primary school kids can dance better and much more joyfully than that. Also, I saw no "hot" people of either gender.

Back to the topic, no-one there seemed to be particularly enthused with any sort of holy ecstacy - if anything, it seemed a bit awkward. I'd hope if there was a god, they wouldn't want to inflict anything that embarassing on their disciples.

Posted Image
This guy is clearly having the time of his life.

Edited by Cellophane, 22 July 2010 - 02:53 PM.


#899 neopedi2

neopedi2
  • 37 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 06:56 PM

I watched the video. It didn't contain dancing. It contained people following each other around the room, occasionally waving. Primary school kids can dance better and much more joyfully than that. Also, I saw no "hot" people of either gender.

Back to the topic, no-one there seemed to be particularly enthused with any sort of holy ecstacy - if anything, it seemed a bit awkward. I'd hope if there was a god, they wouldn't want to inflict anything that embarassing on their disciples.

Posted Image
This guy is clearly having the time of his life.



hey not everyone is comfortable with dancing in front of others, let alone being seen by others in general. I never said it was a holy dance or that they were dancing for god in any way. I said they were celebrating and being joyful. If you really want to know, they listened to many speakers throughout the day and this was just to lively up the end of the day.

and by the way, Dance is an art form that generally refers to movement of the body, usually rhythmic and to music, used as a form of expression, social interaction or presented in a spiritual or performance setting.

As in "snake dance"....they move behind each similar to a conga line that represents a snake. People who wanted partake in the event did, others simply stepped to the side respectfully.

i dont know what your idea of dancing is but this is no talent show...

and clubs are the worst place for dancing, energy-wise.. random wasted slutty girls and douchbag guys with their pathetic auras fill the room and trust me it rubs off on your aura. Your vibrant, intelligent aura, has now rubbed off on those douchbags. Have fun at the club, party people.

Same goes for hanging around intelligent, lively, funny people.. Energy is contagious. Thought follows energy. Get where im going?

#900 emerkeng

emerkeng
  • 561 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 07:49 PM

hey not everyone is comfortable with dancing in front of others, let alone being seen by others in general. I never said it was a holy dance or that they were dancing for god in any way. I said they were celebrating and being joyful. If you really want to know, they listened to many speakers throughout the day and this was just to lively up the end of the day.

and by the way, Dance is an art form that generally refers to movement of the body, usually rhythmic and to music, used as a form of expression, social interaction or presented in a spiritual or performance setting.

As in "snake dance"....they move behind each similar to a conga line that represents a snake. People who wanted partake in the event did, others simply stepped to the side respectfully.

i dont know what your idea of dancing is but this is no talent show...

and clubs are the worst place for dancing, energy-wise.. random wasted slutty girls and douchbag guys with their pathetic auras fill the room and trust me it rubs off on your aura. Your vibrant, intelligent aura, has now rubbed off on those douchbags. Have fun at the club, party people.

Same goes for hanging around intelligent, lively, funny people.. Energy is contagious. Thought follows energy. Get where im going?


I don't like dancing at clubs. I would much rather dance with wolves which I do on every full moon =)

*only actually did this once when a couple of my friends went on a camping trip . . . and the wolves were really friendly O_o it might be because they are domesticated O_o

Edited by pathentic, 23 July 2010 - 02:27 AM.



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users