Why are atheists on this website always attacking Christianity? (3 Viewers)

[Kwayera]

Ever heard of Lourdes? Lourdes Medical Bureau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is just one of many. I can list billions off to you.

"CMIL is not entitled to pronounce a cure "miraculous"; this can only be done by the Church. The bureau may only pronounce that a cure is "medically inexplicable". A full investigation takes a minimum of five years (in order to ensure that the cure is permanent), and may take as long as ten or twelve years. It is recognised that, in rare cases, even advanced malignant disease or severe infection may spontaneously resolve."

That's a nice get out of jail free card. Lol. Next.

I'd also be interested to see what atheists believe initiated the creation of the universe. I know they'll rattle off something about the bing bang theory, but it's funny how they never consider what initiated the whole thing.

Itself? Who knows. We don't know - yet. Why is this such a problem for you? We didn't used to know that stars were stars and that the Earth isn't the centre of the universe. Who are you to say that in, say, 20 years we won't know what caused (if anything; current ideas of physics don't require a cause for the singularity) the big bang?

So you've admitted science is limited?

Wouldn't it be logical to assume that something supernatural initiated the creation of the universe? Using the laws of the universe "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed". Take, for example, a book lying on a table. The book is not going to move without some force beyond itself. How, then, can the universe initiate its own creation? Of course it can't! Energy cannot just appear out of nowhere. Using a similar principle, a force beyond itself had to initiate the universe, i.e. the supernatural had to create the natural. This makes the concept of a supreme being (God) perfectly logical.

Actually, yes, it can. See: quantum physics.

There is no requirement anywhere for "the supernatural to create the natural". Your supposition, then, that a "supreme being" (the apparently obvious outcome of supernaturality; what happened to the ideas of beingless magic? ) is logical is therefore itself illogical.

So, as you can see, your analogy is completely irrelevant. I'm using logic to arrive at my conclusion. Not just shouting out a random answer.

The fact of the matter is that scientific reasoning actually complements religion quite nicely when science is not an entity in itself.

An explanation that involves supernaturalism is, by definition, illogical.

 

[Bigboyjames lol]

What's almost as ridiculous as Muslims taking everything in the Qu'ran literally, is Christians picking and choosing what they want to believe for themselves.

So many Christians won't let their children read Hary Potter, because it's such blashpemy blah blah. But I'm suposed to believe that a magical all powerful BEING of some sort, created the entire universe, and is there listening to our prayers? His son was sent to earth and turned water into wine?

What about dinosaur bones? Can you discredit them? Is that a conspiracy?

And don't bother getting the swine flu vaccine, or any flu vaccine for that matter, because you don't believe in evolution. Pray it away.

seriously, why do you hate islam?

harry potter encourages children to do which craft. this is devils play.

 

[Continuum]

So you've admitted science is limited?

Wouldn't it be logical to assume that something supernatural initiated the creation of the universe? Using the laws of the universe "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed". Take, for example, a book lying on a table. The book is not going to move without some force beyond itself. How, then, can the universe initiate its own creation? Of course it can't! Energy cannot just appear out of nowhere. Using a similar principle, a force beyond itself had to initiate the universe, i.e. the supernatural had to create the natural. This makes the concept of a supreme being (God) perfectly logical.

So, as you can see, your analogy is completely irrelevant. I'm using logic to arrive at my conclusion. Not just shouting out a random answer.

The fact of the matter is that scientific reasoning actually complements religion quite nicely when science is not an entity in itself.

Of course science is limited, it always has been. The question is whether or not you're willing to forgo the simple fact that you do not know, and replace it with something questionable like religion.

Also, your second point is obsolete because what's stopping you from applying the need of causality to God itself? You have little, apart from your oh-so-infallible 'logic', to suggest that there is need for one in the first place.

 

[lolokay]

So you've admitted science is limited?

Wouldn't it be logical to assume that something supernatural initiated the creation of the universe? Using the laws of the universe "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed". Take, for example, a book lying on a table. The book is not going to move without some force beyond itself. How, then, can the universe initiate its own creation? Of course it can't! Energy cannot just appear out of nowhere. Using a similar principle, a force beyond itself had to initiate the universe, i.e. the supernatural had to create the natural. This makes the concept of a supreme being (God) perfectly logical.

So, as you can see, your analogy is completely irrelevant. I'm using logic to arrive at my conclusion. Not just shouting out a random answer.

The fact of the matter is that scientific reasoning actually complements religion quite nicely when science is not an entity in itself.

you are very good at logic

 

[Planck]

Turtles ALL the way down!

 

[Bigboyjames lol]

I hate Islam because it worships a paedophile.

fuck you are just dumb.

Have you not noticed that Islamic countries, practicing religious law, are the ones that are poverty stricken?

Coincidence - NO.

fuck you are so stupid.

Sorry, but your life is going to be awful.

hmm. im rich. so no.

 

[Bigboyjames lol]

sunsettah opinions are based on a reactive judgement. If a country has secularism and good quality of life then the secularism must be due to that good quality of life.

How about we consider the fact that these countries have been born out from undue power of the colonial period?

What about the great technological advancements achieved from the two bloodiest wars humans have seen?

What about the secular state of India? Care to comment on the quality of life there?
How about the following countries?

Chad
Cameroon
Albania
Congo
Philipines

I can list over a 100 secular countries such as the above.

secularism and quality of life are mutually exclusive.

but you are just too stupid and fucking retarded. go fucking study for your exams and learn some shit

 

[Bigboyjames lol]

I am not here to attack Islam. I don't like Catholicism either. The concept of any 'all powerful being' and 'prophets/sons of God that have walked the earth' is just ridiculous, especially in this day and age.

Religion seems to be the easy way out for people that don't want to accept modern advances in thinking, living and technology.


Female circumcision I have a problem with. Mohammed marrying a 6 year old I have a problem with. Claiming in a holy book that milk cures all illnesses, I have a problem with. Claims of people living to 200 years of age, I have a problem with - in all holy texts.

I have no problem with people interpreting Holy texts as metaphorical life lessons, because that's all they are.

Taking things literally, or picking and choosing what you want to believe, is stupid. If you don't do that, then I have no problem with you.

why the fuck do you have a problem with this? is it effecting you? is your life changed because of Catholics/Muslims? This is what I fucking hate about you people. You want people to change according to your beliefs. get over yourself. I dont give a fuck if someone believes in milk cures illnesses and i don't care Muhammad married a 6 year old. Dont know why its effecting you.

 

[sunsettah]

What's almost as ridiculous as Muslims taking everything in the Qu'ran literally, is Christians picking and choosing what they want to believe for themselves.

So many Christians won't let their children read Hary Potter, because it's such blashpemy blah blah. But I'm suposed to believe that a magical all powerful BEING of some sort, created the entire universe, and is there listening to our prayers? His son was sent to earth and turned water into wine?

What about dinosaur bones? Can you discredit them? Is that a conspiracy?

And don't bother getting the swine flu vaccine, or any flu vaccine for that matter, because you don't believe in evolution. Pray it away.

I'm going to go ahead and quote myself. Because I've just got defensive reactionary answers coming out now.

This quote is my argument.

 

[Omie Jay]

the weirdo kind of has a point.

what's it matter to you, sunsettah, what my beliefs are?

 

[Bigboyjames lol]

its the worst fucked up arguments ive read on here.

fuck, Christians have better arguments than that shit.

fuck i hate your type. want to shove everyone into a cage and coerce us all to act according to your moral ethics

fuck you

fuck your kind

ill do whatever the fuck i want

believe in what i want

literally or metaphorically

fuck off

 

[Omie Jay]

i believe in god, and i read harry potter, and i believe dinosaurs existed, and i believe a lot in science.

 

[raniaaa]

its the worst fucked up arguments ive read on here.

fuck, Christians have better arguments than that shit.

fuck i hate your type. want to shove everyone into a cage and coerce us all to act according to your moral ethics

fuck you

fuck your kind

ill do whatever the fuck i want

believe in what i want

literally or metaphorically

fuck off

LOL apart from the fbombs between every second syllable, i agree

 

[Bigboyjames lol]

omie, well do you believe in god literally or metaphorically.

I need to know to determine if its effecting me.

 

[Omie Jay]

*affecting

 

[Bigboyjames lol]

haha, fuck you omar

 

[untouchablecuz]

I hate Islam because it worships a paedophile.

Have you not noticed that Islamic countries, practicing religious law, are the ones that are poverty stricken?

Coincidence - NO.

Sorry, but your life is going to be awful.

correlation does not imply causation sweety

 

[Iron]

Taking things literally, or picking and choosing what you want to believe, is stupid. If you don't do that, then I have no problem with you.

Do you take the Virgin birth metaphorically? Did Jesus only heal the sick thru medical science? Did He not return from the dead?

 

[redfield]

Of course science is limited, it always has been.
Also, your second point is obsolete because what's stopping you from applying the need of causality to God itself? You have little, apart from your oh-so-infallible 'logic', to suggest that there is need for one in the first place.

Applying causality to God contradicts the definition of what God is. God is the supreme being that caused everything to exist, so thus cannot be a cause of something else.

 

[redfield]

"CMIL is not entitled to pronounce a cure "miraculous"; this can only be done by the Church. The bureau may only pronounce that a cure is "medically inexplicable". A full investigation takes a minimum of five years (in order to ensure that the cure is permanent), and may take as long as ten or twelve years. It is recognised that, in rare cases, even advanced malignant disease or severe infection may spontaneously resolve."

That's a nice get out of jail free card. Lol. Next.



Itself? Who knows. We don't know - yet. Why is this such a problem for you? We didn't used to know that stars were stars and that the Earth isn't the centre of the universe. Who are you to say that in, say, 20 years we won't know what caused (if anything; current ideas of physics don't require a cause for the singularity) the big bang?



Actually, yes, it can. See: quantum physics.

There is no requirement anywhere for "the supernatural to create the natural". Your supposition, then, that a "supreme being" (the apparently obvious outcome of supernaturality; what happened to the ideas of beingless magic? ) is logical is therefore itself illogical.



An explanation that involves supernaturalism is, by definition, illogical.

Medically Inexplicable? Thus, science is limited and will never be able to explain the supernatural. Therefore, denying the existence of God because of lack of scientific proof is really quite ridiculous. Have a read of this one: The Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Take note of the 100,000 witnesses.

So are you saying that, from nothing, a enough energy can come into existence to create the universe? I think that using quantum physics to explain this is a bit lacking. There is indeed a requirement for the supernatural to cause the natural, because something cannot cause (or create for that matter) itself. It would require something beyond the natural to cause the natural (hence the 'super'+natural).

"An explanation that involves supernaturalism is, by definition, illogical." Rather, inexplainable when looking through the lens of science. Philosophy, on the other hand, correlates with the notion of the supernatural.