Atheist vs Theist (Debate)
Originally Posted by seattledave
So honestly, you'd be willing to change your views and beliefs if you came upon evidence and new information as atheists do?
I believe that there will never be any irrefutable evidence against my faith. I've already concluded that the evidence that exists actually points toward the validity of the Bible. What I'm saying, is that you are right that if I came upon evidence that led me to change my beliefs, I would, but it is unlikely that my core beliefs would change. It is also likely for you in the same manner... Take this:
Presupositional apologetics argues that the existence or non-existence of God is the basic presupposition (background belief) of all human thought, and that all men arrive at a worldview which is ultimately determined by the theology they presuppose. Evidence and arguments are only marshalled after the fact in an attempt to justify the theological assumptions already made. According to this view, it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of God unless one presupposes that God exists; modern science is incapable of discovering the supernatural because it relies on methodological naturalism and thereby fashions a Procrustean bed which rejects any observation which would disprove the naturalistic assumption. The best the apologist can do is to argue that the resulting worldview is somehow inconsistent with itself.[/url]
My apologies but you do believe in the creation story right? That is an answer you say you have that I as an Atheist do not. While you are content with "God did it" I am not and thus you do claim to at least have one more answer than I.
Originally Posted by mitchelltc1
Originally Posted by seattledave
So honestly, you'd be willing to change your views and beliefs if you came upon evidence and new information as atheists do?
I believe that there will never be any irrefutable evidence against my faith. I've already concluded that the evidence that exists actually points toward the validity of the Bible. What I'm saying, is that you are right that if I came upon evidence that led me to change my beliefs, I would, but it is unlikely that my core beliefs would change. It is also likely for you in the same manner... Take this:
Presupositional apologetics argues that the existence or non-existence of God is the basic presupposition (background belief) of all human thought, and that all men arrive at a worldview which is ultimately determined by the theology they presuppose. Evidence and arguments are only marshalled after the fact in an attempt to justify the theological assumptions already made. According to this view, it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of God unless one presupposes that God exists; modern science is incapable of discovering the supernatural because it relies on methodological naturalism and thereby fashions a Procrustean bed which rejects any observation which would disprove the naturalistic assumption. The best the apologist can do is to argue that the resulting worldview is somehow inconsistent with itself.[/url]
yes most people are like that, they form a belief first, then try and find facts that support this.
But I was born and raised christian. went to church 3 times a week for sermons, went to christian school. I prayed to god everyday. I "felt" him, I "knew" he was real. It was only upon really learning about the "truth" that i was told was I able to realise the lies. 1.5 hours a day in bible class, and you'll learn alot.
I know you haven't read all the posts, and aren't reading gen 1:20-30. tell me, please when i ask, tell me how the bible says what order animals came in.
whales before cochroaches?
turkeys before land dinosaurs?
tell me the 74-76 generations between the first man ever "adam" and jesus is enough to go from pre homo-erectus humans to homosapiens happens.
So the bible is wrong in this case? This opens a whole new can of worms guys. (LOL... I may be wrong but 9 pages and no girls?) If the creation story is wrong how can you say definatively that everything else isn't wrong?
Well then here is a personal question. If everything in the bible is very likely false, why devote so much time to going to church that could be spent building a house with habitat for humanity or going to soup kitchens to feed homeless?
Originally Posted by citizen01
So the bible is wrong in this case?
Originally Posted by citizen01
(LOL... I may be wrong but 9 pages and no girls?)
Originally Posted by citizen01
Well then here is a personal question. If everything in the bible is very likely false, why devote so much time to going to church that could be spent building a house with habitat for humanity or going to soup kitchens to feed homeless?
it's common for christians, especially present day catholics, etc.. to take an old religion, take all the things they like out of it, throw out the rest, and then purport that as "the truth".
I don't understand how they really believe like that. If you base your belief in a god from a religion you don't believe in, why do you think that religion's god is the true one?
I don't understand how they really believe like that. If you base your belief in a god from a religion you don't believe in, why do you think that religion's god is the true one?
Originally Posted by citizen01
Ok.. so then you believe nothing the bible says only that there is a higher power that created us. What about when we die? What do you believe happens?
Originally Posted by seattledave
the first 5 books, are supposed to be the direct word of god as given to moses.
Originally Posted by jsa3mm
Originally Posted by citizen01
Ok.. so then you believe nothing the bible says only that there is a higher power that created us. What about when we die? What do you believe happens?
Originally Posted by seattledave
the first 5 books, are supposed to be the direct word of god as given to moses.





