Originally posted by RJHindscareful; psychology is a science, and for someone who belongs to a gang as big as Christianity to accuse others of requiring affirmation in numbers is bit rich. the name of this forum is Spirituality which is by its nature open to question and debate perhaps those who have already opted for a closed religious doctrine are on the wrong site.
I think it has to do with psychology and their need to convince themselves
that they do not have to be accountable to God. The more people they
have on their side validates their belief in their view to claim they are on
the side of science. So they try to undermine the faith of Christians and
ridicule us for our beliefs. They have no other need to convince us that
we are wrong, for to them there is no accountability in a heaven or hell.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou mean there is another thread like this one?
The thread "Christianity in 105 Words " was an attempt to mock
Christianity. So he enjoyed doing the same for atheism in his
own way. I thought it was pretty good and funny, too.
What are the odds? 😲
Originally posted by wolfgang59You mean like believing that life came from nothing? Surely those of "reason" would use the scientific method to observe and test this theory before they grab both their ankles and embrace such thinking.
The motive is to debate, get across a point, discuss ... whatever. If during the course of that someone introduces nonsense then that has to be pointed out. If its ridiculous ... then ridicule it!
Originally posted by whodeythat's better.
Put another way, life from nonlife.
Why do you believe life came from nonlife by chance when it has NEVER been obeserved or tested?
i don't believe it formed from non-life. i don't know how life formed. what i do know is that there are two logical possibilities: either life has existed eternally; or at one point in the past, it came from non-life.
i don't have any particular system in mind for the above statement, rather i state it as a general rule.
lacking any further information, either possibility is as good as the other.
Originally posted by RJHindsyou don't have the mental capacity to participate in this discussion. better you stay out of it or risk embarrassing yourself further.
Christians believes life came from other life and ultimately from the
life of God. Googlefudge is completely ignorant on the subject are
you also ignorant?
Originally posted by whodeyJust like googlefudge, VoidSpirit does not care if it has NEVER been obeserved
Put another way, life from nonlife. Why do you believe life came from nonlife by chance when it has NEVER been obeserved or tested?
or tested? It is in his self-interest to believe God is not the source of life and
it happened by accident. Otherwise, the implication is that he may be
accountable to God.
Originally posted by RJHindstoo late, you embarrassed yourself further despite my warning.
Just like googlefudge, VoidSpirit does not care if it has NEVER been obeserved
or tested? It is in his self-interest to believe God is not the source of life and
it happened by accident. Otherwise, the implication is that he may be
accountable to God.
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritDo you realize that your statement is on the verge of admitting life comes
that's better.Why do you believe life came from nonlife by chance when it has NEVER been obeserved or tested?
i don't believe it formed from non-life. i don't know how life formed. what i do know is that there are two logical possibilities: either life has existed eternally; or at one point in the past, it came from non-life.
i eneral rule.
lacking any further information, either possibility is as good as the other.
from the eternal God? As you pointed out the other logical conclusion is
that life came from non-life; but if you really thought about it you would
realize there is nothing logical about life coming from non-life. It has
never been shown to be the case. Life has always come from life and the
only source of eternal life is the God of the Holy Bible.
Originally posted by RJHindsyou should really heed my warnings. the conclusion you have drawn from what i said is completely wrong as is your attempted logical interpretation.
Do you realize that your statement is on the verge of admitting life comes
from the eternal God? As you pointed out the other logical conclusion is
that life came from non-life; but if you really thought about it you would
realize there is nothing logical about life coming from non-life. It has
never been shown to be the case. Life has always come from life and the
only source of eternal life is the God of the Holy Bible.
the two possibilities are:
1. life has existed forever, not necessarily your god, another god or any number of other gods. i'm talking about life in general.
2. at some point in the past, life came from non life. this includes the possibility of your god, another god or any number of other gods coming into existence from non-life, but more specifically, life in general.
both are equally valid given our lack of information.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritSo you are saying that life came from a God of some type?
you should really heed my warnings. the conclusion you have drawn from what i said is completely wrong as is your attempted logical interpretation.
the two possibilities are:
1. life has existed forever, not necessarily your god, another god or any number of other gods. i'm talking about life in general.
2. at some point in the past, life came fr ...[text shortened]... ut more specifically, life in general.
both are equally valid given our lack of information.