POLL: What is the World's Most Evil Religion?
- Thread starter candletrader
- Start date
only few have interest in esoteric pursuits. however, this few is growing. you need to read "techgnosis" to see the connections i am speaking of.
your friend...
Also see: "The Face that demonstrates the farce of evolution."
By: Hank Hanegraaff
"The Case for Christ"
By: Lee Strobel
You can research thousands of articles, books, magazines on the subject of the Historical relevance of the Bible and the Bible as divine rather than human in origin.
you can order these and much much more through the Christian Research Institute.
http://www.equip.org/
(No affiliation)
Quote from Guardian Angel:
Quote from axeman:
"You demand an answered to your ridiculous questions but yet you will not respond to a simple question."
Im not the one asserting grand claims such as biblical truth.
However you DO assert the grand claim such as there is no God.
I have every right to question such nonsense.
So do we have every right to question YOUR beliefs.
Point out what I have asserted and THEN you can ask me questions.
YOU have asserted that the Bible is nonsense but yet you lack the evidence to support this. You have simply taken text out of context and forced your interpretation on the text. You do not understand biblical history nor have you studied ancient customs and times. You do not understand Biblical hermeneutics or you would not have spoken as a child with glaring generalities.
Otherwise, this is nothing more than a complete DODGE to avoid
answering the questions which point out the GLARING errors
in YOUR atheist beliefs. Nice try.
Atheism is a religion????!?! Wow.... you are so clueless that you
don't even know that atheism is the LACK OF RELIGIOUS belief.
Are you truly THAT ignorant of what atheism is???
If you don't even understand what it is, how could you possibly
argue against it?
I understand MORE about atheism than YOU do.
I too did not believe until took the time to study the claims of the Bible for myself. Have you?
Well DUH... **HE** is the one asserting something, therefore
the burden of proof is on HIM.
Likewise *YOU* also have asserted that there is NO God.
so the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that there is no God or your belief has no grounds. This is basic scientific theory of epistemology which is apparently obvious you have not studied.
Its amazing that you are completely unaware of this simple concept.
AXE: If I cant explain why the universe is here, this IN NO WAY
lends ANY credibility to his weak position.
Helloooo...the lack of an explanation for one thing ** IS NOT **
equivalent to proof for someone else hypothesis.
However if YOU fail to give a rational, logical alternative explanation .............it does!
Nice try.
Well.... you have proven to us that you don't even understand
simple concepts like the burden of proof, or what even
constitutes proof.
The burden of proof is on the one who doubts, not the one who believes. You see the one that believes is already convinced on the subject so for you to assert an opposing argument to the contrary the burden of proof is on you. A real student of science would set out to discover truth with as much a clean lab coat on as possible as not to have already arrived at a conclusion without 1st examining the evidence.
Now put up, or shut up. Defend your silly biblical position
or go away.
Likewise you must do the same. Give us a REAL reason along with evidence as to why you disagree with the claims of the Bible.
Attempting to claim that (the Bible) is asserting things
which in fact it is NOT, and then demanding that (the Bible) answer questions for things which It did NOT assert, is an obvious
foolish game played by silly atheists, to avoid answering
any questions regarding their grand empty assertions.
Have a nice day
peace
GA
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Genesis 1:1
You see the Bible IS asserting that God created the heavens and the earth. Christians believe this to be fact and atheist do not.
Can you offer a different alternative to this argument?
How do you explain the fact of origins. You can not remove origins from the argument.
Since you can not remove origins from the debate it would appear that axeman has removed himself from the argument.
I hear SATANISM is pretty evil (by definition, really). The rest of these groups are evil in the eyes of some for doing the exact same things their favored religions do with their blessing.
The Satanists don't have any oil-bearing land, and they weren't considering ditching the US greenback in favor of the Euro for their billion dollar oil transactions (which would have massively hurt the States' propped up Superpower status), so I guess they're okay in comparison to some other groups who we'd like to think are true evil.
It's an old rule that you have to demonize 'the enemy' and cause extreme polarization of your unwashed masses before you can act with authority and conviction and do something extremely unethical in the name of justice. And we see this happening all the time. I leave it up to your blinded eyes to discern this manipulation for yourselves.
The Satanists don't have any oil-bearing land, and they weren't considering ditching the US greenback in favor of the Euro for their billion dollar oil transactions (which would have massively hurt the States' propped up Superpower status), so I guess they're okay in comparison to some other groups who we'd like to think are true evil.
It's an old rule that you have to demonize 'the enemy' and cause extreme polarization of your unwashed masses before you can act with authority and conviction and do something extremely unethical in the name of justice. And we see this happening all the time. I leave it up to your blinded eyes to discern this manipulation for yourselves.
insane in the membrane.....INSANE IN THE BRAIN!
LOL. 777 proves again that he doesnt understand the terminology.
Atheism is a LACK OF THEISTIC belief.
If you know NOTHING of god, then your are in fact an atheist.
An agnostic REQUIRES knowledge of god, because and
agnostic is in an "undecided" state about gods existence.
You were in FACT born an atheist, like all humans, by definition.
And using your own logic, YOU ARE A FAILED ATHEIST!
Further, using your own poisoning the well fallacy, you
simply are bitter about atheism failing you, and this is
the ONLY reason you are a theist! LMAOOOO....
Poor poor failed atheist. He just couldn't stand the truth,
and ran to theism with his tail between his legs because
he feared death so much. What a wuss!
peace
axeman
Atheism is a LACK OF THEISTIC belief.
If you know NOTHING of god, then your are in fact an atheist.
An agnostic REQUIRES knowledge of god, because and
agnostic is in an "undecided" state about gods existence.
You were in FACT born an atheist, like all humans, by definition.
And using your own logic, YOU ARE A FAILED ATHEIST!
Further, using your own poisoning the well fallacy, you
simply are bitter about atheism failing you, and this is
the ONLY reason you are a theist! LMAOOOO....
Poor poor failed atheist. He just couldn't stand the truth,
and ran to theism with his tail between his legs because
he feared death so much. What a wuss!
peace
axeman
I have removed myself from debating people as completely
clueless as you.
Anyone who cant even understand that NOT KNOWING
why something occurs, IN NO WAY provides proof for
someone elses baseless assertion is simply far too ignorant
of simple reasoning skills to even waste a breath on.
You have clearly shown this to be the case.
Previously I stated:
"Helloooo...the lack of an explanation for one thing ** IS NOT **
equivalent to proof for someone else's hypothesis."
And you replied:
"However if YOU fail to give a rational, logical alternative explanation .............it does!"
It absolutely does NOT, and people have already explained why.
This proves beyond ANY DOUBT that you LACK basic reasoning skills.
I would be quite embarrassed to post a reply this idiotic.
Go back to school, and ask your professors why
this reply is so completely stupid.
I could easily continue to shred your replies point for point,
but there is no point, since you fail to grasp these simple concepts.
Further, after explaining the definition of atheism, and
that it is a LACK of theistic belief, you replied:
"I understand MORE about atheism than YOU do."
Neener Neener!
This is NOT a reasoned reply/argument, this is a baseless statement.
In fact, if flies in the face of the obvious truth, that you have NO CLUE
what atheism is.
I feel like im debating against a small child here
When you have something to bring to the table, come back,
because you obviously lack the most basic of debating and
reasoning skills.
It's glaringly obvious. .
peace
axeman
clueless as you.
Anyone who cant even understand that NOT KNOWING
why something occurs, IN NO WAY provides proof for
someone elses baseless assertion is simply far too ignorant
of simple reasoning skills to even waste a breath on.
You have clearly shown this to be the case.
Previously I stated:
"Helloooo...the lack of an explanation for one thing ** IS NOT **
equivalent to proof for someone else's hypothesis."
And you replied:
"However if YOU fail to give a rational, logical alternative explanation .............it does!"
It absolutely does NOT, and people have already explained why.
This proves beyond ANY DOUBT that you LACK basic reasoning skills.
I would be quite embarrassed to post a reply this idiotic.
Go back to school, and ask your professors why
this reply is so completely stupid.
I could easily continue to shred your replies point for point,
but there is no point, since you fail to grasp these simple concepts.
Further, after explaining the definition of atheism, and
that it is a LACK of theistic belief, you replied:
"I understand MORE about atheism than YOU do."
Neener Neener!
This is NOT a reasoned reply/argument, this is a baseless statement.
In fact, if flies in the face of the obvious truth, that you have NO CLUE
what atheism is.
I feel like im debating against a small child here
When you have something to bring to the table, come back,
because you obviously lack the most basic of debating and
reasoning skills.
It's glaringly obvious. .
peace
axeman
Quote from axeman:
I have removed myself from debating people as completely
clueless as you.
Anyone who cant even understand that NOT KNOWING
why something occurs, IN NO WAY provides proof for
someone elses baseless assertion is simply far too ignorant
of simple reasoning skills to even waste a breath on.
You have clearly shown this to be the case.
Previously I stated:
"Helloooo...the lack of an explanation for one thing ** IS NOT **
equivalent to proof for someone else's hypothesis."
And you replied:
"However if YOU fail to give a rational, logical alternative explanation .............it does!"
It absolutely does NOT, and people have already explained why.
This proves beyond ANY DOUBT that you LACK basic reasoning skills.
I would be quite embarrassed to post a reply this idiotic.
Go back to school, and ask your professors why
this reply is so completely stupid.
I could easily continue to shred your replies point for point,
but there is no point, since you fail to grasp these simple concepts.
Further, after explaining the definition of atheism, and
that it is a LACK of theistic belief, you replied:
"I understand MORE about atheism than YOU do."
Neener Neener!
This is NOT a reasoned reply/argument, this is a baseless statement.
In fact, if flies in the face of the obvious truth, that you have NO CLUE
what atheism is.
I feel like im debating against a small child here
When you have something to bring to the table, come back,
because you obviously lack the most basic of debating and
reasoning skills.
It's glaringly obvious. .
peace
axeman
You are the most ignorant individual I have ever debated on this subject. You claim to understand logic and reason but you do not.
Again you have dodged the most important aspect of this debate.....How do you explain the origin of the universe?
It is now time to blow your silly illogical ramblings out of water.
IS ATHEISM LOGICAL?
Atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. More specifically, traditional
atheism argues that there never was and never will be a God. But is this position rationally
justifiable?
Atheism positively affirms that there is no God. But can the atheist be certain of this claim? You
see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all
things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to
all parts of the universe (omnipresence). Therefore, as an atheist, to be certain of this claim you
would have to possess Godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes
these special abilities. The atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore clearly unjustifiable. The atheist
is attempting to prove a universal negative. In terms of logic this is called a logical fallacy.
The atheistic world view is inadequate for many other reasons as well. First, atheism cannot
adequately explain the existence of the world. Like all other things, the world in which we live
cries out for an explanation which is clearly beyond itself -- however, the atheist is unable to
provide one. Second, the atheistic world view is unable to provide the necessary preconditions to
account for the laws of science, the universal laws of logic -- and, of course, absolute moral
standards. In short, the atheistic world view cannot account for the meaningful realities of life.
If individual atheists are serious about truth when it comes to God, let them consider the claims
of Jesus Christ. He claimed to be none other than God in human flesh (John 1:1). This
astounding claim was supported, however, by his matchless personal character, His fulfillment of
predictive prophecy, His incredible influence on human history -- and most importantly, the
historical fact of His resurrection from the dead. The evidence is definitely there for the skeptic
to analyze. As Francis Schaeffer, the noted apologist, stated: "God is there and He is not silent."
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19). Ultimately man does not deny
the existence of God for lack of evidence, but because man does not want to be accountable to
his creator.
IS ATHEISM LOGICAL?
Atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. More specifically, traditional
atheism argues that there never was and never will be a God. But is this position rationally
justifiable?
Atheism positively affirms that there is no God. But can the atheist be certain of this claim? You
see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all
things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to
all parts of the universe (omnipresence). Therefore, as an atheist, to be certain of this claim you
would have to possess Godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes
these special abilities. The atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore clearly unjustifiable. The atheist
is attempting to prove a universal negative. In terms of logic this is called a logical fallacy.
The atheistic world view is inadequate for many other reasons as well. First, atheism cannot
adequately explain the existence of the world. Like all other things, the world in which we live
cries out for an explanation which is clearly beyond itself -- however, the atheist is unable to
provide one. Second, the atheistic world view is unable to provide the necessary preconditions to
account for the laws of science, the universal laws of logic -- and, of course, absolute moral
standards. In short, the atheistic world view cannot account for the meaningful realities of life.
If individual atheists are serious about truth when it comes to God, let them consider the claims
of Jesus Christ. He claimed to be none other than God in human flesh (John 1:1). This
astounding claim was supported, however, by his matchless personal character, His fulfillment of
predictive prophecy, His incredible influence on human history -- and most importantly, the
historical fact of His resurrection from the dead. The evidence is definitely there for the skeptic
to analyze. As Francis Schaeffer, the noted apologist, stated: "God is there and He is not silent."
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19). Ultimately man does not deny
the existence of God for lack of evidence, but because man does not want to be accountable to
his creator.