Pastor Creflow Dollar is asking for 60 million to purchase new G6 to spread the gospel across the gl

[girlthatsblanco]

The former pays respect to the possibility of being wrong, but offers a suggestion; the latter thinks it has solved the case.

"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist."
Stephen Hawking

 

[darthska]

I can draw many conclusions from that, and from you posting that.

What do you mean to say by posting that?

 

[girlthatsblanco]

I can draw many conclusions from that, and from you posting that.

What do you mean to say by posting that?

I know the site I posted is bias. I know they have an agenda, but the same is to be said about the opposition. That was the intention of the quote.

 

[sundoobie]

After more than four decades of ministry, the Institute for Creation Research remains a leader in scientific research within the context of biblical creation.

Come on now!

Just their 5 paragraph explanation about dinosaurs made me go

 

[blastercombo]

Come on now!

Just their 5 paragraph explanation about dinosaurs made me go

I'm not here to discredit whatever research they did to come to their conclusion but it seems like they're saying whatever they have to to NOT say maybe the scientists are right

 

[darthska]

[quote name="GirlThatsBlanco"][quote name="DarthSka"]I can draw many conclusions from that, and from you posting that.

What do you mean to say by posting that?[/quote]I know the site I posted is bias. I know they have an agenda, but the same is to be said about the opposition. That was the intention of the quote.[/quote]An opinion is but the same as a bias.

Facts have no bias.

If I happen to like red, that's my opinion. Imagine I were a game show host and told someone, "Well you've won a car in the color of your choice! So well it be some boring color like blue or yellow? Studies show that if you go with red, you'll become more attractive, more appealing, and more fun. But totally up to you."

That's not fair.

"You've won a car, in the color of your choice!"

The end.

Now... like I mentioned earlier, I personally have no problem with someone presenting their opinion AS LONG AS IT IS CLEARLY STATED that it is their opinion.

Even in the Hawking quote you posted above, he clearly states that he's an atheist. That allows anyone to take the entire quote with that in mind.

And even more impressive is that he is presenting an argument on the grounds of there being a god... then he states that he's an atheist. That is the very definition of objectivity, understanding the opposite of your stance, but disagreeing with it.

Either tell me JUST the facts you've discovered, or tell me the facts along with your opinion of what those facts suggest WHILE ALSO being transparent in telling me your affiliation/agenda/belief.

If one can't do the latter, they should stick with the former. If that's not possible, either, they are an obstacle to unbiased education and can only realistically be taken seriously by members of their affiliation.

Someone who is fact based or fact based while also being transparent in their affiliation/agenda/belief, they get taken seriously by more than just the members of their affiliation.

 

[frankmatthews]

IMHO, and not trying to throw shots at all, but only small minded folks try to refute small minded opinions/theories and believe they are in possesion of some sort of empirical evidence as a result. Honestly, you are putting yourself in an equally as small a box if that is the extent of your intelect.

 

[boris]

The only assumption made is their relationship which isn't a far stretch if we look at the text. Why did Noah walk with God? For what reason was Noah righteous? Why did God only tell Noah his plans? Why was Noah given specific instructions?

As I pointed out, it says he faithfully  walked with god. Why  he chose to, I don't know, because faith implies that he did so without evidence. This is a time when everyone believed in god(s). It's not like people demanded evidence to believe in god(s), they created the idea of god(s) to explain what they saw. As I said, you're making an assumption to fit your definition. 

You keep focusing on the dictionary's definition, but I am telling you that the Bible simply has another definition. I have shown you why and so has the Bible. Which is the purpose for each example listed.

And I disagreed because no where does it explicitly state that faith is backed by evidence. 

In the 4 Gospels Christ shows us evidence to tell the world that he truly is who he says he is. He fulfills specific prophecies of the coming Messiah that are mentioned by OT prophets. Christ performs miracles and acts that can only be attributed to God. That is evidence the Jesus is who He says He is. If someone were to simply say, "Hey I'm God in the flesh. Follow me and have faith in me," people would ask that person to prove that they are who they say they are and not just a person making a claim. Show some evidence. Which is why their is so much evidence to support matters of the Bible and make it distinct from other ancient text.

First, this is already a highly disputed topic. Jews and Muslims disagree that Jesus Christ was the son of god. Additionally, the evidence that exists is dubious. You are accepting accounts about Jesus and claiming that they are evidence. This is hearsay, not evidence. If you could concretely show that Jesus Christ was the son of the one and only god, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

It seems like you want me to to ultimately deny that evidence to prove that my faith and beliefs are simply something I came up with that have no foundation. That is called blind faith. Focus on the context of how the word faith is used in the Bible. Over and over again, people had evidence (some seen and some not) to justify their faith. You also have to remember that during the times of each person mentioned they did not have a complete Bible or a full revelation of who God is. Which is why he gave them evidence to prove that he was who He said he was in order to give that person a foundation for their faith.

No one has evidence to prove that the supernatural exists (do I need to go into the definition of the supernatural?). I am sure you have reasons for what you believe, but what you consider evidence is far from concrete. You have a strong conviction, just like followers of other religions (i.e. Islam). 

What is the difference between faith and blind faith to you?

See: the definition of faith.

The word conviction  will have the same definition regardless of how you define faith, though. So, you only assume that a strong conviction requires some type of evidence when it has to do with the Bible? You conveniently assume that a Muslim's strong conviction requires no evidence?

You did not address this. Why does a strong conviction require some type of evidence when it has to do with Christianity, but not when it has to do with Islam?

 

[darthska]

[quote name="FrankMatthews"]IMHO, and not trying to throw shots at all, but only small minded folks try to refute small minded opinions/theories and believe they are in possesion of some sort of empirical evidence as a result. Honestly, you are putting yourself in an equally as small a box if that is the extent of your intelect.[/quote]Not following. Explain further?

 

[frankmatthews]

[quote name="FrankMatthews"]IMHO, and not trying to throw shots at all, but only small minded folks try to refute small minded opinions/theories and believe they are in possesion of some sort of empirical evidence as a result. Honestly, you are putting yourself in an equally as small a box if that is the extent of your intelect.

Not following. Explain further?[/quote]

Theres really nothing to follow or explain. Im quite sure you understood.

 

[darthska]

So you were throwing shots, but wanted to remain vague, and now that the person you're throwing shots at has asked for clarification, you want no part of it.

Thanks for your contribution.

"If you think that your empirical evidence means you have all the answers, you're stupid."

Just go with that next time.

 

[boris]

Since some of you have rejected a belief in God and the Bible's account of creation, does this mean you have put your current trust in the theory of evolution or is it in something else in concerns to creation? And why? Just curious.

Most people don't trust  the theory of evolution. It is a widely accepted natural phenomenon. Interestingly, if you believe the global flood myth in the Bible, you have to accept that evolution occurred at an absurd rate to create the diversity we see now. 

 

[frankmatthews]

So you were throwing shots, but wanted to remain vague, and now that the person you're throwing shots at has asked for clarification, you want no part of it.

Thanks for your contribution.

"If you think that your empirical evidence means you have all the answers, you're stupid."

Just go with that next time.

I really wasn't throwing shots, you clearly have some intelligence, seems you just like to argue. I don't get the point of debating how old the world is or if/when the dinosaurs existed. It's like you train your puppy and then think you're a college professor.

Argue with a fool and people might have a hard time telling who's who. This seems to be lost on most atheists. Me thinks you all just like bursting bubbles, arguing and trying to sound educated.

And I've yet to see any empirical evidence for your position. Of course your position is actually "i don't know" and you've spent the better part of a week trying to prove a negative.

 

[darthska]

I absolutely love debating, and I look at arguing as an unfortunate, occasional consequence of debating. Sports, movies, philosophy, parenting... I absolutely love debating, for two reasons: to have my own views challenged, and to challenge the views of others. I feel like I do that respectfully, until I feel like I'm being mocked or disrespected.

Admittedly, I'm aware that I need to work on that. Some debaters, at the point that they feel disrespected or mocked, they bow out. I know I should do that, and I do sometimes. Sometimes. :\

At any rate, citing empirical evidence can be interpreted as a know-it-all attempt, but unless the person explicitly or implicitly said "So that's it. You may hush now, because this is over with that piece of evidence," I think it's an unfair presumption to think they knew everything. And the solution would be to just get back to the facts/evidence presented. Character judgments provide nothing to most debates. Facts, evidence, and the interpretation of those 2 things provide a lot, though.

 

[frankmatthews]

I see. Well carry on.

Perhaps you can debate if the world is round or flat next.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

[executive76]

 

[mr marcus]

Just saw someone share this on fb...come to NT and its bumped

 

[htg designs]

that boy Crooked Dollar needs Jesus, for real this time.

 

[1stwitit]

My Pastor flies coach and his wife drives a Honda. I don't even think he has a car. We have churches being planted worldwide, can't do that if you're asking for private jets.

 

[fontaine]

 

[Comparison Ford]

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

 

[gwap]

What i don't understand about the religious community is their disdain for science...

If the world was indeed created by a God... then science is just the study of that God's creation.

 

[fontaine]

What i don't understand about the religious community is their disdain for science...

If the world was indeed created by a God... then science is just the study of that God's creation.

you know why famb.

 

[Chopper]

  this the dude that spoke to a NT'er through his TV. 

 

[htg designs]

What i don't understand about the religious community is their disdain for science...

If the world was indeed created by a God... then science is just the study of that God's creation.

There's no disdain for science. If there really was then belivers wouldnt be going to hospitals or keeping up with midern tech (all products of science). They just dont keep it paramount, as the end all be all. Because science changes constantly. They say they belive the bible above all, when ever science contradicts it.