• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

Serenity7855

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Bunyip said:
I have seen that 'debate'. Krauss tore Craig to peices - Craig is a philosopher, pretending to a real physicist that his lame philosophical word game was somehow actually scientific. It was almost painful to see Craig make such an utter fool of himself.

Ancient philosophical word games are not the same thing as science.
Click to expand...

If you believe that, then you are more of a bigot then I had at first realised. Krauss was rude, obnoxious and overbearing. He had to be brought into line by the adjudicator on several occasions, at one point he said that Christians no nothing. Not a very intellectual comment to make by a professor, is it? Every point of his argument was systematically destroyed by WLC. He was loud, dishevelled and angry. William Lane Craig was calm, collected and composed never raising his voice once. Maybe you should watch it again, without blinkers.
 
Serenity7855

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
adi2d said:
We know that the self is not in the heart since 1967. A heart can be removed and a donor heart installed and the person is still the same person. You need to update your lesson plan teach
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was in ones heart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MD
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Serenity7855 said:
If you believe that, then you are more of a bigot then I had at first realised. Krauss was rude, obnoxious and overbearing. He had to be brought into line by the adjudicator on several occasions, at one point he said that Christians no nothing. Not a very intellectual comment to make by a professor, is it? Every point of his argument was systematically destroyed by WLC. He was loud, dishevelled and angry. William Lane Craig was calm, collected and composed never raising his voice once. Maybe you should watch it again, without blinkers.
Click to expand...

Yes mate, we have all heard your all purpose 'you're a biased militant atheist' evasion. Hopefully at some point you will get past it to the evidence you claimed to have.
 
Blackdog22

Blackdog22

Well-Known Member
Serenity7855 said:
If you believe that, then you are more of a bigot then I had at first realised. Krauss was rude, obnoxious and overbearing. He had to be brought into line by the adjudicator on several occasions, at one point he said that Christians no nothing. Not a very intellectual comment to make by a professor, is it? Every point of his argument was systematically destroyed by WLC. He was loud, dishevelled and angry. William Lane Craig was calm, collected and composed never raising his voice once. Maybe you should watch it again, without blinkers.
Click to expand...

The tone of someones words do not convey the truth of them. He was saying WLC lost, of course in his opinion. Coming back to him and saying he is a bigot then going on about rudeness (as if thats a bad thing? You seem to enjoy it) has little to do with why he believes WLC lost. If I say that snow is cold in a really rude tone, it doesn't follow that because I was rude I was wrong and lose all credibility. Maybe you should stop your atheist hating agenda, because of personal issues with your brother, and start arguing with more heart and logic.

I do want to note that I think Krauss was quite rude and you claimed I was a militant atheist. I wonder how that fits into your world view.
 
Last edited:
Serenity7855

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Blackdog22 said:
The tone of someones words do not convey the truth of them. He was saying WLC lost, of course in his opinion. Coming back to him and saying he is a bigot then going on about rudeness (as if thats a bad thing? You seem to enjoy it) has little to do with why he believes WLC lost. If I say that snow is cold in a really rude tone, it doesn't follow that because I was rude I was wrong and lose all credibility. Maybe you should stop your atheist hating agenda, because of personal issues with your brother, and start arguing with more heart and logic.

I do want to note that I think Krauss was quite rude and you claimed I was a militant atheist. I wonder how that fits into your world view.
Click to expand...

I have a Higher National Deploy, with merits, a 2-1 Degree with honours, and a PhD, all of which has taken 7 years of my life to achieve, at a high cost and much sacrifice to my family. I did it late in life which made it hard for us all. This character has insulted me on many occasions claiming that I am stupid. I rarely display aggression unless I am attacked first. He attacked me first. I do appreciate what you are saying and I will make every effort to cease responding in kind

. To say that he is bigoted is not, in my opinion, hostile. It is a statement of fact as I see it. I have been called a bigot many times. I am a bigot. I would be lying if I said anything else. We are all bigots in one way or another. If you are sensitive to being called a bigot then perhaps a forum like this is not the best place for him to be. The bottom line is that if you try and falsely discredit me then expect the same back. The topic is the big bang not me.

I do not hate atheists. Many of my close friend are Atheists, with whom I never fall out with over religion. It is the militant atheist that I am at odds with. Krauss confesses that his roll is the exact opposite to that of an evangelist, in as much as he actively seeks to take people away from Christianity in to atheism. I do not see why I should take the insults just because I am a Christian, so I fight back.
 
Last edited:
A

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Serenity7855 said:
.......it is a general perception that atheists are argumentative and intimidating resulting in brainwashing. Look at the William Lane Craig v Lawrence Krauss.
Click to expand...

As a skeptic has correctly said in this thread, the truthfulness of a proposition does not necessarily depend upon the conduct of its proponents. There are many wonderful, polite, peaceful, moral atheists in the world.

Sweden has a high percentage of atheists compared with most other countries, but it is rated number 8 in the world on the Human Development Index, number 11 on the Global Peace Index, number 6 on the Social Progress Index, and is rated high on a number of other indexes.

The past female prime minister Julia Gillard of Australia is an atheist. Gillard has said:

"I am, of course, a great respecter of religious beliefs, but they are not my beliefs. For people of faith, I think the greatest compliment I could pay them is to respect their genuinely-held beliefs and not to engage in some pretence about mine."

Serenity7855 said:
I have a Higher National Deploy, with merits, a 2-1 Degree with honours, and a PhD.......
Click to expand...

What subjects are your degrees in?

Do you accept common descent?

Do you believe that a global flood occurred, and that the earth in young?

Do you believe that the Ten Plagues, and the Exodus occurred?

Regarding the existence of God, I refer you to my post 3760 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...le-rational-proof-god-exists-existed-376.html. That post provides reasonable evidence that science cannot reasonably prove, or disprove the existence of God. Even if it could, that would not reasonably prove who God is.

I also refer you to a thread that I started some time ago at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...relation-between-atheism-increased-crime.html.
 
Last edited:
R

ruffen

Active Member
Serenity7855 said:
Yes, I believe in the literal existence of Jesus Christ and all of the stories the bible tells of Him.
Click to expand...

Then the existence of Jesus is ultimately a scientific question. Either he really literally existed, or he didn't.

Do you have any evidence except anectdotes that he existed?
 
Serenity7855

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Agnostic75 said:
As a skeptic has correctly said in this thread, the truthfulness of a proposition does not necessarily depend upon the conduct of its proponents. There are many wonderful, polite, peaceful, moral atheists in the world.

Sweden has a high percentage of atheists compared with most other countries, but it is rated number 8 in the world on the Human Development Index, number 11 on the Global Peace Index, number 6 on the Social Progress Index, and is rated high on a number of other indexes.

The past female prime minister Julia Gillard of Australia is an atheist. Gillard has said:

"I am, of course, a great respecter of religious beliefs, but they are not my beliefs. For people of faith, I think the greatest compliment I could pay them is to respect their genuinely-held beliefs and not to engage in some pretence about mine."



What subjects are your degrees in?

Do you accept common descent?

Do you believe that a global flood occurred, and that the earth in young?

Do you believe that the Ten Plagues, and the Exodus occurred?

Regarding the existence of God, I refer you to my post 3760 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...le-rational-proof-god-exists-existed-376.html. That post provides reasonable evidence that science cannot reasonably prove, or disprove the existence of God. Even if it could, that would not reasonably prove who God is.

I also refer you to a thread that I started some time ago at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...relation-between-atheism-increased-crime.html.
Click to expand...

HND - Building Services
Degree - Environmental Engineering.
PhD - Prevention of lower respitory particulate ingress

Yes, I believe in common decent.

I do not believe that the earth is any younger the 4 billion years. Did the flood really take place. I do not know. I wasn't there. I look at it as a set of principles produced within a parable so it is meaningless to me whether it happened or not.

Same answer for the 10 plaques as I gave for the flood.
 
A

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Serenity7855 said:
If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not.
Click to expand...

I refer you to my post 3760 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...le-rational-proof-god-exists-existed-376.html. That post provides reasonable evidence that science cannot reasonably prove, or disprove the existence of God. The post also shows that even some Christians disagree with your claim, including George Lemaitre, who was a Roman Catholic physicist, and was one of the founders of the Big Bang theory.
 
Last edited:
Alceste

Alceste

Vagabond
Serenity7855 said:
If you believe that, then you are more of a bigot then I had at first realised. Krauss was rude, obnoxious and overbearing. He had to be brought into line by the adjudicator on several occasions, at one point he said that Christians no nothing. Not a very intellectual comment to make by a professor, is it? Every point of his argument was systematically destroyed by WLC. He was loud, dishevelled and angry. William Lane Craig was calm, collected and composed never raising his voice once. Maybe you should watch it again, without blinkers.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should watch it again, paying attention to arguments instead of appearance and mannerisms?
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
Serenity7855 said:
I have a Higher National Deploy, with merits, a 2-1 Degree with honours, and a PhD, all of which has taken 7 years of my life to achieve, at a high cost and much sacrifice to my family.
Click to expand...

Then you have absolutely no excuses for your behaviour in this thread.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
Bunyip said:
we have all heard your all purpose 'you're a biased militant atheist' evasion.
Click to expand...


I have only noticed a very biased militant theist in this thread.


One who claims his faith is credible evidence. :facepalm:


One who is forced to ignore REAL evidence, as wel as pervert what he has little kowledge about.


If I was a theist I would be embarrassed with this behaviour.
 
Serenity7855

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
adi2d said:
You said the heart and self were inseparable until death. That is not true or the donors self would be in the new body
Click to expand...

No, I said take the heart from the body and the body will die. I made that clear when I said "You and your body are two separate things that are joined together at birth and will be separated at death." your body is not your heart.

How on earth have you come to that conclusion. Put that heart from a donor usually means that the donor is dead so the spirit has left the body and they have both separated at death, as I have said. Put that heart into a new body and the spirit and body cannot be separated as the patient is alive.

What I said was "Take the heart from your body and you will die, take the spirit from your body and you will die. They are inseparable connected until death.

Take the heart out of the body and your body will die. Take the spirit from your body and you will die. . You have misunderstood it somehow. I cannot see how you have read it like you have.
 
Last edited:
Serenity7855

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Last edited:
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top