why reject christianity

[james bond]

I think that when someone calls atheism a religion, it speaks volumes about their lack of understanding about the viewpoints of others. They can’t even fathom the idea that people might relate to the world in a way other than their narrow paradigm.

Every one of these conversation I’ve ever had:
What kind of car do you drive?

I don’t have a car.

What?! Nonsense. How do you get around?

I walk, mostly.

Then your feet are your car. See? You do have a car.

Well, if atheism isn't a religion, i.e. based on faith and not evidence, then what evidence do you have for not believing in the existence of God.

As an aside, one doesn't need a car if they use Uber or Lyft or use their footmobile (bipedalism) to get around. However, bipedalism is not efficient for carrying a load, too tiring and takes too long. It's not really evolution if you ask me .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, if atheism isn't a religion, i.e. based on faith and not evidence, then what evidence do you have for not believing in the existence of God.

As an aside, one doesn't need a car if they use Uber or Lyft or use their footmobile (bipedalism) to get around. However, bipedalism is not efficient for carrying a load, too tiring and takes too long. It's not really evolution if you ask me .

Wow! You got that wrong.

First off atheism is simply a lack of belief. It is not a religion. It is not faith based. You are the one making an extra ordinary claim and since you have no evidence for your faith based belief you accuse others of having your flaws. Most atheists will tell you simply show me some valid evidence and I will change my mind. Creationists, as a whole, do not even understand the concept of evidence. You do not appear to understand the concept of evidence.

By the way, pointing out that you do not understand the concept of evidence is much more generous than assuming that you do understand the nature of evidence. If you did that would make you a huge liar. I do not think that you intentionally lie, but you are afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence. That allows you to believe that you are not lying.

 

[james bond]

Unfortunetly, they use science to reflect their religious views. Science isnt bias. There isnt anything that is god in a plant, for example. Its just a plant. The god part is humans.

Unfortunetly too creationist dont take homosexuals view into consideration of facts. Non bias science looks at all views. There is no bias in nature. Thats all human.

Science is made up of theory, principles and laws. A theory should not have bias, but there is some "acceptable" bias such as assumptions. For example, one makes assumptions that there is no God, the supernatural or that the Bible is religion. Creation scientists, who created modern science, to honor God disagree. Another is the assumptions made to validate radiometric dating, i.e. the earth is 4.7 million years old or the universe is 13.7 million years old. There lies the rub. The other bias is atheist science has gotten away from origins science because they cannot explain it. Yet, any discussion on origins will not allow God, the supernatural or the Bible to be used.

Sure, God is in a plant as well as all living things. Not just humans. He's the creator and his work is reflected in the plant. Otherwise, humans will be able to create a plant or a blade of grass. That's another evidence for God because he has limited what humans can do.

>>C: Unfortunetly too creationist dont take homosexuals view into consideration of facts. Non bias science looks at all views. There is no bias in nature. Thats all human.<<

I think a few creationists are prejudiced and homophobic, but the majority accept homosexual views today. Christianity is changing to accommodate them. Maybe one day soon, they'll be able to marry in most Christian churches since the law has changed in the US and many places around the world. After all, we have gay and lesbian family members and people who are our friends and acquaintances in our schools, workplace and community.

 

[james bond]

One of the strongest evidence for Christianity is the downfall of internet atheism since 2008. I don't have enough time to create a thread why reject atheism, but let me leave you with evidence that atheism, specifically internet atheism, has gone down in popularity. People are bored of what Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens have been saying. Atheist churches have not taken hold. Even believer Chuck Norris said that atheists were trying to spread their atheism via the internet in 2007. Atheists want proof. Well, here it is.

Question Evolution!: Internet atheism: The thrill is gone!

 

[james bond]

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science is made up of theory, principles and laws. A theory should not have bias, but there is some "acceptable" bias such as assumptions. For example, one makes assumptions that there is no God, the supernatural or that the Bible is religion. Creation scientists, who created modern science, to honor God disagree. Another is the assumptions made to validate radiometric dating, i.e. the earth is 4.7 million years old or the universe is 13.7 million years old. There lies the rub. The other bias is atheist science has gotten away from origins science because they cannot explain it. Yet, any discussion on origins will not allow God, the supernatural or the Bible to be used.

Once again, there are no "creation scientists". Scientists follow the scientific method. People that work at such places as "Answers in Genesis" have to swear not to use the scientific method. And no, "creation scientist" did not invent the scientific method. Nor do real scientists assume that there is no god. You have been corrected on this so many times that now you are obviously lying. You have no excuse to keep making these false claims about others.

Sure, God is in a plant as well as all living things. Not just humans. He's the creator and his work is reflected in the plant. Otherwise, humans will be able to create a plant or a blade of grass. That's another evidence for God because he has limited what humans can do.

Then why can't you find any reliable evidence that supports this claim? All that you can do is to try to distort the science that is out there.

And there was no assumption of the age of the Earth when it was dated with radiometric dating. Where did you get that idea from? Yes, geology had already proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth was many millions of years old. Using a proven fact is never an "assumption". Please tell us any incorrect assumptions that were made in regards to radiometric dating.

>>C: Unfortunetly too creationist dont take homosexuals view into consideration of facts. Non bias science looks at all views. There is no bias in nature. Thats all human.<<

I think a few creationists are prejudiced and homophobic, but the majority accept homosexual views today. Christianity is changing to accommodate them. Maybe one day soon, they'll be able to marry in most Christian churches since the law has changed in the US and many places around the world. After all, we have gay and lesbian family members and people who are our friends and acquaintances in our schools, workplace and community.

Oh my! I am impressed. You may be able to see the light of reason after all. I will have to try to remember that you are not the typical homophobic creationist.

By the way, use of the "funny" rating as an attempt to make a negative comment is banned here, the same reasoning would ban an inappropriate use of the "creative" rating. If you do not agree with my posts why did you rate them "creative"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

One of the strongest evidence for Christianity is the downfall of internet atheism since 2008. I don't have enough time to create a thread why reject atheism, but let me leave you with evidence that atheism, specifically internet atheism, has gone down in popularity. People are bored of what Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens have been saying. Atheist churches have not taken hold. Even believer Chuck Norris said that atheists were trying to spread their atheism via the internet in 2007. Atheists want proof. Well, here it is.

Question Evolution!: Internet atheism: The thrill is gone!

Or else the number of creationists has gone down. We know that they have not had a new idea for years. That is why the acronym PRATT's arose. The bogus claims of creationists have been refuted a thousand times. Internet traffic is bound to go down. It is actually a sign that creationists and fundies are losing, not the other way around. People are getting tired of the lunacy of creationists. That is all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is not uneducated, but based on creation and creation science. Could it be you since you did not know the history of atheist science such as uniformitarianism or Charles Lyell? I think you know about Darwin even though you may not be able to explain the science or his theories.

You: See, there you go. You deny the atheist "religion." There isn't much point in discussing further until you become more familiar with your own "religion."​

My issues with this comment was one, there is no atheist religion and two, what religion am I supposed to be familiar with just because I don't believe in any gods?

Your comment in your other post isn't related to the one above (in quotes).

As for atheist science, that's just rings off in my ears. Science is neither atheist nor theist. It just is. It works from an objective standpoint which never has any type of god in it. It can't be "eliminated" it was not there to begin with. No god.

If anything, science did a good job not depending on religion justify science. I mean, I have epilepsy. If we still went off of religion I'd be in a psychiatric ward or even worse people would be praying to get the devil out of me. Five years ago, people thought I had the holy spirit in me and they put their hands on me trying to get it themselves.

Now that's, what, 2012! I can't imagine in the BC era what they were doing. So, in that respects, I'm glad science doesn't have god. It didn't eliminate it, though. It just wasn't part of the equation to begin with.

I never heard it under the term Darwinism. When I went to look at the evolution section in our museum it was just referred to the process of evolution.

If you do come to our Nation's Capitol here in the states, visit our museums: The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Sure, it is. It's based on faith that there is no God.

There is no god. How do you have faith something does not exist when it does not exist?

That makes no sense whatsoever. Religion has nothing to do with it.

That's your own worldview.

Don't know what you referring to. We both have worldviews. We're not aliens to each other.

Atheism and the foundations of communism. The US government will give you a tax deduction for an atheist church, but not the latter.

What in the world???

Atheist church?? What would be it's creeds? There are thousands of gods. Explain.

Your definitions are not backed by knowledge, so it could be one reason why you reject Christianity.

Got to go back. Don't know what you're referring to.

I reject christianity because it does not help my life at all. When I was christian, it made me feel bad inside. No one told me I was bad. No one said I would go to hell. No one told me I was doomed. No one yelled at me for my growth. No one said I was not a christian. No one as rude to me as a christian.

The christian faith is built on human sacrifice. That is too barbaric for me to base my life on. There is no way to get around it unless you can make human sacrifice positive?

I'm comparing you to what I call the base "internet atheists." These atheists usually say you made the claim, so you have to prove it. Others state God doesn't exist because of science (atheist science), but they cannot explain this science. Still others think they are smart by claiming pigeon chess. I'm sure you've heard of them. I've been told that living the atheist life is expensive. One has to fly to conferences in exotic parts of the world or meet in nice bars and restaurants. Some think that atheist movement lacks community unless it's a virtual community.

Yeah. I heard all the arguments on both sides. To tell you honestly both sides needs a little working on; but, that's my opinion. To me, god does not exist. I see no need to jump around the bush proving something exists or does not exists all because millions of people say it does.

Majority doesn't make something exists. Historical affects does not prove the supernatural exists. Spirituality is a personal thing. It's interpreted by the person who makes what he or she believes a personal matter.

It is very unattractive that many christians point out faults in non-christians. If anything, that pushes people away from christ. I never had that experience, thank gosh, but that's just me. I wish others had my experiences with christianity. The break away wouldn't be so harsh. It just is.

And how do you know that???!!!???!!!

You have to use the quotes because I don't know what this is referring to either.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Science is made up of theory, principles and laws. A theory should not have bias, but there is some "acceptable" bias such as assumptions. For example, one makes assumptions that there is no God, the supernatural or that the Bible is religion. Creation scientists, who created modern science, to honor God disagree. Another is the assumptions made to validate radiometric dating, i.e. the earth is 4.7 million years old or the universe is 13.7 million years old. There lies the rub. The other bias is atheist science has gotten away from origins science because they cannot explain it. Yet, any discussion on origins will not allow God, the supernatural or the Bible to be used.

A theory should not be biased. Yes, that is what science is. One of the characteristics is trying not to use religion and any other bias worldview to influence the studies and results of the theories.

Creationist can believe whatever they want. I just find it odd you call them creationalist and atheist science.

Why should science allow gods (not god) anyway? Which of the gods should they allow? If it's objective, it needs to consider all supernatural not just christianity.

Where would they start?

Sure, God is in a plant as well as all living things. Not just humans. He's the creator and his work is reflected in the plant. Otherwise, humans will be able to create a plant or a blade of grass. That's another evidence for God because he has limited what humans can do.

This is your worldview. Your belief. Not a fact.

When you look at a plant, how do you know it is god without your experience, knowledge of religion, and personal convictions?

Objectively, how can you describe god in a plant?

>>C: Unfortunetly too creationist dont take homosexuals view into consideration of facts. Non bias science looks at all views. There is no bias in nature. Thats all human.<<

I think a few creationists are prejudiced and homophobic, but the majority accept homosexual views today. Christianity is changing to accommodate them. Maybe one day soon, they'll be able to marry in most Christian churches since the law has changed in the US and many places around the world. After all, we have gay and lesbian family members and people who are our friends and acquaintances in our schools, workplace and community.

Which is wonderful. It's theists that seem to have a problem with it. If christianity wasn't an issue, people can marry regardless their gender and sex.

One day.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

One of the strongest evidence for Christianity is the downfall of internet atheism since 2008. I don't have enough time to create a thread why reject atheism, but let me leave you with evidence that atheism, specifically internet atheism, has gone down in popularity. People are bored of what Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens have been saying. Atheist churches have not taken hold. Even believer Chuck Norris said that atheists were trying to spread their atheism via the internet in 2007. Atheists want proof. Well, here it is.

Question Evolution!: Internet atheism: The thrill is gone!

Looks rediculous. Internet atheism??

Atheists on the internet you mean?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

what evidence do you have for not believing in the existence of God.

None is needed. It's the absence of evidence for gods combined with the requirement that a person have a rational reason to believe before accepting an idea that leads to atheism.

Let me ask you this: What evidence do you have for not believing in the existence of leprechauns? Your answer will be the same as the one I gave for not believing in gods, and no evidence will be involved.

the earth is 4.7 million years old or the universe is 13.7 million years old.

Billion in both cases, but otherwise pretty close.

atheist science has gotten away from origins science because they cannot explain it. Yet, any discussion on origins will not allow God, the supernatural or the Bible to be used.

Nobody can explain the origins of the earliest universe or the first living cell, and that includes your religion. Saying that God did it has no more explanatory power than saying that Norman did it, or that it did it by itself. An explanation explains how. It provides a mechanism.

let me leave you with evidence that atheism, specifically internet atheism, has gone down in popularity.

I don't know what Internet atheism is - is it like atheist science? - but what difference does it make if whatever you are referring to has "gone down"? Is that an argument for God?

Atheism is doing just fine, thank you very much. The millennials are turning away from religion in droves. America is about a generation away from Christian comprising a minority.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, if atheism isn't a religion, i.e. based on faith and not evidence,

Why on Earth is that your definition of “religion?”

I never get why religious people denigrate religion while they’re trying to apply the label to atheists.

then what evidence do you have for not believing in the existence of God.

Why would someone need evidence not to believe in something? Not believing in a thing is what we do until we’re convinced of a thing.

As an aside, one doesn't need a car if they use Uber or Lyft or use their footmobile (bipedalism) to get around. However, bipedalism is not efficient for carrying a load, too tiring and takes too long. It's not really evolution if you ask me .

Way to miss the point there.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I lost faith in Christianity for a number of reasons. The theology really doesn't make sense or match up to reality (how is the Garden of Eden and the Fall supposed to square with history and evolutionary theory???). I could no longer believe in silliness like corpses coming back to life or transubstitation or the other miracles. I don't accept human sacrifice for sins, that we should give up our wills in life, that we are separated from God, in their afterlife beliefs (I believe we live many lives and don't believe in the resurrection), I don't believe that death is some error or the world is fallen, I think the sexual teachings are unrealistic and self-hating, etc.

Jesus is also an example for many wild-eyed cult leaders that followed in his staid. I don't believe in prophets, gurus, saviors, incarnations, avatars, messangers, etc. that end up being full of themselves, narcissists and conmen worshipped by the gullible and ignorant. I reject Jesus just like I reject Muhammad, the Bab, Ba'hawhatever, Joseph Smith, Sai Baba, Osho, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson, etc.

 

[Rival]

Ba'hawhatever

Lol.

 

[james bond]

There is only one science. Do you mean different theories from creationisms vs. noncreationism?

They can both be scientists. Science that doesnt incorporate god in its theories. Their interpretation of the results is based on whether they apply a god to the equation and results. Science without the supernatural doesnt have a bias approach because there are many gods and many faiths that believe in the supernatual. So, the idea of using gods to, say find the right medicine for an illness sounds more like holistic medicine. They are still looking into holistic medicine.

Most countries and religions dont see science seperated from religion so the "atheist" science you speak of isnt shared by most of the world.

If I believed in god Id agree that god is the source of scientific studies. Since I do not, what do you think Im supposed to believe in before asking me?

Edit.

No, today we have two sciences. One is creation science as that practiced by Answers in Genesis and Institute of Creation Research and others based on the Bible. The other is atheist science or secular science. It does not allow for creation. If one stated aliens colonized our planet, then it would not be accepted. The best theory to explain origins of the universe is Big Bang Theory, but there are many critics of the theory and not just from creation science. Other theories have to do with multiverses and continuation of a state that existed before. Some eternal nothing. However, there is scant evidence for this.

The reason why creation scientists believe what the Bible says is because science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book. Circa 2015, we discovered that universe is flat, e.g. our solar system is spherical but the space which surrounds it is flat (Other theories were saddle shaped and circular). This backs up what the Bible said in that it is like a scroll. Another finding is the universe continues to expand. The Bible states that God stretches the universe. The future finding should be that of the universe having boundaries and a center. Earth should be geocentric in the universe. We may be able to make this determination when the James Webb telescope comes online. Today's atheist science claims the universe has no boundaries and thus no center.

That's because of what I told you of uniformitarianism vs catastrophism and the aftermath. What has been happening is atheist scientists have been stealing ideas from creation scientists. For example, they state now that dinosaurs became extinct 245 million years ago due to volcanoes, asteroid impact and global warming. Volcanoes, supervolcanoes and even asteroid impacts are all catastrophism theories that shape the earth. That's not to say that atheist scientists haven't made progress. To the contrary, they have made tremendous progress in science except today's creation scientists are left out. Thus, they could have gotten some of the credit such as Edward Blyth writing about natural selection 24 years before Charles Darwin.

As for what you are supposed to believe, then I would think you have some knowledge of biology, geology, zoology and paleontology. Remember it started with Principles of Geology and later Origin of Species? These are the four scientific studies where there is the most divergence between creation science and atheist science. It is where you'll likely run into the e-word.

 

[james bond]

By the way, use of the "funny" rating as an attempt to make a negative comment is banned here, the same reasoning would ban an inappropriate use of the "creative" rating. If you do not agree with my posts why did you rate them "creative"?

I get the funny rating and creative rating a lot. Some of it from posters who are also mods. In fact, I learned to use the creative rating from a poster who is a mod. Are they going to ban themselves, too?

Don't worry. I'll be starting another project soon which will take up a lot of time. I probably will be gone for months. I thought the project would have started already, but since it hasn't I have stuck around such as the GMO foods debate we've been having. History has shown that one can't always trust what scientists have said to be safe or how things such as the universe and earth originated .

 

[Shadow Wolf]

why many people reject christianity?

It was a poison to me. A festering infectious disease that had to go. After awhile of being told god disapproves of who you are--in a "more so than a regular sinner" type of way--there are only so many vivid nightmares of hell, suicidal thoughts and yearnings, mental anguish and agony, and only so many tears can be shed before you have to say no more, or wither into a black abyss of a shell.

 

[Thief]

why many people reject christianity? is there a problem with the teachings and messages? the crucifixion of christ means nothing to them? don't they like a religion based on love? many people want proof. but, if there was proof, ''believing'' would be an one-way street and faith would be pointless. if there was undeniable proof, how would we choose christ as our saviour?

spent a few years in catholic schools
the all boy catholic high school was a big infuence
almost became a priest for it

but......I moved away

I continued reading scripture and realized ....it would not have worked out
anyway

too much head nodding to notions of ritual and ceremony
too much lay it on the confessional.....not enough self correction
too many words on a hand full of beads

so.....I'm on my own
I don't use the word Christian on myself

but the Carpenter remains my Inspiration
parables in focus

 

[Thief]

Paul-

Who would believe anything he said, after reading that
ridiculous story about the snake bite?

and is it true?.....Paul the apostle never met Jesus of Nazareth

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, today we have two sciences. One is creation science as that practiced by Answers in Genesis and Institute of Creation Research and others based on the Bible. The other is atheist science or secular science. It does not allow for creation. If one stated aliens colonized our planet, then it would not be accepted. The best theory to explain origins of the universe is Big Bang Theory, but there are many critics of the theory and not just from creation science. Other theories have to do with multiverses and continuation of a state that existed before. Some eternal nothing. However, there is scant evidence for this.

Secular science is a little better. Atheism just lacks belief in gods. In science that does not incorporate the supernatural not specifically one god over another, is just science. I'm sure there is a real term for science that incorporates supernatural causes of the universe. I only know of Christian churches that study that type of thing. Like holistic medicine, it's one of those odd ball things that if we didn't have the law, we'd still be curing people of demons and throwing people in the insane asylum for having seizures.

The reason why creation scientists believe what the Bible says is because science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book. Circa 2015, we discovered that universe is flat, e.g. our solar system is spherical but the space which surrounds it is flat (Other theories were saddle shaped and circular). This backs up what the Bible said in that it is like a scroll. Another finding is the universe continues to expand. The Bible states that God stretches the universe. The future finding should be that of the universe having boundaries and a center. Earth should be geocentric in the universe. We may be able to make this determination when the James Webb telescope comes online. Today's atheist science claims the universe has no boundaries and thus no center.

No it doesn't. When has science told us that a human can walk on water? How does science (not atheist and not theist) just science study the resurrection? I mean, they are still trying to "catch ghosts" as if finding ghosts will some how prove god somehow. Science found out the world was not flat. Science also found out that fits and demons were seizures and neurons acting up.

The universe has no boundaries. It's not an atheist claim; it's a fact.

Problem is Christians (not all theists mind you) don't seem to understand their religion is a human religion not a universe one. They try to make sense of the universe by the little interpretations they develop in the minimal of a hundred years. Then convinced more than the scientists that they have the answers to the afterlife when spirituality gives you faith and hope but certainty?

Science has not yet dictated we can see and interpret things we have not yet experienced nor influenced by.

That's because of what I told you of uniformitarianism vs catastrophism and the aftermath. What has been happening is atheist scientists have been stealing ideas from creation scientists. For example, they state now that dinosaurs became extinct 245 million years ago due to volcanoes, asteroid impact and global warming. Volcanoes, supervolcanoes and even asteroid impacts are all catastrophism theories that shape the earth. That's not to say that atheist scientists haven't made progress. To the contrary, they have made tremendous progress in science except today's creation scientists are left out. Thus, they could have gotten some of the credit such as Edward Blyth writing about natural selection 24 years before Charles Darwin.

How does science still from science? Volcanoes, dinosaurs, etc would exist regardless of god's existence (in our minds and hearts not in reality) or not. Science (the study of the natural not spiritual) world is godless.

Science: the study of the natural world

You have to come up with another word than atheist scientists and theists scientist. Both scientist could be atheist or theists and it doesn't affect the study of the natural world. I can't think in generalizations and bias like that.

As for what you are supposed to believe, then I would think you have some knowledge of biology, geology, zoology and paleontology. Remember it started with Principles of Geology and later Origin of Species? These are the four scientific studies where there is the most divergence between creation science and atheist science. It is where you'll likely run into the e-word.

But is that what I'm supposed to believe as an atheist?

Is that a default to being an atheists to believe in non-supernatural oriented science?