Ideas for everyone

xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Ideas for everyone

Hello. This is my first post here and I wanted to write a few things down about what I have seen here. First, let me tell you about myself.

I am a Christian, but not very devoted. That is to say, if I were to look at the strongest arguments of all the worlds religions, and the best was Buddhist, I would become a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or an Atheist. And if Zeus came down and put his throne down on the White House, I would be the first to go and kneel. As it is, no one has been able to convince me anyway, so for now I am a Christian.

Now I have a few things to say to everyone that posts here:

  1. You are not going to convince anyone! Atheists believe in their ideas as strong as Christians and, as much as many of you may protest, most cannot be dissuaded by logic. And the same goes for Christians. They believe that they have a book that is 100% true and is basically the answer for the whole universe. So when you try and prove the fallacy of a biblical idea, this seems as silly to them as, say, 2 + 2 = 5.
  2. With that said, please try to be open-minded. If you are truly convinced that your position is correct, and won’t listen to the other side, you will never become enlightened in life. Someone might prove the existence of God, or the lack of one, and you won’t pay attention because you are too busy arguing.
  3. Finally, please be respectful to everyone. Remember that if they are theists, they are probably the most foolish people on the planet; pity them. If they are atheists, remember that they’re going to hell(just joking).

Now to any Christians reading this:

  1. Please, please, please don’t say any bullshit like “I know because God is inside me” or “God told me”, especially in a logical debate. One, he probably didn’t physically tell you anything and that feeling of God inside you? It’s probably indigestion. Two, if you use that argument, an atheist could say, “I feel the emptiness inside me and that proves to me that God does not exist” or a Muslim could say, “I feel Allah inside me and that is all the proof I need”, and you would HAVE to accept these arguments.
  2. Also, please don’t try to stretch the Bible to fit your arguments. For example, don’t take a verse and say that it PROVES that people in Biblical times knew about atoms. Because they didn’t. Really. You look like an idiot when you try to do so.

And to all the Atheists out there:

  1. Try to understand that a contradiction of events does not necessarily mean that the entire record is false. For example, if three people were to tell a story about the same event, their accounts would be slightly different because of what they were concentrating on and their perception of the events. And just because there are contradictions doesn’t mean it wasn’t inspired by God. Christians have no trouble accepting that things could have two different natures at once. Or in the case of the Trinity, three natures.
  2. Do not ask questions that you know can’t be answered just for the sake of them. Example: “Oh, so the Bible has the answer to everything? Then where does it say ANYTHING about the speed of light? Ha-ha, beat that.” One, you aren’t proving anything and two, you make yourself look stupid.

There is some question of who the burden of proof is on. I say that both parties have to shoulder the proof, as neither side has any definitive proof about the existence of God. Neither idea is more established than the other. But as no one is really going to listen to the other side, it doesn’t matter.

Please feel free to respond and destroy every opinion I have put out. But if ANY of you makes one comment about my grammar, spelling, syntax, etc., I WILL virtually punch you in the face. Go ahead, try me.

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: There is

xamination wrote:
There is some question of who the burden of proof is on. I say that both parties have to shoulder the proof, as neither side has any definitive proof about the existence of God. Neither idea is more established than the other. But as no one is really going to listen to the other side, it doesn’t matter.

Please feel free to respond and destroy every opinion I have put out. But if ANY of you makes one comment about my grammar, spelling, syntax, etc., I WILL virtually punch you in the face. Go ahead, try me.

 

I won't comment on your grammar or spelling, as though my spelling is champion amongst most, my grammar is beyond horrific Eye-wink

 

You were doing SO well up until that first part there.  The part about the burden of proof.  Without invoking unicorns or flying pasta, I'll demonstrate to you why there should be no question on whom the burden of proof lies.

 

I am the absolute best love-maker in existence.

In your eyes, would it be equally as up to you to disprove this claim as it is up to me to prove it?


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: You

xamination wrote:
You are not going to convince anyone!

Er, this isn't true. There've been Christians who've converted to atheism. (Admittedly, I can't recall any on this forum, since it's still kind of new, but a lot of the regulars here used to be at Infidel Guy and a few people converted there.)

Quote:
Atheists believe in their ideas as strong as Christians and, as much as many of you may protest, most cannot be dissuaded by logic.

This is true, technically. Not because we're stubborn, but because the opposition bases its arguments on faith and the supernatural -- the latter is beyond reason and logical arguments by definition (go read todangst's posts), and the former is a rejection of the need to support one's arguments with reason in the first place. So, yes, we won't be dissuaded by logic, because the alternate position of theism doesn't base itself on logic.

Quote:
With that said, please try to be open-minded. If you are truly convinced that your position is correct, and won’t listen to the other side, you will never become enlightened in life. Someone might prove the existence of God, or the lack of one, and you won’t pay attention because you are too busy arguing.

We are open-minded. It's just that no one's ever made an argument for God that hasn't been seen a thousand times before. They're all variations on a theme, and they all involve logical fallacies and poor premises that even a newbie can pick out with a little thought.


Quote:
And just because there are contradictions doesn’t mean it wasn’t inspired by God. Christians have no trouble accepting that things could have two different natures at once. Or in the case of the Trinity, three natures.

Do Christians believe that Joseph had two different fathers at once, or that Jesus had four different last words at once, or that Uzzah was struck down in two different places at onc, or that just one woman, just two women, just three women, or at least three women all showed up at the tomb at once, or that there were 28 and 43 generations between Jesus and David at the same time, or that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead and not the first to rise from the dead at the same time?

(Oh, and the Trinity is an incoherent and meaningless concept anyway. I don't think I'd base an argument on it.)

Quote:
Do not ask questions that you know can’t be answered just for the sake of them. Example: “Oh, so the Bible has the answer to everything? Then where does it say ANYTHING about the speed of light? Ha-ha, beat that.” One, you aren’t proving anything and two, you make yourself look stupid.

So, when someone says that the Bible has the answer to everything, and we point out that it doesn't, we're the ones who look stupid?

Quote:
There is some question of who the burden of proof is on. I say that both parties have to shoulder the proof, as neither side has any definitive proof about the existence of God. Neither idea is more established than the other. But as no one is really going to listen to the other side, it doesn’t matter.

Well, normally you'd get a dozen posts explaining the burden of proof, weak vs. strong atheism, the default fallback position of nonbelief, agnostism as compared with atheism, and so on. But since you've said you're not really going to listen, it doesn't matter.

Quote:
Please feel free to respond and destroy every opinion I have put out. But if ANY of you makes one comment about my grammar, spelling, syntax, etc., I WILL virtually punch you in the face. Go ahead, try me.

Normally I wouldn't care about your grammar, spelling, syntax, etc. But since you brought it up: "Atheists believe in their ideas as strongly as Christians."

 

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I say that both

Quote:
I say that both parties have to shoulder the proof,

 Good, I have a big list of gods that we both don't believe in, can you help me disprove them?

 

Quote:
as neither side has any definitive proof about the existence of God. Neither idea is more established than the other.

Then why believe and waste your time? Not unless your one of those christians that just says "Oh yes I'm a christian!" and does nothing else. 

 

Quote:
But as no one is really going to listen to the other side, it doesn’t matter.

Then why are you here?

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Note:  my quote button is

Note:  my quote button is not working but I'm trying my best.  Quotes are in black. 

Quote:  Do Christians believe that Joseph had two different fathers at once, or that Jesus had four different last words at once, or that Uzzah was struck down in two different places at onc, or that just one woman, just two women, just three women, or at least three women all showed up at the tomb at once, or that there were 28 and 43 generations between Jesus and David at the same time, or that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead and not the first to rise from the dead at the same time?

You either misunderstood me, or are just trying to be smart; it doesn't matter either way because I will clarify. What I meant with Christians believing two things at once is that they think that it is possible for it to be written by humans and be error prone yet still be inspired by God.

Take your example of Joseph having two different fathers. This would be an example of a contradiction, to be sure, but it is one that has almost no affect on the Bible. God and Jesus do not change because Joseph has a different father, and some would therefore say that it doesn't matter. Let me put it this way: the writers of Bible might be error proof, but the Word of God is not. I know a pastor who tried to explain this to me once, but its still kinda weird. I could try to explain it with Platonic forms, but I'm too damn tired to try that now.

Quote:  So, when someone says that the Bible has the answer to everything, and we point out that it doesn't, we're the ones who look stupid?

Yep. Sorry to break the news to you. In all seriousness, when Christians say that the Bible has all the answers, they usually mean questions that arise during everyday life. And to answer your next response, they don't consider part of everyday life. On that note, I do have some non-scientific questions which the Bible fails to answer.

As to the burden of proof, look at it this way. We don't know if there is a God, or any type of superhuman creator. So if someone were to ask you "Is there a God", the best answer would be "I don't know" because in all honesty nobody knows. So if you are to say there is a God, or there is not a god, you must provide reasonable proof to show this. The error many of you, Christians or Atheists, make is that you believe that you're view is the default. Well, you're both wrong.

Wow, I'm making no friends this way.

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Why am I here, Ophios? 

Why am I here, Ophios?  Because, unlike most Christians, I see the flaws in my faith.  I see the same things you do.  But at the same time, I believe that there is something greater than ourselves, that the spiritual does exist.  In other words, I am searching for answers.

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote:

xamination wrote:
As to the burden of proof, look at it this way. We don't know if there is a God, or any type of superhuman creator. So if someone were to ask you "Is there a God", the best answer would be "I don't know" because in all honesty nobody knows. So if you are to say there is a God, or there is not a god, you must provide reasonable proof to show this. The error many of you, Christians or Atheists, make is that you believe that you're view is the default. Well, you're both wrong.

So if someone were to ask you "Is Zeus the king of the Gods?" your answer would be "I don't know."? If so, that's your perogative. My answer would be a definative "No.", even though, just as with god, nobody really knows.

xamination wrote:

Wow, I'm making no friends this way.

 

Don't worry about that.  I'm not holding any of this against you personally, and I've already applauded your approach here.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: Why am I

xamination wrote:
Why am I here, Ophios? Because, unlike most Christians, I see the flaws in my faith. I see the same things you do. But at the same time, I believe that there is something greater than ourselves, that the spiritual does exist. In other words, I am searching for answers.

Okay, so it appears from what you've written that you don't take the Bible to be inerrant, correct?

So, when you are reading it, do you get inspired by every passage? When people are told to kill their relatives if they convert? When she-bears tear up children? When someone says "turn the other cheek"? When Jesus says in Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. "?

I hope not.

When some passages inspire you and some you might overlook or be confused or even find completely repelent, you are using a sense of morality that was not gained through religious teachings.

-Triften


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Quote:  So if someone were

Quote:  So if someone were to ask you "Is Zeus the king of the Gods?" your answer would be "I don't know."? If so, that's your perogative. My answer would be a definative "No.", even though, just as with god, nobody really knows.

 That question assumes that there are gods, and that Zeus is one of them.  I'm just pointing out that if you want to make a claim, such as the nature of a diety, you must provide proof.  Here's a similar question that I challenge anyone to answer:  Is there extraterrestrial life in the universe?  And on that note, who would have the burden of proof on this question?

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
You still dodged the

You still dodged the question.

 

Anyone claiming something in the affirmative has the burden of proof.  If you think something exists, you are responsible for proving it.  It is no responsibility of mine to prove it doesn't exist.  I met someone once who actually believed in vampires; real vampires, not just people who *think* they're vampires.  Would you honestly think it as much my responsibility to disprove the existance of vampires as it was this person's responsibility to prove their existance when I said "No, vampires aren't real."?

 

If so, that's pretty much the end of the discussion. 


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Hey xamination! Welcome to

Hey xamination! Welcome to Rational Responders! Smiling
I'll start by explaining quote tags:

[quo te=Strafio]Insert quoted text[/qu ote]
Hope that was helpful. You can still stick to colours if your prefer. Smiling

xamination wrote:
Hello. This is my first post here and I wanted to write a few things down about what I have seen here ... so for now I am a Christian.

It's good to hear that you're open minded on the subject. However, the rest of your post showed that there is a lot you don't understand about atheism and debating in general.

Quote:
With that said, please try to be open-minded. If you are truly convinced that your position is correct, and won’t listen to the other side, you will never become enlightened in life.

Arguing your ground doesn't mean you ignore your opponent. We have to listen carefully in order to point out the logical flaws in our opponent's arguments. Consequently we can find ourselves to be wrong and have to change our own opinions. I wasn't always an atheist.

Besides, you did the same thing with this post. You gave arguments against strong opinions on both sides. I think your arguments are flawed and will try and refute them but it's the right way to go about things, arguing your position and taking note of the responses.

Quote:
Someone might prove the existence of God, or the lack of one, and you won’t pay attention because you are too busy arguing.

The fastest way to discover such a proof would be through argument. Besides, it's been proven to me that such a proof is impossible. That might sound counter intuitive to you but it's true. If you hang around on the site then I'll take you through the proof.
  1. Quote:
    Try to understand that a contradiction of events does not necessarily mean that the entire record is false.

    Awww... come on! You don't think our rejection of the Bible is based on a couple of minor contradictions. The main argument against it is that we have no reason to distinguish it from other myths and legends, that it should be treated like normal mythology.

    Again, if you hang around enough on this website then you'll come to learn the real reasons for atheist disbelief.

    Quote:
    There is some question of who the burden of proof is on. I say that both parties have to shoulder the proof, as neither side has any definitive proof about the existence of God. Neither idea is more established than the other. But as no one is really going to listen to the other side, it doesn’t matter.

    This is an interesting question.
    For bodies of public knowledge (like science) then the burden of truth is the one making a positive claim. However, I think it's a bit more complex for personal beliefs. I'm planning to write a topic on this sometime.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Lets see if the quotes

Lets see if the quotes work...

Strafio wrote:
The fastest way to discover such a proof would be through argument. Besides, it's been proven to me that such a proof is impossible. That might sound counter intuitive to you but it's true. If you hang around on the site then I'll take you through the proof.

I have no problem with the debating, I do have a problem with debating for the sake of itself. For example, are you arguing to prove yourself right or are you arguing to get to the truth? I think this a distinction that more than a few have trouble discerning.

Strafio wrote:
Awww... come on! You don't think our rejection of the Bible is based on a couple of minor contradictions. The main argument against it is that we have no reason to distinguish it from other myths and legends, that it should be treated like normal mythology.

No, I don't believe your rejection is because of the contradictions. I'm just pointing out that in a debate against a Christian, just pointing out these contradictionsdon't really do anything. As to treating modern-day religeon as myth, I ask you this: what is the difference between religeon & myth?

Oh, and I'm not new to the site, I've just never officialy joined until recently. 

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: You

xamination wrote:
You either misunderstood me, or are just trying to be smart; it doesn't matter either way because I will clarify. What I meant with Christians believing two things at once is that they think that it is possible for it to be written by humans and be error prone yet still be inspired by God.

So Christians believe an all-powerful perfect being somehow couldn't get his message across to the folks taking dictation. Good to know. If the Bible is inspired by God, if God cared so much about the transmission of his message, why would he sit back and let people get it wrong?


Quote:
Take your example of Joseph having two different fathers. This would be an example of a contradiction, to be sure, but it is one that has almost no affect on the Bible.

Well, except for demonstrating that the Bible is not, in fact, inerrant. But, you know, contributing to the undermining of the validity of the Bible isn't THAT big a deal. The stuff about Joseph's father is one thing, but there are contradictions about many more relevant details, ranging from the details of Christ's resurrection to the relationship between Jesus and God to the question of still obeying the Old Testament to the supposed prophecies Jesus supposedly fulfilled to the proper manner of salvation.

Quote:
the writers of Bible might be error proof, but the Word of God is not.

So the word of God has mistakes? Seriously? Even us poor limited human beings have editors who can weed out mistakes for us. God really dropped the ball on this one, dude.

Quote:
Yep. Sorry to break the news to you. In all seriousness, when Christians say that the Bible has all the answers, they usually mean questions that arise during everyday life.

Awesome! Where's the verses that have a clear point on cloning, stem cells, Christian rock music, environmentalism, celebrating holidays, war and pacifism, drug use, government protest, vegetarianism, organ donation, or the separation of church and state? (And, as the CAPAlert guy -- a fundamentalist Christian movie reviewer -- once admitted in his review of "Alive", the Bible has no position on whether eating the bodies of the already dead for survival is immoral or not. Not that this is an everyday thing, but you'd think it'd be good to know just in case.)

Quote:
On that note, I do have some non-scientific questions which the Bible fails to answer.

So you're saying that even with your depiction of "answers to everything" as just applying to everyday life, that the Bible doesn't actually have answers to everything. So, again, how are we the stupd ones when we point out that the Bible doesn't have the answers to everything about everyday life, when even you admit that it doesn't have those answers?

Quote:
The error many of you, Christians or Atheists, make is that you believe that you're view is the default.

Nonbelief is the fallback position by default. Otherwise we would have to accept everything we heard until proven false.

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
JeremiahSmith

JeremiahSmith wrote:

Quote:
the writers of Bible might be error proof, but the Word of God is not.

So the word of God has mistakes? Seriously? Even us poor limited human beings have editors who can weed out mistakes for us. God really dropped the ball on this one, dude.

Yeah, so I had a typo. Big deal. I meant the writers of the Bible might be error prone.

 

JerimiahSmith wrote:

Quote:
On that note, I do have some non-scientific questions which the Bible fails to answer.

So you're saying that even with your depiction of "answers to everything" as just applying to everyday life, that the Bible doesn't actually have answers to everything. So, again, how are we the stupd ones when we point out that the Bible doesn't have the answers to everything about everyday life, when even you admit that it doesn't have those answers?

Again, I don't believe in everything that the average Christian might. I'm just explaining how many Chritians I know feel about this. I wasn't explaining my beliefs.


 

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: You are

xamination wrote:
You are not going to convince anyone!

I already have, so this comment is false.

xamination wrote:

Atheists believe in their ideas as strong as Christians and, as much as many of you may protest, most cannot be dissuaded by logic.

That's fine. They aren't the main target. Those who watch them make fools of themselves in debates are those who are the main target. At least my main target anyway.

xamination wrote:
And the same goes for Christians. They believe that they have a book that is 100% true and is basically the answer for the whole universe.

Most christians haven't even read the whole thing. If they had, they probably wouldn't be christians.

xamination wrote:
So when you try and prove the fallacy of a biblical idea, this seems as silly to them as, say, 2 + 2 = 5.

For some perhaps. Not all. I've known 3 people who were once theists that I convinced were wrong simply because of their fallacies.

xamination wrote:
With that said, please try to be open-minded.

I always am, though it may appear otherwise so I can get a point across.

xamination wrote:
If you are truly convinced that your position is correct, and won’t listen to the other side, you will never become enlightened in life.

I already listened to most everything the other side had to say. Then I discarded it as impossible fiction. If something new is presented, I'll listen.

xamination wrote:
Someone might prove the existence of God, or the lack of one, and you won’t pay attention because you are too busy arguing.

I'd be one of the first to notice such a thing. I read the news every day before going to any forums.

xamination wrote:
Finally, please be respectful to everyone.

As long as respect is given, it will be recieved. I won't give respect to those who don't deserve it.

xamination wrote:
Remember that if they are theists, they are probably the most foolish people on the planet; pity them.

I do pity them, but not for being foolish. I pity them for being brainwashed. Foolishness is a natural symptom of brain washing.

xamination wrote:
If they are atheists, remember that they’re going to hell(just joking).

Sticking out tongue

xamination wrote:
And to all the Atheists out there: Try to understand that a contradiction of events does not necessarily mean that the entire record is false.

In general no, but there is very little that is actually accurate within the bible. Most of it is fictional history stolen from older cultures.

xamination wrote:
For example, if three people were to tell a story about the same event, their accounts would be slightly different because of what they were concentrating on and their perception of the events.

True. To an extent.

xamination wrote:
And just because there are contradictions doesn’t mean it wasn’t inspired by God. Christians have no trouble accepting that things could have two different natures at once. Or in the case of the Trinity, three natures. Do not ask questions that you know can’t be answered just for the sake of them. Example: "Oh, so the Bible has the answer to everything? Then where does it say ANYTHING about the speed of light? Ha-ha, beat that.” One, you aren’t proving anything and two, you make yourself look stupid.

I almost never argue from the bible in the first place, so this scenario is beyond unlikely.

xamination wrote:
There is some question of who the burden of proof is on.

No. The religious just don't tend to accept logic, as you mentioned earlier. The burden is still on them though, whether they like it or not.

xamination wrote:
I say that both parties have to shoulder the proof, as neither side has any definitive proof about the existence of God.

Atheism has it's proof. The laws of physics. Amongst other things. It's interesting that atheism has proof even though it's usually impossible to prove something doesn't exist.

xamination wrote:
Neither idea is more established than the other.

That's a matter of opinion. I happen to disagree. Even theists usually follow secular rules because they're secular. But no atheist I've heard of follows a religious rule because it's religious.

xamination wrote:
But as no one is really going to listen to the other side, it doesn’t matter.

It does matter. Whether the theist I'm arguing with acknowledges reality or not, many of those watching the conversation will.

xamination wrote:
Please feel free to respond and destroy every opinion I have put out.

Lol.

xamination wrote:
But if ANY of you makes one comment about my grammar, spelling, syntax, etc., I WILL virtually punch you in the face. Go ahead, try me.

Heh. Grammer nazis are everywhere. I tend to ignore them myself. It doesn't matter if you spelled something right as long as you got the point across.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: Yeah, so

xamination wrote:
Yeah, so I had a typo. Big deal.

It was kind of a big one, you know. 

Quote:
I meant the writers of the Bible might be error prone.

So how do you propose we tell the difference between the parts they got right and the parts they got wrong? Also, please explain why God would use imperfect beings to send his message, when he should have known that humans are flawed beings who make mistakes which could seriously corrupt the meaning and acceptance of his message.

The staggering difference in this case between "importance of message transmitted" and "reliability of the medium through which the message is transmitted" is roughly equivalent to sending a donor heart intended for transplant into the dying President cross-country strapped in a basket on the back of one of those little bikes Chinese food delivery places use in big cities, with a few pieces of ice rubber-banded to the thing to keep it cool, being driven by a blind guy with no map. The slightest change to the important parts could have drastic consequence, and even the smallest error or contradiction in the resulting work will detract from having any confidence in the message's author.

Quote:
Again, I don't believe in everything that the average Christian might. I'm just explaining how many Chritians I know feel about this. I wasn't explaining my beliefs.

So, essentially, you're saying we're stupid for pointing out to Christians something that you accept yourself -- that the Bible does not have answers to everything (regardless of how you define "everything&quotEye-wink? For the record, not every Christian I've come across believes that "answer to everything" applies solely to everyday life -- I've read a few nutjobs who claim the only education you need in science, math, and everything can be had from the Bible. The only response you need to this is asking what verse has design specs for the Internet. 

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.