It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'There definitely is a God': Christians hit back at atheist buses with own adverts

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge
Ahahaha I'm sorry, that's just hilarious. You have proof of God's existence, but you decide not to share... OK.


Where did I say I decide not to share? Please re-read, you'll see that I have in fact offered help.


Originally posted by converge
Yeah, that reminds me of little kids who pretend to know something and when asked about it they say they can't tell you.


Very assumptive of you.


Originally posted by converge
In other words: belief.


Did I say belief? Where?


Originally posted by converge
That's the only way you can say God 'exists',


Apparently not as I did say another way for others who have read the same statement as you have.


Originally posted by converge
if you believe he does. And last I checked there was nothing about belief in that definition of verification.


You can in fact verify a belief, scientifically and otherwise.




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
So you have no proof or tangible,cogent evidence of any kind?


None that I can share, just like I cannot prove to you I physically exists...but I do.


Originally posted by converge
Isn't it fair to say you're just engaging in
'opinion based on speculation and conjecture' (as was mentioned in the very first post)?


No, it isn't.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bandaidctrl
then i would ask that atheists prove that there is no God to begin with.


If you go by that faulty logic than everything you can't prove must exist. It's not science's job to prove negative claims that have no shred of evidence whatsoever.



You can't get mad at these organization defending their beliefs, just like the atheist began to do.


The atheist ad said "There is probably not a God". The religious ad said "there is definitely a God". Do you see the difference?

When did the religious people confirm God's existence? I'm sorry but the two things are not comparable.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Where did I say I decide not to share? Please re-read, you'll see that I have in fact offered help.



You can in fact verify a belief, scientifically and otherwise.


Oh good! That means you're probably gonna share with us the evidence of God's existence. Oh man, I can't wait! Being an atheist until now, this is gonna change my life forever!

Alright I'm ready for the evidence. Bring it!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
None that I can share,


Oh bummer! That's not very Christian of you. I thought Jesus said to share with your brothers?



just like I cannot prove to you I physically exists...but I do.


You're wrong about that. We can prove that you exist physically, just because we can't at this exact moment, doesn't mean the premise is not testable.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
No, it isn't.


I'm afraid it is my friend.

A person can beleive something with all their heart -doesn't necessarily make it true does it?

Due to the complete lack of evidence of any kind to back up your (quite fantastical) claims then I'm afraid all we're left with is you basing your
opinions on speculation,conjecture,heresay,rumour and guesswork.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge
Oh good! That means you're probably gonna share with us the evidence of God's existence. Oh man, I can't wait! Being an atheist until now, this is gonna change my life forever!

Alright I'm ready for the evidence. Bring it!


Sincerity is a prerequisite else I'm useless to you.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
I'm afraid it is my friend.


No it isn't. We could fill pages with this kind of back and forth, could we not?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bandaidctrl
 


Have a full read of the thread-its not realy about atheists,its about christians having the audacity to use the word 'definitely' and the distasteful attempt of an organised religion to forcefully impose their opinions on everybody else in a 'factual context'.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
could we not?


Yes we could

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
No it isn't. We could fill pages with this kind of back and forth, could we not?


This speaks tons of the nature of the 'evidence'. If there was irrefutable evidence there would be no back and forth. But there isn't any evidence, much less irrefutable.

It's all about beliefs, and that's why these discussions generate so many "back and forths".

Bottom line is that one side of the discussion is saying they definitely can prove God's existence, otherwise why would they be saying that God definitely exists? Unless they are liars...



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
Have a full read of the thread-its not realy about atheists,its about christians having the audacity to use the word 'definitely'


Oh noes! Christians can't use the word 'definitely'!
How dare they, they should be executed Lenin-style for that kind of offense.


Originally posted by karl 12
and the distasteful attempt of an organised religion to forcefully impose their opinions on everybody else in a 'factual context'.


"Help! I'm being oppressed!" argument again. Where was your complaint when athiests put together their initial sign forcing their opinions that one should turn away from God?

[edit on 10-2-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge
This speaks tons of the nature of the 'evidence'. If there was irrefutable evidence there would be no back and forth. But there isn't any evidence, much less irrefutable.


The evidence I have recieved is indeed irrefutable. It does not matter what you say, I have it. By nature then, evidence still stands.


Originally posted by converge
Bottom line is that one side of the discussion is saying they definitely can prove God's existence,


Which, as I've said, you can.


Originally posted by converge
otherwise why would they be saying that God definitely exists? Unless they are liars...


Fair enough I think. My 'belief' is that those who posted that sign have received their proof as well. If I'm wrong, no loss, as I said, I have my proof still.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Oh noes! Christians can't use the word 'definitely'!
How dare they, they should be executed Lenin-style for that kind of offense.


That's not the point I and karl have been making. Stop twisting the argument. This is about one side of the discussion claiming to know the truth.



"Help! I'm being oppressed!" argument again. Where was your complaint when athiests put together their initial sign forcing their opinions that one should turn away from God?


Again, you either don't understand what it's really about or you're twisting the argument we are making.

It's not about the sign itself, it's about what it says. I could also argue that it shows just how childish some religious people and institutions are that feel they have to respond to the atheist ad.

Your double standards baffle me. You brush over the Inquisition, and now claim that the atheist ad was "forcing" people to believe something. Ridiculous...



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
The evidence I have recieved is indeed irrefutable. It does not matter what you say, I have it. By nature then, evidence still stands.


The evidence stands when it's examined by third parties. You say it's irrefutable but don't present it for examination.

I'm sorry if I don't take your word as a proof of something, but I have this problem you see, I like to examine the evidence and think for myself.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge
Your double standards baffle me. You brush over the Inquisition, and now claim that the atheist ad was "forcing" people to believe something. Ridiculous...


Where is the double standard? I agreed with the post that executions of people under the guise of religion whether Christian or Atheism has to do with polical or socioeconomic factors (greed) than anything else. This is consistent. Conversely if you're saying the Inquisition was a command from Christ (which you know as well as I do it is not) then surely The slaughter of 20 million Christians is thereby a religious sweep by athiesm...again, we know better. Let's stop playing games and get down to business.

Athiests no more 'forces' their beliefs as Christians do and is exactly my point. Apologies if this exercise was confusing.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge
The evidence stands when it's examined by third parties. You say it's irrefutable but don't present it for examination.


When would like to come over?


Originally posted by converge
I'm sorry if I don't take your word as a proof of something,


I would never expect you to. I didn't accept someone else's word either.


Originally posted by converge
but I have this problem you see, I like to examine the evidence and think for myself.


Good! That's the very first thing someone should do.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 


If something is irrefutable, taking someones word on it has no meaning.

Sky is irrefutably blue, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself that it's green, it will not change the very fact that it is blue...



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Conversely if you're saying the Inquisition was a command from Christ (which you know as well as I do it is not)


No I'm not, because for starters I don't believe that Christ, the figure portrayed in the Bible, even existed.

But of course the Inquisition(s) was not 'commanded' by Christ or God (wouldn't make sense to believe otherwise anyway since I'm an atheist), but they were commanded in his name. And that's the problem.



then surely The slaughter of 20 million Christians is thereby a relgious sweep by athiesm...again, we know better. Let's stop playing games and get down to business.


Yes you brought up the prosecution of Christians in Russia, but apparently forgot to quote some interesting passages, which curiously enough, were immediately before the passages that you quoted.


The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed.


Christians weren't prosecuted because they were Christians, or believed in God. They were prosecuted because of the Bolsheviks' political and socioeconomic ideology that saw religion, as a whole, as a barrier to their goals.


It is often considered that the communist ideology explicitly advocates state atheism and the abolition of religion. According to Karl Marx the founder of the communist ideology, religion is a tool utilised by the ruling classes whereby the masses can shortly relieve their suffering via the act of experiencing religious emotions. It is in the interest of the ruling classes to instill in the masses the religious conviction that their current suffering will lead to eventual happiness. Therefore as long as the public believes in religion, they will not attempt to make any genuine effort to understand and overcome the real source of their suffering, which in Marx's opinion was their non-Communist economic system. It is often thought that it was in the sense that what Marx advocated, that religion is used to control people, and that it was the "opium of the people". That this is and was the main reason that certain communist regimes past and present curtail religious freedom and ban religion altogether because they consider it a suppressive, subversive set of guidelines, and thereby attached the charge of sedition to certain religions.



On the other hand, thanks to the Inquisition(s), people were persecuted, tortured and killed because they didn't believe in the Christian God or spoke ill of the Christian religion.



Athiests no more 'force' their beliefs as Christians do and is exactly my point. Apologies if this exercise was confusing.


It's not confusing, it's false.

If you're talking about this situation in particular (the ads), then yes, no one is forcing anything on anyone. But I never said they were, I actually wrote the opposite.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5thElement
If something is irrefutable, taking someones word on it has no meaning.

Sky is irrefutably blue, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself that it's green, it will not change the very fact that it is blue...


No arguments here. I'm a big fan of absolute truth myself and is a primary reason why I stand behind ATS's slogan "Deny Ignorance".



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join