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.
lmao
psy op or just stupid?
ArtemisE
reply to post by ketsuko
You mean the unbeliever is foolish enough to let science, logic and morality rule his life. Rather then buy into an ancient text with little or nothing to back it up. That the science behind it has mainly been debunked. Just cause they used the Iliad to find Troy doesn't mean the rest of the oddesy is true!
I don't believe in your religion for the same reason you don't believe in the rest of the religions. There's NO proof and it requires throwing everything science has learned (and tested) out the window.
I really wish y'all would quite with the ridiculous. Just place your faith in god and all will be revealed type crap. If prefer for this to be a convo on the morality of the tenants of religion.
ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa
Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.
ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa
Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.
ArtemisE
reply to post by ketsuko
You mean the unbeliever is foolish enough to let science, logic and morality rule his life. Rather then buy into an ancient text with little or nothing to back it up. That the science behind it has mainly been debunked. Just cause they used the Iliad to find Troy doesn't mean the rest of the oddesy is true!
I don't believe in your religion for the same reason you don't believe in the rest of the religions. There's NO proof and it requires throwing everything science has learned (and tested) out the window.
I really wish y'all would quite with the ridiculous. Just place your faith in god and all will be revealed type crap. If prefer for this to be a convo on the morality of the tenants of religion.
yuppa
Up until recently the HIggs was untouchable so to speak. it was a imaginary particle until it was discovered. Science caught up to the theory. Under your assumtion it was a waste of time to persue a particle that didnt exist correct? What about dark matter? Point is....Abscence of proof does NOT PERCLUDE existence.
ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa
Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.
ketsuko
ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa
Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.
You know what?
All of your diatribe has just disproved a bunch of humans ... not God.
windword
reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly
lmao
psy op or just stupid?
Way to defend your blood worshiping death cult!
Grimpachi
ketsuko
ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa
Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.
You know what?
All of your diatribe has just disproved a bunch of humans ... not God.
His "diatribe " wasn't aimed at God it was aimed at religion. It certainly disproved a religion.
The idea of God and the constructs of religion are not the same thing nor are they interchangeable.
Grimpachi
ketsuko
ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa
Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.
You know what?
All of your diatribe has just disproved a bunch of humans ... not God.
His "diatribe " wasn't aimed at God it was aimed at religion. It certainly disproved a religion.
The idea of God and the constructs of religion are not the same thing nor are they interchangeable.
Logarock
Akragon
reply to post by Logarock
No I must insist because you have wax in your ears.
Your use of scripture is most generally a cherry picking, twisting affair to prove some point, sometimes not really related to the scripture you are using. Its not even about my opinion when you cant even use scripture in context. So then it becomes my opinion when you are confronted for using the bible like Hints From Heloise or Readers Digest abridged short stories ect or some excuse to dismiss things as irrelevant that are clearly relevant, like it or not, to the Christian faith.
Oh im sure you must insist.... and again I urge anyone who reads your posts to look back in your post history and see what your game is...
You assume, you lie about others...(like what you're doing with this post) and... You attack without provocation...
and when you're wrong you disappear...
I also urge the readers to look into my threads or my posts and see if you find me attacking anyone... I quote the gospels only, and back my posts with the same...
To the OP... is Christianity discriminatory?
Only when dealing with people like this...
Really? And the above from Mr. gospels who says there is no hell.
Jesus Christ ""I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do. "But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!"
Now I am very interested to watch you wiggle out of this. This quote right here undermines your entire credibility as a person that speaks with knowledge about the gospels and several other positions you have taken.
ketsuko
Grimpachi
ketsuko
ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa
Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.
You know what?
All of your diatribe has just disproved a bunch of humans ... not God.
His "diatribe " wasn't aimed at God it was aimed at religion. It certainly disproved a religion.
The idea of God and the constructs of religion are not the same thing nor are they interchangeable.
He disproved a religion?
I missed that part. He went on a rant about things that require a literal interpretation of the Bible, something most Christians don't do. Again, he disproved a bunch of humans' assertions, not the faith.
He finished it up with the statement that he has faith that science will someday disprove it all, including God, because science has apparently disproved the interpretations and assertions of some people.
Basically, it's like me finding examples of people who got their science wrong. I could point to Jean Baptiste Lamarck, Franz Joseph Gall and Hans Horbiger and scream that I've completely disproved science! Of course, that's utter nonsense. And the same holds true with Christianity.