When Christians use Science to prove Atheist wrong.

[alissowack]

I'm going to go out on a limb here. It may not be the best example of "knowing" someone, but it's worth a shot. Have you ever read a book by your favorite author and by reading their books, you get a glimpse into who this person may be like. You can gauge what they like or dislike, what they value and their integrity. Sure it doesn't paint the entire picture, but if you ever get a chance to meet the author that wrote the book, you already have expectations that this person can be trusted. This is much what goes on with the Bible. There are things in the Bible that strangely convinces me that God exists.

what kind of book? Fiction or non fiction?

You may be able to get an idea of what kind of person I am, but it depends on what I'm writing and how I'm writing. I can read Shakespeare and come to a general conclusion of what kind of person Shakespeare was but that doesn't mean I should necessarily trust the book or the story itself as fact. Additionally, If Shakespeare were alive today and I had a chance to meet him, it would be naive (or to put it bluntly, maybe just plain stupid) of me to trust him in important matters based off my reading of Hamlet.

Just because I could write a book about kindness and friendliness doesn't mean I'm a warm-hearted person. I could write books about gruesome murders and horror stories but my personality doesn't have to match up with what I write. A lot of MC's, for example, rap about things they really wouldn't partake in, in real life.

Just because you know the BOOK.. doesn't mean you "know" the AUTHOR

In my response, I did stress that reading a book on an author "doesn't paint the entire picture". But on the "Author" tip, your quote should be applied as well to the Bible. Just because someone knows the Bible doesn't mean they "know" God.

God didn't write the Bible. Even Christians will tell you the Bible was written by man

Well...what is a Christian? Anybody can be one nowadays. But not to avoid your point, the book was written by man...however, it becomes a matter of influence or essence of the Bible. Man wouldn't write such a book as the Bible if given a choice.

 

[Bodhi]

A Christian is someone who believes in Christianity. A Christian can come in many shapes and sizes. A Christian can be just about anybody or perhaps, anybody can be a Christian would be a better way to put it. What makes the Christians who wrote the Bible more believable or trustworthy than DMX?

Man can write anything man wants to write. Why WOULDN'T man write the Bible if given the choice?

 

[alissowack]

Believe it or not...it is easy to do. We do it all the time. We can't observe things like love, peace and happiness, yet we trust we know what they are.

we can observe love, peace, and happiness all the time, either within ourselves or through the actions of others

Really? So if someone shows the actions, does it mean that it is their intentions? People can fake it you know.

They aren't always faked and scientists can observe emotions in bodily activity

I wasn't suggesting that there are always faked. I'm saying it can be faked. And what does observing bodily activity have to do with defining what love, peace, and happiness is ultimately? I can have some perverted emotions where I love to hate, find peace in starting wars and try to achieve happiness through making someone sad. I can think doing bad things is actually good.

 

[alissowack]

A Christian is someone who believes in Christianity. A Christian can come in many shapes and sizes. A Christian can be just about anybody or perhaps, anybody can be a Christian would be a better way to put it. What makes the Christians who wrote the Bible more believable or trustworthy than DMX?

Man can write anything man wants to write. Why WOULDN'T man write the Bible if given the choice?

Well, let me give you a definition of a Christian...a person who believe that Jesus (the Christ) was the Son of God, who came into the world to save the world from sin; believed that he was crucified and died on the cross, was buried, and on the third day he rose again.

If this is the true definition of a Christian, then it narrows things down for even some "Christians" don't subscribe to this. They may just think that because they don't drink, smoke and whatever else that they are a Christian.

 

[Bodhi]

Believe it or not...it is easy to do. We do it all the time. We can't observe things like love, peace and happiness, yet we trust we know what they are.

we can observe love, peace, and happiness all the time, either within ourselves or through the actions of others

Really? So if someone shows the actions, does it mean that it is their intentions? People can fake it you know.

They aren't always faked and scientists can observe emotions in bodily activity

I wasn't suggesting that there are always faked. I'm saying it can be faked. And what does observing bodily activity have to do with defining what love, peace, and happiness is ultimately? I can have some perverted emotions where I love to hate, find peace in starting wars and try to achieve happiness through making someone sad. I can think doing bad things is actually good.

The sources of love, peace, and happiness depend on the person who experiences them but the definitions remain. And we can still observe them

 

[Bodhi]

A Christian is someone who believes in Christianity. A Christian can come in many shapes and sizes. A Christian can be just about anybody or perhaps, anybody can be a Christian would be a better way to put it. What makes the Christians who wrote the Bible more believable or trustworthy than DMX?

Man can write anything man wants to write. Why WOULDN'T man write the Bible if given the choice?

Well, let me give you a definition of a Christian...a person who believe that Jesus (the Christ) was the Son of God, who came into the world to save the world from sin; believed that he was crucified and died on the cross, was buried, and on the third day he rose again.

If this is the true definition of a Christian, then it narrows things down for even some "Christians" don't subscribe to this. They may just think that because they don't drink, smoke and whatever else that they are a Christian.

..which says something about Christianity. None of it is solid, including the existance of the god it claims to be real

 

[alissowack]

Believe it or not...it is easy to do. We do it all the time. We can't observe things like love, peace and happiness, yet we trust we know what they are.

we can observe love, peace, and happiness all the time, either within ourselves or through the actions of others

Really? So if someone shows the actions, does it mean that it is their intentions? People can fake it you know.

They aren't always faked and scientists can observe emotions in bodily activity

I wasn't suggesting that there are always faked. I'm saying it can be faked. And what does observing bodily activity have to do with defining what love, peace, and happiness is ultimately? I can have some perverted emotions where I love to hate, find peace in starting wars and try to achieve happiness through making someone sad. I can think doing bad things is actually good.

The sources of love, peace, and happiness depend on the person who experiences them but the definitions remain. And we can still observe them

So it depends on the person...and I guess it would be alright to have someone have a mistaken perspective on love, peace and happiness as longs as it feels right to that person. Someone may love to hate. Someone may find peace in starting wars. Someone might achieve happiness in making people sad...or making themselves sad.

 

[alissowack]

A Christian is someone who believes in Christianity. A Christian can come in many shapes and sizes. A Christian can be just about anybody or perhaps, anybody can be a Christian would be a better way to put it. What makes the Christians who wrote the Bible more believable or trustworthy than DMX?

Man can write anything man wants to write. Why WOULDN'T man write the Bible if given the choice?

Well, let me give you a definition of a Christian...a person who believe that Jesus (the Christ) was the Son of God, who came into the world to save the world from sin; believed that he was crucified and died on the cross, was buried, and on the third day he rose again.

If this is the true definition of a Christian, then it narrows things down for even some "Christians" don't subscribe to this. They may just think that because they don't drink, smoke and whatever else that they are a Christian.

..which says something about Christianity. None of it is solid, including the existance of the god it claims to be real

No...it just says a lot about people. We are not "solid". Even apart from religion, we had to deal with the notion that not everybody has our best interest in mind. Some (if not all) people will use anything and everything to their advangtage...even at the expense of saying something doesn't exist or that something didn't happen. And we can even justify things by telling truths about things to cover up a lie that we secretly hold to. We lie, cheat, steal, kill...whenever we can get away with it.

 

[Bodhi]

Believe it or not...it is easy to do. We do it all the time. We can't observe things like love, peace and happiness, yet we trust we know what they are.

we can observe love, peace, and happiness all the time, either within ourselves or through the actions of others

Really? So if someone shows the actions, does it mean that it is their intentions? People can fake it you know.

They aren't always faked and scientists can observe emotions in bodily activity

I wasn't suggesting that there are always faked. I'm saying it can be faked. And what does observing bodily activity have to do with defining what love, peace, and happiness is ultimately? I can have some perverted emotions where I love to hate, find peace in starting wars and try to achieve happiness through making someone sad. I can think doing bad things is actually good.

The sources of love, peace, and happiness depend on the person who experiences them but the definitions remain. And we can still observe them

So it depends on the person...and I guess it would be alright to have someone have a mistaken perspective on love, peace and happiness as longs as it feels right to that person. Someone may love to hate. Someone may find peace in starting wars. Someone might achieve happiness in making people sad...or making themselves sad.

Again, the definition of happiness doesn't change. The SOURCE of happiness depends on the person.

 

[Bodhi]

A Christian is someone who believes in Christianity. A Christian can come in many shapes and sizes. A Christian can be just about anybody or perhaps, anybody can be a Christian would be a better way to put it. What makes the Christians who wrote the Bible more believable or trustworthy than DMX?

Man can write anything man wants to write. Why WOULDN'T man write the Bible if given the choice?

Well, let me give you a definition of a Christian...a person who believe that Jesus (the Christ) was the Son of God, who came into the world to save the world from sin; believed that he was crucified and died on the cross, was buried, and on the third day he rose again.

If this is the true definition of a Christian, then it narrows things down for even some "Christians" don't subscribe to this. They may just think that because they don't drink, smoke and whatever else that they are a Christian.

..which says something about Christianity. None of it is solid, including the existance of the god it claims to be real

No...it just says a lot about people. We are not "solid". Even apart from religion, we had to deal with the notion that not everybody has our best interest in mind. Some (if not all) people will use anything and everything to their advangtage...even at the expense of saying something doesn't exist or that something didn't happen. And we can even justify things by telling truths about things to cover up a lie that we secretly hold to. We lie, cheat, steal, kill...whenever we can get away with it.

That answer would be great if Christians did not claim that God works through them. But they do, so if Christians are not "solid", we can't expect God to be

 

[Bodhi]

Some (if not all) people will use anything and everything to their advangtage...even at the expense of saying something doesn't exist or that something didn't happen..

or in Christianity's case, saying something DOES exist or that something DID happen..

 

[alissowack]

Some (if not all) people will use anything and everything to their advangtage...even at the expense of saying something doesn't exist or that something didn't happen..

or in Christianity's case, saying something DOES exist or that something DID happen..

I don't particularly have a problem with Christianity saying what happened or something does exist...I know...you may say a Christian wouldn't have a problem by default. The point I want to make is this. People take the claims of the Bible as a means to support a cause that has nothing to do with the Bible. I think of the tragedies that have happened like 9-11, the Haiti earthquakes, and others where there were sincere efforts to provide aid to the victims. However, there were also people using thoses events to manipulate the masses; getting them to think they were supporting the actual event.

Though it isn't about money all the time, some churches are making a profit by using the Bible as a front for some unknown selfish cause. If they were honest, they would probably admit that they don't really support it's claims. They could care less to even open the Bible to read any text...maybe to glance over the Ten Commandments, the "tithe" passage, doomsday passages, and a little John 3:16. They just like the "authority" they feel the Bible represents in the lives of people but could care less what it may mean to them.

 

[Bodhi]

That's not what we're talking about

 

[alissowack]

Believe it or not...it is easy to do. We do it all the time. We can't observe things like love, peace and happiness, yet we trust we know what they are.

we can observe love, peace, and happiness all the time, either within ourselves or through the actions of others

Really? So if someone shows the actions, does it mean that it is their intentions? People can fake it you know.

They aren't always faked and scientists can observe emotions in bodily activity

I wasn't suggesting that there are always faked. I'm saying it can be faked. And what does observing bodily activity have to do with defining what love, peace, and happiness is ultimately? I can have some perverted emotions where I love to hate, find peace in starting wars and try to achieve happiness through making someone sad. I can think doing bad things is actually good.

The sources of love, peace, and happiness depend on the person who experiences them but the definitions remain. And we can still observe them

So it depends on the person...and I guess it would be alright to have someone have a mistaken perspective on love, peace and happiness as longs as it feels right to that person. Someone may love to hate. Someone may find peace in starting wars. Someone might achieve happiness in making people sad...or making themselves sad.

Again, the definition of happiness doesn't change. The SOURCE of happiness depends on the person.

But, the definition of happiness would be misrepresented...unless it doesn't matter if one's perspective on happiness corrupts what happiness means for all. It's not that I don't want to be happy, but at what expense? Addicts want to be happy, but they will destroy themselves and others trying to be it.

 

[Bodhi]

The definition does not change and the point is, happiness can be observed within human beings. Don't believe me, look it up. Stay on topic.

 

[alissowack]

The definition does not change and the point is, happiness can be observed within human beings. Don't believe me, look it up. Stay on topic.

I'm trying my best to stay on topic but...I find something very wrong if you think that being hooked on drugs is a form of happiness. I don't see those who observe this going..."Oh, they must be happy...let them be". It's like...there is really no standard for happiness according to you. I think what you are trying to do is downplay the subject. Scientist can do whatever they want, but they can't say they know what happiness ultimately is. Funny...I remember in a Yahoo! article how Steven Hawkins found women to be a great mystery...I think that was off topic (if not everything else to you).

 

[Bodhi]

You're trying to label something you assume a drug addict may experience that may or may not be happiness as happiness and then dispute that it isn't. Drug addicts may experience a lot of different feelings and emotions while chasing a high. But still, happiness is happiness no matter where or how you find it.

Anyway, happiness is observable. We're talking about a god being observable. God is not observable. You cannot compare the two

 

[Bodhi]

they can't say they know what happiness ultimately is.

you can't tell me what a house ultimately is

 

[alissowack]

they can't say they know what happiness ultimately is.

you can't tell me what a house ultimately is

Well, I probably can't, sir. But, home is where the heart is.

 

[Bodhi]

Well, I probably can't, sir.

Still, a house is obviously observable.

A house comes in many different forms, colors, sizes, and styles. You can describe one house that may not fit the description of the next house down the street. Regardless, the definition of a house remains the same. A house can hold one individual or an entire family or group of friends; and we can SEE these people living in their homes

Happiness is the same way.