Insult? It's a pretty shallow one unless you're some fat emotionally stunted slob living in a basement. Years from now, I'd like to hope you can take a look at this thread and have a good laugh over it.
Sorry I almost missed the first part, like Ive said in the previous page, those 2 terms are not mutually exclusive. Hope this chart would help you to better understand those 2 terms.
I would assume that you are a believer who couldnt come up with any sort of meaningful argument so you decided to subtly discredit my intention of starting the thread. This is a legit question, why do I need to disprove God's existence? Can you disprove my invisible blue dragon isn't shagging your God in my garage? Please dont wait for years, just dont come back at all.
If I go to the fridge right now and get me a cold pop and eat it in 5 seconds i'll get a brain freeze. The wrapper on the cold pop doesn't give specific details on what will happen if I eat the cold pop in 5 seconds. But from my knowledge on cold foods, it would be wise on my part to take heed to the fact that if I eat something cold too fast I will get a brain freeze.
I initially was done because I thought you're just being argumentative. But you are right, there is a narrower definition of atheism that fits what you were saying, that's why I came back. Let me be clear - I am not religious. But I am honest with myself. I don't know how Big Bang came to be. I don't know what came before the Big Bang. I don't understand the world before Big Bang. I don't know how it is some random molecules could work in such a fashion as to create the complexities of life today. With as many questions I have about God, I have just as many about the scientific explanation of our world. You can argue about which religion's version of God is accurate. But that is different from saying that there is no God. Or worse, refusing to say whether there is or is not a God. Exercise your judgement and your analytic abilities and take a position. That's as much as I will go here - I have no more value to add to this discussion. Especially after you wasted my awesome Billy Madison reference.
Only I can read it, you wouldnt understand anyways --- Dont you doubt it though, or when you die you get sent to a place where you have to work in a strip club.
Oh, ok I gotcha. Well if you wanna read the book I like to read just let me know. Its the most widely circulated and published book in the history of mankind.
Thats fine, I don't blame you. I don't know either, that's why its rather stupid to pin all my hope on a book written in bronze age, especially when this book is full of contradictory stories and verses. But you know what, we can always learn to use different scientific methods to verify hypothesis and solidify theories, where as in religion, you will always have to go back this book and try to use your imagination to understand this big spectrum that's beyond time and space. Be honest doesnt mean you have to take a position, when you were bornt you were an atheist, by default. Thats the position you shall remain unless further evidences are provided. Ahh come on, that was a pretty average reference
Just curious about the Christian God's logic here. If God is omnipotent and all powerful that would mean God has the power to transform into a being that can be seen by humans. So why doesn't God just show its "face" and say "Hey I'm real and Jesus died for your sins". Because if there was a Jesus who did died for my sins and there was 100% proof that it did happen I would love Jesus and live my life for him. So is the ultimate test from God is to see if humans are capable of believing in something that humans cannot physically interact with? If a human cannot believe in something they cannot physically interact with they are condemned to eternal hell fire? I bring up this question because I'm sure millions of agnostics and atheists love the idea of a man who died for our sins... So God is condemning them because they want proof? Can a Christian please explain what's wrong with my logic?
