Kirk Cameron will Prove God's Existence
- Thread starter 2-0-Sixx
- Start date
That was a pathetic attempt at proving gods existence I could have come up with a lot better arguments. When will stupid Christians realize we don’t have the requirements that scientists need to prove gods existence. Gods word will and is proving its existence with time. I’m a Christian and I’m embarrassed to have the dude from growing pains trying to prove my lords existence on national TV
Not true. If I can show you three instances were we "argued" and I didn't bring up the bible, told you to stop bringing it up and told you to stay on course will you leave this board for three weeks?
I am not a "christian", and I've said what I am many times now.
Yes, your opinons and beliefs may be applicable to every religion, but you are constantly attacking ONE religion and a specific "god."
You provide me the opinion you are entitled to, but you also fail to realize that many religions have done good, so we end up going around and around in the same circle.
You do know what I want. Like I told you before, if you are going to be in a position of authority, and are on your way to becoming a scientist, you need to work in certain areas. There is a time and place for everything, but the way you come off is just as bad as the fanatical religious zealot. Provide the info, let people decide if it is important enough to look into, and if they do, you have done your job...hint hint....
I am not a "christian", and I've said what I am many times now.
Yes, your opinons and beliefs may be applicable to every religion, but you are constantly attacking ONE religion and a specific "god."
You provide me the opinion you are entitled to, but you also fail to realize that many religions have done good, so we end up going around and around in the same circle.
You do know what I want. Like I told you before, if you are going to be in a position of authority, and are on your way to becoming a scientist, you need to work in certain areas. There is a time and place for everything, but the way you come off is just as bad as the fanatical religious zealot. Provide the info, let people decide if it is important enough to look into, and if they do, you have done your job...hint hint....
say it again, I've missed it all these times
I can argue that the bad religions have done vastly outweighs the good, but that's not my point, true, I am criticizing religions based on what they've done, but I have a much bigger objection against religion and it is that it's a false superstition that keeps people in dark about the real world. I hope you understand that
I do not attack one god, I attack all of them, it is just one that I mention most often and I already told you why
sticking to the scientific principle is not zealtory, it's called being a good scientist...
Yes, your opinons and beliefs may be applicable to every religion, but you are constantly attacking ONE religion and a specific "god."
You provide me the opinion you are entitled to, but you also fail to realize that many religions have done good, so we end up going around and around in the same circle.
You provide me the opinion you are entitled to, but you also fail to realize that many religions have done good, so we end up going around and around in the same circle.
I do not attack one god, I attack all of them, it is just one that I mention most often and I already told you why
sticking to the scientific principle is not zealtory, it's called being a good scientist...
BTW I just wanna to say something to this real quick. You know I'm agnostic but I would argue that religion itself is responsible for the very progression of civilization. I would dare say if it wasn't for religion we would be living fairly primitive lifestyles. Let me explain...
The first civilizations implemented laws/rules to govern their populations (Hammurabi's Code being the first documented example) these laws made their society more efficient if you will. Laws that made their populace refrain from selfish/primitive behavior (such as rape, murder and theft) which allowed them to act as one, instead of as individuals.
These first civilizations had nothing more than fear of God(s) or deities to enforce their laws, the governing forces were neither omnipresent nor almighty which a "God" therefor could be. If the populace would have disregarded these laws, they could have never acted as one and progressed, they would have acted as individuals against each other. Fear of an invisible, almighty force was the only solution which could have caused large masses to obey a set of laws (which unified the society).
I would even suggest that the very reason why religion is so popular today, is because these groups (with their laws and "fear of god") grew and became stronger while other smaller groups with no laws or religion were unable to compete in survival against the unified societies.
You could say religion has already served it's purpose, governments have long since been able to enforce laws without fear of god. But to say religion has caused more harm than good is a stretch. Though true, countless wars and conflicts have been based on religion (and it could be argued it was used as a justification, but not the basis of). I would say the good religion has done far outweighs any negative aspects of what "Fear of God" has caused. Religion and "Fear of God" was the very foundation of the first civilizations, once again I reiterate that it is responsible for the very progression of civilization itself. Keep in mind I myself do not believe in any such God(s).
The first civilizations implemented laws/rules to govern their populations (Hammurabi's Code being the first documented example) these laws made their society more efficient if you will. Laws that made their populace refrain from selfish/primitive behavior (such as rape, murder and theft) which allowed them to act as one, instead of as individuals.
These first civilizations had nothing more than fear of God(s) or deities to enforce their laws, the governing forces were neither omnipresent nor almighty which a "God" therefor could be. If the populace would have disregarded these laws, they could have never acted as one and progressed, they would have acted as individuals against each other. Fear of an invisible, almighty force was the only solution which could have caused large masses to obey a set of laws (which unified the society).
I would even suggest that the very reason why religion is so popular today, is because these groups (with their laws and "fear of god") grew and became stronger while other smaller groups with no laws or religion were unable to compete in survival against the unified societies.
You could say religion has already served it's purpose, governments have long since been able to enforce laws without fear of god. But to say religion has caused more harm than good is a stretch. Though true, countless wars and conflicts have been based on religion (and it could be argued it was used as a justification, but not the basis of). I would say the good religion has done far outweighs any negative aspects of what "Fear of God" has caused. Religion and "Fear of God" was the very foundation of the first civilizations, once again I reiterate that it is responsible for the very progression of civilization itself. Keep in mind I myself do not believe in any such God(s).
no disrespect...
but you have got to be kidding. Religion is one of the main reasons we are NOT advanced as we should be. Women were held back for so long because of the Old testament. Africans, Indians, Asians, & some Europeans were made slaves because of the Old Testament......
These are not progressions. These are the very roots that keep us in a racist - slave driven society. I will say the exact opposite as you. If it werent for Religion we would be living longer & healthier lives. With religions there is a "after" life, so not many people care about this one.
5000
This isn't SIMON SAYS.
The bold and underlined contradict each other.
I understand that you're contradicting yourself, yes.
No, you usually attack a specific religion and make that the focus of your argument. And doing so on the grounds that "this is a christian country" doesn't cut it. If you are going to consider something DYNAMIC as religion and say it is part of the worlds problem, why not look at something STATIC like color/race/ethnicity and focus on that as well?
But thats not what I am talking about. Read my previous response to you again.
The bold and underlined contradict each other.
I understand that you're contradicting yourself, yes.
No, you usually attack a specific religion and make that the focus of your argument. And doing so on the grounds that "this is a christian country" doesn't cut it. If you are going to consider something DYNAMIC as religion and say it is part of the worlds problem, why not look at something STATIC like color/race/ethnicity and focus on that as well?
But thats not what I am talking about. Read my previous response to you again.
You didn't read the rest of my post. Go back and read.
Again, Religion was the foundation of the first civilizations. "Fear of God" was the only tool able to enforce laws back then (laws which created unified societies where people worked together as one, instead of as individuals against each other). Without it, we wouldn't have civilization today.
What I am describing is the very roots of society and civilization ITSELF.
You're trying to argue religion in the context of today. If you read my post I stated that "you could say religion has already served it's purpose in history."
Again, Religion was the foundation of the first civilizations. "Fear of God" was the only tool able to enforce laws back then (laws which created unified societies where people worked together as one, instead of as individuals against each other). Without it, we wouldn't have civilization today.
What I am describing is the very roots of society and civilization ITSELF.
You're trying to argue religion in the context of today. If you read my post I stated that "you could say religion has already served it's purpose in history."