I want to see evidence. Please stop lying about me.If you do not want to see the evidence you never will.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I want to see evidence. Please stop lying about me.If you do not want to see the evidence you never will.
Your wrong. Please call me an atheist. I fit the definition given by the dictionary I do not fit the definition given by agnostic as I showed already.
I want to see evidence. Please stop lying about me.
Here is the thing. You don't get to define what I label myself as. I do.
Does that change what you are? Who said that only you (and perhaps other atheists and agnostics) get to define what an atheist or agnostic is? I say an agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether or not He exists.What if out of my ignorance of what a Mormon and a christian are I labeled you a Mormon. That is what you did here to me. Out of your ignorance between the difference between an agnostic and atheist you labeled me an agnostic when I label myself an atheist.
No, you are confused--that would combine agnosticism with deism.An agnostic doesn't think god can be knowable even if he exists.
I will not likely be referring to you at all because discussions with broken records ("I don't have sufficient evidence-I don't have sufficient evidence-I don't have sufficient evidence...") are boring. If that's all you have, then I will assume that you are not seriously searching for any answers and are just here to annoy Christians. I do not choose to spend any more time on it.The definition of atheism is a person with a lack of god belief OR denies god exists. I am an atheist because I lack a belief in god. I don't deny that god exists or that we cannot know if god exists. I don't have sufficient evidence to believe that god does exist. So I am an atheist and not an agnostic. Please refer to me as such.
It has not been "refuted." But then, you also believe in evolution. Bye.I am familiar and it has been refuted.
Did any of these people claim to be god? I think there is sufficient evidence that Jesus existed, I don't think there is sufficient evidence that he was god.
Yes, but when someone like me specifically tells you what I believe and why I want to be called an atheist don't you just refer to them as they want to be? or do you want to come across as condescending for no reason?There is more than one definition out but to be honest I don't care. I lump atheists and agnostics together.
Yes because the evidence is not adequate. I have evidence that big foot exists, I have testimonies of people that have seen him, I have pictures of him, videos of him that I can show you. Do you believe big foot exists? Probably not, because it is not credible evidence.You've been given evidence by a number of people and always offer an excuse to reject.
Even when my beliefs do not line up with the definition of an agnostic?It is my label for you. You can call yourself Pope Francis, if you like, and I will still call you an agnostic.
I am only going by what the definition in a dictionary says they are. I posted them. I am using them correctly you are using them as you wish not as they are usually defined.Does that change what you are? Who said that only you (and perhaps other atheists and agnostics) get to define what an atheist or agnostic is? I say an agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether or not He exists.
Nope. Deists believe god exists, agnostics don't think that we can ever know if god exists.No, you are confused--that would combine agnosticism with deism.
You are assuming that there has been sufficient evidence for belief presented. All the evidence I have seen presented can also be presented by other religions, so why is Christianity true rather than Islam?I will not likely be referring to you at all because discussions with broken records ("I don't have sufficient evidence-I don't have sufficient evidence-I don't have sufficient evidence...") are boring. If that's all you have, then I will assume that you are not seriously searching for any answers and are just here to annoy Christians. I do not choose to spend any more time on it.
I believe it is the best explanation of how life has changed, but I don't know if it is true or not. There are many arguments that rebut this "proof". Easily found if you want to read them.It has not been "refuted." But then, you also believe in evolution. Bye.
Where is the credible evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?@Vince
It's like when Jesus fed the 5,000+ people with five loaves and two fishes, and the scribes and Pharisees not long afterward came to Jesus asking Him to show them a sign.
Jesus said that no sign would be given to them except the sign of Jonah. (They did not believe the evidence that was in front of them; so whatever sign there might be would simply be a non-sign to them because they do not want to believe).
Theologically, the sign of Jonah is signified by the fact that as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the Son of man was three days and three nights in the heart of the earth...the sign of Jonah is signified by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
If that sign is not enough for you, then I believe that Jesus will leave you to die in your sins.
Ok, my label for you is a Calvinist.
So what? Are you going to get the "dictionary definition police" after me? Not sure why the agnostics decided to change their definition for themselves but there it is. I can understand why the atheists would want to change their definition as atheism purports to "know" there is no God and that is not an intellectually tenable position.I am only going by what the definition in a dictionary says they are. I posted them. I am using them correctly you are using them as you wish not as they are usually defined.
Then you wrote it in a misleading way. Deists do believe that even though they believe a Creator God exists that we cannot know Him. They are wrong. Jesus said, that if we have seen Him, we have seen the Father.Nope. Deists believe god exists, agnostics don't think that we can ever know if god exists.
Simple. Islam actually believes in Jesus and speaks of Him as a prophet--some Muslims believe that Jesus is a prophet greater than Muhammad. When I witness to Muslims, I always ask the question, "If you believe that He is a prophet (pbuh) then why don't you believe Him?" They also believe that Jesus will return at the end of time. Christianity is the only faith which has a founder who returned from the dead, just as it was prophesied for centuries beforehand. There are so many prophecies which are fulfilled in His advent that I would find it difficult to not believe in Him.You are assuming that there has been sufficient evidence for belief presented. All the evidence I have seen presented can also be presented by other religions, so why is Christianity true rather than Islam?
I believe it is the best explanation of how life has changed, but I don't know if it is true or not.
Yes, but when someone like me specifically tells you what I believe and why I want to be called an atheist don't you just refer to them as they want to be? or do you want to come across as condescending for no reason?
Yes because the evidence is not adequate. I have evidence that big foot exists, I have testimonies of people that have seen him, I have pictures of him, videos of him that I can show you. Do you believe big foot exists? Probably not, because it is not credible evidence.
Labeling me an agnostic does not make me one either.LOL--I am not a Calvinist and you labeling me as such doesn't make me one. But whatever floats your boat.
I agree that to say knowing god does not exist is a claim that cannot be substantiated by evidence. That is why I do not say believe that. I have not changed my definition of atheism, the current dictionaries also allow for lack of belief and not just god doesn't exist.So what? Are you going to get the "dictionary definition police" after me? Not sure why the agnostics decided to change their definition for themselves but there it is. I can understand why the atheists would want to change their definition as atheism purports to "know" there is no God and that is not an intellectually tenable position.
Where have you seen Jesus?Then you wrote it in a misleading way. Deists do believe that even though they believe a Creator God exists that we cannot know Him. They are wrong. Jesus said, that if we have seen Him, we have seen the Father.
You know all of this because of the bible. So what is the evidence that the bible is reliable in what it teaches?Simple. Islam actually believes in Jesus and speaks of Him as a prophet--some Muslims believe that Jesus is a prophet greater than Muhammad. When I witness to Muslims, I always ask the question, "If you believe that He is a prophet (pbuh) then why don't you believe Him?" They also believe that Jesus will return at the end of time. Christianity is the only faith which has a founder who returned from the dead, just as it was prophesied for centuries beforehand. There are so many prophecies which are fulfilled in His advent that I would find it difficult to not believe in Him.
We know life exists, we don't know how it started. Evolution says nothing about life's origins.The current definition of evolution as "change over time" is a triviality. The tough one is to get acceptance of the establishment of life in the first place, as a result of "blind chance".
I agree life probably began on this planet somehow.As for the Kalam Cosmological Argument being "refuted"--all arguments on both sides have NO proof. It is an item of faith from both points of view.In any case, it doesn't really matter--you can move the argument from "the big bang" to the beginning of life here on this planet. Even the most ardent evolutionists believe that there was a beginning to life here.
An argument that you just refused to respond to in a meaningful way.A foolish argument in a bad effort by you.
If the general acceptance of the word alien meant someone living on planet earth then yes. Since it does not then no. This is my point, you are ignorant of the definition of atheism and when I give you sources that define atheism you refuse to acknowledge your ignorance. Atheism is defined as a lack of belief (which I have) OR a belief that god does not exist (Which I do not believe).There are some people that claim to be aliens. Does that make them aliens?
If the general acceptance of the word alien meant someone living on planet earth then yes. Since it does not then no. This is my point, you are ignorant of the definition of atheism and when I give you sources that define atheism you refuse to acknowledge your ignorance. Atheism is defined as a lack of belief (which I have) OR a belief that god does not exist (Which I do not believe).
Good for you, how about the one I actually gave many times in this thread.Which definition of a atheist? The personal, secular, theological or legal?
I know them all.
Good for you, how about the one I actually gave many times in this thread.
nope. It’s from a current dictionary.Your personal opinion.