I have heard of harun Yahya, never knew his name was adnan okter tbh. I still havent looked at the rise of Islam site. If what i have said is on there, I assure you it was coincidence, as i have no time for harun yahya, whatever name he goes under I disagree, the quran has certain facts that science did not know/refused to accept and finally accepted. The creation of life in the womb etc is an example The vague scriptures bit can be true, but only from people who dont know what they are talking about The problem with the 'average christian' is that he is in fact not christian. yes he gets married in church, wants christmas pressies, and calls god in times of need, but he is christian in name only. The same applies, generally, to most 'religions'. It includes evolutionists, athiests etc In all honesty, in my experience, people have a 'bad experience', a problem, or simply dont understand the faith they were born into and then base all religions, beliefs into 1 category. For example most people who hate christianity will hate judaism and islam because they are the 'same'. This is fundamnetally wrong when you look into the 3. red, blue and green are 'colours' but not the same
bollox if you were left to your 'own abilities' you wouldnt know which end to eat and which end to shoite
I've yet to see a claim of foreknowledge of science from the Quran that was anything like convincing. The supposed supernatural revelations are either already known, mainly discovered by the Greeks or utterly vague. A lot of hunters would have been very aware of where the young of their prey develop, for example, as it's hard to avoid noticing when you're gutting a pregnant animal. The average Christian clearly is a Christian. You're falling into the old No True Scotsman fallacy and have ignored one of the central tenets of Christianity, too. None are without sin, words and deeds are not important, faith is the only requirement and the only way to the light is through Jesus. Evolutionists? Why do creationists feel the need to make up such silly tags for those that they try to counter? There's no such thing and atheism clearly isn't a religion, either. It's a pretty standard theist tactic to try to make it appear that there are two competing dogmas, when there clearly aren't. People tend to lump Christianity, Judaism and Islam in together because they are essentially a trilogy. They are known as the Abrahamic faiths for a reason. They may not be the same, but they share a lot of similarities. You don't see people lumping in Buddhism with the three listed religions.
The womb thing was clearly an example, however if it was not untill the 1900's before science could explain it, If it was known to hunters surely it couldnt/wouldnt take that long? There are many more 'evidences'. The average christian is christian on birth certificate only. What you have quoted is not christianity either. A lot of what christians believe is the message of jesus is not. The obvious example is the trinity. Those who follow this are not christians. Assuming that christianity is the 'following' of christs teachings you dont like 'evolutionist' yet use the term 'creationist'? and it depends on your definition of 'religion'. As i have said continuously in my experience most people who claim to be athiest are anti-religion and unaware of what they believe. 'I guess i am athiest' does not make them such Peoples biggest mistake is lumping judaism, christianity and Islam together. They then believe what you have gone onto say they are the 'same' or they have 'similarities'. Here is my issue and what I was initially arguing. A catholic becomes 'athiest' based on his/her experience. They judge all religion on their catholic background. Yet other religions may address the 'issues' they have, yet there 'hatred' doesnt allow this As for Buddhism, i put it to you thta it is actually closer to the 'abrahamic' religions than you think. 4 noble truths (the main being suffering and misery), the noble 8 fold path (10 commandments?). Also if you look at the buddhist teachings 2 things are apparent. Firstly buddhism today int what buddha would have wanted (see jesus and christianity etc) and secondly there is a strong suggestion that buddha actually believed in god. which was not easy in 'hindu' india. It was the multi gods he had issues with
There aren't any 'evidences' at all. There are lots of claims of evidence, but they all fall apart when examined. What I have quoted is exactly what Christianity preaches in the bible. You seem to believe that you have some insight into Christianity that everyone else doesn't have. Why is that? I don't like the word evolutionist because it doesn't exist. It's meaningless. It's an attempt by theists to try to suggest that it's a belief system, on a par with creationists. You have suggested that you accept evolution. Are you an evolutionist, then? Again, you're trying to claim some special insight into a group (if you can call atheists that) that you feel you know more about than those that you believe belong to it. Not having a religion is not a religion. Accepting that a scientific claim appears to be true, using the evidence currently available to us, is not a religion. Judaism, Christianity and Islam do have similarities. They're an evolution of the same belief system. A Catholic that loses their faith will naturally judge any other religion on their personal experiences of religion, for the most part. That doesn't mean that they won't examine other faiths or that they hold any hatred for their old one. Why do you keep putting 'atheist' in inverted commas? Having tenets and beliefs does not make Buddhism particularly close to the Abrahamic (again with the commas) faiths. Buddha believed in one god? Zakir Naik, by any chance?
On the contrary, time has been instrumental in prooving them right. What you have quoted is not what jesus taught. christianity today is not (largely as there are christians who believe this) what was taught by jesus. Yes some may argue that is 'largely' what he taught, i disagree if you change the fundamentals those changes are too big to say 'it is the same'. An analogy would be the alcohol argument. Is beer with 0.1% alcohol non alcoholic? many say yes. But would they drink it if it was 0.1% urine? we can get pedantic with words such as evolutionist etc. liking it or disliking it is irrelevant. I dislike people using the words christian and athiest This being a discussion, I am offering my views. I have clearly said in my experience etc. I also said it depends on your meaning of religion. I think any belief structure can be seen as a religion. athiesm is a belief. and there is no scientific evidence imo that backs up athiesm the inverted commas are there as i dont believe most athiests are in fact athiest. as i have said they are anti religion, as such it is unfair to athiests to call them such Tenents and belief is what makes the abrahamic religions abrahamic. If buddha had 8 commandmets then he is actually closer to judaism and christaianity than islam. Some commentators believed buddha believed in one god I do know Zakir Naik, not personally, and have a lot of time for him. However this isnt from him, if that was your assertion
This from the "Northern Property Tycoon" Seriously, you need to getaway from this make believe life. Just accept that you're on a sex-pest register and resigned to a life in your ****ty bedsit in Hulme
Time hasn't proven the claims to be correct, at all. It has shown that some of them are wrong and it's also shown that some of the supposedly supernaturally derived knowledge was already known. What I have quoted is the basics of what Jesus taught. In a religion that's often contradictory and hypocritical, any further debate of specific tenets will be controversial amongst Christians, never mind those who aren't members of that faith. Is beer with 0.1% alcohol non-alcoholic? Clearly not. I doubt anyone would say that it was. I dislike the use of the word evolutionist, as it doesn't have anything like a clear definition. You clearly avoided my question about whether your acceptance of evolution made you an evolutionist, for example. Why do you dislike people using the words Christian and atheist? Athiesm isn't a belief. It's a rejection of theistic claims. A religion, according to dictionary.com, is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Atheism doesn't concern any of those things. One can be an atheist and still believe in creationism, for example. There is no scientific evidence that backs up atheism? The fact that there is no scientific evidence for any god backs up atheism entirely. Your claim about 'atheists' being anti-religion are baseless and biased. Tenets and belief are not what make the Abrahamic religions Abrahamic. The presence of Abraham in them does. Which commentators believe that Buddha believed in a god?
or atheism the doctrine or belief that there is no God. Religion the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs either way it is belief and both rely on god to exist
My life really stunk, and I didn't really believe God was truly there. But I then began to feel God speaking to me, I asked Him questions and He answered every single one of them when I looked at the Bible. Every time the correct page came up, impressive in a 2000 page book! I gave my life to Jesus Christ at 17 and my life changed. I was happy, and I have this peace and joy even in the hardest times. I honestly don't know how people do it without God, my old life feels like a past life. Science is good, Christians began science and science actually points TO God if you look at it without presupposing there is no God. God can change your life, you won't be able to believe how much, if you want Him too.
It's not a belief. It's a lack of a belief. There's a difference in believing that there is no god/s and not believing that there is a god or gods. Atheism relies on god to exist? No. It clearly doesn't. Sorry.
You became religious at 17? Damn your life must have been miserable, if believing in something that probably doesn't exist helped you. My life sucks, however i just put my head down and get on with it. Thats what you should have done, or just find something to lift your spirits. If i'm feeling down, i youtube the arsenal-man u match from the end of last season.
that was not my definition it was a dictionary definition In the case of athiesm it is largely based on the rejection of belief in god the word itself has theism in it which is basically the belief that god exists there is no set of belief/ideology for athiests, however it ranges from the religion is evil, to religious revelations are inconsistent, to historical and social religion plays a large role in athiests life in one form or another
It was a poor definition. It doesn't matter what the source was. Rejection of god presumes that god exists. Atheists don't believe in a god or gods, so it's not a rejection of that. It's a rejection of the claims for god's existence, as none of them have been shown to be true. Religion often plays no part at all in the life of atheists, but you won't experience a debate with those atheists, by definition. You're using a fairly stock set of theistic strawman arguments, unfortunately.
