Free Digital Video Course "Apologetics Boot Camp" @ Credo Courses

Related Stores

Credo Courses

• 1
• 2

• • • • 

        GregMonarch on 19/08/2018 - 20:28

        Oh, it's wikipedia again - the font of all 'truth' (after an unhealthy dose of leftist agendas and other poppycock has been added) LOL.

        Yeah - evolution is rubbish. Read above for just one example. Which can be seen repeated over again with other genus inserted. Which removes one of evolution's foundational claims. Here's another one:

        Lizard decides to climb tree. Lizard wishes it could fly. Lizard pines for feathers til they magically appear. Or maybe has a birth defect where scales turn to feathers. But we have to conveniently ignore the FACT this isn't hollyweird and EVERY genetic defect results in a LOSS - a degradation - of genetic information, not an improvement. Lizard climbs tree again - and jumps - SPLAT! Why? Same reason every person that built the first planes crashed (and some still do). Because EVERYTHING has to be fully 'a bird' to fly. Its tail, its feathers and their length and weight, the aerodynamic angles of the wings, even THE BONES have to change to be more lightweight/hollow depending on the bird. EVERY 'mutation' (see above) has to 'evolve' at EXACTLY the SAME TIME otherwise: lizard-go-splat. And if lizard not go splat - lizard till no longer a lizard - so CANNOT REPRODUCE unless Mrs Lizard ALSO 'decided' to 'evolve' at EXACTLY the same time, because just as the many Australian aboriginals among us with white skin prove - traits different in a minority of a species are quickly lost due to mating with the majority. EXCEPT (again) birth defects which are a LOSS of genetic information - not an improvement/gain.

        While some animals mate for life, that's pushing the fairy story a bit too far. According to evolution magical fantasy sparkles and rainbows become reality if you just add enough time.

        But apart from that NO missing link has ever been found; EVERY 'discovery' is 'new' and always "the oldest example discovered"; extinct ape and deformed human skeletons are continuously passed off as 'human branches'; some are assembled mixed with human bones and/or filed down and doctored and lied about to create fakes; drawings of human embryos being the same as other animals are fake; gill slits and vestigial organs are fake; dating methods are seriously flawed; and newsflash: explosions blow 99.9% of things apart except perhaps explosive welding which certainly doesn't create carefully assembled functioning lifeforms from dead things.

        Oh - and for the lefties to get triggered over: evolution is a major source of nazi-level racism and claims of superiority. If someone doesn't understand why, they clearly need to research the claims of evolution again.

      • 

        dm01 on 19/08/2018 - 23:33

        @gto21: I never mentioned a microscope. If you can't even direct your argument at the correct individual, I think trying to disprove evolution might be beyond your faculties.

      • 

        dm01 on 19/08/2018 - 23:50

        +2

        @GregMonarch:

        Oh, it's wikipedia again - the font of all 'truth'

        I'd rather rely on wikipedia as a source of information than a collection of letters, stories, texts, proverbs etc, mostly written more than 2000 years ago.

        Nothing else you've written in your post is particularly interesting or challenging, so you'll have to forgive me for simply dismissing it as misguided or simply false, rather than invest the time in tackling it point by point.

        But Happy Sunday to you!

      • 

        gto21 on 19/08/2018 - 23:51

        @dm01: my last message was on microscope. And you replied "
        @gto21: You probably need to have a good hard think about why that's such terrible reasoning." it can be the last one as well, be more specific if you're going to an older message. I'm not trying to disproof evolution, I'm asking atheist for evidence.

      • 

        gto21 on 20/08/2018 - 00:04

        @dm01: I know people who edit Wikipedia just because they think it's funny. It can be a source of information but does not mean a good source of information. Happy Monday to you.

      • 

        dm01 on 20/08/2018 - 14:19

        I'm sorry, but you're simply not making sense. The burden of proof is on you as you're the one claiming an invisible sky-god willed the universe into being, contrary to vast bodies of scientific evidence saying otherwise. Faith isn't evidence, an old book of stories isn't evidence (or if it is, you're then burdened with proving why it and not the numerous other divinely inspired texts are the true word), and for god's sake learn how to spell.

      • 

        gto21 on 20/08/2018 - 14:30

        -1

        @dm01: what is the "contrary to vast bodies of scientific evidence saying otherwise"you're talking about?

• 

  Chriss on 19/08/2018 - 04:56

  There isn't physical evidence that can be used to prove or disprove the existence of God. This means that it wouldn't be scientific to claim that God does or doesn't exist. Either way it's a believe system.

  The question is why do Atheists scream with all their lungs to disapprove the existence of God whenever God is mentioned? I mean if they believe there is nothing after death they shouldn't care about hat subject and try to make the most of their life on earth. Is this a cry for help for someone to convince them that God exist?

  • 

    dm01 on 19/08/2018 - 06:13

    +4

    No one needs to disprove god - it is up to those claiming god/gods exist to prove their claim.

    why do Atheists scream with all their lungs…if they believe there is nothing after death…make the most of their life on earth

    Because religion's fundamental demand to give everything in this "short" life and gain eternal rewards in heaven/paradise/Valhalla etc. is a great way of getting people to do what you want them to, whether that's hand over their money, defer to authority and power, drink the Kool-Aid, don the dynamite.

    A theme common to most religions is their claim of being the only "true" way and the others being false, meaning regardless of which you claim allegiance to, acceptance of that collection of beliefs sets up the vast majority of others as being in the wrong, and of course those others think they're right and everyone else is wrong. The good news is, I partially agree with all of them; you're all being bullshitted.

    Life is too finite to waste on creation myths. Happy Sunday, all!

    • 

      gto21 on 19/08/2018 - 06:21

      -1

      That not true, not every religion claim everything else is wrong. You also have an atheistic belief system that makes you think you are right and everyone else is wrong. You have allegiance and acceptance of a collection of beliefs.

      • 

        TassieTom on 19/08/2018 - 09:21

        +2

        To say, things like ‘you have your faith in science and I have my faith in religion’ is wrong. When you take a panadol to stop a headache the same scientific methods that were used to prove that pill works are the ones applied in principle to answer whether god exists. It’s the conclusion you don’t like not the overarching methodology. And you’re entitled to your opinion, I’m not trying to change it. It’s wrong though to compare religion and science as a set of beliefs.

        I saw a thread above about ‘if god exists why do thousands of babies die everyday?’. Those kind of questions are pointless if you really want to have a practical discussion with someone of faith because you’re basically asking ‘why do bad things happen?’. Spoiler alert - for most people of
        Faith there isn’t a threshold at which the Bible (or other text) becomes false. All you can do, as I’ve tried to do above, is ask that they don’t characterize science as a ‘belief system’. Because once they’re treated equally it allows religious people to argue things like “we should teach children that an Apple falls from a tree because God wills it as part of a national curriculum because your theory of gravity is just a ‘belief’ the same as my ‘belief’ in god.”

      • 

        dm01 on 19/08/2018 - 09:51

        +1

        That not true, not every religion claim everything else is wrong.

        Most religions have an "exclusivity clause" stashed away somewhere.

        You also have an atheistic belief system that makes you think you are right and everyone else is wrong.

        No, you've got that one wrong. The Christians have a belief system that makes them think they're right. As do the Catholics. As do the JWs. As do the Mormons. As does Judaism. As does Islam. All based on interpretations of ancient texts or divine revelation claiming this is the way. Atheism is better likened to a disbelief system. I'm not putting my "faith" (as you'll no doubt try to label it) in an old story book, or someone's claimed moment of spiritual enlightenment.

        My atheism grew from a dissatisfaction with a lot of the nonsense I heard during 20 years of involvement with the Christian church - it grew out of an unwillingness to simply accept what pastor so-and-so said because they're a pastor or because the bible says so. It came from reading a whole lot of non-religious books, learning more about science, understanding more about human psychology.

        You have allegiance and acceptance of a collection of beliefs.

        No, not true. And before you go suggesting that trusting in scientific explanations, or choosing to not believe in the existence of god/gods requires just as much "faith" as a religious systems - it's such a mismatched comparison; such a poor argument as to be comical.

      • 

        gto21 on 19/08/2018 - 09:59

        @TassieTom: I will need a lot more faith to be an atheist. I don't believe everything is created from nothing. Get the best scientist in the world. Put them in a room with nothing let see if they can create something. I don't believe in evolution, as no one can prove it. When I ask for evidence, the answer I get it takes millions of years, so we can't observe it. Our last common ancestor with Chimpanzee was millions of years. We still don't see any evidence (although I can think of a few excuse they would say we don't see it). The point is no evidence as we can't observe it. The issue when people use the word faith, they think of blind faith. I can have a belief based on the knowledge I have about a topic. Faith can be based on historical and archeological evidence and the most logical conclusion among various probability. Even science can be based on faith since a lot of theory can't be proven. However, most people confuse theory with a law. Even some scientific laws have been changed after scientist discovered they were wrong. By belief system I meant for example: before "the big bang theory", "the steady-state theory" was popular. The "steady state theory" is a belief system, and the "big bang theory" is another belief system. Beliefs are able to change in light of new evidence or ideas. I personally don't have enough faith to be an atheist. If anyone thinks differently that's ok.

      • 

        TassieTom on 19/08/2018 - 10:16

        @gto21:

        Obviously I disagree mate but as you say we’re all entitled to our opinion. I think it’s great if you have a belief that makes you a happier and, as you see it, a better person :).

      • 

        gto21 on 19/08/2018 - 10:18

        @dm01: Yet you wrote "you're all being bullshitted." are we all wrong yes or no? You believe in some book written by a scientist. Some written long time ago like the theory of evolution. That no one very observes one species becoming another species. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. It's probably the worst logical probability. The theory of steady state was popular before the big bang theory. Your big bang theory might be less popular also later. You have a blind faith. Read the science book apparently, if you have the best scientist in the world in a room, will they be able to create something out of nothing?

      • 

        dm01 on 19/08/2018 - 12:53

        +1

        @gto21:

        You believe in some book written by a scientist.

        So you admit belief in "some book" is foolish? I'll agree with you there. Fortunately there are vast bodies of scientific evidence that do a pretty good job of explaining how we all got here.

        Some written long time ago…

        So you admit it's sound to question theories and sources of information that are of significant age? I'm happy to agree with you there. When was most of the bible written?

        That no one very observes one species becoming another species.

        Seems you don't really understand what you're arguing against. There plenty of examples of selection at work, both natural and human selected. Where do you think the different breeds of dog came from? Go read about the Russian domesticated red fox and how it came about. Take a look at the wild cabbage and the modern vegetable varieties that are derived from it. Why do you think antibiotics are becoming less less effective? It's because of genetic mutation breeding strains of resistant bacteria.

        I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

        What's lacking isn't faith.

        It's probably the worst logical probability.

        This is probably the least logical sentence I've read in quite some time.

        You have a blind faith.

        Blind faith is trusting in the uninformed, mystical writings of tribespeople from millennia ago.

        will they be able to create something out of nothing?

        A silly argument, as no one seems able to adequately explain the origin of god. Oh, he always has been and will be? There's some blind faith.

      • 

        GregMonarch on 19/08/2018 - 20:34

        @TassieTom: Science isn't a belief system. Evolution is a belief system because it isn't science. I forget the exact definition of science, but it goes something like this: "Something that can be measured, observed, and repeated." Not only can evolution not claim these things, but there's still NOT ONE single DEAD 'missing link' between species been found either (and never will be).

      • 

        gto21 on 19/08/2018 - 21:12

        @dm01: Once I turn the table on you. You prove to me you have a blind faith. It did not take you long to throw what scientist wrote under the bus. That was my goal. Can you show me where we can observe a red fox turning into a dog? That would be evidence of a species turn into another species. I think you will be the first to turn the theory of evolution into a law. Domestication and resistance to bacteria don't prove evolution. Becoming less less effective? Two times less and we still look the same, how does that prove evolution? Having an uncaused cause is more logical than nothing created everything. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist, you can't create everything from nothing.

      • 

        abb on 20/08/2018 - 10:50

        @gto21:

        Can you show me where we can observe a red fox turning into a dog?

        Dogs came from wolves (more accurately: both dogs & wolves have a common ancestor), not foxes.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog

        Also, this is a foolish line of argument, as identified by Christian theologists!

        how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

      • 

        gto21 on 20/08/2018 - 10:52

        @abb: This is not evidence, your example of a virus. Can you show me a virus turning into something else? Or is it still a virus? Can we observe it or is it a theory?

      • 

        bargaino on 20/08/2018 - 11:00

        +1

        @gto21:
        Religion is a virus.

      • 

        abb on 20/08/2018 - 11:05

        @gto21: What about the plant example I gave? I'll paste it again:

        The creation of a new allopolyploid species of monkeyflower (Mimulus peregrinus) was observed on the banks of the Shortcleuch Water—a river in Leadhills, South Lanarkshire, Scotland. Parented from the cross of the two species Mimulus guttatus (containing 14 pairs of chromosomes) and Mimulus luteus (containing 30-31 pairs from a chromosome duplication), M. peregrinus has six copies of its chromosomes (caused by the duplication of the sterile hybrid triploid). Due to the nature of these species, they have the ability to self-fertilize. Because of its number of chromosomes it is not able to pair with M. guttatus, M. luteus, or their sterile triploid offspring. M. peregrinus will either die, producing no offspring, or reproduce with itself effectively leading to a new species.

        Here are some cases where humans have forced evolutionary changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

        You will never observe an elephant giving birth to an oak tree (or vice-versa), if you expect that then you are disbelieving a false propaganda image of evolution.

      • 

        gto21 on 20/08/2018 - 11:10

        @manic: People have the right to criticize religion. They can mock, I don't care. I can still talk to them. But I won't reply to an individual, who openly says he is too scared to criticize other groups. Those people they mock, I personally know many men even women who are fearless. They won't play it safe, and won't let anyone walk all over them. I have a lot of respect for them. I have time to talk to certain people and others it's better to ignore.

      • 

        gto21 on 20/08/2018 - 11:11

        @abb: You can even get a man pregnant it won't prove evolution.

      • 

        gto21 on 20/08/2018 - 11:13

        @abb: This is not a God of the Gaps argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

      • 

        abb on 20/08/2018 - 11:16

        @gto21: I'm not sure what you're looking for. I've given some specific examples of evolution and linked to some very good resources to learn more, but you don't seem to be engaging with them, and therefore I must now presume you're not arguing from a position of good faith and bid you good luck on your journey to enlightenment.

        edit: Kalam's argument is essentially "something must have created the universe, therefore God", but neglects the obvious follow-up "what created God?"…

      • 

        gto21 on 20/08/2018 - 11:21

        @abb: can you observe on species becoming another species? Its call the Theory of evolution it's not a law. Plant mutation, virus evolution, domestication of dogs does not prove for evolution. If they were it won't be a theory.

      • 

        gto21 on 20/08/2018 - 11:25

        @abb: The first premise of the Kalam cosmological argument is everything that is created has a cause. God is the uncaused cause.

      • 

        abb on 20/08/2018 - 14:31

        +1

        @gto21:

        God is the uncaused cause.

        Why can't "the universe" be the "uncaused cause". The "argument" is an example of special pleading.

        can you observe on species becoming another species? Its call the Theory of evolution it's not a law. Plant mutation, virus evolution, domestication of dogs does not prove for evolution. If they were it won't be a theory.

        sigh Firstly, there are many observed instances of speciation.

        But it seems like you're falling into a common trap regarding the word "theory", so I'm gonna quote a big slab here:

        A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

        The definition of a scientific theory (often contracted to theory for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] the opposite of its meaning in science. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

        The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required. That doesn’t mean that all theories can be fundamentally changed (for example, well established foundational scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics etc). In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions. A case in point is Newton's laws of motion, which can serve as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light.

        Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.[5] They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (for example, electricity, chemistry, and astronomy). Scientists use theories to further scientific knowledge, as well as to facilitate advances in technology or medicine.

        As with other forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive,[6] aiming for predictive and explanatory power.

        The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "…facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."[7]

        Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory (emphasis added)

        Also (same source):

        A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence have been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.

        You may be familiar with some other theories like "germs" (do you wash your hands after handling poo or do you not believe in germs?), "relativity" (ever navigated by GPS?), and "plate tectonics" (surely we can agree that earthquakes exist).

        I'd like to see your alternative explanation (rather than evolution), and the mountain of uncontestable evidence you have for it.

      • 

        gto21 on 20/08/2018 - 14:47

        @abb: The steady-state theory is rejected by the vast majority of scientists. One example because of the big bang theory, the vast majority of scientists don't believe the universe is the uncaused cause. Interesting you ask this question. the steady-state theory is a good example, how science can be wrong. And replaced by another theory. The new theory becomes the most popular theory. I'm not sure you're reading what you copy paste from Wikipedia. You're providing the evidence for refuting your claim. From the beginning, I'm saying theory can be wrong. Part of that you copied paste "The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required."

      • 

        gto21 on 20/08/2018 - 14:54

        @abb: do you believe in the big bang theory?

      • 

        abb on 20/08/2018 - 15:03

        @gto21:

        "The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required."

        Yes, this is the strength of the scientific process. As new information comes to light, we update our understanding of the world. This is a good thing.

        I encourage you to read this excellent essay by Isaac Asmiov on the topic: http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html

        As to the big bang theory, I believe only that it is currently the best known explanation for the early universe. If another theory arises later which better fits the evidence, I will not pick up a gun and fight its proponents. Again, please read Asimov's essay, it explains this concept vastly better than I can.

        edit: I will excerpt a passage that summarises the essay, on the possibility you will not read the whole thing:

        when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together

      • 

        bargaino on 20/08/2018 - 20:03

        @gto21:

        The steady-state theory is rejected by the vast majority of scientists.

        Once again, you show you do not understand the word "theory".
        There is no steady-state theory in the proper sense. There was a steady-state hypothesis.
        But any theory supporting that would need to explain why the sky is mostly dark.

    • 

      GregMonarch on 19/08/2018 - 08:32

      Because religion's fundamental demand to give everything in this "short" life and
      gain eternal rewards in heaven/paradise/Valhalla etc. is a great way of getting people
      to do what you want them to

      Now THIS is real rubbish. As a pastor I know sometimes says, "I wish I could get people to do what I want… then they'd make no mistakes and would all be guaranteed of going to heaven."

      • 

        dm01 on 19/08/2018 - 09:55

        Greg, sounds like you don't properly understand the material you're meant to be teaching.

  • 

    bargaino on 19/08/2018 - 09:59

    +2

    why do Atheists scream with all their lungs to disapprove the existence of God whenever God is mentioned?

    The same as people who don't believe in pink elephants, or don't believe in a giant snow-capped mountain range in central Australia. They don't go around talking abouit the non-existence of pink elephants.

    But if you start telling people they do exist, and they will be tortured forever if they do not share your delusion,…
    Well, don't be surprised if they respond. Some will, others will ignore you, and quietly move away.

    • 

      gto21 on 19/08/2018 - 10:06

      Can you name any serious scientist who has logical arguments for the existence of "pink elephants"?

      • 

        bargaino on 19/08/2018 - 10:11

        +2

        Don't push the metaphor too far.
        While most people in the hard sciences are not religious, I'm certainly not saying science is incompatible with religion.

        Intelligent people are capable of separating the two, and choosing to believe in a deity, while not pretending to have objective evidence. Faith is not science.

      • 

        gto21 on 19/08/2018 - 10:19

        @manic: Many people believe in the steady state theory before the big bang theory. Turns out their faith in steady state theory was wrong. Faith can be "science".

• 

  earlsaint42 on 19/08/2018 - 07:53

  I killed 'faith' in farcry 5.

• 

  GregMonarch on 19/08/2018 - 08:00

  -2

  Funny the comments here mocking Christianity… But the moment anyone mocks islam - comment removed and given a ban. Ironic given the site owner's faith.

  • 

    fatherofraptors on 19/08/2018 - 09:03

    Now I understand the lack of balance in the comments.

  • 

    bargaino on 19/08/2018 - 10:07

    +3

    Its safe to mock Christians. They don't threaten to kill you or throw acid in your face :-)

    And I hope i'm not mocking Christianity in general, just the fundamentalists. I still have a lot of respect for Christianity in many ways, though very disappointed how corrupt the senior authorities of my old church turned out to be.

    • 

      GregMonarch on 19/08/2018 - 21:06

      Depends what you mean by fundamentalist. It has a negative connotation today due to a certain group of 'fundamentalists'. There's 'christians' that sleep around, get drunk, take drugs, walk and talk and look like every non-Christian. But then some use 'fundamentalist' to describe anyone takes what they say they believe seriously. i.e. They'll call wishy-washy Christians hypocrites, then label others 'fundmentalists' because they're not hypocrites!? The word fundamentalist used to be a good word - that meant throwing off the extraneous garbage and hypocrisy, going back to basics, and living what you say you believe.

    • 

      gto21 on 19/08/2018 - 21:51

      -1

      "They don't threaten to kill you or throw acid in your face" this is done to control you. And it's working. No matter what they do, some people will stay quiet because they are too scared. Once they outnumber you, the country will be under oppression.

• 

  earlsaint42 on 19/08/2018 - 08:24

  this is suppose to be an open forum, its not acceptable that any comments based on religion are edited, how about a comment from the editor of this site.

  • 

    dm01 on 19/08/2018 - 09:56

    The site owner can do what they like - it's their site.

    • 

      bargaino on 19/08/2018 - 10:02

      I don't like that logic. Can the owners of Westfield do whatever they like?
      How would you feel if they banned homosexuals, and required all women to wear headscarves? Its "private property".

      What is being edited?

      • 

        dm01 on 19/08/2018 - 10:09

        It's not logic - it's a simple fact. One is an online forum, the other a physical location. They're governed by different laws and rules.

      • 

        bargaino on 19/08/2018 - 10:12

        @dm01:
        I know. Again, an imperfect metaphor. But still, its not like you have infinite choices.

      • 

        syousef on 19/08/2018 - 19:08

        @dm01:

        Anti-discrimination laws do apply to online forums. So I have no idea what your point is suppose to be.

      • 

        dm01 on 20/08/2018 - 00:07

        @syousef: My point was stated clearly in uncomplicated language. I'm not your english teacher and I'm not your parent. The bottom line is, the site owner removing posts from their forum doesn't automatically constitute discrimination, though that won't stop the outrage brigade from trying to claim otherwise.

• 

  syousef on 19/08/2018 - 19:06

  +5

  Not a bargain. Religious propaganda and cult indoctrination. Another of these "free" videos on Christian Apologetics was posted a week ago by same person.

  • 

    GregMonarch on 19/08/2018 - 21:09

    -3

    As a Christian who used to be indoctrinated by the cult of humanism utilising the propaganda of the fairy story of evolution, I could just as easily say you're the one still indoctrinated. ;-D Don't like the heading - don't click.

    • 

      syousef on 19/08/2018 - 21:20

      +5

      If you think evolution is a fairy story I can't help you and won't engage you. The last time I argued this I was hounded based to prove nonsense based on a childish comic book idea of what evolution is. I am not your science teacher and I am not your parent. The bottom line is this isn't a bargain.

    • 

      bargaino on 19/08/2018 - 21:51

      +2

      the fairy story of evolution,

      Oh dear. You are an embarrassment to almost every Christian in Australia.
      Are you a young-earther?

      • 

        gto21 on 19/08/2018 - 21:59

        -2

        I think you are since you said you're too scared to criticize people who "threaten to kill you or throw acid in your face" just let them do whatever they want since you're too scared. How many Australian will be proud of you?

      • 

        bargaino on 20/08/2018 - 10:54

        @gto21:
        Subtlety is lost on you. I thought that was a fairly direct criticism of Islam.

• 

  tomwood on 19/08/2018 - 23:31

  Why does it need to be apologized for if it's true? 🤔🤔

  • 

    dm01 on 20/08/2018 - 00:12

    Sorry?

    • 

      bargaino on 20/08/2018 - 19:55

      He is asking what "apologetics" means. Its a bit of an obscure term.

      • 

        dm01 on 20/08/2018 - 20:08

        Sorry?

• 

  Ramrunner on 20/08/2018 - 11:24

  +1

  Not a bargain. Propaganda, fiction, and I liken it to spam.

• 

  mrkyle on 20/08/2018 - 19:43

  After reading some of the comments, it seems like when God intervenes (the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah et el) He’s labeled a mass murderer, and when He doesn’t, He’s labeled as if there’s a god why doesn’t He do anything.

  Guess it hard to change a persons mind once it’s made up.

  However, the fact is, that there is a God even if He doesn’t conform to ones understanding, and just as God judged those events/people in the bible, there will be a time when everyone is brought in account and judgment will be exercised for both Christians and non Christians alike.

  The good news is that God sent down his Son Jesus to die for the entire world that whoever believes in Jesus shall not perhish but have eternal life.

  • 

    bargaino on 20/08/2018 - 19:58

    So God has to choose between genocide and inaction? He is incapable of anything in between?

    Why not start simple. Improve the design of the human genome so children don't die slowly and painfully from genetic defects.
    I mean, it looks almost as if it wasn't designed, but developed by whatever random mutation had the higher survival rate.

    Guess it hard to change a persons mind once it’s made up.

    God sure made people stubborn. Why did He do that?

    • 

      mrkyle on 22/08/2018 - 18:41

      God is capable of in between, just people seem to comment on the extremes. For example, he sent Jonah to correct the people of Nineveh and thus saved them from another Sodom and Gomorra. Sometimes people don’t want to see so they can’t see when God acts “in between”.

      Creation and people were made perfect in the beginning. It wasnt until sin entered the world that death and decay and diseases started to run its course.

      Yes I wish too want all the imperfections of the world to be taken away, but the good news is that one day it will be. And god provides a way for us to be part of that new world, full of life and perfection.

      For the most part, I will put “stubbornness” down to free will. We can choose to be stubborn or we can choose to be otherwise. I assume for some people it depends on the subject, and some subjects hit home more than others.

  • 

    dm01 on 20/08/2018 - 20:17

    it seems like when God intervenes (the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah et el) He’s labeled a mass murderer…

    Maybe because on both those occasions, masses of people were…well…murdered.

    • 

      gto21 on 20/08/2018 - 22:23

      The author of life can give it and take it away. An example, I can choose to give something for a period of time and take it back, it does not make me a thief. If God give life he can take it whenever he wants. That does not make him a murderer, he's the author of life.

      • 

        dm01 on 21/08/2018 - 00:28

        +1

        If God give life he can take it whenever he wants. That does not make him a murderer, he's the author of life.

        Would make him a bit of an arsehole really, if he existed.

      • 

        gto21 on 21/08/2018 - 01:35

        -1

        @dm01: No they get what they deserve. When women have an abortion are they arsehole? or if a woman is raped and wants an abortion is she an arsehole?

      • 

        Dave Id on 21/08/2018 - 01:38

        +1

        @gto21:

        Your knowledge of anatomy is on a par with the rest of your garbage.

        Please go away.

      • 

        gto21 on 21/08/2018 - 01:42

        -4

        @Dave Id: I posted the deal. If you don't like it, you see the unsubscribe button?

    • 

      mrkyle on 22/08/2018 - 18:47

      God is a judge and he is just. He needs to depense justice. In these examples in the bible, the people were evil, practicing all kinds of evil.

      The payment for sin and anything otherwise is death. And that’s what the final judgment will be about, but he provides a way out through Jesus Christ his son.

• 

  FabMan on 30/08/2018 - 06:52

  More junk

• 1
• 2