Comments for Evaluating Christianity

Comment on 4. Atheism is Not a “Worldview,” and Presuppositionalism is Incoherent. by failed spinal fusion

failed spinal fusion — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:04:42 +0000

Hi, all is going perfectly here and ofcourse
every one is sharing data, that’s genuinely fine, keep up writing.

Comment on Morality, Evolution, and Kant (answering Cydonia Mensae) by diet includes healthy

diet includes healthy — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:09:55 +0000

I savor, result in I found just what I used to be having a look for.
You’ve ended my 4 day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a great day. Bye

Comment on More Advice on Atheist-Theist Debates by Never Cold Call Again System Review

Never Cold Call Again System Review — Fri, 24 May 2013 14:04:29 +0000

What’s up, after reading this remarkable post i am too glad to share my know-how here with friends.

Comment on You Don’t Trust Creationists With Your Science Education… Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Trust Their Lawyers, Either by http://antychoroba.com.pl/

http://antychoroba.com.pl/ — Tue, 07 May 2013 09:55:27 +0000

A client comes in and lays on the net his case. The expert lawyer could present you with the best strategies
to avoid losing as much in the means.

Comment on Morality, Evolution, and Kant (answering Cydonia Mensae) by hemorroides

hemorroides — Mon, 06 May 2013 22:27:01 +0000

What’s up colleagues, its wonderful paragraph regarding educationand fully explained, keep it up all the time.

Comment on Morality, Evolution, and Kant (answering Cydonia Mensae) by HTTP://Stophemorroides.Org

HTTP://Stophemorroides.Org — Mon, 06 May 2013 18:18:59 +0000

I got this site from my pal who informed me regarding this
web page and at the moment this time I am browsing
this web site and reading very informative articles or reviews here.

Comment on The Case Against Lee Strobel by kenn pappas

kenn pappas — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:29:45 +0000

Let me clarify what is “evidence-based” … . The laws of physics, e.g., laws of thermodynamics, Avogadro’s number (for gases), Planck’s number (how particle packets travel in very, very small waves), Einstein’s relativity, and the entire science of chemistry and electronics, which are branches of physics, are “evidence-based”; the principles work the same everywhere in the known universe (at this point, there is no such thing as the “unknown” universe, which is an absurd and non-observable concept). I would agree that Jesus is a figure in history, albeit a vague one, since we don’t know much about Him except that He was reported to preach, heal, die and resurrect. However, we have to believe the reports of witnesses, not evidence. In order for us to understand evidence of His miracles, we’d have to be able to reproduce miracles in some testable form. Now I do believe that doctors are miracle workers, because they can produce the same results with a high level of accuracy in many medical procedures (not all, but many). Jesus, however, was only reported to have performed miracles, and we’re not always sure what the miracles are supposed to mean. In fact, the early Christians disputed the meaning of miracles, the concept of the Son of God, Son of Man, Messiah, relationship of God to Son to Spirit, and many other concepts, primarily because these are not testable or evidence-based concepts. I would defend to the end anyone’s right to have faith in a God or a risen Christ. However, this faith is incompatible with science, which thrives on evidence-based facts, i.e., the laws of physics. Religion is grounded in non-fact, non-evidence-based beliefs, and is not defendable other than as a personal choice and commitment. Again, on an existential basis, I would say that anyone has a right to find personal evidence in his or her life that God exists, and if his or her life is the better for it, then this faith becomes “factual” for that person in the sense that he or she functions better as a person. Yet this personal faith is not capable of proof by the very nature of the belief system in that there is no way to provide repeatable evidence for faith such as a miracle that works every time with a specific utterance or procedure.

Comment on Dawkinalia by Sean

Sean — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:20:52 +0000

Right… he says its not a shot at creationists because he doubts they read books. Cheap shot Dawkins. Some of the best read individuals are Christians many who are Creationists. You commit ad hominem by attacking others to try to minimize intelligent and thoughtful discussion.

You are making a lot of money on your lies.

Comment on The Case Against Lee Strobel by Sean

Sean — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:12:31 +0000

kenn pappas,

You say: “Faith cannot be based on logic because there is no such thing as a scientific or evidence-based proof of any religious belief; if religion where science, then it wouldn’t be based on faith.”

Do you really believe that!!? Jesus and the Bible are records of real historical figures and places. So there is evidence-based proof that one can look into to see if at the very least if those things check out.

Is there nothing in the past that we can look to for evidence to see if it really happened? I doubt you believe that, but you have very strange rational if you truly believe your original statement.

Science and religion are by no means incompatible. I have a faith in Christ that is based on facts on evidence. Now I wasn’t there, and I can’t know with 100% certainty (but no one can on pretty much anything of antiquity), but I have faith based off of very reasonable evidence that points me in this direction.

Comment on The Case Against Lee Strobel by Mariana

Mariana — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:06:10 +0000

Your current write-up provides verified beneficial to me
personally. It’s quite educational and you’re clearly extremely educated in this field. You have got opened our eyes to various opinion of this particular matter along with intriguing and reliable content material.