Would Christians Be As Violent As Muslims If Their Religion Was Threatened?

reply to post by andy06shake


no the homosexual pole thing
not touching that subject was a smart move...... carry on...

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by Malcher

 

1 - If Atheists were no longer allowed to be Atheists would they turn violent or more violent?

The OP said nothing about them not being "allowed" to be Christians. He said the information would be a game changer. So your example doesn't work for number 1.

2 - On the technical side, what if evolution was found to be incorrect (backslash is not working) or impossible. Would Atheist numbers be peeled away?

I'm an atheist. It wouldn't bother me in the least if evolution were proven wrong. Or right for that matter. I'm more interested in the truth than what I want to believe.

The point is it is not up to us to force others of what to believe in, but at the same time I think both one and two have the potential for violence.

Here again, the OP said nothing about force. He said information that would be a game changer.

Regarding number 1 - It matters if one were to believe the "information" was accurate and not just someones view point.

Regarding number 2 - I think you are being disingenuous. He used the term "peeling off", i think atheists would view that as having potential to peel off atheists. I know from research they would defend evolution theory and it would be difficult to some to see it the new information as non confrontational and just truth...providing information came to light that all the species who went extinct never evolved.

reply to post by Malcher

1 - If Atheists were no longer allowed to be Atheists would they turn violent or more violent?

How do you make an Atheist become no longer an Atheist? they start believing? why would they start being violent? you didn't take away anything(unlike religious, where you take away their religion), Atheist holds nothing to start with.

2 - On the technical side, what if evolution was found to be incorrect (backslash is not working) or impossible. Would Atheist numbers be peeled away?

Atheist does not mean they believe in evolution, most believe that because that is the closest to logical explanation that does not involve magic and man in cloud.

On the other side if Evolution is fake... you think that would make religion the default? the other option?

Originally posted by solve
reply to post by andy06shake

 

no the homosexual pole thing

not touching that subject was a smart move...... carry on...

Ahh sexual innuendo, how touching! LoL

reply to post by NorEaster

Not the usual Richard Dawkins drivel. Serious information that's crumbling the Christian credibility from one end of the globe to the other.

There is no kind of information that I can imagine that would destroy any credibility in Christianity...the truth of Christianity is already established beyond a shadow of a doubt for anyone who looks seriously at Biblical prophecy fulfillment, evidence for supernatural creation of the cosmos and life, global flood geology, scientific limits to Earth's age, historical evidence of Jesus' resurrection, archeological evidence of events from the OT and NT, exorcism deliverance, personal emotional connection to the Creator in prayer, ect. It is impossible to take down Christianity as a religion for anyone who knows the facts of history that back it up.

The world could turn completely against me and my religion and I would not care. By dying as a martyr, like a sheep to the slaughter I am actually rewarded with extra honors and distinction in Heaven....Christians should know that their kingdom is not of this world and that the best effect of evangelism is showing to the world how great your God is that you can endure such hardship and punishment yet remain unbroken by it. When the early Christians were targeted to be killed it only grew Christianity even faster.

reply to post by luciddream


I am an agnostic, but i look onto Christianity from time to time. I look at the bigger picture and not make rash decisions.

For example:

Someone asked regarding virgin birth -

(paraphrasing)

A true virgin could only give birth to a female with two X chromosones (sic), so where did the Y chromosome come from.(?)

When i look at that i ask - Then where did the first human male come from?

reply to post by Malcher


"When i look at that i ask - Then where did the first human male come from?"

The Chickens egg of course! LoL

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

There is no kind of information that I can imagine that would destroy any credibility

Say Hello to Zeus, Odin, and other gods from old religion. I'm sure they thought the same, Abrahamic religion is already under attack, and it has only been 2000~ years, while those older religions lasted much longer.

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by Malcher

 

"When i look at that i ask - Then where did the first human male come from?"

The Chickens egg of course! LoL :0

I dont know what you mean by that. How about the first human male of any species? Where did it come from as only females reproduce so where did the male chromosome originate from? I cannot see how it came from a chicken egg. I wish a biologist can come and solve this.

reply to post by luciddream


Plus the fact people ARE turning away from Christianity.
I give it 3 more generations.

reply to post by Malcher


Why is it so hard for religion folks to say "i don't know"...

My guess would be thru formation of Nuclec acids, Protein > RNA > DNA > Single Cell > Multi Cell > Complex organism.

Originally posted by Klassified

2 - On the technical side, what if evolution was found to be incorrect (backslash is not working) or impossible. Would Atheist numbers be peeled away?

I'm an atheist. It wouldn't bother me in the least if evolution were proven wrong.

Though, as you know, I am a theist who is solidly in support of evolution, I don't know how you could take that position. If evolution were somehow proven to be impossible, a non-supernatural explanation for the state of reality unravels pretty quickly.

To anyone who said "I'm an atheist because there is no proof of deities", you'd just have to point them in the direction of the impossibility of life in the absence of both evolution and deities, and there's the evidence which kills the point.

reply to post by boymonkey74


Hmm 3 more generations... thats is approximately 75 yrs? (assuming people will have kids at age of 25)..

I would say another 35 yrs tops, before it becomes some sort of underground rebellious cult, same goes for other aggressive religions.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Malcher

 

Why is it so hard for religion folks to say "i don't know"...

My guess would be thru formation of Nuclec acids, Protein > RNA > DNA > Single Cell > Multi Cell > Complex organism.

What i am asking is that since it had to have occurred at least on one occasion (the dawn of reproductive life) then the the question of the birth of Jesus can be viewed as not only possible but there precedence.

Note: I am not against evolution, I am agnostic.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by JesuitGarlic

 

There is no kind of information that I can imagine that would destroy any credibility

Say Hello to Zeus, Odin, and other gods from old religion. I'm sure they thought the same, Abrahamic religion is already under attack, and it has only been 2000~ years, while those older religions lasted much longer.

What do you mean much longer....preincarnate Jesus was the one walking walking with Adam and Eve in Eden, preincarnate Jesus is all through the OT, Jesus when incarnated as a member of humanity fulfills over 300 OT prophecies that foretold His coming. The worship and following of God as expressed in Christianity now, doesn't just go back 2000 years....it goes to the beginning of Earth's history (and then before then by the angels in Heaven before this creation was made)

reply to post by Malcher

"How about the first human male of any species? Where did it come from as only females reproduce so where did the male chromosome originate from? I cannot see how it came from a chicken egg. I wish a biologist can come and solve this."

Biologists have been trying to solve that question since its inception, my answer is phrased in the form of a yoke. LoL

I don't even think the Human race originated from this planet, so as to where Adam came from I would say look to the stars!

I would say, "No". Christians would follow Jesus command to "Love your enemies". This would rule out violence against those who threaten them.

Christendom, on the other hand, has a long history of rejecting Christs commands and would no doubt react violently. This effectively excludes them from being true Christians. See what I did there?

reply to post by luciddream

Why is it so hard for religion folks to say "i don't know"...

My guess would be thru formation of Nuclec acids, Protein > RNA > DNA > Single Cell > Multi Cell > Complex organism.

That's because we know that the only answer that reflects reality is supernatural creation as per Genesis and a global flood disaster

Older textbooks proclaim that our phylum, the Chordata, did not appear until the subsequent Ordovician period, and that this later evolution must, imply advanced status. But the Burgess Shale contains a chordate, the genus Pikaia, misidentified by Walcott as a polychaete annelid. However, Pikaia remains in limbo, for no comprehensive anatomical description has yet been published. Chen and colleagues [Chen, J.-Y., et al., "A possible Early Cambrian chordate," Nature, Vol. 377, 26 Oct 1995, pp.720-722] discovery and description of a beautifully preserved and unambiguously identified chordate from the still earlier Chengjiang fauna now seals the fate of this misguided effort in asserting specialness for our ancestry. Chordates arose in the Cambrian Explosion... The new Chengjiang chordate, Yunnanozoon lividum,... is so well preserved that its affinity within the Chordata can also be specified. Chordates are divided into three major lines - the tunicates, the cephalochordates (represented today by Amphioxus and its relatives), and the craniates (including all vertebrates). Yunnanozoon, with its metameric gonads and anteriorly extended notochord, belongs to the cephalochordates. As the authors note, the fact that one major division is already differentiated by unique characters within the Cambrian Explosion probably indicates that the other two divisions existed then as well - and that not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion.... Other discoveries continue to highlight the speed and magnitude of the Cambrian Explosion. Bowring and colleagues [Bowring, S.A., et al., "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution," Science, Vol. 261, 3 September 1993, pp.1293-1298] recently provided our first rigorous radiometric dates for the event -and `fast' turns out to be much faster than anyone ever thought.... The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. Books have been written on the potential meaning of this remarkable phenomenology for revised views of evolution, ecology and development. Speculative and tendentious as much of this work may be (including my own), let us rejoice in the strangeness and elegant documentation of the phenomenology itself. Our own phylum, as Yunnanozoon proves, forms part of this universal story. " (Gould, S.J., "Of it, not above it," Nature, Vol. 377, 26 October, 1995, pp.681-682

Genesis would predict that full diversity of life form structures would be present at the bottom layer of the strata (sitting on top of the granite), that these appeared suddenly and at the same time. The most respected and best known Palaeontologists, Stephen Jay Gould, writing in the most prestigious scientific journal in the world, Nature, confirms this full diversity arising simultaneously and independently of on another at the very beginning.

The family trees that adorn our textbooks are based on inferences, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.
- Stephen Jay Gould. 1997. "Return of Hopeful Monsters." Natural History 89(7):50

Evolutionary trees in the textbooks do not reflect actual reality

George Gaylord Simpson 'perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century' wrote:

It has been suggested that all animals are now specialized and that the generalized forms on which major evolutionary developments depend are absent. In fact all animals have always been more or less specialized and a really generalized living form is merely a myth or an abstraction
The Meaning of Evolution p. 326

This means there is no such thing as a simple animal that became complicated, when we look at the fossil record everything is complicated

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol.6(1), January 1980,p. 127

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory. (end of quote)

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

Stephen Jay Gould 'Evolution's erratic pace'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI95), May 1977, p.14.

The fossil record supports the Genesis creation account, holding the evolution account one has to believe in 'myths' and pay 'an exorbitant price...never see[ing] the process [they] profess'.
--------------
When asking a scientist where the energy came from that created the simplest element hydrogen they will say we can’t explain that. When asked why when hydrogen (matter) was formed out of this energy it did not create equal amounts of antimatter (which is what naturalistic science says would be created) they are not able to explain why. When asked how a star (population III the simplest star containing virtually only hydrogen and helium) formed, how did the gases condense down in an open space when such condensing would caused increased heat and thus pressure and thus force the gases apart again (also as the gases condense a spin is created and the laws of angular momentum would prevent gases condensing down any further and fling the gases away). When asked have you ever seen a star form to prove that it is possible naturalistically they will say that nobody has ever seen a star form (but that have seen many stars exploded though). When asked have you ever seen any of these simplest stars (with just hydrogen and helium and trace lithium in them) that are needed in the trillions upon trillions to explain all other stars (population 1 and 2) and planetary bodies in the cosmos, where all the heavier elements came from (like the 100+ heavier elements), they will say we have never seen a population III star, all stars are either population I or II containing heavier elements that can’t be explained by naturalistic/scientific laws how they got there already. We can only see approx 300 supernova remnant which some report to occur with a frequency of about every 26 years roughly. This means we can only see evidence of exploding stars going back roughly 7, 500 thousand years when supposedly the remnants of these supernovas should still be visible of over a million years. These issues are things that are readily explained (and I would say only explained) by supernatural creation
----------
Please Explain:
- how a vacuum containing nothing can bring forth all the energy and matter in existence?
- where all the antimatter disappeared to?
- how a star formed able to overcome basic gas laws and angular momentum
- how population I and II stars formed without any population III stars present
- how a string of only left or right handed amino acids formed on 'primitive' Earth
- how these amino acids weren't destroyed by oxidization from oxygen in the atmosphere
- how all major life structures of both animals and plants are present in the first layer (the Cambrian layer), there independently of one another and no intermediate transition between any of them?
- why there is no intermediate fossils in existence?
- how is it that the Earth's atmosphere has not reached its equilibrium level of producing the same amount of carbon 14 (from cosmic rays hitting nitrogen) as is destroyed by the half-life effect of carbon 14 breakdown which Willard Libby said would only occur after about 30,000 years
- How is it that Arthur Chadwick's research reveals continent wide paleocurrent across the continents of the world for the Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata regions, that they were water formed, that the water effect extends up still to the Cretaceous layer (the extinction level event that killed the dinosaurs) where a whole lot of calcium carbonate soft-bodied sea creatures were formed (thus why it is aka the chalk layer), why the Creacetous layer is the only universal layer across the whole world and must have formed in water but where the (flood) water was now low enough for these soft-bodied creatures to form but not dissolve as they sunk down from the surface
--------
Within the DNA there are mechanisms in place to allow variety and different gene expressions reflecting different environmental factors. This inbuilt variation and adaptability is already there, not new information, it is not ‘microevolution’, not a slight change from a simple to slightly more complex form, it is innate adaptability that is limited in its expression past a certain point. Naturalists extrapolate these micro variations out and hope that by merely adding millions of years and much imagination that anything is possible. There are hard limits to the amount of environmental adaptability the DNA allows, this is not evolution, but limited adaptation from existing gene expression. The reality in the ground shows no macroevolution at all.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


Just because a book says it is older than earth itself does not make it so. Heck i can create a book now saying something similar and if i start a small cult, and in 2000-3000 yrs, it has the potential to flourish into a full fledged religion and take my ideas as fact.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


So pretty much, my "i don't know" you fill with God, especially this special christianity god.