The quote by Senaca on Religion, (To the believers it is true. To the wise it is false. To the leaders it is useful.. Senaca, on religion) If I were an Atheist or Evolutionist (which takes a lot of faith) I would not shy away from mentioning that millions more people were murdered in the name of Atheism/Darwinism then all religions combined. To name a few: Pol-pot, Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, (hated Christianity), and had Atheist by his side when ordering the slaughter of millions of Jews, hating and killing minorities, those w/o light colored hair with green or blue eyes. He may have been raised Catholic but held to the Darwinian Theory of "Survival of the fittest", hence killing of the Jews.
The first mistake in this response is that no one has ever killed anyone and claimed that it was for atheism or Darwinism. That's absurd. As far as those he lists as atheists, while it has been proven they are not atheists, it still does not mean they acted in the name of atheism. He seems to really like the Hitler example, so let's go with that one. He never said once, not even in his final solution, that it was in the name of atheism or Darwinism. Your brother is also misrepresenting "survival of the fittest". Hitler committed genocide, which means even the most fit person stood no chance. Survival of the fittest implies that in nature, weaker creatures are less likely to create future generations (for a number of reasons, one being that they won't survive long enough to reproduce). I'd also like to know how evolution requires faith, when it is observable and is extensively documented through fossil records and DNA? And how does atheism require faith? Atheism by definition is an absence of faith.
Margaret Sanger is another who held to the Darwinian Theory of "Survival of the fittest". Instrumental in the creation of "Planned Parenthood" who have many abortion clinics in the ghetto's and poor neighborhoods that are highly populated by blacks and people of color. 40,000,000 + babies slaughtered thus far.
Again a gross misrepresentation of Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest.
When I mentioned Liberals (w/ haste) while talking to you the other night it was because there are extreme groups who want it to be illegal for Children under 18 maybe as young as 14 to be able to have an abortion w/o their parents consent (knowing), what is your thought about that?. Woman or girls who have an abortion (sometimes when the child can survive out of the womb, 6,7,8 months plus in the womb, having it's skull crushed, so that it will be easier pulled from the mothers vagina).
This gets into a whole debate about abortion. I am personally pro-choice, but I am against (though would not stop anyone from getting) late term abortions outside of medical reasons. This is just a set up for a huge debate over rather abortions are right or wrong. You can obviously tell he is pro-life as he takes many of the cliche tactics when presenting the idea of abortion, such as describing a grotesque process.
Studies show that the females chances are higher that she will develop breast cancer, and have trauma through out her life knowing that she gave permission for a doctor ($) to murder her baby ($). Abortion = Murder, there's no denying that.
Those studies have actually been dissproven. If you look on the thread called Morality of IVF and abortion, etc. or something like that, on the last page there are links to the study that stated a link and then links to the more recent studies that disprove the earlier findings. As far as abortion = murder, there is denying that because I do. And unless I don't exist, then there is denying that.
And as you know, an Atheist / Evolutionist believes that all of the complex life and the Eco-system that we see here on this privileged planet, (you can't deny because our precise location in our solar system).With the other planets this is not the case, no life.
With evidence of information (w/o an Informer) in DNA, Life of all animals and humans obvious intricate bodily functions and life being able to reproduce. Atheist say that this all has no reason, but a mere Accident. What's the odds of that?. 1 in x million. Check a mathematicians odds on us evolving from lower life forms.
This is another cliche argument made by religious people. Simply because the odds are not small does not dictate a creator. The simple fact is that the conditions on earth were conducive to and allowed for living creatures to develop. We as humans exist as we currently do through the process of evolution. I'd highly suggest you find some sources explaining evolution as it really is, as he seems to have misunderstanding about what evolution is and what it says. Evolution does not explain how life began, simply how it adapts to time and environment. I also have to question what he means by our "precious location in our solar system"? There is evidence of water on Mars. While this is not proof of life nor a claim of life on Mars, it does show that Mars is/was conducive for supporting life figures, however it did not happen. I also think it is illogical to think that Earth is the only planet in the universe that sustains life. Atheists don't say anything about how life came about, the only thing being an atheist means is that they do not accept or believe in a God. That's it.
If you thought for a minute, that (just maybe) the NKJV bible could be true you would see what it says. The same spirit that you saw and felt (your evidence) when Isabella was acting out, etc.and that was showing me michele's #'s 444 sometimes several times a day, and the Physic that some how knew we were having a baby girl in 3 months from the time I received the call.
This is what it says:
"Whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them". 2 Cor 4:4.
I'm not entirely sure of the context relating to this response, so I'm not going to respond to this as I do not want to make an assumptions about what is trying to be said here.
The god of this age is the father of all lies, roaring as a lion, trying to steal, kill and destroy, (marriages, families etc.) You may not believe the bible, and this is why (it's spiritual, I think you believe in spirituality) many don't until they humble themselves and cry out to the one who dad and mom called on. Don't let the devil get his way on you not seeing dad again. If you are too proud and all knowing than you may never call on Jesus.
This just sounds like a bunch of rubbish. I'm again not too sure what it is he is trying to say. But I can say this, I do not believe in spirituality. Nor would I ever plan on calling on Jesus.
And we do talk to ourselves, usually silent. if that's crazy, then why can't you say "are you real" can you put someone in my life so that I know, or give me discernment for what ever you want me to discern.
What would asking this prove? How would you know that what happens is truly a "sign from God"? It is all about what you believe, what you are likely to believe, and it reflects in how you interpret events.
If you wish to believe that you do not have a soul or spirit than you are believing the lie and will miss out on seeing loved ones who did not reject, but believed in Jesus and that he took our sins, ransom paid in full.
I do not believe in this, so I do not feel I am missing out on anything. That is your brothers opinion on the subject based on his beliefs.
A Creationist or someone who believes in a supreme God or god, not from this realm or dimension,
A belief often taught but also experienced, A faith and reality because of what is seen, the same today, yesterday and the forever. Science as you said " is suppose to be wrong, and or tends to be wrong. often changing. Real Science must be real examinable or it's just a hypothesis or theory..
Science is not meant to be wrong. It is meant to evolve as we develop a better understanding of issues. As far as making the comment about theories, I think your brother misunderstands what it means to be a scientific theory. I'd again recommend you find some sources to recommend to him that show what a scientific theory really is.
I love you and you all. I do love the one that took my sins first and foremost, I see nothing wrong with that. I love all even Bin Laden. Hate is a detriment to society/world.
Is it detrimental to hate someone? I personally do not like to use the word hate in regards to people as the social connotations that go along with it are rather strong. How is it detrimental to society for the parents of a murder victim to say that they hate the person who killed their child? It's not wrong for your brother to choose to love God first and to say he loves him more than all others, but that is his opinion based on his belief. That does not make it true, nor does it make it right. Simply because there is nothing wrong with something does not automatically make it right.
To go back over a bit of things I've mentioned above:
-The term atheist simply means that someone does not accept or believe in a God. That's it. To make a statement that says atheists believe this or think that is ridiculous. The only thing you can say about an atheist definitively is that they do not believe in God.
-The term survival of the fittest is in regards to natural selection. It is not applicable to Hitler or Sanger.
-Evolution does not explain where life came from. It explains how creatures change in order to adapt to their environment and what is more beneficial for the species.
-Neither evolution or atheism requires faith. Something that can be observed and something that can be proven through extensive evidence does not require faith as it can be observed, the changes can be seen, and the theory still holds true as we continue to discover more fossils and DNA similarities in animals.
-A theory in science is not the same as someone who has a theory about what will happen in the last season of LOST. A theory in science is based on empirical evidence. There is a difference between scientific theory and philosophical theory which wiki
has done a great job of explaining.
-Someone's belief in something does not make it true or fact.
I'd also advise that your brother does some more research into topics before commenting on them. He has fallen into cliche arguments that religious people often make, but these cliches have been disproven numerous times. If he wants to try to argue for his claims he is going to need to go about them in a different sense.
That's just a little bit of what I'd say back to your brother's response. Hope you found any of it useful and I hope it was intelligible. I tend to ramble on a bit, so I apologize if I did so.