>>As to the actual number going to Hell and exactly what Hell is, I have no idea. But please stop implicating *all* Christians in your statements on this subject.<<
How do you define a “Christian?”
[quote author=“Mia”]How many people named “Guest” do you suppose are about to flood this forum? Too bad it’s not a requirement to register before posting. . . yet. Things could get even nuttier than when we actually know who we’re talking to.
Mia, the trend seems to be continuing this morning. A person with no name can say anything he/she wants without fear of being corrected or attacked. When a person’s points arrive by way of unreason, I suppose it’s to be expected.
Have a great time all you guests. Wish I could put you on my ignore list, but a name is required for that.
Whether they choose a name or not, they can certainly post anything they wish, but to my mind it’s always a sign of intellectual weakness when a poster shies away from aligning himself directly with his stated perspective. I mean, it’s not like we can hunt him down, nor would we care to. It’s just a basic courtesy to offer when entering a conversation: a name by which we can address you when responding.
“Guests”. . . please take note: Your anonymous comments are instantly diminished by your failure to personally take responsibility for them. We encourage you to find guts enough to register, instead of essentially broadcasting as a Nobody.
(I suppose a lot of them are used to assigning godly importance to the unidentified voices streaming into their heads, though, which explains why they see nothing wrong with doing the same on forums)
Ouch! While I don’t know if those comments were directed at me, I do apologize for my mistake. I could have sworn I logged in when I posted this:
[quote author=“Anonymous”][quote author=“CDNemelka”][quote author=“johnpritzlaff”]Thanks again for that link.
Sam did extremely well, as usual. Sucks that he got cut off at the end, but I think he was trying to say something like “The question you should ask is not what evidence is there against God, but what evidence there is for God.
Anyways, he did very well, and it felt great to hear such similar viewpoints to mine being expressed on a national level once again. I hope he does a lot more publicity for his new book (and I hope I can find links to said media on this website).
As a devout Christian, I believe that Mr. Harris’ latest book and arguments are cogent, easy to understand and I agree with nearly every point he is trying to get across.
I also agree the real question is:
“not what evidence is there against God, but what evidence there is for God.”
Can someone point me to the link for this show? I’d love to see it.
Yes, I obviously believe in God but that doesn’t mean I think Mr. Harris isn’t correct about a lot of the issues he talks about.
I also believe in God (well, I think that God most likely exists - I don’t claim that I am sure of it or that I cannot be dissuaded from the possibility of him not existing - and there is a huge difference between the two in my opinion). I am, however, not a Christian. My God is a little different, it’s a God that I think most secularists could loosely accept, and it surprisingly can be defined by most of the “omnis” of faith. My religion is different from yours (at least if you’re like most Christians) in that it accepts the scientific method completely (and not in the way creation “science” does). I know this sounds contradictory, but it’s is for another discussion.
Anyways, my point is this: how do you rectify your religion with Sam’s views (at least the ones you agree with)? Not rhetoric, I’m honestly interested, and I’m not trying to sound smug. I don’t doubt you could have a good answer.
My bad, seriously. I too dislike it when people come on as guests, not only because it’s irresponsible, but because it restricts communication. It won’t happen again, if I can help it.
Sorry for the harshness, John. I didn’t mean to hit you.
Man….homunculus, woke up on the wrong side of the bed again?
I’m just here to debate.
Yeah, me too (I screwed up again… I keep forgetting to enable cookies, so the forum can’t automatically log me in. Once again, I am sorry).
Man….homunculus, woke up on the wrong side of the bed again?
You got it, Champ. Good to see your presence still here once in a while. This is a busy week for me, but I still look at most of what’s written. Just can’t write, myself.
The problem with debating as a guest is that sometimes more than one person does this, or a member forgets to or cant log in and we lose track of who said what and it makes backtracking among your various points close to impossible. Keep in mind there are many of us who are at work and technically dont ‘have the time’ do debate to begin with. By doing this, you are making it that much more of a stretch.
I understand exactly, and that’s why I apologized and quoted the post I accidentally posted as a guest.
Alright, there’s something wrong with my browser, because I swear I logged in that time. I’m going to use ie now, instead of firefox.
John, you might also try clearing out all your cookies (tools>options>clear cookies) and then re-log into the site to see if it brings up that nav box that offers to “remember” your login data.
Thanks, that fixed it.
Sorry about all that.
Glad it worked . Firefox has given me the occasional issues, too. Much better than IE was, though.
A few thoughts of Harris on Medved:
1) Some callers asked setup type questions and he didn’t get trapped by them.
2) Brings up the issue of religions causing many of the world’s problems.
1) Totally one-sided. Like a politician, he just paints the picture he wants and leaves the rest of the facts out (like the good religions do, like promoting moral behavior, humanitarian aid, literacy, etc.).
2) Uses outlandish examples/analogies (like it’s taboo to criticize major religions). Medved correctly questions what planet he’s been on.
3) Continually has to back-peddle on his points because he overstates them.
I often wonder of people like Harris, “If your position is so strong, why do you have to be so unfair in presenting it and misrepresent the other side? Doing so really just reveals the weakness of his position.