The "stone that's too heavy for even God to lift" argument doesn't hold water. That's like an "unstoppable force" hitting an "unmovable wall" -> one or the other has to be a false definition. Is God limited by weight or mass? No. So describing a stone "too heavy for God to lift" makes just as much sense as "spaghetti too green for God to eat" -- none.
You're convinced of your belief and therefore your 'it's not disproven' argument has a lot of value for you, but as the Spaghetti Monster God and equivalents show, that really holds no true value at all.
No, and please don't be so presumptuous. The "it's not disproved" argument has nothing to do with my faith. It's just a logical counter-argument to those who purport to suggest their belief that there specifically is
no God is strictly scientific.
Your arguments just suggest a limited understanding of Christianity.
No, it doesn't at all. It merely suggest you are a follower of a special kind of Christianity, that in your idealized view doesn't share any connections with Christianity as a world-religion that's spread all over the world. You're convinced your religion is without a dark history, but that's really where you are the ignorant one.
With possibly as many Protestants as Buddhists in the world, my "special kind of Christianity" is not that special. I don't think I've suggested anywhere that there are no links, or that it doesn't have a dark history. Those are mistakes, like we all make. Do all the dark deeds some of your ancestors may have committed have any bearing on your actions in your life? Why should Christianity's history have any affect on what it is today? If anything we learn from it. It's still based on the same book it was based on back then, yet those past mistakes are not justified in the Bible!
Whether or not it
is really the same book as it was before (if I recall correctly you strongly believe that the Bible has changed too much over time) is debatable elsewhere.
I'm not evangelising here; I'm simply defending my faith while you attempt to evangelise Atheism -- especially in response to your issues with Christianity that are actually quite specific to a distinct subset of Christians. It's like saying rock music is bad just because most popular music that comes under the "rock" genre is bad, but if you actually look for yourself at what constitutes "rock", you'll find that there's actually a lot of creative music in there.
When a mathematician and a historian disagree on a fundamentally mathematical issue, it suggests (not proves, but definitely suggests) that the historian's understanding of maths is limited. Similarly, when a Christian and an Atheist disagree on what is representative of Christianity as a whole, it suggests that the Atheist's understanding of Christianity is limited much more strongly than it suggests the Christian is ignorant.
If you must evangelise your Atheism, at least don't be rude about it, nor hijack a thread that is completely unrelated for it.
And please recall that this forum in general is usually not very receptive to people trying to force their views on other people
I don't attempt to generalise Atheism in front of all the actual Atheists here -- I'd just embarrass myself. You need to realise that some of the people you're generalising Christianity in front of are
actual Christians -- and that my version of Christianity isn't as unique or rare as you might think.
Jibb
