When what they said in school really sticks...

When what they said in school really sticks... | SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT, YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN A GOD THAT HAD NO BEGINNING OR END AND CREATED ALL LIFE AND MATTER, BUT YOU DO BELIEVE THA | image tagged in memes,morgan freeman good luck | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
8,948 views, 101 upvotes, Made by Jesuskid777 11 months ago memesmorgan freeman good luck
Morgan Freeman Good Luck memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
14 ups
Batman Slapping Robin Meme | SCIENCE IS FAKE. I BELIEVE IN GOD. IT'S OK TO BELIEVE IN SCIENCE AND GOD. | image tagged in memes,batman slapping robin | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
12 ups, 3 replies
First World Problems Meme | THE TEACHER FAILED MY BOY BECAUSE HE SAID "GOD DID" | image tagged in memes,first world problems | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
What's a God-fearing family to do??
reply
9 ups, 3 replies
Beckett, I'm sorry that we live in a willfully ignorant world. Science substantiates the Biblical account. Perhaps your kids can further expound on their worldview with Creation Science evidence that is hard to refute. The teacher would have a hard time flunking a student with plausible science that refutes the classroom teaching. It's more work but God can move on that Teacher through the research. Check out Billy Crone and go to the getalifemedia website. He has easy to understand creation science teachings in a variety of series such as An Intelligent Creation, A Fearful Creation, A Judged Creation and a Young Earth. These are great tools to help build confidence in what we believe. you can watch them on the website for free. God Bless and may The Lord help you and your family through this rough time and that your witness will bear fruit. I will pray for you guys (and I KNOW He hears them)
reply
4 ups
Ancient Aliens Meme | THANKS THANKS A LOT | image tagged in memes,ancient aliens | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
I'm a Christian too. ^_^
reply
1 up
WOW you're a really great person please stay on this website.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
"Creation science", by definition, is not science. It doesn't follow the scientific method. If you say a supernatural entity created the universe, how would you propose we test that?
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Hmmmm....Lets see "Creation Science" is not Science? Let's see if that holds up. Evolution says that the world was created in a certain manner, isn't that "Creation Science". In other words studying the process of how the world was created. Therefore again it is Creation Science. "The study of the Creation", because I believe in God you say Creation Science is not Science at all. I disagree. The Bible tells us that God created the world, but still the same rules apply. The laws of Science still have to apply. The scientific method does not change because of your presupposition.

Somehow people assume that If we say God Created then it automatically somehow fails when compared with scientific observation, but actually it holds up quite well under scientific scrutiny. Let's agree that no human was present at the creation.

It doesn't matter if it was evolution or if it was God, no one was there to see either one. So now that we are on the scene and with the intelligence an information we have we want to know our origins. So we employ science to study what we have on hand to see how it all began. This is "Creation Science" again the study of creation. It doesn't matter your viewpoint at this time because the "Science" or study will help you towards a conclusion.
reply
1 up
Creation Science is defined by Dictionary.com as "a form of creationism advocated as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution, and holding that the creation of the universe and everything in it was supernatural and relatively recent."
That is not the same thing as evolution. Evolution is the slow process of species evolving over time. It does not say anything about the creation of the world. Biogenesis is the start of life, yet it doesn't cover the start of the world: the formation of the planet.
Of course humans weren't at the start of everything. We are a very young species, and the most advanced life form we know of. Scientists don't think a god was there because that raises the question, how did it get created? There is always a beginning to something.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Christians believe that God created the universe and all that we see. So, using the scientific method we study the evidence to see if that claim is true, based on known ""Science" techniques, like Physics, Thermodynamics, Biology, and a list of many other Scientific Methods. This information available from science breakthroughs is not all generated from Christians. Christians use the research of all scientists regardless of religion, sex, ethnicity and so on. Science is science.

Christians didn't write the laws of Thermodynamics, but we compare the creation to them, just like an evolutionist would compare his model. It just so happens that the God creation account does not fail under scrutiny with scientific research, for example Thermodynamics...Thermodynamics say that things go from order to disorder. When something is created say a car for instance. The car is in pristine condition shortly after it is made, but in time the car will start to deteriorate. It will get worse with time not better.

The only way the car will stay pristine is with help from a third party (the owner of the car) but even with the owners care, parts will still wear out over time. They don't get better with time they get worse. This is science we can observe today. Have you ever had anything new that got newer the longer you've had it? No, of course not.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"Science" techniques? Physics, thermodynamics, and biology are not techniques. They are branches of Science. To compare with something familiar to you, they are comparable to the different types of churches. Each are different, but they are all part of the same faith.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I understand what you are saying, I'm just trying to let people know that from the telescope to the microscope, the Bible and science are not enemies.
reply
0 ups
I see. You are like the scientist priest in Angels and Demons (book or movie, take your pick), who gets murdered and branded in the very beginning for believing that science and religion are two different parts of the same thing. Now I understand your thinking much better. Thank you for clarifying.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
If God did truly created the world, then it would have been new when He made it. Over time it show signs of wear and tear. It would get worse not better and even with the help of its inhabitants, it's clear that the world is not getting newer it's getting worse. So then A God created earth holds up to the laws of Thermodynamics. This is just one "Scientific Method" of known science that a God created earth holds up too, and there are many, many more.
Let's look at the evolutionary theory with the same law. Remember this is "Creation Science". Our cause may be different, Example: God or Random Process, but we are studying Creation. Evolution has some problems with the laws of Thermodynamics though. Because it's cause actually asserts that in started in a disorderly state and worked into an orderly state. That contradicts the same science that non Christian scientists have studied and determined to be empirical science. Nothing we see today goes from disorder to order without an external cause. Dishes can sit dirty in a sink for 40 years, they will only get worse the longer they sit (this is called entropy). The only way they will become organized is if someone does them. The theory of evolution has failed a scientific method test, that a God created idea passed. The reason you say Creation Science is not Science is because you want to see God and shake his hand before you believe in Him. You want me to prove God exists, I say He already told you he exists by the proof of a world that is uniquely designed so that you can live in it.

If it is designed then it had to have a designer. I wish I could walk you right up to God and say here He is, but I can't. He reveals Himself to who He wants too. In the Bibke He says that you know in your heart He's real, but you deny him because of your own willful and sinful desires.
You will choose a deliberate lie that is not supported by the science you asked me to provide. God is who God is, i answer to Him, he doesn't answer to me. I can't make Him come down here to do some parlor tricks so you can believe, either you believe or you don't, He gave you the ability to choose for yourself, I've made my choice, apparently you've made yours...your worldview is small and limited and I expect you'll say it's not, but I'm not here to talk about God to anyone who doesn't want to hear about Him...if you are offended by Jesus, just skip over any of my comments because I'm here for those that want to know.
reply
1 up
The idea that the theory of evolution violates entropy or the second law of thermodynamics has been shown to be wholly without merit.
reply
1 up
I wanted to ask you: would you acknowledge the possibility that your beliefs about God and the Bible and Christianity COULD possibly be wrong?
reply
0 ups
Science is indeed a very incorrect word to apply to almost anything in our religion. It's very much the wrong tool to examine religion, kinda like trying to hammer in a nail with a pair of tweezers. That being said there is a decent bit of science in the Bible, just don't ask me for book chapter page and verse because it's been a while.
reply
[deleted]
7 ups
John 15:19
Thanks for teaching your son well Beckett
reply
[deleted]
1 up
Remind your kids about what Christ said to his disciples about how when they are hated or persecuted, to remember they hated Him first. I think it's great that your child could let his light shine in front of other kids at school by sharing his belief in creation. I guarantee some other kids in class asked their parents about God at supper time that night.
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
I go to a Christian school. Btw I'm glad I'm not the only Christian imgfliper
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Me too
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
You need better education?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
That's just plain rude, Totallynotatrain. You should respect other peoples' religion.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend anyone using this comment. If it makes you feel better I can delete the comment.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
an apology is more than enough. i forgive you.
reply
0 ups
Thank you. :)
reply
0 ups
I meant I was a Christian too. AND please do not take things out of context...
reply
9 ups, 2 replies
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 2 replies
I still stumble over this trap. 17 years of public school indoctrination about the lies of Darwinism are hard to erase.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Because the curriculum doesn't include the fact that Darwin was on a mission for Queen Victoria. He had to come up with a story that would please the Queen who bankrolled his studies. Had he not concluded that living things evolve and that his Queen was the most evolved creature on Earth and far superior to the less evolved savages that roam the Earth, he would not be the famous historical figure we know him as. The theory of evolution is one of the most fundamental deeply rooted sources of racism and is actually a "scientific" basis that supports the idea that slavery involving less evolved savages is proper for more evolved human beings.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
You know that slavery and racism have been around for millennia, right? The theory of evolution does not support racism or slavery. It simply says that populations change over time due to genetic mutations and environmental factors.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
No, it is just politically incorrect to say so today. You can absolutely, positively rest assured that in early economic theory books, written by the famous economists that all college students study in college, say it plainly and openly when discussing slavery and labor. In almost all early "modern" economic theory, there is tons of commentary about evolution and how it made the slaves susceptible to becoming enslaved because they didn't evolve fast enough to become the slavemasters. Its the things like this that get covered up in the PC BS that make things worse, because the theory of evolution was sanitized just enough to survive and subtly continue to promote the separation and divides that are ruining all aspects of human society today.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
So economists are authorities on biological diversity and speciation? And how does one human population evolve faster than another to avoid being conquered or enslaved? That makes absolutely no sense at all.
reply
1 up
Yes. There was "philosophy" then "economics" then "psychology" in that order. Unfortunately, actual science and mathematics was removed with the passing of time or the evolution of society. It does make sense. Its simple. Economic theory and economic measurement included slavery. The economist doesn't simply say "in the lands where the savage is used to till the land without remuneration the land is tilled nevertheless and the farmer's crops harvested and taken to market." The economist explains the know cultural and natural thought process that drives the forces of the economy. And they would literally observe all of this just like Darwin did, while offering their commentary on all of it.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 2 replies
So by evolution, I assume you're talking about humans being a product of random chance and death that evolved from single celled organisms. If that's so, and you don't believe such a belief leads to racism, then I'd like to see how you explain the development of morals.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
While you may have know this, my comment was to Octavia.
reply
7 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Not "random chance" is the sense of chaotic. Natural selection keeps traits that benefit survival. I'm not sure how common ancestry among all living things on this planet leads to racism.

Humans are social creatures. Living in a society benefits us more as a species than living solitary lives. Morality helps to keep society functioning smoothly (more or less). If someone goes around killing people, that harms society because it hurts the members of society. So societies have rules and laws against behavior like that. It's really quite simple. If something harms society, society makes a rule prohibiting it. If something benefits society, society encourages and rewards it. At no point in this equation is a god necessary.
reply
[deleted]
1 up
I wasn't talking about laws or even WHY we have morals. I was simply stating that holding the belief that 'morals are a product of evolution' will directly lead to racism. Here's why I think that, if we believe that all of our traits are evolved, and we know that different people from different areas have different traits, how are 'morals' any different. If the color of my skin is a product of evolution, then why aren't the morals I hold, or my level of intelligence, etc. also a product of evolution? Once, that is realized, you can see how that will lead to the belief that there are races (races being people with grouped genetic differences from other groups) that are 'superior' to other races, i.e. racism.

I want to be clear, while I believe morals come from God, that was not my argument. My argument is that a belief that we are a product of evolution leads to racism (I was just using morals as an example). Darwin excepted this conclusion in his follow up book "The Descent of Man."
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
"Darwinism", or the theory of evolution, is strongly supported by a century and a half of observation, study, testing, conformation and evidence. If you think it is not sound science or supported by evidence, you are perfectly free to try and overturn/disprove it. Good luck.

Indoctrination is not necessary when the evidence is overwhelming.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups
We have only been able to observe changes within a family classification, otherwise known as diversification. Anything beyond that is only speculation based off of bones of creatures that once existed. Similarities in DNA can be explained by the habitats we live in, food we eat, what we drink, and just overall everything around us. There was a test done at one time where the DNA for a fly's eye was extracted and placed into the embryo of a rat after they removed that DNA from the rat. The rat still grew eyes exactly where they were suppose to be at, and they were still rat eyes. What little we know about DNA is not evidence for common ancestors. Science can only provide evidence for what we can sense with out 5 senses. Many of the other claims they make is only speculation.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
It is not. Things dont evolve. What happens is similar species wander around until they meet other similar creatures. If they are similar enough, they breed. Like when polar bears meet grizzly bears and breed making a new type of bear. This limited type of cross breeding is the only true evolution. We observe drastic changes in breeding wolves and dogs for certain traits, but that phenomena is limited to canines because they have special DNA that allows it. Other animals do not.

The idea that a preying mantis could "evolve" into an orchid, just by the ones selected by predators is absurd and actually not supported by the theory of evolution. Evolution is an internal process. It could not possibly be attributed to the shape, color and form of another living thing. Because the mantis' DNA is completely blind and completely independent of the orchid's. There is no way, genetically, that the DNA of the orchid can have that dramatic an impact on the DNA of the mantis. Either there would have to be some other unoknown method of intermingling the DNA of the mantis and the orchid or the theory of evolution says this type of external cross species adaptation is not possible.
reply
3 ups
Sorry to get so lost in it. But the known, proven science of DNA makes the theory of evolution mostly outdated guesswork like the flat earth theory.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"Things dont evolve. What happens is similar species wander around until they meet other similar creatures. If they are similar enough, they breed. Like when polar bears meet grizzly bears and breed making a new type of bear."

A species is basically a population of organisms that is interfertile. Some species can breed with other species but produce usually sterile offspring, such as horses and donkeys producing mules.

"This limited type of cross breeding is the only true evolution."

No, evolution is simply change over time among populations.

"We observe drastic changes in breeding wolves and dogs for certain traits, but that phenomena is limited to canines because they have special DNA that allows it. Other animals do not."

False. Other organisms can be bred for specific traits and qualities. That's how we got much of the produce we enjoy today -- through artificial selection and breeding for certain traits in those plants.

"The idea that a preying mantis could "evolve" into an orchid, just by the ones selected by predators is absurd and actually not supported by the theory of evolution."

I've never heard any scientist say that a mantis can evolve into an orchid. Where are you getting your information from?
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Just today they announced on the news that early humans "split" from chimpanzees thousands and thousands maybe millions of years earlier than previously thought. The claim that they "split" is 100% wrong. Nothing "splits." They combined. That's the problem with "evolution." It involves mysterious "splits" which is not what is happening. The idea that there are "splits" is the deepest depths in the science of racism. That is because it was completely immoral to mix things early on. And just like the polar bears and grizzleys everyone is going nuts to try to stop them from mixing. But if we weren't here to observe it we would consider it a "split" and think nothing of it. But once theres a combination, everyone is up in arms trying to stop it. There are different types of will to survive. One is necessity. If the polar bears and grizzleys don't combine, they may not both survive. Then there's the other type of survival, if they had no necessity combine, they don't combine and instead prefer to sustain their original bloodlines. Its instinct. But the human theory of "evolution" is based on independent, noncombined change by simple selection for specific slightly better traits. The reality is either the polar bears die off completely or they combine with the grizzlys to make a new bear that is perfectly adapted to the new climate and geography. There are no "splits."
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Animals don't make a conscious decision to interbreed with other animals to perpetuate their "bloodlines". These are bears we are talking about, not European monarchies.

Take a group of animals from Southern California. Split that group in half. Leave one half there and place the other half in west Texas. The transplanted group, if it survives, would eventually, over time, drift apart from its parent population until eventually it would be unable to interbreed with the original group. This is known as speciation (allopatric speciation to be more specific). It happens all the time.
reply
2 ups
I, personally, believe that they do make a conscious decision. Domesticated dogs and cats might not, but wild animals do. There weren't any polar bears and grizzly bears intermingling when they encountered each other over the last few thousand years. But once the polar bear consciously or at least instinctually realizes survival is at stake, it decides to intermingle. I have seen very few types of animals that have no conscious thought. Most large mammals are conscious of a lot of things. If your lost in the woods and wind up stared down by a wild bear, you'll see that it is VERY CONSCIOUS of where it is, who its looking at and everything else a person is conscious of, plus even more, because they have such a good sense of smell. Bears look both ways when they cross the street just like people and they're not usually hit by cars like other animals because they're conscious of things.
reply
0 ups
reply
7 ups, 6 replies
1. Atheism is not a religion
2. If you claim that magic exists, please offer evidence
reply
4 ups
We all talk about "gravity" because we observe it and can even measure it. Anyone who claims to know what it actually is, is a liar. Science has never known what it is. Start with the obvious. Then get to the less obvious. Science doesnt know what life is either. We simply observe it because its there and we are capable of observation, which, again, is entirely magic. Science explains many things. But it has never explained or even known what THESE THINGS are. That is the flaw in all claims of science over inexplicable magic. Science cannot explain the most important obvious things that make all things what they are.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Thanks for being a good sport!
reply
4 ups
No problem :) I figured you were being silly
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
It is a nontheistic religion. Magic: Gravity, Electricity, Magnetism, Water, Temperature, Movement, Gigantic Balls of Nuclear Plasma (aka Stars), Mass, Atoms, Elements, Molecules, Gases, Metals, Radioactive, Fire, Energy, Life.
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
I'm confused. None of those things are magic. They are all naturally-occurring. Magic means something outside of, or beyond, nature or any natural explanation.

Atheism is not a religion. It has no holy book, no teachings, no rituals, no traditions, no customs, no worship, no myths, no rules, no systems, leaders or hierarchy.
reply
4 ups
:::::sigh::::: ALL of those things are magic that science cannot explain. Science clouds the judgment of most people. If we were living off of the land and growing animals for food and assistance, we'd see it differently. When the big evil leopard tries to eat you, but the cute little cat protects the feed for the cows and the dog heards the cows and barks at the leopard and you can ride a horse instead of walking, after growing crops from seeds, you realize the magic in everything around us. Its pretty sad when someone looks at something like a computer, ipad or flat panel TV and cannot instantly intrepret how magical everything around us really is. This science crap has caused as much harm to the world as it has cured, if you ask me.
reply
2 ups
I haven't taken this discussion as deep as it could go. In the scientific community they are hypothesizing that the world is actually a digital simulation (like the Matrix eluded to, but without the same storyline of course) we won't be waking up in amino rich goo with plugs and what not, but this is a real ongoing discussion with Physicists and Scientists in general right now. They infer that the world around us is actually a hologram and that the human body is a suit that allows us to interact with the environment around us. It also hypothesizes that out consciousness is software and coding and that our body is nothing more than hardware (like a thumb drive). This is all speculative of course, but it is intriguing. If it were true it would would truly help us in our understanding of the laws (programs) that govern all life, weather, gravity, magnetism, plasma, water, temperature and all of the unseen functions that make life possible. I'm not at all postulating that this is true, just an interesting thought that has my ear at the moment. And although there are some people in the Christian community that agree with this school of thought, this idea comes mainly from secular researchers and scientists that have abandoned the Darwinian model to explore this further because of the overwhelming evidence of design. A hologram world would explain a lot about the "Supernatural". Like I said I'm not pitching this as a truth, but it is being discussed today among some brilliant minds in the scientific community.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
Define magic
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Magic is a mystical or supernatural force which some people believe they can control and manipulate to produce otherwise naturally impossible results
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
You'll see where I'm going with this, but now, define "supernatural"
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Something that is outside of the natural, material world
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
Now back to your earlier comment where you asked for evidence of magic (which we just defined as something that is outside the material world). Now why do ask for evidence in this material world for something that, by your definition, is beyond this material world?

What I'm trying to get at is the your understanding of "natural" limits your mind to only understand things "in the material world."

For someone who believes that something can be created by nothing, I would expect a more open mind from you.
reply
3 ups
I see your point. But like TheDownvoteFairyGodmother said, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If someone says supernatural things exist, they should be able to offer evidence. If, as you say, supernatural things cannot be proven to exist by natural methods, then their claims are unable to be proven. If someone claims supernatural things exist but cannot offer any proof, then I have no reason to believe their claim is true.

My mind is limited to things in the material world, because I exist in the material world. I cannot say with 100% certainty that nothing supernatural exists. But lacking any evidence, I have no reason to believe they do.

I don't believe that something can be created from nothing.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
I'm with you on this one Octavia, burden of proof lies on the one who claims its, they claim God exists but have not offered a shred of evidence other than, "it was clearly designed" which is an assumption, not evidence
reply
3 ups, 3 replies
So following that same thought, evolution clearly assumes a lot of things. With that being said let me say this...If I am wrong about God then I can die wrong and there is no penalty or explaining to do. I will just go off to oblivion or wherever, but if you are wrong think about the ramifications of that. Jesus paid a hefty price on that Cross. Do you honestly think that we the created will not have to give an account for what we did in this life? If you don't know Jesus you have no redemption. I know factually I'm not wrong, but even if I was I don't have a thing to worry about at my time of death, if you are wrong the price is way to high. You should keep that in mind, because it's to late after you stop breathing. I'm not trying to steer anyone in the wrong direction, at least I can say I cared enough to warn you beforehand. This Heaven and Hell thing is no joke and God gives you freewill to make a mockery of it now, but an Eternity in hell is a ruthless excursion. It has no mercy and the torture is never ending. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't make it not true. You think I care about upvotes and debates? I'm simply trying to save your life, but you fight me because you don't know the danger you're in. You need Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ.
reply
1 up
Even if you assume god, that tells you exactly zip re jesus. Only one god-believing religion has him as a deity. (Although sons-of-god/ man-god religions were quite common in the ancient near East. ) Please note that god is not a fact - anything you have to believe in is not a fact. Science relies on proof. I know the bible very well; whatever else it may be, "holy" is not one of those things.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"If I am wrong about God then I can die wrong and there is no penalty or explaining to do. I will just go off to oblivion or wherever, but if you are wrong think about the ramifications of that."

Textbook Pascal's Wager. The problem with your argument is that you fail to realize it applies to you as well. If you're wrong about Islam, you'll go to their version of Hell. Therefore you should become a Muslim. If you're wrong about (fill in the blank) religion, you'll go to that religion's version of Hell. Therefore you should convert to (fill in the blank) religion.

"This Heaven and Hell thing is no joke"

No one has ever shown me a single shred of proof that Heaven or Hell are real. All they do is point to Bible verses. That isn't compelling proof. That is just ink on paper.

"an Eternity in hell is a ruthless excursion. It has no mercy and the torture is never ending."

A God who would send people to Hell for eternity for finite wrongdoings doesn't deserve my worship, to be blunt.

"Just because you don't believe in something doesn't make it not true."

That is true. But if someone says something exists but cannot show me any evidence, I am perfectly justified in disbelieving in it.

"I'm simply trying to save your life, but you fight me because you don't know the danger you're in. You need Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ."

I resist you because I believe what you're saying is completely false and unsupported by reason, logic, facts and evidence. I know what the gospel message is. I know what Christianity teaches. I used to be a Christian, and I listen to more Christian radio than many Christians do. I reject all of it, not because I don't know what it says, but rather because I do know what it says. I reject your god just as you reject the Greek gods of Olympus, the Norse gods of Asgard and the kami of Japan.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Then I guess we find ourselves at an impasse :). But I will say I don't know anything about religion. I made a lifestyle choice to follow Jesus. He is the only one that died to redeem me. Allah, Budda and these other so called prophets and diety's are shams. I would never join a religion, the first problem I have with all of them is that you can earn your way into heaven. That's not what the Christian gospel says at all. And to say you "were" a Christian automatically lets me know you have no idea who Jesus is. Christianity is not a club you can pop in and out of. It's a decision that's made before God and it doesn't change with your mood. When Jesus died on the Cross, He died because the sin that entered in the world separated us from God. "Only" those who except that sacrifice will be spared the judgement of God. At the end of the day here it is, Jesus is my Lord and Savior. I know where I come from, I know who is responsible for where I come from and I understand more with Christ then I ever did learn in school or through the human experience. The Bible was specific in its authenticity and purpose. The so called religions are nothing more than confusing mumbo jumbo from Satan to keep you from the "Truth". You can offer up any arguments you like, but through all of this I've realized that you live in a perpetuation of theoretical hypothesis, you have no idea where you came from, you don't know where you're going when you die and that to me seems hopeless. By hopeless it means that you have nothing to look forward too. You will simply do you're 70-80-90 years on earth and walk out into the unknown. What is the purpose of even contributing to life: going to school, getting a job, living day in and day out, going through pain and suffering, good days and bad days if you have nothing to look forward too? Doesn't very well seem worth it to me. That to me is "cruel". Being a conscious person that has to go through this often unbearable life and then die. Why would I even bother to grind it out? You think dead people care about their legacy? They came from nothing, they go back to nothing. I'm good with Jesus, I have a hope and a future. The belief of "no belief" thing could never work out and doesn't paint any reasonable conclusion other than suffering and then death. I didn't invent Jesus He invented me and I'm good with that. Eternity with Him is all I have to look forward too, the alternative is depressing.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
Pasting for Octavia since theres a bug in the system.

"you have no idea where you came from, you don't know where you're going when you die and that to me seems hopeless. By hopeless it means that you have nothing to look forward too. You will simply do you're 70-80-90 years on earth and walk out into the unknown. What is the purpose of even contributing to life: going to school, getting a job, living day in and day out, going through pain and suffering, good days and bad days if you have nothing to look forward too? Doesn't very well seem worth it to me. That to me is "cruel". Being a conscious person that has to go through this often unbearable life and then die. Why would I even bother to grind it out?"

None of what you said proves God exists. None of what you said proves Christianity is true. What you did was make a logical fallacy called an appeal to consequences. "If there is no God, then life is meaningless. I don't want life to be meaningless. Therefore, God must exist." It's faulty reasoning, and it says that if something (like no afterlife or god) is depressing, then it must be false. Something that is true is true even if it makes you feel uncomfortable, and something that is false is false even if it makes you feel comfortable. Are you saying you want to believe something that makes you feel comfortable and happy, even if it isn't supported by any evidence? That's what it sounds like.

The other problem with your argument is the assumption that life only has meaning if it lasts forever. If this life is all there is, that gives it even more value, because it's a rarity, something to be treasured and cherished. I believe this life is all there is, and I don't find that depressing or hopeless at all. I'm sorry if you would. I'm sorry if the ephemerality of life brings you discouragement. I enjoy every day. I enjoy nature, music, laughter, friends and family, and learning. My atheism does nothing to diminish my joy, and I can't understand why some people think it would.
reply
0 ups
I agree to disagree...you have your position and I have mine, they can't both be right, which I "intend" to imply that one of us is wrong...you say me, I say you. You have people that agree with you, I have people that agree with me. We could spend the next year going around in circles, but let's not and say we did, t-shirt and move on.
reply
1 up
"I made a lifestyle choice to follow Jesus. He is the only one that died to redeem me. Allah, Budda and these other so called prophets and diety's are shams."

And they would say the exact same thing about Christianity (which is a religion, going by the actual dictionary definition of what a religion is)

"I would never join a religion, the first problem I have with all of them is that you can earn your way into heaven. That's not what the Christian gospel says at all."

How does that disprove them, or prove Christianity?

"And to say you "were" a Christian automatically lets me know you have no idea who Jesus is."

If you can make that argument, then so can I. To say you reject evolution lets me know you have no idea what evolution is about. I say that I used to be a Christian; you say I never was a Christian. You are basically calling me a liar, and I don't appreciate it. Your argument is also meant to dismiss anyone who leaves Christianity by saying they were never a Christian to begin with. That is utterly false. As I said before, I know what Christianity teaches. I know what the gospel message is. Just because I don't believe it's true doesn't mean I don't understand it.

"Christianity is not a club you can pop in and out of. It's a decision that's made before God and it doesn't change with your mood."

I didn't leave Christianity based on my mood. I left it because I slowly began to realize that it wasn't supported by evidence.

"The so called religions are nothing more than confusing mumbo jumbo from Satan to keep you from the "Truth"."

Again, other religions could say the same thing about Christianity. Also, other religions combined outnumber Christians two to one. You mean to tell me that Satan is twice as effective as God is when it comes to convincing people of what to believe? That doesn't make God sound very powerful.
reply
1 up
Also I never asked you to save me and using the classic "what if your wrong" argument, is getting you nowhere, if either heaven or hell exist, I'd prefer hell, at least I would have my free will, as it is a product of sin and we all know there is no sin in heaven so there is no free will,
reply
2 ups
Very well said :)
reply
4 ups
There's some more ammo for your defenses, my friend.

And here's a little more: Cells need very specific chemical combinations in order to live. However, when scientists tried to recreate a cell by mixing the chemicals, they found that these chemicals dissolve eachother or something. I can't remember exactly what they do but basically they cancel eachother out. This means the only place these chemicals can physically exist in the same place is inside a cell, which poses the question: How could they possibly come together to form a cell?

And now I'm gonna leave because I am terrible at arguing/debating and don't wanna start a flame war or some crap like that.

Have a blessed day!
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
XD
reply
3 ups
I'm real glad to know I'm not the only Christian imgflipper. :))
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Now anyone else here who goes on about Magic having nothing to deal with science, I'd just like to point out that he wasn't say real magic, just figurative speech. Now, everyone else who says that atheism isn't a religion, your actually kinda wrong there if you think about it. Religion is something dealing with belief, not rituals and other things, no holy books. Those books are how people learn about the religion. Also, there is proof that God does exist. If you think about it long and hard, The Big Bang is scientifically impossible, because all matter can't come from 1 atom, and energy doesn't create matter. Also, Evolution isn't entirely possible, for no transitional fossils have ever been found, but animals do adapt to their environment, but don't change into another species (ex: fish to land creature), cause how can a fish over time turn into a human. Fish and mammals aren't even related to each other. And yes, some animals do look similar, but that's similar design. It's just like a painting or work of art. Other works of art will have similarities to previous/future pieces of art made by the same artist. Sorry for the long comment and if this too confusing. Keep on making awesome content guys. :D
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
"No transitional fossils have ever been found"

That's a lie that gets repeated over and over and over, even though it has been disproven over and over and over.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Here is a partial list of all the transitional forms that have been discovered: Pikaia gracilens, Haikouella, Haikouichthys, Conodonts, Myllokunmingia, Arandaspis, Birkenia, Cephalaspis, Shuyu, Ptomacanthus, Cladoselache, Tristychius, Ctenacanthus, Paleospinax, Spathobatis, Protospinax, Acanthodians, Palaeoniscoids, Canobius, Aeduella, Parasemionotus, Oreochima, Leptolepids, Amphistium, Heteronectes, Paleoniscoids, Osteolepis, Kenichthys, Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion, Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Obruchevichthys, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega gunnari, Ichthyostega, Hynerpeton, Labyrinthodonts, Gars, Lungfish and Birchirs, Temnospondyls, Dendrerpeton acadianum, Archegosaurus decheni, Eryops megacephalus, Trematops, Amphibamus lyelli, Doleserpeton annectens, Triadobatrachus, Vieraella, Karaurus, Proterogyrinus, Limnoscelis, Tseajaia, Solenodonsaurus, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Petrolacosaurus, Araeoscelis, Apsisaurus, Claudiosaurus, Planocephalosaurus, Protorosaurus, Prolacerta, Proterosuchus, Hyperodapedon, Trilophosaurus, Pappochelys rosinae, Odontochelys semitestacea, Deltavjatia vjatkensis, Proganochelys, Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops haplous, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus cromptoni, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon galmani, Vincelestes neuquenianus, Pariadens kirklandi, Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops, Juramaia, Eomaia, Sinodelphys, Kulindadromeus, Allosaurus, Aerosteon, Compsognathus, Epidendrosaurus, Epidexipteryx, Scandoriopteryx, Gigantoraptor, Gobivenator, Mei, Saurornithoides, Sinovenator, Buitreraptor, Pyroraptor, Unenlagia, Graciliraptor, Bambiraptor, Balaur, Tsaagan, Dromaeosaurus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Deinonychus, Utahraptor, Achillobator, Oviraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Lisboasaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Xiaotingia, Archaeopteryx, Anchiornis, Baptornis, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Iberomesorni
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Iberomesornis (cut off in last comment), Theriznosaurus, Nothronychus, Citipati, Falcarius, Alxasaurus, Chirostenotes, Avimimus, Khaan, Incisivosaurus, Caenagnathus, Troodon, Byronosaurus, Ingenia, Hesperonychus, Conchoraptor, Patagopteryx, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, Columba, Purgatorius, Plesiadapis, Carpolestes, Archicebus, Omomys, Eosimias, Amphipithecus, Apidium, Propliopithecus, Darwinius masillae, Dryopithecus, Proconsul, Sivapithecus, Djebelemur, Cantius, Teilhardina, Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Australopithecus sediba, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens idaltu, Indohyus, Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, Rhodocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, Eritherium, Phosphatherium, Numidotherium, Barytherium, Phiomia, Prodeinotherium, Stegodon, Cooksonia, Archaeopteris, Williamsonia, and a partridge in a pear tree

If you want to disprove all of these transitional fossils, you've got your work cut out for you.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
All those fossils are only evidence of creatures that once lived. What evidence, besides physical appearance, proves that these are transitional fossils?
reply
0 ups
Those don't prove evolution. They just look like animals we see today, but different. And also, evolution is the changing of animals between species, such as fish turning into amphibians. How in the world is a fish suppose to grow lungs, and also get the muscles required in the fin to be able to crawl on land, because fins are frail and just help fish move. And yes, animals do change over time, but not into other species, like the common belief that humans evolved from ape-like creatures. For example, whales do have hip-bones, but that could be because they probably use to have small fins in the back to help with turning, but they didn't evolve from dog-like creatures. Dogs and whales have completely separate anatomies, and yes, they are similar, but that again is because of similar design. And also, many people say the change of animals, such as baby flounders' eyes moving from both sides to just 1 side is proof of evolution. Thats not evolution, it metamorphosis, just like the kind caterpillars->butterflies and tadpoles->frogs go through. Is the flounder still a flounder? Yes, its just changing into its adult stage.
Watch the documentary "Is Genesis History?" to learn more about this if you want
And also, magic and miracles are 2 different things. Magic is either something done by man or is demonic (black magic or witchcraft), a miracle is something that is an act of God.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
How come?
reply
1 up
[image deleted]
reply
1 up
Great meme!
reply
1 up, 1 reply
And that shall defend and cause chaos to your world
reply
2 ups
lol, i'll manage somehow...it'll be tough though!
reply
1 up
nuts. look at this meme and comment war. you people sure are vocal.
reply
1 up
Y'know, I am so glad I am not alone on here either. Gives a whole second meaning to the fact that I'm never alone even when nobody's around :)
reply
0 ups
The big bang theory was created by a devout priest, Georges Lemaître, to explain certain phenomena that Science couldn't readily explain. Scientists did adopt it after evidence was found to support it. It's taught in school because numerous scientists have tested and shown that to be the most likely thing to have happened. As for your jibe at biogenesis, we don't exactly know what happened, but we do know the right compounds were "mixed" (not the right term, but close enough) together and the first DNA was made. It took a very long time to reach us (humans).
reply
1 up
why are you bashing on atheists?
reply
0 ups
Not meant offensively, I'm just glad that there are so many of us here
reply
0 ups
Not meant offensively, I'm just glad that there are so many of us here.
reply
0 ups
You think a diety that just happens to have the same gender as the writers who describe the diety has no beginning. I think that a diety-less universe has o beginning. That the singularity that caused the big bang was always there and yielded our universe. There you go, the big beginning question solved using the method religious people use but without a god
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
reply
6 ups, 3 replies
Your argument is a straw man. I don't believe in any gods, but I also don't believe that "the universe made itself out of nothing and eventually you were born from a magic soup that was hit by lightning." That is an intentionally misleading representation of cosmogenesis, abiogenesis and evolution.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Octavia, while some people are eagerly awaiting science to answer the age old questions of life's origins, the final conclusion will always be God. You see where science fails to answer questions the Bible gives clarity. It answers questions like where does consciousness come from. Evolutionary thought infers that an accidental process began from circumstances that we can't observe today and formed something as complex as life. If it had done this with no direction or outside help, then why is everything that it created so wonderfully made. Without pointing out every obvious thing, let's start with the variety of life. Each creature is symmetrical and awe inspiringly detailed and unique. How is it that evolution could be so precise and intentional? Giving us 2 ears, 2 eyes, taste buds a respiratory system, a brain that is amazingly more advanced than any computer? A body that heals itself? I could go on and on forever especially when you start looking at the margins that allow life to exist in the first place. When you see a car, you don't assume it evolved, you automatically know that someone designed and built it. The human body has more complex features than any man made vehicle, but its ok to assume no one designed it that way? The body has heating and cooling features, it has autonomous functions, the heart out performs any engine built to this day. It runs on electricity and so much more. How in the world could evolution not only harness all the chemicals and proponents to make this work, but how does it account for assembling such a complex design and maintaining it for the average life span? The cells that make up our body are super incredible. The inside of a cell is more efficient than any factory we have on earth. It contains many, many smaller parts that operate in sync. Without the smaller parts the cell would not function, so how could a cell evolve? It can't and scientists know that. The evolutionary science community is losing the support of its own colleagues based on the astounding advances that have been made. The fossil record can not substantiate the claims of evolution, not to mention we have no transitional forms (the in between stages of animals before the completion of the evolution) It is also impossible for any mutated animals to even survive during evolutionary stages. Some animals would not be able to survive the journey through the evolutionary process without everything fully functioning all at once.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Also a theore has a different meaning in science, it's something that has been proven
reply
1 up, 1 reply
But you have to admit the whole color changing thing is cool! Evolution once again put intelligent thought into its work without being able to think or form a thought.
reply
0 ups
Evolution is basically a prolonged adaptation, to a species needs and requirements, that allow said specie to live its life the best that it can, now adaptation is not perfect, would you like to know why, I have a condition known as hetrochromia, a mutation of the iris that causes each eye to be different in colour, it offers no benefits and no disadvantages. So what is the point of it, it's such a rare trait only 1.5% of the human population have it, science explains it as an unlikely mutation, how does the bible explain this
reply
2 ups
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
Abiogenesis- the process of living matter emerging from non-living matter. How exactly did that take place?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
We don't know yet, but scientists have some good ideas. Basic building blocks of life such as amino acids have already been shown to form naturally under certain conditions. They form chains. Those chains eventually become self-replicating molecules such as RNA. Add a protective lipid shell and you have a *very* basic protocell. I'm no expert on this so some of what I say may be inaccurate, but you can read up on all of this stuff.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
I have read up on these theories and there is 1 huge major problem with all of them. They are assuming what the conditions actually were when events took place. There is absolutely no way they can take what we observe today and come up with an accurate assessment of the actual conditions for the environment and other factors during the (supposed) millions or billions of years ago. So even if amino acids can form naturally under certain conditions, there is no way they would know those conditions existed back then. And if the scientist create these conditions, how can you accurately state it happened naturally?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Scientists can determine what prehistoric atmospheric conditions were like through things like ice core samples, which trapped air bubbles. That's one way. I'm sure there are others.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
Those ice core samples would have (based off of scientific explanations) be created millions of years after life would have formed on the planet. So once again, there would be no way that they would know the exact conditions when life supposedly formed on this planet.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
That's doesn't prove anything. In order for life, there has to be DNA. And in order for there to be DNA, there has to be RNA. And in order for there to be RNA, there has to be proteins. And in order for there to proteins, there has to be DNA. And also, creation wasn't magic, it was God's power. Magic is stuff like wizards and fairies, this isn't that.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
God's power? So something that makes sense that we couldn't understand? Therefore magic. Do religious people say that it's not magic? It's miracles? Isn't that magic? Isn't this just because religious people want to be included in the conversation without sounding like they're proposing wizardry, which they are? DNA/RNA would be the activation catalyst. The vents require nonacatalyst because the physical vent itself is considered to be the DNA/RNA, and when the vent is destroyed, the 'life' dies and dissipates.

The chemical reactions preform the tasks that some proteins do.

A chemical reaction inside a shell is typically viewed as life. Such life requires a an interior sparkplug (DNA/RNA).

The coding for each chemical reaction would be based off the physical characteristics off of it's native vent. Vents would most likely ignite other vents.

We're water-fire lifeforms, probably. And it might still be lightning bolts :P. Lol.
reply
1 up
Typo: DNA/RNA isn't required for vent-based pre-life. The vent itself, and it's characteristics, are equivalent to DNA/RNA and are in fact, it's precursor.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I could almost go for that, but i still have the whole creation of matter that created the vent thing to get around. It's hard to assert a belief in a God that had no beginning and that has no end (just always was), but we can believe that organic and inorganic materials have always been in existence and somehow in their infinite existence managed to culminate at the right time, place, temperature, atmosphere, pressure and many other unique circumstances to begin a chemical process which lead us to the here and now human experience. How could a mixture of any chemicals bring into existence a conscious person that is self aware?
reply
0 ups
I believe in God. Technically, I think God does everything, and is everything, and can't be comprended, and neither, can we ever understand the origins of life. Now that that's established, how far back can life be traced?

Personally, I think God existed before the big bang. I also think life existed before the big bang. And I think god existed before that. (I think black holes explode when they reach a certain size, just like everything else in the universe).

As for the culmination of right time, and right place... I think life is extremely common.

If life originates from deep sea thermal vents, all that is required is water from asteroids, a hot planet, and maybe sunlight. These circumstances are the norm for most recently formed planets around most stars.

I guess I believe in aliens, no I don't think they're very interested in earth, and no, the existence of aliens doesn't disprove god, just like the discovery of native people in north america didn't disprove god either.

I think life is on a lot of planets, and there might be smart aliens, but no, our culture isnt interesting. They could just watch us on TV.

If I was an alien in a spaceship, I'd just be grateful that the dumb humans couldn't escape their solar system.

As for being self-aware, no, you're not. Prove it. You cant.
reply
1 up
Flip Settings
Morgan Freeman Good Luck memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT, YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN A GOD THAT HAD NO BEGINNING OR END AND CREATED ALL LIFE AND MATTER, BUT YOU DO BELIEVE THAT THE UNIVERSE MADE ITSELF OUT OF NOTHING AND EVENTUALLY YOU WERE BORN FROM A MAGIC SOUP THAT WAS HIT BY LIGHTNING. THAT ABOUT SUM IT UP? YEAH, ITS JUST A THEORY REALLY...
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back