Could Christianity be classified as extremism?

There are Christian extremists, but not all Christians are extremists.

What exactly would Christians be extremists of?

I’d caution against placing all people of a certain religion into the same tiny box. Classic out-group homogeneity. They’re not all the same, believe it or not.

Not Christianity as a whole, no. Lots of Christians have perfectly “centerist” views on all different topics.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t extremist members of Christianity, as with all groups of people.

There are extremists in every walk of life. It’s not right to generalize or group all people as one type.

@livelaughlove21 Obviously not. To specify a bit, what I have in mind is the military. According to Army Command Policy 4–12 Soldiers are not permitted to participate in, or share and encourage any extremist activities or beliefs. Problem is that in the section “extremism” is not defined. Is there some other place where there is a government definition of “extremism”?

Are there legitimate reasons to prohibit Christian proselytizing and/or involvement on this basis?
Yes there are extremists in every religion.

Yes, if you take it’s claims and demands seriously. The same can be said of Islam and Judaism. Fortunately, most adherents to the three great Abrahamic religions don’t take its strictures and teachings seriously. Most don’t even have a clue what their “belief system” really teaches. They will argue with you that it doesn’t teach precept after precept that is right there in their chosen Holy book—the one they have never gotten around to reading, or if they read, never read to comprehension.

Christians were the ranking extremists of the world from the days when they slaughtered the Gnostics and laid waste other “Christian heresies like believing women matter” through the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch trials, burning at the stake and all their numerous “holy” wars. Those that actually take the Bible seriously today still are a bloodthirsty lot, just like the early Bronze Age God of the Desert that inspires them. They are now trying to provoke nuclear Armageddon in Jerusalem so their imaginary friend will grab them up in the air. That’s fairly extreme.

Islamic fundamentalists are also well known now for their violence. That’s one group I don’t even need to pillory.

And if Ultra Orthodox Jews (code words for people who actually try to follow the instructions handed down in the Torah) could have their way, they would provoke a nuclear war over the Temple Mount, hoping to drive all of Islam out of the region so they could demolish the Dome of the Rock and rebuild Salomon’s Temple on that ground.

We now live in a nuclear age with MAD hanging over our heads. A pox on all religious nut-cases. If we let them, they will wipe out all humanity in their pursuit of their obsession with proving that their imaginary friend is better than everybody else’s imaginary friend.

Examples? Westboro Baptist Church, Timothy McVay, Mark Driscoll, Mike Huckabee, but there is also the silent majority, who want to follow in the radical way of Jesus, which is loving the marginalized and loving your neighbor as yourself.
Putting us all in the same box as the extremists is like saying all Muslims agree with bin Laden. Most of us are peace loving people trying to be good stewards of the earth God gave us and treat others with dignity and love. It’s our passion for peace and gentleness that often keeps us quiet. We are becoming more vocal and there are plenty of us who want the world to know that we follow a God who asks us to seek justice, love mercy and walk humbly.

@genjgal The government has failed to define a lot of things. Just look at our laws – sometimes it seems as if half of the terms have no legal definition.

My answer is still no. Christian extremists should not be soldiers, but there’s no good reason why other Christians shouldn’t be.

I was actually just thinking about a similar thought to this today. I think that extremism is not just in Christianity. It is everywhere. It can be positive or negative and completely depends on the person. It can be related to many things. Sex. Violence. Religion. Food. Emotion. Weather. Music. Television. etc. It is completely personal and many times societal. What is extreme to some may just be an otherwise ordinary Sunday to others.

I find this question to be rather extreme.

The Romans thought Christians were extremists. Nowadays Christianity is mainstream but it has an intolerant, aggressive and selfish streak to it particularly in the US that is quite extreme.

Of course not, but some bible bashing pilgrims do tend to ram their beliefs down your throat…no thanks, I have no appetite.

The way some people dogmatically practice it, yes. But that can be said of any religion which its followers constantly proselytize via bumper stickers, billboards and televised chuch service.

I think religion and atheism are to extremes at different ends of the spectrum. It’s not one or the other, there’s a lot in between. So in that sense, you could talk about Christianity as extremism.

Much Christian doctrine seems pretty moderate to me. It’s what sects do with it that becomes extreme.

And there are always doctrinaire and non-doctrinaire ways to spin beliefs. Think a woman was pulled out of a rib? Fine, no problem. Think that part of the Bible replace a science curriculum in a school? You’re an idiot.

@bolwerk You think it is moderate to approve of slavery, approve of having multiple wives and concubines, stone people to death for wearing perma-press clothing or eating at Red Lobster; to name a few of the rules the Christian Bible invokes? Perhaps you’re part of the group I mentioned that hasn’t much knowledge of the rules the Bible actually lays out for us to follow.

Some might find this short talk informative. Christopher Hitchens Revises the Ten Commandments. I like his version a lot more than the one Moses left us.

@ETpro: I’m fairly well versed in the theology of different Christian and Jewish sects. I generally get the context behind those rules, and I have to say they hardly fall under “Christian doctrine” (which I take centrally to be modern church dogmas, the teachings of Jesus, and the writings of Paul) at this point and probably almost never did. You’re looking at Jewish doctrine, and conflating things that were historically followed with things that are done now.

And, you have to hand it to Jewish sects in general – they follow a lot of rules most of us see as silly, while fully recognizing that non-Jews don’t have to follow those rules and therefore can mostly live at peace with the modern world.

Either way, I think it’s unfair and counterproductive to label people who manage to reconcile some of the better (or at least less bad) parts of the Bible with modern values as “extremists.”

@bolwerk I take exception to any belief system that claims to represent the one absolute truth because that belief system alone got the straight dope direct from the creator of the Universe. Any such belief system is inherently irreducible and therefore subject to the temptation toward extremism. Think about how long Christendom fought for the geocentric model of the solar system even after observation clearly proved the solar system is heliocentric. The problem was their Bible clearly says the Earth is the center of the solar system, and because they believed that the Bible is the perfect word of a perfect god, then the observed facts must be irrelevant.

I agree that most Christians and Jews have done a good job of blocking out portions of their holy books and ignoring them, even though there is noting in the book that justifies such partitioning. But that still leaves large segments of the work intact.

Here’s what worries me. The moderates today know that those other parts of their holy revelation; the ones about the Sun revolving around the Earth, apostates being stoned to death, rules for the keeping of slaves, and for women staying out of their own homes while on their menstrual period; were wrong. A rational person would look at that and decide that the entire book is of questionable authority and more likely the musings of early Bronze Age desert nomads than the revealed knowledge of the omniscient, omnipotent creator of all existence. But they don’t do that. Instead, they insist that they know for certain that a being outside of space, time, and causality—a being therefore completely beyond their reach and understanding—exists; and they know he does because this book they know to be so deeply flawed tells them that it is so. I worry about the next actions of people who so willingly divorce themselves from rationality.

Considering that religion is really nothing more than personal interpretations of some type of scripture or teachings, then religious extremism would have to be in the category of personal interpretation as well. There are definitely teachings in the Bible and Quran that can fuel extremism that is for sure.

@ETpro: I’m not arguing Christianity isn’t prone to extremism, or that it isn’t stupid. I’m just saying many (most?) Christians manage to more or less tolerate the fact that they share the planet with other people, and more or less are capable of not inflicting their Jesus on other people. I certainly don’t see how we can live with at peace with religious people if we don’t have some common ground with them, and some of that common ground needs to be opposition to extremists. Lumping potentially fair-minded people with the extremists is simply counterproductive.

Anyway, I regard increasingly doctrinaire thrusts from Christian supremacists as a sign of decline. It’s like the Tea Party – they may have the wind on their backs right now, more than they should anyway, but their outrageous behavior is a result of them losing their grip. It’s a sign of weakness; they’re losing.

@bolwerk I like your evaluation of it. You’re right.

Until the 18th century, yes.

My X-husband who is Southern Baptist beat me with a Bible because I’m nominally…..Catholic and The Bible says “call no man father.” I told him my kids couldn’t call him Father either if that is the case. Yes Christianity has “extremists.” Religion is wacky -no matter than brand…
and makes people wacky and violent especially when the person is the control freak type or has an inferiority complex and cannot handle disagreement.

@bahamamama Well put. Adults still believing in imaginary friends without a shred of evidence they exist. Sad humans we haven’t grown out of such childish things yet,

^ That is self defeating and an illogical principal if I’ve ever seen one, you can’t get something from nothing, so therefore denying there is a supreme being you might as well just be saying we don’t exist, so obviously we do exist and so then the supreme being to us therefore exists or existed and since we can’t research the paranormal because we don’t have the knowledge to do so which means until otherwise that something has the possibility to still exist, imaginary means it was/is completely made up, OK so a man named Jesus punked us so we would be kind and good which we obviously didn’t get so He could tell people to tell future generations He would come back and take those good people to His kingdom of heaven if they obey His word?

Umm, yeah smartest man ever and His name is God.

@nofurbelowsbatgirl How do you know that you can’t get something from nothing? That has been your experience, and mine as well. But this is a very, very big universe and it has been around for 13.76 billion years. Your knowledge of what can possibly happen in it, combined with my knowledge. and that of every human that has ever lived is like one atom in one grain of sand in all the deserts and beaches of the Earth raised to the googol power. You cannot start being even a tiny bit smart till you quit claiming to know things you absolutely do not know.

@ETpro well heres my best explanation, after researching and asking a lot of questions and always looking for deeper meaning I suppose until they explain it otherwise your answer is as good as mine but yours still derives from illogical principal, because we do know right now that you can’t get something from nothing, so until that is proven otherwise it’s your idea that actually is all for naught.

Christianity is actually still the most logical answer, whether you believe it or not.

Like your answer, any persons answer has to follow a particular methodology to arrive at a conclusion about a belief system or lack of.

My most common answer to explain it is one that I remember best which is that the end result of Buddhism is to rid oneself of all desires, which is illogical because one must have the desire to rid themselves of all desires.

God in the Christian bible has all the components that we do, but also has many other components like no other God or explanation touches on, like Christianity does.

For example the Christian God is

• Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation)
• Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known)
• Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space)
• Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it)
• Timeless and changeless (He created time)
• Immaterial (because He transcends space)
• Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality)
• Necessary (as everything else depends on Him)
• Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites)
• Diverse yet has unity (as all multiplicity implies a prior singularity)
• Intelligent (supremely, to create everything)
• Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything)
• Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver)
• Caring

It’s not about being smart, it’s about being logical, and that is what you just accused most Christians of in fact that is the crux of your entire accusation against them almost every time, so I just wanted to clear the air and let you know that when you really break it all down Christianity really is the most logical answer.

@nofurbelowsbatgirl It’s too late tonight, and what you said is too illogical and absurd to take up in detail at this late hour. Tomorrow is another day.

@ETpro a childrens bedtime song complete with role playing for your fetish folly? ;)

There’s a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza,
There’s a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, a hole.
Then mend it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
Then mend it, dear Henry, dear Henry, mend it.
With what shall I mend it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I mend it, dear Liza, with what?
With a straw, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
With a straw, dear Henry, dear Henry, with a straw.
The straw is too long, dear Liza, dear Liza,
The straw is too long, dear Liza, too long
Then cut it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
Then cut it, dear Henry, dear Henry, cut it.
With what shall I cut it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I cut it, dear Liza, with what?
With a knife, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
With a knife, dear Henry, dear Henry, with an knife.
The knife is too dull, dear Liza, dear Liza,
The knife is too dull, dear Liza, too dull.
Then sharpen it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry
Then sharpen it, dear Henry, dear Henry, sharpen it.
On what shall I sharpen it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
On what shall I sharpen it, dear Liza, on what?
On a stone, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
On a stone, dear Henry, dear Henry, a stone.
The stone is too dry, dear Liza, dear Liza,
The stone is too dry, dear Liza, too dry.
Well wet it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
Well wet it, dear Henry, dear Henry, wet it.
With what shall I wet it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I wet it, dear Liza, with what?
Try water, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
Try water, dear Henry, dear Henry, water.
In what shall I fetch it, dear Liza, dear Liza?
In what shall I fetch it, dear Liza, in what?
In a bucket, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
In a bucket, dear Henry, dear Henry, a bucket.
There’s a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza,
There’s a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, a hole.
Use your head, then! dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
Use your head, then! dear Henry, dear Henry, use your head!

On another note, dependent upon who you are my views on religion could be classified as extreme, to me they are not.

Nice cut and paste, but it’s no substitute for logic, or proof that your assertions of a hidden, undetectable deity are any more substantial than the claims that Allah and his prophet Mohammed rule the world, or that Brahma rules, or Daksha, or El, or Mbombo, or Ptah, or Quetzalcoatl, or Zeus rules. I’m guessing you are atheistic to that list. And that’s just a tiny part of the whole list. Mankind has proposed 3.000 plus supreme deities. Which one you believe is real is mostly an accident of birth. Almost all theists believe in the one that was in vogue where they were born.

You have yet to present anything but argument by assertion and circular arguments based on the Trinity being the one (or three) true God/s because the book their supporters wrote says they are. Till you do that, I have nothing to confront save your use of logical fallacies to support your assertion. Believe it if you wish, but don’t ask me to believe based on logical fallacies or the recitation of a misquoted song.

@nofurbelowsbatgirl You’ve made no strong arguments for Christianity being the most accurate, nor the most caring religion, and those points you’ve brought up could be dismantled quite easily. I’m not just another fluther atheist, no, far from it, but why can’t more Christians concentrate on treating others as they would want to be treated rather than obsessing with who’s right, now wait, hey my religion is.

@Paradox25 – Christians who don’t concentrate on treating others as they would want to be treated, are not good Christians. They don’t walk the talk.

@mattbrowne Most Christians (the ones who are loud about it) that I know don’t place much emphasis on being a ‘good’ person because we all sin, sin is sin, and we all fall short of the Glory of God so we need to be ‘saved’. The only thing that many of these types of Christians seem to place any emphasis on is the fact (in their minds) that they have the correct god, correct savior and correct religion, so they’re already saved.

Most Christians that I know live a much less morally sound life than me. I’m the one who didn’t go with the crowd, didn’t go out drinking, didn’t sleep around, waited to have sex with the right person (for secular reasons), treated others with respect, didn’t bully, didn’t gossip, stuck up for the less than popular folks (at a great cost to myself), etc and yet I’m the liberal atheist. It seems that my nonbelief in religious fables has done me much more good spiritually than my buddies and their religion has done for them. Maybe I’m being unfairly self-righteous here, but I can’t help calling out things for what I see of them.

@ETpro Actually the argument is very strong I am just not sure that all people are willing to actually step outside the box or outside their comfort zones. In everything you wrote you did prove some things to me,
#1) IMHO you don’t really understand God the way I do.
#2) You do say “believe if you wish but don’t ask me to believe”, I am not asking you to believe in anything but the mere thought of the paragraph you posted has me wondering if it is just due to the idea that you are comfortable where you are. And I am OK with that. I lurve you no matter what. :)
#3)The song? Yes it was copy and pasted, but it was a riddle of sorts.

I understand you can pick out the fallacies in my comment but I can pick out the fallacy in yours and that is my point if we step outside of the box or out of our comfort zones people may see that in order to come to a conclusion we have to follow basic principles.

When you start to look at each individuals choices and see them for what they really are then it is not long before one can realize it is not about the argument (logical or not) not one argument any one person chooses is really the right argument, it’s about an individual choice.

I am just trying to point out that Christianity holds the most evidence and knowledge and for me is the most logical and I’m sorry but I don’t know if you’ll ever get that, or if you will ever want to. I call that your spoon logic. Humans invented the spoon, then the fork then a dish, or something like that and maybe not in that order. But today we are “Gods” of the spoon. The average human doesn’t commonly think about where the spoon came from while they are shoveling the food they love into their face. That doesn’t mean the material for the spoon just randomly appeared here. My logic says with all my teachings of the Christian God that the Christian God being omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent put the material for the spoon here
And the dish ran away with the spoon.

The idea that something can come from nothing is just that—an idea and until it is proven otherwise we know it isnt true. And while those of use may believe that there is an infinite source of knowledge out there and we can find that answer we still have to fill our buckets and sift through this knowledge, but Christianity has knowledge and evidence and had given us those answers. We do indeed have “Your knowledge of what can possibly happen in it, combined with my knowledge. and that of every human that has ever lived is like one atom in one grain of sand in all the deserts and beaches of the Earth raised to the googol power.” and a bucket with a hole and we are all sifting through it searching for that golden nugget. The Christian God is omniscient, there is no need for buckets. But since we are made in His image it is understandable as to why we want to be all knowing.

At this end of this rambling I am not questioning a specific belief or the extremism of ones belief but actually the idea that if we all stepped outside of our comfort zones we may actually see some fallacy in all things relating to existence, and then maybe we can some logic amongst all the extremism.

So what is the fallacy?

On #1, I plead no contest. No other human being can claim the understand God exactly like you do, or even that they share exactly your experience when you ate your last Hostess Twinkie. That’s no argument regarding the truth of falsity of any claim.

On #2, No, I am not comfortable where I am. There is nothing I desire more than to truly know how and why the Universe we are in was created. I am VERY open to proof. What I am not open to is claims that are not only unsubstantiated but that are carefully designed to be forever unsubstantiable within the realm of an evidence based world—claims that have been advanced by thousands of different sects, all of which conflict with one another and therefore force me to conclude that no more than 1 of the thousands could be correct; and it’s entirely likely they are all bunk.

On #3, That “riddle” goes to the same place your claims go. Agree with me, or you aren’t using your head. It’s awfully transparent as riddles go. And like it or not, it is a misquote of the original lyrics of , which in fact pose a much more interesting riddle.

I do get that you like your choice, and it you prefer never to talk about it that’s fine with me, If you ask me to avoid discussion of the subject with you, and you don’t then jump into threads about proof of deities and attack my statements, I’ll be happy to leave you to your own beliefs and stick with mine till I find something better.

@Paradox25 – I’ve heard these anecdotes a thousand times and it’s a shame that many of the zealous American Christians behave that way. As a European my experience has been different.

@mattbrowne That’s the problem that I have with mainstream Christianity and many self-proclaimed Christians, the fact that they’re obsessed with trying to prove that their religion, god, savior, beliefs are the ‘correct’ ones. Ironically I can find many Christian websites that constantly belittle other religions or beliefs, but with the exception of some Muslim and secular sites it is very rare that I find religions of eastern or western mystical persuation taking potshots at Christianity.

@ETpro Those Biblical prophesies have already been debunked, so I’m rather surprised that many religionists still use them. Perhaps it’s because the entire foundation of the religion falls apart if an omnipotent God can’t make accurate predictions. The philosophy that many Christians preach doesn’t make sense to me either, but yet they’re attacking Buddhism as being nonsensical?!

This site agrees with my own reasons why Christianity (most strains of it) are illogical. An omnipotent God who puts entities into existence against their freewill, to only have them go to hell by default if they don’t believe the ‘correct’ religious fable. It’s also very obvious that this God (don’t forget He’s supposed to be omnipotent) has put every obstacle in the way to ensure that most will go to hell. A loving God would not throw people in hell for eternity, but actually the Bible doesn’t even teach the doctrine of eternal hell and yet many religionists will not attempt to question this. What’s frightening about my latter statement is that it seems many Christians want to believe that there’s an eternal hell, and that mindset scares me.

@ETpro well my point is that however anyone believes we got here we are here, and we got here from a supreme being meaning the organism that put us here is supreme to us because it is our creator after that we have just evolved. How we got here is subject to debate, but your answer is no better than mine. And that is where the true fallacy lies.

“How do you know that you can’t get something from nothing?” That question is basic logic, magicians have longed to perform real acts but have proven to only base their illusions on this very principle, it’s why they are illusionists, because something from nothing goes against basic human logic. So considering that I am trying to say that christianity to me is the most logical.

Of course the idea that we now have knowledge is the reason why we question everything. Maybe this is “hell”.

@Paradox25 Yes I know. For an omniscient, omnipotent being, Yahweh is curiously wrong about almost everything he supposedly shares with mankind. Given the fact that cause and effect do not routinely get overruled, I am left to conclude that if there is a deity, it’s more of the watchmaker style the deists posited. And they only needed that deity as a God of the Gaps, to “take care of” those natural phenomena they had not, at that time, managed to understand. With ever new scientific advance, the god of the gaps gets smaller.

@nofurbelowsbatgirl Call the first single cell life in some primordial sea God if you wish. But a prokaryote doesn’t come anywhere close to being an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being. However abiogenesis occurred, there’s absolutely no evidence to connect it to causation of the Big Bang. It happened billions of years after the Big Bang.

Christianity isn’t even remotely related to logic. It is a belief system entirely based in things that are untestable and held to be true only by faith. I’d think you would want to know why there were so many wildly different forms of Christianity in the 1st and 2nd century, and the stuff you believe as straight from the mouth of Jesus actually has much more to do with the Roman Emperor Constantine’s need to weld a single, cohesive religious experience to consolidate his power over a fractious empire.

Regarding something from nothing, your “logic” is nothing but bias. You think that it’s impossible to get something from nothing, but you also think God can come from nothing or exist forever, both of which the “logic” you claim to be applying will not allow. In truth, you do not know that something from nothing is impossible. In truth, quantum physics has established that something from nothing is not only possible, it MUST happen.

I hope you will take at least 18 minutes to listen to this discussion of Something from Nothing. If you can spate the time, listen to the full lecture from the Origins Project.

@ETpro “But a prokaryote doesn’t come anywhere close to being an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being.” And that is your belief.

I haven’t got the time to watch the video right now.

“Regarding something from nothing, your “logic” is nothing but bias. You think that it’s impossible to get something from nothing, but you also think God can come from nothing or exist forever, both of which the “logic” you claim to be applying will not allow. In truth, youdo not know that something from nothing is impossible. In truth, quantum physics has established that something from nothing is not only possible, it MUST happen.”
So therefore if it MUST HAPPEN then everything you just in fact dismissed could be a possibility.

So what you are really saying is that you just made my case for me. OK.

@nofurbelowsbatgirl So what you are really saying is that you just made my case for me. OK.. No. EIther reread my post and take time to watch the video, or I will assume your use of such illogical, contrary to the facts responses indicates you cannot or won’t bother to respond in a rational fashion; and if that the case, I have better uses for my time.

I haven’t have the 18 extra minutes to watch the video.

But honestly now I feel like you are just being self righteous and sanctimonious.

I say, something from nothing goes against basic human logic.

You say, “In truth, you do not know that something from nothing is impossible.

“In truth, quantum physics has established that something from nothing is not only possible, it MUST happen.”

Nope, nothing to misunderstand there.

So does this 18 min video that rules out that something from nothing must happen therefore actually rule out that the first initial being that created us could not be who Christianity says He is??

I mean since something MUST come from nothing
and all *then it MUST not be nearly as impossible as you make it to be.*  God could be the something that came from nothing that created us.

So therefore I say you are making my case, you may think it is illogical, but I think the idea that people need to drink milk is illogical, of course if you drink milk you might think you need to and that my idea that I do not need to is illogical, but in fact humans are the only mammals who still drink other mammals milk after they have been weaned.  
I don’t drink milk, and I haven’t in years and my bones are strong.  So my argument is just as strong, pun intended.

My belief to you may be illogical but everything is illogical since we are not omniscient so then it becomes a battle of wits.  You can call my belief illogical/lacking sense because it doesn’t make sense to you as I can call the idea of drinking milk illogical to me.

Like, how many chimpanzees will line up at the local farm to suck on a cow udder?   
Since we are constantly evolving and have knowledge, the masses should be making more logical choices instead of less,  yet knowledge has made things more illogical until you look at our closest relatives the chimps and the bonobos, but really our extreme knowledge of things just keeps changing the original “idea” and so what is will never be, and because we are too smart for our own good, there apparently is never going to be a real definite answer.

@nofurbelowsbatgirl You already know that while you cannot prove God by science, science cannot disprove God. That has NOTHING to do with the false theistic argument that God must exist because you can’t get something from nothing. It you can’t get something from nothing, where did God come from? If God could have existed eternally, why can’t the Universe have existed eternally. The argument is utterly illogical.

The fact that something can come from nothing proves only that elemental particles can come from nothing, not that a supernatural deity outside the universe could emerge from nothing. We have observed elemental particles poofing into existence. We KNOW it happens. We have not observed supreme beings poofing into existence. We DO NOT KNOW it can happen. That’s a huge difference.

“Everything is illogical since we are not omniscient.” So we should just give up thinking then? Why not worship Odin then, or Zeus? You clearly don’t really believe that. You are just cranking out tripe trying to make yourself right.

@ETpro OK. So now you’re taking back the argument about something from nothing “MUST” happen, because you are talking about particles. I already knew that. How do we know that God wasn’t a particle? I suppose your answer will be “because you haven’t observed supreme beings poofing into existence.” But again my faith backs up the reason why you haven’t seen Him.

Anyway we know He doesn’t poof onto particles because we have observed that as you have said. Therefore something from nothing still holds and you’re question “where did God come from” is a loaded flawed question like asking me “what color does red smell like?”

God to me God is not in the category of things that are caused or created and I’m not going to explain it any further because it needs no explanation.

I’m not trying to make myself right, maybe that’s how you see it but I have no other intentions but to simply try to explain myself the best way I know how.

My belief may be illogical to you but the fact that you don’t mind having an answer to things and just more questions that you may or may not know the answers to seems illogical to me. I mean up until the discovery of “Ardi”, Lucy was our oldest human ancestor. But it will change again at some point.

I’m fighting for equality here. It’s not about who’s right or who has the better argument. It’s the fact that both choices are equal. It can be within those choices whether or not there is logical fallacy in the arguments but I’m not arguing logical fallacy. So you cannot tell me my choice is illogical because in fact your choice is also illogical because you don’t have all the answers.

So again my choice to you may be illogical but for me christianity is the most logical explanation. Where for you a logical explanation may be to search for answers and since we always search we always override the last answer with another answer so we never really have an answer, which to me is illogical since I can find all the answers I need to know within my faith.

For now you only know “right nows” answer which is subject to change in the future again and again and I guess that is OK for you, but it is illogical for me.

I tire of the spin. Never mind.