Christian standards of proof?

Question

God:
We have no proof of God outside of the word of an authority figure (the Bible), yet Christians accept that God exists.

Okay. But...

We had no proof of Iraqi WMDs outside of the word of an authority figure (GWB), and Christians accept that they existed.

If atheists were in charge, do you think we would still be at war in Iraq?

Cookyduster, the majority of those who supported our entrence into the war in Iraq were Christian. That is not to say that there were not plenty of Christians against it, but most of those were not of the Evangelical / Pentecostal persuasion, meaning that they do not accept any form of manifest destiny.

Lucid, did not Tony Blair bond with GWB over their Christian faith?

To those bringing up the chemical weaponry in pre-gulf 1 Iraq, why don't we go back and look at Hans Blicks findings in the months prior to Gulf 2?

Answer 1

Well, I think there are definitely certain analogies to be drawn between the manifold failures of Mr. Bush and the "religious" mentality: the reluctance to accept "facts on the ground" that didn't jibe with his theory, the distaste for science, the belief that God endorsed his vision, the reliance on scare-tactic threats and sentimental pleas (note that "fire side" actually believes the line about "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here"), etc etc.

Answer 2

come on now, you have generalized a weak point.

are you honestly going to feel that God does not exist and ALL Christians believe in something that doesn't exist, because of WMD's that were not there?

Then why didn't the Atheist of the world stand up as one and holler the truth?

Most of the protesters believe in a Higher Power.

How do you expect Atheist to understand a political system that is religious based (Islam), which what Iraq is, and then deal with them and say, "there is no god, so get over it!".

They are mad enough now, and there are probably those that may even concur that Allah and God are the same. So their might be a platform to build on. Unfortunately, those people will not seek nor obtain political office, simply because they are not that immoral to sell out for gain in the political arena.

Now, if your suggesting that Atheists would push the red button quicker? Then there probably would not have been a world around in the year 2001, when this mess really got out of hand.

Answer 3

Sweety, Saddam Hussein refused to comply with UN regulated inspections for nuclear weapons, the same inspections all nuke-carrying countries (including the US) do regularly. This was reason enough to believe that Saddam Hussein either had nukes or at least wanted the world to believe that he did. Considering the fact that he has killed thousands of his own people using chemical and biological weapons, Saddam himself has proved to be a weapon of mass destruction. He was given a few days notice of the weapons inspections, where they would be looking and all that good stuff. IF he did have WMDs and wanted to keep them hidden, would it not make sense for him to have removed these weapons before the inspectors arrived? Even if he had no nukes, he certainly had been mixed up in chemical and biological weapons. hje had used them many times before. He had plants in Iraq which produced ricin, which would most likely be used as a weapon (unless he was starting a huge business selling lamp oil). He was becoming an increasing global threat and needed to be removed from power. Many Iraqi people wanted him out and are greatful to the US and other nations who went into their country and removed him from power. After his departure, the state of Iraq was without leadership, and a few different groups (gangs) have been attempting to take over ever since. This is obviously no longer about WMDs and has not been for quite a while now. This is about establishing order in Iraq as well as building up a functional system of government, something that cannot be done over night. You cannot just walk into a country, yank out their leader, and expect everything to be ok afterwards. They need time to rebuild and restructure.

As intelligent and logical as most atheists are, many of them seem to fail to understand this concept when it comes to application outside of theism vs atheism. We went there to address one problem, and another one popped up while we were there that we had to deal with. This is not rocket science!!

IF atheists were in charge, I would certainly hope it was atheists who could think things through and develop realistic goals and expectations. I think we would be in even worse shape if the liberals were in charge, atheist or not.

Answer 4

My dear, forgive me for doing this, please don't be TOOO deeply offended by it, but you are tearing down straw men.

You concept is sadly mistaken, and you have been sold a "bill of goods". You bought the lie, hook, line, and sinker, as they say.

You see, there is plenty of evidence for God's existence. The Bible describes what God is like, but it is not the proof. The Bible never even makes the attempt to prove God. It just starts right off with "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".

Of course, there is some very mind boggling evidence that the Bible was written by an infinite Being whose existence transcends time, but this evidence is too big for this space. But if you had the opportunity to read it, I'm certain you would see this for yourself, whether or not you respond to it.

Sherlock Holmes said something like, "When searching for a solution to a problem, once you've removed all the impossible answers, then whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the solution."

The alternate to God and creation is a random accident so infinitely impossible, it makes me laugh to think about it.

For instance, when you study the living cell, and you look into the mechanics of such things as the mitochondria, DNA, RNA, protein and protein synthesis, the way the cell replicates itself, etc, you see order and design at a greater level then - say - a Cray supercomputer.

That is to say, a Cray is not nearly as complex as DNA, et al. We know that the Cray was not the results of an accident in a parts supply store, and yet we think that the complexity of the DNA, etc, was the result of an accident of nature!

Please, study the science. Do your own investigation. Find out exactly how the mitochondria converts raw materials into usable energy for the cell.

Also, study such things as entropy (simply stated, we are moving from order to chaos), and the laws that govern the distribution and flow of energy from a high-level source to a lower state. (This is called the laws of thermodynamics).

In both cases, the laws of science defy the theory of evolution.

Evolution is neither scientific, nor logical. In fact, the very theory originated from a faulty understanding of science.

Charles Darwin believed (wrongly) that the the cell was the smallest divisible part of a living thing. He believed that the cell was composed of a fluid he referred to as an "ambiotic" fluid. He believed that when the foetus was still in the mother's womb, that these "undesignated" cells could be changed, that forces of the external environment could change the final outcome of the cell's status. (I'm trying to use non-scientific terms to explain what he considered scientific, so this explanation will fall short of Darwin's terminology. I want this to be readable by anybody.)

How was his science faulty? We now know that the cell can be yet divided into even more details.

Again, as I already suggested, study the mitochondria and how it converts raw materials into usable energy for the cell. When you begin to understand the mechanism involved, you will realize that it flies in the face of evolution.

Study the DNA and the double-helix strand, how it unwinds, splits, duplicates itself, then comes back together and winds itself up again. Does evolution take THAT into account? of course not!

Study the protein, and how it is reproduced in the cell.

You see, evolution is not scientifically sound.

And, as I pointed out already, once you've eliminated the impossible (ie evolution), then whatever is remaining (that "God created the heavens and the earth"), while improbable, is the answer.

Answer 5

You consistently mistake X-ians for Christ-ians;
Hence you are as "know not" as know not X-ians.
You also qualify for forgive "them", they know not;
Also qualify for them who "oppose them-selves",
a mental dis-order you may recover from, by study.

Those in charge are actually atheists, like unto you;
For the God they trust: Law, is a Phantom Menace.

Once law is given no place, it has no authority at all.
That I have oft proven, every which way to Sunday.

Mean while, if any man be ignorant, "let him" (not you) be.
And if any bring another gospel, let him be accursed by it.
It won't change the end of the God shew already written,
but will make what's evident from evidence more evident:
that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God: Gal 3.

The GRACE of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.

Answer 6

Just one point.....
Japan, South Korea, and Pakistan also were part of searching for the WMD's.

If stopping a regime that killed millions of his own people is wrong, and Atheists were in charge, would the killing still be going on?

Get A Grip and some facts instead of accusing.

Get A Grip

Answer 7

yes, the main cause of all wars is some form of greed or pride, and the Council of Forgien Relations, and the Zionist of Israel will still desire war. War is profits for many high powerful people. Atheist would do no better then whats going on now since our leadership is more like puppets, and our judges paid for

Answer 8

Bad analogy. Two US presidents and intelligence of several of our allies - including Germany and France, who opposed the war - concluded WMDs were there.

What does this have to do with one's religion? Atheists may very have decided to invade Iraq, under the same pretense. How do you know they would not?

.

Answer 9

Excuse me, but we had more than ample proof of Iraq having wmd's besides what Bush said.

If they did not have such weapons, then would you mind explaining how hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq were killed almost instantaneously in one town? This is all well documented. Sounds like you are in denial.

They were all gassed. If it causes mass destruction of life, it is a wmd.

Get real.

I see you are just another gullible person easily swayed by the media and the liberal left.

.
.

Answer 10

What doe's the war in Iraq has to do with christians.