Changes

By the way - who can explain the correlation between "smoking" and "accepting the Lord" to me? I just don't get it. --[[User:NukNuk|NukNuk]] 10:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

By the way - who can explain the correlation between "smoking" and "accepting the Lord" to me? I just don't get it. --[[User:NukNuk|NukNuk]] 10:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that the correlation is quite weak, because not all smokers do quit, and in fact quite a large number continue until it kills them. However with atheism, it does no harm to you, and quite a lot of good. I say this from personal experience, and to suggest that there is no such thing as free will makes a mockery of life in general. I quite liked Terryoe's simple experiment to prove that there is such a thing as free will. However i do sympathise with Flippin as he obviously feels threatened by the arguements put forward by some of the atheist/agnostics here and perhaps he does not have the same training in logic to successfully rebut these claims. This is not an insult to Flippin, it is very common for people to misunderstand logic. But i think that to claim that free will does not exist is simply very unintelligent. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:32, 19 April 2007

I think that the correlation is quite weak, because not all smokers do quit, and in fact quite a large number continue until it kills them. However with atheism, it does no harm to you, and quite a lot of good. I say this from personal experience, and to suggest that there is no such thing as free will makes a mockery of life in general. I quite liked Terryoe's simple experiment to prove that there is such a thing as free will. However i do sympathise with Flippin as he obviously feels threatened by the arguements put forward by some of the atheist/agnostics here and perhaps he does not have the same training in logic to successfully rebut these claims. This is not an insult to Flippin, it is very common for people to misunderstand logic. But i think that to claim that free will does not exist is simply very unintelligent. Bolly Ottihw]] 21:32, 19 April 2007

==Evidence vs. Belief==

==Evidence vs. Belief==

So there are naturalistic explanations for natural disasters so to show that a natural disaster is an act of god I guess the burden of proof would fall on those believing it was god that influenced the event.  My challenge is how do you prove that the disaster was caused by god and not by a naturalistic means?  Are lightning strikes caused by god?  If so then why waste energy to cast the bolts randomly across the earth and in between the clouds?  Does god only take the reigns of a natural disaster when humans are involved?  If this is the case then how do you prove this?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

So there are naturalistic explanations for natural disasters so to show that a natural disaster is an act of god I guess the burden of proof would fall on those believing it was god that influenced the event.  My challenge is how do you prove that the disaster was caused by god and not by a naturalistic means?  Are lightning strikes caused by god?  If so then why waste energy to cast the bolts randomly across the earth and in between the clouds?  Does god only take the reigns of a natural disaster when humans are involved?  If this is the case then how do you prove this?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)