Your religious affiliation, or lack thereof, and why?

[West Tristania]

I am a Protestant Christian of no particular denomination.

[Dyakovo]

The "and worship him" is extremely heavily implied when someone says they "believe in <insert specific deity here>".

….Evidently that's not always the case, as shown in my example.

All that you've shown is that you're capable of being needlessly pedantic.

[The Brethren Court]

No, I do not think it is acceptable. I believe the Law was fulfilled when Jesus was sacrificed, and thus the new doctrine was established. Ephesians is in the New Testament, btw.

Slavery only became bad after Jesus's death?

In neither testament was it said you had to accept slavery. It is possible that slavery entered the Law the same way Divorce did, by the people of Israel, and Moses giving in to them.

[Neutraligon]

Slavery only became bad after Jesus's death?

In neither testament was it said you had to accept slavery. It is possible that slavery entered the Law the same way Divorce did, by the people of Israel, and Moses giving in to them.

And your scriptural support of this is? And considering the Old testament was supposedly dictated by god... God ordered slavery in the old testament.

[MERIZoC]

….Evidently that's not always the case, as shown in my example.

All that you've shown is that you're capable of being needlessly pedantic.

How about you actually address my points?

[Fanosolia]

….Evidently that's not always the case, as shown in my example.

All that you've shown is that you're capable of being needlessly pedantic.

or you know... showing the exception to the rule?

[Conscentia]

Slavery only became bad after Jesus's death?

In neither testament was it said you had to accept slavery. It is possible that slavery entered the Law the same way Divorce did, by the people of Israel, and Moses giving in to them.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html

[Rostogovia]

Agnostic, though I believe in the animistic concept of a collective divine shared by all people.

[Zottistan]

And? "The Devil" is part of christian mythology.

…..So my point is that you can believe in something, but not worship it. Isn't that pretty obvious?

Theism is defined as belief in a god, not necessarily worship of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

[MERIZoC]

…..So my point is that you can believe in something, but not worship it. Isn't that pretty obvious?

Theism is defined as belief in a god, not necessarily worship of it.

But what about Christianity? That was what the debate was over. Are you considered Christian if you believe in God, but don't worship him?

[Neutraligon]

Agnostic, though I believe in the animistic concept of a collective divine shared by all people.

Sounds like agnostic theist.

[Zottistan]

Theism is defined as belief in a god, not necessarily worship of it.

But what about Christianity? That was what the debate was over. Are you considered Christian if you believe in God, but don't worship him?

Sorry, thought this was a different topic. What I posted was completely irrelevant. Woops.

Yeah, you can believe in Christ and the Christian god without following the teachings of Christ, thus not being a Christian.

[MERIZoC]

But what about Christianity? That was what the debate was over. Are you considered Christian if you believe in God, but don't worship him?

Sorry, thought this was a different topic. What I posted was completely irrelevant. Woops.

Yeah, you can believe in Christ and the Christian god without following the teachings of Christ, thus not being a Christian.

S'okay. Just make sure it doesn't happen again….or else.

[Dyakovo]

All that you've shown is that you're capable of being needlessly pedantic.

How about you actually address my points?

I did.

[West Tristania]

Agnostic, though I believe in the animistic concept of a collective divine shared by all people.

What is this "collective divine" your talking about?

[Dyakovo]

Agnostic, though I believe in the animistic concept of a collective divine shared by all people.

What is this "collective divine" your talking about?

All the deities have gathered together in a commune.
*nods*

[Fanosolia]

What is this "collective divine" your talking about?

All the deities have gathered together in a commune.
*nods*

I always joked there was a council of deities XD

[MERIZoC]

How about you actually address my points?

I did.

No, you didn't. Again, how can somebody who believes in God, but doesn't worship him, be considered a Christian, when there are people who believe in Satan, but aren't Satanists?

[Rhursbourg]

Nonconformist

[Vendee-Anjou]

What exactly is the "evidence" for atheism?

Burden of proof is on the theist to prove the existence of god.

Perhaps, but when someone mentions "actual evidence" they are assuming the burden of proof, aren't they?

[Big Jim P]

Burden of proof is on the theist to prove the existence of god.

Perhaps, but when someone mentions "actual evidence" they are assuming the burden of proof, aren't they?

And I was kind enough top provide the evidence.

[Vendee-Anjou]

What exactly is the "evidence" for atheism?

The evidence for atheism is the complete lack of evidence for theism.

That is not evidence. "You cannot prove A, so not-A must be true." That is a logical fallacy.

[MERIZoC]

Burden of proof is on the theist to prove the existence of god.

Perhaps, but when someone mentions "actual evidence" they are assuming the burden of proof, aren't they?

Atheists don't claim to prove anything anymore than people who don't believe in an orbital teapot claim to prove anything.

[Dyakovo]

Burden of proof is on the theist to prove the existence of god.

Perhaps, but when someone mentions "actual evidence" they are assuming the burden of proof, aren't they?

No.

[Vendee-Anjou]

What exactly is the "evidence" for atheism?

The complete lack of evidence for Theism, plus the fact that Physicists trying to see the conditions of the early Universe, occurring right after the Big Bang have found that all the conditions can be explained by the Laws of Physics.

Source: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xw5m4j ... verse_tech

1. Complete lack of evidence for something is not positive evidence for its opposite.
2. I took a look at the video (I confess I did not watch the whole thing). I got the part about physicists seeing an inexplicable "mechanism" underlying the universe as an alternative to positing the existence of an intelligent Supreme Being. But all this proves is that God is no longer a necessary hypothesis for the existence of the universe. It is still not evidence for the non-existence of God (which is what the original poster asserted).