This was posted on my page from a girl I went to high school with....She said. "I have struggled to understand this for a long time...A man rejects God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the scarcity of evidence. A man rejects God because of a moral resistance that refuses to admit his need for God......Well said Ravi Zacharias..." How would YOU respond to this? Would you respond to this?
Wow. That's actually a really good answer.
Simple. A person accepts god because they can't seem to grow out of children tales..
@Belle Rose - ALL religions teach women to submit -just one of the reasons they are all shite. It is where the women then sprout the same nonsense, and say it is thir idea. That is when it gets really scary.
A moral resistance - I started to watch a movie about the bible - and had to turn it off - it was where Samson was having his eyes gouged out - and christians talk about morals and ethics - give me a break. Just cherry pick the bible, the same way they do. I just refuse to follow such a venguful, viscious god.
ALL religions teach women to submit -just one of the reasons they are all shite
I found that out the hard way I suppose.
I would respond that I don't get my sense of morality from a system promoting reward/punishment such as heaven/hell. I would also say that I do not submit to a dictator even if said dictator is celestial.
I have struggled to understand this for a long time: A man accepts God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the weight of evidence; a man accepts God because of moral insecurity that refuses to admit his need for reason and courage. Well said, people who say specious things.
Tell her you are a follower of Deepak Chopra who says Ravi Zacharias is the love child of Satan and a Black Hole....or....don't waste what little life you have on idiots.
Get out and enjoy life, it's a blast. :)
Ask her why Jesus exists but Santa Clause doesn't. To be honest I'd rather believe in Santa than Jesus or god.
Same way I tell everybody to respond to religious retards: delete them. Why have these halfwit lunatics on your friends list anyway? It's like having an open pedophile who occasionally posts stuff like "Just bumfucked my 4yo niece, #bestdayever." You wouldn't come here for advice, you'd delete that creep. Same thing.
"I have struggled to understand this for a long time...A man rejects God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the scarcity of evidence. A man rejects God because of a moral resistance that refuses to admit his need for God......Well said Ravi Zacharias..."How would YOU respond to this? Would you respond to this?
With the usual laughter. This Ravi Zacharias is telling atheists what we believe and why? There is nothing profound here to "struggle to understand". It's feeble, childish nonsense.
Zacharias has no legitimate response to demands for intellectual honesty and evidence for God. So he tosses them aside-- effectively denying they are required-- and delivers an illegitimate response instead. He projects a hallucinatory and circular 'denial of the need for God' (whatever that means) onto atheists, which contains the built-in premise that God is necessary (so never you mind that pesky evidence and intellectual honesty).
This is pretty routine stuff, Katie. File it under "denial" and "irrelevance and obfuscation" below.
Crackpot: God exists!
Me: Evidence, please.
Crackpot: There is none.
Me: I don't believe you.
That is why I am an atheist. That's all it is. The rest is just the crackpot employing some bit of dishonesty to obfuscate or deny it.
He'll shift the burden of evidence onto me. ("Prove God doesn't exist!").
He'll claim to have evidence when he does not. ("Lookee here! Purely abstract mathematics! That's evidence!").
He'll say he doesn't need evidence ("God is too big for evidence!")
He'll completely ignore the request for evidence and won't respond at all. (This is very popular.)
He'll restate the request for evidence as an accusation or insult. ("You hate God!" "How dare you question my faith!")
He'll respond with irrelevance and obfuscation. ("You refuse to admit your need for God!")
And on and on and on. Anything but evidence!
There is no case to be made about the existence of God. There is nothing to debate, nothing to consider: no evidence, no data, not a shred of the scientific whatsoever. The rest is just the outraged caterwauling of the crackpot, desperately insisting that any such "debate" over God exists at all.