I actually have no need to prove anything to you because you are not really interested to learn. You are just interested to talk us down. I am not eager to get into quarrels with atheists because that's not the point of Christianity at all. So unless you can point specifically to something that you disagree with, I can share some things with you, provided you are willing to come to the table and look at the findings objectively.

That very much depends on what kind of evidence you claim you have seen. From experience, people who claim they have seen evidence actually have not done adequate research, let alone legitimate ones to talk about this. So, unless you have something concrete for us to examine, then there's no need to go further.

1. It has clout because it was in text when other religions were only spoken.

a) It doesn't have clout because it was written. It has "clout" because it is the written word of God.

b) Before the Bible came into current form, ancient biblical traditions were also orally passed down, until the Jews realised that they needed to write it down so that they can refer to it for fear that they will forget God's commandments and fall into trouble.

It's a common misconception that other religions do not have religious texts. But they do. The Hindus have the Bhagavad Gita and the Veda; the Buddhist have their own scriptures; Islam have their Quran. The only difference is that they can add supplemental texts to their main texts, whereas the Christian Bible does not allow any other forms of supplemental texts.

2. But it’s outdated.

The values and principles found in the Bible are timeless. The Bible also clearly reflects the human condition, which is also timeless, expressed in different eras. Things are not much different now than it was before, hence the perceived cruelty and violence found in the Bible. The Bible hence gives a handle on what God expects.

3. It comes from a broken nation.

Sure. What significance is this statement to be?

4. We were Pagan much longer.

I don't understand.

5. It doesn’t apply to posthuman problems.

Refer points #1 & #2.

6. I say we give it enough respect for a proper burial, then on to the future spirituality.

Honestly, I'd like to see you try. The Bible has survived since the ancient times and has kept to the accuracy of the message even today. Nothing - no situation or persons - has been able to thwart the dissemination of the Word, so you can try. But there is no doubt that there is no way to eliminate the work and Word of God.

What you just said is a self-refuting argument. Based on your logic, you are either correct or wrong. Nothing in your statement points to any form of facts or that you are correct. Your statement is also merely an opinion of yours. If you have proof, pls substantiate.

Whether that is true or not, that is not the point. Pls don't pick on fine details and distract from the main argument that is on "responsibility".

Yes, I agree that the idea of free speech is overrated. But responsibility is common sense, regardless of what ideology is out there. The methods to forming an opinion (well-formed) or developing a sound argument is timeless. One just doesn't simply "say things" out of feelings or thin air, and one doesn't always need to voice an opinion; you certainly are entitled to your opinions, but nowhere in the any discipline of academy or anywhere at work compels you to speak without filtering, or thinking through. Just because one feels strongly about something, doesn't mean it is right or that it needs to be said. Situation, circumstances help us discern when and whether to.

Free speech is not about saying whatever one wants. Free speech constitutes responsible speech.

Please don't shut down the site. This is a good platform to talk about things. The rules you just laid down are good. I hope the members here will abide by them. Thanks for this site.

This topic should not be done as a "yes" or "no" debate because the answer is not that straightforward. So even though I put my argument here, it doesn't mean it's an

absolute stand.

Studies have shown that those who are genetically predisposed to certain addictive behaviours (eg. alcoholism, drugs from parents who have given in to these behaviours) don't necessarily pick it up.

A person who tries out drugs or alcohol don't always become an addict. But the person took the first step.

So in short, if we see it from this angle, then yes - addiction is a choice.

However, those studies also show that addiction in certain people changes the brain activity. Such substances causes a sense of happiness/pleasure that the brain remembers. It causes the brain to keep desiring for the substances in order to replicate the sensation. As they give in, the desire increases and so gradually, it consumes them.

This means that addiction is not always a matter of choice.

If they were able to hold off when the desire for the substance was weaker, they might have a chance not to become addicted. But it's not always that easy.

Let me try and make this more relatable.

it has been argued that all of us are addicts to something in some sense of the word. As long as anything creates a desire within us that makes us crave for more, it can be seen as a form of addiction in that sense. Think the gamer who spends an excessive amount of time playing games, spending money, forgoing normal daily activities or responsibilities, or social media, or shopping, or food, or losing weight, etc. Note that I am referring to cases where it becomes debilitating to the daily life.

Can the gamer choose not to be addicted? First, in order to choose, one needs to know that they have the choice and that they need to make the choice not to be addicted. Are they even aware that they are addicted? If they don't, they would not need to make another choice since the current activity brings them the desired pleasure they crave.

By the time, they get to the point where they know they are in trouble, it usually means that they are in so deep that it is no longer that easy to just cut off from it. By that time, it is no longer a choice; their brains are on autopilot and pretty much demanding for the person to fulfill that desire for pleasure no matter the cost.

Some things in life are not really that definite. One needs to be careful when interacting with addicts or handling the issue of addictions.

This would be a silly and juvenile premise for peace prize. It would be too simplistic to believe that a short meeting as such means anything at all. I think there leaves a lot yet to be seen. NK has been known to break their promises. Not that the effort by Trump is not to be credited, but it is also not wise to pop champagne and celebrate right now.

I think it was clear that Jack was not supportive of the same-gender marriage. But I agree that the gay couple's attitude might have added fuel to fire. The fact that they feel entitled enough to sue him over this says a lot more about them than Jack, really. There were many gays who didn't approve of what they did. Just as there are Christian "black sheep" who gives the impression that we are intolerant, this couple is the "black sheep" of the homosexual community, who makes it easier for people to push back against them.

They expect people to be tolerant towards them, yet they themselves are intolerant to those who are intolerant towards them. It's selfishness, not equality, that they are after.