I was curious to see how many people have been approached by others. Please hold for the poll.

Define "promoted".

Define "promoted".

I'd say it'd be promotion if someone said, "You should come to our church this Sunday" or "There is no God because....". :shrug: If you're just having a conversation debating things, I would not consider that promotion.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole God issue myself but I see no harm in religious people trying to get people to accept God into their lives. I believe religious people are happier and more content. I wish I had the ability to have faith, for some reason it didn't take with me. :lol:

However, if some freakin' atheist came up and tried to undo my kid's fledgling belief in God I'd kick them right in the ass. :mad: I want my children to have the opportunity to have faith and belief without some pissy nutcase with an axe to grind trying to undo the faith and morals I'm trying to ensue they get.

I was curious because of a comment this_person made in another thread. I've never had an atheist try to promote atheism. Ever. I've had TONS of believers try to promote their religion.


And Sonsie, I don't exactly agree with you that religious people are happier. :lmao:

I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole God issue myself but I see no harm in religious people trying to get people to accept God into their lives. I believe religious people are happier and more content. I wish I had the ability to have faith, for some reason it didn't take with me. :lol:

However, if some freakin' atheist came up and tried to undo my kid's fledgling belief in God I'd kick them right in the ass. :mad: I want my children to have the opportunity to have faith and belief without some pissy nutcase with an axe to grind trying to undo the faith and morals I'm trying to ensue they get.

I totally agree. I'm plenty, plenty faithful but people have totally turned me off towards any type of organized religion. I think promoting religion/faith or lack there of is the works of insecure people. Your faith is personal and if you feel the need to go out and recruit others to your cause it's only because your personal beliefs aren't as strong as you'd like to think they are and you need the support of others. It's not about making others "see the light" it's about making yourself feel better because someone else shares your views. That pendelum swings both ways.

God help anyone that tries to force either side down my kids throats. My youngest is in a daycare that sometimes has religious lessons. I'm fine with that because it's nothing over the top and more or less bible stories/lessons. I say prayers with them nightly because they are 4 and 7 and not old enough to do so one their own and I do want a belief in God enstilled in them. Plus it's good few minutes of quality time.

I was curious because of a comment this_person made in another thread. I've never had an atheist try to promote atheism. Ever. I've had TONS of believers try to promote their religion.


And Sonsie, I don't exactly agree with you that religious people are happier. :lmao:

I think trying to convince anyone of an opposing belief is promotion.

I think trying to convince anyone of an opposing belief is promotion.

I know that. That's why I made the poll. :smile: I wanted to see who's promoting what.

You forgot agnostic. :howdy:

I know that. That's why I made the poll. :smile: I wanted to see who's promoting what.

:stupid: Don't worry about me... I misread what you wrote.

I've had baptists hand me tracks and magazines promoting their faith while slamming the catholic church. I've had LDS and JW's knock on my door. I've experienced these things so many times that it has become diffult to be polite when tellling them I'm not interested. I've had believers try to convince me that I should believe the same as they do, as they quote scripture, while completely disregarding why I feel the way I do.

I have never had anyone hand me anything, or knock on my door, regarding atheism/agnosticism/etc.

I think trying to convince anyone of an opposing belief is promotion.

Based on that logic, I guess we all promote something that we believe in, whether it involves religion or not. I don't like smoked meat, vrai thinks all meat should be smoked. Who ya' gonna' listen to?

You forgot agnostic. :howdy:

:howdy: Sorry. I made this because of the other thread, which was mainly about atheists and believers.

Based on that logic, I guess we all promote something that we believe in, whether it involves religion or not. I don't like smoked meat, vrai thinks all meat should be smoked. Who ya' gonna' listen to?

The promotion part comes in when you're trying to convince each other that your way is the right way. I can only assume that you two are adults and respect the other one's opinion on meats. :lmao: Liking something is an opinion, trying to convince others to like the same thing is promotion.

Based on that logic, I guess we all promote something that we believe in, whether it involves religion or not. I don't like smoked meat, vrai thinks all meat should be smoked. Who ya' gonna' listen to?



I eat smoked meat. I LOVE smoked meat, and anyone who doesn't like smoked meat is going to fry in hell.








That's right - I went there.

:howdy: Sorry. I made this because of the other thread, which was mainly about atheists and believers.

:lol: Regardless, mAlice said it. Many religious orgs promote and preach, but I have never been talked to by an atheist. There is no group or gathering or "church" of atheism (that I'm aware of), so no concerted effort an any one individual's part to promote.

trying to convince others to like the same thing is promotion.


Kinda' like people telling me that I'll like venison, if I just try it the way they prepare it? I keep tryin' it, but I still don't like it. :shrug:

:lol: Regardless, mAlice said it. Many religious orgs promote and preach, but I have never been talked to by an atheist. There is no group or gathering or "church" of atheism (that I'm aware of), so no concerted effort an any one individual's part to promote.


There's one in SC, and I don't have a problem with them promoting it as long as they don't start standing on the side of the road handing out tracks and magazines, or knocking on doors. I'm perfectly fine with them putting a sign on the side of the road and letting people decide if they like to join in on the discussion.

I like to "promote" atheism online, or rather debate what I find to be rather foolish. I also like to provoke Christians online. However on the other hand, all 4 of my kids believe in God, and they go to church. They know daddy doesn't believe in God, but I'll let them come to their own conclusions without convincing them.

I was curious because of a comment this_person made in another thread. I've never had an atheist try to promote atheism. Ever. I've had TONS of believers try to promote their religion.


And Sonsie, I don't exactly agree with you that religious people are happier. :lmao:

How do religious Americans compare to the secular when it comes to happiness? In 2004, the General Social Survey asked a sample of Americans, "Would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?" Religious people were more than twice as likely as the secular to say they were "very happy" (43% to 21%). Meanwhile, secular people were nearly three times as likely as the religious to say they were not too happy (21% to 8%). In the same survey, religious people were more than a third more likely than the secular to say they were optimistic about the future (34% to 24%).

The happiness gap between religious and secular people is not because of money or other personal characteristics. Imagine two people who are identical in every important way--income, education, age, sex, family status, race and political views. The only difference is that the first person is religious; the second is secular. The religious person will still be 21 percentage points more likely than the secular person to say that he or she is very happy.

Researchers have found similar results in other countries, suggesting that the connection between happiness and faith probably doesn't depend on nationality. Nor does it depend on the particular faith practiced. The 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey shows that practicing Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims and people from other religions--even esoteric and New Age faiths--are all far more likely than secularists to say they are happy.

I've seen too many people change their lives and outlook by accepting God and believing they are not alone. From overcoming addiction to having a happier marriage the happy calmness of belief seems to work for many people. I think I'm just a little too type A and pugnacious for the whole religion thing. :lol:

I like to "promote" atheism online, or rather debate what I find to be rather foolish. I also like to provoke Christians online. However on the other hand, all 4 of my kids believe in God, and they go to church. They know daddy doesn't believe in God, but I'll let them come to their own conclusions without convincing them.


You would never try to provoke anyone.... :lmao: :huggy:

Kinda' like people telling me that I'll like venison, if I just try it the way they prepare it? I keep tryin' it, but I still don't like it. :shrug:

Exactly. I think that anyone that promotes anything knowing your opinion on something be it meat or God, or lack there of is rude and insecure. If you really believe in something yourself you don't need other people to believe with you. You can polietely give or discuss your side without being disrespectful of the other.

You forgot agnostic. :howdy:

This isn't for us. This poll is only for those who are dead set sure there is or is not.

:lol:

This isn't for us. This poll is only for those who are dead set sure there is or is not.

:lol:


Pfft:


Agnostics: Atheists who lack the stones to commit.

Pfft:


Agnostics: Atheists who lack the stones to commit.

:lmao:

I'm still lookin' for my Sunday mornin' atheist sermon.

I've seen too many people change their lives and outlook by accepting God and believing they are not alone. From overcoming addiction to having a happier marriage the happy calmness of belief seems to work for many people. I think I'm just a little too type A and pugnacious for the whole religion thing. :lol:

What about all the religious wars? :roflmao:

This isn't for us. This poll is only for those who are dead set sure there is or is not.

:lol:

I am positively absolutely 100% sure.... that I don't have the answer.

You would never try to provoke anyone.... :lmao: :huggy:

I'm getting better. :love:

I think promoting religion/faith or lack there of is the works of insecure people. Your faith is personal and if you feel the need to go out and recruit others to your cause it's only because your personal beliefs aren't as strong as you'd like to think they are and you need the support of others. It's not about making others "see the light" it's about making yourself feel better because someone else shares your views. That pendelum swings both ways.

I don't think that's it at all. In fact, quite the opposite. Fundamentally speaking [pun intended], people who have a high conviction that what the bible says is true, that believe that Christ died for the sins of man so that man won't go to hell, and that the command of Jesus to go share the gospel with every creature is a duty of every Christian, and they want to share that good news with others, are the ones going out knocking on doors. It has nothing to do with needing to have someone support their beliefs or needing to feeling better about it. It's just a message that need to be spread, like Jesus and the disciples did.

Exactly. I think that anyone that promotes anything knowing your opinion on something be it meat or God, or lack there of is rude and insecure. If you really believe in something yourself you don't need other people to believe with you. You can polietely give or discuss your side without being disrespectful of the other.

Then other times it reaches a point where politeness isn't doing the trick and you have to be down right rude to get someone to stop badgering you.

I'm still lookin' for my Sunday mornin' atheist sermon.




Hey people,

Much like last Sunday, there still ain't no god.


Not a sermon. Just a thought.








So, like, is that what you're looking for?

I'm getting better. :love:

Its cause you're way happier and stuff. Not to mention you have a better place to get your rocks off now.:diva: :love:

I don't think that's it at all. In fact, quite the opposite. Fundamentally speaking [pun intended], people who have a high conviction that what the bible says is true, that believe that Christ died for the sins of man so that man won't go to hell, and that the command of Jesus to go share the gospel with every creature is a duty of every Christian, and they want to share that good news with others, are the ones going out knocking on doors. It has nothing to do with needing to have someone support their beliefs or needing to feeling better about it. It's just a message that need to be spread, like Jesus and the disciples did.


How convenient that you have an excuse to badger people.

I am positively absolutely 100% sure.... that I don't have the answer.

I have the answer; I don't know. I am sure of it. :lol:

I also know they don't know.

I don't think that's it at all. In fact, quite the opposite. Fundamentally speaking [pun intended], people who have a high conviction that what the bible says is true, that believe that Christ died for the sins of man so that man won't go to hell, and that the command of Jesus to go share the gospel with every creature is a duty of every Christian, and they want to share that good news with others, are the ones going out knocking on doors. It has nothing to do with needing to have someone support their beliefs or needing to feeling better about it. It's just a message that need to be spread, like Jesus and the disciples did.

Its one thing if that's what they believe. But how many of them "really" believe that? I can't say and neither can you. It's my opinion. It's also one thing to go out and share what you believe it's another to try to "convince" someone who doesn't want to be convinced. That's where the insecurity in belief comes in. I'm of the opinion that more than less of the people going out door to door don't have faith as strong as they'd like you to believe. Again, my opinion.

they want to share that good news with others, are the ones going out knocking on doors. It has nothing to do with needing to have someone support their beliefs or needing to feeling better about it. It's just a message that need to be spread, like Jesus and the disciples did.

:eyebrow: I find it odd that they just want to "share the good news."

What about all the religious wars? :roflmao:

What about them? Are you speaking of the crusades? I'm talking about current systems of belief. Christianity isn't exactly aggressively expanding it's influence by war and conquest. If anything it's doing it by medical care and charity along with it's missionary message of love and redemption.

I have the answer; I don't know. I am sure of it. :lol:

I also know they don't know.


Agnostic: I don't know.

Militant Agnostic: I don't know... AND NEITHER DO YOU!!!0






I'm gonna start a collection of Agnostic Jokes.

I effed up the poll because I'm too stupid to read that it's multiple choice.

What about them? Are you speaking of the crusades? I'm talking about current systems of belief. Christianity isn't exactly aggressively expanding it's influence by war and conquest. If anything it's doing it by medical care and charity along with it's missionary message of love and redemption.

It was just a joke. :shrug:

It was just a joke. :shrug:

Oh, sorry. I was a little slow on the uptake there. :smile:

I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole God issue myself but I see no harm in religious people trying to get people to accept God into their lives. I believe religious people are happier and more content. I wish I had the ability to have faith, for some reason it didn't take with me. :lol:

However, if some freakin' atheist came up and tried to undo my kid's fledgling belief in God I'd kick them right in the ass. :mad: I want my children to have the opportunity to have faith and belief without some pissy nutcase with an axe to grind trying to undo the faith and morals I'm trying to ensue they get.

It's not faith and belief if it's the ONLY thing they've been told their entire lives.

Heaven forbid (get the irony??) that your children get a complete education with ALL the facts, and when the time comes they can make in informed decision.

I would NEVER approach someones child to promote either religion or atheism as it's the parents business, but to shut off your child to the whole story, and only sharing them the one acceptable to you isn't doing your child justice, and their belief wouldn't be based on faith.

How can it be faith if it's the only thing they know?? I think that would more fit the brainwashing model then the faith model.

And BTW, my children have had religious education, and know the Bible stories, have read the bible.. I don't have that much hate in me to keep them sheltered from the rest of the world, and I know I've raised smart kids that can make up their own minds if given all the information to be able to do so.

I have the answer; I don't know. I am sure of it. :lol:

I also know they don't know.

And therein lies the debate.

What about them? Are you speaking of the crusades? I'm talking about current systems of belief. Christianity isn't exactly aggressively expanding it's influence by war and conquest. If anything it's doing it by medical care and charity along with it's missionary message of love and redemption.

WOW, the same model the Taliban, AL Queada, and even the Drug Lords in South America use.

AMazing how many suicide bombers a community can produce if you do the EXACT same things., it's proper term is RECRUITING!!

How convenient that you have an excuse to badger people.

Do you think it's easy to go and knock on doors of people you don't even know? Most people will tell you that it's a bit scary, not knowing who is going to answer the door. Some people actually dread it. You might ask, then why do it? It certainly isn't to badger people, but for every ten people that shut the door on the conversation, there's someone willing to listen and perhaps get saved. Jesus went looking for lost sheep, that's all these people are doing.

Its one thing if that's what they believe. But how many of them "really" believe that? I can't say and neither can you. It's my opinion. It's also one thing to go out and share what you believe it's another to try to "convince" someone who doesn't want to be convinced. That's where the insecurity in belief comes in. I'm of the opinion that more than less of the people going out door to door don't have faith as strong as they'd like you to believe. Again, my opinion.

More than you think, I imagine, but that's my opinion.

Do you think it's easy to go and knock on doors of people you don't even know? Most people will tell you that it's a bit scary, not knowing who is going to answer the door. Some people actually dread it. You might ask, then why do it? It certainly isn't to badger people, but for every ten people that shut the door on the conversation, there's someone willing to listen and perhaps get saved. Jesus went looking for lost sheep, that's all these people are doing.


Not being sarcastic here, but where in the bible does it say Jesus knocked on doors? To my knowledge he only gave public sermons, and private discussions with his disciples.

Do you think it's easy to go and knock on doors of people you don't even know? Most people will tell you that it's a bit scary, not knowing who is going to answer the door. Some people actually dread it. You might ask, then why do it? It certainly isn't to badger people, but for every ten people that shut the door on the conversation, there's someone willing to listen and perhaps get saved. Jesus went looking for lost sheep, that's all these people are doing.

What church do you go to?

Not being sarcastic here, but where in the bible does it say Jesus knocked on doors? To my knowledge he only gave public sermons, and private discussions with his disciples.

True dat...

Not being sarcastic here, but where in the bible does it say Jesus knocked on doors? To my knowledge he only gave public sermons, and private discussions with his disciples.

He sent out his disciples two by two to every household (Luke 10:1-7).

The point is He took pains to go out and meet people where they are.

Or if you want to get technical, try this:

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me" - Revelation 3:20

He sent out his disciples two by two to every household (Luke 10:1-7).

The point is He took pains to go out and meet people where they are.

Or if you want to get technical, try this:

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me" - Revelation 3:20

Okay. Thanks. I still don't want some religious nutty knockin' on my door tryin' to convince me to believe something that they believe in. How do you feel about someone of a religion other than your own knockin' on doors and spreadin' what you believe to false teachings?

Okay. Thanks. I still don't want some religious nutty knockin' on my door tryin' to convince me to believe something that they believe in. How do you feel about someone of a religion other than your own knockin' on doors and spreadin' what you believe to false teachings?

Don't believers realize that people can see their churches? It's not like they're in some super secret hidden location. :lol:

Don't believers realize that people can see their churches? It's not like they're in some super secret hidden location. :lol:


They want you to come to their church, not some random church on the side o' the road. Not the wrong church.

I don't think there's anyone in America who hasn't listened to or been given religious materials.

I thought this was pretty funny:

I've been given (or listened) to atheist info.

Like there's some club of atheists who come knocking at your door to tell you you shouldn't believe in God or else something bad will happen to you. Maybe slip you a few tracts at the county fair. :lol:

It never occurred to me to make a big issue out of my religious beliefs (or lack thereof). I don't try to convert others because I don't really care what they believe, as long as they don't bug me about it. It's fun and interesting to have conversations with fundies who know what they're talking about and who don't get all kirked out when you question them. But there's no real desire to make them believe what I believe.

I don't think there's anyone in America who hasn't listened to or been given religious materials.

I thought this was pretty funny:



Like there's some club of atheists who come knocking at your door to tell you you shouldn't believe in God or else something bad will happen to you. Maybe slip you a few tracts at the county fair. :lol:

It never occurred to me to make a big issue out of my religious beliefs (or lack thereof). I don't try to convert others because I don't really care what they believe, as long as they don't bug me about it. It's fun and interesting to have conversations with fundies who know what they're talking about and who don't get all kirked out when you question them. But there's no real desire to make them believe what I believe.


I'd honestly like to hear from the people who have been given atheist material, or had an atheist accost them on the sidewalk, or knock on their door.

I don't think there's anyone in America who hasn't listened to or been given religious materials.

I thought this was pretty funny:



Like there's some club of atheists who come knocking at your door to tell you you shouldn't believe in God or else something bad will happen to you. Maybe slip you a few tracts at the county fair. :lol:


Normal Bob Smith has some printable pamplets at their site.

mAlice, you should print up some to pass out when they come to your door. :roflmao:
Free Downloadable Flyers/NormalBobSmith.com (http://www.normalbobsmith.com/free/flyers/)

Like there's some club of atheists who come knocking at your door to tell you you shouldn't believe in God or else something bad will happen to you. Maybe slip you a few tracts at the county fair. :lol:



That's exactly why I put it in there. This_person made a comment about when atheists try to "rob him of his religious beliefs" and I wondered how many people have actually been approched by atheists. :shrug: I didn't think it was all that common, but he made it sound like it was.

I don't like smoked meat, vrai thinks all meat should be smoked.

And see how well we get along and cooperate, despite our fundamental differences? :huggy:

Normal Bob Smith has some printable pamplets at their site.

mAlice, you should print up some to pass out when they come to your door. :roflmao:
Free Downloadable Flyers/NormalBobSmith.com (http://www.normalbobsmith.com/free/flyers/)

Not a bad idea. I'll have to take a look at them.

Not a bad idea. I'll have to take a look at them.

I laughed at the Jesus Pooped and Satan is a Jerk ones. :lol:

That's exactly why I put it in there. This_person made a comment about when atheists try to "rob him of his religious beliefs" and I wondered how many people have actually been approched by atheists. :shrug: I didn't think it was all that common, but he made it sound like it was.

Thank you.

What about all the religious wars? :roflmao:

Maybe that's what makes them happy? :shrug:



:lol:

And see how well we get along and cooperate, despite our fundamental differences? :huggy:


It's a miracle.

It's a miracle.

Was it during Festivus??

It's a miracle.

A real one, not just some silly parlor trick. :yay:

I'd honestly like to hear from the people who have been given atheist material, or had an atheist accost them on the sidewalk, or knock on their door.



How about being in, say, a religious forum and getting confronted by atheists who opine that "Contradiction X, Contradiction Y, and Contradiction Z are proof positive that your bible isn't worth the paper it's printed on. And all religion is merely a crutch for the mentally and emotionally weak". (Paraphrased, of course)



Does that count as "listening to atheist info"? Or do I HAVE to be accosted on the sidewalk, or have my door knocked?

How about being in, say, a religious forum and getting confronted by atheists who opine that "Contradiction X, Contradiction Y, and Contradiction Z are proof positive that your bible isn't worth the paper it's printed on. And all religion is merely a crutch for the mentally and emotionally weak". (Paraphrased, of course)



Does that count as "listening to atheist info"? Or do I HAVE to be accosted on the sidewalk, or have my door knocked?

What? We can only discuss it if we agree with you? Why would you have a problem with that, but not have a problem with someone of a different faith discussing it? I mean, if you think about it, if someone's belief is different than yours, they're heretics and going to hell anyway. I've read it many times in the Religion Forums.

I think you should be accosted IRL for it to count.

Kinda' like people telling me that I'll like venison, if I just try it the way they prepare it? I keep tryin' it, but I still don't like it. :shrug:

That's because you're calling "venison". Call it DEER MEAT and growl when you say it. Tastes much better that way. :drool:

I don't think there's anyone in America who hasn't listened to or been given religious materials.

I thought this was pretty funny:



Like there's some club of atheists who come knocking at your door to tell you you shouldn't believe in God or else something bad will happen to you. Maybe slip you a few tracts at the county fair. :lol:

It never occurred to me to make a big issue out of my religious beliefs (or lack thereof). I don't try to convert others because I don't really care what they believe, as long as they don't bug me about it. It's fun and interesting to have conversations with fundies who know what they're talking about and who don't get all kirked out when you question them. But there's no real desire to make them believe what I believe.

Maybe it's part of the "religion" to CARE about others. When people honestly feel that you go to hell if you're not a believer, they may feel compelled to tell you in hopes that you will listen and believe. There is no atheist creed saying you have to care about others. There's nowhere to go according to an atheist, so why bother?

There's nowhere to go according to an atheist, so why bother?

If you need to have God looking over you to make sure you do the right thing, it's a fraud. You should do the right thing because of your personal morals and ethics, not because you're afraid of getting in trouble.

There is no atheist creed saying you have to care about others.

We don't need someone to tell us to care about others. We just do it.

What? We can only discuss it if we agree with you?

Did I say that?


Why would you have a problem with that, but not have a problem with someone of a different faith discussing it?

I'm missing the part where I said I have a problem with anyone for anything?

I'm suggesting that listening to atheist's info should count as "Listening to Atheists Info".


That's all.

There is no intended subtext in what I wrote at all.



I think you should be accosted IRL for it to count.

Well.... I guess I have nothing to add to this branch of the conversation then.

We don't need someone to tell us to care about others. We just do it.

:yeahthat: I don't need someone telling me what to do. I'm sorry, but I think morals are pretty black and white. :shrug: Do I need someone telling me it's bad to kill? To cheat? To steal? Nope. I already know those things are bad, and I figured it out all by myself (well, and with my parents' help). :smile:

You forgot agnostic. :howdy:Well, I'm sure he was thinking that you either wouldn't be sure of what to answer or just wouldn't know.

Would anyone who checked the last option be willing to share their experiences? I'm curious to know what was said or done. :smile:

I totally agree. I'm plenty, plenty faithful but people have totally turned me off towards any type of organized religion. I think promoting religion/faith or lack there of is the works of insecure people. Your faith is personal and if you feel the need to go out and recruit others to your cause it's only because your personal beliefs aren't as strong as you'd like to think they are and you need the support of others. It's not about making others "see the light" it's about making yourself feel better because someone else shares your views. That pendelum swings both ways.
Considering that the foundational teaching of Christianity is to make disciples (AKA the Great Commission)...I disagree with you.

Christians (at least the one's I know at Leonardtown Baptist Church) share their faith out of obedience to what Jesus taught and out of love for people who are outside of God's Kingdom.

That's just biblical Christianity. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

How convenient that you have an excuse to badger people.Nobody should badger you. If you say "No, thanks" then its on you.

I don't think there's anyone in America who hasn't listened to or been given religious materials.

I thought this was pretty funny:
I think you'd be surprised. I run into people a lot in St. Mary's who haven't ever gotten a tract or had somebody talk to them about God or their beliefs before.


Like there's some club of atheists who come knocking at your door to tell you you shouldn't believe in God or else something bad will happen to you. Maybe slip you a few tracts at the county fair. :lol:Well there is that whole billboard fiasco...

Well there is that whole billboard fiasco...

What do you see more, atheist billboard adverts or church signs, crosses, etc?

What do you see more? Atheist billboard adverts or church signs, crosses, etc?Not what I was saying...but okay.

We don't need someone to tell us to care about others. We just do it.

We? Okay then, as a Christian, WE don't shove our religion down other people's throats. :doh:

I'm making more of an observation more than anything.

I was putting all the other stuff aside. My point is, any decent person would try to help another person, religion aside. If a restaurant served tainted food, most of us would feel a moral obligation to share that with others to keep them from harm. Likewise, religious people feel that if they know something, and their religion tells them to share, then they should. Atheists do not have anything apart from basic morals and values to share. There's no atheist "belief" that needs to be shared is there?

So what were you saying then?


I think he was saying that there are examples of Atheistic proselytizing to be found.





Or that most of us can safely say: "I've been given (or listened) to atheist info."


(See the poll at the top of the page)

Well there is that whole billboard fiasco...

Now, why would you call that a fiasco?

We? Okay then, as a Christian, WE don't shove our religion down other people's throats. :doh:

I'm making more of an observation more than anything.

I was putting all the other stuff aside. My point is, any decent person would try to help another person, religion aside. If a restaurant served tainted food, most of us would feel a moral obligation to share that with others to keep them from harm. Likewise, religious people feel that if they know something, and their religion tells them to share, then they should. Atheists do not have anything apart from basic morals and values to share. There's no atheist "belief" that needs to be shared is there?


That's a matter of opinion. I think there's a lot to share regarding the history of christianity, and how christianity came to be.

That's a matter of opinion. I think there's a lot to share regarding the history of christianity, and how christianity came to be.

What is a matter of opinion? What does the history of Christianity have to do with anything I've written about?

Well if you read it in context (see below) thats not what he was saying


:rolleyes:

I read it context the first time.

Are billboards knocking on your door? No.
Are they accosting you on the street? Not exactly.

But they are a form of proselytizing. Do you not agree?


Do you think that because Christians do it more often than atheists do, that makes Christians #######s, but atheists OK. Or is it just the fact that you agree with one and not the other that makes Christians #######s, and atheists OK?




Now, why would you call that a fiasco?


As for the word "fiasco", there was a bit of a backlash/reaction... was there not? (Whether you agree with the backlash or not is irrelevant to the fact that there was one.)

As for the word "fiasco", there was a bit of a backlash/reaction... was there not? (Whether you agree with the backlash or not is irrelevant to the fact that there was one.)

This does not sound like a "fiasco" to me...

Quoting Nonno's article..."An overflow audience of more than 100 had showed up for their most recent public symposium, and the board members discussed whether it was time to find a larger place.

And now parents were coming out of the woodwork asking for family-oriented programs where they could meet like-minded nonbelievers."

Atheist group has foothold in S. Carolina (http://politicom.moldova.org/news/atheist-group-has-foothold-in-s-carolina-199336-eng.html)

Atheists and agnostics in South Carolina say they have met a friendlier reception than they expected in the heart of the Southern Bible Belt.
Members expected to be barraged with e-mails denouncing them. But most of the e-mails were grateful
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/us/27atheist.html?em

The problem was not that the group, the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry, had attracted an outpouring of hostility. It was the opposite....
More than ever, America’s atheists are linking up and speaking out — even here in South Carolina, home to Bob Jones University, blue laws and a legislature that last year unanimously approved a Christian license plate embossed with a cross, a stained glass window and the words “I Believe” (a move blocked by a judge and now headed for trial).

They are connecting on the Internet, holding meet-ups in bars, advertising on billboards and buses, volunteering at food pantries and picking up roadside trash, earning atheist groups recognition on adopt-a-highway signs.

Polls show that the ranks of atheists are growing. The American Religious Identification Survey, a major study released last month, found that those who claimed “no religion” were the only demographic group that grew in all 50 states in the last 18 years.

Ten national organizations that variously identify themselves as atheists, humanists, freethinkers and others who go without God have recently united to form the Secular Coalition for America, of which Mr. Silverman is president. These groups, once rivals, are now pooling resources to lobby in Washington for separation of church and state.

A wave of donations, some in the millions of dollars, has enabled the hiring of more paid professional organizers, said Fred Edwords, a longtime atheist leader who just started his own umbrella group, the United Coalition of Reason, which plans to spawn 20 local groups around the country in the next year.


I'm not aware of any backlash. If you mean christians were put off by it...I guess if you call that backlash.

:rolleyes:

I read it context the first time.

Are billboards knocking on your door? No.
Are they accosting you on the street? Not exactly.

But they are a form of proselytizing. Do you not agree?


Do you think that because Christians do it more often than atheists do, that makes Christians #######s, but atheists OK. Or is it just the fact that you agree with one and not the other that makes Christians #######s, and atheists OK?


As for the word "fiasco", there was a bit of a backlash/reaction... was there not? (Whether you agree with the backlash or not is irrelevant to the fact that there was one.)Exactly. Thank you. That's all I meant.

Its really basically the same thing as the sign I saw in Leonardtown saying "Longing for something? God is longing for you." that was put up by St. Aloysius. Or other marquis signs for churches.

The quantity is not relevant to what I said. Its existence is.

This does not sound like a "fiasco" to me...

I'm not aware of any backlash. If you mean christians were put off by it...I guess if you call that backlash.
Atheist billboard in Capitol stirs a storm (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/390542_capitoldisplay05.html)

Atheist billboard in Capitol stirs a storm (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/390542_capitoldisplay05.html)

I don't see that as a backlash. I doesn't appear to have had a negative impact on the group it was aimed at.

Considering that the foundational teaching of Christianity is to make disciples (AKA the Great Commission)...I disagree with you.

Christians (at least the one's I know at Leonardtown Baptist Church) share their faith out of obedience to what Jesus taught and out of love for people who are outside of God's Kingdom.

That's just biblical Christianity. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.


WRONG. That would not be a foundational teaching of Christianity, that would be a foundational teaching of certain organized religions. :yay:

WRONG. That would not be a foundational teaching of Christianity, that would be a foundational teaching of certain organized religions. :yay:

notice siggy..:rolleyes:


missing from the poll,...I am a believer.........and you believe what you want to................ I never tried to sway a soul.

WRONG. That would not be a foundational teaching of Christianity, that would be a foundational teaching of certain organized religions. :yay:

Pixie trys, really really hard!!!!

Considering that the foundational teaching of Christianity is to make disciples (AKA the Great Commission)...I disagree with you.

Christians (at least the one's I know at Leonardtown Baptist Church) share their faith out of obedience to what Jesus taught and out of love for people who are outside of God's Kingdom.

That's just biblical Christianity. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

You're a loving Baptist?

SO tell me, how do you feel about Mormons, and 7th Days??

Has your church taught you everything there is to know about THEIR church??

WRONG. That would not be a foundational teaching of Christianity, that would be a foundational teaching of certain organized religions. :yay:Um...no.

Jesus commanded His disciples to go and make disciples. That was His Missio Dei.

"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." ~ Luke 19:10

Hmm...let's see, that's the founder speaking.

Here's another from Jesus where He instructs His disciples to follow His Missio Dei:

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
~Matthew 28:16-20 Emphasis mine

Its not certain organized sects or denominations of Christianity. Its every one. Its "the Way" as in "the Way, the Truth, and the Life." In a word, its foundational, because the Founder left it with us.

But it is much more than that also. For instance Jesus taught that kindness and charity and compassion should flow out from those who follow Him as disciples:

18A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

19"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 20You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'"

21"All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.

22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

23When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. 24Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

26Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"

27Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."

28Peter said to him, "We have left all we had to follow you!"

29"I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life."
~ Luke 18:18-30


Then the Lord's brother James the Apostle echoes it:

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
~James 1:27

And so does the Apostle Paul:

"But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God." ~ 1 Tim 5:4


And that is our "organized" religion.

Um...no.

Jesus commanded His disciples to go and make disciples. That was His Missio Dei.

~ Luke 19:10

Hmm...let's see, that's the founder speaking.

Here's another from Jesus where He instructs His disciples to follow His Missio Dei:


~Matthew 28:16-20 Emphasis mine

Its not certain organized sects or denominations of Christianity. Its every one. Its "the Way" as in "the Way, the Truth, and the Life." In a word, its foundational, because the Founder left it with us.

But it is much more than that also. For instance Jesus taught that kindness and charity and compassion should flow out from those who follow Him as disciples:


~ Luke 18:18-30


Then the Lord's brother James the Apostle echoes it:


~James 1:27

And so does the Apostle Paul:

~ 1 Tim 5:4


And that is our "organized" religion.

A requirement of Christianity is belief in Jesus NOT belief in the bible word for word. :yay:

Pixie trys, really really hard!!!!


There's no "try" about it. Until God himself comes knocking on my door telling me that I need to push my beliefs onto other people I will not. Nor will I damn anyone else for not believing the same things I do.

You're a loving Baptist?

SO tell me, how do you feel about Mormons, and 7th Days??

Has your church taught you everything there is to know about THEIR church??Studying the Scripture through self-study and group-study as well as personal research on other faiths has taught me many things. Including the old axiom "In essentials unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

Check out chapter six from the book Reasons for Faith (http://books.google.com/books?id=N3OJ0sz35dsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=reasons+for+faith#PPA95,M2) by Norman Geisler.

It talks about these biblical "essentials" for salvation that are held by the orthodox (lower case o ) church.

Hence I believe Mormons are in error because they believe baptism by immersion is necessary for salvation.

We believe that while human works are necessary— including exercising faith in Christ, repenting of our sins, receiving the sacraments or ordinances of salvation and rendering Christian service to our neighbors — they are not sufficient for salvation (2 Nephi 25:23; Moroni 10:32).
taken from an address to the Harvard Divinity School in March 2001 by Robert L. Millet, former dean of religious education at Brigham Young University.
What Mormons Believe About Jesus Christ - LDS Newsroom (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/what-mormons-believe-about-jesus-christ)

To be honest, there website is very vague. I do not find that they adequately flesh out their beliefs and instead ask you to pray about it, which in itself is fine, if you know what to ask God about!

7th day Adventists? I know several. I believe them to be Christians as far as I know. I disagree with their doctrine on the Sabbath. Other than that, I haven't really studied them too much.

There's no "try" about it. Until God himself comes knocking on my door telling me that I need to push my beliefs onto other people I will not. How was His visit? Because its obvious either you are lying or He dropped by.

Nor will I damn anyone else for not believing the same things I do.The word "WRONG" in caps above certainly seems to contradict you.

How was His visit? Because its obvious either you are lying or He dropped by.

The word "WRONG" in caps above certainly seems to contradict you.


The definition of Christianity is a logical one, not a theological one so there is a right and wrong answer.

I'm not "pushing" anything and its unfortunate that you see me defending my beliefs which were attacked first if you care to go back and look as pushing my beliefs upon you. :huggy:

A requirement of Christianity is belief in Jesus NOT belief in the bible word for word. :yay:True. I know several Christians who don't believe in Inerrancy.

What they consider authoritative though always puzzles me. For instance, how can they know anything about what Jesus taught is true. They can be swayed by any wind of doctrine that comes along. Eh...who knows. Not a battle I'm willing to fight right now. I'm tired.

The definition of Christianity is a logical one, not a theological one so there is a right and wrong answer.

I'm not "pushing" anything and its unfortunate that you see me defending my beliefs which were attacked first if you care to go back and look as pushing my beliefs upon you. :huggy:You are the one who said that sharing your faith is just for insecure people right?

And I answered and said "No, that's not why we share our faith."

You then have proceeded to take an accusatory and defensive tone, at least that is how it appears to me.

But if you feel like I attacked you, I apologize.

I don't find people "promoting" their faith (or lack thereof) any more or less annoying than a Billy Mays commerical.

I'm not aware of any backlash. If you mean christians were put off by it...I guess if you call that backlash.



That's what I meant.


But #### christians. They don't matter.

Studying the Scripture through self-study and group-study as well as personal research on other faiths has taught me many things. Including the old axiom "In essentials unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

Check out chapter six from the book Reasons for Faith (http://books.google.com/books?id=N3OJ0sz35dsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=reasons+for+faith#PPA95,M2) by Norman Geisler.

It talks about these biblical "essentials" for salvation that are held by the orthodox (lower case o ) church.

Hence I believe Mormons are in error because they believe baptism by immersion is necessary for salvation.

taken from an address to the Harvard Divinity School in March 2001 by Robert L. Millet, former dean of religious education at Brigham Young University.
What Mormons Believe About Jesus Christ - LDS Newsroom (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/what-mormons-believe-about-jesus-christ)

To be honest, there website is very vague. I do not find that they adequately flesh out their beliefs and instead ask you to pray about it, which in itself is fine, if you know what to ask God about!

7th day Adventists? I know several. I believe them to be Christians as far as I know. I disagree with their doctrine on the Sabbath. Other than that, I haven't really studied them too much.


DId did you ever think to ask WHY does your church studies others so much?

I've been to Catholic churches.. not once have they EVER discussed, let alone actively study other churches more than saying, We Are the Only Church.. Same can be said of Mormons..

Why do the Baptists spend so much time and energy not only studying other churches, but actively seeking out and trying to disrupt other churches?? I don't like, nor believe in organized religion, but Baptists, out of all of them, is the ONLY I know that actively trys to drive members of other churches away, even going so far as to picket other churches national and regional events. I never hear of Catholics doing that, or Mormons, or 7th days.. or ANY other..

So do any of you believe the sign "don't believe in god? you're not alone" was an attack on your belief?

DId did you ever think to ask WHY does your church studies others so much?

I've been to Catholic churches.. not once have they EVER discussed, let alone actively study other churches more than saying, We Are the Only Church.. Same can be said of Mormons..

Why do the Baptists spend so much time and energy not only studying other churches, but actively seeking out and trying to disrupt other churches?? I don't like, nor believe in organized religion, but Baptists, out of all of them, is the ONLY I know that actively trys to drive members of other churches away, even going so far as to picket other churches national and regional events. I never hear of Catholics doing that, or Mormons, or 7th days.. or ANY other..What the heck are you talking about?

Westboro "Baptist" Church are not followers of Christ. They are full of hate and their fruits are evil. Not to mention that they are scam lawyers looking to cash in.

I know many Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, etc. All of these I consider Christians. I think that could probably be said for most of the congregation at LBC that they feel the same way.

I also know that we disagree on certain doctrines of the church, but they are not the essentials for salvation. Those we agree on. We also agree on the doctrine of the Trinity, as outlined in the Council of Nicaea (which separates us from Mormonism).

So do any of you believe the sign "don't believe in god? you're not alone" was an attack on your belief?Do you believe if I handed you a tract that said "Are you a good person?" that its an attack on your belief?

So do any of you believe the sign "don't believe in god? you're not alone" was an attack on your belief?


No.

I was curious because of a comment this_person made in another thread. I've never had an atheist try to promote atheism. Ever. I've had TONS of believers try to promote their religion.


And Sonsie, I don't exactly agree with you that religious people are happier. :lmao:

My sister (a looney liberal lesbian) is a proud atheist and I have read a book byesteemed atheist Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion).

Both my nutty sister and Dawkins seem to believe and want to convince you there is no God. They say repeatedly, that lots of smart people are and have been atheists, and if you were smart, you would be, too.

Well, as everyone here knows, I'm certainly not very smart. But I realize faith is a concept that is completely alien to them.

The God Delusion actually was a good read, except it tries too hard to sway over the the atheist "religion."

I refer to my sister as the loonry liberal and she calls me the right-wing nut job. Yep, Thanksgivings are fun at our get togethers.

The God Delusion actually was a good read, except it tries too hard to sway over the the atheist "religion."


Well, isn't that the point of the book? I mean, look at the title. :lol:

I wouldn't really count reading the book in the poll though, because that's voluntary.

So do any of you believe the sign "don't believe in god? you're not alone" was an attack on your belief?

I'm an agnostic, so of course that sign wouldn't bother me. I'm sure it would bother most people of "faith" though.

The problem is that we live in a world where mass delusion is the accepted norm. If I passed out magazines that made people feel guilty about being who they are, or that tried to pass a work of fiction off as being more important than any observable truth about the universe, that would be alright. Sure, most people would roll their eyes and throw the material away, but they'd be perfectly polite to the fanatic that handed it to them. If I tried to pass out magazines that showed people how ignorant their medieval beliefs are... I'd get punched in the face.

I would agree though, that people of faith are...in general at least...happier than more secular individuals. They say ignorance is bliss...

Also, being surrounded by people who base their reality on their interpretation of old books doesn't exactly improve my happiness level.

Do you believe if I handed you a tract that said "Are you a good person?" that its an attack on your belief?
I'm inclined to ignore people who answer a question with a question.

I'm an agnostic, so of course that sign wouldn't bother me. I'm sure it would bother most people of "faith" though.

The problem is that we live in a world where mass delusion is the accepted norm. If I passed out magazines that made people feel guilty about being who they are, or that tried to pass a work of fiction off as being more important than any observable truth about the universe, that would be alright. Sure, most people would roll their eyes and throw the material away, but they'd be perfectly polite to the fanatic that handed it to them. If I tried to pass out magazines that showed people how ignorant their medieval beliefs are... I'd get punched in the face.

I would agree though, that people of faith are...in general at least...happier than more secular individuals. They say ignorance is bliss...

Also, being surrounded by people who base their reality on their interpretation of old books doesn't exactly improve my happiness level.


You claim to be agnostic.

Then you refer to faith as mass-delusion.
You refer to faith as ignorant and medieval.
Then you refer to people of faith as ignorant.
With one good pinch on the ass out the door with a knock on the bible.



That doesn't sound "agnostic" to me.


Just grow a pair, and call yourself an atheist. It's cool. I won't punch you in the face.

I swear.


To God.

I'm inclined to ignore people who answer a question with a question.
Apparently not.

I'm inclined to ignore people who answer a question with a question.

Or maybe you're just more inclined to ignore people who ask questions that you don't know the answer to.

Or maybe you're just more inclined to ignore people who ask questions that you don't know the answer to.



Don't make me side with atheists in a religion forum?

1) mAlice isn't ignorant. The above accusation is baseless.

2) I think she could figure out the answer to the question since it's a hypothetical question about her own emotion.


3) Let's keep this respectful. Please.

And Sonsie, I don't exactly agree with you that "religious people" are happier. :lmao:

part of the problem is the broad definition of "religious people"

there are a lot of people who claim religious affiliation and do nothing more than go to church a few times a year, some are very "religious" without being spiritual in the least, there are those that are very spiritual but are anti-establishment, and there are those that are spiritual and still outwardly "religious".

I would say that spiritual people are typically happier, but wouldn't take it any farther than that.

its in the survey forum... your safe



So because this is a survey forum, respect is a moot point?



Edit: Never mind.... I get it now.. :dork:

So do any of you believe the sign "don't believe in god? you're not alone" was an attack on your belief?

a sign like that could just as easily be a religious sign as an anti-religion sign.

it all depends on the follow up information if you contacted whatever the sign advertised a connection to.

Don't make me side with atheists in a religion forum?

1) mAlice isn't ignorant. The above accusation is baseless.

2) I think she could figure out the answer to the question since it's a hypothetical question about her own emotion.


3) Let's keep this respectful. Please.

I'm not making you side with anybody. I brought up a general observation earlier about religious people possibly feeling an obligation to share religion with others and atheists not seeming to have anything like that. mAlice responded. I responded back. She made some vague statement so I asked for clarification on what she was talking about (assuming "she") and she "ignored" me. I honestly could care less. I enjoy the dialogue... not for argument's sake... just to understand more. I don't think my comment was disrespectful... a little catty maybe. Just depends on what you read into it. I have yet to hear a response, so what else am I to think?

I'm not making you side with anybody. I brought up a general observation earlier about religious people possibly feeling an obligation to share religion with others and atheists not seeming to have anything like that. mAlice responded. I responded back. She made some vague statement so I asked for clarification on what she was talking about (assuming "she") and she "ignored" me. I honestly could care less. I enjoy the dialogue... not for argument's sake... just to understand more. I don't think my comment was disrespectful... a little catty maybe. Just depends on what you read into it. I have yet to hear a response, so what else am I to think?


Could you rephrase the question?

Could you rephrase the question?

Assuming you are seriously asking...
My original post was "Maybe it's part of the "religion" to CARE about others. When people honestly feel that you go to hell if you're not a believer, they may feel compelled to tell you in hopes that you will listen and believe. There is no atheist creed saying you have to care about others. There's nowhere to go according to an atheist, so why bother?"

Your response "We don't need someone to tell us to care about others. We just do it."

I probably should've made it clearer that I'm talking strictly religious beliefs and afterlife type scenarios.. I'm not saying that atheists don't care... I'm saying Why would they care about convincing other people of their beliefs? According to an atheist there is no consequence for being atheist. Or is there? That's my true question, even though I didn't come out and ask it.

Anyway, my statement was sarcastic, playing on your comment about "WE". Regardless of religion, there are people out there who don't care about people. For you to say "WE don't need someone to tell us" is no different than me saying WE "religious"* people don't go shoving our "religion" down other people's throats. Sarcasm. Surely you don't speak for all atheists.

I tried to make my point a little more clear because I am seriously interested in knowing if there is some system of beliefs that atheists DO follow. I never thought about it till now. "I was putting all the other stuff aside. My point is, any decent person would try to help another person, religion aside. If a restaurant served tainted food, most of us would feel a moral obligation to share that with others to keep them from harm. Likewise, religious people feel that if they know something, and their religion tells them to share, then they should. Atheists do not have anything apart from basic morals and values to share. There's no atheist "belief" that needs to be shared is there?"

You responded very vaguely. "That's a matter of opinion." WHAT is a matter of opinion? I made many many comments in there. You also said "I think there's a lot to share regarding the history of christianity, and how christianity came to be." What does that have to do with me asking about atheist "beliefs"?

So my original question... which really has nothing to do with my original post is What does the history of Christianity have to do with atheists' beliefs in the sense that I'm talking about? If there's something there, I want to know.

If anybody can enlighten me on the original topic, I'd be thrilled.

Considering that the foundational teaching of Christianity is to make disciples (AKA the Great Commission)...I disagree with you.

Christians (at least the one's I know at Leonardtown Baptist Church) share their faith out of obedience to what Jesus taught and out of love for people who are outside of God's Kingdom.

That's just biblical Christianity. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

How was His visit? Because its obvious either you are lying or He dropped by.

The word "WRONG" in caps above certainly seems to contradict you.

You are the one who said that sharing your faith is just for insecure people right?

And I answered and said "No, that's not why we share our faith."

You then have proceeded to take an accusatory and defensive tone, at least that is how it appears to me.

But if you feel like I attacked you, I apologize.

I didn't take an either accusatory nor defensive tone. I corrected you by saying that "promotion of faith" is not a "christian" rule but that of certain organized religions. You then got snotty and called me a liar. Flavor it however you want to make yourself feel better but the posts are all right here for God and everyone else to see. :yay: I gave my opinion, you gave yours sighting fact, I corrected your fact and you resorted to name calling, then when called on your behavior you try patronizing me.

Assuming you are seriously asking...
My original post was "Maybe it's part of the "religion" to CARE about others. When people honestly feel that you go to hell if you're not a believer, they may feel compelled to tell you in hopes that you will listen and believe. There is no atheist creed saying you have to care about others. There's nowhere to go according to an atheist, so why bother?"

Your response "We don't need someone to tell us to care about others. We just do it."

I probably should've made it clearer that I'm talking strictly religious beliefs and afterlife type scenarios.. I'm not saying that atheists don't care... I'm saying Why would they care about convincing other people of their beliefs? According to an atheist there is no consequence for being atheist. Or is there? That's my true question, even though I didn't come out and ask it.

Anyway, my statement was sarcastic, playing on your comment about "WE". Regardless of religion, there are people out there who don't care about people. For you to say "WE don't need someone to tell us" is no different than me saying WE "religious"* people don't go shoving our "religion" down other people's throats. Sarcasm. Surely you don't speak for all atheists.

I tried to make my point a little more clear because I am seriously interested in knowing if there is some system of beliefs that atheists DO follow. I never thought about it till now. "I was putting all the other stuff aside. My point is, any decent person would try to help another person, religion aside. If a restaurant served tainted food, most of us would feel a moral obligation to share that with others to keep them from harm. Likewise, religious people feel that if they know something, and their religion tells them to share, then they should. Atheists do not have anything apart from basic morals and values to share. There's no atheist "belief" that needs to be shared is there?"

You responded very vaguely. "That's a matter of opinion." WHAT is a matter of opinion? I made many many comments in there. You also said "I think there's a lot to share regarding the history of christianity, and how christianity came to be." What does that have to do with me asking about atheist "beliefs"?

So my original question... which really has nothing to do with my original post is What does the history of Christianity have to do with atheists' beliefs in the sense that I'm talking about? If there's something there, I want to know.

If anybody can enlighten me on the original topic, I'd be thrilled.

Not being sarcastic, but this is why I didn't answer your last question. If you give me a direct question, I'll give you a direct answer. I have more important things to do than read your little novelette.

Not being sarcastic, but this is why I didn't answer your last question. If you give me a direct question, I'll give you a direct answer. I have more important things to do than read your little novelette.

like what ?

I didn't take an either accusatory nor defensive tone. I corrected you by saying that "promotion of faith" is not a "christian" rule but that of certain organized religions. You then got snotty and called me a liar. Flavor it however you want to make yourself feel better but the posts are all right here for God and everyone else to see. :yay: I gave my opinion, you gave yours sighting fact, I corrected your fact and you resorted to name calling, then when called on your behavior you try patronizing me.

I'm struggling to see how you can correct a fact? Isn't a fact truth?

EDIT: I have sat down and thought about this for a while and I'm thinking that perhaps I wasn't too sarcastic or snotty. I do think you weren't being truthful.

But anyways, arguing with you does not seem to get anywhere, but I think you should be fair and show the entire context of our argument:

Exactly. I think that anyone that promotes anything knowing your opinion on something be it meat or God, or lack there of is rude and insecure. If you really believe in something yourself you don't need other people to believe with you. You can polietely give or discuss your side without being disrespectful of the other.

Considering that the foundational teaching of Christianity is to make disciples (AKA the Great Commission)...I disagree with you.

Christians (at least the one's I know at Leonardtown Baptist Church) share their faith out of obedience to what Jesus taught and out of love for people who are outside of God's Kingdom.

That's just biblical Christianity. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.I apologize for this last part. Looking back I can see how it comes across with an attitude.

Is that why you yelled at me in the next post?

WRONG. That would not be a foundational teaching of Christianity, that would be a foundational teaching of certain organized religions.

Um...no.

Jesus commanded His disciples to go and make disciples. That was His Missio Dei.

Quote:
"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."
~ Luke 19:10

Hmm...let's see, that's the founder speaking.

Here's another from Jesus where He instructs His disciples to follow His Missio Dei:

Quote:
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
~Matthew 28:16-20 Emphasis mine

Its not certain organized sects or denominations of Christianity. Its every one. Its "the Way" as in "the Way, the Truth, and the Life." In a word, its foundational, because the Founder left it with us.

But it is much more than that also. For instance Jesus taught that kindness and charity and compassion should flow out from those who follow Him as disciples:

Quote:
18A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

19"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 20You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'"

21"All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.

22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

23When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. 24Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

26Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"

27Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."

28Peter said to him, "We have left all we had to follow you!"

29"I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life."
~ Luke 18:18-30


Then the Lord's brother James the Apostle echoes it:

Quote:
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
~James 1:27

And so does the Apostle Paul:

Quote:
"But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God."
~ 1 Tim 5:4


And that is our "organized" religion.

A requirement of Christianity is belief in Jesus NOT belief in the bible word for word.

True. I know several Christians who don't believe in Inerrancy.

What they consider authoritative though always puzzles me. For instance, how can they know anything about what Jesus taught is true. They can be swayed by any wind of doctrine that comes along. Eh...who knows. Not a battle I'm willing to fight right now. I'm tired.

Pixie trys, really really hard!!!!


There's no "try" about it. Until God himself comes knocking on my door telling me that I need to push my beliefs onto other people I will not. Nor will I damn anyone else for not believing the same things I do.I consider this a pretty hostile tone. Maybe I'm just strange like that?

How was His visit? Because its obvious either you are lying or He dropped by.

The word "WRONG" in caps above certainly seems to contradict you.
Here is where I accused you of lying. Since just the fact that you are on here calling people who share insecure, and telling people that their way is not the right way is doing the same as sharing.

The definition of Christianity is a logical one, not a theological one so there is a right and wrong answer.

I'm not "pushing" anything and its unfortunate that you see me defending my beliefs which were attacked first if you care to go back and look as pushing my beliefs upon you.

You are the one who said that sharing your faith is just for insecure people right?

And I answered and said "No, that's not why we share our faith."

You then have proceeded to take an accusatory and defensive tone, at least that is how it appears to me.

But if you feel like I attacked you, I apologize.

I didn't take an either accusatory nor defensive tone. I corrected you by saying that "promotion of faith" is not a "christian" rule but that of certain organized religions. You then got snotty and called me a liar. Flavor it however you want to make yourself feel better but the posts are all right here for God and everyone else to see. I gave my opinion, you gave yours sighting fact, I corrected your fact and you resorted to name calling, then when called on your behavior you try patronizing me.

You claim to be agnostic.

Then you refer to faith as mass-delusion.
You refer to faith as ignorant and medieval.
Then you refer to people of faith as ignorant.
With one good pinch on the ass out the door with a knock on the bible.



That doesn't sound "agnostic" to me.


Just grow a pair, and call yourself an atheist. It's cool. I won't punch you in the face.

I swear.


To God.

Being agnostic implies self-admitted ignorance towards the unknown. I don't know whether a god or gods exist, and I'm ok with that. Being an atheist would imply that I know that there is no god. How can I make fun of the morons who think they have it all figured out, if I become a moron who thinks he has it all figured out?

As far as picking on religion...just because I'm agnostic doesn't mean I think all ideas regarding belief are equally valid. You, and billions of others, are basing your life on books that were written around the time the wheelbarrow was an example of "Up and Coming" technology. Considering the advances we've made in other fields, don't you think we should take a second look at our beliefs?

Most atheists are only atheist in that they don't believe in the god or gods of any existing religions...they are still open to the concept of a god, but they are rational people who don't believe simply because they want to, so they demand proof before believing. This makes them agnostic, whether they know it or not.

For further clarity, here are some quotes from Bertrand Russell, a famous agnostic philosopher...


"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods. "


"An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time."

I was curious to see how many people have been approached by others. Please hold for the poll.I believe, I've discussed both my views and the relative merits of others' views. When told someone else has heard enough, I stop - there's no point in speaking with someone with a closed mind.

I find that people who do not believe are more ignorant of their arguments of what they do believe than most religious people are about arguments regarding why they believe. Most atheists have all sorts of arguments for why they don't believe in one religion or another, but are clueless as to the faults with evolution/abiogenesis. I think that's very funny.

Most atheists have all sorts of arguments for why they don't believe in one religion or another, but are clueless as to the faults with evolution/abiogenesis. I think that's very funny.

So take me for example. I haven't read the bible. I don't believe because I have no proof. I'm sorry, but I don't have faith that some magical being in the sky created us. I believe that we are products of evolution.

I have to disprove everything in order to prove what I believe in?

So my original question... which really has nothing to do with my original post is What does the history of Christianity have to do with atheists' beliefs in the sense that I'm talking about? If there's something there, I want to know.

If anybody can enlighten me on the original topic, I'd be thrilled.

Okay, finding time to read this, which really isn't much help, to answer this question...

In order to understand you'd have to study it yourself. You can't expect someone to give you the answers on a forum because there are too many reasons, and we each understand things differently, but I'll give you a few examples.

So take me for example. I haven't read the bible. I don't believe because I have no proof. I'm sorry, but I don't have faith that some magical being in the sky created us. I believe that we are products of evolution.

I have to disprove everything in order to prove what I believe in?

One can't prove or disprove, that man is here due to evolution or creation. The problem with many christians is that they are not willing to look outside the box (or bible), so they can't relate to not believing in an entity. There are tons of books out there to support my thought process.

I just don't understand the refusal to try and understand a different point of view. I also don't understand how someone can be told "it's true", and just accept that based on a single book that they are told is the word of god, because it says it's "inspired by god". The book was written by men who wanted to control people. Those same men determined what was deemed acceptable for that book (not the gnostic scriptures Nag Hammadi Library (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html) ).

I guess it's easier for them to make statements like "people who do not believe are more ignorant of their arguments of what they do believe than most religious people are about arguments regarding why they believe."

Atheists are no more more ignorant than christians, if you use the word ignorant correctly.

Just a few more examples why I don't believe.

One can't prove or disprove, that man is here due to evolution or creation. The problem with many christians is that they are not willing to look outside the box (or bible), so they can't relate to not believing in an entity. There are tons of books out there to support my thought process.

I just don't understand the refusal to try and understand a different point of view. I also don't understand how someone can be told "it's true", and just accept that based on a single book that they are told is the word of god, because it says it's "inspired by god". The book was written by men who wanted to control people. Those same men determined what was deemed acceptable for that book (not the gnostic scriptures Nag Hammadi Library (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html) ).

I guess it's easier for them to make statements like "people who do not believe are more ignorant of their arguments of what they do believe than most religious people are about arguments regarding why they believe."

Atheists are no more more ignorant than christians, if you use the word ignorant correctly.

Just a few more examples why I don't believe.


I agree with you. Maybe I misunderstood This_person.

So take me for example. I haven't read the bible. I don't believe because I have no proof. I'm sorry, but I don't have faith that some magical being in the sky created us. I believe that we are products of evolution.

I have to disprove everything in order to prove what I believe in?Not at all. Again, I find it pointless to try and disprove someone else's argument - they're not going to agree with your argument because faith is built of lack of proof (if there were proof, it wouldn't be faith, y'know?).

My point was that there are huge faults with evolution/abiogenesis (like, for example, PROOF :lol:). MOST (clearly not you, which is VERY okay) atheists try and study the Bible to provide their version of proof the Bible is wrong, but can't intelligently argue against the faults with evolution/abiogenesis.

That's all.

Not at all. Again, I find it pointless to try and disprove someone else's argument - they're not going to agree with your argument because faith is built of lack of proof (if there were proof, it wouldn't be faith, y'know?).

My point was that there are huge faults with evolution/abiogenesis (like, for example, PROOF :lol:). MOST (clearly not you, which is VERY okay) atheists try and study the Bible to provide their version of proof the Bible is wrong, but can't intelligently argue against the faults with evolution/abiogenesis.

That's all.

I know that there are some holes in evolution. But you can't deny that there is proof of evolution. :eyebrow:

And I don't study the bible to try to disprove things...because I find it incredibly boring. :shrug: And my mind shuts off as soon as I see people quoting the bible on here. I can't make myself read it. :lmao:

I'm never going to try to change someone's opinion. I might give my point of view, but I don't expect others to agree with me.

One can't prove or disprove, that man is here due to evolution or creation....Atheists are no more more ignorant than christians, if you use the word ignorant correctly.I disagree. Most atheists will tell you there is proof of evolution, when there is not (there is conjecture).

Most people who tout evolution speak of it as though the concept of humans springing forth from sponges has a provable thing. It's not, and you are an exception to recognizing and admitting that. It takes faith :whistle:

Not being sarcastic, but this is why I didn't answer your last question. If you give me a direct question, I'll give you a direct answer. I have more important things to do than read your little novelette.

I'm not sure how I can be anymore direct. I don't even care now anyway.

I know that there are some holes in evolution. But you can't deny that there is proof of evolution. :eyebrow:There's proof of species changing. There is also proof of species NOT changing.

There is no proof that horses, bats, and humans all have a common ancestor.

That leap takes faith.I'm never going to try to change someone's opinion. I might give my point of view, but I don't expect others to agree with me.:buddies:

We're on the same trail here, then.

There's proof of species changing. There is also proof of species NOT changing.

There is no proof that horses, bats, and humans all have a common ancestor.

That leap takes faith.:buddies:



Then I guess I have faith. In science. :lmao:

Then I guess I have faith. In science. :lmao:That statement makes you one of the most honest people on here on this subject! :jet: :buddies:

One can't prove or disprove, that man is here due to evolution or creation. The problem with many christians is that they are not willing to look outside the box (or bible), so they can't relate to not believing in an entity. There are tons of books out there to support my thought process.Perhaps because some don't need to?

Give me a perfectly sound reason why all of them should.

I just don't understand the refusal to try and understand a different point of view. I also don't understand how someone can be told "it's true", and just accept that based on a single book that they are told is the word of god, because it says it's "inspired by god". For some its just plain faith (not the blind kind, but the certainty of what cannot be physically seen). For some they see no need to look further, for what they see is convincing to them of what is unseen.

Perhaps that plays into the whole theme of Election/Predestination that is so often argued about.

The book was written by men who wanted to control people. Those same men determined what was deemed acceptable for that book (not the gnostic scriptures Nag Hammadi Library (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html) ).

What evidence do you present that the authors of the New Testament wrote it in order to control people?

I guess it's easier for them to make statements like "people who do not believe are more ignorant of their arguments of what they do believe than most religious people are about arguments regarding why they believe."I think maybe he was making an anecdoctal statement based what he has personally observed. That doesn't make it right necessarily.

Atheists are no more more ignorant than christians, if you use the word ignorant correctly.

Just a few more examples why I don't believe.Perhaps you haven't examined the arguments in support of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection as thoroughly as you should?

You can listen to Professor Craig present part of it here: Is there a Case for the Resurrection of Jesus? (7:30) (http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1184)

Most atheists (not lumping all into this) come from some sort of religious background. Generally they ended up asking questions that were answered unsatisfactorily (is that a word?) and took to researching the answers themselves using the data available (Bible, Talmud, Q'uran, Buddhist/Hindu Scrolls, Pagan Folklore, etc.).

Already having the mindset that 2+3 doesnt equal 4, they have a bit of skepticism missing from the devout, blind faith alread predisposes you to jumping without looking (to clarify jumping=believing, without looking=without question).

Pointing out errors in your instruction books does not mean we are studying the Bible to strengthen our disbelief, thats just an idiotic claim, we already dont believe and whatever is in your book wont change that.So, once you know you don't believe, you keep studying because......?But
When the devout get on and claim another beliefs book excuses an action, and your book has the same excuses, pointing it out is nothing more than pointing out hypocrisy For what point? Does the fact that it's hypocritical change the validity of their claims?
When the devout claim the earth is 6000 years old, because the book says so, pointing out facts that argue differently is just stating the obvious I'll definately give you this one... The book makes no such claim, and any suggestion it does starts with proof that starts with "if we assume...", which makes it wrong from the get-go
When the devout claim the book was written by Godly inspired, pointing out many have made this claim is making a parrallel Again, for what point? If others have claimed it, would it change the potential that either one or the other could be correct?
When the devout claim the book is Godly, God is never wrong, so the Book is never wrong. Pointing out contradictions (that do exist), fallacy's (that do exist), inconsistancies (that do exist), belies the Book is never wrong claim. Or, at least the interpretations are? :rolleyes:
When the devout ignore that the book, as it exists today, only does so because of a Committee 1600 years ago got together and threw out any Gospels (that were just as valid) that didnt fit their agenda to make Christ the man into Christ the son of God, you really (really) should wonder about the validity of the book. I don't know anyone who claims the Bible to be a complete, thorough, detailed book of all existing knowledge of history, philosophy, and/or science. That parts are removed does not remove the parts that are there.
When the devout attempt to use justifications from their book, to enact legislation and laws that affect all, not just followers of their sky pixie (Toxic this is a general statement, not directed at just Christians). Arguing against those justifications isnt a "war on ___________ religion" its a defense for all other beliefs. Thats the devouts real problem , they want their belief recognized over any others (look at Pixie and Zsguy's conversation), yet can not understand that all the other beliefs have just as valid claim as their own. We can certainly agree on this 100%. Religion is not how laws should be made. However, not all arguments against laws can use religious freedom as an answer, either. If the SINGLE reason for believing a law should be made is "my God says so", it's wrong. But, "thou shalt not murder" being a religious concept does not stop it from being the correct concept.
When the devout claim we have free will pinting out, if God is all seeing and all knowing, then any path we decide to take has already been seen, which belies any claim of free will. (because if God has already seen us doing it, then he also already knows what we are going to do, thats Fate not free will). Pointing it out makes the devout uncomfortable and is nothing more than pointing out an inconsistancy of the belief No, it's pure lack of understanding of God. If you have the free will to turn left, and choose to turn right, but it was filmed and I watched it, and the film was played again so I KNEW you were going to choose to turn right, that doesn't make your free will go away because I knew the outcome. God is not restricted to our concept of time (in my understanding), so His knowledge of what I may or may not choose does not preclude my choice. We've had this discussion before.

You continue to claim the Theory of Evolution is equal to the story of Genesis (in whatever convoluted form). In order for it to be valid, you have to allow it to be disprovable. Where is the "control" environment for your belief? There is on in all other Scientific theories. The devout do not allow this, to do so would also disprove the anchor of their belief. That alone eliminates your belief as being equal to the Theory of Evolution.So, where is the "control" on evolution?

That neither is testable nor provable makes them equals in testable and provableness.

Until you can provide me with the exact conditions whereby abiogenesis happened (which, we don't know, we can only guess at), and then provide me the means by which it happened (which we don't know, we can only guess at), and then establish all of that repeatedly for peer review and repeatability, it's not science. It's conjecture.

We've had that discussion before, too. Each of the things you claim make ID not science are equally true of abiogenesis/human evolution.

Most atheists (not lumping all into this) come from some sort of religious background. Generally they ended up asking questions that were answered unsatisfactorily (is that a word?) and took to researching the answers themselves using the data available (Bible, Talmud, Q'uran, Buddhist/Hindu Scrolls, Pagan Folklore, etc.). There are also many examples of the reverse. Most notable are Lee Strobel, Lew Wallace, CS Lewis, Josh McDowell, and Francis Collins.

Already having the mindset that 2+3 doesnt equal 4, they have a bit of skepticism missing from the devout, blind faith alread predisposes you to jumping without looking (to clarify jumping=believing, without looking=without question). I'm not sure what you are actually trying to say in this paragraph.

Pointing out errors in your instruction books does not mean we are studying the Bible to strengthen our disbelief, thats just an idiotic claim (kinda like saying Barrack is bad for enacting McCains legislation, but it was ok when McCain wanted it),What does it mean then?

we already dont believe and whatever is in your book wont change that.As I said, not necessarily the case. In fact, I'd wager that more people have had their lives changed by reading the Bible than you believe.
But[list]
When the devout get on and claim another beliefs book excuses an action, and your book has the same excuses, pointing it out is nothing more than pointing out hypocrisyI understand. I assume you are talking about the Koran and the Old Testament?

I find a similar hypocrisy in atheists who claim the religious has been responsible for deaths of millions, yet ignore genecides by openly atheistic tyrants like Stalin and Chairman Mao.

When the devout claim the earth is 6000 years old, because the book says so, pointing out facts that argue differently is just stating the obviousNot all devout believe this. In fact, I'd say its not even a majority.
When the devout claim the book was written by Godly inspired, pointing out many have made this claim is making a parrallelOkay...yeah I see that.
When the devout claim the book is Godly, God is never wrong, so the Book is never wrong. Pointing out contradictions (that do exist), fallacy's (that do exist), inconsistancies (that do exist), belies the Book is never wrong claim.I'd be more than willing to look at them with you if they do exist. The copies that we have are historically accurate to the originals. There may be minor errors in the copies, but nothing that changes the meaning of what it says.

There is a great book on it by FF Bruce (an esteemed textual critic) called New Testament Documents by FF Bruce Contents Page (http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm)
When the devout ignore that the book, as it exists today, only does so because of a Committee 1600 years ago got together and threw out any Gospels (that were just as valid) that didnt fit their agenda to make Christ the man into Christ the son of God, you really (really) should wonder about the validity of the book.What makes them valid?

It is true they were excluded because they did not fit within the orthodox tradition passed on from the Apostles. The books that were kept were also universally accepted as Scripture throughout the church.

FF Bruce also has a great book called the Canon of Scripture. Heck, even Bart Ehrman (a non-Christian) will tell you that the Four Gospels are some of the greatest ancient historical documents we have and that they date from within a few years of Christ.
When the devout attempt to use justifications from their book, to enact legislation and laws that affect all, not just followers of their sky pixie (Toxic this is a general statement, not directed at just Christians). Arguing against those justifications isnt a "war on ___________ religion" its a defense for all other beliefs. Thats the devouts real problem , they want their belief recognized over any others (look at Pixie and Zsguy's conversation), yet can not understand that all the other beliefs have just as valid claim as their own.I'm actually against legislating Christianity on the masses.
When the devout claim we have free will pinting out, if God is all seeing and all knowing, then any path we decide to take has already been seen, which belies any claim of free will. (because if God has already seen us doing it, then he also already knows what we are going to do, thats Fate not free will). Pointing it out makes the devout uncomfortable and is nothing more than pointing out an inconsistancy of the belief Its not an inconsistency. Knowing what will happen is a lot different than determining it.

Just because a person can decide to do A, doesn't mean they will. Foreknowledge that they will choose B, does not take away the free will to do A.

You continue to claim the Theory of Evolution is equal to the story of Genesis (in whatever convoluted form). In order for it to be valid, you have to allow it to be disprovable. Where is the "control" environment for your belief? There is on in all other Scientific theories. The devout do not allow this, to do so would also disprove the anchor of their belief. That alone eliminates your belief as being equal to the Theory of Evolution.I know this isn't directed at me, but I will withhold opinion on the merits of evolution.

Although I will say that Creationism has no place in science class, since its not testable and predictions cannot be made on it.

I'm struggling to see how you can correct a fact? Isn't a fact truth?

EDIT: I have sat down and thought about this for a while and I'm thinking that perhaps I wasn't too sarcastic or snotty. I do think you weren't being truthful.

But anyways, arguing with you does not seem to get anywhere, but I think you should be fair and show the entire context of our argument:


I apologize for this last part. Looking back I can see how it comes across with an attitude.

Is that why you yelled at me in the next post?

I didn't yell at you dude. I told you that you were wrong.

I consider this a pretty hostile tone. Maybe I'm just strange like that?

If it was hostile it was directed at Kain who I quoted and responded too. I'm already tweaked at her because she thinks she's smart and keep accusing my boyfriend of stuff she has no clue about and he has no involvement in. Soooo, if it was hostile it wasn't directed at you. But you sure didn't hesitate quoting me and calling me a liar.


Here is where I accused you of lying. Since just the fact that you are on here calling people who share insecure, and telling people that their way is not the right way is doing the same as sharing.

:yawn: I'm not doing anything. I gave my OPINION on it and shared my belief. Show me where I once told you that your way was wrong. I told you your account of promoting being a foundational teaching of Christianity was wrong and that it was the foundational teaching of certain organized religions. That's not telling you that your opinion or belief is wrong.

I'm of the opinion that EVERYONE'S core beliefs are their own and everyone is entitled to them. I don't care if you believe in a magical dragon if it's what you truely believe than you are entitled to it because who the hell am I to tell you you're wrong.

I don't generally like to use the term Atheist to describe myself, because that denotes the disbelief in the existence of god or gods. This does not have to preclude any rational reason as to why someone chooses not to believe. In a general sense, the term atheist has become an umbrella term to also include people with a perceived rational thought process for rejecting the existence of god, religion, the supernatural, etc... I prefer to call myself a Nihilist or Materialist as it covers the bases of rational thought process for denial of the existence of god, the rejection of religion, and the idea that there is no meaning or purpose in life. My philosophy is live it up, because you're gonna die.

I also come from a religious background (raised in a Lutheran household), but I can't say I ever believed...in fact I found it all very disturbing and perverted even at a young age. What, with being told Christianity was good, the way, the light yadda yadda, and then being told that cults were bad and that their beliefs were silly. People, statistically, are going to take on the beliefs, religions, ideologies and so on of the people or culture they grew up with...if you were to have grown up in India you would have a greater chance of being Hindi than ever being Christian. You are taught at a very early age, and its hard to shake those beliefs, often to the point of missing the main points of trying to live a good life as a good person and taking on these fundamentalist stances on literal interpretations.

Even the Catholic Church acknowledges the existence of evolution to an extent. There is a clear evolutionary lineage of man from different forms of primates and genetics to help back it up. But in the end...does it really matter...its an argument in futility for those devout believers on both sides (though I will say I side with those with empirical data). My question is this...do you know every single process and ingredient that goes into a hot dog? does it still taste good (assuming you like hot dogs)? Then eat it and don't worry about it. Same goes for life in general...live it up and don't worry about how it came to be...you may find its made of pig guts.

I don't generally like to use the term Atheist to describe myself, because that denotes the disbelief in the existence of god or gods. This does not have to preclude any rational reason as to why someone chooses not to believe. In a general sense, the term atheist has become an umbrella term to also include people with a perceived rational thought process for rejecting the existence of god, religion, the supernatural, etc... I prefer to call myself a Nihilist or Materialist as it covers the bases of rational thought process for denial of the existence of god, the rejection of religion, and the idea that there is no meaning or purpose in life. My philosophy is live it up, because you're gonna die.

I also come from a religious background (raised in a Lutheran household), but I can't say I ever believed...in fact I found it all very disturbing and perverted even at a young age. What, with being told Christianity was good, the way, the light yadda yadda, and then being told that cults were bad and that their beliefs were silly. People, statistically, are going to take on the beliefs, religions, ideologies and so on of the people or culture they grew up with...if you were to have grown up in India you would have a greater chance of being Hindi than ever being Christian. You are taught at a very early age, and its hard to shake those beliefs, often to the point of missing the main points of trying to live a good life as a good person and taking on these fundamentalist stances on literal interpretations.

Even the Catholic Church acknowledges the existence of evolution to an extent. There is a clear evolutionary lineage of man from different forms of primates and genetics to help back it up. But in the end...does it really matter...its an argument in futility for those devout believers on both sides (though I will say I side with those with empirical data). My question is this...do you know every single process and ingredient that goes into a hot dog? does it still taste good (assuming you like hot dogs)? Then eat it and don't worry about it. Same goes for life in general...live it up and don't worry about how it came to be...you may find its made of pig guts.Nuck and Bob, when I say that without a moral standard to follow the atheist attitude is pure selfishness (except for what they learn from others), this guy here is clearly who I'm talking about. They exist, and here is the proof.

Aww gee thanx! <3

High and mighty christian "morals" - Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html)

Aww gee thanx! <3

High and mighty christian "morals" - Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html)I don't think he was insulting you.

I commend your honesty in stating that atheism/secular humanism really does not give purpose to life.

I don't think he was insulting you.

I commend your honesty in stating that atheism/secular humanism really does not give purpose to life.

Please explain, as a christian, what your purpose in life is, that an atheist is lacking.

Please explain, as a christian, what your purpose in life is, that an atheist is lacking.I'm speaking of objective purpose, as in it comes from outside of yourself.

As a Christian, I believe my objective purpose is to glorify God in this life (which I fail miserably short of all too often). In addition, I believe God's purpose for Christians is to make disciples of Jesus Christ and to serve others which ultimately is about accomplishing God's will, not my own. By default, atheism lacks this particular purpose.

Does an atheist have any objective purpose? If so, where does it come from?

I'm speaking of objective purpose, as in it comes from outside of yourself.

As a Christian, I believe my objective purpose is to glorify God in this life (which I fail miserably short of all too often). In addition, I believe God's purpose for Christians is to make disciples of Jesus Christ and to serve others which ultimately is about accomplishing God's will, not my own. By default, atheism lacks this particular purpose.

Does an atheist have any objective purpose? If so, where does it come from?

I was finished on this conversation but you worded your question beautifully and I just had to say it! That's what I've been trying to figure out this whole time.

I'm speaking of objective purpose, as in it comes from outside of yourself.

As a Christian, I believe my objective purpose is to glorify God in this life (which I fail miserably short of all too often). In addition, I believe God's purpose for Christians is to make disciples of Jesus Christ and to serve others which ultimately is about accomplishing God's will, not my own. By default, atheism lacks this particular purpose.

Does an atheist have any objective purpose? If so, where does it come from?

Well, I think initially my purpose in life is to survive. Put a roof over my head, feed my family, clothes on my back. Beyond that my purpose is to love and care for those close to me. To help those in need when I can. Beyond that my purpose is to enjoy my life.

It comes from the drive to survive, the need for creature comforts, the desire to learn and experience.

Please explain, as a christian, what your purpose in life is, that an atheist is lacking.

The first answer that popped into my head was "To make it to heaven" which is probably the most selfish one. :blushes:

But no really... to follow a Christ-like life, to glorify God and to share this with other people in hopes they will do the same. I'm not professing to be good at all these things, but I hope to be one day.

Well, I think initially my purpose in life is to survive. Put a roof over my head, feed my family, clothes on my back. Beyond that my purpose is to love and care for those close to me. To help those in need when I can. Beyond that my purpose is to enjoy my life.

It comes from the drive to survive, the need for creature comforts, the desire to learn and experience.

What happens when you die?

The first answer that popped into my head was "To make it to heaven" which is probably the most selfish one. :blushes:

But no really... to follow a Christ-like life, to glorify God and to share this with other people in hopes they will do the same. I'm not professing to be good at all these things, but I hope to be one day.

Is that your only purpose in life?

What happens when you die?

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

Well, I think initially my purpose in life is to survive. Put a roof over my head, feed my family, clothes on my back. Beyond that my purpose is to love and care for those close to me. To help those in need when I can. Beyond that my purpose is to enjoy my life.

It comes from the drive to survive, the need for creature comforts, the desire to learn and experience.Is that objective though?

If it comes from yourself, can't you change your self-appointed purpose?

If it comes from yourself, can't you change your self-appointed purpose?

Why would she want to?

Is that objective though?

If it comes from yourself, can't you change your self-appointed purpose?

Yes, it is objective, and yes, one can change a self appointed purpose. Ya' know, like fathers who walk away from their families (just an example). However, that objective purpose comes from within. Instinct. That said, even instinct can be modified.

Is that your only purpose in life?

Well, I want to be happy. I want a family. I want a better world for my future children to live in.

But life is short. Those things are not my ultimate goals. My ultimate goal is what happens when I die. I'd rather live as a Christian and die to "find" there is no afterlife than to be a non-believer and die and find out there is! (I'd actually rather live as a Christian and die to find that I've made it to heaven...) Not wanting to be wrong is not my only motivation but it is something I can't help but think about from time to time.

Well, I want to be happy. I want a family. I want a better world for my future children to live in.

But life is short. Those things are not my ultimate goals. My ultimate goal is what happens when I die. I'd rather live as a Christian and die to "find" there is no afterlife than to be a non-believer and die and find out there is! (I'd actually rather live as a Christian and die to find that I've made it to heaven...) Not wanting to be wrong is not my only motivation but it is something I can't help but think about from time to time.

That's your choice. It doesn't make your right or wrong, but it is an intellectual choice you made based on knowledge you have absorbed. If no one had ever told you that there was a god, or an afterlife, what choice might you have made?

I miss Zutard

I miss Zutard

Funny.

That's your choice. It doesn't make your right or wrong, but it is an intellectual choice you made based on knowledge you have absorbed. If no one had ever told you that there was a god, or an afterlife, what choice might you have made?Me, probably a more self-centered one.....

That's your choice. It doesn't make your right or wrong, but it is an intellectual choice you made based on knowledge you have absorbed. If no one had ever told you that there was a god, or an afterlife, what choice might you have made?

There wouldn't be a choice to make. They only way I could avoid being exposed to it is to live in the wild as a savage or something. Or under a rock. And then in that case I would think I'd be held unaccountable, much like a child. In any case, my purpose in life would be to simply survive. Be sheltered, eat food, and occupy myself. Which does not really sound like a "purpose". I exist so that I can continue to exist until I no longer exist? That's as depressing as the parents who work just to pay the sitters.

There wouldn't be a choice to make. They only way I could avoid being exposed to it is to live in the wild as a savage or something. Or under a rock. And then in that case I would think I'd be held unaccountable, much like a child. In any case, my purpose in life would be to simply survive. Be sheltered, eat food, and occupy myself. Which does not really sound like a "purpose". I exist so that I can continue to exist until I no longer exist? That's as depressing as the parents who work just to pay the sitters.

There are plenty of people in the world who live/have lived, just like that. It was probably their purpose to take care of those close to them. Life is purpose, in and of itself. If you find that depressing, that's all on you. I'm sure that those who have never heard of god do not find it particularly depressing, and lived happy fulfilled lives. I'm not depressed because I don't believe in a god. I'm actually quite happy and lead a full, satisfying life.

Me, probably a more self-centered one.....

That doesn't speak well of your character.

That doesn't speak well of your character.Why? What guidance would I have to be different, if I had no guidance to be different?

Why were American Indians such war-like people? I suspect it was because they probably got into groups/gangs/tribes, and tried to work for their own best interest at the costs of others. I think that's where we'd be without religious teachings.

Why? What guidance would I have to be different, if I had no guidance to be different?

Why were American Indians such war-like people? I suspect it was because they probably got into groups/gangs/tribes, and tried to work for their own best interest at the costs of others. I think that's where we'd be without religious teachings.

OMG. I'm through discussing this with you. I won't even go into wars that have been started in the name of god.

Yes, it is objective, and yes, one can change a self appointed purpose. Ya' know, like fathers who walk away from their families (just an example). However, that objective purpose comes from within. Instinct. That said, even instinct can be modified.Well, then it doesn't sound objective. It sounds like it subjective.

Well, then it doesn't sound objective. It sounds like it subjective.

No. I think what you're describing sounds more subjective than what I'm describing. Funny.

Why? What guidance would I have to be different, if I had no guidance to be different?

Why were American Indians such war-like people? I suspect it was because they probably got into groups/gangs/tribes, and tried to work for their own best interest at the costs of others. I think that's where we'd be without religious teachings.

American Indians had no religion? That's news to me.

No. I think what you're describing sounds more subjective than what I'm describing. Funny.I believe that our purpose, as I have described, comes from without. It is not created by humankind. It cannot be changed by humans. Hence its objective.

If it is from within, and can be changed by us, then it is subject to us and relative.

Am I doing a poor job of communicating what I'm trying to say?

The same is the case for morality. Is there objective morality i.e. are there some things that are always right or wrong, no matter the circumstances or cultural acceptance?

OMG. I'm through discussing this with you. I won't even go into wars that have been started in the name of god.Oh, I fully agree that a lot of horrible wars have been started for bad reasons with religion used as the stated reason. But that's one religion against another, generally speaking.

How many good and selfless things have been done in the name of religion? I don't think the list would do anything but incredibly dwarf the list of wars and other atrocities.

We're talking about what people would do with differing guidance. Societies that had no religion at all are virtually nonexistent. Societies whose religion has no afterlife, no guiding principle for a soul are generally deemed "evil" by any objective standard.

American Indians had no religion? That's news to me.I wasn't suggesting they had NO religion, but that their religions generally didn't have a concept of a heaven or afterlife, with consequences for bad behavior.

I wasn't suggesting they had NO religion, but that their religions generally didn't have a concept of a heaven or afterlife, with consequences for bad behavior.

...translation: Their religion was not the correct religion.

...translation: Their religion was not the correct religion.
Wrong translation.

If they thought their religion was right for them, then it was right for them.

The difference was what the religion provided to the overall society.

Wrong translation.

If they thought their religion was right for them, then it was right for them.

The difference was what the religion provided to the overall society.
CASINOS:thewave:

CASINOS:thewave:
:roflmao:

The devout exploit the meaning of theory as though it were only blind speculation like their own position is.

A scientific theory isn’t a guess or conjecture. Anybody can sit around and go i have a theory why the x-men series is the best cartoon ever, but that's not what a scientific theory is - it doesn't mean the same thing at all. Hopefully you see that parrallel.

In most instances, a theory is a field of study. For example Cell Theory, would you say that cells aren’t an established scientific fact because they’re called “theory” too? So what does theory mean. To some people happen to think theory means guess. A scientific theory is not a random guess thrown out into space, can your belief say this?

A scientific theory is a set of observed related events based upon accumulated evidence: laws, hypothesis, proven facts of other scientific theories and then agreed upon and reviewed by multiple scientists - until there is a scientific consensus for such to become a theory.

Something being a theory is not mutually exclusive for it to be a fact. Evolution is both a theory and a fact, for example the theory of gravity is a theory and is also a scientific law, and a fact. Another important element of the theory is that it is falsifiable - that it can be proven wrong. That is why pseudo religious dogma theories: creation and Intelligent Design are not actual scientific theoris and can never be because they are not falsifiable. You can not dispove god did it, the same way you can disprove the theory of evolution quite easily by having fossils out of order.

A large part of the reason why the devout ague against evolution is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The devout wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says.

Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of a non-scientific approach. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

Scientific models can never be stagnant--they are constantly changing and expanding as our knowledge of the universe increases. Thus, scientific models can never be viewed as "the truth". At best, they are an approximation to truth, and these approximations become progressively closer to "the truth" as more testing of new evidence and data is done. However, no scientific model can ever reach "the truth", since no one will ever possess knowledge of ALL facts and data. As long as we do not have perfect and complete knowledge, our scientific models must be considered tentative, and valid only within the current limits of what we know.

Here are some other theories: Germ Theory, The Theory of Electromagnitism, The Theory of Atomics, The Theory of Gravity, The Theory Heliocentrism (the earth going around the sun)

But don't worry, the earth going around the sun it's only a theory, maybe the bibles right after all
So, where is the "control" on evolution?

Where is the link that shows bats and rats and elephants and humans have the same ancestor?

Where is the testable, repeatable ability for abiogenesis with sponge-to-human evolution following?

You wrote a lot about theories and definitions, but you still have nothing but a few pieces of data linked together with (reasonable, but not proven) conjecture.

Uh yeah they did, maybe you should project your ignorance of other beliefs. Just because they didnt believe in YOUR heaven does not mean they didnt have their own variant.Clearly, all of their variants lead to different results.

Nucklesack's explanation of "theory"Thank you for explaining that. Most people do not understand what is meant by scientific theory and its involvement of predictions, testing, conclusions drawn from evidence, etc.


A scientific theory is not a random guess thrown out into space, can your belief say this?Certainly. Enter the historian and textual critic's realm of academia and take a look. :buddies:

Lookup Russels Teapot and explain the difference. Without using age of the belief, how is Scientology any different?did you come up with a testable control for abiogenesis and human evolution yet? I've asked several times.

In most instances, a theory is a field of study.

A scientific theory is a set of observed related events based upon accumulated evidence: laws, hypothesis hypothesis are not evidence, proven facts of other scientific theories and then agreed upon and reviewed by multiple scientists - until there is a scientific consensus for such to become a theory.

Something being a theory is not mutually exclusive for it to be a fact. Nor does it suggest something IS fact Evolution is both a theory and a fact, for example the theory of gravity is a theory and is also a scientific law, and a fact. Another important element of the theory is that it is falsifiable - that it can be proven wrong. That is why pseudo religious dogma theories: creation and Intelligent Design are not actual scientific theoris and can never be because they are not falsifiable. You can not dispove god did it of course you can - demonstrate that it can be done without God, and then you have proven it did not take some designer to do it. Start with a void, and develop a universe from it - that's all you'd have to do, the same way you can disprove the theory of evolution quite easily by having fossils out of order. Llike, having both teh off-shoot species and the parent species existing together? We'd never have that if the parent species evolved, right?

A large part of the reason why the devout ague against evolution is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The devout wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says. Or, they do understand and word it by emphasising the weaknesses, thus making it look ludicrous.

Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.) What's useful about abiogenesis? What's useful about evolution? Without the ability to establish the initial conditions, they're not provable, so there's no usefullness to them. Also, can you demonstrate what predictions have been falsified? I'm not arguing, I'm curious.

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, Not to conjecture, no :lol: claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of a non-scientific approach. You're mistaking the claim of infalibility of God with infalibility of ID. These are not the same, as I know of no claim of infalibility of ID Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain. Labeling it as such does not in any way mean it is, in fact, a fact.

Scientific models can never be stagnant--they are constantly changing and expanding as our knowledge of the universe increases. Thus, scientific models can never be viewed as "the truth". At best, they are an approximation to truth, and these approximations become progressively closer to "the truth" as more testing of new evidence and data is done. However, no scientific model can ever reach "the truth", since no one will ever possess knowledge of ALL facts and data. As long as we do not have perfect and complete knowledge, our scientific models must be considered tentative, and valid only within the current limits of what we know. With you 100% here! :buddies:

Here are some other theories: Germ Theory, The Theory of Electromagnitism, The Theory of Atomics, The Theory of Gravity, The Theory Heliocentrism (the earth going around the sun)

But don't worry, the earth going around the sun it's only a theory, maybe the bibles right after allCan you show me where the Bible states the earth does not revolve around the sun? Or, are you referring to an interpretation of the observation that the sun stopped in the sky? If that's your reference, you DO realize it's an interpretation, right?

Lookup Russels Teapot and explain the difference. Without using age of the belief, how is Scientology any different?
Yes, I've heard of the Teapot analogy before. Dawkins has used it as well.

That's not what I was talking about though. I'm not asking you to disprove the historicity of Jesus resurrection. I was inviting you to look at the historical evidence for it. If you want to discuss and argue against it, that's fine, go for it. I'll be happy to discuss it. If not, I'm just happy you looked at it sincerely.

Is there significant historical evidence to support L Ron Hubbard's sci-fi religion?

did you come up with a testable control for abiogenesis and human evolution yet? I've asked several times.I actually know a Christian who is a evolutionary biologist.

Evolution has been observed in bacteria becoming resistent to antibiotics.

Yes, I've heard of the Teapot analogy before. Dawkins has used it as well.

That's not what I was talking about though. I'm not asking you to disprove the historicity of Jesus resurrection. I was inviting you to look at the historical evidence for it.

Is there significant historical evidence to support L Ron Hubbard's sci-fi religion?

Is there significant historical evidence that Jesus was resurrected?

Is there significant historical evidence that Jesus was resurrected?There is a lot of historical evidence.

I posted this earlier in the thread but I think it got lost. :(

Is there a Case for the Resurrection of Jesus? (http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1184)

There is a lot of historical evidence.

I posted this earlier in the thread but I think it got lost. :(

Is there a Case for the Resurrection of Jesus? (http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1184)

I asked for evidence of a resurrection. Not speculation and here say about an empty tomb.

I'm not a scientest, have you parted the red sea, talked to a burning bush ?no, but I don't claim my faith is scientific fact :lmao: That makes a pretty huge difference.

If you're going to claim fact based on testable data, shouldn't you have testable data?

Evolution of species clearly occurs within that species. I'm much taller than my great-great-great-great-great grandfather likely was. No doubt medicinal and food quality have a great deal to do with that, but that's still evolutionary process.

But, to claim as fact that my dog, my goldfish, my horse, and I all have a common ancestor (which is a valid interpretation of the evolutionary concept) with no repeatable, testable data is pretty dishonest, don't you agree?

Dont you understand, the Tomb that is purported to be where "The" Jeus, who was supposedly the son of God, is now empty.

I believe there was an anarchist name Jesus. I believe he was tortured and crucified. I have no doubt that he was laid in a tomb, dead or alive, and disappeared from the tomb. However, I find no compelling evidence that he was resurrected.

I believe there was an anarchist name Jesus. I believe he was tortured and crucified. I have no doubt that he was laid in a tomb, dead or alive, and disappeared from the tomb. However, I find no compelling evidence that he was resurrected.That's where faith comes in.

People believe it, but don't claim they can prove it or that it's been proven.

That's the difference between honest recognition of faith, and dishonestly spreading conjecture as fact.

well his tomb is now empty, of course he was ressurectedActually its things like multiple independent attestations, self deprecating accounts (writing about their own embarassing doubts and disbeliefs), the fact that women (who were second class citizens and who opinions counted as nothing) first discovered the empty tomb and to meet Jesus afterward. Not to mention that the disciples were in a position to know if it was all a hoax or lie (unlike current suicide bombers, martyrs, and such) and yet still went to torturous deaths without recanting their testimony that they had seen and talked to the risen Jesus.

I asked for evidence of a resurrection. Not speculation and here say about an empty tomb.Which historical facts from Craig's presentation do you consider speculation?

Which historical facts from Craig's presentation do you consider speculation?

Well, there is insufficient evidence to support that any of it ever happened. That makes it speculation. The facts that are presented as such, are speculation. The "witnesses" are spreading rumors, or here say.

There is no more reason to believe any of that, than there is to believe that dionysus was crucified. However, we each choose to believe certain things that are presented to us as "history". A crucifixion is something that could be tangible, whereas a resurrection is not.

Well, there is insufficient evidence to support that any of it ever happened. That makes it speculation. The facts that are presented as such, are speculation. The "witnesses" are spreading rumors, or here say.Insufficient according to whom?

Its sufficient for a majority of historical scholars to conclude that the disciples had some sort of experience that led them to believe they had seen the risen Jesus.

In understand that you are not convinced. That's fine. But I must note that your objections are not supported by most scholarly research.

There is no more reason to believe any of that, than there is to believe that dionysus was crucified.
However, we each choose to believe certain things that are presented to us as "history". A crucifixion is something that could be tangible, whereas a resurrection is not.How so? If people witnessed the risen Jesus, is that not tangible?


If you don't mind, why don't you specifically explain why you reject each of the arguments instead of just casting everything off as "here say"[sic].

Insufficient according to whom?

Its sufficient for a majority of historical scholars to conclude that the disciples had some sort of experience that led them to believe they had seen the risen Jesus.

In understand that you are not convinced. That's fine. But I must note that your objections are not supported by most scholarly research.

How so? If people witnessed the risen Jesus, is that not tangible?


Interesting, the speaker never calls out who those scholars are. There is no reason to believe in a resurrection when it could be explained as simply perpetuating the anarchy that had been started by a sect of people.

Tangible evidence is something that can be seen by anyone, with the naked eye. Something that one can reach out and touch, and feel at the tip of your fingers.

The evidence that is being presented is no more tangible than me saying my keys have been resurrected because I can't find them.

Interesting, the speaker never calls out who those scholars are. There is no reason to believe in a resurrection when it could be explained as simply perpetuating the anarchy that had been started by a sect of people.

This is a long read, Its from scholar Gary Habermas's website. It goes into many scholars and what they believe on the subject.

Dialog: Experiences of the Risen Jesus (http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm)

Tangible evidence is something that can be seen by anyone, with the naked eye. Something that one can reach out and touch, and feel at the tip of your fingers. Exactly. That is what historians hold about the disciples. They believed that they experienced the risen Jesus. They ate and drank with, and touched him.

The evidence that is being presented is no more tangible than me saying my keys have been resurrected because I can't find them.No, the evidence presented is analogous to someone taking your keys, you expecting to never get them back, then they somehow show up on your dresser. Who knows the mechanics of how they got back there, but they are there and you have seen them and you believe that they returned to you because they did. Heck you can even go out and start your car with them.

If they didn't and you were just making it up, you certainly would expose the untruth when put under stress to recant.

Now maybe, maybe there is a chance that somebody made an exact copy of your keys, right down to the keychain and the wear marks from use in order to fool you, but that's certainly not the simplest and most logical conclusion. The logical conclusion is that the keys have returned, especially since you have held them and used them.

Hmm but was it self deprecating acounts written by the actual person or was it self deprecating accounts written second/third/fourth hand as was a majority of the acounts refrenced in the bibleAre advocating that the New Testament was written by people far removed from the actual events?

Read my theory about Paul and his importance on perpetuating this folk taleYou wonder why people get hung up on evolution as a theory. You should be careful what you use that word to describe.

Well,.......IMH experience.............I've never heard a woman scream out out..:OH DARWIN!!:.....in the heat of passion.....:shrug:.....am I wrong ??

No its used in the correct context, i'm fully willing to proof my theory. The question is are you?Bring it. Lay out the proof for your theory on Paul.

No its used in the correct context, i'm fully willing to proof my theory. The question is are you?Show me the proof of abiogenesis and the repeatable test we can use to prove it, then the proof of sponge to bat and human and horse evolution, and the repeatable test we can use to prove it, and i'll show you my proof that Jesus rose from the dead.

Until then, we both have to take our beliefs on faith.

you really really REALLY need to learn to read posts in context
Yes, I agree. I think the evolution side of this thread is pretty dead at this point. If somebody chooses to revive, I'm going to depart.

you really really REALLY need to learn to read posts in contextI read it in context. I was trying to get back to the point you couldn't answer before, which is that evolution is not a fact.

when you acknowledge that sponge-to-human evolution is not a fact, I'll let you get back to your playtoy discussion for which you're actually prepared.

I think we were brought here by aliens. Maybe they even made us in test tubes.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a plausible as creation and evolution.

I think we came from sponges, since thats This_Persons understanding of evolution.


Since nobody really knows...http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/15394/ufos_in_religious__old_paintings/

Y'all come by St. Paul's UMC on Thursdays in L'Town for a great, free noon meal......:huggy:...I'll "buy" you a Coke if you see me out in the cemetery....:yay:

I think we were brought here by aliens. Maybe they even made us in test tubes.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a plausible as creation and evolution.You're right, it is as plausible.

The problem with that is where did the alien's life begin?

I think we came from sponges, since thats This_Persons understanding of evolution.Interestingly, that's pretty much all of science's understanding of evolution, also.

You do have to wonder how people 3/4/5000 years ago were able to move stones and blocks with the technology available to them at the time, when we cant do something similiar with smaller versions of them

Maybe that's how Jesus was resurrected...he was sucked into a space ship.

it would explain his tomb being empty

I dunno'. There are those who speculate he either got up and walked out, or was carried out.

I dunno'. There are those who speculate he either got up and walked out, or was carried out.Or it happened as described in the NT. Novel thought I know.

Anyways, see you guys, gotta go. Got plans. If I see you out and about, look out, I might hand you a gospel tract. :evil: