|
Post by blondie on May 20, 2007 10:46:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 20, 2007 13:06:23 GMT -5
All this means is that a bunch of atheists participated in the poll...or a few that participated a lot. LOL.
It's obvious that somebody has a program that is voting, clearing the cache and voting again, like every 10 seconds....Every time I refresh the screen, the votes increase...there is no way that there is this many people hitting this poll page legitimately.
Edit: I am surprised that anyone can even view the poll page, the auto voter(s) that somebody is using appears to be kicking off a vote every few seconds. Those crazy atheists.
Edit part2: The poll software the "hacker" is using is actually keeping the "wanted" answer percentage within a specific range by making votes contrary to the "wanted" answer as well. Which is smart to a degree...in that if it was too high, people that don't know any better would think it was legitimate. The software is constantly making votes for and against the "wanted" answer in order to keep it in the range. If I had time, I would make up one that would just pick one specific answer and let it keep voting. You would think Chrisitanity Today would at least have poll software on their webpage that would keep a IP address from voting more than once every 24 hours or something but it doesn't. Clear your cache and you can keep voting and voting.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 20, 2007 13:09:32 GMT -5
Still there, actually went up to 89%. What is your point? Ice expands when it is frozen, that is irrational. It can be explained but I can see the value in that behavior If frozen water weren't less dense than liquid, there would be no floating icebergs to sight off the bow of a ship. There would be no skating on ice-covered ponds, while fish and other life shelter in insulated water below. If water froze from the bottom up, much of Earth's water would solidify in winter, and life might be impossible. Hmmm, that is odd. Seems like some magic -- perhaps some outside force -- in the phenomenon of ice's expansion. Really weird... I don't disagree that atheism is rational. Makes perfect sense to me. Makes you wonder -- if a Christian magazine lists that as a choice -- there must be those on the staff who think this is a valid choice.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 20, 2007 14:10:11 GMT -5
Don't fret phinehas. If any Christian loses his faith over a poll then that faith was pretty weak. We already know that there are some irrational aspects of Jesus and God anyways. You can't deny it. For instance, I'll give the lyrics of a song by Larnelle Harris Tell me what am I to you, that you should care -- Let me recall the deeds I've done deserving your praise; And did you die for all my sins because you found me worthy? Why, even now you stand before God's throne, pleading my case.
I don't know why you love me It's one of those mysteries So hard for me to see, oh I don't know why you love me I don't know why it's true, But I'm glad you do
Had you turned and walked away, who'd note the blame And if you'd refused to pay my debts, I'd still be in chains And if you'd given up the serach, I know I'd still be drifting I would still be wandering alone, trying to get home
I don't know why you love me It's one of those mysteries So hard for me to see, oh I don't know why you love me I don't know why it's true, But I'm glad you do
Bridge: Your love is patient, long-suffering and kind I don't have to understand it But you saved my life, And I'm glad that's the way you planned it
Come to think of it, I think I see a valid reason why atheists have trouble with the concept of God -- they can't fathom the idea of unconditional love. Humans aren't capable of it, so its easy to see why some people would want to discount it. Makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 20, 2007 14:14:57 GMT -5
I can assure you that I am not fretting over anything. I am just debunking that this poll is legitimate, that's all. blondie thinks it is...which reveals his lack of technical knowledge. Scientific knowledge at that. LOL.
"I don't disagree that atheism is rational. Makes perfect sense to me." - I am assuming this is in jest....because atheism is not something I would consider to be rational...agnosticism for sure but not atheism. Agnosticism is more of failing to see the forest for the tress were atheism is failing or more specifically denying to see the trees and the forest.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 20, 2007 15:54:23 GMT -5
Go back and look at many of blondie's posts, not just regarding religion. If he/she (I wish someone would clarify this ) is not supplied with definitive proof -- or at least something with a strong basis of logical reasoning -- than he/she does not believe in something. In my short time of studying atheism, they are perhaps the world's biggest skeptics. You can get that from many of blondie's posts too because proof is always sought. Thus, if you are a great skeptic, it is rational to disbelief God because there has never been given any documentable, scientific proof for God. Therefore, if you can't prove God, He is not real. The basis of atheism. And oh yeah, its up to us to prove it to them (its the skeptic thing). At least that is there thought process. I have repeated time and again that this is nonsense. Why do I need to prove God is real? Will that help me? "Wow, God IS real" and I can go on my merry way. Instead, I take the position that the atheist has to prove He is not real. He can no more do that than I can prove that He is, so it appears we are at a stalemate. It then comes down to a matter of faith. Problem is, there are so many things in the world that are so complex, man cannot begin to explain them. They hit the edges and bits and pieces on some of them, but still, they are a mystery. The odds of everything falling in place on the earth the way it does is so phenomenal that it defies math. Let's take something simple, since it touches on the environment. Think of the mechanisms of life. We use the oxygen in air for many chemical reactions in our body. We then exhale air which is largely CO2. Green plants take that CO2 and make more oxygen. How did these wonderful synergies come into existence? Scientists can explain the mechanisms themselves, but why do they exist in the first place? There are millions of other similar synergies out there. I can grasp creatures adapting to survive but why so many different synergies? Who can sit down and even speculate on how and why they came about? And that is what many of them would be -- speculation. Therefore, in that case, it WOULD BE more rational to link these mysteries to an outside source, a driving mechanism. You guessed it. But again, if you are a skeptic, then rationality is different for you. After all, a skeptic is One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions. Once could dare say that an easy example of a Biblical atheist (or at least agnostic) was Thomas But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe." After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be with you." Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." This is just speculation, but what would have happened to Thomas had Jesus not shown himself? Thomas would have walked away an unbeliever. And this was a man that was in his presence before the cross! So it would seem even more natural that people who have never encountered God in the flesh, in a sign, or in no other recordable fashion would be even more skeptical. Jesus faced many unbelievers in his day too, so why should now be any different? John 4:48 - So Jesus said to him, "Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe." That's what atheists and agnostics are looking for today -- evidence -- signs and wonders. And even Paul said in his day that the knowledge of God and crucifixion of Christ was not rational to some 1 Cor 1:21-29 - For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. And finally, one day the atheists and agnostics will get the evidence they are looking for. 2 Thess 2:7-12(HCSB) - For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; but the one now restraining will do so until he is out of the way, and then the lawless one will be revealed. The Lord Jesus will destroy him with the breath of His mouth and will bring him to nothing with the brightness of His coming. The coming [of the lawless one] is based on Satan's working, with all kinds of false miracles, signs, and wonders, and with every unrighteous deception among those who are perishing. [They perish] because they did not accept the love of the truth in order to be saved. For this reason God sends them a strong delusion so that they will believe what is false, so that all will be condemned — those who did not believe the truth but enjoyed unrighteousness. Be careful what you wish for when you want to find your evidence. At that point, it will be too late.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 20, 2007 20:18:58 GMT -5
"is not something I would consider to be rational"
To be more precise in my words, I am not speaking of Christianity but the previous step of believing in an actual God, which atheists claim they don't and agnostics haven't come to a conclusion either way but both conclusions still being possibilities.
So, why Jesus the messiah is a stumbling block to "Jews" and foolishness to "Gentiles"....that's not speaking of the concept of God, which to me would be irrational to deny, "Jew or "Gentile".
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 21, 2007 11:04:39 GMT -5
"is not something I would consider to be rational" To be more precise in my words, I am not speaking of Christianity but the previous step of believing in an actual God, which atheists claim they don't and agnostics haven't come to a conclusion either way but both conclusions still being possibilities. I call myself an Atheist but I don't believe you can prove a negative so I can't be 100% sure that gods don't exist. Just like you can't be 100% sure faeries don't exist. If you are sure then your point is hypocritical. Strong Atheists claim to be certain that God as understood by the Western religions doesn't exist. This a relatively new viewpoint. The idea being that it would be the easiest thing to prove but hasn't been. www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Summary.htmIn general almost all Atheists admit you can't prove a negative.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 21, 2007 11:26:15 GMT -5
blondie, you should consider youself an agnostic atheist then. You don't believe there is a God or gods but don't know there is or are not a God or gods.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 21, 2007 19:34:52 GMT -5
Ya know, is it agnostic or atheist, or agnostic atheist, or what? At this rate, they'll have as many "denominations" as Christians . The faerie statement is out of place. After all, how often do people ask others to prove the existence of faeries like atheists/agnostics seem to want certain religions to prove deities. And you can't say you don't care about it or you wouldn't post anything about the subject at all. This brings up a point: Christians spread the news of Christ and God because we believe that it offers people hope and eternal life. Why do atheists then even care to constantly venture into public places and state there is no God? Why bother? What is your true purpose? I say that because of you faerie statement. I don't care whether or not faeries exist so I don't bother to prove or disprove it. But atheists have books, websites, etc. all trying to express their lack in the belief of God and why. They then examine the Bible and other religious texts in their quest to disprove God. For what purpose? Do you think it will benefit anyone if they lost faith or if someone was contemplating acceptance of God that they would stop doing so? In essence, why do you even care?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 22, 2007 8:28:49 GMT -5
blondie, you should consider youself an agnostic atheist then. You don't believe there is a God or gods but don't know there is or are not a God or gods. The reason I don't call myself an Agnostic because when I say that around here people think that I just haven't decided which Baptist church to join. Also you can be an Atheist and an Agnostic at the same time. I don't believe there's life on the moon but I can never be 100% sure
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 22, 2007 8:41:22 GMT -5
The faerie statement is out of place. After all, how often do people ask others to prove the existence of faeries like atheists/agnostics seem to want certain religions to prove deities. And you can't say you don't care about it or you wouldn't post anything about the subject at all. No the fairy statement's fair. Fairies are magic. There is anecdotal evidence for their existence. Because they are magic anyone with a little imagination can always come up with an answer for fairy skeptics. This brings up a point: Christians spread the news of Christ and God because we believe that it offers people hope and eternal life. Why do atheists then even care to constantly venture into public places and state there is no God? Why bother? What is your true purpose? Because it's not true and makes people act crazy and irrational. atheists have books, websites, etc. all trying to express their lack in the belief of God and why. They then examine the Bible and other religious texts in their quest to disprove God. For what purpose? A lot of Atheists in America used to be Christians. They became Atheists by studying history and the Bible. These are usually the one that do the above. I just find it bizarre. Do you think it will benefit anyone if they lost faith or if someone was contemplating acceptance of God that they would stop doing so? Yes, drugs don't hold a candle to screwing people up like religion. It rots your brain like nothing else. I've seen it time and time again. Religion is s blight on civilization.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 22, 2007 9:11:19 GMT -5
That's why I said you were an agnostic atheist versus a gnostic atheist. You don't know and you don't believe versus you do know and don't believe there is no God.
I think atheists, agnostic or gnostic are retarded and mentally insane and are a disease on civilization. Hmmmm, sorry, still don't see what you get out of insulting people...I tried it but it didn't do anything for me.....maybe you can explain the satisfaction you receive from it?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 22, 2007 11:07:21 GMT -5
Take a visit to any mental institution in Alabama and you'll find that Jesus is the common denominator among the deranged.
You can be delusional without being religious but you can't be religious without being delusional.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 22, 2007 20:00:27 GMT -5
No the fairy statement's fair. Fairies are magic. There is anecdotal evidence for their existence. Because they are magic anyone with a little imagination can always come up with an answer for fairy skeptics. But there is more of a natural tendency to believe in a creator than there is fairies. It may not manifest into religious practice, but most when asked would respond that they believe in a greater force, and more typically God. If you pressed the issue on many of these people they couldn't really tell you why, but the belief is still there. Are these people dangerous and delusional? And sure, people who may believe in fairies can come up with an answer as to why, but since most people do not believe in fairies, this would summarily be dismissed. Of course you will come back and say the same thing about believing in God, but remember, you are in the minority in this -- about the same percentage that believes in fairies . Because it's not true and makes people act crazy and irrational. Not true to you is not true to everyone. Again, to the majority of people? True. Most people I know who go beyond the belief of just God into Christianity would be seen by most as rational, level-headed people. They just happen to smile more. If you find that crazy and irrational, try it. Smiling is fun. A lot of Atheists in America used to be Christians. They became Atheists by studying history and the Bible. These are usually the one that do the above. I just find it bizarre. Hmmm, strange but I don't doubt that is the case with some. I can't recall if you said it or another atheist I read, but I know one person said something along the lines that people are born not believing in God and it is a developed belief. That doesn't really run counter to your statement, but it would mean: no belief --> belief -- no belief. Possible. You do know that there have been several people who have done the opposite as well, right? Not necessarily going into Christianity of another religion, but at least believing in God. Lee Stroble, Anthony Flew, Alister McGrath, William O' Hair to name a few. I would dare say that many on this list are very intelligent men. Alister McGrath was awarded an Oxford D.Phil. for his research in molecular biophysics (December 1977), and gained first class honors in Theology in June 1978. Do you have similar credentials? Yes, drugs don't hold a candle to screwing people up like religion. It rots your brain like nothing else. I've seen it time and time again. Religion is s blight on civilization. This is quite obviously just your interpretation and view. Mine has quite an opposite effect -- I was rotting my brain before I accepted Christ. Had it not been for my conversion, I would not be where I am today -- much better educated, with a good job and great kids. Your statement does hold a measure of validity. People have done all sorts of crazy things in the name of religion and fanaticism. But do you have any documented proof that these same people would not do irrational things had they not discovered religion? To say that religion is the cause would be like saying that Grand Theft Auto causes people to go out and shoot people. There is no real foundation in either assumption.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 22, 2007 20:08:54 GMT -5
Take a visit to any mental institution in Alabama and you'll find that Jesus is the common denominator among the deranged. You can be delusional without being religious but you can't be religious without being delusional. What does that prove? I would say it proves that Jesus is perhaps the most well known figure in history and that if a nutcase wanted to pick someone to "be", why not Jesus? After all, who would notice if someone ran around and said "I'm Bill Gates, I'm Bill Gates"? Now claiming to be Jesus -- that'll turn heads every time. Prove to me that these same people don't also have a strong desire to be noticed. Your just jealous that you can't get the same reaction by running around and yelling "I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist". ;D The second statement, again, is just your viewpoint. People who do belief in God can make the same exact statement about atheists and it would be every bit as valid to the person stating it.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 8:11:40 GMT -5
But there is more of a natural tendency to believe in a creator than there is fairies. It may not manifest into religious practice, but most when asked would respond that they believe in a greater force, and more typically God. If you pressed the issue on many of these people they couldn't really tell you why, but the belief is still there. Are these people dangerous and delusional? Greater force? You can't even explain what a "God" is and to assume your particular god is somehow universal is ignorant. Most people I know who go beyond the belief of just God into Christianity would be seen by most as rational, level-headed people. They just happen to smile more. If you find that crazy and irrational, try it. Smiling is fun. Sure, many level headed people don't want to face the discrimination that comes with being an Atheist. If I could fake religion I might. The smile thing is just silly. You do know that there have been several people who have done the opposite as well, right? Not necessarily going into Christianity of another religion, but at least believing in God. Lee Stroble, Anthony Flew, Alister McGrath, William O' Hair to name a few. I would dare say that many on this list are very intelligent men. Alister McGrath was awarded an Oxford D.Phil. for his research in molecular biophysics (December 1977), and gained first class honors in Theology in June 1978. Do you have similar credentials? Flew doesn't believe in what you call God. If you would speak in less nebulous terms you would understand that. Stroble's just a liar who Christians should shy away from. Just bringing him up should be embarrassing: www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.htmlI've posted this link before: The best arguments of atheism would then tend to inoculate their atheist hearers against Christianity, whereas the best arguments of Christianity would be generally unable to inoculate their Christian hearers against atheism.humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/AtheistDeconversion.html
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 8:18:58 GMT -5
Take a visit to any mental institution in Alabama and you'll find that Jesus is the common denominator among the deranged. You can be delusional without being religious but you can't be religious without being delusional. What does that prove? I would say it proves that Jesus is perhaps the most well known figure in history and that if a nutcase wanted to pick someone to "be", why not Jesus? After all, who would notice if someone ran around and said "I'm Bill Gates, I'm Bill Gates"? Now claiming to be Jesus -- that'll turn heads every time. Prove to me that these same people don't also have a strong desire to be noticed. Your just jealous that you can't get the same reaction by running around and yelling "I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist". ;D The second statement, again, is just your viewpoint. People who do belief in God can make the same exact statement about atheists and it would be every bit as valid to the person stating it. Not believing in God is not a delusion. You don't have one tiny scrap of evidence in the existence of your God. And he's only one of thousands of others which I believe we can agree are pretend. This is why I say Christians can't think objectively. You can't subject your beliefs to the same criticism you subject other to. I don't know why. I guess it's fun to pretend your the center of the universe. It's also delusional. Billt isn't delusional because he doesn't believe in global warming. But he's ignoring the evidence. There is no evidence for your God. None whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 23, 2007 8:51:56 GMT -5
Greater force? You can't even explain what a "God" is and to assume your particular god is somehow universal is ignorant. Ignorant, again, according to you. Remember, you are the minority so your assertions are not the most accepted ones. If you're so hung on on a definition of God, I looked it up for you: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. Happy? You didn't accept what I said was God, so here's one straight from a source. Uh, what century are you living in? People who claim belief in God and particularly Christians have been facing much more discrimination than those who claim to be atheists lately. If the average joe said he was an atheist to the average bob, all he'd likely get in return is "really?". If he said he was a Christian, he'd likely get a sneer and some disdain. Now, if you know your audience...are you paranoid? As it was meant to be. Judging by your posts, I discern you as one who rarely smiles. Maybe I should have use little "g" god. But he still now believes in a god of some type. No longer an atheist but a theist. I do like this quote: HABERMAS: You have made numerous comments over the years that Christians are justified in their beliefs such as Jesus’ resurrection or other major tenants of their faith. In our last two dialogues I think you even remarked that for someone who is already a Christian there are many good reasons to believe Jesus’ resurrection. Would you comment on that?
FLEW: Yes, certainly. This is an important matter about rationality which I have fairly recently come to appreciate. What it is rational for any individual to believe about some matter which is fresh to that individual’s consideration depends on what he or she rationally believed before they were confronted with this fresh situation. For suppose they rationally believed in the existence of a God of any revelation, then it would be entirely reasonable for them to see the fine tuning argument as providing substantial confirmation of their belief in the existence of that God. Kinda goes back to the rationality thing. Hmmm, I'll have to look it over some later, but don't see where he was called out as a liar. I could just as easily call you a liar and it would hold the same amount of weight. Unless you can show where he was caught in a lie, you're just name calling.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 23, 2007 9:05:45 GMT -5
What does that prove? I would say it proves that Jesus is perhaps the most well known figure in history and that if a nutcase wanted to pick someone to "be", why not Jesus? After all, who would notice if someone ran around and said "I'm Bill Gates, I'm Bill Gates"? Now claiming to be Jesus -- that'll turn heads every time. Prove to me that these same people don't also have a strong desire to be noticed. Your just jealous that you can't get the same reaction by running around and yelling "I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist". ;D The second statement, again, is just your viewpoint. People who do belief in God can make the same exact statement about atheists and it would be every bit as valid to the person stating it. Not believing in God is not a delusion. You don't have one tiny scrap of evidence in the existence of your God. And he's only one of thousands of others which I believe we can agree are pretend. This is why I say Christians can't think objectively. You can't subject your beliefs to the same criticism you subject other to. I don't know why. I guess it's fun to pretend your the center of the universe. It's also delusional. Billt isn't delusional because he doesn't believe in global warming. But he's ignoring the evidence. There is no evidence for your God. None whatsoever. Not too many good definitions out there for delusion, so we'll use this one A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence You say there is no evidence of God. I admit that there is no scientific evidence of God. But please provide for me evidence that disproves His existence. Can't do it. And lest you come back with the fairy analogy, let me be plain: I don't care about fairies. I never asked anyone to prove their existence. You, however, seen to be on a conquest to have people prove God. Therein lies the difference. Again, I want the real explanation: why are atheists so bent on proving God is not real or having us prove He is? If you don't believe in Him, your business. Go your merry way. And if you say you do it because you assert religion is harmful, please provide evidence that it was the religion itself that caused the harm and not the predisposition of the religious person to use anything they could as a basis to harm or hate. If you can do that without a doubt, we'll have something to work with. If not, you've already shown that you have been wasting your time.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 9:39:59 GMT -5
If you're so hung on on a definition of God, I looked it up for you: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. Happy? You didn't accept what I said was God, so here's one straight from a source. So Anthony Flew doesn't believe in God and Zeus is not a God. This is a description of the Christian and Islamic God. It's not a definition. I just want to make that subtle point. Uh, what century are you living in? People who claim belief in God and particularly Christians have been facing much more discrimination than those who claim to be atheists lately. If the average joe said he was an atheist to the average bob, all he'd likely get in return is "really?". If he said he was a Christian, he'd likely get a sneer and some disdain. Now, if you know your audience...are you paranoid? This is ridiculous. Believe me Atheists face real job and housing discrimination. Think about it. I've been turned down for jobs and apartments when my beliefs were known. It's really insulting when Christians, who control virtually every aspect of this country, try to play the victim. As it was meant to be. Judging by your posts, I discern you as one who rarely smiles. ;D Hmmm, I'll have to look it over some later, but don't see where he was called out as a liar. I could just as easily call you a liar and it would hold the same amount of weight. Unless you can show where he was caught in a lie, you're just name calling. Lee Strobel is a liar because of how he represents himself in his book. He claims to be what he's not and claims to do what he doesn't. He may be lying to himself. mwillett.org/atheism/strobel.htmAnd he has a big nose:
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 9:55:55 GMT -5
You say there is no evidence of God. I admit that there is no scientific evidence of God. But please provide for me evidence that disproves His existence. Can't do it. Yes I can. Victor J Stenger has added a new dimension to this. www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591024811/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b/103-1579805-7899034Again, I want the real explanation: why are atheists so bent on proving God is not real or having us prove He is? If you don't believe in Him, your business. Go your merry way. If we shut up you guys will think you've won. Besides I think it does real harm to society. And if you say you do it because you assert religion is harmful, please provide evidence that it was the religion itself that caused the harm and not the predisposition of the religious person to use anything they could as a basis to harm or hate. If you can do that without a doubt, we'll have something to work with. If not, you've already shown that you have been wasting your time. Religion blocks scientific progress. It makes people blow up abortion clinics and the WTC. I keeps me from buying beer on Sunday. It reinforces racism and sexism. It lies about history. It rationalizes injustice. When you get to the kids you screw them up for life etc.. etc..
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 23, 2007 11:09:59 GMT -5
"Religion blocks scientific progress. It makes people blow up abortion clinics and the WTC. I keeps me from buying beer on Sunday. It reinforces racism and sexism. It lies about history. It rationalizes injustice. When you get to the kids you screw them up for life etc.. etc.."
Religion blocks scientific progress - provide evidence.
It makes people blow up abortion clinics and the WTC. - provide evidence.
It keeps me from buying beer on Sunday - how pathetic...have enough sense to buy it on Saturday or go to a bar if you need booze so bad.
It reinforces racism and sexism - perhaps sexism with some religions...but there are plenty of sexist atheists out there.
It lies about history - provide evidence.
It rationalizes injustice - provide evidence.
When you get to the kids you screw them up for life etc.. etc. - provide evidence.
Please provide evidence that shows religion has all these faults as a common practice. Anybody can find instances of X,Y,Z of anything but that doesn't mean it applies to the whole. Therefore if you come back with instances to prove your point, then I will reply back that there are instances in the scope of atheism one can point to.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 11:41:07 GMT -5
"Religion blocks scientific progress. It makes people blow up abortion clinics and the WTC. I keeps me from buying beer on Sunday. It reinforces racism and sexism. It lies about history. It rationalizes injustice. When you get to the kids you screw them up for life etc.. etc.."Religion blocks scientific progress - provide evidence. It makes people blow up abortion clinics and the WTC. - provide evidence. It keeps me from buying beer on Sunday - how pathetic...have enough sense to buy it on Saturday or go to a bar if you need booze so bad. It reinforces racism and sexism - perhaps sexism with some religions...but there are plenty of sexist atheists out there. It lies about history - provide evidence. It rationalizes injustice - provide evidence. When you get to the kids you screw them up for life etc.. etc. - provide evidence. Please provide evidence that shows religion has all these faults as a common practice. You want me to prove that fire is hot too? Actually the beer on Sunday is probably a secular thing. There's nothing in Christianity about not drinking. Just the opposite. The Xtians just adopted that like the secular ideas of not owning slaves or having sex with children. It would make more sense to outlaw work on Saturday.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 23, 2007 12:13:57 GMT -5
You want me to prove that fire is hot too? Actually the beer on Sunday is probably a secular thing. There's nothing in Christianity about not drinking. Just the opposite. The Xtians just adopted that like the secular ideas of not owning slaves or having sex with children. It would make more sense to outlaw work on Saturday. LOL! I guess you can't do what phinehas asked, huh?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 23, 2007 12:22:14 GMT -5
blondie -You are just voicing your beliefs....agnostic beliefs that is, since you don't KNOW these things to be fact.
I didn't ask you to prove any of them, just to give evidence. I don't need any evidence from you in regards to fire..I learned that through experience a long time ago.
Edit: You should also clarify your comments...when you speak of religion...it should be in that scope, if you want to speak on Christianity...then speak in that scope. If you are going to make a premise on religion, then it should at least be common among all religions or at least the major religions. Making a premise under the guise of religion, when it may only be specific to one religion is not valid to use against another specific religion under the umbrella of religion in general.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 13:22:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 23, 2007 14:36:15 GMT -5
blondie, all your examples you gave match up with the only evidence I stated you could provide, as expected. They are specific examples of a small percentage of what makes up "Religion". I know of an atheist that is a serial killer...therefore I will see the world through blondies eyes and state the opinion that all atheists are serial killers.
You have given ZERO evidence that religion is the cause of abortion bombings or the WTC.
As far as Christianity...the EVIDENCE that it HAS done more to elevate women in society is an obvious fact when you look at history. Even today, women have the same freedoms has men compared to coutries that are not "Christian"....ie. the WESTERN world.
All you have to do is hop on a plane and step your female foot on the soil of Saudi Arabia.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 14:52:40 GMT -5
blondie, all your examples you gave match up with the only evidence I stated you could provide, as expected. They are specific examples of a small percentage of what makes up "Religion". I know of an atheist that is a serial killer...therefore I will see the world through blondies eyes and state the opinion that all atheists are serial killers. You have given ZERO evidence that religion is the cause of abortion bombings or the WTC. As far as Christianity...the EVIDENCE that it HAS done more to elevate women in society is an obvious fact when you look at history. Even today, women have the same freedoms has men compared to coutries that are not "Christian"....ie. the WESTERN world. All you have to do is hop on a plane and step your female foot on the soil of Saudi Arabia. Christianity is the motivation of the evils above. Everybody's allowed to interpret their religion any way they want. The KKK's Christianity is just as valid as yours. We don't know where Western Civilization would be without Christianity. possibly much better. The Greeks an Romans did OK. It wasn't until Christianity came along that things all went to hell. Religion is the reason those folks in Saudi Arabia are so crazy. As for the serial killer example. Atheism never compelled anyone to do anything. And before you say it. Atheism doesn't imply immorality or even amorality. You guys desperately need some new material I'm amazed that nothing seems to stick with you. We've been through this all before. "You have given ZERO evidence that religion is the cause of abortion bombings or the WTC." Whatever. Do you really want to stand behind that?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 14:59:58 GMT -5
As far as Christianity...the EVIDENCE that it HAS done more to elevate women in society is an obvious fact when you look at history. You are a victim of a fake history. This claim is absolutely ridiculous.
|
|