A Letter From An Atheist

[timatter]

LOCO- In this country the Biology, Cosmology, Geology, Anthroploogy, and History deniers are too close to being a majority. I used to be one of them not long ago so I know about how they think. I have to fight against the things that are definitely wrong. If the wrong assumptions go into decision making.......garbage in, garbage out.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think religions should mess with Science in schools.

Untouchable, huh?

Is it okay for Science [sic] to mess with religions?

And why did you capitalize 'science', but not 'religions'?

So much for 'church militant', eh?

I guess the militant bow to science too, don't they?

 

[timatter]

AV1611VET- "Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Psalm 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge."
And as the light gets to us from those vast distances it reveals what happened long, long ago.
"Outer space talks to us, using a language that agnostics and other types of unbelievers are unfamiliar with." Then why am I more familiar with it than you?
"God created these events to be a message to us as to what sin does." Most of the things we see in space happened before 6000 years ago so how can they be about sin? And what does a lifeless ball of hydrogen and helium have to do with sin, moral evil?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think many people would agree with you on that theology.

No offense -- and I could certainly be wrong here -- but I think you don't even have a clue as to what I said; let alone be privy to who would agree and who wouldn't.

Even if you said you don't agree, I would chalk it up to you just not agreeing because you don't understand.

I thing a lot of people use "I don't agree", when they really mean, "Huh?"

 

[Belk]

I'm not going to debate this with an agnostic, Timatter.

Especially one that is content to remain behind a question mark.

Take Split Rock for example. He's been behind a question mark since I've known him, yet he is anything but a question mark.

For all this knowledge -- and I assume he is very knowledgeable -- he is still an agnostic, and will probably die one -- (although I hope not).

In any event, just so you can have something to automatically deny -- (which every good agnostic does, doesn't he?) -- here's a tidbit for you to ridicule:

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Psalm 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

Outer space talks to us, using a language that agnostics and other types of unbelievers are unfamiliar with.

God created these events to be a message to us as to what sin does.

What you see as a supernova, we see as a star -- actually a home to angels -- (but skip that, it's over your head) -- we see an angel's home demolished; probably because he "left his first estate" and came to earth and cohabited with women.

Yes, the former tenant of SN1987 is now "reserved in chains of darkness", and his home destroyed because of a terrible choice he made to follow Lucifer in a rebellion that will never succeed.

Having said all this -- have a nice day.

Wow, not only are we not real atheists we are not real agnostics either. Apparently a "True Agnostic" has to buy into any old pablum no matter how nonsensical and no matter how much evidence there is against it. Go on AV, pull the other one it has bells on.

 

[LOCO]

Untouchable, huh?

Is it okay for Science [sic] to mess with religions?

And why did you capitalize 'science', but not 'religions'?

So much for 'church militant', eh?

I guess the militant bow to science too, don't they?

Don't get hysterical AV1611VET. Where did I say it was alright for Science to mess with religions?

I don't spoonfeed. Look up the proper use of capitals to see why I capitalised Science and not religions.

So...because I don't agree with your point of view I am less of a Christian, is that what you are saying?

Being a Christian doesn't mean we have to empty our heads of all its critical thinking functions as these IDers and YEC loony fringe do.

 

[crimsonleaf]

What's the question? I'll venture.

The question is the bit you enboldened.

I'm not going to type out the whole thing again (sorry for that) so just read the thread if you want to answer, or ignore it the way Belk is.

 

[Timothew]

So how can you tell if a egg has been fertilized and if that egg will produce a chicken or not?

You can tell by holding the egg up to a light. It's called candling. (they used to use a candle). After 3-6 days you can see the chick developing inside the shell.

You can tell if someone is a christian the same way, hold him up to the light.

 

[Belk]

The question is the bit you enboldened.

I'm not going to type out the whole thing again (sorry for that) so just read the thread if you want to answer, or ignore it the way Belk is.

I'll let others deal with your misconceptions. Arguing with an "Ex Atheist" who believes atheists can only come to one philosophical conclusion seems a waste of time.

Though you might consider starting a separate thread in the appropriate forum so your posts don't get deleted for being off topic.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

The question is the bit you enboldened.

I'm not going to type out the whole thing again (sorry for that) so just read the thread if you want to answer, or ignore it the way Belk is.

First, you tell me what it is I supposedly don't believe in?

 

[crimsonleaf]

First, you tell me what it is I supposedly don't believe in?

I know your comprehension skills aren't that poor as you came to answer the point I was making. You could try reading more than the last page.

Anyhoo, as Belk points out, it's probably off topic, and I have no wish to invoke the ire of the mods.

 

[Naraoia]

I'll pick on you because your the first post on my last page. I have every idea what being an atheist means, not what you claim it is.

I'm beginning to sympathise with AV's laments about "everything but what's in his profile"...

It's funny how nearly everyone claiming to be an atheist doesn't seem to have the faintest clue about what atheism means.

Have you ever contemplated the possibility that "meaning" means different things to different people?

Don't get hysterical AV1611VET. Where did I say it was alright for Science to mess with religions?

I don't spoonfeed. Look up the proper use of capitals to see why I capitalised Science and not religions.

Wait, why did you? I didn't think it was supposed to be capitalised.

 

[Orogeny]

Including Jesus?

Which one?

 

[Orogeny]

Just out of curiosity, Orogeny, according to your belief, is a baby that has gone through infant baptism no longer an atheist?

No.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which one?

No.

I think I'll go ahead and take your point with a grain of sand. You don't know which Jesus I was talking about; and in your opinion, the Catholic church baptizes atheists. I'd say that's indicative of being confused.

 

[Orogeny]

You don't know which Jesus I was talking about;

Specificity is not a quality of yours.

and in your opinion, the Catholic church baptizes atheists.

They do. Do infants have the ability to believe in the existence of a deity? Nope. Thus, they do not believe a deity exists. Ergo, they are atheists.

Can infants form opinions? No. Thus, they have no opinion on the existence of a deity. Ergo, they are agnostic.

I'd say that's indicative of being confused.

You say a lot of stuff. It's almost never right. Glad to see you're staying in your wheelhouse.

 

[AV1611VET]

Specificity is not a quality of yours.

It's not, huh?

You might want to compare my profile to yours, before saying that.

 

[AV1611VET]

They do.

I'm going to call your bluff on this one, Orogeny.

Paedobaptists believe that baptism has replaced Old Testament circumcision and is the religious ceremony of initiation into the Christian community.

Since your contemporaries won't (or haven't yet), I will.

And I'd hate to see RickG and others who believe in paedobaptism dare take a stand against a Catholic.

But I will.

On the other hand, I will say this much.

I'm not a Catholic, never was, and never will be. My wife used to be, and her mother is; but I'm sure neither one ever believed that paedobaptism involves baptizing atheists.

 

[Orogeny]

At what point does that phrase 'initiation into the christian community' translate directly to 'instantly provides the infant with the cognitive ability to entertain belief and opinion'?

And at what point to I even remotely care about what your wife and mother-in-law think?

 

[AV1611VET]

At what point does that phrase 'initiation into the christian community' translate directly to 'instantly provides the infant with the cognitive ability to entertain belief and opinion'?

When the Catholic church recognizes an infant as a Christian, and someone claims that same infant is an atheist, then something is wrong somewhere.

Again though, I'm not familiar with your doctrine.

I just now asked my wife, and she said she doesn't know, but thinks the Catholics recognize an infant as a Christian at birth.

This is why I wish another Catholic would chime in here.