• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Atheism vs. Christian

Status
Not open for further replies.

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
It is written, Matthew 18:6
It seems that you are against others for not having a belief in God.

Wouldn't you feel a little slighted, perhaps even threatened, when someone said: "It would be better for people to be castrated, skinned alive and fed to the larks then to spread their christian offensive stuff around."?
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
I just think God is good.
And you support this belief by posting a verse from this "good word" that is but a slightly veiled thread to unbelievers.

Perhaps you might understand why not everyone agrees with you.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The book On the Existence of Gods by Vox Day, Dominic Saltarelli is a debate/discourse between an theist and an atheist. A panel of judges picked a winner of the debate. My guess is that the theist one the debate.

How can one argue against the obvious power of guessing whether god might be real or not?

I had heard both sides of the debate attempt to engage each others arguments. I regret to say that the atheist/agnostic side of the aisle at this forum is not pulling its weight in terms of discourse/debate.

When all you have is guessing for your side, it doesn't take much effort to counter.

The reason I say the theist probably won the Day vs. Saltarelli debate is that atheists have not been doing well in debate in recent times. And if memory serves, I think I also read a blog post about the debate and it said that Day won the debate.

You think read someone who guesses the same thing you did? Again, who can argue against that overpowering logical argument for god...

I have heard atheist/agnostic whining and snark at this forum, but rarely something substantive. However, with that being said, I do appreciate the information I obtained at this forum about 17th century French atheism.

How about the corrections of your sources' misunderstanding about science?
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
27,585
19,266
Colorado
✟539,156.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Atheism and rape:

Christian apologist Kyle Butt wrote: "In fact, in my debate with Dan Barker, Barker admitted that fact, and stated that under certain circumstances, rape would be a moral obligation (Butt and Barker, 2009) source: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2333

Mass rape of German women by Soviet soldiers:

As Allied troops entered and occupied Germany during the latter part of World War II, mass rapes occurred in connection with combat operations and during the occupation which followed. Historians in the Western World generally conclude that the majority of the rapes were committed by Soviet servicemen.

The majority of the rapes happened in the Soviet occupation zone. Estimates of the number of German women sexually assaulted by Soviet soldiers have ranged up to 2 million.[6][7][8][9][10] The historian William Hitchcock declared that in many cases women were the victims of repeated rapes, some women experienced as many as 60 to 70 rapes.[11]

After the atheist leader of the Soviet Union Joseph Stalin received a complaint from Yugoslav politician Milovan Djilas about rapes in Yugoslavia, Stalin reportedly said that he should "understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle."[12] Also, when told that Red Army soldiers sexually assaulted German refugees, Stalin reportedly declared: "We lecture our soldiers too much; let them have their initiative."[13]

Only a handful of Soviet soldiers were ever court martialed for raping German women during the war. Source: Conservapedia's article on atheism and rape

Post Elevatorgate controversy, at an atheist convention, Rebecca Watson claimed: "Hundreds of atheists have informed me that either they wanted to rape me, someone should rape me so that I will loosen up or that no one would ever rape me because I am so ugly".

TheAmazingAtheist is YouTube's most subscribed to YouTube channel produced by an atheist and as of August of 2012 it had over 300,000 subscribers. In 2012, he viciously told a rape victim "you deserved it" and told her that her rapist "deserved a medal". He also told her that she should try to relive the rape in her mind.

Christian apologist Ken Ammi wrote concerning TheAmazingAtheist's comments directed towards a rape victim:
“ A frightening consideration is that it may very well be this personage’s worldview which leads him to such depths of malice...

He also told another woman:

"You’re lucky it wasn’t me. I’d have busted your ******* nose and raped you."

And has also offered a graphic descriptions of how he would rape a rape victim again.

This is in keeping with his modis operandi which, sadly, is a manner whereby some people get and keep a lot of attention. Of course, it is pathetic that some people are so very desperate for attention that they seek it regardless of whether it is good, bad or ugly.

This particular Atheist is the organizer of a group, aptly, called The Atheist Scum United and refers to himself as “God of the Godless,” “subhuman,” and “scumbag.” Could not have said it better ourselves.

But the belligerence does not stop at his victimization of rape victims but he also takes aim at the dead. He has referred to people who committed suicide due to bullying as having been "weak."

What such a person needs, truly needs, is love and prayer because they are obviously hurting very, very badly." source: http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/atheism-and-rape-atheist-victimizes-rape-victim
Wow. A lot of rape talk.

Maybe some people are such awful human beings that religion really is a good force in their life.
 
Upvote 0

PaulA135711

Active Member
Apr 26, 2016
100
1
55
USA
✟22,745.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Durangodwood,

I am not a fan of Bob Jones University. Yet, given the track record of the atheist population on the rape issue, I thought the atheists/agnostics were being hypocritical. See atheist hypocrisy at http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist_hypocrisy for many more examples of atheist hypocrisy.

Second, the prophet Jeremiah said, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9).

On the other hand, secular leftists unrealistically thought they could build utopias which is very unrealistic given human nature and the historical record. And instead of building utopias, tens of millions of people were killed.
 
Upvote 0

PaulA135711

Active Member
Apr 26, 2016
100
1
55
USA
✟22,745.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Cadet,

re: 15 questions for evolutionists at: http://creation.com/15-questions

You wrote:

Question 1 has no relation to the theory of evolution, it has to do with abiogenesis.

You are incorrect.

Various prominent evolutionists have said that the origin of life is part of evolution.

"Some evolutionists try to claim that the origin of life is not a part of evolution. However, probably every evolutionary biology textbook has a section on the origin of life in the chapters on evolution. The University of California, Berkeley, has the origin of life included in their ‘Evolution 101’ course, in a section titled “From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life”.1 High-profile defenders of ‘all-things-evolutionary’, such as P.Z. Myers and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of evolution, as does Richard Dawkins.2

Here is a bio Nick Matzke to show that he is a prominent evolutionist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Matzke

Here is a bio of PZ Myers to show he is a prominent evolutionist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers

A well-known evolutionist of the past, G.A. Kerkut, did make a distinction between the General Theory of Evolution (GTE), which included the origin of life, and the Special Theory of Evolution (STE) that only dealt with the diversification of life (the supposed topic of Darwin’s 1859 book).3" source: Creation.com/origin-of-life

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml (accessed 17 October 2013). Return to text.

Myers, P.Z., 15 misconceptions about evolution, 20 February 2008, scienceblogs.com http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/20/15-misconceptions-about-evolut/ ; Matzke, N., What critics of neo-creationists get wrong: a reply to Gordy Slack, pandasthumb.org. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-critics-of.html See: Dawkins tries to deal with the origin of life in his book The Greatest Show on Earth, where he claims to ‘prove evolution’. See Sarfati, J., The Greatest Hoax on Earth? ch. 13, 2010, Creation Book Publishers. Return to text.

Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960 (available online at ia600409.us.archive.org/23/items/implicationsofev00kerk/implicationsofev00kerk.pdf); creation.com/evolution-definition-kerkut.

PZ Myers said: is also a pet peeve: “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life” is presented as false. It is not. I know many people like to recite the mantra that “abiogenesis is not evolution,” but it’s a cop-out. Evolution is about a plurality of natural mechanisms that generate diversity. It includes molecular biases towards certain solutions and chance events that set up potential change as well as selection that refines existing variation. Abiogenesis research proposes similar principles that led to early chemical evolution. Tossing that work into a special-case ghetto that exempts you from explaining it is cheating, and ignores the fact that life is chemistry. That creationists don’t understand that either is not a reason for us to avoid it.


The Cadet, your replies to the other 15 questions for evolutionists were wanting also.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Yet, given the track record of the atheist population on the rape issue

Say what? Atheism doesn't contain a position on rape. It is absurd to try to lump them together in some way on that issue.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Dogmahunter,

You wrote: "You are giving me many, many reasons to not take you seriously."

Yet, you did not satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists at: http://creation.com/15-questions

I'll happily answer any question YOU present to me.

If you have 15 questions for me, then post them. Don't just link me towards some video.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eudaimonist
Upvote 0

PaulA135711

Active Member
Apr 26, 2016
100
1
55
USA
✟22,745.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Eudaimonist,

You said atheism does not have a position on rape.

So-called atheists don't even have position on what atheism fundamentally is. I would say that 99% of so-called atheists are actually atheist poseurs and really agnostics.

Atheists frequently argue among themselves about the definition of atheism.

The truth is that atheist position has proven itself to be more and more untenable. Even one of early fathers of the diluted definition of atheism Anthony Flew became an ex-atheist/theist. See Anthony Flew and the definition of atheism at: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism

In 2012, a Georgetown University study was published indicating that only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist households in the USA remain atheists as adults. http://www.christianpost.com/news/s...tion-rate-compared-to-religious-groups-78029/

And here is testimony about the very prominent agnostic Charles Darwin:

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states:
“ In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilization of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away. ”(Argyll 1885, 244)[9] source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
So-called atheists don't even have position on what atheism fundamentally is.

Yes, they do. My position is that atheism refers to a lack of belief in divine beings. I have seen the same definition from nearly every other atheist that I've seen post at CF over the past decade. That doesn't mean that all atheists will necessarily accept the same definition.

I would say that 99% of so-called atheists are actually atheist poseurs and really agnostics.

Atheist and agnostic aren't mutually exclusive categories. One can be both at the same time. I'm an atheist-agnostic. Most atheists are.

Atheism refers to belief-status, and agnostic refers to knowledge-status.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

PaulA135711

Active Member
Apr 26, 2016
100
1
55
USA
✟22,745.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Eudaimonist,

You wrote: "I agree. He just doesn't strike me as a real person. It's all an act."

I have responded to the atheists/agnostics at this forum with valid information/criticisms.

As a result of your side of the aisle responding poorly, you are now making excuses. You have got to stop making excuses. If your side of the aisle is doing poorly (and they are), it is time to reconsider if atheism/agnosticism are valid worldviews.

it doesn't take a great debater to defeat atheism/agnosticism and prominent atheists have recently ducked debates with prominent theists as I demonstrated in a previous post. See: conservapedia.com/Atheism_debates
 
Upvote 0

PaulA135711

Active Member
Apr 26, 2016
100
1
55
USA
✟22,745.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Eudaimonis,

Wikipedia is a wiki founded by an atheist and agnostic.

According to Wikipedia, there is "strong atheism" and "weak atheism".

See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

So there is a population of people calling themselves atheists with very different fundamental definitions of atheism.

Jesus said: "A house divided against itself cannot stand". And atheism is a house divided and in global decline. And this decline will affect developed countries in the 21st century.

On July 24, 2013, CNS News reported:

“Atheism is in decline worldwide, with the number of atheists falling from 4.5% of the world’s population in 1970 to 2.0% in 2010 and projected to drop to 1.8% by 2020, according to a new report by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Mass." See: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020

On December 23, 2012, Professor Eric Kaufmann who teaches at Birbeck College, University of London wrote:

“I argue that 97% of the world's population growth is taking place in the developing world, where 95% of people are religious.

On the other hand, the secular West and East Asia has very low fertility and a rapidly aging population... In the coming decades, the developed world's demand for workers to pay its pensions and work in its service sector will soar alongside the booming supply of young people in the third world. Ergo, we can expect significant immigration to the secular West which will import religious revival on the back of ethnic change. In addition, those with religious beliefs tend to have higher birth rates than the secular population, with fundamentalists having far larger families. The epicentre of these trends will be in immigration gateway cities like New York (a third white), Amsterdam (half Dutch), Los Angeles (28% white), and London, 45% white British. see: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/04/97-of-worlds-population-growth-is.html
 
Upvote 0

PaulA135711

Active Member
Apr 26, 2016
100
1
55
USA
✟22,745.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Belk,

re: Pidgeon chess

The problem for you is not that I do not understand evolution. Your problem is that I do understand it and realize it is bunkum.

The Cadet at this forum tried to say abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution according to evolutionists. I clearly showed that this was not the case in a previous post by citing Myers, Matzke, Dawkins, University of Berkeley, textbooks, etc.

I realize that "pidgeon chess" is a pat answer and it is easier to give pat answers than thoughtful replies. But you need to do better. Atheist talking points (pat answers) are not cutting the mustard.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
PZ Myers is very much in the minority here. But let's assume, for just a moment, that you're completely right. Why does the fact that we do not know this (yet) make the theory non-viable? It is an admittedly hard question, but regardless of the origin of life, evolution is still more or less the same theory. Whether the origin of life or the origin of DNA is natural or supernatural, we still observe all the same evidence we already observe for evolution, and the model is still almost entirely the same. It's like physicists not knowing what's at the center of a black hole - sure, we don't understand that yet, but that doesn't invalidate the existing evidence which bouys the entire rest of the model.

The Cadet, your replies to the other 15 questions for evolutionists were wanting also.

What, you mean like linking to a page on RationalWiki which clearly and concisely demolishes all 15 questions?
 
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
The Cadet at this forum tried to say abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution according to evolutionists. I clearly showed that this was not the case in a previous post by citing Myers, Matzke, Dawkins, University of Berkeley, textbooks, etc.
Ask literally any of those people whether they believe that the fact we do not yet completely understand abiogenesis affects their understanding of evolution.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.