Here you go.
(link contains objectionable language)
http://www.gametalk.com/talk/spirituality/83313846.htm
Upvote
0
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.
I think I would like to read it myself...it seems a bit convenient. Was the author Christian or atheist? I have a feeling that the "person" is a Christian.
I was born on a farm, but not in the barn.
Lisa
Here you go.
(link contains objectionable language)
http://www.gametalk.com/talk/spirituality/83313846.htm
Thanks! The link was provided earlier, but I really appreciate the warning. That was very nice of you.
I was afraid that the OP of THIS thread was making it up to stir things up, but he has since proven himself to be honorable and truthful. So, no probs!
Lisa
Atheists stop their attacks on us...
To me the whole attitude looks a lot like typical psychological projection. They know that atheism is not iself fundamentalist . . .
No, its not. "No god" is the default position.But it is. "There is no God" is a catagorical statement on the nature of existence.
Btw....playing the Freud card, claiming opponents are mentally off ("psychological projection") is pseduo-science. One most notably and viciously used by some marxist atheists in the 20th century to silence their critics. Very popular in America in the 1960s and early 1970s by the various segements of the New Left.
It is a worn out tactic.
The default position is 'not enough evidence.' That's the position you start at when you begin evaluating anything. Claims to the contrary ignore the reality of how science and examination work.No, its not. "No god" is the default position.
I snipped all the argumenum ad conflatum, and wanted to address this to any Christian reading this thread:
Have I attacked you, or do you feel attacked by me?
Please respond in this thread and not in PM.
Actually that's backwards. In formal logic, asserting the soundness of a deductive conclusion when one or more premises involves the lack of contradicting information is known as argumentum ad ignorantiam, and it applies whether asserting truth or falsity.The default position is 'not enough evidence.' That's the position you start at when you begin evaluating anything. Claims to the contrary ignore the reality of how science and examination work.
. . . Atheists are great ones for posing what they think are really baffling conundrums for believers, but their acquaintance with history, as far as religion is concerned, is typically with the black marks and scandals. There was religious fanaticism! Well, yes, and there was far, far worse atheist fanaticism, so which would you rather see dominating society? They seem uninterested to query why it is that every organised society from the earliest tribes to the most technically sophisticated civilisations have had one form or another of propitiating, worshipping and otherwise interacting with the supernatural and divine. If they do ask the question, they have ready-made answers handy: ignorance, fear of death, fear of the unknown, opiate of the masses, etc . . .
Perhaps the most stunning thing about atheism is the sheer presumption of it. I don’t mean simply the presumption against God, which would be enough in itself, but the presumption that you and a few other adventurous souls have figured out something that the vast majority of mankind has never known about a subject for which the atheist can obviously have no empirical evidence one way or the other . . .
http://larison.org/2007/01/17/dont-know-much-about-history/
If man does not flourish in a godless regime, and if godless regimes have a record of unusually great barbarity and human cruelty, it does at the very least suggest that religion aids in human flourishing and probably has some moderating effect on the use of political power . . .
I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it . . .
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=93
He goes on to ask, what if atheists were the majority? What if society were atheistic?
As I've mentioned above, I believe the 20th century gave us ample evidence of what would happen.
Again with the conflation. Is it impossible for you to differentiate between a corrupt totalitarian political system and a liberal democracy with a majority of atheists? Why is that so hard for you to get?
The OP was just plain silly. Wear a black robe to a cross burning? No No No. A nice pale green or a soft yellow is the way to go.
. . . at least 17 underground bishops have disappeared, been arrested or are detained in isolation; 20 priests have been arrested. The latest arrest took place on December 27th in Hebei. Of the 9 priests arrested, 5 remain in prison, 4 have been released.
Some official bishops confirm that there has been a hardening in AP ideology in recent years. It is due above all to the fact that “the most part of secretaries are not Catholic, but atheist, among the most radical members of the Party whose scope is to destroy all religions or at least closely control them . . .”
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=8286&size=A
Yes, we can make a joke about it. But what some atheists have done and are doing right now are facts. An account of atheists persecuting Christians as we speak:{snip}
Also what is being expressed in those actions, isn't atheism, but anti-theism.
Vogelin, that is not a product of atheism, but an authoritian political ideology.
Also what is being expressed in those actions, isn't atheism, but anti-theism.
Atheism != Communism
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?