Shooting at elementary school in San Bernardino

[Aldebaran]

If the moon can be miraculously split in half, I'm sure it doesn't take too much more magic to put it back together. Certainly not any more magic than it would take to turn a few fish into enough food for thousands of people. Both are very hard to believe if we lack the faith they ever happened because both defy any natural explanation. Hence them being called miracles.

Pray to God that He give you the faith to believe. He's the one who supplies the faith to believe.

 

[Rion]

I have to ask because it's just going to bug me if I don't.... What exactly were they trying to convert you to? Unless there is some established set of atheist doctrines I'm unaware of, I can't think of what you'd be converting to. How would you even adopt a new belief that you now, by definition, lack?

That's pretty messed up. Heck, even if I believed that, I wouldn't go around telling people this. Maybe you were just dealing with a jerk with a chip on his shoulder, IDK but that isn't a belief that just naturally stems from atheism. That is an individual with a personal vendetta against religion.

And I've heard many theists express similar sentiments towards most anything they consider "secular." I try not to pay attention to those as I know they don't represent the entirety of Christian thought. There's people who believe the theory of evolution should be outlawed because it somehow leads to atheism. Crazies are abound in most all people groups.

They are the actions of individuals. Best not to judge whole swaths of humanity by the silly actions of a few of each group.

There is only one fundamental to atheism. Can you guess what that is?


Like I said... Some people are overly zealous in their beliefs, no matter what those beliefs may be. That some of these overzealous crazies don't believe in gods still doesn't really make atheism any more of a religion.

They wanted to convert us to the disbelief in anything supranatural. To the euphoric enlightened disbelief in a deity. As I said, I know that they don't represent all atheists. However, there is a reason r/atheism is a joke throughout most of the internet and not just reddit itself.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So, in reality, you don't believe the claims of Messiah Yeshua (Jesus Christ) or the Apostles (Peter, James, John, Paul) or Moses, David, Isaiah, etc. (All theists). OK. Hopefully you will someday.

Or the claims of Njál or Chilam Balam or Gerald Gardner or Joseph Smith, or the authors of the Upanishads, the Enuma Elish, the Kojiki...

 

[TerranceL]

Well, as we changed subjects... as much as atheist may hate it, it essentially relies on a form of faith as the existence of God cannot be empirically proven or disproven.

No it doesn't.

Me telling you, that I don't believe in a God that you can't prove exist doesn't require any faith on my part.

 

[SolomonVII]

No it doesn't.

Me telling you, that I don't believe in a God that you can't prove exist doesn't require any faith on my part.

Atheism is not just disbelieving that there is a god. Atheism involves the belief that there is no god.
Agnosticism on the other hand is faithless.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Atheism is not just disbelieving that there is a god. Atheism involves the belief that there is no god.

Not exactly. Atheism can be active belief that no gods exist but it can also simply be a rejection of the belief that they do. As an atheist, I would never say "there are no gods" as that isn't something I can know for a fact. All I know is that I don't believe the various claims of the multitude of religious beliefs in the world.

Agnosticism on the other hand is faithless.

Agnosticism answers the question of knowledge of the existence of gods while atheism answers the question of belief in the existence of gods.

 

[Rion]

No it doesn't.

Me telling you, that I don't believe in a God that you can't prove exist doesn't require any faith on my part.

When one moves from being unsure or uncertain in the existence of a creator, one is going beyond the empirical. Certainty in either direction moves beyond what one can or cannot prove.

 

[Blue Wren]

Yeah! It's not like Trump Tweets every brain dropping he has... oh wait.

He has found it necessary, to write about Arnold Schwarzenegger's ratings, SNL, but, he could not write out a Tweet, to give sympathy, for the parents of a child, murdered in a public school. Surely, he must have been informed, of what happened there.

 

[Aldebaran]

He has found it necessary, to write about Arnold Schwarzenegger's ratings, SNL, but, he could not write out a Tweet, to give sympathy, for the parents of a child, murdered in a public school. Surely, he must have been informed, of what happened there.

It was a local event that had no reason to be commented on at the federal level. Do we really want the president to politicize the death of a child?

 

[USincognito]

It was a local event that had no reason to be commented on at the federal level. Do we really want the president to politicize the death of a child?

Or Arnold Schwarzenegger's ratings, or SNL skits or 9/11 or...

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

It was a local event that had no reason to be commented on at the federal level. Do we really want the president to politicize the death of a child?

I don't think it just politicizing a kids death. It's more he doesnt care. If the guy was from a different country. He would be ready to tar and feather more illegal immigrants. But since it wasn't. It's not worth his time. If the whole world's talking about it. It's an on going issue. He should had at least put a phony Twitter statement up. About it.

 

[USincognito]

I don't think it just politicizing a kids death. It's more he doesnt care. If the guy was from a different country. He would be ready to tar and feather more illegal immigrants. But since it wasn't. It's not worth his time. If the whole world's talking about it. It's an on going issue. He should had at least put a phony Twitter statement up. About it.

Oh man, if the guy had been an illegal, the Tomahawks would have been flying towards East LA Stat!

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It was a local event that had no reason to be commented on at the federal level.

Why not? What does it being a local event have to do with anything? The San Bernardino terrorist attack was also a local event. I bet he'd have something to say if the shooter were an illegal immigrant or a Muslim.

Do we really want the president to politicize the death of a child?

You mean like the "beautiful babies" in Syria?

 

[mnorian]

Mod hat on
Thread has been cleaned up
of off-topic posts

To stay on subject
and not post contrary
To the SOP:
No General Apologetics Topics
Apologetics is a branch of theology that concerns itself with defending or proving the truths of the Christian faith and doctrines. Discussion and debate on subjects related to general apologetics are not allowed in the Discussion and Debate category forums. Christians who would like to discuss apologetics may do so in the Christian Apologeticsforum.
Carry on.​

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't think it just politicizing a kids death. It's more he doesnt care. If the guy was from a different country. He would be ready to tar and feather more illegal immigrants. But since it wasn't. It's not worth his time. If the whole world's talking about it. It's an on going issue. He should had at least put a phony Twitter statement up. About it.

But since he's Donald Trump, then people would be here complaining that he put up a phony Twitter statement up in order to make it look like he cares. Either that, or to "politicize this poor kids untimely death by a gun nut", or whatever.

 

[Aldebaran]

Why not? What does it being a local event have to do with anything? The San Bernardino terrorist attack was also a local event. I bet he'd have something to say if the shooter were an illegal immigrant or a Muslim.

You can bet that if you'd like. But the terrorist attack you mentioned there was a federal event because, as you said, it was an act of terrorism which brings it to the federal level.

You mean like the "beautiful babies" in Syria?

That would be in relation to an international issue.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

You can bet that if you'd like. But the terrorist attack you mentioned there was a federal event because, as you said, it was an act of terrorism which brings it to the federal level.

But he wasn't the president at the time when that happened. It seems more like he only mentioned San Bernardino at the time because he was able to use it for political points during the election. Not out of any actual concern for the people affected by a tragedy.

That would be in relation to an international issue.

It was an example of the President politicizing the deaths of children. A very recent example that you will now try to dismiss somehow. Seems he only mentions dying children when he can advance his agenda and use it to garner support. Children dying in American schools, at the hands of Americans are obviously not a major concern to this administration (and apparently to you, too) because... wait for it.... It doesn't fit their agenda.

 

[Aldebaran]

But he wasn't the president at the time when that happened. It seems more like he only mentioned San Bernardino at the time because he was able to use it for political points during the election. Not out of any actual concern for the people affected by a tragedy.

Confirming what I just said in post #208.

It was an example of the President politicizing the deaths of children. A very recent example that you will now try to dismiss somehow. Seems he only mentions dying children when he can advance his agenda and use it to garner support. Children dying in American schools, at the hands of Americans are obviously not a major concern to this administration (and apparently to you, too) because... wait for it.... It doesn't fit their agenda.

Confirming what I just said in post #208.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Called it!

It was an example of the President politicizing the deaths of children. A very recent example that you will now try to dismiss somehow.

Confirming what I just said in post #208.

Please don't ignore this point.

The President has just as recently as last week shown he has no problem politicizing dead children. As such, he has no excuse for not having a word to say about American children being shot and killed in an American classroom by an American gunman. This is almost an exclusively American problem and the American President should have something to say about it. Anything. Just an acknowledgment that it even happened would be nice.

But he doesn't have to. Why?

Because there are plenty of people like you in this country who will continue defend him no matter what he does. No matter how low he goes, there will be someone to hold him up high.

 

[Aldebaran]

The President has just as recently as last week shown he has no problem politicizing dead children. As such, he has no excuse for not having a word to say about American children being shot and killed in an American classroom by an American gunman. This is almost an exclusively American problem and the American President should have something to say about it. Anything. Just an acknowledgment that it even happened would be nice.

But he doesn't have to. Why?

The shooting in San Bernadino that killed 2 kids was not aimed at them. It was an issue between a man and his estranged wife. Nobody says anything about them though, but I'm surprised that nobody so far has said that it's because they were both black. But I digress. I understand that people get emotional when children are killed. As part of that emotional response, they want someone to say something about it. But what's really different about these 2 kids being killed that sets them apart from all the other children being killed every day in various ways that it becomes an issue that warrants a statement from the president of the United States?

Because there are plenty of people like you in this country who will continue defend him no matter what he does. No matter how low he goes, there will be someone to hold him up high.

Actually, I won't defend him about everything he does. There's plenty of things he's done and said that I don't agree with. I think the cruise missile attack wasn't thought out very well and was done too quickly. I think his aggressive approach to North Korea could trigger something bad, although I'm not exactly sure what else can be done at this point where NK is on the verge of being able to nuke us, and has indicated that they intend to. He's also too quick to attack people who say something against him, even to the point that he seems to be willing to turn friends into enemies at the drop of a hat. The Twitter thing is a little much as well.