The Atheist could be wrong for many good reasons

[Ana the Ist]

Being that Jesus is straight up called the Jewish Messiah in the Quran and deemed the co-prophet of Mohammad, Buddhism is dwarfed. There are even Buddhist-Christian syncretists, at that.

There's something about Christ that drives men.

Well...it's important to remember that buddhists make up nearly half a billion people in the world. They certainly don't have the numbers christianity does...but it's also not a religion I can remember a time where/when it was enforced or spread by violence. So when you consider that...I think it's rather amazing they have half a billion people. That's not to say there aren't some extremely violent Buddhist sects at all...but they're a relatively recent thing in history and they're almost always a reaction to violent groups from other religions (Islam primarily).

 

[Davian]

You didn't sue that Muslim bakery that denied homosexual couples though. Why is that? You don't go running up to Muslim gatherings complaining that you have no space to exert your beliefs. Why is that?

Not a religious matter, not my place to do so, and not my country?

Every move that atheists make, it is not against religion, it is against Christianity under the guise that it is about religion.

And Christianity is a religion, is it not?

When an atheist complains, it's not about that Muslim who went and shot up some people, it's about that guy saying a prayer to his football team.

From what I understand, this is against the law in your country, is it not?

The chart shows what it shows, and that is it. Not the twist you are putting on it.

Is this not you complaining (re the football team) that Christians are being persecuted?

lol.

Everyone in that book were Christians, driven by a principle and worldview thereof, in countries that were newly founded on Christianity.

What book?

And I'm sure if Christ were in any history book, you'd throw him out just like with any other thing.

Mind reading fail. Do not presume to know how I think.

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

You know, those mind-reading hats are notoriously inaccurate.

I'm sure that has everything to with political correctness. If anything, it just proves my point.

What is your point? that we should be politically incorrect?

It's not apples and oranges anyway, 'before common era' vs 'before Christ'. Same thing, 0AD. Jesus.

Cling to what you need to.

You were 'worried' about the effects of a belief that has been central and prominent in society for the past 1700 years.

Indeed, particularly the pressure put on the content of the science classes. I don't consider the Flintstones to be a documentary, lol.

Texas Evolution and Flintstones

• Davian
• Sep 26, 2015
• 2

Yeah, you're making a believer out of me let me tell you..

You are the believer, and I am not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The coming of Christ is the most controversial event in human history. Atheists dismiss him in favor of things which are irrelevant. Dawkins is irrelevant, Hawking is irrelevant, science is irrelevant- it's all only serves as a distraction and a blindfold.

Science is irrelevant? To what?

Christianity is the one religion atheists aim at. It is what other religions aim at. It is the history of the society you live in. Christ changed the world.

But nice job trying to downplay it to your ordinary, day to day life. You came here to be against Christianity, I don't labor under any delusion that all of you came here out of some interest in Christianity.

There is some irony to this. Science changed the world. Yet you've downplayed it as "irrelevant" and a "distraction."

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I feel Christ could have come back from the dead.

I feel (insert dead person's name here) could have come back from the dead.

Reality tends to be impartial to our feelings. Evidence tends to make the "could have" irrelevant.

Since it is highly unlikely that we will ever have reasonable, rational and reliable evidence for Jesus' resurrection, the only reasonable position to take is that of agnosticism. The level of agnosticism towards Jesus' resurrection should be roughly on par with our level of agnosticism towards any other messiah or resurrection claimant. In other words, it should not necessarily affect our life all that much.

You may "pretend" that something happened in history purely because it "could have" happened. You may even devote your life to it. But please, don't try to tell anyone else to pretend the same thing.

I know we don't know this, but we weren't there, we don't know what the people saw 2000 years ago in Palestine.

Exactly. We don't know. No one knows. So the most reasonable position is agnosticism.

I definitely hope it did happen and Christ has our back in the after life.

Reality rarely bends to our wishes.

Some evidence for a creator is atheists like Richard Dawkins admit we can't rule Him, Her or It out.

That is not evidence. If every swan I've ever seen is white, then I cannot rule out that there may be some black swan out there that I have not yet seen. But the lack of evidence of such a black swan is, obviously, not evidence. Dawkins is here describing a lack of evidence.

I feel if you consider the kind of odds that would have to play out from the big bang to present time to make DNA just by natural processes is really too hard for it to happen like that.

Given enough time and enough space, the improbable may become probable.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

From what I understand, this is against the law in your country, is it not?

It is not, actually. Only if other religions are not welcome to share their beliefs, and that is where Satanists showed up and made a joke of it all, fully endorsed by atheist bias. That's called being troublemakers, not making a legitimate statement.

Shooting up people is against the law, obviously. But for atheists, one is a bigger deal than the other. The motive is as plain as a rock- Christians are perceived as the enemy.

 

[Davian]

It is not, actually. Only if other religions are not welcome to share their beliefs, and that is where Satanists showed up and made a joke of it all, fully endorsed by atheist bias. That's called being troublemakers, not making a legitimate statement.

I am not sure which incident you are referring to, but I do recall the FFRF mentioning this one on their podcast:

"...it is in fact unconstitutional for public school athletic coaches to lead students in prayer and to conduct any religious activity around their students,"

http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/...s-back-coach-led-prayers#sthash.ParLzoUp.dpuf

Shooting up people is against the law, obviously. But for atheists, one is a bigger deal than the other.

As atheism is a theological position, and not a position on gun violence, that should only make sense.

The motive is as plain as a rock- Christians are perceived as the enemy.

For those opposed to religion in U.S. politics and education, is that perception not accurate?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

I am not sure which incident you are referring to, but I do recall the FFRF mentioning this one on their podcast:

"...it is in fact unconstitutional for public school athletic coaches to lead students in prayer and to conduct any religious activity around their students,"

http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/...s-back-coach-led-prayers#sthash.ParLzoUp.dpuf

Cool story.
It's not illegal. The FFRF, the ACLU, and all these other trouble making bigots can talk about what's 'unconstitutional' all they want.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Their made up nonsense is not backed by the Constitution. In fact, one could even argue that they are going against it, if you pay attention to a certain part of the above.

 

[dlaw7566]

If God created the laws of the universe, then how does one dismiss God on account of nature
It is being objective- I'm just not romanticizing science and skepticism, which is what atheists always want the religious to do and not the other way around.

Which god?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Which god?

You get no points for 'original argument'. Which gods didn't create the universe?

To answer your question:
The God that created the universe.

 

[bhsmte]

Dear Fellow Posters,

I feel Christ could have come back from the dead. I know we don't know this, but we weren't there, we don't know what the people saw 2000 years ago in Palestine. I definitely hope it did happen and Christ has our back in the after life.

Some evidence for a creator is atheists like Richard Dawkins admit we can't rule Him, Her or It out. I feel if you consider the kind of odds that would have to play out from the big bang to present time to make DNA just by natural processes is really too hard for it to happen like that. There is probably a creator and we are not made to know if there is a Heaven or a Hell, but I definitely hope there is justice in the end for all humans.

So what are your thoughts on this?

A whole bunch of things can't be completely ruled out.

Of course, just because something is not impossible, it does nothing to increase it's validity.

 

[Gene2memE]

Dear Fellow Posters,

I feel Christ could have come back from the dead. I know we don't know this, but we weren't there, we don't know what the people saw 2000 years ago in Palestine. I definitely hope it did happen and Christ has our back in the after life.

Some evidence for a creator is atheists like Richard Dawkins admit we can't rule Him, Her or It out. I feel if you consider the kind of odds that would have to play out from the big bang to present time to make DNA just by natural processes is really too hard for it to happen like that. There is probably a creator and we are not made to know if there is a Heaven or a Hell, but I definitely hope there is justice in the end for all humans.

So what are your thoughts on this?

I freely admit that I could be wrong about my non-belief in deities. My position as an atheist is, and will always remain, a tentative one. I don't believe in deities, because no convincing evidence for any has been presented to be. If I see a weight of evidence for deities that I consider sufficient, then I will change my position.

That said, your reasoning is suspect in this case. Taking a soft position on atheism - one that includes no definitive knowledge claims regarding the existence/non-existence of deities - is not positive evidence for anything. Even if it comes from Richard Dawkins.

I cannot conclusively rule out that there is a periwinkle blue teapot in orbit around Venus, but I don't believe there is one. That is not evidence for the teapot, nor evidence against the teapot. It is just a position of non-belief.

 

[Davian]

Cool story.
It's not illegal. The FFRF, the ACLU, and all these other trouble making bigots

Nice. Do you feel it necessary to insult those that disagree with you?

can talk about what's 'unconstitutional' all they want.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Their made up nonsense is not backed by the Constitution. In fact, one could even argue that they are going against it, if you pay attention to a certain part of the above.

Your country's court system would appear to disagree with you.

Highlighted Court Victories - Freedom From Religion Foundation

http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/highlighted-court-successes

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Nice. Do you feel it necessary to insult those that disagree with you?
Your country's court system would appear to disagree with you.

Highlighted Court Victories - Freedom From Religion Foundation

http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/highlighted-court-successes

It's all completely under a technicality of something called the 'Lemon Test', derived from a supreme court case a long time ago. It has been something that many justices have not liked, because of the utterly pretentious nature of those who push it. They even forewarned schools, out of compassion, to be prepared to be assaulted by atheists.

All it is, is that if a person prays at a school gathering for example, people with other worldviews cannot be barred from also speaking their worldview. A public place cannot endorse a specific religion.

That's all that it is. Perpetuated by a bunch of atheists who just want to conflict religions against each other and get off on a persecution complex by claiming things such as 'irreparable damage to their mental health' because they had to pass by a portrait of Jesus.

Complete nonsense. I love when obvious snakes try to cover up their intent, saves me the trouble. Even the name 'Freedom From Religion' is ridiculous- YOU ARE FREE FROM RELIGION BRO, AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. Someone needs to put that on a brick and throw it at them, and then they can go cry about their imaginary chains to religion even more.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If God created the laws of the universe, then how does one dismiss God on account of nature
It is being objective- I'm just not romanticizing science and skepticism, which is what atheists always want the religious to do and not the other way around.

We aren't going to get an example of how atheists romanticize science, are we?

I suppose we should all just dismiss that claim as nonsense since you aren't going to back it up.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

We aren't going to get an example of how atheists romanticize science, are we?

I suppose we should all just dismiss that claim as nonsense since you aren't going to back it up.

I suppose you can just go ahead and ignore reality, since science and atheism are strongly correlated trends and it's impossible to debate an atheist on the existence of God without science ultimately coming out of their mouths.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I suppose you can just go ahead and ignore reality. Science and atheism are strongly correlated trends.

I'd say reality and atheism are strongly correlated. As one becomes more aware of one...one becomes more aware of the other.

Like I said though, without any examples to consider, your comment about us romanticizing science doesn't have any weight.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

I'd say reality and atheism are strongly correlated. As one becomes more aware of one...one becomes more aware of the other.

Like I said though, without any examples to consider, your comment about us romanticizing science doesn't have any weight.

YOU ARE THE EXAMPLE

 

[Ana the Ist]

YOU ARE THE EXAMPLE

Lol I'm an example of an atheist...but I don't romanticize science...and you certainly don't have any examples of me doing so.

Thanks for proving my point though.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Lol I'm an example of an atheist...but I don't romanticize science...

That's cool. Just ignore the fact that Darwin is on the dollar bill of the most ridiculously 'theistophobic' country in the social western hemisphere.
I'm gonna start making up my own words like you all do.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's cool. Just ignore the fact that Darwin is on the dollar bill of the most ridiculously 'theistophobic' country in the social western hemisphere.
I'm gonna start making up my own words like you all do.

The U.K.? I'm sorry...I don't see the romanticizing there. Can you explain why that would be "romanticizing"...and "In God We Trust" wouldn't be?