The Atheist could be wrong for many good reasons

[Crowns&Laurels]

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?

"In God We Trust" is romanticizing God. George Washington is divinized on the roof of the Capitol, and 'Creator' is used several times in their historic literature.

Having Darwin on the dollar bill of a country virtually dictated by radical atheist liberals tells all.

 

[Davian]

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.

<citation missing>

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.

But when, earlier, when you said that it wasn't illegal, you were wrong.

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

Again with the insults.

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.

Now they are helping to make the schools and public places free of religion.

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.

Such violent thoughts you have. Where do you get your morality from?

 

[Davian]

"In God We Trust" is romanticizing God.

Look, it is Libertas, the Roman goddess, on US currency:

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Look, it is Libertas, the Roman goddess, on US currency:

That's nice.
Here's a statue of Zeus in a very much Christian Rome:

And here's a statue of Darwin in England:

 

[Ana the Ist]

"In God We Trust" is romanticizing God. George Washington is divinized on the roof of the Capitol, and 'Creator' is used several times in their historic literature.

Having Darwin on the dollar bill of a country virtually dictated by radical atheist liberals tells all.

Last I checked...it's not as if the U.K. is an atheist majority, and if I'm not mistaken they're removing Darwin and replacing him with someone else in a couple years. Regardless though, what makes you think that placing him on their currency was the decision of atheists?

At the most I think I'd consider it a form of propaganda. Would you have another example?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Last I checked...it's not as if the U.K. is an atheist majority, and if I'm not mistaken they're removing Darwin and replacing him with someone else in a couple years. Regardless though, what makes you think that placing him on their currency was the decision of atheists?

At the most I think I'd consider it a form of propaganda. Would you have another example?

When you take into account that 'majority' is only 53%, and many of them are as 'meh' as they come as far as being Christian, you're not really saying much. Christianity over there seems to largely be progressivism with a Persian death stick on top of it.

And as far as your argument, I'm just going to hereby drop everything I said and say that you aren't doing anything but trying to get around the substantiated fact that atheism and science are strongly correlated. This conversation is a waste of time, I'm right.. I don't need to give you examples of jack just so you can swoop and dodge them.

 

[Skavau]

"In God We Trust" is romanticizing God. George Washington is divinized on the roof of the Capitol, and 'Creator' is used several times in their historic literature.

Having Darwin on the dollar bill of a country virtually dictated by radical atheist liberals tells all.

The UK is not "virtually dictated by radical atheist liberals."

You don't seem to know much about the UK.

 

[Skavau]

When you take into account that 'majority' is only 53%, and many of them are as 'meh' as they come as far as being Christian, you're not really saying much. Christianity over there seems to largely be progressivism with a Persian death stick on top of it.

And as far as your argument, I'm just going to hereby drop everything I said and say that you aren't doing anything but trying to get around the substantiated fact that atheism and science are strongly correlated. This conversation is a waste of time, I'm right.. I don't need to give you examples of jack just so you can swoop and dodge them.

Yes, we're very non-religious here but that does not make us atheistic or the way the country is run atheistic.

 

[Skavau]

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.

This is sad.

If you regard the entirety of scientific advancement as irrelevant then honestly, by consequence, you must regard most things in life as such. You're just waiting for the apocalypse to start. You appear to disdain living. How you could be considered pro-life in any way astounds me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And as far as your argument, I'm just going to hereby drop everything I said and say that you aren't doing anything but trying to get around the substantiated fact that atheism and science are strongly correlated. This conversation is a waste of time, I'm right.. I don't need to give you examples of jack just so you can swoop and dodge them.

Lol.

 

[Ana the Ist]

When you take into account that 'majority' is only 53%, and many of them are as 'meh' as they come as far as being Christian, you're not really saying much. Christianity over there seems to largely be progressivism with a Persian death stick on top of it.

And as far as your argument, I'm just going to hereby drop everything I said and say that you aren't doing anything but trying to get around the substantiated fact that atheism and science are strongly correlated. This conversation is a waste of time, I'm right.. I don't need to give you examples of jack just so you can swoop and dodge them.

When I became an atheist, science wasn't even a consideration. One can be an atheist on reason alone.

Edit- Also, I don't think you understand what substantiated facts are.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

This is sad.

If you regard the entirety of scientific advancement as irrelevant then honestly, by consequence, you must regard most things in life as such. You're just waiting for the apocalypse to start. You appear to disdain living. How you could be considered pro-life in any way astounds me.

When it comes to God, it is irrelevant, because science can only deal with the physical universe. What is sad are so many people dismissing God on account of something that is incapable of dismissing Him. What's even sadder is nonsense you just posted intending to be accurate.

 

[quatona]

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

How is this evidence? Unfalsifiability isn´t an evidential forte of a claim - it´s a weakness.

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.

This argument would only have some merits if we assumed that the way it happened was intended. Which would render it circular.

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?

You are entitled to your metaphysical hopes and wishes - none of my business.
The parts, however, where you attempted to make a rational argument were fallacious.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Then "not being able to rule it out" is also evidence of pots of gold hidden by leprechauns in places marked by rainbows.

Or indeed any other fantastical and unfalsifiable claim.

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.

1. only a probability of 0 means that something is impossible

2. the universe is so vast and old and there are so many stars, most of which have planets in orbit, that it's pretty safe to assume that almost anything that is naturally possible, will have happened somewhere in the universe at least once.

3. calculations of probabilities is only usefull to "predict" the probability of how many times something is expected to occur given X amount of trials.

4. extremeley rare events happen ALL THE TIME, EVERY DAY.

5. it's pretty impossible to calculate the odds of abiogenesis because we don't have enough knowledge about the process (nore the initial conditions of this planet) to come up with any meaningfull estimation that isn't infested with assumptions and unknowns. A probability calculation is only usefull when you can actually factor in every part of the process and any and all pre-requisites. Which is something we can not do today (to my knowledge). So for all we know, the probability of life starting on a planet like earth might be exactly 1 in 1.

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?

My thoughts are that this is just your faith-based religious belief. My thoughts are that you are clearly trying to appeal to scientific ignorance on certain subjects to try and slip your god in to fill that gap.

 

[Skavau]

When it comes to God, it is irrelevant, because science can only deal with the physical universe. What is sad are so many people dismissing God on account of something that is incapable of dismissing Him. What's even sadder is nonsense you just posted intending to be accurate.

Eh?

God is meaningless to me. I am content without belief in a God(s). I see no reason to believe in a God.

 

[davedajobauk]

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.

Without Christianity, Atheists wouldn't even exist .....
They are there to test Christian belief, to make it strong

I have seen, non-believers convincing believers, that their faith in God is valid
Think about it ..... ?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Without Christianity, Atheists wouldn't even exist .....

That might be true if Christianity were the only form of theism, but it's not.

They are there to test Christian belief, to make it strong

I have seen, non-believers convincing believers, that their faith in God is valid
Think about it ..... ?

In line with your reasoning here, perhaps Christians are only there to test Muslim belief, to make it strong? Think about it...?

 

[Freodin]

Without Christianity, Atheists wouldn't even exist .....

That is, obviously, false. Just think for a second... I am certain you will find the mistake.

They are there to test Christian belief, to make it strong

I have seen, non-believers convincing believers, that their faith in God is valid
Think about it ..... ?

I have to admit that I have never seen it in the way you describe it. Some believers use the "you wouldn't argue against my beliefs if they weren't correct" argument. If such a logic makes you think your faith is valid... well, good luck to you.

On the other hand, I have seen non-believers "convince" believers that their faith in God is... not the ultima ratio. It happens. Think about it.

 

[eartheart]

Facts are a stupid thing, a state of death is not a fact. Cause no human can live in it therefore no memory, no pain. Just like birth. I dont believe in any reward higher than that of life, odds are 100% because if the big bang happened once out of nothing then whatever ca used it has force beyond mental capability

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

I fail to see how that is evidence of a creator. An admission that one is not omniscient isn't evidence of anything except for honesty.

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.

You feel that, eh? I both feel and think differently.

Even if there were long odds that sapient life were to form in our universe (or any other universe in a multiverse, if one exists), without good reason to think that a God exists the correct conclusion is that we simply got very lucky and are fortunate enough to be having this discussion.


eudaimonia,

Mark