- Apr 20, 2010
- 391
- 4
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Labor
Upvote
0
The atheist, humanist, and liberal theologians that post here are of little challenge to an experienced debater who uses the most primary premise in the universe as his premise for reasoning.
Challenge accepted; you want to have a debate?
It seems to me that the problem of pain and suffering we experience and reconciling it with a loving God is shared by many atheists as to why they do not believe in Christianity.
I would like to see the OP's response to this, esp considering the present company ...
Hmmm, mebbe we need to start over?
In my last post you see me quote elopez, asking a clear question. In the whole last page, I don't see any such thing from the OP.
Because it is by their "fruit" that we should know them.Before anything, I just want to let it be known that I did not come up with this question, it is something I saw asked on another website which I thought was a very good question.
So basically, I would like places to be switched (if you will); to ask Christians why they believe atheists or any non-Christians do not believe in Christianity, rather than asking the atheists (i.e. me) themselves.
I know you won't see this, but I strongly disagree. Atheists and former Christians generally grasp scripture better than conservatives/fundamentalists, because they are more willing to explore evidence, context, linguistics, instead of relying on blind faith in an english translation.unbelievers have a distorted understanding of Scripture. Yes, this includes "former Christians." Even those that think they served Faithfully for decades. I must comment this has nothing to do with intelligence, as I know of more than 2 who say it was reading the Bible that turned them away from Christianity more than anything else, both were highly capable, and at least one of those displays intelligence far above "the average poster" here.
I know you won't see this, but I strongly disagree. Atheists and former Christians generally grasp scripture better than conservatives/fundamentalists, because they are more willing to explore evidence, context, linguistics, instead of relying on blind faith in an english translation.
Atheists and former Christians generally grasp scripture better than conservatives/fundamentalists
If you were raised in Saudi Arabia, you'd be Muslim. Did they teach you to be a Christian in public schools? Does the media teach you to be a Christian? No, they teach you to be Atheists. Maybe not explicitly, but a bright Atheist knows that something can be taught without being explicitly taught.
Even most American Christians are Atheists in their thinking and behavior. Their Christianity is nothing more than fading family tradition. Their churches are social clubs and their services are therapy sessions. It's about them, not God.
You began this thread by referring to yourself as an atheist and then you infer that you are a Christian, which is a logical impossibility. You can only make such an assertion if you use very orthodox definitions and terms that are private only to you. In any logical debate, we will have to define our terms if these terms are to be operationally defined. Your ability to shift established intellectualism is not a debate skill. It is an avoidance skill.Challenge accepted; you want to have a debate?
You in fact can not debate because you do not choose a position. You change like the wind and blow with no direction. First you must state what you believe and give the reasoning for your belief. You have not even come close to that. The way you use the Socratic method is very unreasonable. You bring out no evidence that your atheism has any merit whatever as a Christian philosophy. In other words, your atheism is just another atheist fantasy. You have no premise to defend in debate or at least you have not stated one. Your accepting an offer to debate is a bluff. Otherwise, give us something to debate, some fact or reasoning that we can examine.
This is your thread. It is your responsibility to take a defined position. We poor dumb Christians await your liberal free thinking brilliance. It should be an easy thing to demonstrate the far better way of thinking about God and Christianity. We can not wait to be enlightened. (I hope you understand my humor, friend; it is part of my debate style which I have already begun with you.Do you see how I have defined your position to that of arrogance and I have taken the moral high ground?)
The way you question the res ponders on this thread has not made you a favorite on your own thread. You have already taken the position of the destroyer and the debunker. How will you ever be able to defend almost any position you take? Defense is a more difficult task for atheist because their logic has no sound premises. It is your time to find this out so speak up whenever you are ready.
I know you won't see this, but I strongly disagree. Atheists and former Christians generally grasp scripture better than conservatives/fundamentalists, because they are more willing to explore evidence, context, linguistics, instead of relying on blind faith in an english translation.
Well we do have a secular government and founding fathers that set it up so religion and government would stay apart. It should be noted that you seem to think the lack of indoctrination = atheism, while the bible says it is the parents job not the schools/media. Also if you think some media DOESN'T teach religion in some sort I would point to Fox News.
Well we do have a secular government and founding fathers that set it up so religion and government would stay apart. It should be noted that you seem to think the lack of indoctrination = atheism, while the bible says it is the parents job not the schools/media. Also if you think some media DOESN'T teach religion in some sort I would point to Fox News.
By the way, what did you mean by your comment about Fox News? Do you listen to Fox? If you do you know that Fox News is only one of a very few networks that is fair and balanced and only one of a few that will dicuss our national philosophy about God. Now that I have explained our national philosophy, you must understand that Fox is doing its job.
The reason I ask what you meant is that liberals, atheist and humanist often criticize Fox News but never say what Fox did to displease them. The fact is that most of the time these guys are angry because Fox told on them for some crazy thing they did or said. I heard an hour long discussion on CNN with George Sores where they criticized Glen Beck and Fox New the whole time but did not point out one fact of what Beck or Fox did wrong.This type of criticism just seems unfair to me and on this forum, it is untruthful unless you give a reason for your comments.
The Constitution is premised on the fact that inalienable rights and self evident truths come from God. The Constitution rejects the union of church and state but it accepts that our liberties come from God. There is no separation between God and state. We must teach God does exist because God is the national premise of our freedoms. What part of the Declaration of Independence of 1776 do you not see in the Constitution in reference to "In God We Trust"? Our national philosophy remains today all based on the God philosophy and should be taught in public schools more so than the philosophy of humanism.
Our national philosophy remains today all based on the God philosophy and should be taught in public schools more so than the philosophy of humanism.
You began this thread by referring to yourself as an atheist and then you infer that you are a Christian, which is a logical impossibility. You can only make such an assertion if you use very orthodox definitions and terms that are private only to you. In any logical debate, we will have to define our terms if these terms are to be operationally defined. Your ability to shift established intellectualism is not a debate skill. It is an avoidance skill.
You in fact can not debate because you do not choose a position. You change like the wind and blow with no direction. First you must state what you believe and give the reasoning for your belief. You have not even come close to that. The way you use the Socratic method is very unreasonable. You bring out no evidence that your atheism has any merit whatever as a Christian philosophy. In other words, your atheism is just another atheist fantasy. You have no premise to defend in debate or at least you have not stated one. Your accepting an offer to debate is a bluff. Otherwise, give us something to debate, some fact or reasoning that we can examine.
This is your thread. It is your responsibility to take a defined position. We poor dumb Christians await your liberal free thinking brilliance. It should be an easy thing to demonstrate the far better way of thinking about God and Christianity. We can not wait to be enlightened. (I hope you understand my humor, friend; it is part of my debate style which I have already begun with you.Do you see how I have defined your position to that of arrogance and I have taken the moral high ground?)
The way you question the res ponders on this thread has not made you a favorite on your own thread. You have already taken the position of the destroyer and the debunker. How will you ever be able to defend almost any position you take? Defense is a more difficult task for atheist because their logic has no sound premises. It is your time to find this out so speak up whenever you are ready.
What are you talking about? I am not a Christian; never was, never said I was and (as far as I know), never will be. I am an atheist.
Yes, we should not debate politics here but you are the one who raised the political question with your unfair comment about Fox News. This was a very telling comment on your layer side of debate to make your point. You did make your point and I simply noted it.I will not debate about politics as this is not a politically section I was simply making a point. But I can say, as a lawyer, that Fox News is far from fair and balanced. The way they report things is biased. I wll instead provide you with a link that delves into this topic further if you are so inclined to watch it.* This guy is a liberal, which I am not, but I feel he makes his points rather well against fox news. It ranges from simply misunderstandings (Or mis-informerd reporting) to complete lies. If you so wish please pm me with any quandrys you may have and I would love to talk.
Actually what you are quoting comes from the Declaration of Independence and reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.". The Declaration of Independence is in NO WAY a ruling document over the United States, so you are simply factually wrong.
Your layer skills are misleading us here. You support what I said but do not want us to know it. I made it clear that the Constitution did not mention God. It, however, was premised on all those good things mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is the ruling document and in no way argues against God and state but it does reject church and state. So, you are factually and logically wrong.
You do build a premise for your next assertion but your premise is also misleading towards your next assertion. The point I was making is that the God philosophy in government continued into the 50's and not only did we the people state "In God We Trust" on our money but we incorporated it into our pledge to the flag. Not only does the Constitution protect us from church and state but it protects our rights to recognize God in our national philosophy. It also protects us to speak out against philosophies of atheism and humanism such as communism and liberal politics that attempts to separate us from God and our national premise for reasoning about human rights and self evident truths. Do you not see how wrong your premise is? Once God is excluded, which you want to do, the source of our rights is gone. That is really the most dangerous situation I can imagine, a nation without God."In God We Trust" was added in the 50s under a wave of fanaticism and ruled by looney politicians, they thought communism was taking over and thusly added God as they thought this would some-how make things better. It is the same story for the Pledge, although it was written by a christian, a pastor to be exact, and he wrote it without "God" and it was added in the 50s.
You do fail to recognize that the communist threat was a world wide and national threat. It did take a fantastic response to halt the march of this evil and liberal march of communism into the world. Eastern Europe serves as evidence of this post World War II danger. The threat was real and the liberal thinkers that said we did not need God still speak this language today. Liberalism was associated with communism in the 60's for good reason. The addition of God has made the world better, which communism and liberalism regards as the operate of the people. I vote we keep God.looney politicians, they thought communism was taking over and thusly added God as they thought this would some-how make things better.
How would inserting the word "humanism" or "liberalism"In my honest opinion as a Lawyer I think both should be removed, as the word "God" is recognizably divisive. It spreads people apart as there are different beliefs in this nation of ours, and right after the word indivisible it seems to only be ironic.
make things better? Changing words will make nothing better for we believe our rights to be a minority on issues is protected and come from God and not from the consensus of men. Your logic might be that of a lawyer but it is too liberal for a Christian theologian.
So in ending, God is not the giver of our freedoms from the governments eyes, and shouldn't be as this nation is supposed to be free for all not just those who agree with us. "Humanism" is other talked about as this evil thing, I am a Christian Humanist, and what I mean by that is I am both Christian and believe in the power of people, that by our own will we can set out to accomplish great feats, this power endowed by God lets us change our own lives. In one, children are in no way being taught humanism, and in another so what if they were? What is so bad about being taught are worth something.
Humanism is the default ethics and political strategy of atheism. Your above statement is very similar to the Communist Manifesto. It is the liberal manifesto and the philosophy of humanism is in direct opposition to Christianity, the Nicene Creed, and the philosophy of the CF. You do plainly declare that your world view is anything but the Christian world view which we hold here on the CF. You do tell us that we can make it without God.
That was the world issue in the late 20's and 40's when the German people accepted the late superman theory. Faith in humanism has not worked out well in history and it is not working well in world politics today. Why do you guys want to change our national philosophy to an unproven philosophy of life without God? I do reject that what you guys do is an assertive Christian effort. The philosophy of humanism has not made the world a better place to live. Christians are not humanist in the historical sense in that they do not trust in God.You can not logically be both, a Christian and an atheist. You must choose one or the other.believe in the power of people, that by our own will we can set out to accomplish great feats,
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?