Hello everyone, just a few things to say at the moment. I'm a fundamental Christian who believes the Bible is God's word written by men inspired by God. Most denominations might not regard me as a fundamental Christian because I do not hold to any denomination beliefs completely, though I do identify as a Southern Baptist. I've spent many years studying and in deep thought about the scriptures and what they say and as most Christians do I believe that God has revealed things to me, yet I am open to the idea that somethings I believe about Christianity could be wrong. Like all people I'm not by any means perfect but will defend what I believe until proven wrong. Thanks for reading this post and I look forward to many good discussions.
Quote from: claytojar on June 20, 2014, 10:34:15 PM
I've spent many years studying and in deep thought about the scriptures.
Me too. I just reached a different conclusion about whether it's actually what people say it is. I just can't believe it's a legitimate account of reality, so there's no point for me to try to think about it further and draw conclusions about what it means. Before I would bother pondering it's meaning, I would have to know that it's what it claims to be. I've not been able to verify that, and since it's so far fetched, I'm concluding it's a fake, a compilation of selected stories written by superstitious ancients lacking any degree of knowledge about the world around them.
Quote from: claytojar on June 20, 2014, 10:34:15 PM
Hello everyone, just a few things to say at the moment. I'm a fundamental Christian who believes the Bible is God's word written by men inspired by God. Most denominations might not regard me as a fundamental Christian because I do not hold to any denomination beliefs completely, though I do identify as a Southern Baptist. I've spent many years studying and in deep thought about the scriptures and what they say and as most Christians do I believe that God has revealed things to me, yet I am open to the idea that somethings I believe about Christianity could be wrong. Like all people I'm not by any means perfect but will defend what I believe until proven wrong. Thanks for reading this post and I look forward to many good discussions.
lol
You say you will defend what you believe until proven wrong. I'm guessing you either have never been presented with any opposing claim or you are more stubborn than you think.
It's one of those two, and I don't think it's the former.
Edit: BONUS possibility- you might also be a poe.
Quote from: claytojar on June 20, 2014, 10:34:15 PM
Hello everyone, just a few things to say at the moment. I'm a fundamental Christian who believes the Bible is God's word written by men inspired by God. Most denominations might not regard me as a fundamental Christian because I do not hold to any denomination beliefs completely, though I do identify as a Southern Baptist. I've spent many years studying and in deep thought about the scriptures and what they say and as most Christians do I believe that God has revealed things to me, yet I am open to the idea that somethings I believe about Christianity could be wrong. Like all people I'm not by any means perfect but will defend what I believe until proven wrong. Thanks for reading this post and I look forward to many good discussions.
Another one so soon? I guess school must be out.
Sent from Monster Island. Titty sprinkles.
Hi claytojar and welcome to the forum, for now.
Let me give you some information: proselitysing and conversion attempts are against the forum rules and very much frown upon here, and may turn you into what we call a "chew toy", at least until you're banned.
A few more points:
- Holy books aren't evidence of the existence of the god(s) they describe.
- The universe is several billions years old, not 6,000 years.
- Evolution is a fact.
Enjoy your stay here.
Welcome claytojar.
Great to see a few Christians here.
Take note of the proselytizing warning. :silenced:
I can't remember ever having been warned/banned for doing that in any AvT forum.
Maybe that's because atheist counter-apologists and anti-theists seem so very very keen to start the convo. And they actually challenge/invite me to hear what I think about God and the bible.
I suppose answering theism questions and responding to challenges is OK as long as 'they' start it.
:shrug:
Welcome to our merry band of heathens, claytojar. We're all heathens to some.
Welcome to the forum. Your description of yourself sounds like where I was at about 30 years ago, except that you seem to be a little more open minded than I was.
Many of us on the Atheist Forum are from a Christian background.
I used to believe that the Bible was the infallible Word of God and that Jesus was the Word made flesh etc. The development of schizophrenia, and dealing with the delusions I experienced trying to explain my hallucinations, led me to question all of the extraordinary beliefs that I held. Eventually, giving up on revealed knowledge of any kind was the result. Christianity is simply a delusion based on someone else's hallucinations.
Quote from: Lion IRC on June 21, 2014, 04:26:01 AM
Welcome claytojar.
Great to see a few Christians here.
Oh look, Lion IRC has crawled out from the rock under which he was hiding. What happened Lion, feeling alone after throwing a hissy fit at AF.org?
QuoteTake note of the proselytizing warning. :silenced:
You better take note of it, too.
QuoteI can't remember ever having been warned/banned for doing that in any AvT forum.
Maybe because they were too busy chewing on you and similar religitard trolls.
QuoteMaybe that's because atheist counter-apologists and anti-theists seem so very very keen to start the convo.
Nope, wrong as usual. We don't start any conversation with religitards like you. It's you and your kin who usually feel obliged to jump in and spew their bullshit.
QuoteAnd they actually challenge/invite me to hear what I think about God and the bible.
Nope, noone invited you here, let alone challenge you to tell us what you "think".
QuoteI suppose answering theism questions and responding to challenges is OK as long as 'they' start it.
:shrug:
We don't start anything. This is an atheist forum and we usually answer in kind to theists when they start spewing their bullshit.
Quote from: DunkleSeele on June 21, 2014, 12:56:28 AM
Hi claytojar and welcome to the forum, for now.
Let me give you some information: proselitysing and conversion attempts are against the forum rules and very much frown upon here, and may turn you into what we call a "chew toy", at least until you're banned.
A few more points:
- Holy books aren't evidence of the existence of the god(s) they describe.
- The universe is several billions years old, not 6,000 years.
- Evolution is a fact.
Enjoy your stay here.
I did not come here to convert you or anyone else, that is the work of the Holy Spirit. I'm here to hopeful have some good intelligent conversations but it's obvious that even with a simple intro threats are made, why?
The Bible never tries to prove God.
I disagree with both, I believe that the universe is probably 50,000 years old.
Evolution has no real proof, so how can it be fact. The fact that evolutionary science makes assumptions doesn't make evolution true.
I will try to enjoy my stay but it seems there are some here who are determined to make things hard on Christians without even getting to know them. I've been reading some of the threads here and on other atheist forums and it seems that more than half of the atheist main reason for being involved is to make things hard on Christians.
The victim card is now played. Assumptions are presented as fact. No evidence is provided.
This is not going to go anywhere.
Hey, if I believe in a fictional character from a video game does that make me a heathen? Because I worship him over GOD?
Because you know, my god at least has voice and actions even if he can't effect the world unless is through me.
Failing that, if you're polite and not super argumentative, a rarity amongst your kind, well welcome you
You have to understand that the majority of Christians that come here are argumentative assholes who don't give two seconds to our own thoughts and beliefs.
Quote from: SGOS on June 20, 2014, 11:22:49 PM
Me too. I just reached a different conclusion about whether it's actually what people say it is. I just can't believe it's a legitimate account of reality, so there's no point for me to try to think about it further and draw conclusions about what it means. Before I would bother pondering it's meaning, I would have to know that it's what it claims to be. I've not been able to verify that, and since it's so far fetched, I'm concluding it's a fake, a compilation of selected stories written by superstitious ancients lacking any degree of knowledge about the world around them.
No one has ever proven God does not exist, I know it's me who has to prove God exists heard it more times than I could count but, in reality no one has proven He doesn't exist and until that happens I see no reason to change what I know. How are you trying to verify God, through the secular world or the world where God exist, the spiritual? I can't see why people would call Christianity far fetched when it is based on loving others.
Welcome aboard GC. At least I assume you are GC. If so please don't expect anything to be different here than at your last forum otherwise I'm afraid you will be disappointed again. I will only ask one thing of you here. Please apply the same standards of evidence to your arguments that you do to ours.
Quote from: SGOS on June 21, 2014, 08:04:41 AM
The victim card is now played. Assumptions are presented as fact. No evidence is provided.
This is not going to go anywhere.
What victim card, if you're eluding to persecution then you're wrong. Christians in this country are not persecuted, badgered yes, but then how many people of different beliefs are not badgered at times. I do not believe I tried to present an assumption as fact, you'll have to show where I did such.
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 07:57:35 AM
I disagree with both, I believe that the universe is probably 50,000 years old.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/oct/23/farthest-confirmed-galaxy-is-a-prolific-star-creator
Quote
Evolution has no real proof, so how can it be fact.
If you think there is no real proof, you aren't paying attention. Of COURSE it's a fact. And it's also a fact that the earth is far, far older than 50,000 years, and there is overwhelming physical, factual, scientific evidence to back it up.
So here is a thought experiment: Is it possible for you to imagine a scenario where God is real and evolution is fact at the same time? A lot of Christians do. Are they wrong?
Quoteit seems that more than half of the atheist main reason for being involved is to make things hard on Christians.
Um. How do you reach this conclusion? Because people do not agree with your beliefs? I don't really care what you believe. Just leave me out of it. Is that an example of me making things hard on Christians?
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 08:15:49 AMNo one has ever proven God does not exist, I know it's me who has to prove God exists heard it more times than I could count but, in reality no one has proven He doesn't exist and until that happens I see no reason to change what I know.
Yes, it is you that has to prove that God exists. If you can't, you have no reason to claim he does because someone else can't prove he does not. See? You have no proof either way. That is one Hell of a shabby way to claim you have knowledge about the matter.
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 08:15:49 AMI can't see why people would call Christianity far fetched when it is based on loving others.
Holy Mother of all non-sequiturs, Batman!
What's a god?
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 08:15:49 AM
No one has ever proven God does not exist, I know it's me who has to prove God exists heard it more times than I could count but, in reality no one has proven He doesn't exist and until that happens I see no reason to change what I know. How are you trying to verify God, through the secular world or the world where God exist, the spiritual? I can't see why people would call Christianity far fetched when it is based on loving others.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If there is nothing that indicates the existence of something, a logical assumption is that it doesn't. The indicators of existence are the outcomes of that existence. Miracles? Prove they happened. Faith healing? Again, evidence. You believe by faith, but that alone proves nothing.
Anything that exists leaves a trail of events that prove it existed. Where is your trail? Biblical evidence? Noah's Ark is a fallacious myth based on an earlier Babylonian myth. Exodus? No historic evidence it happened, the mass migration of more than 2 million people that was not recorded historically anywhere and left no archeological evidence of it happening.
Thousands of religions have existed or still exist on the earth. Your religion is no more valid than any other nor any more provable. The logical conclusion is that religions were the creations of human beings. Your god did not "divinely inspire" until well after the creation of Hinduism, Jainism and other religions. Why are they not true and yours true?
Evolution? There is far more evidence for evolution than for anything you believe, silly man.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Its called the big picture. We are atheists because we look at all the relative data, not that based on a specific belief system.
Your belief is based on loving others? Tell that to all the gays in Uganda that are being persecuted by a Christian based governmental policy, all the non christian cultures that have been persecuted and genocidally decimated over centuries, the ongoing attacks on LGBT people around the world, the enforcement of biblically based slavery in this country and others historically and so on, ad infinitum.
Love my ass. You better read some newspapers and some history. You are a naive idiot.
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 08:15:49 AM
No one has ever proven God does not exist, I know it's me who has to prove God exists heard it more times than I could count but, in reality no one has proven He doesn't exist and until that happens I see no reason to change what I know.
Because it's not logical to continue to believe in something that has no real evidence.
Look at it this way: I used to believe the monster of Loch Ness existed. When I learned more about it, I discovered there was no evidence for the existence of such a creature. (And even that there were logical reasons to assume such a dinosaur-like creature couldn't exist in Loch Ness.) Therefore it became more logical to shed the belief without proof. No one has ever proven the Loch Ness Monster does not exist but exactly because no-one proved the Loch Ness monster exists I saw reason to change what I 'knew'. Innability to prove the non-existance of something is a poor way of validating your belief in said something. For the same reason that you stopped believing in leprachauns, the boogeyman, the easterbunny, witches, ... you should change 'what you (deem you) know' about this subject.
Or at least, you know, that's how I (and I think many here) see it.
We should verify whether or not the theists that come on here have watched Cosmos. It is obvious this one didn't. Would save a lot of explaining, imo.
Quote from: Lion IRC on June 21, 2014, 04:26:01 AM
Welcome claytojar.
Great to see a few Christians here.
Take note of the proselytizing warning. :silenced:
I can't remember ever having been warned/banned for doing that in any AvT forum.
Maybe that's because atheist counter-apologists and anti-theists seem so very very keen to start the convo. And they actually challenge/invite me to hear what I think about God and the bible.
I suppose answering theism questions and responding to challenges is OK as long as 'they' start it.
:shrug:
Pussy.
Also, what's a god?
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 07:57:35 AM
The Bible never tries to prove God.
thats a stupid sentence
QuoteI disagree with both, I believe that the universe is probably 50,000 years old.
lack of education makes you ignorant, but not stupid
QuoteEvolution has no real proof,
the evidence is overwhelming, but again, failing to educate yourself is no sign of stupidity, just ignorance
QuoteThe fact that evolutionary science makes assumptions doesn't make evolution true.
ah never applying reason and logic to YOUR position but hold others to it....got ya.
Quoteit seems that more than half of the atheist main reason for being involved is to make things hard on Christians.
ohh, poor little kid,,,sing soft kitty for me.
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 07:57:35 AM
I did not come here to convert you or anyone else, that is the work of the Holy Spirit. I'm here to hopeful have some good intelligent conversations but it's obvious that even with a simple intro threats are made, why?
No threat, just a warning. We get enough people here who try to do nothing but proselytize. I hope you're not one of them.
QuoteThe Bible never tries to prove God.
Then it is up to believers to prove it. Many believers attempt to do so using the Bible, though, and if you try to do that it'll be ripped apart.
QuoteI disagree with both, I believe that the universe is probably 50,000 years old.
Lol
QuoteEvolution has no real proof, so how can it be fact. The fact that evolutionary science makes assumptions doesn't make evolution true.
Fossiles, artificial selection, genetics, comparative anatomy, making it happen in the lab, and antibiotic resistant bacteria aren't evidence, who would've thought?
QuoteI will try to enjoy my stay but it seems there are some here who are determined to make things hard on Christians without even getting to know them.
Many of us are rude and crass because we have gone through the same thing over and over and over again. Some of us are polite, some are rude.
I'll respect you as long as you respect me and don't say something completely idiotic. I will not respect your beliefs. If you disrespect me or go into fully into derp land I will not respect you.
QuoteI've been reading some of the threads here and on other atheist forums and it seems that more than half of the atheist main reason for being involved is to make things hard on Christians.
These are atheist forums, not Christian forums. We are hard on Muslims, Hindus, and anyone else who comes in and tries to assert that things without evidence are the absolute truth. So far the extent of us "being involved" is responding to a thread that you have started on our forums.
Here's my advice: Be respectful, ignore the flamers but don't ignore their points, and consider the fact that you may be wrong.
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 08:15:49 AM
No one has ever proven God does not exist, I know it's me who has to prove God exists heard it more times than I could count but, in reality no one has proven He doesn't exist and until that happens I see no reason to change what I know. How are you trying to verify God, through the secular world or the world where God exist, the spiritual? I can't see why people would call Christianity far fetched when it is based on loving others.
Burden of proof: we are not making a claim, we are denying one based off of lack of evidence. I am sure that you deny unicorns, leprechauns, faries, and dragons exist until evidence be provided otherwise. We extend that doubt to god. Not just your god, all Gods.
You are making a claim: God exists, and it is your God. We're not going to your word or the Bible's word for it, and "faith" isn't enough.
As per "loving others": Tell that to the gay kids who get kicked out of their homes after coming out, or the women in Africa and other areas who get burned to death for being "witches" to this very day. All done in the name of Jesus.
Quote from: the_antithesis on June 21, 2014, 11:21:00 AM
Pussy.
Also, what's a god?
Did you want to talk to me about God? Here in someone else's welcome/intro thread?
Quote from: DunkleSeele on June 21, 2014, 07:30:34 AM
Oh look, Lion IRC has crawled out from the rock under which he was hiding. What happened Lion, feeling alone after throwing a hissy fit at AF.org?You better take note of it, too.Maybe because they were too busy chewing on you and similar religitard trolls.
Nope, wrong as usual. We don't start any conversation with religitards like you. It's you and your kin who usually feel obliged to jump in and spew their bullshit.Nope, noone invited you here, let alone challenge you to tell us what you "think". We don't start anything. This is an atheist forum and we usually answer in kind to theists when they start spewing their bullshit.
Anyway, welcome claytojar. :)
Sorry that your welcome/intro thread is polluted by this sort of antipathy.
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 07:57:35 AM
I did not come here to convert you or anyone else,
Good on you, then we will get alone just fine.
Quotethat is the work of the Holy Spirit. I'm here to hopeful have some good intelligent conversations but it's obvious that even with a simple intro threats are made, why?
That wasn't a threat, just an explanation of what usually happens here. As others have said, most Christians coming over here start proselitysing left, right and center, therefore whenever a new member proclaims him/herself a Christian, we tend to get suspicious.
QuoteThe Bible never tries to prove God.
When you say that your book is the infallible word of god, it automatically means that you consider it a proof of said god.
QuoteI disagree with both, I believe that the universe is probably 50,000 years old.
This is the first time I hear a Christian say that, it's usually 6,000 years or the scientifically accepted 13.7 billions. Care to explain how you arrived to your figure?
QuoteEvolution has no real proof, so how can it be fact. The fact that evolutionary science makes assumptions doesn't make evolution true.
This is a show of ignorance, plain and simple.
QuoteI will try to enjoy my stay but it seems there are some here who are determined to make things hard on Christians without even getting to know them. I've been reading some of the threads here and on other atheist forums and it seems that more than half of the atheist main reason for being involved is to make things hard on Christians.
As others have said, this is the typical "victim card", which actually won't get you any sympathy here. This is an atheist forum, we criticise each and every religion. No, we don't respect your belief; we may respect you, but not your belief. If you think this is equivalent to "making things hard on Christians", live with it.
Quote from: Lion IRC on June 21, 2014, 03:56:45 PM
Anyway, welcome claytojar. :)
Sorry that your welcome/intro thread is polluted by this sort of antipathy.
My antipathy is directed at you because, as usual, you polluted a thread (and an introduction thread, at that) with your usual bullshit. Go stick an umbrella up your ass and open it.
Quote from: DunkleSeele on June 21, 2014, 05:55:19 PM
My antipathy is directed at you because, as usual, you polluted a thread (and an introduction thread, at that) with your usual bullshit. Go stick an umbrella up your ass and open it.
All I did was to restate the earlier warning to claytojar about proselytizing.
Surely that is not out of line since it was YOU who said it first.
What IS out of line IMHO is the invective and insults.
Quote from: Lion IRC on June 21, 2014, 06:13:25 PM
All I did was to restate the earlier warning to claytojar about proselytizing.
Surely that is not out of line since it was YOU who said it first.
What IS out of line IMHO is the invective and insults.
You need to get over that. This is the Internet and this is simply how people communicate. People have a right to challenge you on your claims, and even when they insult you, that's just the way people are. Stop whining about it, man up and face it or leave. I'm giving you the most honest advice anybody here will ever give you.
And as you suggested, this discourse is not exclusive to Atheists, as much as you'd like to tell yourself that (you already have a few times now). This is how people on the Internet communicate with sensitive issues, grow a thicker skin.
Hey Claytojar, welcome to the madhouse but i have to warn u that u wont get an easy time of it in here.............. :kidra:
Quote from: stromboli on June 21, 2014, 09:37:17 AM
We should verify whether or not the theists that come on here have watched Cosmos. It is obvious this one didn't. Would save a lot of explaining, imo.
Watched all of it found a lot interesting and much assumption, it's my belief that those who heard the words possible, might be, could happen and ect. thought they heard the word proven.
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 08:12:48 PM
Watched all of it found a lot interesting and much assumption, it's my belief that those who heard the words possible, might be, could happen and ect. thought they heard the word proven.
Interesting how you feel that the very same critique and observation you just employed doesn't apply to your own beliefs.
Quote from: frosty on June 21, 2014, 08:17:33 PM
Interesting how you feel that the very same critique and observation you just employed doesn't apply to your own beliefs.
My belief is not in the physical, the spiritual is completely different, that's why I get a kick out of people trying to compare unicorns, leprechauns, big foot and other supposed physical beings to the spiritual.
Quote from: SGOS on June 21, 2014, 09:08:49 AM
Yes, it is you that has to prove that God exists. If you can't, you have no reason to claim he does because someone else can't prove he does not. See? You have no proof either way. That is one Hell of a shabby way to claim you have knowledge about the matter.
You misunderstood, it's not about you, it's was about no one ever proving God doesn't exist, this left open the possibility He does. Thus how can I assume He didn't. Then faith is evidence of the unseen, faith leads to believing and believing leads to knowledge. Kinda' like a black hole or dark matter. Yes I do know God is real and that His promises are true, doesn't matter to me whether you believe it or not it doesn't change what I know.
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 08:44:31 PM
You misunderstood, it's not about you, it's was about no one ever proving God doesn't exist, this left open the possibility He does. Thus how can I assume He didn't. Then faith is evidence of the unseen, faith leads to believing and believing leads to knowledge. Kinda' like a black hole or dark matter. Yes I do know God is real and that His promises are true, doesn't matter to me whether you believe it or not it doesn't change what I know.
But unlike black holes or dark matter, there are no indicators that your religion is not a human fabrication, since others demonstrably are. Tyson very explicitly pointed out what was conjecture and what was fact derived from evidence. Religion is nothing but an assumption derived from no indicators, no evidence and no facts. that is why it is called a faith- belief in something with no proof.
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 08:34:10 PM
My belief is not in the physical, the spiritual is completely different, that's why I get a kick out of people trying to compare unicorns, leprechauns, big foot and other supposed physical beings to the spiritual.
Unicorns were in the bible as were the nephilim giants. They were real physical things according to the holy book that you apparently believe fundamentally.
Quote from: stromboli on June 21, 2014, 08:55:10 PM
But unlike black holes or dark matter, there are no indicators that your religion is not a human fabrication, since others demonstrably are. Tyson very explicitly pointed out what was conjecture and what was fact derived from evidence. Religion is nothing but an assumption derived from no indicators, no evidence and no facts. that is why it is called a faith- belief in something with no proof.
There are plenty but, when one denies them one leaves out the possibility they are true, what you're saying is not unlike what the church did and or said to scientist in the past, funny how both sides of this argument claim to have most all the right answers.
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 09:13:41 PM
There are plenty but, when one denies them one leaves out the possibility they are true, what you're saying is not unlike what the church did and or said to scientist in the past, funny how both sides of this argument claim to have most all the right answers.
Oh really? So my 18 years as a Christian and all the reading and study I did couldn't turn up any, but you - "there are plenty, but" horseshit says there is? Try this on for size. I studied religion from square one to get myself out of Mormonism and kept studying when I found the same problems as a Christian. Judaism grew out of a polythiestic belief that became a monotheistic belief and was filtered repeatedly through early Christianity, Catholicism and so on.
The simple fact is this- if a perfect god inspired a perfect work it would be of whole cloth and stand up to scrutiny. There are thousands of sects because nobody agrees on their belief system and such things as the Rapture are totally believed by some and not by others. Every religion on the planet is a fabrication by a man or men, and yours is no different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZY2eeozdo8
Quote from: DunkleSeele on June 21, 2014, 05:55:19 PM
Good on you, then we will get alone just fine.That wasn't a threat, just an explanation of what usually happens here. As others have said, most Christians coming over here start proselitysing left, right and center, therefore whenever a new member proclaims him/herself a Christian, we tend to get suspicious.
Good and good.
QuoteThis is the first time I hear a Christian say that, it's usually 6,000 years or the scientifically accepted 13.7 billions. Care to explain how you arrived to your figure?
I'm fortunate that my pastor was a nuclear engineer and his son a brilliant nuclear engineer, both working for outstanding agencies. With that said, they taught us that dating things with any method things fall apart rapidly after 50,000 years, dating just becomes to unreliable to trust after 50,000 years.
QuoteThis is a show of ignorance, plain and simple.As others have said, this is the typical "victim card", which actually won't get you any sympathy here. This is an atheist forum, we criticise each and every religion. No, we don't respect your belief; we may respect you, but not your belief.
I am not expecting sympathy here, after reading threads on this and other atheist sites I know it's not coming, so why would I play the sympathy card. You seem to be reading things into my statements that are not there. As for the respect as long as that is extended to me we are fine.
Well your kind had us killed for millennia, and your cousins still have us killed in dozens of countries across the world
You must see why we have hostility
Quote from: stromboli on June 21, 2014, 09:26:48 PM
Oh really? So my 18 years as a Christian and all the reading and study I did couldn't turn up any, but you - "there are plenty, but" horseshit says there is?
So you're saying because you failed to find what you wanted out of Christianity, I can't, that is a bit arrogant isn't it?
QuoteTry this on for size. I studied religion from square one to get myself out of Mormonism and kept studying when I found the same problems as a Christian. Judaism grew out of a polythiestic belief that became a monotheistic belief and was filtered repeatedly through early Christianity, Catholicism and so on.
Could it be that you were always looking for a way out once you discovered the problems with Mormonism, just saying not criticizing. As for Judaism starting out as polytheism I disagree, archaeology doesn't look past the time when the Israelites conquered the Canaanite lands ie. the promised lands. The Israelites did worship other gods after they came into the land, they did this because they disobeyed God and were punished severely for their wrong worship. I wouldn't doubt they worshiped other gods while in Egypt, but then I guess you would need to believe the scriptures to believe they were in Egypt.
QuoteThe simple fact is this- if a perfect god inspired a perfect work it would be of whole cloth and stand up to scrutiny. There are thousands of sects because nobody agrees on their belief system and such things as the Rapture are totally believed by some and not by others. Every religion on the planet is a fabrication by a man or men, and yours is no different.
You have actually hit the nail on the head when you said, "nobody agrees on
their belief system," we are to apply the teachings of God to our lives and not try to make something out of scripture that's not there. I'm a Southern Baptist and I do not believe in the rapture that many do, more and more are moving away from that belief, especially those under learned pastors. Mine is totally different because the God of the Bible is real.
See you all early next week got to go for now, it's been good chatting with you.
You are not the first theist on here by any streetch. And not the first to mold his belief system around personal beliefs, such as the uni is 50,000 years old, so there. Hogwash. all your pomposities aside, you are still an arrogant dick who finds a reason to look down your nose at nonbelievers despite the fact that you can't ultimately prove anything. By all means do have fun while you are away.
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 08:34:10 PM
My belief is not in the physical, the spiritual is completely different, that's why I get a kick out of people trying to compare unicorns, leprechauns, big foot and other supposed physical beings to the spiritual.
Oh, so
those beliefs are hilarious myths, but
your beliefs aren't? You sound like an arrogant, supremacist little prick. I just had to say it. What you just said proves you only think your beliefs are correct and anyone else that doesn't think like you is inferior. Go fuck yourself you arrogant little shit.
Nice.
Great to see that rational, enlightened, Vulcan intellectual reasoning instead of an emotional outburst lacking self-control Mr Spock.
I wonder if New Atheist parents speak to their kids like that when there's a disputation.
Quote from: Lion IRC on June 21, 2014, 11:47:28 PM
Nice.
Great to see that rational, enlightened, Vulcan intellectual reasoning instead of an emotional outburst lacking self-control Mr Spock.
Forgive us, O' Lord, if dealing with arrogance on a regular basis leaves us acting a little short with you idiots.
Quote from: Lion IRC on June 21, 2014, 11:47:28 PM
Nice.
Great to see that rational, enlightened, Vulcan intellectual reasoning instead of an emotional outburst lacking self-control Mr Spock.
I wonder if New Atheist parents speak to their kids like that when there's a disputation.
So you can give a little attitude but complain every time you get it back? I see.
I will gladly point out someone's hypocrisy, double standard and argumentative flaws. Sometimes people are so self-arrogant like the gentleman I replied to, that such language I used was all they will understand. Bashing one set of beliefs that have no evidence then beating your chest that your
own beliefs are the only correct ones while they also lack evidence is a sure-fire way for you to get mocked and ridiculed on a forum like this one. If he were to phrase it in a different way, I would not have said what I did.
You also seem to be getting quite emotional yourself in every single post you make. I would advise either turning the other cheek or not using the site anymore, your sassy responses are not helping you in any way, shape or form.
What we have in Lion IRC is a sniper. Takes cheap shots, makes snotty comments but avoids debate on the issues.
Quote from: stromboli on June 21, 2014, 11:59:55 PM
...Takes cheap shots, makes snotty comments but avoids debate on the issues.
Which is what you just did. LOL
I don't avoid debates. (https://www.google.com.au/#q=lion+irc+debate)
Quote from: frosty on June 21, 2014, 11:54:59 PM
So you can give a little attitude but complain every time you get it back? I see.
You are confusing the words 'complain' and 'criticiize"
Pointing out and criticising a double standard is not complaining about it.
Your agro/emo problem isn't my problem. And atheist antipathy doesnt change my heart rate one iota.
Quote from: frosty on June 21, 2014, 11:54:59 PM...Sometimes people are so self-arrogant like the gentleman I replied to, that such language I used was all they will understand.
Not tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, or nakedness, peril, sword...neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, Yes, I guess that DOES come across as a little bit arrogant doesnt it.
Quote from: frosty on June 21, 2014, 11:54:59 PM...You also seem to be getting quite emotional yourself in every single post you make.
I'm ALWAYS emotional. Robots don't have souls or emotions. I do.
Materialists are the ones who need to account for their "programming"
Quote from: frosty on June 21, 2014, 11:54:59 PM...I would advise either turning the other cheek or not using the site anymore, your sassy responses are not helping you in any way, shape or form.
So I'm not allowed to be 'sassy' but you are?
How about a bit of post-modern humanism and an agreement that we are BOTH humans with different world views and that this forum is a good venue for equality of free speech and contest of ideas????
:pidu:
QuoteLike all people I'm not by any means perfect but will defend what I believe until proven wrong
Not much of this going on, eh?
Go back in your jar, clay
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 08:44:31 PM
faith is evidence of the unseen
Faith is not evidence. Faith is belief without evidence. That's why they invented the word "faith". They needed a word that described believing in something without evidence. Theists make a big deal about their faith. They say, "I believe this and that, even though I have no evidence. I have faith instead."
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 08:44:31 PM
faith leads to believing and believing leads to knowledge.
Wrong again. You don't need faith to believe something. You already believe it. Faith is just a bullshit word people use to pretend their belief is special. Believing is not knowledge. It doesn't lead to knowledge. You are confusing the two terms.
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 08:44:31 PM
Yes I do know God is real.
No you don't. "Believe" is the word you should be using. For your purposes, you are confusing knowledge and bullshit.
Quote from: Lion IRC on June 22, 2014, 12:23:11 AM
So I'm not allowed to be 'sassy' but you are?
Yes. You're in our house, and we will tolerate you so long as you do not wear out your welcome. I would have thought this would be simple common sense, but apparently some folks need it spelled out to them.
"...You're in our house, and we will tolerate you"
OH pahleeese!
ROFL
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 08:12:48 PM
Watched all of it found a lot interesting and much assumption, it's my belief that those who heard the words possible, might be, could happen and ect. thought they heard the word proven.
Then you need to understand the basic tenet of science. Nothing is "proven", just as a court case is not proven. The lemon in my hand appears to be yellow, but there is no PROOF that it's yellow. There is overwhelming evidence that it is, however. The genes that make up our physical bodies are infinitely complicated, and there are animals that are very closely related to us based on that incredibly complicated genetic construction. There is no proof, but overwhelming evidence that we have a common ancestor using logic and evidence.
I imagine you think the theory of evolution is, well, just a theory?
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 22, 2014, 08:33:52 AM
Yes. You're in our house, and we will tolerate you so long as you do not wear out your welcome. I would have thought this would be simple common sense, but apparently some folks need it spelled out to them.
and this pseudo-polite behavior masks your rudeness in you. some kind of having two faces.
people dont communicate with behavior. if you dont like somebody, say direckly.
Quote from: EnvireMental on June 22, 2014, 09:20:33 AM
and this pseudo-polite behavior masks your rudeness in you. some kind of having two faces.
people dont communicate with behavior. if you dont like somebody, say direckly.
Blow it out your ass.
Sent from Monster Island. Titty sprinkles.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 22, 2014, 09:27:27 AM
Blow it out your ass.
Sent from Monster Island. Titty sprinkles.
yeaa u r rght, 2.
when try, ualso suckcess
Yeah we get rude on here. It is a consequence of self serving theists who come on here with their lofty intentions of showing us the truth and their attitudes towards us. We get rude. deal with it.
i think nobody ise not qualificaid to categorize, and personalize somebodys who never know about him or her.
i don't agree with friends behavior. and i explain what i thnik simply.
and later, the member gets rude.
open a dictionary and look it up what is rudeness
Quote from: EnvireMental on June 22, 2014, 11:04:25 AM
i think nobody ise not qualificaid to categorize, and personalize somebodys who never know about him or her.
i don't agree with friends behavior. and i explain what i thnik simply.
and later, the member gets rude.
open a dictionary and look it up what is rudeness
This post gave me cancer.
Sent from Monster Island. Titty sprinkles.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 22, 2014, 11:06:53 AM
This post gave me cancer.
Sent from Monster Island. Titty sprinkles.
Lol. English not 1st language. Or 3rd, apparently. :biggrin:
Quote from: Lion IRC on June 21, 2014, 03:53:48 PM
Did you want to talk to me about God? Here in someone else's welcome/intro thread?
Introduction threads are pointless anyway.
It doesn't matter since I always ask that question because you can not answer it. It just shows how dishonest and self-deceptive you are.
I was among the religious for too long to not know the mindset of theists that come on here. Their attitude is condescending at best and arrogant at worst. And add several different layers in between, such as pitying or I'm gonna educate you. Then they get all butthurt when we don't act civil or buy into their hokum. I don't resort to rudeness as a rule, but most of them deserve it.
Welcome aboard claytojar! Shouldn't that be from clay to earth? Faith is belief without evidence by definition. A belief in God requires faith, therefore it has no evidence to support it. Is there anything else you believe in without evidence? Can you prove Karma doesn't exist? Can you prove anything that doesn't exist doesn't exist? That is a rhetorical question, just like asking if God exists outside of a person's delusional mind, when it can be proven it does in ones mind as a fantasy, just like all other mythical creatures. We really don't give a rats ass what your delusional beliefs are without evidence that is reliable. :wall: :doh: :butt: :popcorn: Solitary
Quote from: claytojar on June 20, 2014, 10:34:15 PM
Hello everyone, just a few things to say at the moment. I'm a fundamental Christian who believes the Bible is God's word written by men inspired by God. Most denominations might not regard me as a fundamental Christian because I do not hold to any denomination beliefs completely, though I do identify as a Southern Baptist. I've spent many years studying and in deep thought about the scriptures and what they say and as most Christians do I believe that God has revealed things to me, yet I am open to the idea that somethings I believe about Christianity could be wrong. Like all people I'm not by any means perfect but will defend what I believe until proven wrong. Thanks for reading this post and I look forward to many good discussions.
I'm a former Southern Baptist: and like most other sects: you never think you're wrong even when proven you are. Plus, if you're "fundamental" in your beliefs: in your mind you ARE never wrong. So please with the rhetoric.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on June 22, 2014, 02:04:10 PM
I'm a former Southern Baptist: and like most other sects: you never think you're wrong even when proven you are. Plus, if you're "fundamental" in your beliefs: in your mind you ARE never wrong. So please with the rhetoric.
-Nam
yes but that's chained mentality. and locked to open-minded. massive block to getting free the mind.
there's one right and fact, and it's my idea. all the other's is wrong. what a silly confidence.
but there is 1 reality. doesnt differ from person to person. objectively, intependent from the subject.
that's how sciencia work. there is nothing absolute, non-changing fact and right. i mean, it's open to improving. not RIGIT for 1500-2000 years.
Quote from: EnvireMental on June 22, 2014, 02:15:14 PM
yes but that's chained mentality. and locked to open-minded. massive block to getting free the mind.
there's one right and fact, and it's my idea. all the other's is wrong. what a silly confidence.
but there is 1 reality. doesnt differ from person to person. objectively, intependent from the subject.
that's how sciencia work. there is nothing absolute, non-changing fact and right. i mean, it's open to improving. not RIGIT for 1500-2000 years.
Is this English? Could you be more succinct?
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on June 22, 2014, 02:19:23 PM
Is this English? Could you be more succinct?
-Nam
i think it's simplified enough as you should to got the point.
Quote from: EnvireMental on June 22, 2014, 02:22:18 PM
i think it's simplified enough as you should to got the point.
I think you just threw your language into an online translator, and that nonsense came out.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on June 22, 2014, 02:32:41 PM
I think you just threw your language into an online translator, and that nonsense came out.
-Nam
no, u wrong.
all word is my own original, reserved sentences :D
exacly where dont you understand?
rhetoric (that's just talking,)
or scientific observation and experiment done under controlled.
''if you don't have knowledge, you can't have and Idea''
Quote from: EnvireMental on June 22, 2014, 02:43:31 PM
no, u wrong.
Then perhaps you should use a translator.
Quoteall word is my own original, reserved sentences :D
Eh.
Quoteexacly where dont you understand?
Your initial comment to me sounds like intellectual philosophical babble. Meaning, you're attempting to sound smarter than you actually are and attempting to make it sound philosophical.
Quoterhetoric (that's just talking,)
"rhetoric" has multiple meanings, mine to the OP is in reference to "
language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.". (ref. Google}
Like your initial comment to me.
Quoteor scientific observation and experiment done under controlled.
''if you don't have knowledge, you can't have and Idea''
"an idea" not "and idea".
-Nam
they are the very very filtration of what you wanna learn. and sure that u got the point.
like you said: rhetoric is bullshit.
because in rhetoric, sometimes 2+2 not=4, we can't trust it.
Quote from: EnvireMental on June 22, 2014, 03:32:33 PM
they are the very very filtration of what you wanna learn. and sure that u got the point.
like you said: rhetoric is bullshit.
because in rhetoric, sometimes 2+2 not=4, we can't trust it.
Brain filled with nonsense.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on June 22, 2014, 03:55:00 PM
Brain filled with nonsense.
-Nam
do you have anything worth to say? except ad hominem
Quote from: EnvireMental on June 22, 2014, 04:02:15 PM
do you have anything worth to say? except ad hominem
Yeah, you thinking i'm attempting to get a reaction out of you. All I want from you is to speak coherently. You barely do that.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on June 22, 2014, 04:22:07 PM
Yeah, you thinking i'm attempting to get a reaction out of you. All I want from you is to speak coherently. You barely do that.
-Nam
haha you read my mind. i really exactly thinking about that.
you have jinn or something, you can know what i am thinking. ? or i guess u r a teenager
Quote from: EnvireMental on June 22, 2014, 04:36:30 PM
haha you read my mind. i really exactly thinking about that.
The fact that what I type is incoherent to you speaks volumes to me.
Quoteyou have jinn or something, you can know what i am thinking. ? or i guess u r a teenager
And, if I were it'd be bad for you since I have a better grasp of English than you.
-Nam
so it means from the first what you write to me is planned to provoke me? right? do u confess?
on a purpose writing incoherent.
EnvireMental, write proper English or quit fucking talking.
Quote from: EnvireMental on June 22, 2014, 06:00:05 PM
so it means from the first what you write to me is planned to provoke me? right? do u confess?
No. However, it does seem you wish to provoke me by your incessant repetitious questioning of me about it.
All I want is for you to speak coherently; that's it.
Quoteon a purpose writing incoherent.
I am writing coherently, it is you who is writing incoherently.
-Nam
Quote from: Lion IRC on June 22, 2014, 12:23:11 AM
You are confusing the words 'complain' and 'criticiize"
Pointing out and criticising a double standard is not complaining about it.
Your agro/emo problem isn't my problem. And atheist antipathy doesnt change my heart rate one iota.
Yet it certainly seems to raise your ire and get you going. You whine that you get mistreated, you lash out in emotional responses back, I think you're lying to yourself. The antipathy indeed bothers you, that's why you reply back with such snide and conviction. If it's any consolation I can truly say theist antipathy doesn't bother me either; it once did, but that's before I realized how self-assured and abusive irrational people can be regarding the subject of faith.
QuoteYes, I guess that DOES come across as a little bit arrogant doesnt it.
You knew exactly what I meant. I do not accept people bashing one set of mythological beliefs while holding their own and arrogantly proclaiming that their side is correct, abusing the other mythological side in the process. This is not the year 435 AD, if you make a claim you are expected to back it up, not just beat your chest and say "OMG GUYZ MY FAITH IS RIGHTER THAN YOURS!!!". That will get you rightly mocked, criticized and attacked. You know exactly what I mean by this, don't play dumb.
Quote
I'm ALWAYS emotional. Robots don't have souls or emotions. I do.
Materialists are the ones who need to account for their "programming"
Citation please (sound familiar?). If you are ALWAYS emotional then you actually have a lot of problems. Humans are supposed to be a balance between emotional and rational, neither one or the other in constant is necessarily healthy. It seems like you just conceded that you are always emotional hence you use emotions in your argument, which in the real world would get you laughed at. "Materialists" try to account for their programming with some type of evidence, you do not, you simply say you have a "soul" with no proof then lash out at everyone else that doesn't agree with you. You need to do some self reflecting about how you talk to other people, it's obviously not working for you.
Quote
So I'm not allowed to be 'sassy' but you are?
How about a bit of post-modern humanism and an agreement that we are BOTH humans with different world views and that this forum is a good venue for equality of free speech and contest of ideas????
That is utterly laughable that you cling to ancient beliefs and yet you pull out the "let's all get along and respect each other" card when your back is against the wall. You go after other people, they go after you back, then you bitch constantly about how you are being picked on and nobody is being fair. I got a little hint for you: Treating others with respect, and
providing some evidence for your erroneous claims, is a start. That's a good start to truly acting on what I'm quoting you said. But I assume that you'll just argue back, being a snide little shithead, provide no proof for your claims, and forever argue in circles until you leave the forum.
I guess if I was so spiteful and angry like you I would post an emoticon here to counter his one, but I'm not 4 years old anymore.
^CE and BCE.
;-)
-Nam
Quote from: the_antithesis on June 22, 2014, 01:40:30 PM
Introduction threads are pointless anyway....
Then why are you posting in this one?
Quote from: frosty on June 22, 2014, 08:26:38 PMQuote from: Lion IRC on June 22, 2014, 12:23:11 AM
Not tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, or nakedness, peril, sword...neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature,
Yes, I guess that DOES come across as a little bit arrogant doesnt it.
I'm ALWAYS emotional. Robots don't have souls or emotions. I do.
Materialists are the ones who need to account for their "programming"
Citation please (sound familiar?).
Which part did you need the citation for?
The bit about robots not having emotion?
Citation because you'll be kicked off the forum for not doing so. Its a legal thing.
You seem to know.
Which part of my post needs the citation?
Quote from: Lion IRC on June 22, 2014, 10:11:14 PM
You seem to know.
Which part of my post needs the citation?
Figure it out, dumbass.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 22, 2014, 08:33:52 AM
Yes. You're in our house, and we will tolerate you so long as you do not wear out your welcome. I would have thought this would be simple common sense, but apparently some folks need it spelled out to them.
I think you need to learn how to get along with people who dont share your worldview. I think you should be more tolerant of diversity.
The forum banner says
"a community website for freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and believers."
Religion is the opposite of diversity. If you proclaim a worldview based on belief in an imaginary deity with a set of dogmatic views that preclude aspects of human behavior like homosexuality, overall human sexual behavior, the right to choose the path your life takes and is not based on religious guilt/fear/judgment and punishment, newsflash. That is not diversity. That is a very singular and narrow viewpoint.
Myself and others here were religious. But we exercised our critical thinking skills and exited the narrowminded lifestyle of religion. We understand what diversity is because we embrace it.
And we also understand that people like yourself that come on the forum do so from an attitude of arrogance and superiority, because we've been there.
Quote from: stromboli on June 22, 2014, 11:05:52 PM
...people like yourself that come on the forum do so from an attitude of arrogance and superiority, because we've been there.
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Quote from: Lion IRC on June 22, 2014, 11:07:59 PM
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Exactly right. As a believer you are failed, sinful, subservient, inadequate and unworthy and in need of an imaginary deity's sacrifice of himself to himself to make you whole. And you agreed to that.
Quote from: stromboli on June 22, 2014, 11:12:55 PM
Exactly right. As a believer you are failed, sinful, subservient, inadequate and unworthy and in need of an imaginary deity's sacrifice of himself to himself to make you whole. And you agreed to that.
If
thats your version of what a saved Christian under Grace is supposed to think, I can understand why you reject Christianity.
I encounter lots of deconverted atheists who claim they know the bible better than me and who attack the unique type of Christianity represented by their former self.
They are actually attacking the person THEY used to be. Attacking themselves and the (distorted/misunderstood) version of biblical Christianity they once held.
Your version of me - Failed, sinful, subservient, inadequate, unloved, unworthy.
My version of me - Unafraid, unashamed, forgiven, made whole by the Amazing Grace of God who loves the world so much that He sent His only Son....
Quote from: Lion IRC on June 22, 2014, 10:18:03 PM
I think you need to learn how to get along with people who dont share your worldview. I think you should be more tolerant of diversity.
Don't talk to me about tolerating diversity, you ignorant fuck. Atheists are the most disproportionately distrusted group in the world, and for no good reason at that. When theists can talk to atheists without talking
down to us, we can talk about "tolerance." Until then, keep that mouth zipped tight.
Quote from: Lion IRC on June 22, 2014, 10:18:03 PMThe forum banner says "a community website for freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and believers."
The banner also used to say, "Tits, or gtfo." The banner doesn't carry much sway here; and neither does your prattling.
Quote from: stromboli on June 21, 2014, 10:12:02 PM
You are not the first theist on here by any streetch.
Was this meant to be a surprise, I may not be the smartest apple in the tree but, I'm not dumb or stupid as you seem to believe.
QuoteAnd not the first to mold his belief system around personal beliefs, such as the uni is 50,000 years old, so there.
What personal beliefs, you need to be specific. As far as the 50,000 years go that's science, no dating system is reliable after 50,000 years.
QuoteHogwash.
Never washed one, never seen one either.
Quoteall your pomposities aside, you are still an arrogant dick who finds a reason to look down your nose at nonbelievers despite the fact that you can't ultimately prove anything. By all means do have fun while you are away.
All my what? As for being arrogant you'll need to show me where I did such a thing and I do not need to prove anything to you and I'm not sure why you think I do. Did I try to prove something, all I remember doing is being a good nooby and introducing myself and answer questions that are asked of me. Not sure how that gets your dandruff up.
Quote from: claytojar on June 23, 2014, 12:01:32 AMI do not need to prove anything to you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COSeM2EVkDc
Quote from: Lion IRC on June 22, 2014, 10:18:03 PM
The forum banner says "a community website for freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and believers."
So?
Believers can be in here if they want, but the majority of members in here are logical, critically thinking people. When people that are brainwashed enough to think feeling something strongly or something written in the [insert holy book here] is evidence, we tend to get annoyed. When they persist with nonsense, it's not contributing to anything and only causing frustration for everyone. I don't care who you are, believer or nonbeliever, if you are going to piss off the entire forum, you will most likely get banned.
We've had a few theists that lasted really long and I think there are some people on here that are theists. They stay because they contribute and don't piss off everyone.
Quote from: SGOS on June 22, 2014, 07:58:57 AM
Faith is not evidence. Faith is belief without evidence. That's why they invented the word "faith". They needed a word that described believing in something without evidence.
What they exactly are you speaking of, please show who originated the word faith. Yes faith is evidence, like I said faith is the evidence of things unseen, but maybe one needs some to understand what faith is.
QuoteTheists make a big deal about their faith. They say, "I believe this and that, even though I have no evidence. I have faith instead."
Yes we do, it's the beginning of the knowledge of God. Actually everyone on this planet has faith in something, maybe not God or even other gods but everyone has faith in something.
QuoteWrong again. You don't need faith to believe something. You already believe it. Faith is just a bullshit word people use to pretend their belief is special.
What do you mean wrong again, you've not shown where I was wrong the first time. As for not needing faith, when you get into your car do you know you will arrive at your destination safely, or is it having faith that you will, you can never know for sure. So is your faith bull so you can arrive safely to a destination.
QuoteBelieving is not knowledge. It doesn't lead to knowledge. You are confusing the two terms.
No you don't. "Believe" is the word you should be using. For your purposes, you are confusing knowledge and bullshit.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the one confused here. Do not scientist believe in something before they gain the knowledge of the previously unknown. When on is searching for something belief always comes first.
Yes I do know for a fact there's a God, if that troubles you it certainly not my fault, I had faith which lead to belief of the unseen and came to knowledge of the Unseen God.
Quote from: Mermaid on June 22, 2014, 09:17:58 AM
Then you need to understand the basic tenet of science. Nothing is "proven", just as a court case is not proven. The lemon in my hand appears to be yellow, but there is no PROOF that it's yellow. There is overwhelming evidence that it is, however. The genes that make up our physical bodies are infinitely complicated, and there are animals that are very closely related to us based on that incredibly complicated genetic construction. There is no proof, but overwhelming evidence that we have a common ancestor using logic and evidence.
I imagine you think the theory of evolution is, well, just a theory?
There is proof it's in your hand, just squeeze.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cYoev4LaAAE/UOXA66k6JfI/AAAAAAAALo0/eONiGBhcG3g/s1600/headdesk.gif.gif)
...you know what, I'm too burned out to deal with this troll. And that IRCwhataver guy. You guys can have 'em. I'm turning on the block feature.
Quote from: Lion IRC on June 22, 2014, 09:52:36 PM
Citation please (sound familiar?).
Which part did you need the citation for?
The bit about robots not having emotion?
Nope, the part about you having a "soul". I require some type of citation for that. Evidence is welcome. If you meant "soul" in the traditional sense, yes, I need some type of proof. If you meant "soul" in the sense that you have emotions, feelings and thoughts, then I guess that could be construed as accurate considering "soul" has different definitions and what I just said was one of them. But I suspect that's not what you meant.
Also, just as we humans think in a certain information span, so do robots/computers/programs. It is almost elementary in programming. AI "thinks", just in a certain span of what it is capable of doing. Think of the thought capability of AI and humans as a straight line, with limits at each end. The way humans and AI both run across and bounce around on this line is awfully similar.
Does that mean in turn humans are the same as robots? No, since we're organic, and of course the issue of 'free will' is mixed in there as well. But it is thought provoking anyways to think about the subject. Both entities are in a sense fed certain information, it's processed, and then from there a response is derived.
Quote from: Solitary on June 22, 2014, 01:56:45 PM
Welcome aboard claytojar! Shouldn't that be from clay to earth?
First of all, thanks. Seems you do not know much about Genesis and other books of the Bible. God molded the first people from clay (earth), and He says He molds believers like a potter molds a vessel from clay. So for me anyways it's in the right order.
QuoteFaith is belief without evidence by definition.
Is there really any difference in what you said and what I say, "faith is evidence of the unseen." Wouldn't you say faith is a way of accepting the unseen or unknown because one can reason the possibility.
QuoteA belief in God requires faith, therefore it has no evidence to support it.
Faith is the requirement to come to belief in God and this is true because one reasons the possibility.
QuoteIs there anything else you believe in without evidence?
I was told earlier that there's no proof that a lemon is yellow but, I do believe it's yellow because there's no proof to the contrary. Same with God, I believed God to be real because there's no proof to the contrary and, no I do not believe in all things unseen because there is no proof to the contrary. I do not believe in them because they are contrary to God.
QuoteWe really don't give a rats ass what your delusional beliefs are without evidence that is reliable.
I do not worry myself with such things, if you care or not doesn't change the reality of what I know, it's as simple as that.
Quote from: Nam on June 22, 2014, 02:04:10 PM
I'm a former Southern Baptist: and like most other sects: you never think you're wrong even when proven you are. Plus, if you're "fundamental" in your beliefs: in your mind you ARE never wrong. So please with the rhetoric.
-Nam
And you're any different now that you're an atheist, you surely don't believe you're wrong about God, so please enough with the rhetoric. I have some beliefs that are not what the typical Southern Baptist believes and some I disagree with are fundamental to Southern Baptist.
Examples, I do not believe in a firey hell, I believe in one that actually could be worse, I believe that a true believer can leave the faith and not believe in God anymore, this is a free will choice. I do not believe in the rapture that most Southern Baptist do. I could be wrong in each case, however I do not think so at this time. What I do know for sure, death will reveal the truth to everyone.
Quote from: SGOS on June 22, 2014, 07:58:57 AM
...Faith is belief without evidence. That's why they invented the word "faith". They needed a word that described believing in something without evidence.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27935479
QuoteScientists who claimed to have found a pattern in the sky left by the super-rapid expansion of space just fractions of a second after the Big Bang
say they are now less confident of their result.
Less
confident of their result.
Confident - from the Latin
con fide. With faith.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 23, 2014, 12:50:44 AM
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cYoev4LaAAE/UOXA66k6JfI/AAAAAAAALo0/eONiGBhcG3g/s1600/headdesk.gif.gif)
...you know what, I'm too burned out to deal with this troll. And that IRCwhataver guy. You guys can have 'em. I'm turning on the block feature.
I'm not trolling, I'm replying to post directed to me, where's the problem with doing so, guess you do not understand trolling, time will help. If you want to block me by all means do, I came here to have intelligent conversation and if you do not, it keeps me from reading what isn't.
Quote from: claytojar on June 23, 2014, 12:40:27 AM
Yes faith is evidence, like I said faith is the evidence of things unseen, but maybe one needs some to understand what faith is.
(http://i.imgur.com/PYD10Wg.png)
QuoteYes we do, it's the beginning of the knowledge of God.
(http://i.imgur.com/BA46OXT.png)
QuoteWhen on is searching for something belief always comes first.
(http://i.imgur.com/BFl9xnE.png)
Quotethere's a God
(http://i.imgur.com/tq12pT9.png)
claytojar,
Faith is the absence of evidence. Faith is believing in something without proof. To say "faith is evidence" is ridiculous, makes you sound ridiculous, and what you believe ridiculous. As I said above: people like you can never be proven wrong because in your mind: you're always right.
-Nam
Quote from: Lion IRC on June 23, 2014, 01:23:30 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27935479
Less confident of their result.
Confident - from the Latin con fide. With faith.
I'm at a loss at what is supposed to be the point of this post.
Is it to point out that we take things on faith? No. If science makes new and better observations and findings that contradict the old ones, the body of knowledge presented to us changes and from that our beliefs. If it turns out that the measurements described truly are faulty, we would not take on faith that they measured what they originally thought they'd measured. Our conviction would change due to the evidence presented.
Is it to point out that whenever scientists claim they are confident in their findings they are taking things on faith? Then no. You do realise that language is context-bound and evolves over time. Our languages which stem from languages spoken in a time before sience and especially the scientific-method existed, will of course show remnants of that age.
When scientists find out their observations and findings aren't as founded as they once thought, they lose confidence because the source-material proves less reliable. And their beliefs and convictions are derived from only what can be validated by the evidence. When holes are poked in religious theories, however, some people don't lose confidence, which is the illogical option. Some turn to self-warranting that confidence instead of finding a good observation from which justified confidence can be derived even if it does not flow with the original conviction.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on June 23, 2014, 03:33:50 AM
I'm at a loss at what is supposed to be the point of this post.
no, really? Having a discussion about religion with an individual thet readily admits they can't prove their viewpoint, call faith proof and insist there is evidence and doesn't present it, and you are looking for relevance? I think we are lost in the matrix on this one.
To the OP:
If you are here to proselytize, please don't. Just go away.
If you are here to convert us, please don't try. Just go away.
If you are going to spout some bullshit about god in every thread without any evidence to back up those claims, please don't. Just go away.
If you expect some sort of special case for your god to ignore reality, please don't. Just go away.
If however none of this applies to you, then welcome. I hope you enjoy your stay.
In regards to the way you have been greeted thus far. I have several questions for you.
1. Why is it that you can see that science makes assumptions(although based off of verifiable evidence) yet are unable to see that you are doing the same thing with your god(yet in this case you lack any evidence).
2. Why did you feel the need to announce yourself as a person of faith? To me, this signals you as a person who intends to put on their "holy armor" in the land of infidels and go converting. Or was it an attempt to get mauled in your opening thread so that you can go back to whatever christian forum/hangout claiming how intolerant we Atheists are?
3. Are you aware that we get literally hundreds of theists here every year? Some of whom actually make it here with out being a douche nozzle, others not so much.
4. Can you not see how tiring this would become? Year after year, having to explain over and over again, hearing the same tired ass "arguments" day in and day out.
Look Im not saying that you aren't welcome here. Im just curious as to what your motives are.
Quote from: Moralnihilist on June 23, 2014, 09:22:37 AM
Look Im not saying that you aren't welcome here. Im just curious as to what your motives are.
Which is what we always wonder. I think that theists come on here to enlighten us, not realizing that we know more about their religion than they do. Their attitudes are always somewhere between condescending and arrogant, regardless.
Quote from: Moralnihilist on June 23, 2014, 09:22:37 AM
To the OP:
If you are here to proselytize, please don't. Just go away.
If you are here to convert us, please don't try. Just go away.
If you are going to spout some bullshit about god in every thread without any evidence to back up those claims, please don't. Just go away.
If you expect some sort of special case for your god to ignore reality, please don't. Just go away.
If however none of this applies to you, then welcome. I hope you enjoy your stay.
In regards to the way you have been greeted thus far. I have several questions for you.
1. Why is it that you can see that science makes assumptions(although based off of verifiable evidence) yet are unable to see that you are doing the same thing with your god(yet in this case you lack any evidence).
2. Why did you feel the need to announce yourself as a person of faith? To me, this signals you as a person who intends to put on their "holy armor" in the land of infidels and go converting. Or was it an attempt to get mauled in your opening thread so that you can go back to whatever christian forum/hangout claiming how intolerant we Atheists are?
3. Are you aware that we get literally hundreds of theists here every year? Some of whom actually make it here with out being a douche nozzle, others not so much.
4. Can you not see how tiring this would become? Year after year, having to explain over and over again, hearing the same tired ass "arguments" day in and day out.
Look Im not saying that you aren't welcome here. Im just curious as to what your motives are.
You should have read all my post, many questions you asked were unnecessary. As for telling everyone that I am a Christian to start things off is just honest. Being deceptive to start things off would have set a bad example and garnered no trust, there's little here as it is. What makes you believe I have any other motive other than to join in on discussions, that's what I stated and I've shown nothing different.
Quote from: stromboli on June 23, 2014, 09:27:42 AM
Which is what we always wonder. I think that theists come on here to enlighten us, not realizing that we know more about their religion than they do. Their attitudes are always somewhere between condescending and arrogant, regardless.
You bailed out of Christianity, what makes you believe you know more about it than those who have stayed with it.
Quote from: Nam on June 23, 2014, 01:48:36 AM
claytojar,
Faith is the absence of evidence. Faith is believing in something without proof. To say "faith is evidence" is ridiculous, makes you sound ridiculous, and what you believe ridiculous. As I said above: people like you can never be proven wrong because in your mind: you're always right.
-Nam
I think I understood you the first time however, you didn't answer my question about you.
Quote from: claytojar on June 23, 2014, 02:25:50 PM
You bailed out of Christianity, what makes you believe you know more about it than those who have stayed with it.
I did not "bail out" dumbass. You really are clueless. It takes a lot more guts to become an atheist- the 10-15% of the population- versus the 75-80% christian. I have a set of balls. The same set I had when I left the LDS Church previously, which lost me my family and my inlaws- because I had the guts to take a stand and stand for my beliefs.
Oh, and what about Bart Ehrman, former devout Evangelical, now agnostic, former pastor, highly recognized expert of biblical and Christian history? Heres the thread
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=5341.0
Pointing out in his book "Forged" that 11 of 27 of the New Testament books were likely forgeries, shit like that. And pointing out that Jesus was not a mythical god but a human preacher, nothing more.
The difference between you and me is that I did what the bible said- ...."prove all things; hold fast to that which is true." (1 Thess. 5:21) I didn't take it for granted and I didn't buy into it without testing it.
Go ahead, truly test your faith. You haven't got the guts.
Quote from: claytojar on June 23, 2014, 01:20:40 AM
And you're any different now that you're an atheist,
The difference with me is: i became an atheist at 12-13 years old but didn't come out until i was 18 to my immediate family (my mother cried, cried more when she found out my brother was an atheist, too [i found out that when she did] and my sister became sn atheist at 11), and but to everyone else a few years after that. See, Christians only have "love" for Christians like them; especially SB's. Ever read the SBC handbook--what hate spews from that book.
Quoteyou surely don't believe you're wrong about God, so please enough with the rhetoric.
I could be wrong that a god or gods exist, i am not wrong the "Christian" god doesn't exist and the biggest evidence one has for that is the multitudes of sects and
revisions of the Bible they believe is the "inerrant word of God" that they keep changing to their own SPAG.
QuoteI have some beliefs that are not what the typical Southern Baptist believes and some I disagree with are fundamental to Southern Baptist.
Then you're not a Southern Baptist.
QuoteExamples, I do not believe in a firey hell, I believe in one that actually could be worse, I believe that a true believer can leave the faith and not believe in God anymore, this is a free will choice. I do not believe in the rapture that most Southern Baptist do. I could be wrong in each case, however I do not think so at this time. What I do know for sure, death will reveal the truth to everyone.
Sounds like a lot of opinions and guessing which equate to SPAG'ing. But don't feel alone: every single Christian SPAGs.
-Nam
QuoteReligion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
So i would modify your stance as spiritually defining yourself as Christian. Whatever.
How many times does this have to be pointed out? Your god is one of thousands. It is no more provable or valid than any other. Your belief stems from what you were born into or introduced to, not what is demonstrably true or provable. If you were in the Middle East you would be a Muslim of a Jew. Southeast Asia, a Buddhist. India a Hindu. You yourself said that you can't prove the truth of your religion- which, by the way, is not an ideal place to start debating from.
Based on our experience here we know that theists come on here to enlighten us, and most often do so from a stance of moral superiority. So nothing you bring is new, challenging, enlightening or unknown to us. So why are you even here?
Quote from: claytojar on June 23, 2014, 02:23:33 PM
You should have read all my post, many questions you asked were unnecessary. As for telling everyone that I am a Christian to start things off is just honest. Being deceptive to start things off would have set a bad example and garnered no trust, there's little here as it is. What makes you believe I have any other motive other than to join in on discussions, that's what I stated and I've shown nothing different.
I ask the same to all theists due to them usually ending up the same.
As for being truthful, that remains to be seen. The interesting thing is that I have yet to actually come out and say what my beliefs are. Now granted if a person has a functioning brain it wouldn't be too difficult to discern.
As to what makes me think that you have an ulterior motive, that comes from sheer experience. As I stated in my post only a few select theists are honest enough to make it here. Most simply come in, much as you did, claiming no ulterior motive and then proceed to shit all over the place as soon as they figure out that their sky daddy gets no special privilege when it comes to evidence needed.
But the response you gave me enough answers to simply write you off as someone who is worthwhile of having a discussion with. Simply put, you have shown to be intellectually dishonest and unwilling to deal with something that may make you doubt your faith.
Quote from: stromboli on June 23, 2014, 02:51:19 PM
I did not "bail out" dumbass. You really are clueless. It takes a lot more guts to become an atheist- the 10-15% of the population- versus the 75-80% christian. I have a set of balls. The same set I had when I left the LDS Church previously, which lost me my family and my inlaws- because I had the guts to take a stand and stand for my beliefs.
Why are you so irritated with me, for the life of m I can't figure out what I've done. As far as being dumb I'm far from it and, okay, you left the Christian faith, by the way I'm not clueless either. Could you please explain how the LDS Church lost you your family, it's probably the most family oriented church I know of, I ask this only if you want to, I don't want you to think I'm being nosy.
QuoteOh, and what about Bart Ehrman, former devout Evangelical, now agnostic, former pastor, highly recognized expert of biblical and Christian history? Heres the thread
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=5341.0
Pointing out in his book "Forged" that 11 of 27 of the New Testament books were likely forgeries, shit like that. And pointing out that Jesus was not a mythical god but a human preacher, nothing more.
The difference between you and me is that I did what the bible said- ...."prove all things; hold fast to that which is true." (1 Thess. 5:21) I didn't take it for granted and I didn't buy into it without testing it.
Go ahead, truly test your faith. You haven't got the guts.
Bart Ehrman made his choice through his free will, the same as you did, that doesn't make him any smarter that other Christians, it only makes him a nonbeliever.
As for myself, I've tested the waters and found God to be very real, I have no doubts actually I know He exists, funny how two searches can lead in two different directions. You can say all you want that I did not search out things correctly and I could say the same to you but, I doubt it would change anything. By the way, the Bible verse you used doesn't impress someone who knows the real meaning of the verse, if you're going to us the Bible to support your positions you need to use those that might be relevant.
Excommunication isn't just a Catholic thing.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on June 23, 2014, 03:19:55 PM
The difference with me is: i became an atheist at 12-13 years old but didn't come out until i was 18 to my immediate family (my mother cried, cried more when she found out my brother was an atheist, too [i found out that when she did] and my sister became sn atheist at 11), and but to everyone else a few years after that. See, Christians only have "love" for Christians like them; especially SB's. Ever read the SBC handbook--what hate spews from that book.
Don't you think you, your brother and sister were a bit young to make such a decision. I can understand at 18 but, early teens. You say Christians only have love for other Christians, does that mean the tears your mother shed were out of hatred, IMHO they were out of love, that's the way a mother's heart works. You'll need to show me where the SBC spews hate, a statement like that requires proof.
QuoteI could be wrong that a god or gods exist, i am not wrong the "Christian" god doesn't exist and the biggest evidence one has for that is the multitudes of sects and revisions of the Bible they believe is the "inerrant word of God" that they keep changing to their own SPAG.
You call that reasoning to establish there is no Christian God, sounds week to me, if what you have reasoned can be used to disprove God, then some sciences are in trouble because of the descent between different theories within the same science. Or it could be we are all trying to figure out things. No revision has ever changed the original meanings established in the scriptures, you will need to show proof that anyone other than the JWs have changed the Bible's meaning.
QuoteThen you're not a Southern Baptist.
Sounds like a lot of opinions and guessing which equate to SPAG'ing. But don't feel alone: every single Christian SPAGs.
-Nam
That's funny, an atheist trying to tell a Christian what he isn't, really rich.
Quote from: claytojar on June 23, 2014, 08:22:14 PM
Why are you so irritated with me, for the life of m I can't figure out what I've done. As far as being dumb I'm far from it and, okay, you left the Christian faith, by the way I'm not clueless either. Could you please explain how the LDS Church lost you your family, it's probably the most family oriented church I know of, I ask this only if you want to, I don't want you to think I'm being nosy.
Bart Ehrman made his choice through his free will, the same as you did, that doesn't make him any smarter that other Christians, it only makes him a nonbeliever.
As for myself, I've tested the waters and found God to be very real, I have no doubts actually I know He exists, funny how two searches can lead in two different directions. You can say all you want that I did not search out things correctly and I could say the same to you but, I doubt it would change anything. By the way, the Bible verse you used doesn't impress someone who knows the real meaning of the verse, if you're going to us the Bible to support your positions you need to use those that might be relevant.
The words you used were "bailing out of Christianity." I didn't bail. That is an insult. Leaving the LDS Church and then the Christian church were hard decisions that caused serious conflicts in my life. When I left the LDS church, people I had known for years stopped talking to me, my family and inlaws disowned me. You call that bailing? The easy choice is to go with the flow, not buck it. The LDS religion puts their faith before families- non members or former members are treated like pariahs if they won't convert.
Bart Ehrman knows the history of your religion forwards and backwards, far better than you do. the fact that such a learned and knowledgeable man who was deeply religious as an Evangelical and then a pastor can become an agnostic shows how flawed your religion is. And by the way, you have not provided one stick of anything like evidence to back your beliefs. Why don't you read some of what Ehrman, a very scholarly man, wrote- and see how that jibes with your world view.
We've been doing this for years. Every theist that comes on here is the same, making belief statements that are simply that and nothing more. If you can't back what you believe with hard evidence or any evidence, then gtfo.
Quote from: stromboli on June 23, 2014, 03:36:07 PM
So i would modify your stance as spiritually defining yourself as Christian. Whatever.
You might modify it, but I do not, and since it's my life and I've lived it for many years now I'm a bit more qualified to determine my stance in life.
QuoteHow many times does this have to be pointed out? Your god is one of thousands. It is no more provable or valid than any other.
Did I say there were no other gods, even the Bible agrees with you, there's the god called money, one called career, another called car, but the most often over looked is the god called self, I could go on but I think you see what I'm saying. There is only one God who is able to save a person from these other gods and I do know Him.
QuoteYour belief stems from what you were born into or introduced to, not what is demonstrably true or provable. If you were in the Middle East you would be a Muslim of a Jew. Southeast Asia, a Buddhist. India a Hindu. You yourself said that you can't prove the truth of your religion- which, by the way, is not an ideal place to start debating from.
That argument holds no water, the bucket you use is full of holes, those holes are called Christians, Christians are in large numbers in all those areas, plus you want to deal in what ifs, they have nothing to do with real life and here's the proof, Christians in all those areas you mentioned. What ifs are a terrible place to start a debate from.
QuoteBased on our experience here we know that theists come on here to enlighten us, and most often do so from a stance of moral superiority. So nothing you bring is new, challenging, enlightening or unknown to us. So why are you even here?
By moral superiority do you mean they profess to live by a standard they believe in, you know if they didn't they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, so it seems to me that they are true to what they believe and from what I've gathered here from reading threads, the atheist live by what they consider the moral high ground. How many times do I have to say I'm here to have discussions, period. If anyone becomes enlightened from the discussions I have, it will be because they wanted to, you act like I'm here to force something on you. I will stand for what I believe and if that bothers you and atheist standing for what they believe doesn't bother you then you will have a dishonest opinion of me. How could you possibly know I do not have something new or different, I know this, without civil discussion we want know.
Quote from: claytojar on June 23, 2014, 08:44:48 PM
Don't you think you, your brother and sister were a bit young to make such a decision.
I can't speak for my siblings but i can for myself: the utter hatred spewed in the SBC churches i attended prompted me to read the Bible and in doing so i realized--at such a young age--that the Bible was a book of hate guising itself as a book of "love". Also, while the "teachers" at Sunday school were spewing rhetoric over the
mythology of other religions (including Catholicism), the same things they denounced against them was the same things in which they believed in their religion. It was hypocritical. And I knew that at 12-13 years old.
QuoteI can understand at 18 but, early teens. You say Christians only have love for other Christians, does that mean the tears your mother shed were out of hatred, IMHO they were out of love, that's the way a mother's heart works.
My use of "Christian" is a generalization. Where as I feel all Christians (and other religious/theistic believers) have an indoctrinated delusion, that does not mean that i believe each one only loves each other; however, in a simplified way they perhaps do while not wanting those of us who do not believe--they have no problem thinking (consciously or unconsciously) that "we" are deserving of a hell their god/religion created. That, in of itself, is not love--not love by a god/religion that places them in such a scenario and certainly not love by them fearfully accepting it.
QuoteYou'll need to show me where the SBC spews hate, a statement like that requires proof.
The handbook. If your church is a member of the convention then you can get the updated version. The version I had was from the 1990's, I believe. But I did post a topic on it at http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/ or http://atheistthinktank.org/thinktank/index.php -- now, what I consider hate (things against women, homosexuals, overall prejudices, bigotry, racism etc.,) you may not. Or, like many Christiansâ,,¢ state that isn't hate but love or deny any of those things exist in their particular sect unless behind closed-doors.
Also, the SBC did nothing to stop the massive amounts of racism spewed in the South by the churches who were members; in actuality, they helped promote it.
QuoteYou call that reasoning to establish there is no Christian God, sounds week to me, if what you have reasoned can be used to disprove God, then some sciences are in trouble because of the descent between different theories within the same science. Or it could be we are all trying to figure out things. No revision has ever changed the original meanings
Yes, it has. By changing words, by leaving out words, by rewriting sentences one is attempting a "watered-down" version until that version becomes non-existent.
I recommend you read the KJV and The Message, and then come back here and show to me how every single verse is exactly rhe same (in meaning). You won't be able to do it because people SPAG.
Quoteestablished in the scriptures, you will need to show proof that anyone other than the JWs have changed the Bible's meaning.
How have the JW's changed the Bible's meaning?
QuoteThat's funny, an atheist trying to tell a Christian what he isn't, really rich.
That's funny, a Christian trying to tell an atheist he has to provide proof when the Christian never does.
-Nam
Quote from: Moralnihilist on June 23, 2014, 06:42:05 PM
I ask the same to all theists due to them usually ending up the same.
As for being truthful, that remains to be seen. The interesting thing is that I have yet to actually come out and say what my beliefs are. Now granted if a person has a functioning brain it wouldn't be too difficult to discern.
Actually one would have to be dead to miss your little hints, so it wasn't hard to figure out. I've given you no reason to believe I would lie to you or anyone else here, maybe if your nature was a little less suspicious you might find conversations with Christians to be enjoyable. I realize there are Christians who come to thee sites to push their agenda and I think it's a shame to do so. They should consider the God they represent in this world and be respectful of those who differ in belief. I need to clarify something here, for me one can be respectful of someone with a different belief without accepting the things they do. I can have respect for a murderer, thief, drug dealer or whoever, I do not by any means have to accept their wrong actions. Respecting a person is different than accepting what they have made of themselves.
QuoteAs to what makes me think that you have an ulterior motive, that comes from sheer experience. As I stated in my post only a few select theists are honest enough to make it here. Most simply come in, much as you did, claiming no ulterior motive and then proceed to shit all over the place as soon as they figure out that their sky daddy gets no special privilege when it comes to evidence needed.
Just because your experiences with others haven't met your acceptance, you have no reason to expect the same from me, I've given you no reasons, it's your suspicious nature that has lead you to any conclusions about me. As for any single evidence I have none you will accept, I know your criteria for evidence I haven't come here as an unknowing child.
QuoteBut the response you gave me enough answers to simply write you off as someone who is worthwhile of having a discussion with. Simply put, you have shown to be intellectually dishonest and unwilling to deal with something that may make you doubt your faith.
Doubt what I have knowledge, hardly. You will need to show me where I was dishonest and if you really believe what you say you do not have to enter discussions with me. This can be the last time you have to speak to me.
The big events of the bible:
Garden of Eden
The Noah flood
Exodus
Jesus
The Garden of Eden/creation myth
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/babylonian.html
QuoteThe Origins of the Creation Account
For many centuries, both Christian and Jewish theologians believe that the stories were given by God and thus owed their origins purely to divine inspiration. However in the nineteenth century, British archaeologists unearthed seven tablets containing the Babylonian [a] myth of creation known as Enuma Elish. Like the famous Epic of Gilgamesh, archaeologists have assigned the date of composition of this work to around 2000 BC. Although the story differs in specifics to that told in Genesis, the similarities in the general tone has convinced archaeologists that the Genesis account had been fundamentally derived from the Babylonian one. Some of the similarities include:
The reference to the initial state as being a disordered chaos of water.
Genesis 1:1 refers to the “darkness†upon the face of the deep. In the Babylonian myth, in the beginning there was only Apsu, the sweet water ocean and Tiamat, the salt water ocean. In fact, archaeologists have generally acknowledged that the Hebrew word for the chaos of the waters or “the deepâ€, tehom, is actually derived from the Akkadian Tiamat.
The creation of a firmament to separate the waters above from the waters below.
In Genesis 1:6-8 God is said to have created the firmament on the second day of creation. In the Babylonian myth, Marduk, son of the Ea the god of wisdom, killed Tiamat and split her into two. The upper half of Tiamat was fixed onto the sky to keep the waters above in place.
The sequence of successive acts of creation.
In the Babylonian myth, after Tiamat was killed, the firmament was created by Marduk to separate the waters above from below. Then he created the sun, the moon, the planets and the stars. Finally man was created. This order is very closely paralleled in Genesis I where the firmament was created on the second day, the sun, moon and stars on the third day and man on the sixth day. [1]
It thus cannot be denied that the creation myth from Genesis must have been derived from the Babylonian one. To quote the late Professor S.H. Hooke (1874-1968) an expert on Old Testament Studies:
n spite of the complete transformation of the Babylonian material effected by the priestly writer, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the original form of the creation story upon which he is depending is ultimately of Babylonian origin. [2]
QuoteThe similarity betwen the above myth and that of Genesis’ is obvious to see. The similarity include:
The setting- a garden in paradise.
The watering of the gardens with water from the earth.
The consumption of forbidden fruits, by Adam and Eve in Genesis and by the god Enki in the Sumerian myth.
The curse upon the person (s) who ate the fruit.
The creating of a female from the rib of the male in Genesis and the creating of a female to heal the rib of the male in the Sumerian precursor.
The name of the female thus created. In Genesis, Eve, or in its original semitic form Hawah, means life. In the Sumerian myth, the word ti from the name Ninti has a double meaning; it could mean either ‘rib’ or ‘life’. Thus Ninti can be rendered as “lady of the rib†or “lady of lifeâ€. [5]
That is not all, the Babylonian myth, the Epic of Gilgamesh also contains an episode that doubtless also influenced the writers of Genesis. In it Gilgamesh, in his quest for immortality, was told by Utnapishtim (the Babylonian “Noahâ€) that there exists a plant at the bottom of the sea that has the property of making the old young again. Gilgamesh dived into the sea and brought up the plant. However the plant was stolen while he was taking bath. The thief who stole the plant of everlasting youth away from him was none other than the serpent! [6]
That Babylonian myths should influence the stories in the Bible is really not surprising. The Babylonian empires were influential throughout the whole middle eastern region for over three thousand years. The history of Jews is also very closely tied to Babylon. For it was there that the Jews were taken into exile in the year 587 BC.
http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Dr-Fi/Eden-Garden-of.html
QuoteThe story of the Garden of Eden is an allegory. It explains how humans fell from a state of innocence to one in which they must suffer during life and eventually die.
allegory literary and artistic device in which characters represent an idea or a religious or moral principle
The peoples of ancient Mesopotamia* also believed in an earthly paradise named Eden, located somewhere in the east. According to some ancient sources, the four main rivers of the ancient Near Eastâ€"the Tigris, Euphrates, Halys, and Araxesâ€"flowed out of the garden. Scholars today debate the origin of the word Eden. Some believe it comes from a Sumerian* word meaning "plain." Others say it is from the Persian word heden, meaning "garden."
Quote from: stromboli on June 23, 2014, 09:38:11 PM
The words you used were "bailing out of Christianity." I didn't bail. That is an insult. Leaving the LDS Church and then the Christian church were hard decisions that caused serious conflicts in my life. When I left the LDS church, people I had known for years stopped talking to me, my family and inlaws disowned me. You call that bailing? The easy choice is to go with the flow, not buck it. The LDS religion puts their faith before families- non members or former members are treated like pariahs if they won't convert.
I retracted what I said, I agreed that you left. If saying you bailed on Christianity is an insult then is using language towards Christians you know we find insulting is somehow not. I haven't shown the first bit of malice toward you, I did choose the wrong word by using bailed, but there was no malice intended, bailed is a common term used where I live and doesn't necessarily come with malicious intent. I'm sorry your family has treated you in an unchristian way and it's unfortunate that many Christian churches do also, however, that's not true for all Christians or churches. I'm sorry for the choice of word.
QuoteBart Ehrman knows the history of your religion forwards and backwards, far better than you do. the fact that such a learned and knowledgeable man who was deeply religious as an Evangelical and then a pastor can become an agnostic shows how flawed your religion is. And by the way, you have not provided one stick of anything like evidence to back your beliefs. Why don't you read some of what Ehrman, a very scholarly man, wrote- and see how that jibes with your world view.
I've read Bart Ehrman and find his writings to contain to much of, if this, this might be, maybe this and ect., which for me and anyone that reads things closely would consider Bart is trying to fool people because he decided to leave Christianity. There are many scholars who have as much and some even more knowledge of Biblical history and the Bible that disagree with him, have you ever considered reading what they think. By the way the last I heard Ehrman has softened his thinking towards Christianity, haven't confirmed this yet but it did come from an atheist and he was upset by Ehrman's new stance.
QuoteWe've been doing this for years. Every theist that comes on here is the same, making belief statements that are simply that and nothing more. If you can't back what you believe with hard evidence or any evidence, then gtfo.
See I haven't done a thing and you dismiss me as if you knew me to be a really terrible person, you confuse me. I've been in discussions for many years with atheist, I'm no stranger to this. I'll never be able to give you the evidence you require, if there's one thing I've learned over the years atheist will set a standard no one can reach, to preserve their non-belief.
I saw the quotes, got curious, clicked "display post." Good golly, this guy is quite the arrogant prick, ain't he?
The Noah myth
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/top-ten-reasons-noahs-flood-is-mythology/
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark
QuoteThe Genesis flood narrative is similar to numerous other flood myths from a variety of cultures. The earliest known written flood myth is the Sumerian flood myth found in the Epic of Ziusudra.[2]
There is no scientific evidence supporting a global flood.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Searches for Noah's Ark, sometimes mockingly referred to as "arkeology",[11][12][13] have been made from at least the time of Eusebius (c.275â€"339 AD) to the present day. Despite many expeditions, no scientific evidence of the ark has been found.[14][15][16][17][18]
QuoteThe Genesis flood narrative is one of several similar flood myths. The earliest known written flood myth is the Sumerian flood myth found in the Epic of Ziusudra.[2] Later and very similar Mesopotamian flood stories appear in the Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh texts. Many scholars believe that Noah and the Biblical flood-story derive from the Mesopotamian versions, predominantly because Biblical mythology that is today found in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mandeanism shares overlapping consistency with far older written Mesopotamian stories of the Great Flood, and because the early Hebrews were known to have lived in Mesopotamia,[23] particularly during the Babylonian captivity.
The parallels â€" both similarities and differences â€" between Noah's ship and that of the Babylonian flood-hero Atrahasis have often been noted. Noah's ship is a rectangle, while Atrahasis was instructed to build his in the form of a cube; Atrahasis's ship has seven decks with nine compartments on each level, while Noah's has three decks, but he is not given any instructions on the number of compartments to build.[24] The word used for "pitch" (sealing tar or resin) is not the normal Hebrew word but is closely related to the word used in the Babylonian story.[25]
The causes for God/gods having sent the flood also differ: in the Hebrew narrative the flood comes as God's judgment on a wicked humanity; in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh the reasons are not given and the flood appears to be the result of the caprice of the gods;[26] whereas in the Atrahasis version of the Babylonian flood story the flood was sent by the gods to reduce human over-population, and after the flood other measures were introduced to prevent the problem recurring.[27][28][29]
The impossibility of the ark:
http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark
From the National Center For Science Education. I understand you like scientists.
Exodus
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus
QuoteEgyptian record keeping
It is unlikely that the 603,550 adult males plus women and children mentioned in the Exodus story would have gone unremarked by contemporary Egyptian records. That's easily 2 million people (assuming one man, one woman, 1.5 children, which is very conservative[11]). But no Egyptian account mentions them. Or the plagues, which would be similarly unlikely not to have been recorded. There is no evidence of any of this. Given the standard of Egyptian record keeping of the time, this is an absence that would require explanation.
Bible literalists claim that it did happen, but that the Egyptians destroyed all the records, for reasons generally unspecified, though embarrassment has been offered. This is contrary to the normal archaeological practice of testing a theory against the evidence, rather than the evidence against the theory.
[edit]Sinai Peninsula
Map of sites discussed in this article
The Book of Numbers gives a list of sites at which the Hebrews settled in Sinai and the immediate surroundings during the Exodus. Of these sites, some can be pinpointed relatively well by description and deduction. Two such sites are the Biblical Kadesh Barnea, modern Ein Qadis, and Ezion Geber, on the Israeli side of the border between Israel and Jordan, just outside Eilat. Both sites have been investigated archaeologically, and found to have been founded during the Ancient Near Eastern Late Iron Age â€" no earlier than 700/800 BCE,[12] with the obvious exception of early neolithic/nomadic activity.
[edit]Nonâ€existent cities
Many of the places mentioned in the Exodus did not exist within the same chronological period as one another. Pithom (Perâ€Atum/Tckenu) and Raamses (Perâ€Ramesses), the two "treasure cities" claimed to have been built by the Hebrews, never existed at the same time. Pithom did not exist as a significant settlement before the 26th Dynasty. Prior to this, the settlment was known as Tckenu, and was still referred to as such in the Ptolemaic period, and was an obscure garrisonâ€town which mainly, if not exclusively, served as a waystation for Egyptian expeditions. Even in its enlarged Roman state, the town barely registered on either Egyptian or Grecoâ€"Roman accounts.[9] Perâ€Ramesses, the Royal Residence of the Ramessides was abandoned at the end of the New Kingdom, centuries earlier.[9]
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/jews.htm
Settlement in Canaan
As barbarous newcomers to what was the land of Canaan, these semites (speakers of a tongue common to Syrians, Arabs and Mesopotamians) took up migratory occupation of the less fertile hill-country of the interior. Neither their limited sub-culture â€" an illiterate donkey nomadism; nor their social organisation â€" patriarchal and authoritarian â€" distinguished them from other tent-dwelling pastoralists.
These early, polytheistic, Hebrews scratched an existence in an unpromising land on the fringes of the major civilisations, occasionally moving with their animals into the Nile delta in times of draught.
It seems as if they were joined, over time,by outcasts or refugees from the more sophisticated Canaanite (Phoenician) coastal cities. ‘Israel emerged peacefully and gradually from within Canaanite society ‘ concluded Karen Armstrong, the noted religious scholar. (A History of Jerusalem, p23]The Canaanite migrants brought with them cultic practices and images of their traditional gods. A major Canaanite god was El, and the phrase ‘El has conquered’ gives us the word Isra’el. The Canaanite god El had a ghostly presence in a host of Jewish heroes: Dan-i-El; Ezek-i-El; Sam-u-El, Ish-ma-El, El-i-jah, El-o-him, etc.God-inspired names were common throughout the west-Semitic language region. Other Canaanite gods included Baal (a storm god) â€" also honoured in a host of Hebrew names, Asherah (a fertility goddess, consort of El), Shalem (a Syrian sun god â€" later to be honoured in the name Jeru’salem ), Milcom, Chemosh, etc. Ru’shalimum is mentioned in records of the Pharaoh Sesostris III (1872 - 1847 BC) â€" the settlement actually pre-existent long before the tribe of Hebrews made it their own. The site then appears to have been unoccupied for three hundred years until the Jebusites (otherwise known as Kereti or Peleti â€" Cretans or Philistines) arrived.
The numbers of Exodus amount to 2 million people in the Sinai desert for 40 years. time for a generation to die off and a new one to come along. The Sinai desert is one of the driest places on earth. Any remains of the dead would be mummified. There are no burial sites, no camp sites, no evidence of a mass exodus anywhere in the Sinai. No artifacts, no dropped items, nothing.
And no records by the record keeping Egyptians who apparently didn't notice that 2 million or so of their (known population) of 10 million just up and walked out of town.
Jesus
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/12e2b6/virgin_mary_was_not_a_virgin/
QuoteWe can determine with certainty that the virgin Mary was in fact not a virgin. Well, of course the concept itself makes no sense at all, but that's not what I mean. But how can we know that the virgin birth was not some miracle?
Well, the answer is translation. The original text of Isaiah is written in Hebrew. There are two different words in Hebrew, one means "young woman", one means "virgin". In Isaiah, the word for "young woman" is used to describe the mother of the mesiah that will come. When the new testament was first written in Greek, they used the term Isaiah used in order to fulfill the prophecy. The only problem is that in Greek there is only one word for "virgin" and "young woman". Which meaning of the word is required depends on the context.
Later on, the Greek text was translated into Latin. In Latin there are (as in Hebrew) two terms for the two meanings. Yet they translated the Greek word, that can mean both, as virgin and not as young woman. The meaning had changed. What they wrote was "a young woman gave birth to Jesus." What people understood was "A virgin gave birth to Jesus."
And that, fellow atheist who reads this, is believed by millions, billions of people today, even though the thought is completly ridiculous. Scientifically it cannot be true. We know that it's a translation error. Yet people still believe in it.
That is why you cannot argue with a religous person. They believe something, even if it's complete nonsense, scientifically proven not true and known as an translation error. Those people would believe anything their religion made up.
TL;DR: Virgin Mary was not a virgin, it's a translation error. Religous people believe it nontheless.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ
Jesus may well have been a man, but there many inconsistencies in his story
http://agnosticreview.com/birth.htm
http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/ShreddingTheGospels.htm
http://www.weseekthetruth.org/articles/article105.html
Be sure and present your contrary evidence with sources and links.
Quote from: claytojar on June 23, 2014, 08:44:48 PM
Don't you think you, your brother and sister were a bit young to make such a decision. I can understand at 18 but, early teens.
How young is an acceptable age for someone to decide that they are a christian?
Quote from: Nam on June 23, 2014, 09:44:40 PM
I can't speak for my siblings but i can for myself: the utter hatred spewed in the SBC churches i attended prompted me to read the Bible and in doing so i realized--at such a young age--that the Bible was a book of hate guising itself as a book of "love". Also, while the "teachers" at Sunday school were spewing rhetoric over the mythology of other religions (including Catholicism), the same things they denounced against them was the same things in which they believed in their religion. It was hypocritical. And I knew that at 12-13 years old.
It's unfortunate you had to attend a church with such views, I also was told bad things about Catholics in the first church I attended. I can say I do not agree with all the tenets of the Catholic Church an find somethings quite different than what scripture teaches. I know many Catholics and expect to see many them in heaven, but just like some in churches I've attended, I do not expect to see all of them. I can't imagine that the SB would denounce things they also believe, not saying it couldn't happen just doesn't seem likely. Let's be honest here do you know anyone who hasn't been hypocritical about something in their lives, everyone I've met has including me, it is a bad habit at best and down right dishonest at worst. Honestly do you believe the Christian churches are going to defend other beliefs and gods that go against what they believe, that would be like an atheist defending Christianity or any other religion.
QuoteMy use of "Christian" is a generalization. Where as I feel all Christians (and other religious/theistic believers) have an indoctrinated delusion, that does not mean that i believe each one only loves each other; however, in a simplified way they perhaps do while not wanting those of us who do not believe--they have no problem thinking (consciously or unconsciously) that "we" are deserving of a hell their god/religion created. That, in of itself, is not love--not love by a god/religion that places them in such a scenario and certainly not love by them fearfully accepting it.
If you generalize with the word Christian and that generalization does not fit all Christians I will say something about trying to put the same glove on many different hands, it want always fit. I'm not sure why you believe that a lot of Christians do not love atheist or others who believe differently, trying to introduce nonbelievers to Christianity shows a concern for others, yes I know some go way overboard, but many do it because they have a love for others regardless of what others may or may not believe. Only God can determine who goes to hell and who doesn't. As for your use of the word "deserve," my belief of what hell is would allow for that, but a better word would be "make." The intro thread isn't the place to discuss this, but I'm sure there will be a thread coming up that will.
QuoteThe handbook. If your church is a member of the convention then you can get the updated version. The version I had was from the 1990's, I believe. But I did post a topic on it at http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/ or http://atheistthinktank.org/thinktank/index.php -- now, what I consider hate (things against women, homosexuals, overall prejudices, bigotry, racism etc.,) you may not. Or, like many Christiansâ,,¢ state that isn't hate but love or deny any of those things exist in their particular sect unless behind closed-doors.
I haven't read these links yet, I will and respond with an answer.
QuoteAlso, the SBC did nothing to stop the massive amounts of racism spewed in the South by the churches who were members; in actuality, they helped promote it.
The Southern Baptist Church was founded right before the civil war to defend slavery, it spawned out of the south's desire to have cheap labor. Know this for a fact, though my family has always been in the south we do not condone the slavery or the bigotry of any persons. My parents were from North Carolina and even though they were surrounded by bigotry and out right hate of blacks they did not accept it. They taught me to respect all people because we are the same, the same to God and to differentiate by race was sinful, just plain wrong. I grew up right in the middle of the civil rights movement and saw Dr. Martin Luther King as a great man, one of great courage. I have seen the signs saying whites only, blacks to the back of the bus, white bathrooms only, blacks can not sit a the counter, whites only above water fountains. I know the disgrace of the hatred, I was in the middle of it as a young boy and despised what was being done to black people. The Southern Baptist Church was wrong in this and have found itself hurting because of it. We are trying to change things which is good, the convention has elected a black president and is moving to bring in all peoples no matter their color. This is a positive move and anyone who wants to continue to criticize the church now is wrong in doing so, it is a changed church.
QuoteYes, it has. By changing words, by leaving out words, by rewriting sentences one is attempting a "watered-down" version until that version becomes non-existent.
I recommend you read the KJV and The Message, and then come back here and show to me how every single verse is exactly rhe same (in meaning). You won't be able to do it because people SPAG.
I have, way ahead of you, I have and study from several different revisions. The KJV is written in old English a language that is not spoken in the U.S. for at least a century, so it's harder to understand. The Message is a transliteration which is good for reading and some study just as any transliteration version is, I often read and use the New Living translation because of it's more modern English, but my main study Bible is the New American Standard because of its more literal translation and yes this does sometimes pose difficulties because it goes to the literal side, that's why I have other bibles to help in studying. I think you can see I do not limit myself to one revision and I did not mention all I have and use. I've not found any that give a different message, some explain some verses better or should I say the ones that use today's English aid in understanding. But, none deviate from the others.
QuoteThat's funny, a Christian trying to tell an atheist he has to provide proof when the Christian never does.
-Nam
The proof that I have as a Christian comes directly from God, something you would refuse to believe, but has opened up a whole new world to me.
Quote from: stromboli on June 23, 2014, 11:44:56 PM
The Noah myth
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/top-ten-reasons-noahs-flood-is-mythology/
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark
The impossibility of the ark:
http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark
From the National Center For Science Education. I understand you like scientists.
This is a intro thread I'm not getting into specifics such as these, there are appropriate places for this, I'm sure I'll have a chance to voice my beliefs there, in the mean time find other things less done. Not avoiding just saying it needs to be done in the proper place.
Quote from: Poison Tree on June 24, 2014, 01:11:31 AM
How young is an acceptable age for someone to decide that they are a christian?
Good question and the answer, there is no set age I've heard of ages 5 to 90. There is a difference between deciding to become a Christian or an atheist, I want get into the spiritual part simply because it want be accepted here. Looking at it from a purely logical view, the one choosing Christianity is not deviating from the teachings of scripture, the one choosing atheism is choosing to deviate totally from the teachings and to do so should require a much longer amount of time through study, just how I see it.
Quote from: claytojar on June 24, 2014, 01:29:14 AM
It's unfortunate you had to attend a church with such views
I said "churches". Not one single church but more than one.
QuoteI also was told bad things about Catholics in the first church I attended.
That's what the SBC teaches unless they've changed that viewpoint recently, which i highly doubt. Of course many protestant sects teach the same thing.
QuoteI can say I do not agree with all the tenets of the Catholic Church an find somethings quite different than what scripture teaches. I know many Catholics and expect to see many them in heaven, but just like some in churches I've attended, I do not expect to see all of them. I can't imagine that the SB would denounce things they also believe, not saying it couldn't happen just doesn't seem likely.
Do you think that because I became an atheist i stopped going to church? I didn't stop going to church until I was 21 years old. And, nothing changed. Even today at my family's church (literally, it's their church since 1902) they teach the same things, and they, like many Southern Baptist churches in the South are members of the SBC. I have an aunt who works for the SBC in Jacksonville, FL -- do you believe i'm just making this up as I go along? These are the things they adhere to, gossip about, and hear at their churches. For you, as a Southern Baptist to simply deny most or all of what I state makes you look the fool to other former Southern Baptists or perhaps to current Southern Baptists; of course from what you state, I really don't believe you are one, unless in name only.
QuoteLet's be honest here do you know anyone who hasn't been hypocritical about something in their lives, everyone I've met has including me, it is a bad habit at best and down right dishonest at worst. Honestly do you believe the Christian churches are going to defend other beliefs and gods that go against what they believe, that would be like an atheist defending Christianity or any other religion.
You just stated above:
QuoteI can't imagine that the SB would denounce things they also believe, not saying it couldn't happen just doesn't seem likely.
First, it's "SBC" not "SB", one is a sect the other is an organization adhering to that sect. Yes, they would and then deny they ever did. Like many politicians. They say something then deny they ever said it; place the negativity on others by stating "You have no proof.", "You took what I said out of context." etc.,
Protestant Christians tend to denounce Catholics as even being Christians themselves unless it benefits them. I hear, and read all the time by protestants how Catholics aren't real Christians, they need to repent and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour until they are being
persecuted by another faction or religion (or atheists) and then state the "statistics" of how there are almost 2 billion Christians in the world. 1.5 billion of those are Roman Catholics. At that particular moment they are Christians, any other moment: they are not. That's not only contradictory but hypocritical, as well.
QuoteIf you generalize with the word Christian and that generalization does not fit all Christians I will say something about trying to put the same glove on many different hands, it want always fit. I'm not sure why you believe that a lot of Christians do not love atheist or others who believe differeothers
You ("you" is in general) condemn them, berate them, persecute them, try to strike fear into them (sometimes succeeding), consider them not even human, state they are devil worshippers, etc., and yet to "you" that is being loving. That is asinine.
Quotetrying to introduce nonbelievers to Christianity shows a concern for others, yes I know some go way overboard, but many do it because they have a love for others regardless of what others may or may not believe.
Nonsense. They do it because a book orders them to do it. They are ruled by a book, not love of others.
What did Sarah Palin recently say, "Waterboarding is bringing Christ to terrorists."? Ever think "you" are the terrorist? "You" force your beliefs on others around the world because you love them. If that's love, you can have it.
QuoteOnly God can determine who goes to hell and who doesn't. As for your use of the word "deserve," my belief of what hell is would allow for that, but a better word would be "make." The intro thread isn't the place to discuss this, but I'm sure there will be a thread coming up that will.
I'm sure you'll create it.
QuoteThe Southern Baptist Church was founded right before the civil war to defend slavery, it spawned out of the south's desire to have cheap labor. Know this for a fact, though my family has always been in the south we do not condone the slavery or the bigotry of any persons. My parents were from North Carolina and even though they were surrounded by bigotry and out right hate of blacks they did not accept it. They taught me to respect all people because we are the same, the same to God and to differentiate by race was sinful, just plain wrong. I grew up right in the middle of the civil rights movement and saw Dr. Martin Luther King as a great man, one of great courage. I have seen the signs saying whites only, blacks to the back of the bus, white bathrooms only, blacks can not sit a the counter, whites only above water fountains. I know the disgrace of the hatred, I was in the middle of it as a young boy and despised what was being done to black people. The Southern Baptist Church was wrong in this and have found itself hurting because of it. We are trying to change things which is good, the convention has elected a black president and is moving to bring in all peoples no matter their color. This is a positive move and anyone who wants to continue to criticize the church now is wrong in doing so, it is a changed church.
No it's not. Same organization, just a different guise.
QuoteI have, way ahead of you, I have and study from several different revisions.
Unless you have read 14 versions of the Bible, The Book of Mormon, and the Qur'an, you are not "way ahead" of me.
QuoteThe KJV is written in old English
It's written in Middle English. Old Englush is comparable to a type of Gaelic (which I can read).
Quotelanguage that is not spoken in the U.S. for at least a century, so it's harder to understand.
No, it's not. That's an excuse, and a poor one.
QuoteThe Message is a transliteration which is good for reading and some study just as any transliteration version is, I often read and use the New Living translation because of it's more modern English, but my main study Bible is the New American Standard because of its more literal translation and yes this does sometimes pose difficulties because it goes to the literal side, that's why I have other bibles to help in studying. I think you can see I do not limit myself to one revision and I did not mention all I have and use. I've not found any that give a different message, some explain some verses better or should I say the ones that use today's English aid in understanding. But, none deviate from the others.
My point is: it's not the original English version nor the original non-English version since things get lost in translation so people have to either make something up or try to edit to suit.
QuoteThe proof that I have as a Christian comes directly from God, something you would refuse to believe, but has opened up a whole new world to me.
Your "proof" amounts to nothing. It's your opinion, and opinions do not equate to evidence.
-Nam
Right, Middle English. it was also written at the behest of some James guy for his church. Which was (cough) modified (cough) from some earlier versions because the Puritans complained there were problems with the previous book.
Damn Puritans. Apparently between burning witches they were messin' with the bible.
Quote from: stromboli on June 24, 2014, 02:50:49 AM
Right, Middle English. it was also written at the behest of some James guy for his church. Which was (cough) modified (cough) from some earlier versions because the Puritans complained there were problems with the previous book.
Damn Puritans. Apparently between burning witches they were messin' with the bible.
Technically it's early Modern English but on the cusp of Middle English.
-Nam
Quote from: claytojar on June 23, 2014, 09:43:31 PM
That argument holds no water, the bucket you use is full of holes, those holes are called Christians, Christians are in large numbers in all those areas, plus you want to deal in what ifs, they have nothing to do with real life and here's the proof, Christians in all those areas you mentioned. What ifs are a terrible place to start a debate from.
You do realize that the people of Africa and other colonies were forcibly indoctrinated and pretty much tortured in the name of conversion. If your counterargument is to be; look at how sensible Christianity is as it spreads across the globe and gets accepted everywhere, just realize this point. Because, I'm not saying it's what you are saying, but if it is what you are saying it's quite insensitive and a major distortion of history.
Secondly, even Christianity isn't 'in large numbers in all those areas'. Even to date there are areas in which people live who've never even heard of Jesus Christ, the bible, the gospels or Jehova. These areas are growing smaller, yes, but are definitely not gone.
Thirdly, even if these pockets of ignorants-towards-christianity dissapear entirely in the near future; it would still have left millions of years of people who hadn't heard of Jesus before he was born and even nearly two thousand years of a globe not having heard of him after he was born and died.
Fourthly, while changing 'religion' does occur from Islam to Christianity or from Christianity to Islam or from Jewish to Hindu or from Hindu to Jewish or whatever... these are by and large anomalies. And in a lot of cases it's like you say: these christians live there in large numbers. Which means that they form a substantial part and within that part raise and indoctrinate their kids, not so much convert others. Which does nothing to add to your point.
Look at it this way. Belgium is technically a 'Roman Catholic Country'. But in Antwerp we have a major Orthodox-Jewish community and a substantial Islamic community. People who are born in Roman Catholic households by and large become Roman Catholics. Orthodox-Jewish kids by and large become Orthodox Jews and Islamic children by and large become followers of Islam.
The 'where you were born decides your faith' bit may indeed be interpreted as in 'if you were born in an X-country you would be an X instead of a Y. But what it really gets at is that your cultural upbringing and heritage, which can differ within a country or even within a city, for the main part decides your religious views in later life.
Quote from: claytojar on June 24, 2014, 01:45:30 AM
Good question and the answer, there is no set age I've heard of ages 5 to 90. There is a difference between deciding to become a Christian or an atheist, I want get into the spiritual part simply because it want be accepted here. Looking at it from a purely logical view, the one choosing Christianity is not deviating from the teachings of scripture, the one choosing atheism is choosing to deviate totally from the teachings and to do so should require a much longer amount of time through study, just how I see it.
That would only make sense if scripture had any value, which it doesn't outside of what scripture says. That's been the entire point.
You ask us to look at it from a 'purely logical view' but then immeadiately after put Christian scripture on a pedestal and affirm it's imagined value and from that bias make your point. After all, I could ask you to keep studying Hindu or Islam scripture untill you find yourself convinced of it, rather than just dismissing it after a first read. You would need years of studying each and every religion on earth and it's scriptures before you could validly dismiss them, if we were to take up your point and made it fair to every religion.
People believe what they believe, claytojar. And teaching and learning can influence what you believe. But as soon as someone becomes convinced that the evidence for any God is bogus he or she turns atheïst. The age doesn't matter. If they in a later point in their lives become convinced of the existance of a Deity, they (re)turn to theism. The age doesn't matter for that either. As soon as someone interprets a point of view as BS, it's like a paradigm-shift and you don't choose later on; you become it instantly by realization.
Quote from: claytojar on June 24, 2014, 01:45:30 AM
Good question and the answer, there is no set age I've heard of ages 5 to 90. There is a difference between deciding to become a Christian or an atheist, I want get into the spiritual part simply because it want be accepted here. Looking at it from a purely logical view, the one choosing Christianity is not deviating from the teachings of scripture, the one choosing atheism is choosing to deviate totally from the teachings and to do so should require a much longer amount of time through study, just how I see it.
I was around 5 when I started to question the existence of God. At that time, I did not know the words agnostic or atheist, but in retrospect, this was the cutting edge of agnosticism but not quite agnosticism, since I had not yet come to the realization that God could not be proven.
While I was confirmed in the Lutheran Church, I lived in an extended family situation with a fire breathing Baptist grandmother (who hated Catholics. I didn't realize that was a Baptist thing. I thought it was just her). She had a much stronger impact on my life than the Lutheran Church because she was so much more evangelical, opinionated, and pushy. She is the one who probably got me thinking about the reality of God's non-existence first because her stories of a "loving" god with such a penchant for inhuman torture and intolerance for petty shit was too contradictory to logically accept (although I was too young to know the word logic).
And yes, the journey to atheism took much more study than simply accepting the Bible myths, but oddly, it required a closer study of the Bible than what the average Christian is willing to devote to it.
Quote from: claytojar on June 24, 2014, 01:45:30 AM
Good question and the answer, there is no set age I've heard of ages 5 to 90. There is a difference between deciding to become a Christian or an atheist, I want get into the spiritual part simply because it want be accepted here. Looking at it from a purely logical view, the one choosing Christianity is not deviating from the teachings of scripture, the one choosing atheism is choosing to deviate totally from the teachings and to do so should require a much longer amount of time through study, just how I see it.
And what if the child were, instead of choosing to be a christian or atheist, becoming Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or a Jain or Zoroastrian or Sikh or . . . ? What if the child had Jewish parents but chose to be christian; should deviating from Torah and Talmud (or Hadith and Quran or . . .) carry the same significance as deviating from scripture? Are those choices more like being a christian or more like being an atheist?
From my point of view, there is no in kind difference between choosing to be any one. Except that christianity, as the majority position, is less likely to result in ostracism, mistrust and persecution--despite constant howls from the pullet.
It takes a Christian to ignore what to us are obvious facts. The level of indoctrination involved from Sunday School to attempts at teaching Creationism in schools to Bible camps to being constantly presented with religious biblical material in one form or another.
The one thing I did as a parent, after leaving Mormonism, was to let my children choose for themselves. My youngest was age 8, and all were initially baptized as Christians. I never thought that dunking somebody in a tank of water was anything but symbolic, although a lot of Christians think it is a highly important act of transition. Whatever. No one should force religion on an untrained mind. They went to (1) Bible camp, but after transiting Mormonism it didn't have much affect.
I am very much against anything that serves as intimidation or coercion or indoctrination. A free mind should be allowed to make its own choices.
Quote from: claytojar on June 23, 2014, 09:43:31 PM
How many times do I have to say I'm here to have discussions, period. If anyone becomes enlightened from the discussions I have, it will be because they wanted to, you act like I'm here to force something on you. I will stand for what I believe and if that bothers you and atheist standing for what they believe doesn't bother you then you will have a dishonest opinion of me. How could you possibly know I do not have something new or different, I know this, without civil discussion we want know.
OK, I won't comment on the other drivel you posted because it's exactly the same bullshit you've been spewing on AF.org under the name of Godschild and, frankly speaking, it's not worth the effort. Still, the snippet above is a clear sign of your hypocrisy: you say you "want discussions" but, at the same time, you hope some of us will "be enlightened". No asshole, you aren't here to have discussions. Having discussions means that
both parties accept the possibility of changing their opinion. What you want is to spew your bullshit and proselytise, because your disgusting book of horror fiction tells you so. You're a condescending, hypocritical asshole. Go shove an umbrella up your ass and open it, shithead.
Quote from: claytojar on June 24, 2014, 01:45:30 AM
Looking at it from a purely logical view, ....
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Enlightened? How the fuck does one, living in a modern scientific era, become enlightened by a Bronze Age theology that was out of date like ten centuries ago? Well, working on my new religion. Beer and chili, yo. Later. :biggrin:
Quote from: stromboli on June 24, 2014, 09:17:30 PM
Enlightened? How the fuck does one, living in a modern scientific era, become enlightened by a Bronze Age theology that was out of date like ten centuries ago? Well, working on my new religion. Beer and chili, yo. Later. :biggrin:
Blasphemy! It is not "beer" and "chili"! It is "beer in chili"!
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on June 24, 2014, 02:24:02 AM
I said "churches". Not one single church but more than one.
That's what the SBC teaches unless they've changed that viewpoint recently, which i highly doubt. Of course many protestant sects teach the same thing.
So you did say churches, I'm sorry you attended those that taught such things.
The Catholic Church teaches many things that do not line up with the scriptures, they also claim to be the only "True Church" and the people in the protestant churches are not saved. Tell me why didn't you try the Catholic Church before making a decision to be an atheist, you seem to be defending a church that condemns most all other Christian churches.
Like I said before I know many Catholics very well and not the first one has condemned me for belonging to the SB church. I have no problem with Catholics, it's the teachings of the church and the church leaders I have problems with, they teach against the Bible.
QuoteDo you think that because I became an atheist i stopped going to church? I didn't stop going to church until I was 21 years old. And, nothing changed. Even today at my family's church (literally, it's their church since 1902) they teach the same things, and they, like many Southern Baptist churches in the South are members of the SBC. I have an aunt who works for the SBC in Jacksonville, FL -- do you believe i'm just making this up as I go along? These are the things they adhere to, gossip about, and hear at their churches. For you, as a Southern Baptist to simply deny most or all of what I state makes you look the fool to other former Southern Baptists or perhaps to current Southern Baptists; of course from what you state, I really don't believe you are one, unless in name only.
Did I say anything at all about doubting what you said, I know every well what
can be said in a Southern Baptist church. I've attended
them for many years. Any Southern Baptist Church that belongs to the SBC doesn't have to hold to all the beliefs of the convention, actually only a few are required, so to say all Southern Baptist Churches preach against Catholics is wrong, but most do heavily disagree with the Catholic doctrine as do most protestant churches, I guess you must not have known that. The people at my church know how I believe and they do not think I'm foolish nor do many other Christians. By the way what does your aunt have to do with this, she's only one in 16.5 million Southern Baptist. Yes I'm a SB I do believe most of what makes up the SBC, like I said earlier the a Southern Baptist doesn't have to believe all of what the convention lays out.
QuoteFirst, it's "SBC" not "SB", one is a sect the other is an organization adhering to that sect. Yes, they would and then deny they ever did.
Splitting hairs now aren't you. I've never met a Southern Baptist that wouldn't stand behind what he/she says, all that tripe is only your opinion. Southern Baptist are not a shame of what they believe, they actually make strong stands on their beliefs, even among themselves. Sounds to me your hatred for Christianity is doubled up on the SBC.
QuoteProtestant Christians tend to denounce Catholics as even being Christians themselves unless it benefits them. I hear, and read all the time by protestants how Catholics aren't real Christians, they need to repent and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour
This may be true among those you know however that's a small, small minority of the several million Christians. I have friends from different denominations and they have told me personally that they believe many Catholics are saved. You are confusing Catholics with the Catholic hierarchy, it's that hierarchy and their established rules the protestants and many Catholics disagree with. I've heard Catholics that disagree with the hierarchy and many of those rules.
QuoteYou ("you" is in general) condemn them, berate them, persecute them, try to strike fear into them (sometimes succeeding), consider them not even human, state they are devil worshippers, etc., and yet to "you" that is being loving. That is asinine.
This is nonsense plain and simple.
QuoteNonsense. They do it because a book orders them to do it. They are ruled by a book, not love of others.
No wonder you left and became an atheist, you think Christianity is about a book, that's ridiculous, Christianity is a relationship with the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You missed a lot when you read the Bible.
QuoteWhat did Sarah Palin recently say, "Waterboarding is bringing Christ to terrorists."? Ever think "you" are the terrorist? "You" force your beliefs on others around the world because you love them. If that's love, you can have it.
She is one person, and you have no reason to equate me or other Christians to her. I've never forced my beliefs on anyone and I've heard this many times and it's ridiculous, this is a free country how is it we could force anyone. Stalin was an atheist who killed millions and many of those were Christians, should I equate you and other atheist to Stalin?
QuoteUnless you have read 14 versions of the Bible, The Book of Mormon, and the Qur'an, you are not "way ahead" of me.
You sure sit on the edge of your set trying to find ways to have confrontations, I was referring to your challenge to read other revisions. I'm not going to get into a spitting contest about who has read what, I know and understand scripture very well and no revision differs in meaning from another.
QuoteIt's written in Middle English. Old Englush is comparable to a type of Gaelic (which I can read).
My point is: it's not the original English version nor the original non-English version since things get lost in translation so people have to either make something up or try to edit to suit.
Okay Middle English and it's not spoken here or any where else and it's hard to understand, I'm glad it's easy for you and I know others that don't find it difficult, but the majority do.
Sure there's loss in translation you think I'm stupid and do not understand that, why do you think I mentioned I use the NASB and a study Bible at that, it gives me the Greek and Hebrew and the actual meaning of the word or as close as possible when it's not used. The reason the literal words are sometimes not use is to smooth out the reading not to change the meaning, I have Greek and Hebrew references and if I need it my pastor has a Greek Bible to reference from. You see at my church we go to great lengths to find the real meaning of scriptures.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on June 24, 2014, 03:29:36 AM
You do realize that the people of Africa and other colonies were forcibly indoctrinated and pretty much tortured in the name of conversion. If your counterargument is to be; look at how sensible Christianity is as it spreads across the globe and gets accepted everywhere, just realize this point. Because, I'm not saying it's what you are saying, but if it is what you are saying it's quite insensitive and a major distortion of history.
Christianity is sensible and it spreads sensibly in this day and time, what happened in the past isn't practiced today by missionaries of any protestant denomination I know of. If there are things going on within Africa now it's not sanctioned or condoned by the protestant churches I know of. I wasn't referring to what you said above in my previous statement.
QuoteSecondly, even Christianity isn't 'in large numbers in all those areas'. Even to date there are areas in which people live who've never even heard of Jesus Christ, the bible, the gospels or Jehova. These areas are growing smaller, yes, but are definitely not gone.
You're right the Gospel hasn't reached all people yet, great progress is being made, as you noted. Christianity is large in many of those areas, many people do not report themselves as Christians in some countries because they could and in some cases are killed for being a Christian. So the numbers are larger than some know.
QuoteThirdly, even if these pockets of ignorants-towards-christianity dissapear entirely in the near future; it would still have left millions of years of people who hadn't heard of Jesus before he was born and even nearly two thousand years of a globe not having heard of him after he was born and died.
Millions of years in your belief, not so in Christianity. God has made provision to judge these people in the way they have lived, what all this entails only God knows. He will leave no one out for an opportunity to live with Him forever.
QuoteFourthly, while changing 'religion' does occur from Islam to Christianity or from Christianity to Islam or from Jewish to Hindu or from Hindu to Jewish or whatever... these are by and large anomalies. And in a lot of cases it's like you say: these christians live there in large numbers. Which means that they form a substantial part and within that part raise and indoctrinate their kids, not so much convert others. Which does nothing to add to your point.
The point originally trying to be made was, that if I were born in one of these places I wouldn't have been a Christian, the fact is there is many conversions going on in these areas and the greater fact is I am who I am because of the parents I was born to, so they being in these other places wouldn't matter because they are Christians and my opportunity would have been great. The biggest gripe I have with the scenario is it's just that a scenario that could not apply to my life, so I do not worry about something that can't be. I consider it a waste of time and life.
QuoteLook at it this way. Belgium is technically a 'Roman Catholic Country'. But in Antwerp we have a major Orthodox-Jewish community and a substantial Islamic community. People who are born in Roman Catholic households by and large become Roman Catholics. Orthodox-Jewish kids by and large become Orthodox Jews and Islamic children by and large become followers of Islam.
The 'where you were born decides your faith' bit may indeed be interpreted as in 'if you were born in an X-country you would be an X instead of a Y. But what it really gets at is that your cultural upbringing and heritage, which can differ within a country or even within a city, for the main part decides your religious views in later life.
I agree with what you say here and it would apply to me, I would have been born to my Christian parents so by and in large I would have been a Christian as long as I searched out a religion. See when you deal with ifs you have to start taking into account many other things that would have had to happen. As it happens three brothers came from Ireland to the United States well over a century and a half ago and my family was established in the south where most of us stay to this day. This is real and the reality of this is I wasn't born in another country. Thanks for the good conversation.
Quote from: Poison Tree on June 24, 2014, 01:01:10 PM
And what if the child were, instead of choosing to be a christian or atheist, becoming Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or a Jain or Zoroastrian or Sikh or . . . ? What if the child had Jewish parents but chose to be christian; should deviating from Torah and Talmud (or Hadith and Quran or . . .) carry the same significance as deviating from scripture? Are those choices more like being a christian or more like being an atheist?
From my point of view, there is no in kind difference between choosing to be any one. Except that christianity, as the majority position, is less likely to result in ostracism, mistrust and persecution--despite constant howls from the pullet.
Anyone leaving one belief system to go to another would take longer to change their beliefs simply because they have to change and change takes time, those who stay with the same belief system are growing in it, not trying to figure out a new belief. This is as simple as I know to explain what I believe in this matter.
Quote from: stromboli on June 24, 2014, 01:38:25 PM
It takes a Christian to ignore what to us are obvious facts. The level of indoctrination involved from Sunday School to attempts at teaching Creationism in schools to Bible camps to being constantly presented with religious biblical material in one form or another.
The one thing I did as a parent, after leaving Mormonism, was to let my children choose for themselves. My youngest was age 8, and all were initially baptized as Christians. I never thought that dunking somebody in a tank of water was anything but symbolic, although a lot of Christians think it is a highly important act of transition. Whatever. No one should force religion on an untrained mind. They went to (1) Bible camp, but after transiting Mormonism it didn't have much affect.
I am very much against anything that serves as intimidation or coercion or indoctrination. A free mind should be allowed to make its own choices.
It takes an atheist to ignore what is obvious to Christians. So we could go around in circles with this but, let's not waste your time or mine. I am glad you have made the choice to let them make a choice. I wouldn't think bad of you if you were to guide them in the way you think, they are your children and you would be doing what you thought best for them. Let me say this though, I did not and do not see that I was intimidated, coerced or indoctrinated and I understand those things, I was born with a rebellious nature.
Quote from: DunkleSeele on June 24, 2014, 04:51:46 PM
OK, I won't comment on the other drivel you posted because it's exactly the same bullshit you've been spewing on AF.org under the name of Godschild and, frankly speaking, it's not worth the effort. Still, the snippet above is a clear sign of your hypocrisy: you say you "want discussions" but, at the same time, you hope some of us will "be enlightened". No asshole, you aren't here to have discussions. Having discussions means that both parties accept the possibility of changing their opinion. What you want is to spew your bullshit and proselytise, because your disgusting book of horror fiction tells you so. You're a condescending, hypocritical asshole. Go shove an umbrella up your ass and open it, shithead.
So I was, and I left because a few were trying to take things into their hands and direct the way conversation would go, those few never contributed to the OP they tried to disrupt the conversations. There were those there I had good conversation with and believe if I got to know them in person outside the forum, could have become friends with if that's what they would have wanted. Those who are ruining AF.org it would seem are cut from the same cloth you are, which is unfortunate. I never tried to convert anyone there, I defended my positions and like I said with over 4 years and 4500 post many had to be good conversation and discussion. Now what went on over there shouldn't have anything to do with here, but I invite anyone to go read my posts, all I would ask is that you start from the first and go to the end. I knew there were people here who are or were over there, I used the same password here as I did there and everyone there knew I raised and trained rottweilers, which is my avatar, I changed to claytojar in hopes of establishing myself here before being judged for coming to another forum. I'm not sure why it made you so mad other than to believe you are like some at AF.org. Since you find it fair to judge me, it should be fine with you to be judged, but I bet you hate it when someone does.
Quote from: claytojar on June 25, 2014, 04:00:11 AM
It takes an atheist to ignore what is obvious to Christians. So we could go around in circles with this but, let's not waste your time or mine. I am glad you have made the choice to let them make a choice. I wouldn't think bad of you if you were to guide them in the way you think, they are your children and you would be doing what you thought best for them. Let me say this though, I did not and do not see that I was intimidated, coerced or indoctrinated and I understand those things, I was born with a rebellious nature.
Lol at this entire paragraph.
I think we already know you don't see that you are indoctrinated. And rebellion has much less to do with being a nonbeliever than skepticism does.
Think of your belief of that the Bible is true like this :
Did you ever take a huge shit and not realize how bad the bathroom wreaks till you walk past it a few min later?
We see how silly your superstition is because we aren't a part of it any more and some of us never were. To some of us is even more like we are walking past someone else's bathroom that just had a huge shit taken in it.
Sent from your mom
Hullo.
I lost faith when I walked in on THIS!!! KFC does jfc! Please explain!
Quote from: claytojar on June 25, 2014, 02:32:39 AM
So you did say churches, I'm sorry you attended those that taught such things.
The Catholic Church teaches many things that do not line up with the scriptures, they also claim to be the only "True Church" and the people in the protestant churches are not saved.
Protestant churches do the same thing. Every single Christian sect (about 40,000 and mainly in the US) say they are the "One Trueâ,,¢ Church", and that everyone but them are going to hell.
QuoteTell me why didn't you try the Catholic Church before making a decision to be an atheist, you seem to be defending a church that condemns most all other Christian churches.
How am I defending any church? I am not.
QuoteLike I said before I know many Catholics very well and not the first one has condemned me for belonging to the SB church.
Really? You know what is in their hearts? Please...
QuoteI have no problem with Catholics, it's the teachings of the church and the church leaders I have problems with, they teach against the Bible.
Which is what they adhere to therefore you're against them. And all Christians teach, or live, against some passages in the Bible. Even you. Ever read Corinthians? If you have then you'd know you're not supposed to be on this website because it is filled with unbelievers and we are corrupt, and what do you have in common with "darkness" since you are "light"? Now, be a good boy and explain how I simply took that verse out of context, or though you believe the Bible is literal that passage obviously isn't, or I just don't understand it properly etc.,
QuoteDid I say anything at all about doubting what you said
You implied it with your responses of denial.
QuoteI know every well what can be said in a Southern Baptist church. I've attended them for many years. Any Southern Baptist Church that belongs to the SBC doesn't have to hold to all the beliefs of the convention, actually only a few are required, so to say all Southern Baptist Churches preach against Catholics is wrong
I didn't say "all Southern Baptist churches preach against Catholics" -- you really have a reading problem, don't you? Just reading what you want.
Quotebut most do heavily disagree with the Catholic doctrine as do most protestant churches, I guess you must not have known that.
Yeah, I must have missed that one. (
sarcasm)
QuoteThe people at my church know how I believe and they do not think I'm foolish nor do many other Christians.
Because if they did they would have to look in the mirror.
QuoteBy the way what does your aunt have to do with this, she's only one in 16.5 million Southern Baptist.
...who works for the SBC. Did you read over that part or just flat out ignore it?
QuoteYes I'm a SB I do believe most of what makes up the SBC, like I said earlier the a Southern Baptist doesn't have to believe all of what the convention lays out.
I never said it did.
QuoteSplitting hairs now aren't you. I've never met a Southern Baptist that wouldn't stand behind what he/she says, all that tripe is only your opinion. Southern Baptist are not a shame of what they believe, they actually make strong stands on their beliefs, even among themselves. Sounds to me your hatred for Christianity is doubled up on the SBC.
Rhetoric. And thank you for becoming defensive. So, if I were an ex-Catholic my focus on Christianity shouldn't be Catholicism just because that's who indoctrinated me? Get it? Of course not.
QuoteThis may be true among those you know however that's a small, small minority of the several million Christians.
At least you're honest in saying "millions", got to deny that Catholics are Christians!
QuoteI have friends from different denominations and they have told me personally that they believe many Catholics are saved.
"Many" equates to how many?
QuoteYou are confusing Catholics with the Catholic hierarchy, it's that hierarchy and their established rules the protestants and many Catholics disagree with. I've heard Catholics that disagree with the hierarchy and many of those rules.
I'm not confusing anything with anything. But you are becoming so defensive it's hilarious. I pushed you there, and you actually went. You're weak. That's what your religion makes you.
QuoteThis is nonsense plain and simple.
If you say so.
QuoteNo wonder you left and became an atheist, you think Christianity is about a book, that's ridiculous, Christianity is a relationship with the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You missed a lot when you read the Bible.
I didn't miss anything; and without the book would Christianity even exist? So much weight is placed on that book. Please...for you to say that makes you ridiculous.
QuoteShe is one person, and you have no reason to equate me or other Christians to her. I've never forced my beliefs on anyone and I've heard this many times and it's ridiculous, this is a free country how is it we could force anyone.
The US is not a "free" country. Don't be asinine.
QuoteStalin was an atheist who killed millions and many of those were Christians, should I equate you and other atheist to Stalin?
You just did.
QuoteYou sure sit on the edge of your set trying to find ways to have confrontations, I was referring to your challenge to read other revisions. I'm not going to get into a spitting contest about who has read what, I know and understand scripture very well and no revision differs in meaning from another.
And if you do you only choose what you feel applies to your SPAG.
QuoteOkay Middle English and it's not spoken here or any where else and it's hard to understand, I'm glad it's easy for you and I know others that don't find it difficult, but the majority do.
No, they do not. Unless you have evidence?
QuoteSure there's loss in translation you think I'm stupid and do not understand that, why do you think I mentioned I use the NASB and a study Bible at that, it gives me the Greek and Hebrew and the actual meaning of the word or as close as possible when it's not used. The reason the literal words are sometimes not use is to smooth out the reading not to change the meaning, I have Greek and Hebrew references and if I need it my pastor has a Greek Bible to reference from. You see at my church we go to great lengths to find the real meaning of scriptures.
The "real" meaning as to be aligned with your SPAG.
Please look up the words "revision" and "version".
It's like a movie based on a book or historical event--it's a different version to what was originally stated.
-Nam
Quote from: claytojar on June 25, 2014, 03:50:57 AM
Anyone leaving one belief system to go to another would take longer to change their beliefs simply because they have to change and change takes time, those who stay with the same belief system are growing in it, not trying to figure out a new belief. This is as simple as I know to explain what I believe in this matter.
Now you are just dodging the question. How can someone stay and grow in a belief system they never joined? Lets remember that the original claim of yours was that "early teens" is too young to become an atheist but, in response to my first question, you said that 5 is ok for becoming a christian. Why the disparity? Are children simply forced to be whatever their parents are until the child turns 18? Even if the child doesn't actually believe or agree with that religion? Then what about families with mixed religions? Is the child half Jewish, half Muslim? Is the child allowed to choose between only those two options? Surly if a child can accept a religion (s)he can reject it?
Quote from: claytojar on June 25, 2014, 04:19:36 AM
So I was, and I left because a few were trying to take things into their hands and direct the way conversation would go, those few never contributed to the OP they tried to disrupt the conversations. There were those there I had good conversation with and believe if I got to know them in person outside the forum, could have become friends with if that's what they would have wanted. Those who are ruining AF.org it would seem are cut from the same cloth you are, which is unfortunate. I never tried to convert anyone there, I defended my positions and like I said with over 4 years and 4500 post many had to be good conversation and discussion. Now what went on over there shouldn't have anything to do with here, but I invite anyone to go read my posts, all I would ask is that you start from the first and go to the end. I knew there were people here who are or were over there, I used the same password here as I did there and everyone there knew I raised and trained rottweilers, which is my avatar, I changed to claytojar in hopes of establishing myself here before being judged for coming to another forum. I'm not sure why it made you so mad other than to believe you are like some at AF.org. Since you find it fair to judge me, it should be fine with you to be judged, but I bet you hate it when someone does.
I see that you conveniently dodged my real point. As I said, you're a hypocrite.
Quote from: claytojar on June 25, 2014, 03:44:54 AM
You're right the Gospel hasn't reached all people yet, great progress is being made, as you noted.
Brainwashing people and enslaving them to your disgusting superstition isn't progress. It's the exact opposite.
Quote from: Poison Tree on June 25, 2014, 01:22:54 PM
Now you are just dodging the question. How can someone stay and grow in a belief system they never joined? Lets remember that the original claim of yours was that "early teens" is too young to become an atheist but, in response to my first question, you said that 5 is ok for becoming a christian. Why the disparity?
I'm not sure how you think I dodged anything? To start with I said I
personally thought the early teens was to young to make such a decision. Secondly I said I've
heard of 5 year old children accepting Christ as their savior. Now I
personally think that's to young. You assumed I said something I didn't.
QuoteAre children simply forced to be whatever their parents are until the child turns 18? Even if the child doesn't actually believe or agree with that religion? Then what about families with mixed religions? Is the child half Jewish, half Muslim? Is the child allowed to choose between only those two options? Surly if a child can accept a religion (s)he can reject it?
Some are probably forced, I actually know of a kid who was, he left the faith, it's been many years since I've seen him so I do not know if he has returned. I've seen kids pushed toward a decision, I stop short of saying forced because they were not having their arms twisted so to speak. I even alerted the pastor to what I had witnessed, I left that church soon after and do not know if he addressed the situation. The great majority of Christian parents including my own do not force or push their children into a decision, they do encourage and teach as is the parents right as parents. And yes they should do what they see is best for
their children even if they doubt or disagree, but force no it's not how Christianity is to be, when someone tries to force another they are going against Biblical teaching. That's why scripture says not to marry an partner that is not yoked, this is a very good way to avoid complications with each other and the children, in my opinion it's one of the most sensible things a man and women can consider before marriage. Now I'm speaking only from and for a Christian perspective and do not pretend to speak for others.
Quote from: DunkleSeele on June 25, 2014, 04:51:20 PM
Brainwashing people and enslaving them to your disgusting superstition isn't progress. It's the exact opposite.
I can see you and I are not going to be involved in many discussion, your attitude will keep us from making progress one way or the other. If that's the way you want it, it's fine with me.
QuoteChristianity is sensible and it spreads sensibly in this day and time, what happened in the past isn't practiced today by missionaries of any protestant denomination I know of. If there are things going on within Africa now it's not sanctioned or condoned by the protestant churches I know of. I wasn't referring to what you said above in my previous statement.
Right. This isn't happening.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kaoma-uganda-gays-american-ministers-20140323-story.html
Quote.....Some of his assertions would have been laughable had he not been so deadly serious. He claimed that a gay clique that included Adolf Hitler was behind the Holocaust, and he insinuated that gay people fueled the Rwandan genocide.
In the United States, Lively is widely dismissed as an anti-gay firebrand and Holocaust revisionist. But in Uganda, he was presented â€" and accepted â€" as a leading international authority. The public persecution of LGBTQ people escalated after Lively's conference, with one local newspaper publishing the pictures and addresses of activists under the headline, "Hang Them."
Lively was also invited to private briefings with political and religious leaders, and to address the Ugandan parliament during his 2009 visit. The next month, Ugandan lawmaker David Bahati unveiled his Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which in its original form called for the death penalty as punishment for a new crime of "aggravated homosexuality."
QuoteOther prominent right-wing evangelicals have also made Uganda appearances, including California's Rick Warren and Lou Engle, who founded TheCall ministry. They met with politicians, hosted rallies and public meetings, and used their influence and credibility to contribute to a culture war in Uganda much more intense and explosive than anything seen in the United States; Lively himself described the work as a "nuclear bomb" in Uganda. These conservative evangelicals later distanced themselves from the law, saying they didn't think homosexuality should be criminalized, but it was too late.
Uganda has deservedly received widespread attention, but it's not the only country with a culture war that carries the fingerprints of U.S. campaigners. Nigeria has passed a bill almost identical to Uganda's, and Cameroon and Zambia are enthusiastically imprisoning LGBTQ people.
And let's not forget Russia. In 2007, Lively traveled throughout Russia to, as he put it, bring a warning about the "homosexual political movement." He urged Russians, among other things, "to criminalize the public advocacy of homosexuality." Last year, President Vladimir Putin signed a bill into law that criminalizes distribution of "gay propaganda" to minors, including any material that "equates the social value of traditional and nontraditional sexual relations."
Later this year, the World Congress of Families â€" an Illinois-based conservative umbrella organization â€" will convene in Russia. As the group's leader, Larry Jenkins, put it: "We're convinced that Russia does and should play a very significant role in defense of the family and moral values worldwide. Russia has become a leader of promoting these values in the international arena."
Nope, not happening.
Or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp75NQZ_Mio
Or this:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/07/04/an-unholy-and-despicable-coverup-of-pedophilia-by-the-association-of-baptists-for-world-evangelism/
QuoteAn Unholy and Despicable Coverup of Pedophilia By the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism
"About 30 missionary kids abused between 1950 and 1990, many at boarding schools in Africa or Asia, received a formal apology from Presbyterian Church (USA) leaders in October. About a month earlier, New Tribes Mission (NTM) released a report detailing the abuse of at least 50 missionary kids who had boarded in Senegal in the late 1980s."
One of the most well-documented cases of pedophilia on the mission field comes from a group of brave and dedicated adult missionary kids who were abused by a doctor in Bangladesh. This story is the cause of my 4th of July pacing. I am outraged by the incredibly stupid, unloving, and un-Christian responses by the leaders of ABWE (Association of Baptists for World Evangelism). This group is part of GARBC (General Association of Regular Baptists). From Wikipedia link:
"The impact of modernism on the Northern Baptist Convention (now called the American Baptist Churches in the USA) led to the eventual withdrawal of a number of conservative and fundamentalist churches. The GARBC follows a "fellowship" model rather than a denominational model. Each member church is free to act independently in all matters. "
Not happening. Christianity is a benevolent and benign belief system.
Scott Livley and many others can do this guilt free, no problem.
For the same reason Jihadists can perpetrate atrocities.
for the same reason Fundie Mormons can have sex with 14 year old polygamous wives guilt free.
For the same reason a 60 year old Muslim can legally marry a 10 year old girl; all for the same reason.
Because they can justify it.
They can justify it in their scriptures.
Jihadists and Muslim pedophiles can justify it in the Koran.
Mormon polygamists can justify it in the Doctrine and Covenants
And Scott Lively, et al, can justify it in the Bible.
The fact that you willingly put blinders on and ignore all this is evidence of your cognitive dissonance and cultural myopia.
The fact that you can come on an atheist forum and happily parade your ignorance as some kind of benign spirituality is evidence that you are quite simply stupid.
Quote from: Nam on June 25, 2014, 12:08:35 PM
Protestant churches do the same thing. Every single Christian sect (about 40,000 and mainly in the US) say they are the "One Trueâ,,¢ Church", and that everyone but them are going to hell.
A few do but not nearly the majority, I guess you're wondering how I could know this, well it's simple I know people from many different denominations I have friends who are nonbelievers, I do not discriminate in choosing friends.
QuoteHow am I defending any church? I am not.
I said it
seemed you did, you had bad things to say about the protestant churches and especially the SB church but, not about the Catholic Church.
QuoteReally? You know what is in their hearts? Please...
Really I know my friends and family members.
QuoteWhich is what they adhere to therefore you're against them. And all Christians teach, or live, against some passages in the Bible. Even you. Ever read Corinthians? If you have then you'd know you're not supposed to be on this website because it is filled with unbelievers and we are corrupt, and what do you have in common with "darkness" since you are "light"? Now, be a good boy and explain how I simply took that verse out of context, or though you believe the Bible is literal that passage obviously isn't, or I just don't understand it properly etc.,
Let's establish something here, if you want me to comment on a certain verse you will need to post it. I'm not going through you or anyone saying that's not the verse I was talking about, I do however know what you're referring to, but until you provide a verse for discussion I want.
The Catholic Church adheres to many things not taught or even taught against in the scriptures, so I will disagree with them, just like I think the SB churches teach things I disagree with, the Catholic Church goes way beyond what the scriptures say about certain things. All denominations misinterpret passages in scripture or use one verse or only a few verses at best to establish a belief. I on the other hand
try to take in everything on a subject to determine what the truth is. I'm pretty sure I'm wrong about something/s in the Bible, at this point I do not know what they are but, I stay flexible on some subjects so that at some point God will be able to show me where I'm wrong and He has on somethings. I nor any Christian is perfect in their knowledge of God's word and should stay open to His teachings, we're only human after all.
QuoteYou implied it with your responses of denial.
I didn't say "all Southern Baptist churches preach against Catholics" -- you really have a reading problem, don't you? Just reading what you want.
You didn't specify that you did not mean they all preached against Catholic Churches. I'm like you and all others, we sometimes misread things, you've actually have done this in our discussion, such as the first part of the above quote.
Quote...who works for the SBC. Did you read over that part or just flat out ignore it?
Unimpressed with who you know or their position in this case.
QuoteI never said it did.
You said you doubted I was SB, because some of my beliefs differed from the SBC, and by the way I'm not an it.
QuoteRhetoric. And thank you for becoming defensive. So, if I were an ex-Catholic my focus on Christianity shouldn't be Catholicism just because that's who indoctrinated me? Get it? Of course not.
I'm not being defensive, not sure how you read a defensive attitude in my post. I know many Catholics that believe to consider pure Catholicism is not Biblical.
Quote"Many" equates to how many?
I don't know exactly here are some Methodist, Presbyterian, Nondenominational, Baptist, Adventist and many who have said so on forums.
QuoteI'm not confusing anything with anything. But you are becoming so defensive it's hilarious. I pushed you there, and you actually went. You're weak. That's what your religion makes you.
Yes you've made it clear that you are interchanging one for the other. Defensive I haven't been and I think it's hilarious that your reading skills cause you to see something that's not there. The bold above shows you think way to much of yourself, what an atheist attitude can do to some and it certainly does in you.
QuoteI didn't miss anything; and without the book would Christianity even exist? So much weight is placed on that book. Please...for you to say that makes you ridiculous.
Oh yes you did, just like the verse in Corinthians you didn't post. You've shown several times now you see only what you want to see. Christianity exploded without the NT in just a few years, the disciples preached from the OT, if you doubt this go and see how many times they reference the OT, just as Jesus did. The Bible is our guide lines on how to live our lives in relationship with the Triune God and other people, to many Christians seem to miss this unfortunately, just as you have. The Bible is also a way God uses to instruct us individually, if we only open our hearts and minds to Him.
QuoteThe US is not a "free" country. Don't be asinine.
Tell that to all those who come here from different counties, they will disagree with you and why, because many have lived in places that are not free, they truly have another view point.
QuoteYou just did.
No I didn't, all I asked was do you want me to unfairly equate you and other atheist to Stalin. Again you are reading what you want to see and not what has been actually said.
QuoteAnd if you do you only choose what you feel applies to your SPAG.
This statement shows you pay no attention to what I and probably all Christians who come here actually say, if it's your reading skills please improve them, if it's your hatred for us I petty you.
QuoteNo, they do not. Unless you have evidence?
I do have proof, most Christians have Bibles other than the KJV, I know there are some denominations that only accept the KJV, that's unfortunate for them because they are using a translation that translate some words incorrectly, we know more about the meanings of some of the Hebrew words than when the KJV was translated. The KJV is a good translation just hard for many people to understand, I've taught children and adults in churches and they have told me they have trouble with the KVJ. You aren't keeping up with what is happening in the church are you.
QuoteThe "real" meaning as to be aligned with your SPAG.
Please look up the words "revision" and "version".
It's like a movie based on a book or historical event--it's a different version to what was originally stated.
-Nam
As to your first sentence, wrong you are. As to the second, I'm not going to spend time wasted on what you believe they mean, we both know and that's that. The third, nope.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 25, 2014, 05:00:19 AM
Hullo.
Hello, hope this hello finds you doing well.
Call me pedantic but I still want a clear answer: what is an acceptable minimum age for rejecting and/or accepting christianity?
Quote from: claytojar on June 26, 2014, 12:17:01 AM
A few do but not nearly the majority, I guess you're wondering how I could know this, well it's simple I know people from many different denominations I have friends who are nonbelievers, I do not discriminate in choosing friends.
Using your opinion based on
your life as evidence? Really?
QuoteI said it seemed you did, you had bad things to say about the protestant churches and especially the SB church but, not about the Catholic Church.
Do you notice that former religious people on here talk more bad things about the religion they came from, and the particular sect of that religion than they do other religions?
I wonder why that is? Hmmmm....
QuoteReally I know my friends and family members.
Irrelevant.
QuoteLet's establish something here, if you want me to comment on a certain verse you will need to post it. I'm not going through you or anyone saying that's not the verse I was talking about, thing sowever know what you're referring to, but until you provide a verse for discussion I want.
Proof you haven't read the Bible.
QuoteThe Catholic Church adheres to many things not taught or even taught against in the scriptures, so I will disagree with them, just like I think the SB churches teach things I disagree with, the Catholic Church goes way beyond what the scriptures say about certain things.
Unless you provide evidence, all you're giving is your opinions not facts.
QuoteAll denominations misinterpret passages in scripture or use one verse or only a few verses at best to establish a belief. I on the other hand try to take in everything on a subject to determine what the truth is
And this hooks up with what i first stated to you: you're right, and everyone else is wrong. This implies that. "
Oh, those other Christians do that but i don't." which is what you're implying.
QuoteI'm pretty sure I'm wrong about something/s in the Bible, at this point I do not know what they are but, I stay flexible on some subjects so that at some point God will be able to show me where I'm wrong and He has on somethings. I nor any Christian is perfect in their knowledge of God's word and should stay open to His teachings, we're only human after all.
Uh huh.
QuoteYou didn't specify that you did not mean they all preached against Catholic Churches. I'm like you and all others, we sometimes misread things, you've actually have done this in our discussion, such as the first part of the above quote.
Uh huh.
QuoteUnimpressed with who you know or their position in this case.
Uh huh.
QuoteYou said you doubted I was SB, because some of my beliefs differed from the SBC, and by the way I'm not an it.
Wrong.
QuoteI'm not being defensive, not sure how you read a defensive attitude in my post. I know many Catholics that believe to consider pure Catholicism is not Biblical.
Uh huh.
QuoteYes you've made it clear that you are interchanging one for the other. Defensive I haven't been and I think it's hilarious that your reading skills cause you to see something that's not there. The bold above shows you think way to much of yourself, what an atheist attitude can do to some and it certainly does in you.
Uh huh.
QuoteOh yes you did, just like the verse in Corinthians you didn't post.
It you know the verse do I really need to post it for you? Are you that lazy and/or incompetent? Apparently. Apparently it's my fault.
QuoteYou've shown several times now you see only what you want tyears
Wrong. There are many things I don't see, admittedly, but in concern to your religion: pure fiction.
QuoteChristianity exploded without the NT in just a few years,
Evidence?
Quotethe disciples preached from the OT, if you doubt this go and see how many times they reference the OT, just as Jesus did. The Bible is our guide lines on how to live our lives in relationship with the Triune God and other people, to many Christians seem to miss this unfortunately, just as you have. The Bible is also a way God uses to instruct us individually, if we only open our hearts and minds to Him.
Uh huh.
QuoteTell that to all those who come here from different counties, they will disagree with you and why, because many have lived in places that are not free, they truly have another view point.
Uh huh.
QuoteNo I didn't, all I asked was do you want me to unfairly equate you and other atheist to Stalin. Again you are reading what you want to see and not what has been actually said.
Uh huh.
QuoteThis statement shows you pay no attention to what I and probably all Christians who come here actually say, if it's your reading skills please improve them, if it's your hatred for us I petty you.
It's "pity", not "petty" -- and why are you getting so defensive and angry?
QuoteI do have proof, most Christians have Bibles other than the KJV, I know there are some denominations that only accept the KJV, that's unfortunate for them because they are using a translation that translate some words incorrectly, we know more about the meanings of some of the Hebrew words than when the KJV was translated. The KJV is a good translation just hard for many people to understand, I've taught children and adults in churches and they have told me they have trouble with the KVJ. You aren't keeping up with what is happening in the church are you.
The Bible cannot be proof of itself.
QuoteAs to your first sentence, wrong you are. As to the second, I'm not going to spend time wasted on what you believe they mean, we both know and that's that. The third, nope.
Uh huh.
-Nam
Quote from: Poison Tree on June 26, 2014, 01:11:14 AM
Call me pedantic but I still want a clear answer: what is an acceptable minimum age for rejecting and/or accepting christianity?
Acceptance is only when God has called a person to salvation, so if you need specific ages you'll need to ask God. Rejection, I do not know, apparently 10-12 according to one here. maybe you can give me some idea of an appropriate age, seriously.
Quote from: claytojar on June 25, 2014, 09:26:38 PM
I can see you and I are not going to be involved in many discussion, your attitude will keep us from making progress one way or the other. If that's the way you want it, it's fine with me.
Yeah, playing the victim card and shifting the blame. Typical religious. Let me repeat it, given that the last time you completely ignored my real point:
YOU are the one coming here hoping to "enlighten" us,
YOU are the one who considers spreading your filthy superstition to be "progress". This is called
proselitysing, which is very much frown upon here. Your lame attempt at hiding your real intentions by calling them "wanting to have discussions" just makes you a condescending hypocryte. But this was already known from your previous appearances on other forums.
Quote from: claytojar on June 26, 2014, 01:32:37 AM
Acceptance is only when God has called a person to salvation, so if you need specific ages you'll need to ask God. Rejection, I do not know, apparently 10-12 according to one here. maybe you can give me some idea of an appropriate age, seriously.
Whatever age you deem appropriate to inform your child there is no Santa clause, tooth fairy (sorry apa), and Easter bunny. I think all magical beings that have zero evidence in support of existing, should be dealt with at the same time. It's one conversation about many characters that all require essentially the same answer. Picking and choosing some over others could be confusing for children. God absolutely positively belongs in that conversation, and god is where I'd start!!!
Quote from: claytojar on June 25, 2014, 03:44:54 AM
Christianity is sensible and it spreads sensibly in this day and time, what happened in the past isn't practiced today by missionaries of any protestant denomination I know of. If there are things going on within Africa now it's not sanctioned or condoned by the protestant churches I know of. I wasn't referring to what you said above in my previous statement.
Apart from the horrible atrocities I see Stromboli has already posted in response to this particular counterclaim, I'd like to say that Christianity spreading isn't because it's sensible. It spreads mainly because it indoctrinates it's new generations at a young age, like any other religion. Shame and social suïcide are placed as the price for leaving these churches, in many instances. And it teaches to take things on faith, that can't be proven with evidence or at least have no evidence, to be a virtue.
This is how pretty much any religion spreads. If one were to say that Christianity spreading was sign of it's sensibility, than one could say the spread of Islam, which also seems to be growing, is a proof of the sensibility of Islam. But it's not, it just uses the same tactics.
Quote from: claytojar on June 25, 2014, 03:44:54 AM
You're right the Gospel hasn't reached all people yet, great progress is being made, as you noted. Christianity is large in many of those areas, many people do not report themselves as Christians in some countries because they could and in some cases are killed for being a Christian. So the numbers are larger than some know.
One could say that about any religious denomination, however. There could be secret Atheists, secret Muslims, secret Hindu's, secret ...
And, as a sociologist in training, I'd urge you to formulate that differently: "The numbers
could be larger than some know." Is more appropriate. Also be carefull with saying 'many' if it's a dark number, something no-one can get a bearing on. It could be many, it could be average, it could be few. If people honestly do not report being it, you can't say how many there are. (I understand if this comes across as nitpicking, but it really is important in sociology to formulate your claims and hypotheses well and I've been drilled in that.)
Quote from: claytojar on June 25, 2014, 03:44:54 AM
Millions of years in your belief, not so in Christianity. God has made provision to judge these people in the way they have lived, what all this entails only God knows. He will leave no one out for an opportunity to live with Him forever.
The millions of years does not really matter in this case. To say it's only thousands, to me seems to stem from ignorance, but it does not really matter to the point. I should hope if your God were to exist and he was fair and just, he indeed wouldn't let even a single person born before salvation became possible (after he made it necessary) go without a fair chance.
Too bad this is a realm without evidence and just like there is no proof for a Deity's existance, there is no proof that one can know what said Deity would think and how it's rules would work. (Especially if it's supposed to be an infinitely greater mind than ours. How could one presume to know what God would or would not do if his reasoning and thinking are so far beyond our own capacities.)
Quote from: claytojar on June 25, 2014, 03:44:54 AM
The point originally trying to be made was, that if I were born in one of these places I wouldn't have been a Christian, the fact is there is many conversions going on in these areas and the greater fact is I am who I am because of the parents I was born to, so they being in these other places wouldn't matter because they are Christians and my opportunity would have been great. The biggest gripe I have with the scenario is it's just that a scenario that could not apply to my life, so I do not worry about something that can't be. I consider it a waste of time and life.
But if you were born in a country without Christians and knowledge of the bible, as we just agreed exist in the world, you would indeed not have been a Christian.
And, by and large, willfull and pressure-free conversions are anomalies, clay. It happens, but not as often as I think you think. And it happens the other way around too; from Christian to whatever.
Quote from: claytojar on June 25, 2014, 03:44:54 AM
I agree with what you say here and it would apply to me, I would have been born to my Christian parents so by and in large I would have been a Christian as long as I searched out a religion. See when you deal with ifs you have to start taking into account many other things that would have had to happen. As it happens three brothers came from Ireland to the United States well over a century and a half ago and my family was established in the south where most of us stay to this day. This is real and the reality of this is I wasn't born in another country. Thanks for the good conversation.
I have to disagree here. You became a Christian because you were, most likely, taught about Christianity before you could even fully comprehend it. You were indoctrinated. 'Searching out a religion' isn't an as free a step as people make it out to be if you are in advance taught about a specific religion, it's customs and dogma and beliefs, at home and in school and in family-context and in churches... If you grow up in a certain Religious atmosphere you are 'taught' to respect and value that religion and thus the question of 'searching out a religion' is not in fact a real question for most; it's a given with a fixed answer.
The success rate of missionaries, whether they be Christian or Mormon, is directly connected to the intelligence and information gathering ability of the people concerned. It is a lot easier to convert a population that is illiterate and in a state of poverty than in a condition of plenty and well informed.
The LDS church has scaled down its missionary efforts in Scandinavian and western European nations due to lack of success. Their primary focus is in 3rd world countries. It gets a lot tougher when people can look stuff up on the internet.
Like Obvious said, it isn't about information. It's about indoctrination, pure and simple.
Quote from: claytojar on June 26, 2014, 12:17:01 AM
Tell that to all those who come here from different counties, they will disagree with you and why, because many have lived in places that are not free, they truly have another view point.
I'm from a different country and I would say you enjoy fewer freedoms then the country I currently live in and those where my relatives live. If you consider freedom as not being ruled tyrannical dictator then you've never really experienced freedom.
Quote from: stromboli on June 26, 2014, 09:16:05 AM
The success rate of missionaries, whether they be Christian or Mormon, is directly connected to the intelligence and information gathering ability of the people concerned. It is a lot easier to convert a population that is illiterate and in a state of poverty than in a condition of plenty and well informed.
The LDS church has scaled down its missionary efforts in Scandinavian and western European nations due to lack of success. Their primary focus is in 3rd world countries. It gets a lot tougher when people can look stuff up on the internet.
Like Obvious said, it isn't about information. It's about indoctrination, pure and simple.
I got a mobile home, and the guy who sold it to me was born in Belize and another guy who worked for him was born in Cameroon. Their parents were Baptist missionaries. (they are both white guys)
I think that's where most missionaries go of any Christian sect, and according to this map: many to choose from:
(http://www.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/geogres/maps/worldgif/wwldc.gif)
-Nam
Christianity doesn't spread so much as it cannibalizes other Christian sects, for the most part. :/
Quote from: claytojar on June 26, 2014, 01:32:37 AM
Acceptance is only when God has called a person to salvation, so if you need specific ages you'll need to ask God. Rejection, I do not know, apparently 10-12 according to one here. maybe you can give me some idea of an appropriate age, seriously.
Still say you are not dodging?
How about this, I'll tell you my idea when you give me a straight answer, seriously
I win!
Quote from: Bibliofagus on June 26, 2014, 02:27:39 PM
I win!
Were you betting on how many pages this would go?
Quote from: Poison Tree on June 26, 2014, 03:03:31 PM
Were you betting on how many pages this would go?
I guess I mean I feel that these intro threads of theists are too long, too detailed and whatnot. Either invite them into the actual forums, or ban them straight away.
Oh and hi claymore!
It is glaringly obvious that every Theist that comes to this forum has one of two (2) goals, or objectives in mind. They are:
1)Truthfully see the Atheist, Agnostic, Skeptic side to things and perhaps lose their pre-existing beliefs in the process.
2) Use this forum and it's user-base as a way to sharpen their "debate skills", and try to challenge everybody in an attempt to validate their already pre-existing beliefs. These beliefs may be in danger/weak, and websites like this are a great place to challenge people that represent what these people fear they might really think but do their best to suppress. Therefore, they attack it in response.
It's obvious OP fits into #2.
Quote from: frosty on June 26, 2014, 09:08:48 PM
It is glaringly obvious that every Theist that comes to this forum has one of two (2) goals, or objectives in mind. They are:
1)Truthfully see the Atheist, Agnostic, Skeptic side to things and perhaps lose their pre-existing beliefs in the process.
2) Use this forum and it's user-base as a way to sharpen their "debate skills", and try to challenge everybody in an attempt to validate their already pre-existing beliefs. These beliefs may be in danger/weak, and websites like this are a great place to challenge people that represent what these people fear they might really think but do their best to suppress. Therefore, they attack it in response.
It's obvious OP fits into #2.
Sort of. Every theist that comes on here does so from a position of moral superiority wherein they can school us. They also think that we are a bunch of simplistic idiots that don't have a clue about their beliefs. We are in their eyes morally and intellectually inferior.
This is a good read: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/04/16/new-study-shows-that-even-atheists-think-atheists-are-immoral/
-Nam
Hello, Claytojar.
I posted earlier in this thread but you either didn't see my posts or ignored me, but that's not what I'm here to talk about. What I'm here to do is give you some advice. Listen to it or don't, but here is my advice: abandon this thread. Theist intro threads are an invatation for the swarm to attack you from all sides. I don't blame them at all because they are here to test both your conviction and the way you post. You see, as others said we are use to theists, particularly Christians and Muslims, doing nothing other than trying to convert us to win another brownie point for whatever God/gods that particular theist happens to believe in.
My suggestion is, that if you truly want discussion, then you should start threads in the appropiate sections of the forum. Going off just the intro and a few posts (I will admit that I haven't read the rest of this thread, because I've grown bored of the swarm response) you have several intersting topics to start:
1. Why you think the Earth, and indeed the universe is only 50,000 years old, and the evidence for such a young age.
2. Morality. What are your views on it?
3. What are your views on how to interpret the Bible?
If you stick to this intro thread you're going to be attacked from all sides, and will have to deal with multiple debates in one thread. We've had intro threads stretch more pages than this before just because the OP wouldn't start a specific threa about his/her idealogy. And we've had multiple posters here leave because they were endlessly mocked after posting stupid things over and over again.
If you truly believe in your religion, and you truly think that some good will come out of conversing with us, then I encourage you to start threads about the specifics of what you believe in. Ignore the flames, but consider the points raised by those who flame. If you're not ready for that then leave, go to some atheist or theological forum that mandates some "no hurt feelings" policy. This forum is the gauntlet, and if you're not ready you can go and let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
Realize that in general we won't respect your beliefs. Personally this is not meant as any disrepect towards you as a person. In general, and this is talking about me as an individual poster, I will respect you as long as you respect me and don't post something so dumb that it leaves me in wonder of how you
managed to operate a computer.
Anyways, I'm not a mod or anything, so what you do based off this advice is up to you.
^he doesn't understand "in general".
:wink:
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on June 27, 2014, 04:43:50 AM
^he doesn't understand "in general".
:wink:
-Nam
Lol. I'm trying to throw him a bone here. I took pity in that post. If he doesn't heed my advice then that's his choice.
He's ignored several of my posts, won't actually debate anything and you could throw him a grenade and he would simply tap dance away from it. Pretty pathetic, all told.
Quote from: hrdlr110 on June 26, 2014, 02:30:32 AM
Whatever age you deem appropriate to inform your child there is no Santa clause, tooth fairy (sorry apa), and Easter bunny. I think all magical beings that have zero evidence in support of existing, should be dealt with at the same time. It's one conversation about many characters that all require essentially the same answer. Picking and choosing some over others could be confusing for children. God absolutely positively belongs in that conversation, and god is where I'd start!!!
So you're saying that Christians should tell their children there is no God :eyes:? That's really not reasonable to say a parent should tell their child there's no God when they live their lives in service of God, that would real confuse a child. We can pretty much prove the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause and what not are not real, keep the kid up all night and show him/her that nothing is going to show up to give you something for nothing, well guess there is a trade off with the Tooth Fairy, who's not going to show.
Quote from: claytojar on June 27, 2014, 11:52:44 AM
So you're saying that Christians should tell their children there is no God :eyes:? That's really not reasonable to say a parent should tell their child there's no God when they live their lives in service of God, that would real confuse a child. We can pretty much prove the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause and what not are not real, keep the kid up all night and show him/her that nothing is going to show up to give you something for nothing, well guess there is a trade off with the Tooth Fairy, who's not going to show.
No, you are supposed to point out to your children that they have the right to choose for themselves, which is what I did. Your religion teaches that you will believe or you will die, and then over time provides a shifting landscape of what is correct and what isn't. Slavery used to be the norm, back in the day. Now its gays and LGBT. Atheists are evil. Oh wait, the Pope says we're not. All based on a framework of unprovable faith.
The same attitude of believing without proof is why religion is a playground for predators. People in a position of authority can use their position to coerce and intimidate. There are a multitude of examples, some of which I have already provided and you have ignored. Utah is considered a white crime capitol because it is full of gullible Mormon believers that will buy into a scheme simply because someone will identify as a Mormon and call them brother or sister. Look up the word skeptic; that is what we are. We don't buy into a belief system without proof. Which would you rather have, gullible kids or skeptical ones?
Quote from: claytojar on June 27, 2014, 11:52:44 AM
So you're saying that Christians should tell their children there is no God :eyes:? That's really not reasonable to say a parent should tell their child there's no God when they live their lives in service of God, that would real confuse a child. We can pretty much prove the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause and what not are not real, keep the kid up all night and show him/her that nothing is going to show up to give you something for nothing, well guess there is a trade off with the Tooth Fairy, who's not going to show.
So Clay, by that standard we ought to be able to keep a kid up all night praying for a miraculous cure for amputees, and when it doesn't happen by the next morning it should proof that Jesus is not what you claim he is.
Quote from: stromboli on June 26, 2014, 09:34:59 PM
Sort of. Every theist that comes on here does so from a position of moral superiority wherein they can school us. They also think that we are a bunch of simplistic idiots that don't have a clue about their beliefs. We are in their eyes morally and intellectually inferior.
I believe I've answered all your posts, the ones specific to Bible verses or events, I did not answer in the affirmative because this is not the place for it and as so as you guys quit bring conversation here I will get to the other areas. I try not to be rude and answer what's asked. Though I've already learned there's 2 people I will ignore in discussions until their attitude changes and I've seen their are those that good discussions can happen. This place gives me a feel for what to expect. Like some here will use the you can't spell, then throw out the word and why, because they have no further argument to make.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on June 27, 2014, 04:23:05 AM
Hello, Claytojar.
I posted earlier in this thread but you either didn't see my posts or ignored me, but that's not what I'm here to talk about. What I'm here to do is give you some advice. Listen to it or don't, but here is my advice: abandon this thread. Theist intro threads are an invatation for the swarm to attack you from all sides. I don't blame them at all because they are here to test both your conviction and the way you post. You see, as others said we are use to theists, particularly Christians and Muslims, doing nothing other than trying to convert us to win another brownie point for whatever God/gods that particular theist happens to believe in.
My suggestion is, that if you truly want discussion, then you should start threads in the appropiate sections of the forum. Going off just the intro and a few posts (I will admit that I haven't read the rest of this thread, because I've grown bored of the swarm response) you have several intersting topics to start:
1. Why you think the Earth, and indeed the universe is only 50,000 years old, and the evidence for such a young age.
2. Morality. What are your views on it?
3. What are your views on how to interpret the Bible?
If you stick to this intro thread you're going to be attacked from all sides, and will have to deal with multiple debates in one thread. We've had intro threads stretch more pages than this before just because the OP wouldn't start a specific threa about his/her idealogy. And we've had multiple posters here leave because they were endlessly mocked after posting stupid things over and over again.
If you truly believe in your religion, and you truly think that some good will come out of conversing with us, then I encourage you to start threads about the specifics of what you believe in. Ignore the flames, but consider the points raised by those who flame. If you're not ready for that then leave, go to some atheist or theological forum that mandates some "no hurt feelings" policy. This forum is the gauntlet, and if you're not ready you can go and let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
Realize that in general we won't respect your beliefs. Personally this is not meant as any disrepect towards you as a person. In general, and this is talking about me as an individual poster, I will respect you as long as you respect me and don't post something so dumb that it leaves me in wonder of how you
managed to operate a computer.
Anyways, I'm not a mod or anything, so what you do based off this advice is up to you.
Yes I saw your post, I did not realize I didn't answer it or I could have intended to and got side tracked, like you say the longer I stay here the larger the swarm will get, but I feel I should answer as many posts as I can. If people will just wait I will soon be able to participate in other discussion. I was on AF.org for over 4 years and know what to expect, in that time I only started a few treads and nothing about religion, I find those people start and join in when I feel they are a good place to be. Your advice is appreciated, I thank you and believe me I want to get into other discussions.
Quote from: Bibliofagus on June 26, 2014, 03:39:49 PM
I guess I mean I feel that these intro threads of theists are too long, too detailed and whatnot. Either invite them into the actual forums, or ban them straight away.
Oh and hi claymore!
Hi Bibliofagus, it has gotten to long, but as long as people ask questions of me I try to answer.
Quote from: Poison Tree on June 26, 2014, 01:38:08 PM
Still say you are not dodging?
How about this, I'll tell you my idea when you give me a straight answer, seriously
Whatever man I gave you the only answer I have and actually asked for your input, so if you are not going to do anything but say I'm dodging I'm done with this, sorry.
Quote from: Icarus on June 26, 2014, 09:33:35 AM
I'm from a different country and I would say you enjoy fewer freedoms then the country I currently live in and those where my relatives live. If you consider freedom as not being ruled tyrannical dictator then you've never really experienced freedom.
I have experienced freedom for many years and I've met people from other counties and missionaries back from other countries and they say the freedom in America should never be taken lightly. I do not believe that freedom is lawlessness, there has to be some kind of order.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on June 27, 2014, 12:09:14 PM
So Clay, by that standard we ought to be able to keep a kid up all night praying for a miraculous cure for amputees, and when it doesn't happen by the next morning it should proof that Jesus is not what you claim he is.
There is no comparison to what I said and what you just stated, prayer works differently than that and I'm sure we've been through the amputees over at AF.org, seems to me we chewed this bone enough.
I know I've not answered all post, need to go right now have some furniture to work on, will try and get back this evening and I rarely post after Friday night until Monday.
I suspect claytojar is going to be this season's Old Seer.
Quote from: claytojar on June 27, 2014, 12:49:04 PM
There is no comparison to what I said and what you just stated, prayer works differently than that and I'm sure we've been through the amputees over at AF.org, seems to me we chewed this bone enough.
There are comparisons. You just don't want to see them.
OK, so let's review. You, a theist, came on an atheist forum to discuss religion. From the outset you admit that you can't prove your belief because it is based on faith. Then you insist that it is true nonetheless. You do not answer any posts that show specifically that there are problems/issues with your religion, and at least once insist there is evidence of some sort. :think:
OK. So.... you want to raise your children in a belief system that requires them to accept it on faith with no real evidence to support it, as opposed to raising them to be skeptical and choosing for themselves by studying/learning or whatever.
And you insist that prayer works. OK, I'm going to provide links that say prayer doesn't work. Will you respond to that? Or is that "scriptural" and therefore not to be discussed?
This is skepticism. In for a penny, in for a pound. Either prayer works or it doesn't. As a Christian I heard any number of second hand, unproven accounts of incredible healing that had been done in 3rd world countries by missionaries. No evidence, no first hand accounts, no pictures. But believe it, it happened. And like Pappy said- if you can have prayers answered, why can't amputees be healed?
Why are there not faith healing clinics on every corner, in every doctor's office and hospital? Because it doesn't work. Oral Roberts, #1 faith healer of our generation, claimed to have "touched a million lives." When he retired, what did he do with his money? He built a hospital. So much in believing your own story.
Here are the links. I'm guessing not to get a response.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/05/15/study-concludes-intercessory-prayer-doesnt-work-christians-twist-the-results/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/27/health/27iht-snpray.html?pagewanted=all
Note that the studies are SCIENTIFIC double blind studies, where in the person being prayed for was unaware of it. In cases where prayer theoretically works, it is because of the belief of the patient, and was aware they were being prayed for- a highly subjective state- was a factor. Indicating that the subconscious/subjective belief had more to do with it than any actual result of prayer.
Your turn.
Quote from: claytojar on June 27, 2014, 12:38:57 PM
Whatever man I gave you the only answer I have and actually asked for your input, so if you are not going to do anything but say I'm dodging I'm done with this, sorry.
Shall we look back at our "conversation"?
In reply to Nam you said that early teens is too young for his brother and sister to decide they were atheists. So I asked how that applied to deciding one was a christian. You said it didn't because being an atheist was deviating and that you heard anywhere from five to ninety was fine for becoming a Christian--which you said without presenting any objection, at that time, to the idea that five was an acceptable age to make that decision. When I questioned the double standard you said that you did think five was too young and you have objected to some youth making that decision but that parents should encourage their children of unspecified age to become Christians. So I asked at what age you draw the line and you answered that that only god knows.
Saying that five and whatever age the child was you said you objected to is too young to become a Christian and that early teens is too young to become an atheist necessitates that you have an opinion on what age is too young and what age isn't. If you didn't (and only god does) then you couldn't have voiced opinions on five, whatever and early teens being too young. Get it?
So, what standard do you compare five, whatever and early teens against to reach the conclusion "too young"?
In the interest of good faith I'll ask a leading question hinting at my input: In order for the decision to have meaning wouldn't both options need to be acceptable answers from the child?
Sorry, Poison. apparently he won't be back until Monday.
See, this is how it works with our boy Clay. He decides what is to be discussed, ignores what posts he doesn't want to address, infers he has evidence but provides none, disagrees with our arguments but does not back it up with any type of contrary information, and then decides we are to wait for his convenience.
Apparently he is now deciding how we operate this forum. In my world I would call that one arrogant fuck.
Quote from: stromboli on June 27, 2014, 03:03:15 PM
Sorry, Poison. apparently he won't be back until Monday.
See, this is how it works with our boy Clay. He decides what is to be discussed, ignores what posts he doesn't want to address, infers he has evidence but provides none, disagrees with our arguments but does not back it up with any type of contrary information, and then decides we are to wait for his convenience.
In my world I would describe this man as one arrogant fuck.
He's a Protestant Christian, and the one Trueâ,,¢ Christian. What do you expect? One's who aren't like him are few and far between, at least that join websites of this accord.
-Nam
Quote from: Nam on June 27, 2014, 03:06:09 PM
He's a Protestant Christian, and the one Trueâ,,¢ Christian. What do you expect? One's who aren't like him are few and far between, at least that join websites of this accord.
-Nam
lol. I'm thinking "dyed in the wool sheeple." :biggrin:
Have you heard the infallible word of the tooth fairy? Lose a tooth as a child, get money. Cold, hard cash! Pray to your god to put money under your pillow for teeth and see what happens.
Quote from: stromboli on June 27, 2014, 03:03:15 PM
Sorry, Poison. apparently he won't be back until Monday.
See, this is how it works with our boy Clay. He decides what is to be discussed, ignores what posts he doesn't want to address, infers he has evidence but provides none, disagrees with our arguments but does not back it up with any type of contrary information, and then decides we are to wait for his convenience.
Apparently he is now deciding how we operate this forum. In my world I would call that one arrogant fuck.
As I said before his arrogance and condescension were already evident on AF.org, where he posted as "Godschild" (LOL). The only thing that played in his favour over there is that they are much more tolerant of trolls than what we are here.
Quote from: DunkleSeele on June 27, 2014, 04:48:56 PM
As I said before his arrogance and condescension were already evident on AF.org, where he posted as "Godschild" (LOL). The only thing that played in his favour over there is that they are much more tolerant of trolls than what we are here.
Like I said, theists come on here with the attitude of moral superiority and are talking down to us. All the more irritating when they won't actually defend their beliefs but adopt the attitude they are right by default and simply ignore posters that provide evidence to the contrary.
Quote from: DunkleSeele on June 27, 2014, 04:48:56 PM
As I said before his arrogance and condescension were already evident on AF.org, where he posted as "Godschild" (LOL). The only thing that played in his favour over there is that they are much more tolerant of trolls than what we are here.
(http://www.beleept.de/wp-content/uploads/banhammer-11.gif)
???
Quote from: Moralnihilist on June 27, 2014, 05:31:58 PM
(http://www.beleept.de/wp-content/uploads/banhammer-11.gif)
???
Like I said previously Moral, you got my vote.
But their old highly edited book is infallible.. Well all except all the bullshit parts. Usually the pages are numbered right I think.
Quote from: claytojar on June 21, 2014, 08:44:31 PM
You misunderstood, it's not about you, it's was about no one ever proving God doesn't exist, this left open the possibility He does. Thus how can I assume He didn't. Then faith is evidence of the unseen, faith leads to believing and believing leads to knowledge. Kinda' like a black hole or dark matter. Yes I do know God is real and that His promises are true, doesn't matter to me whether you believe it or not it doesn't change what I know.
I just want to point this out to the other new guy. Here I present for your edification: the common theist. He claims to "know" god is real, making a point that this knowledge is more than mere belief.
Quote from: claytojar on June 20, 2014, 10:34:15 PM
Hello everyone, just a few things to say at the moment. I'm a fundamental Christian who believes the Bible is God's word written by men inspired by God. Most denominations might not regard me as a fundamental Christian because I do not hold to any denomination beliefs completely, though I do identify as a Southern Baptist. I've spent many years studying and in deep thought about the scriptures and what they say and as most Christians do I believe that God has revealed things to me, yet I am open to the idea that somethings I believe about Christianity could be wrong. Like all people I'm not by any means perfect but will defend what I believe until proven wrong. Thanks for reading this post and I look forward to many good discussions.
Please, please, please read the God delusion by Dawkins. I'm begging you. Until then, I feel that your lack of education and ignorance of atheism is only going to crutch you from having any kind of legitimate standpoint in this discussion. Most of us came from religion...so we know where you stand and what you think...you don't know where we stand or what we think until you study up.