Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have posted this before. The whole "I have a personal relationship with Jesus" has to be the most delusional thing ever. It's proof positive that you can convince gullible people of anything if you say it enough times. These Christians have probably heard that stupid personal relationship thing hundreds of times since they were children attending services. Then they grow up still believing that nonsense. Some wake up and realize it was all nonsense, others stay asleep in their brainwashed ignorance. If you tell Catholics that some bread wafer turns into the body of some dead savior enough times, you can get them to believe that garbage also.
1st comment, I only get annoyed by it only when Evangelicals use it to differentiate themselves from mainstream Christian denominations, along with the "born again" experience.
John Chau was Evangelical, so this was his main driving force, and obviously something he wanted to share with the North Sentilese.
Ironic, the last thing you mention is a pet peeve among Fundies and Evangelicals about Catholicism (amongst many others) , nobody believes it is the literal body and blood of Christ, but it is symbolic and is Gods presence spiritually only.
I checked the newpaper today, as well as CNN and MSNBC. I didn't see anything about the collapse of christianity based on your "proof".
You make some good points, but you way overreach, and as a result you diminish your position. It's hyperbole.
Me Baptist Fundie? I guess you really haven't been keeping up. I consider him to be a nemesis.
Surely you have been here long enough to know that, to the religious apologist, there is no Proof of anything the atheist may say and even if there was "Total" proof, they would simply ignore it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
You're not even reading what I already wrote.
The conversation with you is over.
The problem for atheists is not theists, but other atheists. i only have 2 people on Ignore - and both are atheists.
We atheists often demand proof from religionists, and we often make it quite clear what proof might consists of. And we don't accept anything less than proof. We need to be just as demanding with ourselves and not call something proof when it's not proof.
Do we? I thought that was the theists who ask for proof. Because if we can not prove there is no god, they think they have a good reason to believe. Or that they can dismiss our arguments without the need to think about them.
I ask for good evidence, as some things you can not prove. I am still waiting for good evidence.
I have posted this before. The whole "I have a personal relationship with Jesus" has to be the most delusional thing ever. It's proof positive that you can convince gullible people of anything if you say it enough times. These Christians have probably heard that stupid personal relationship thing hundreds of times since they were children attending services. Then they grow up still believing that nonsense. Some wake up and realize it was all nonsense, others stay asleep in their brainwashed ignorance. If you tell Catholics that some bread wafer turns into the body of some dead savior enough times, you can get them to believe that garbage also.
I am not sure it is a delusion, as I had never heard this until a few years ago. I think it is a rationalization (or perhaps irrationilization) that comes from the internet arguments from the last few decades, where Christians have been reminded there are other religions. So they have to make their religion somehow different, so they call it a relationship. They can then attack 'religion' as stupid. What other reason do they have for calling atheism a religion?
This has nothing to do with Jesus. The Quran teaches us not to force our will on others. God gives eyes to see and ears to hear to those who seek. We have free will, which means the freedom to reject God. But just because God allows you to reject him doesn't mean you don't suffer the consequences. And it has nothing to do with God being hypocritical. God will do what he says he will do. The only unbiased arbiter of justice. His faithful are subject to the same punishments as the faithless.
The natives were actually behaving according to Biblical principles. When God handed his people's enemies over to them, he always told them to wipe everyone out. Everyone was to be killed, lest the evil get carried into the new territory. It's why the Israelites spent all those years in the desert. The transgressors couldn't enter the promise land because they would taint the others. Surely the natives on this island saw many tribes get wiped out once they let the invaders into their land. They are doing a better job of living according to the Bible than we are, and they do not have a Bible...
If that doesn't show God is with and in them, I don't know what does.
I have to take exception to your comment about the Koran. You said it teaches us not to force our will on others. Well then how do you reconcile that statement with this one:
I have to take exception to your comment about the Koran. You said it teaches us not to force our will on others. Well then how do you reconcile that statement with this one:
"So, very famous verse, chapter nine, verse five, people quote this and quote it the same way I used to quote it. It says, 'Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.'
"Well, that's not what the verse says. It actually says 'mushrikeen' talking about polytheists, pagans. So what pagans are they talking about?
"Well, as my teacher would say to me: 'Do you normally begin reading chapters from verse five? You should probably start from verse one, and verse one says this is in regards to a group — a group — among the polytheists who broke the treaty between the believers.'
"And then as you go through verse two, especially verse four, it says, 'Excepted in this are those who did not break the treaty,' did not fight you and expel you from your homes.
"So it's telling you that permission is given to fight, and there's another verse in the Quran that says, 'Permission is given to fight against those who evict you from your homes and fight you because you're believers.'
"So that's the condition in which you're allowed to fight. And this license that's being given to fight these pagans is that one group of pagans who broke the treaty. So to turn that into this open license to kill unbelievers wherever you find them is completely false." https://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...hings-of-islam
Surely you have been here long enough to know that, to the religious apologist, there is no Proof of anything the atheist may say and even if there was "Total" proof, they would simply ignore it.
The problem for atheists is not theists, but other atheists. i only have 2 people on Ignore - and both are atheists.
hey, there are two of us that proved your stance is less valid? cool, its growing.
you have us on ignore because your less valid stance, "deny everything because theist can use some of it and make atheism harder to sell" is hog wash.
unless you would like another go? oh wait, you, like fundy theist run away from more valid stances.
lmao at that sect of atheism. they, like fundy theist, would be cute if they were not so dangerous.
hey, there are two of us that proved your stance is less valid? cool, its growing.
you have us on ignore because your less valid stance, "deny everything because theist can use some of it and make atheism harder to sell" is hog wash.
unless you would like another go? oh wait, you, like fundy theist run away from more valid stances.
lmao at that sect of atheism. they, like fundy theist, would be cute if they were not so dangerous.
In gooey deference to the Festive season, you are both Off. I don't need to respond, because, comparing our posts, I see far more telling you that you are talking out of your Ass than I see telling me that I am. Still, if you don't become a stalking nuisance...
Surely you have been here long enough to know that, to the religious apologist, there is no Proof of anything the atheist may say and even if there was "Total" proof, they would simply ignore it.
The problem for atheists is not theists, but other atheists. i only have 2 people on Ignore - and both are atheists.
Yes, I agree with what you say in the first paragraph. But "proof" is proof or it's not proof, and I'm not going to lower my standard no matter which side of the argument someone stands on.
Yes, I agree with the second paragraph, as well. It reminds me so much of what the over-religious often demand -- that one accept it all. And when one won't accept it all, they metaphorically lay down on the floor kicking and screaming that you're going to hell. And there are atheists who seem to believe in the same way. That's it's not good enough to say that they make some very good points, and even agree with much of what they say...but you have to accept their conclusions lock, stock, and barrel. Hyperbole rarely makes a valid point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Surely you have been here long enough to know that, to the religious apologist, there is no Proof of anything the atheist may say and even if there was "Total" proof, they would simply ignore it.
The problem for atheists is not theists, but other atheists. i only have 2 people on Ignore - and both are atheists.
