This about sums up my experience with the atheists among us: (global warming, Michigan)

[texan2yankee]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

Dogmatic isn't the proper term, but yes, some are very outspoken. I'd call them activists.

Dogmatic is exactly the proper word in context of my previous post, nv.

Dogmatic is defined as: inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.

synonyms: opinionated, peremptory, assertive, insistent, emphatic, adamant, doctrinaire, authoritarian, imperious, dictatorial, uncompromising, unyielding, inflexible, rigid

[desertdetroiter]

All we atheists ask you religionists to do is to prove that your God exists. Show him actually DOING something.

Explain to us why he isn't healing children, stopping wars, stopping murders and genocides...etc..

But you can't. All you can do is tell is that "he has a plan."

Well, that's not gonna cut it.

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by jacqueg

In what sense?

Unidirectional time is very much a characteristic of the known universe.

You will have to ask those people. I didn't say I said it, I said it's what I've been given as an answer when I ask the question, "So...then what created God?"

Don't think you understand what I believe or don't believe...you can't, because I don't even understand.

[jacqueg]

Originally Posted by pknopp

The courts have ruled it a religion.

James J. Kaufman, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Gary R. Mccaughtry, et al., Defendants-appellees, 419 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2005) :: Justia

Wisconsin inmate James Kaufman filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming as relevant here that prison officials violated his First Amendment rights. He raises three unrelated issues. Of the three, the one that has prompted the issuance of this opinion is his claim that the defendants infringed on his right to practice his religion when they refused to allow him to create an inmate group to study and discuss atheism.

Sigh. You need to read the whole opinion.

The court said, several times, that atheism is not a religion in the philosophical sense of believing in a system of faith. They did say that, for purposes of the first amendment, that the prisoner's desire to form an inmate atheist activity group, should be treated equivalently to requests to form a religious activity group.

The prison rules allow for different treatment of religious activity groups vs. non-religious activity groups. I think this underlying difference is wrong, but the court didn't go there.

We've had a couple of discussions on this over at the atheist forum. I don't like this decision because of the way it will be misused, as we see here. But I think the outcome is correct - if it's OK to have a baptist activity group, then it is OK to have an atheist study group.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

So, how was it created? Where did the universe come from? What energy created it, and from what source?

Who cares? Why does it even matter?

Suppose I told you the real truth how the universe was formed. How would your life change?

Would you become Beautiful? Desired? Loved? Wealthy? Successful? Healed?

The answer to everyone one of those questions is "No" and we all know it.

I have a question that is far more important than the ones you posed.

Why are you still using the combustion engine?

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

How about archaeological and historical evidence (supported by that archaeology)?

Please, don't insult everyone by referring to the "Exodus" (snicker).

The claims are spread throughout the Exodus Trilogy (Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers), as well as Judges, Joshua, Samuel(s), King I & II and Chronicles I & II. It makes for interesting historical reading (so long as you're not reading the King James Vision), but if you want to cut to the chase, then all you need is Joshua 12:1-24.

To expedite matters --

Joshua 12:9 the king of Jericho one; the king of Ai (near Bethel) one
Joshua 12:10 the king of Jerusalem one; the king of Hebron one
Joshua 12:11 the king of Jarmuth one; the king of Lachish one
Joshua 12:12 the king of Eglon one; the king of Gezer one
Joshua 12:13 the king of Debir one; the king of Geder one
Joshua 12:14 the king of Hormah one; the king of Arad one
Joshua 12:15 the king of Libnah one; the king of Adullam one
Joshua 12:16 the king of Makkedah one;the king of Bethel one
Joshua 12:17 the king of Tappuah one; the king of Hepher one
Joshua 12:18 the king of Aphek one; the king of Lasharon one
Joshua 12:19 the king of Madon one; the king of Hazor one
Joshua 12:20 the king of Shimron Meron one; the king of Acshaph one
Joshua 12:21 the king of Taanach one; the king of Megiddo one
Joshua 12:22 the king of Kedesh one; the king of Jokneam in Carmel one
Joshua 12:23 the king of Dor (in Naphoth Dor) one; the king of Goyim in Gilgal one
Joshua 12:24 the king of Tirzah one; thirty-one kings in all.

Those are the sixteen named cities, but note that there are far more than that claimed to have been conquered (not all are named).

A fanatical christian archaeologist set about to prove the Exodus really happened, and he failed miserably.

Only 9 out of the 16 cities were actually destroyed -- that's 56% which is a fail.

Worse than that, 2 of the 9 cities that were destroyed by a different ethnic/tribal group, and not the Israelites.

To add insult to injury, 3 of the cities claimed to have been destroyed were never even inhabited at the time of the Exodus, and it doesn't matter if you accept the "late date" or the "early date."

Two of those three that were uninhabited were Jericho and Ai (I believe the 3rd is Gibeon).

So the nonsense about Joshua walking around the walls of Jericho blowing his horn is just an opiate hallucination.

Wanna talk about "silver lips" (snicker)?

In the Hebrew text Mygys Psk (at line 7) is divided just as it is here. This has caused commentators quite a bit of confusion over the centuries, for what does "silver lips" mean? The discovery of the Ugaritic texts has helped us to understand that the word was divided incorrectly by the Hebrew scribe (who was as unfamiliar as we are with what the words were supposed to mean). Instead of the two words above, the Ugaritic texts lead us to divide the two words as Mygysps k which means "like silver".

For nearly 3,000 years, your bible writers and translators -- all of them --- got it wrong.

"If you’ve ever attempted a reasonable conversation with an American atheist about his or her distaste for religious influence in American politics, you know well that the primary beef atheists tend to have with religion is due to religionists’ assumed compulsion to impose their religious beliefs upon those who would choose to be unreligious."

Assumed compulsion to impose religious beliefs?

What a freaking joke....

Amesbury Nail Factory Co. v. Weed, 17 Mass. 53 (1820)

In spite of the 1st Amendment's prohibition on establishing religion or preventing the free exercise thereof, Massachusetts permitted taxation to support churches.

Amesbury argued that the nail factory had no soul and so the tax didn't apply. The court ruled that the factory benefits in the same way an individual benefits from any tax, and so the tax must be paid.

That leads to Goodell Mfg. Co. v. Trask, 28 Mass. (1831).

The argument here was that since none of the shareholders lived in the church parish, the company could not be taxed. The court ruled that "a corporation is an independent legal person" and subject to the tax

That makes the ass-clown at American Thinker a liar.

"[W]hile you know no Christians saying that everyone passing by must bow and pay reverence to the nativity scene in your front yard, you likely know at least one or two atheists who claim that such displays should be taken down in respect to any who may not think like you."

And the Pilgrims?

Remember that the Pilgrims -- the Puritans -- fled England and came to found a colony at Plymouth due to religious persecution.

Why were the Pilgrims being persecuted?

Because the Pilgrims outlawed Christmas.

In the Puritan New England colonies, it was illegal to celebrate Christmas, just as it was illegal to celebrate your own birthday.

If the Puritans had gained control of the colonies or the government, there wouldn't be any nativity scenes in anyone's yard....

...but you would be paying taxes to the church.

I guess you're not seeing the irony of Christians opposed to Christmas.

Is your ass-clown "journalist" (snicker) at American Thinker willing to levy the same criticism against christians as he does against Atheists?

Probably not. He'll jump through hoops to defend the Puritans.

Summing....

Mircea

[jacqueg]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

You will have to ask those people. I didn't say I said it, I said it's what I've been given as an answer when I ask the question, "So...then what created God?"

Don't think you understand what I believe or don't believe...you can't, because I don't even understand.

I suggest then, that when you are participating in a discussion, you should advance arguments that you do understand.

[Snowball7]

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

All we atheists ask you religionists to do is to prove that your God exists. Show him actually DOING something.

Explain to us why he isn't healing children, stopping wars, stopping murders and genocides...etc..

But you can't. All you can do is tell is that "he has a plan."

Well, that's not gonna cut it.

(4 parts)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNaoDyV-PJ4

...and...
Concerning Faith of Things Not Seen

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by thefragile

Believing that some mystical being created the earth is the antithesis of logic.

Originally Posted by jacqueg

I don't know, and feel no urgency to come up with an opinion. Now, I'd *love* to know these things, but the scientific evidence is yet in a state of flux.

Why do you think that definite answers to these questions are necessary?

You two can`t choose convenient parts of creationism to believe the way you have here and then claim to not be creationists.

Either you believe something came from nothing or you believe what exists was created.

Likewise, you either believe order spontaneously emerges from disorder or you believe order was built into what was created.

Taking the position that time, space and matter have come to exist while still claiming no creator exists requires one to believe in spontaneous self-creation, and that is simply creationism without the creator.

[Supachai]

I'm an atheist who believes that (some) religions bring a great deal of value to society. Most people would have no meaning in their lives without religion and many would have no morals. The creators of religions had the wisdom to understand this and have crafted systems designed to keep people in line, which in turn has helped civilization prosper. Some atheists object to religion altogether. I think those types are in denial about human nature.

[thefragile]

Originally Posted by momonkey

You two can`t choose convenient parts of creationism to believe the way you have here and then claim to not be creationists.

Either you believe something came from nothing or you believe what exists was created.

Likewise, you either believe order spontaneously emerges from disorder or you believe order was built into what was created.

Taking the position that time, space and matter have come to exist while still claiming no creator exists requires one to believe in spontaneous self-creation, and that is simply creationism without the creator.

I don't believe in god because the idea is absurd & without logic. It really is that simple.