The Anti-Christian conspiracy

Originally posted by shaunybaby
It's not specific Christians, it's the organized religion itself.

Just as some people have a need to do things in a particular order, or a specific way. Some have a need for structure, for order, for system. This is no more good nor preferable than otherwise.

Then what's the need for those insanely massive new Christian churches that hold thousands of people? Surely there's no need for 'Church' anymore?

While I do not find reason to spend so much money on churches and such, again, others have a need for structure, system, organization.

Some also have a need to feel "Belonging". Many want to be a part of something larger than themselves, and receive that gratification from attending a brick and mortar congregation wherein like views are rewarded for being similar.

Just as before, this is no better or preferable than alternatives. People want and need different things.

Why?

Why am I to love them? Because they are human, and they are my brothers and sisters. There need be no better explanation than that. We are all of the same cloth. We are all human, and all one and equal in the eyes of our Maker. None less so or more so than the other.

Am I not to love them because they do shameful things, or because they do things that horrify me? Are they not, unequivocally, still human and still my brothers and sisters in humanity?

Voicing an oppinion, since when was that hypocritical or oppressive?

Only when it conflicts directly with what you claim or criticize. I believe that is the definition, Friend. non?

No. I'm not stupid. Thankfully I can think for myself. However, there are some people who seem to have a need to be told what to believe.

You are right. Some have a need to be told what to believe. Some are not ready to walk on their own, Friend. Is this not true always, Friend?

There's no anti-Christian conspiracy. I don't like organized religion, it's sick. I've met many disillussioned religious people, and quite frankly I find them laughable, with the rubbish they come out with.

You say it is sick. Do you believe this view is "Better" or "More True" than another?

Many religions use scare tactics. The whole sin thing is one of them. If you sin and don't repent, you go to hell. If you don't believe in me, you go to hell. Infact you're going to have to try damn hard if you don't want to go to hell. And you wonder why people don't like Christianity? Christianity is like the teacher's pet, and no one likes a teacher's pet, well apart from you, you love them.

Many cannot fathom a universe without some form of punishment. It appeases the griefs of their past to "Know" transgressors will be punished. Some need a hand to hold.

They can't all be right.

Certainly they can all be right, just as every human is different. Is there room only for one God, and must we ask "Which one is it"?

Not at all, I think they knew nothing else. We also need to remember that many people were not educated, reading and writing wasn't exactly on the curriculum so to speak.

You are saying they were ignorant, Friend? The whole of history was not spent huddled in darkness uttering passed on prayers.


(...) desperate to find something to fill their lives.

The world has room for such miracles, Friend. Perhaps they have happened in the past. Perhaps the world has been more miraculous than mundane throughout history.

You express that these are fairy tales, myths, and imaginings. Is that a "Bettter" Way of looking at them than another alternative? Is it "Wrong" thinking to believe such things are true?

You are right that some people want such things. Would you deny them that? It seems, Friend, from the words you choose you insinuate of yourself some snobbery in the consideration of such "Fairy Tales".

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Just as some people have a need to do things in a particular order, or a specific way. Some have a need for structure, for order, for system. This is no more good nor preferable than otherwise.

So people may not be Christian because they really believe in God, but are more drawn to the structure, order, organization and in general the community feel about Church/Temple/Place of Worship?

LIke you say, some people need to feel as though they belong. Often people who have lost their way in life have a story to tell where they eventually found God. It's no wonder, with an empty life, that a person will try to fill it with almost anything.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Am I not to love them because they do shameful things, or because they do things that horrify me? Are they not, unequivocally, still human and still my brothers and sisters in humanity?

Has this ever actually been tested? Because it's one thing to see a person do shameful or horrifying things, but another completely if a person does something that affects you or your whole family.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
You say it is sick. Do you believe this view is "Better" or "More True" than another?

Doesn't need to be better or more true, voicing an oppinion, nothing more.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Certainly they can all be right, just as every human is different. Is there room only for one God, and must we ask "Which one is it"?

Well if all the religions can't be right, then there's a hell of a lot of disillusional people out there. Are those people just pretending there's a God?

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
You are saying they were ignorant, Friend? The whole of history was not spent huddled in darkness uttering passed on prayers.

Did I say ignorant? Then why put words in my mouth that I didn't say?

It was only really 150so years ago that there was any substantial alternative to religion. What I was getting at is before that, there wasn't really much of an alternative. You were taught there was God, and if you ever said there wasn't a God, that was blasphemy, and that was punishable, in some cases by death.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
You express that these are fairy tales, myths, and imaginings. Is that a "Bettter" Way of looking at them than another alternative? Is it "Wrong" thinking to believe such things are true?

Many stories in The Bible have no facts to backup them whatsoever. A virgin birth? Miracle or no miracle, I'm sure you know the story of the birds and the bees. You need an egg and you need a sperm, the sperm fertilizes the egg, and then we have that wonderful thing called 'life' happen. We're all 'adults' here aren't we? Now do we take on faith that this virgin birth happened, or can we look at some actual facts and come to the conclusion that this is a fairytale story?

how can an intelligent adult possibly believe in a virgin birth and still be 'intelligent'?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Like you say, some people need to feel as though they belong. Often people who have lost their way in life have a story to tell where they eventually found God. It's no wonder, with an empty life, that a person will try to fill it with almost anything.

Often is not always, some is not all.

Has this ever actually been tested? Because it's one thing to see a person do shameful or horrifying things, but another completely if a person does something that affects you or your whole family.

You may doubt if you like, it is your choice to do so and you are free to make it. All I may do is assure you that some have that capability.

Doesn't need to be better or more true, voicing an opinion, nothing more.

Your opinion is your feelings, your beliefs. What you feel or believe to be true. As such, the words spoken serve as representatives of your views.

Well if all the religions can't be right, then there's a hell of a lot of disillusional people out there. Are those people just pretending there's a God?

I do not know if you may have missed what I had said, friend. I said that all religions could be right. Who am I to judge what is right for another human being? We are all different.

Did I say ignorant? Then why put words in my mouth that I didn't say?

Yes, you did say ignorant. You said that they did not know any better. The definition of ignorant for your edification, Friend. Cambridge English Dictionary.

ignorant
adjective
1 not having enough knowledge, understanding or information about something:

Thusly, if they did not know any better, they are ignorant. Despite common belief, prior to the Dark Ages and throughout many cultures, there have been atheists.

It was only really 150so years ago that there was any substantial alternative to religion. What I was getting at is before that, there wasn't really much of an alternative. You were taught there was God, and if you ever said there wasn't a God, that was blasphemy, and that was punishable, in some cases by death.

Atheism has been around far longer than the American revolution.

Yes, it is a Wikipedia Link.

Many stories in The Bible have no facts to backup them whatsoever. A virgin birth? Miracle or no miracle, I'm sure you know the story of the birds and the bees. You need an egg and you need a sperm, the sperm fertilizes the egg, and then we have that wonderful thing called 'life' happen.

Parthogenesis begs to differ.

We're all 'adults' here aren't we? Now do we take on faith that this virgin birth happened, or can we look at some actual facts and come to the conclusion that this is a fairytale story?

Are you saying, Friend, that one is not an adult if one believes in fairy tales or miracles? That people are not adult if they do not require facts to believe what they believe?

You present a fallacy, Friend, by providing two options of your own choosing. Fairy-tale or supplied by facts. This is definitionally a False Dilemma.

how can an intelligent adult possibly believe in a virgin birth and still be 'intelligent'?

Another False Dilemma. Friend, you are insinuating that you feel an adult must view the Virgin Birth as a fairytale or falsity or they are not intelligent.

Otherwise, why would you ask such a question?

I hope that providing some relevant links will enhance the discussion.

Peace and Light.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by TheColdDragon]

TheColdDragon, substantial alternative isn't the same as ANY alternative. atheism wasn't intellectually fulfilling until chuck darwin rolled around. sure, hume had his suspicions, but they were pure philosophy

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
TheColdDragon, substantial alternative isn't the same as ANY alternative. atheism wasn't intellectually fulfilling until chuck darwin rolled around. sure, hume had his suspicions, but they were pure philosophy

Naturally, friend. The world is more worldly now than it was two hundred years ago, but such is the way of a shrinking world.

If I may ask, madness, do you feel that the errors of the Mother Church concerning its closed-mindedness as well as its treatment of disbelievers or those that believed differently should reflect now upon the religious as a whole?

Am I, as well as others present in this thread, to be responsible for the ignorance and intellectual bigotry of those now well-dead?

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Atheism has been around far longer than the American revolution.

''Substantial alternative''.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Are you saying, Friend, that one is not an adult if one believes in fairy tales or miracles? That people are not adult if they do not require facts to believe what they believe?

Do adults believe in Santa Clause or The Tooth Fairy? Then why do adults believe in virgin births, have these adults not been taught about procreation?

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
You present a fallacy, Friend, by providing two options of your own choosing. Fairy-tale or supplied by facts.

There are far more choices than God or not God. However, all of these choices pretty much fit in to two catagories, 'fairytale' or 'not fairytale'. Depending on your personal opinions and beliefs, will depend on what catagory those choices fall in to. For Saint evolution very much so falls in to fairytale, however for a person like myself it's the opposite.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Another False Dilemma. Friend, you are insinuating that you feel an adult must view the Virgin Birth as a fairytale or falsity or they are not intelligent.

But surely you know how babies are made?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
''Substantial alternative''.

So then, it is religion or not religion yet again. I see. Which do you feel is not a "Stupid" choice, Friend?

Do adults believe in Santa Clause or The Tooth Fairy? Then why do adults believe in virgin births, have these adults not been taught about procreation?

Perhaps some do. So, if I am to understand, you unequivocally believe that those that believe in the Virgin Birth are immature and unintelligent, Friend?

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
There are far more choices than God or not God. However, all of these choices pretty much fit in to two catagories, 'fairytale' or 'not fairytale'. Depending on your personal opinions and beliefs, will depend on what catagory those choices fall in to. For Saint evolution very much so falls in to fairytale, however for a person like myself it's the opposite.

You supply an either-or situation yet again. Very Black and White thinking. This is another logical fallacy. For one who claims rational thought to be more preferable than religious thought, you trend towards religious fallacies quite a bit, Friend.

Again to clarify, you are providing your opinion on these matters, Friend? Your opinion seems to indicate that you feel religious believers are childish, ignorant, immature, and gullible.

Ignorant by definition because "They must not know any better".

Immature by definition because "Adult's don't believe in Fairy Tales".

And Gullible for both reasons.

If these are not your views then please, Friend, clarify for me what are.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
But surely you know how babies are made?

I know many ways that offspring come into being. Are you ignoring my link to Parthogenesis?

There are, in fact, a variety of ways that females of many species are capable of reproducing without donor DNA from a Male. That it occurs in nature provides an open door to such occurrence in the human population, albeit rare.

This, Friend, is not a Fairy Tale.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
So then, it is religion or not religion yet again. I see. Which do you feel is not a "Stupid" choice, Friend?

No, that's not what I've said at all.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
So, if I am to understand, you unequivocally believe that those that believe in the Virgin Birth are immature and unintelligent, Friend?

We all understand how babies are made. If someone wants to say that there is such a possibility in biology as a virgin birth, then yes that is an unintelligent statement to make. There's no two ways about it.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
You supply an either-or situation yet again. Very Black and White thinking. This is another logical fallacy. For one who claims rational thought to be more preferable than religious thought, you trend towards religious fallacies quite a bit, Friend.

There are only two solutions, right or wrong, but what is right and what is wrong is up to personal oppinion and belief. I'm not trending towards religious fallacies at all.

Do you really need to put 'friend' at the end of each sentence? Is this a polite thing or a compulsion?

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Your opinion seems to indicate that you feel religious believers are childish, ignorant, immature, and gullible.

With child-like stories such as Noah's Ark, yes I would say childish. I've not said ignorant, that's what you decided to say that I said. Immature, I've not said anything along the lines of that. Gullible, most certainly.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
There are, in fact, a variety of ways that females of many species are capable of reproducing without donor DNA from a Male. That it occurs in nature provides an open door to such occurrence in the human population, albeit rare.

You might see that mammals are distinctly absent from that list of asexual species. Most asexual species still mate like every other species, it's often in times of a low male population that this comes in to play. It's a nice desperate attempt to show the possibilty that Mary was an asexual human. Just because it happens to frogs or sharks, it doesn't open the door whatsoever for this to happen in the human population.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
No, that's not what I've said at all.

You say there was no "Substantial" alternative to religion prior to 150 years ago. Having thought on it, you are correct. However, you claim this as a bad thing (TM). There were many religions throughout the world, not all of which was Christianity. Not all of them were close-minded and judgmental. Not all Christians were either.

We all understand how babies are made. If someone wants to say that there is such a possibility in biology as a virgin birth, then yes that is an unintelligent statement to make. There's no two ways about it.

So, am I correct in my understanding that you have little to no respect for those who believe in the virgin birth because in your eyes, it is a fairy tale and adults should not persist in believing in such nonsense?

There are only two solutions, right or wrong, but what is right and what is wrong is up to personal oppinion and belief. I'm not trending towards religious fallacies at all.

Presenting solutions of ones own wording and choosing, usually in a bi-polar manner, is a very frequent fallacy used by religious speakers to frame things in their own terms. The False Dilemma is an extremely popular fallacy amongst hellfire and brimstone televangelists. It presents two alternatives concerning any particular topic, but the alternatives are tailored by the speaker to be favorable to their own position.

Black and White thinking is also commonly used, and it is often directly related to The False Dilemma in usage. It presents a bi-polarity of right and wrong, insisting upon itself.

Do you really need to put 'friend' at the end of each sentence? Is this a polite thing or a compulsion?

I am sorry it bothers you, Friend. I am not being insincere. I would certainly prefer to be friends than enemies, and I hope you do not feel antagonized.

With child-like stories such as Noah's Ark, yes I would say childish. I've not said ignorant, that's what you decided to say that I said. Immature, I've not said anything along the lines of that. Gullible, most certainly.

Ahh, but you did say ignorant. You did not use the word ignorant, you used the strict definitional usage of the term to describe those in the past. Whether you said the word itself, or merely referenced the word by literally using the actual definition, the concept of ignorance was applied to your statement.

By claiming childishness concerning the religious believers, you are directly claiming immaturity as the two are not mutually exclusive concepts. And by emphatically agreeing to the term Gullible, you have implied that they are easily deceived, ignorant or both. Again, by definitional usage of the words being utilized.

You might see that mammals are distinctly absent from that list of asexual species. Most asexual species still mate like every other species, it's often in times of a low male population that this comes in to play. It's a nice desperate attempt to show the possibilty that Mary was an asexual human. Just because it happens to frogs or sharks, it doesn't open the door whatsoever for this to happen in the human population.

It happens biologically, whether in mammalian life or not. It is a precedence of biology, thus rendering the possibility of such a thing happening in rare circumstances. Mary could've been a mutation for all we know.

What has also been known to occur is a female fraternal twin giving birth to her own fraternal brother. Very rare circumstance, but it occurs.

Medical science is far weirder than you might be prepared to believe. I hope you do not discount that matter.

I am open to the concept of a Virgin Birth, though I think the reality of it is inconsequential. It doesn't matter to me if Christ was born from a virgin or not, and it is not something I worry or fret about.

As always, Peace be with you, Friend.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
You say there was no "Substantial" alternative to religion prior to 150 years ago. Having thought on it, you are correct. However, you claim this as a bad thing (TM).

I haven't claimed this as a bad thing. If anything, it's a good thing. Because like madness said, atheism wasn't intellectually fulfilling before Darwin rolled around. That's not to say that you have to believe in evolution in order to be an atheist. That's the best thing about atheism, it's not confined to certain beliefs or doctrines.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
So, am I correct in my understanding that you have little to no respect for those who believe in the virgin birth because in your eyes, it is a fairy tale and adults should not persist in believing in such nonsense?

Correct. Why is it so difficult for you to grasp this?

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Presenting solutions of ones own wording and choosing, usually in a bi-polar manner, is a very frequent fallacy used by religious speakers to frame things in their own terms. Black and White thinking is also commonly used, and it is often directly related to The False Dilemma in usage. It presents a bi-polarity of right and wrong, insisting upon itself.

There's no false dilema because I haven't said you have to believe in one or the other. I stated that it's down to personal opinion to what you see as true or false.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
It happens biologically, whether in mammalian life or not.

No, it doesn't happen in mammals, period. It's as mythological as the story itself.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
It is a precedence of biology, thus rendering the possibility of such a thing happening in rare circumstances. Mary could've been a mutation for all we know.

So was it anything to do with the Holy Spirit or not? You can't have it both ways. If she's a mutation and somehow asexually reproduced, then that has nothing to do with God or the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
It doesn't matter to me if Christ was born from a virgin or not, and it is not something I worry or fret about.

But surely if that didn't happen, then the story is made-up. Which begs the question, what other stories are made up and ''don't matter''.

[edit on 19-6-2007 by shaunybaby]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I haven't claimed this as a bad thing. If anything, it's a good thing. Because like madness said, atheism wasn't intellectually fulfilling before Darwin rolled around. That's not to say that you have to believe in evolution in order to be an atheist. That's the best thing about atheism, it's not confined to certain beliefs or doctrines.

As much as I understand, Friend, Atheism does tend to have certain precepts required in order to claim atheism. The foremost being a staunch disbelief in the supernatural, God included.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Correct. Why is it so difficult for you to grasp this?

So, you think religious believers are essentially childish and ignorant. Perhaps, Friend, you should consider if that colors your logic or reasoning skills. Either that, or perhaps you should reconsider participating in conversations with people who are so childish and ignorant.

There's no false dilema because I haven't said you have to believe in one or the other. I stated that it's down to personal opinion to what you see as true or false.

A False Dilemma does not require that the opponent in the conversation must believe one of the options. A false dilemma is a purposefully created scenario where one option is literally designed to be better than the second option. Both options being defined by the speaker make it a naturally biased statement, and intellectually dishonest as a means of argument.

Its purpose is to present to the reading audience a seemingly rational statement which provides two options, one which the SPEAKER favors and which paints their views in a good light, and the other which paints their OPPONENT in a bad light.

In this case, the insinuation is "NON-believing is Smart, mature, and preferable," while, "BELIEVERS are childish, immature, and gullible."

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
No, it doesn't happen in mammals, period. It's as mythological as the story itself.

I am sorry, Friend. Let me clarify. I had said that whether it happens in mammals or not, it happens in biology.

For a rational thinker, I am disheartened to hear you use definitive and absolute statements that something never happens. Especially in concerns with biology, which is always changing progressively and has done so in the past as well.

So was it anything to do with the Holy Spirit or not? You can't have it both ways. If she's a mutation and somehow asexually reproduced, then that has nothing to do with God or the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps she was a mutant, asexually reproduced, and was born that way due to her Maker's Bidding. It is not necessary for the Creator to wave a magic wand and make something so.

But surely if that didn't happen, then the story is made-up. Which begs the question, what other stories are made up and ''don't matter''.

I've certainly presented possibilities concerning the virgin birth, Friend. All of which are scientific. They merely are not PROBABILITIES.

I feel perhaps you concern yourself too much with the mysticism of religious thinking, and that you disrespectfully treat those with religion you encounter in your life. Not that you have treated me in such a way, you have been at worst rather well behaved.

However, your words of intolerance towards the views presented as religious, in particular your erudite and elitist view of superior reasoning skills due to NOT believing, must invariably effect things in your interactions.

Consider that I am not your enemy, that it is okay to believe. That it may not necessarily be childish or gullible to have faith. Consider, Friend, that you may be wrong.

Thank you for your time, Friend.

Peace and Light.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
As much as I understand, Friend, Atheism does tend to have certain precepts required in order to claim atheism. The foremost being a staunch disbelief in the supernatural, God included.

That pretty much goes without saying.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
A False Dilemma does not require that the opponent in the conversation must believe one of the options. A false dilemma is a purposefully created scenario where one option is literally designed to be better than the second option. Both options being defined by the speaker make it a naturally biased statement, and intellectually dishonest as a means of argument.

I haven't said either is better than the other.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
"BELIEVERS are childish, immature, and gullible."

Why are believers not these things then? Believing in such things as Noah's Ark is childish. The thought of 2 of every animal on a 400-or-so foot boat is absolutely ridiculous. And believing without questioning, suggests they are gullible, because they'll believe and fall for anything.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
I am sorry, Friend. Let me clarify. I had said that whether it happens in mammals or not, it happens in biology.

But we're mammals. We're not sharks, we're not komodo dragons. We're humans. There hasn't been a recorded incident with mammels, let alone humans.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
I've certainly presented possibilities concerning the virgin birth, Friend. All of which are scientific. They merely are not PROBABILITIES.

You've attributed something that happens to 70 or so species, yet doesn't happen anywhere in mammels or humans, and you call that scientific?

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Consider that I am not your enemy, that it is okay to believe. That it may not necessarily be childish or gullible to have faith. Consider, Friend, that you may be wrong.

That's just the thing. If I ever thought for a second that there might be a God my beliefs are such that it doesn't not allow me to change them. However, like yourself and saint, you're faith and belief is so much that you can't for a second think of a world without God. So it's you that needs to be open to the fact that you might be wrong.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
That pretty much goes without saying.

So then, even Atheism has a rigid subset of rules which define what people, to be accepted by other Atheists, should adhere to. Such that, denouncing anything whimsical, fairy taleish, or mystically mysterious is a precluded notion to the Atheist group.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
I haven't said either is better than the other.

It isn't necessary to say that to make it a False Dilemma. the Falsity of the Dilemma is inherent in the dichotomy of choices provided.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Why are believers not these things then? Believing in such things as Noah's Ark is childish. The thought of 2 of every animal on a 400-or-so foot boat is absolutely ridiculous. And believing without questioning, suggests they are gullible, because they'll believe and fall for anything.

In this statement, you make a broad generalization concerning Christians, friend. Indeed, you appear to group religious believers as a whole, regardless of what religion they adhere to, into broad categorizations.

It is like saying that all black people like fried chicken, or all Chinese students get straight A's.

No, you do not in so many words outright say this eggregious stereotype. You do not forwardly pronounce that ALL Christians are this or that... but all of your words are ambassadors for your biases, whether stated or not.

All Christians do not Question, that is the insinuation you have presented with the above paragraph. This is a gross misrepresentation of both Christians as a whole, as well as the people who have discussed with you in this thread, Friend.

If none of this is accurate, then please put forward the statement that you staunchly believe some Christians or religious people are intelligent and are able to question their own faith in an intelligent manner.

But we're mammals. We're not sharks, we're not komodo dragons. We're humans. There hasn't been a recorded incident with mammels, let alone humans.

Certainly, there has not been a recorded instance. How old are scientific records, again? How complete and all knowing?

You've attributed something that happens to 70 or so species, yet doesn't happen anywhere in mammels or humans, and you call that scientific?

Yes. You cannot prove a negative with science. You cannot prove something is impossible when there is good evidence, especially biologically, that it occurs regularly in some species.

Just because it has not been recorded as happening before does not mean it has not happened, or cannot happen. To state otherwise would, unfortunately, be very unscientific, Friend.

That's just the thing. If I ever thought for a second that there might be a God my beliefs are such that it doesn't not allow me to change them. However, like yourself and saint, you're faith and belief is so much that you can't for a second think of a world without God. So it's you that needs to be open to the fact that you might be wrong.

I am quite open to the fact that this may be all she wrote. That in the end, I will be a decaying, fetid mass of rotting flesh and debris. The same decaying mass as everything else.

I am quite open to the idea that in the end, there is only oblivion. A negation of all that I am, a true dying rather than a passing onward. I can graciously and openly accept that most serene of precepts of Atheism. It is a peaceful, calming, and assuaging darkness that nihilism proposes in concerns with death.

Quite a glorious concept, and there is much elegance and beauty in it.

I merely choose to believe otherwise. There is no evidence to supply that the end is the end, so ultimately I must choose how I am to proceed.

Invariably, I will proceed in the light, with love for all mankind. I need no reason to do so, I need no explanation to justify it.

Peace and Love, Friend.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
So then, even Atheism has a rigid subset of rules which define what people, to be accepted by other Atheists, should adhere to. Such that, denouncing anything whimsical, fairy taleish, or mystically mysterious is a precluded notion to the Atheist group.

There's no book or rule to which Atheists live their lives by. It's in no way comparible to organized religion.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
In this statement, you make a broad generalization concerning Christians, friend. Indeed, you appear to group religious believers as a whole, regardless of what religion they adhere to, into broad categorizations.

I've not spoken about any other religions, so no I've not grouped them altogether.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Certainly, there has not been a recorded instance. How old are scientific records, again? How complete and all knowing?

It's actually interesting that you brought up Parthenogenesis, because it's quite a bit of evidence for evolution. But no I won't accept something ''because you say so''. I don't take things on faith, that's the difference between me and you. The fact is that it doesn't happen in humans. If it happened back then, 2000 years ago, then we would expect it to still be going on in the human population today.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Yes. You cannot prove a negative with science. You cannot prove something is impossible when there is good evidence, especially biologically, that it occurs regularly in some species.

It's not a question of 'good' evidence. It's a question of 'No' evidence.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Just because it has not been recorded as happening before does not mean it has not happened, or cannot happen. To state otherwise would, unfortunately, be very unscientific, Friend.

No, the only person here who's being unscientific is you. You don't take what happens to other species, and apply it to humans. Our biology is similar, but not identical. You have at best, a guess. It's a theory, that your only supporting evidence for is 'yeah but you don't know it hasn't already happened'.

It's funny how you apply science to the virgin birth, but if someone tries to apply scientific reasoning to Noah's Ark, Christians will just say 'yeah but God can do what he wants'. Christians just love to find little loop holes everywhere, and they know with every argument they can just say 'God can do anything he wants', and just be done with it.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
There's no book or rule to which Atheists live their lives by. It's in no way comparible to organized religion.

And yet I just compared them. Hard line atheists shun those who have pseudo-religious or religious views on things. Or so it seems to have been presented via your words, Friend. You, taken as example, have expressed that religious beliefs makes one gullible, immature, childish and Ignorant.

If I have interpreted you incorrectly, then I ask you to state plainly and simply that you believe there are intelligent and mature religious believers who are capable of questioning their faith.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
I've not spoken about any other religions, so no I've not grouped them altogether.

Alright. What of other religions? Are they gullible, childish, immature or ignorant?

And are there people of religious beliefs that you feel are intelligent, mature, and capable of reflecting rationally on their own faith?

It's actually interesting that you brought up Parthenogenesis, because it's quite a bit of evidence for evolution. But no I won't accept something ''because you say so''. I don't take things on faith, that's the difference between me and you. The fact is that it doesn't happen in humans. If it happened back then, 2000 years ago, then we would expect it to still be going on in the human population today.

I do not believe, friend, that I ever insinuated you must accept something because I say so. For my own edification, can you supply me when I made a statement which insinuated that I take something on faith alone?

Absolutism is unscientific. "DOES NOT" is absolute.

For that matter, are there any religious people you know who are capable of mature and intelligent dialogue and able to reflect introspectively concerning their own religion and biases?

It's not a question of 'good' evidence. It's a question of 'No' evidence.

Parthenogenesis occurs. Evidence is present that Parthenogenesis occurs. It is unlikely to occur in humans, as there is no recorded instance of it occurring in mammals. Lack of evidence does not preclude the possibility. It is merely an improbability.

No, the only person here who's being unscientific is you. You don't take what happens to other species, and apply it to humans. Our biology is similar, but not identical. You have at best, a guess. It's a theory, that your only supporting evidence for is 'yeah but you don't know it hasn't already happened'.

I don't believe I ever put forward that, definitively, I believe that Parthenogenesis is the cause of the virgin birth. I merely supplied possible scientific rationales for how such a thing could take place.

It's funny how you apply science to the virgin birth, but if someone tries to apply scientific reasoning to Noah's Ark, Christians will just say 'yeah but God can do what he wants'. Christians just love to find little loop holes everywhere, and they know with every argument they can just say 'God can do anything he wants', and just be done with it.

Perhaps because, definitionally, if you were to consider an omni-powered entity with the potential to make and break rules and reality... they COULD.

Though I am confused, Friend. Just a moment ago, you said that I was the one being unscientific... yet here you say that I am applying science to the virgin birth.

Now, I did address your accusation that Saint and I could not be open to the idea of a world without God. I find the concept of atheism to be pleasant anc comforting in an epistemological view. Despite this, Friend, you continue to assail me with statements as to my faith and my cognizant abilities as a human being.

What have I said, Friend, that has made me the target of your contentious manner?

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
And yet I just compared them. Hard line atheists shun those who have pseudo-religious or religious views on things. Or so it seems to have been presented via your words, Friend. You, taken as example, have expressed that religious beliefs makes one gullible, immature, childish and Ignorant.

Not religious beliefs, Bible beliefs. There's a big difference.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
If I have interpreted you incorrectly, then I ask you to state plainly and simply that you believe there are intelligent and mature religious believers who are capable of questioning their faith.

I'm sure there are intelligent believers of different religions. When exactly did I say the words ''Every person who believes in religion is unintelligent''?

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
Parthenogenesis occurs. Evidence is present that Parthenogenesis occurs. It is unlikely to occur in humans, as there is no recorded instance of it occurring in mammals. Lack of evidence does not preclude the possibility. It is merely an improbability.

Link

The team made the animals by combining the nucleus of one female's egg with that of another, essentially creating a mouse with two mothers. "It is a bit of a surprise," says evolutionary biologist David Haig of Harvard University, Boston. After nearly 460 attempts at growing embryos, ten live pups were born and just one of those survived to adulthood.

After 460 attempts, and a 10% survival rate, it's hardly a ''mere improbability''. This process is very much so a process that happens to reptiles, insects, fish etc. And the process involved in the laboratory, of putting a nucleas with another female egg, is that even the natural process that occurs in nature?

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
I don't believe I ever put forward that, definitively, I believe that Parthenogenesis is the cause of the virgin birth.

Then how was Jesus the Son of God?

Originally posted by Partyof1
Hate, in general, is rooted in fear - period.

so the jews shouldnt hate the nazis or anyone else who wants them dead because of their hatreds? or vice versa even.

Some people think, or are afraid, that Christians are trying IMPOSE their views on others.

To a christians and most good christians realize that imposing is never an option, people who threaten hell, are mostly in movies or down south. Or even in government sadly. And is why most anti chritians think the way they do likely due to the fact they pieced together from spurious hear-say and historical reality of megolith systems had manifested into a nightmare of biblical misinterpretations, which spawned a new babylon and age of tyrant kings and wars for power. All using Christ to humble the masses to a selfish cause certainly not started by one concerned for the benefit of life. So i defend that most christians are merely searchers with zealous attitudes for making others like them when they should be silent like christ said..they mean well, most i mean. And there is a lot of official hazing of christianity going on which seems a simple direct attack, which is what Bush expected by putting himself out there as one i suspect, then being a prick. Thats one example of mass manipulation by the way, there are more. Christ died to stop people who pull sh** like lie, manipulate and control. and to be a prophetic marker as well.

What these same people cannot seem to undderstand is that they themselves are trying to do the SAME thing.

Ones right to believe something is no more or less important than your right not to.

Originally posted by Partyof1
Hate, in general, is rooted in fear - period.

so the jews shouldnt hate the nazis or anyone else who wants them dead because of their hatreds? or vice versa even.

Some people think, or are afraid, that Christians are trying IMPOSE their views on others.

To a christians and most good christians view is they realize that imposing is never a option, people who threaten hell, are mostly in movies or down south. Or even in government sadly. And is why most anti-chritians think the way they do likely due to the fact they pieced together from spurious hear-say and historical reality of megolith systems had manifested into a nightmare of biblical misinterpretations, which spawned a new babylon(confusion) and age of tyrant kings and wars for power. All using Christ to humble the masses to a selfish cause certainly not started by one concerned for the benefit of life. So i defend that most christians are merely searchers with zealous attitudes for making others like them when they should be silent like christ said..they mean well, most i mean. And there is a lot of official hazing of christianity going on which seems a simple direct attack, which is what Bush expected by putting himself out there as one i suspect, then being a prick. Thats one example of mass manipulation by the way, there are more. Christ died to stop people who pull sh** like lie, manipulate and control. and to be a prophetic marker as well.

Ones right to believe something is no more or less important than your right not to.

Right, and any church that goes door to door teaching christ is either A: a cult asking for money and membership or B: well meaning people but misguided as to interpretation.

[edit on 25-6-2007 by mastermind77]

I happened upon this thread intrigued as usual. I am new to a.t.s and I also am a Christian. I was reluctant to post anything.

It has been written that in the last days, "the spirit of anti-christ" would first come, pollutting people's minds by twisting God's word and interpreting it into something else to suit themselves, their own desires and their lifestyles.

The bible warns of false teachers that deny Christ in the flesh and deny that Christ is the Son of God. But every Christian knows, he has come in the flesh and he is the Son of the Living God. That's the whole backbone of Christianity, faith in God through his son Jesus Christ.

I know it might be hard to believe at first but there are no contradictions in God's word. It's man that errs just look at the pharisees and saducees that walked the earth during Christs ministry. Those guys were "religious," and the truth walked among them and they didnot understand. Jesus did not like "religion" simply because of the spirit of bondage. They hated Jesus and likewise the world hates us too.

God does want a personal relationship with his creation through his son. There is not a shred of darkness in God, he is Love, Light, an all consuming fire. I know there are people hurting out there. They feel no one accepts them and no one loves them but they are the people who Jesus came for, died for, and rose for. I felt the same way until I gave my life to him.

God Bless
beneatiah

Originally posted by beneatiah
I know there are people hurting out there. They feel no one accepts them and no one loves them but they are the people who Jesus came for, died for, and rose for. I felt the same way until I gave my life to him.

So you became Christian because you felt sorry for yourself?