Atheists & Christians: Argue the OTHER POINT OF VIEW

[Rita]

I know it's the basis of my life. God appeared to me in the form of a sequence of fortuitous events that could not have been coincidence. I followed the clues and everything turned out OK. I don't think I have to go to church or praise God. Obviously, he knows what he's doing. Arauca's faith in nothingness, his perverted atheistic ideas, seem to be causing him some discomfort. He has never truly become poor in spirit. I can only feel pity. As a friend, I'm asking you, Aracua, can't you turn from your path of wickedness and torment, and turn towards the Lord?

What evidence of a Lord is there? Why would you presume someone who does not believe it necessary to submit to a Lord, would be wicked? What makes a man wicked? How would submitting to a Lord make a difference? How would anyone learn of such a Lord in the first place?

Quote Originally Posted by andy1033 View Post
There is something atheists are missing in this argument. Today science has cheated and are turning off brain receptors in your brain that normally where always used in spirituality.

Neurons are only receptors, they need something to activate them. It is not brain receptors that are turned off, but the concepts of spiritual thinking is are longer activating the neurons of those who reject the spiritual experience.

 

[Rhaedas]

Neurons are only receptors, they need something to activate them. It is not brain receptors that are turned off, but the concepts of spiritual thinking is no longer activating the neurons of those who reject the spiritual experience.

Does one have to be religious to be spiritual? I would probably agree that non-religious brains tend to work a bit differently than religious ones, but I don't think spiritual is the best word to use, as it's probably too broad in this context.

 

[Balerion]

What this thread needs is atheists pretending to be theists pretending to be atheists, since it doesn't look like we're gonna be getting any actual theists pretending to be atheists, which makes pretending to be a theist a rather one-sided exercise, and therefore not much of an exercise at all. In other words, we need opposition so we can kick things into high gear!

The only skilled apologist I can think of on this site is Lightgigantic. I'd like to see him partake in this exercise.

 

[Rita]

Does one have to be religious to be spiritual? I would probably agree that non-religious brains tend to work a bit differently than religious ones, but I don't think spiritual is the best word to use, as it's probably too broad in this context.

All brains are alike. Like computers. What varies is the programming, the software.

One does not have to be religious to be spiritual.

On the other hand spiritual can mean different things so I will agree there is a problem with the term. I take issue the Fraggle Rocker, because spiritual thinking may be either superstition or based on philosophy and science. It is not exclusively superstition. For me to argue the opposite of what I believe, I would have to argue in favor of superstition, and that would be extremely hard for me. Maybe even impossible?

 

[wynn]

Whoo Fraggle Rocker Do I detect some emotion there? I thought this was coming up in the thread I pulled out of. I hope it doesn't ruin this thread. Maybe you should stick to the science threads that don't stir up those emotions, or do you want to explore what all that emotion is about?

Lol. Good one!

Nah, I don't think those emotional atheists will go into analyzing those emotions, at least not anytime soon, or only at a superficial level at most.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Where did you come up with that weird statement? In thirteen billion years a lot of things happen by sheer chance. It's very difficult to understand what it means to have a time-span of 13,000,000,000 years, when few of us even live 100 years. The difference is that scientists try very hard to understand it, whereas religionists just throw up their hands and say, "Shit, that's too hard for me. I'll let God figure it out. My brain hurts; I'll go read my favorite passage in the Bible for the two hundredth time."

Like all supernaturalists, you misquote science because you don't understand it and don't want to. You have vastly oversimplified an event that we have barely begun to understand. I'll assume that you're familiar with the Laws of Thermodynamics, because if not then you're a complete fool for pretending to understand this stuff.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that entropy tends to increase over time; in other words, order ultimately collapses into complete disorder. But spatially and temporally reversals of entropy are quite possible. We experience them every day inside our own bodies, where rather random combinations of organic molecules are ripped apart and reassembled so as to give us the energy to live and work. This is a spatially local reversal of entropy. The Big Bang was a temporally local reversal. It happened briefly, causing order to exist where there was none, and this order has been decaying ever since--with myriad local reversals such as our own bodies. The result of this local reversal of entropy was the universe coming into existence (temporarily). The matter and antimatter in the universe is in perfect balance so something did not come from nothing. The nothing (a universe with a net mass of zero) is still there, it just has temporarily more organization.

This is called "physics." You might want to read up on it before you dive in over your head again. Most of us took it in our university courses.

Where in the holy hell do you come up with this utterly preposterous bullshit??? You talk like a precocious third-grader who knows a lot of fancy words but is very weak on the concepts behind them. Oh wait, all Christians talk that way, don't they. Everything in the universe is just a little too complicated so they don't bother to try to understand it.

We did not invent evolution. We discovered it. There are two entirely different, enormous bodies of evidence for evolution that corroborate each other. One is the fossil record. We've carbon-dated fossils back through hundreds of millions of years so we know with considerable precision which animal, plant, fungus, alga, bacterium or archaeum lived when, so we can chart the temporal relationships among them, and deduce which was the ancestor or descendant of the other.

The other body of evidence is DNA, which was discovered in the 20th century. We've found well-preserved DNA going back around 100,000 years. This is enough to determine the rates of mutation in the living organisms on this planet caused by cosmic rays and other perturbations. We've also compared the DNA of tens of thousands of species of animals, plants, etc., in order to see how closely they are related. For example, humans and chimpanzees (two different species of ape) share about 95% of their DNA. Humans and banana trees (one is an animal, the other a plant, from two different kingdoms of lifeforms) share about 40% of their DNA. We've also charted the DNA of organisms with very short lifespans such as bacteria, who go through a hundred or more generations in a year so we can actually witness their mutation and evolution, and learn to understand the mechanisms that drive mutation and evolution.

All of this hard work in the sciences of paleontology and genetics give us an astounding view into the evolution of life on earth. It's hardly complete, but it is certainly not invented. When we insult your idiotic priests and the stupid fairy tales in their holy books, you scream at us and some of you (especially Muslims) simply come at us with guns. But when you insult the dedicated, hard-working, highly educated scientists who help us understand how the universe actually works, you expect us to endure it graciously.

Hell no! Fuck all the brainless fairy tale believers who insult science and scientists. I'm sick to death of them.

But your fairytale "God" is nothing more than a construct of faith. There is absolutely no respectable evidence for the existence of God. In fact you folks insist that he expects you to believe in him solely on faith. You're making up cute little stories that pretend to provide logic for your fairytales, but any first-year university student can demolish them.

Christians are the largest single sect. That is, if you count the Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Orthodox, etc. as a single sect. Not all of them actually do that. During the U.S. presidential campaign, many Christians from traditional denominations insisted that Romney is not actually a Christian because Mormons don't believe in the Trinity.

Where do you guys come up with this crap??? Did you read that on a fortune cookie?

You're out of your mind. At the time of the American Revolution, only about 20% of Americans were members of churches. Today the figure is 50%. The Religious Redneck Retard Revival in the late 1970s and early 1980s saw a huge increase in church membership and attendance.

You and Balerion must get your misinformation from the same source. Fox News?

:roflmao:

Hilarious!

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Theists are simply wrong because there is no evidence of god.
If there were evidence of god we would accept god exists.
The kind of evidence needed for me to accept god exists, would be evidence that the evidence is actually god.
That kind of evidence would have to have really good evidence that the evidence which shows evidence of god's existence, actually
shows that there is evidence of god's existence. Remember extraordinary claims require.......

....you got it extraordinary evidence!

There is no need to accept anything which any scripture say's, because the current evidence say's that it's all nonsense. But even if there was any truth in the idea of god's existence, no rational person with a good scientific/atheist leaning (the same thing and don't let nobody tell you different), we wouldn't want to be associated with such a big meany.


jan.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Whoo Fraggle Rocker Do I detect some emotion there? I thought this was coming up in the thread I pulled out of. I hope it doesn't ruin this thread. Maybe you should stick to the science threads that don't stir up those emotions, or do you want to explore what all that emotion is about?

I don't need to explore it. I've been exploring it since 1951 when another second-grader started telling me about this fellow named "God" who lives up in the sky and can see everything we do and judge us for it. I thought it was one of those funny stories that kids make up, and a rather good one. I was laughing my head off and I couldn't understand why he didn't appreciate it.

When I got home I asked my mother. She got a very pained look on her face and said simply that some people actually believe that stuff. I asked her why their parents hadn't told them the truth. She became very sad, and said that there are actually a lot of grownups who believe it, so they never tell their kids the truth. That marked the moment in my life when I became a cynic. How could anyone be that stupid? How could people who are that stupid run the world?

Fortunately my parents sent me to a university where 95% of the students were atheists, so I was able to restore some of my faith in my fellow humans.

But I still rip the newspaper to shreds and set it on fire when I read about Christians, Muslims, Jews, and whatever other batty supernaturalists happen to be in the vicinity, killing each other over (what to me are) nearly imperceptible differences in their fairy tales.

Does one have to be religious to be spiritual? I would probably agree that non-religious brains tend to work a bit differently than religious ones, but I don't think spiritual is the best word to use, as it's probably too broad in this context.

Religionists (who still, sadly, comprise a majority of the world's population) generally use "spirit" as a synonym for "soul" (except in the phrase "the holy spirit"). Only religionists believe in the soul, so in common parlance, yes, "religious" and "spiritual" are fairly close to synonymous.

The rest of us use "spirit" to mean the characteristics of an individual or a community, as evinced in their work, e.g., "You can hear the spirit of the Delta Blues pioneers in the early rock'n'roll songs." But we never use the word "spiritual." Well except for certain kinds of songs of course.

There is no need to accept anything which any scripture says, because the current evidence say's that it's all nonsense.

No. There's no need to accept it because there is no evidence to support it. The evidence of the way the universe operates, which we've spent hundreds of years gathering, says that claims of the supernatural are extraordinary, but science doesn't use the word "nonsense." Supernaturalists are free to use their own resources to gather their own evidence, and if they actually find some (using proper procedures and controls) we'll by happy to review it. I daresay we'll all even waive the Rule of Laplace in this one case and treat mere ordinary evidence with respect. As long as it's better than a tortilla with a scorch mark claimed to be a perfect likeness of a biblical figure of whom no portraits exist against which to compare it.

But even if there was any truth in the idea of god's existence, no rational person with a good scientific/atheist leaning (the same thing and don't let nobody tell you different) . . . .

Huh? At least in the USA, lots of scientists--perhaps even a majority--are religious. It's a textbook example of cognitive dissonance. To give credit where credit is due, Jesuit universities are famous for their science programs, in which they teach both evolution and plate tectonics. The leaders of the more respectable Christian sects (as well as non-Christian denominations) have grudgingly accepted the fact that most of the woo-woo in the Bible is metaphor, even the six-day creation. They haven't given in on the Resurrection, though. They insist on at least one genuine miracle.

And although most atheists are well-educated and therefore have studied science, they are not all scientists.

. . . . we wouldn't want to be associated with such a big meany.

God was certainly an abusive father in the Old Testament. But then he sent down the First Hippie to teach us all about love and peace.

You don't have to be a Christian, or any kind of supernaturalist, to love Jesus. I love him as much as I love Winnie the Pooh, Frodo Baggins and Kermit the Frog. For the same reason: an inspiring role model. It's okay to love a metaphor so long as you understand what a metaphor is.

 

[Rita]

Theists are simply wrong because there is no evidence of god.
If there were evidence of god we would accept god exists.
The kind of evidence needed for me to accept god exists, would be evidence that the evidence is actually god.
That kind of evidence would have to have really good evidence that the evidence which shows evidence of god's existence, actually
shows that there is evidence of god's existence. Remember extraordinary claims require.......

....you got it extraordinary evidence!

There is no need to accept anything which any scripture say's, because the current evidence say's that it's all nonsense. But even if there was any truth in the idea of god's existence, no rational person with a good scientific/atheist leaning (the same thing and don't let nobody tell you different), we wouldn't want to be associated with such a big meany.


jan.

This is ignorance of the good book. Science does not tell us how to live with one another, and humans tend to behave very badly unless they are taught to behave good. I would like to use the last email my daughter in law sent me as evidence of bad human behavior, but that might be too personal and off topic. The point is, humans must be taught how to behave and the good book is valuable for this reason. We are the body of Christ, and for the body to be healthy, the lessons of the good book must be exercised.

 

[Yazata]

AS an experiment, I'd like Christians & Atheists to argue the OPPOSITE point of view.

If I believe that the central "God" character in Christian myth probably doesn't exist, then why should I be especially concerned with Christianity?

Christians must argue the Atheist point of view, while the Atheist must argue the Christian point of view. Atheists must argue that 1. God exists, 2. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Christians must argue that God DOES not exist, 2. That Jesus Christ is NOT the Son of God.

The ancient Hellenistic rhetorical schools used to give their students assignments like that. Argue for X in a debate, then switch sides and argue against it. The goal was to be totally persuasive and convincing both ways. We still see that idea today in law schools, which prepare lawyers to argue on behalf of whoever pays them.

The problem is that reduces everything to rhetoric.

So I'll do the next best thing. I'll tell you (seriously) what I think religious people's (including Christians', if you like) best sort of argument might be.

That's personal religious experience. If somebody directly experiences the "Holy Spirit" (or whatever it might be in other traditions) then (perhaps arguably, in a way) that's the best evidence possible. The experience can be totally convincing to the person enjoying it. That person might be convinced that he/she finally KNOWS, in a manner that's perhaps even more convincing to him/her than the experienced reality of everyday life.

Unfortunately, while religious experience might in some cases be absolutely convincing to the person having the experience, it doesn't do a whole lot for all the rest of us who didn't share the experience. We still find ourselves in the position of accepting or rejecting claims of authority. We still face the task of sorting out conflicting revelations and of distinguishing extraordinary veridicial experiences from delusions. And there's the fundamental underlying problem that subjective conviction of the truth of a belief isn't really any guarantee that the belief is true.

 

[Rita]

Fraggle Rocker said:

I don't need to explore it. I've been exploring it since 1951 when another second-grader started telling me about this fellow named "God" who lives up in the sky and can see everything we do and judge us for it. I thought it was one of those funny stories that kids make up, and a rather good one. I was laughing my head off and I couldn't understand why he didn't appreciate it.

When I got home I asked my mother. She got a very pained look on her face and said simply that some people actually believe that stuff. I asked her why their parents hadn't told them the truth. She became very sad, and said that there are actually a lot of grownups who believe it, so they never tell their kids the truth. That marked the moment in my life when I became a cynic. How could anyone be that stupid? How could people who are that stupid run the world?

Fortunately my parents sent me to a university where 95% of the students were atheists, so I was able to restore some of my faith in my fellow humans.

But I still rip the newspaper to shreds and set it on fire when I read about Christians, Muslims, Jews, and whatever other batty supernaturalists happen to be in the vicinity, killing each other over (what to me are) nearly imperceptible differences in their fairy tales.

Religion is essential to large populations, because it is what unites large numbers of people. Nationalism is rather new, and before we could get to nationalism, we have to have the uniting force of religion. I think your anger directed at religion is miss placed, because people always seem to find something to fight about, and we might do well to understand the human nature behind war, and what the good book says that prevents conflicts and unites people. Living for the love of God has many benefits on an individual level and at the cultural level. You emotion are based on a limited understanding of religion, and as said, the problem is human, not exclusively religious.


You have not named your emotion. It appears to be anger but anger is a secondary emotion. What is the feeling beneath your anger?

What I say of God is based on nature and science, not religion, and you have directed your anger at me. Why do you do that? How rational is it to respond with anger when someone says something that is outside of your understanding of reality? I will argue it is Satan that makes your that, because in this thread we are suppose to argue the opposite of what we believe. However, I can also appreciate the religious terms, of evil forces, because they can be very helpful in dealing with human problems such as being irrational.

 

[Balerion]

Lol. Good one!

Nah, I don't think those emotional atheists will go into analyzing those emotions, at least not anytime soon, or only at a superficial level at most.

What makes you so sure they haven't already analyzed their emotions?

 

[Balerion]

Theists are simply wrong because there is no evidence of god.
If there were evidence of god we would accept god exists.
The kind of evidence needed for me to accept god exists, would be evidence that the evidence is actually god.
That kind of evidence would have to have really good evidence that the evidence which shows evidence of god's existence, actually
shows that there is evidence of god's existence. Remember extraordinary claims require.......

....you got it extraordinary evidence!

There is no need to accept anything which any scripture say's, because the current evidence say's that it's all nonsense. But even if there was any truth in the idea of god's existence, no rational person with a good scientific/atheist leaning (the same thing and don't let nobody tell you different), we wouldn't want to be associated with such a big meany.


jan.

Hey, Jan got involved!

Good on you for playing along.

 

[Balerion]

God was certainly an abusive father in the Old Testament. But then he sent down the First Hippie to teach us all about love and peace.

You don't have to be a Christian, or any kind of supernaturalist, to love Jesus. I love him as much as I love Winnie the Pooh, Frodo Baggins and Kermit the Frog. For the same reason: an inspiring role model. It's okay to love a metaphor so long as you understand what a metaphor is.

See, now I have to question how much of the NT you've actually studied, because I find it hard to believe anyone could say with a straight face that Jesus was good who doesn't also believe he's the son of God.

 

[Rita]

If I believe that the central "God" character in Christian myth probably doesn't exist, then why should I be especially concerned with Christianity?



The ancient Hellenistic rhetorical schools used to give their students assignments like that. Argue for X in a debate, then switch sides and argue against it. The goal was to be totally persuasive and convincing both ways. We still see that idea today in law schools, which prepare lawyers to argue on behalf of whoever pays them.

The problem is that reduces everything to rhetoric.

So I'll do the next best thing. I'll tell you (seriously) what I think religious people's (including Christians', if you like) best sort of argument might be.

That's personal religious experience. If somebody directly experiences the "Holy Spirit" (or whatever it might be in other traditions) then (perhaps arguably, in a way) that's the best evidence possible. The experience can be totally convincing to the person enjoying it. That person might be convinced that he/she finally KNOWS, in a manner that's perhaps even more convincing to him/her than the experienced reality of everyday life.

Unfortunately, while religious experience might in some cases be absolutely convincing to the person having the experience, it doesn't do a whole lot for all the rest of us who didn't share the experience. We still find ourselves in the position of accepting or rejecting claims of authority. We still face the task of sorting out conflicting revelations and of distinguishing extraordinary veridicial experiences from delusions. And there's the fundamental underlying problem that subjective conviction of the truth of a belief isn't really any guarantee that the belief is true.

I don't know what side of the argument I should take, considering I am spiritual and not religious.

Scientifically we know people who can forgive and who can experience love and thankfulness, do better psychologically and physically than those who don't. It has been argued there is a connection between negative emotions and cancer and mediation is now recommended by doctor's as part of the treatment for cancer. We know people with heart problems who experience being loved, live longer than those who have heart problems and do not feel loved. Our immune system is effected by feelings, and so much as patting a cat can improve our health. Having a love relationship with God is very powerful.

The feeling we can achieve through imagining being loved by Jesus or an unknown god, or through mediation, could be considered a religious experience for some. The point being, just about anyone can have what some may call a religious experience, but a religious person explains this one way, a spiritual person another way and a person of science another.

 

[Rita]

What makes you so sure they haven't already analyzed their emotions?

:mufc: Because they are male.

 

[ForrestDean]

Rehtorical question,

Is there a reason why there is this desire to debate between Christian beliefs and Atheist beliefs? I'm already aware of the reasons. The question is really just meant for analyzing or introspecting one's own reason for doing so.

Christians/Atheists... different sides of the same "coin".

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Religion is essential to large populations, because it is what unites large numbers of people.

But at what cost?

Nationalism is rather new . . . .

No it's not. Homo sapiens is a pack-social species like all the other apes except orangutans. We have an instinct to care for and depend on the other members of our pack, and to hate and distrust outsiders, because they're competitors for scarce food and other resources. Nationalism is merely an expansion of that instinct to include ever-larger groups. The technology of agriculture both permitted and required our ancestors to live in permanent villages, and once they did that they discovered the benefits of division of labor and economy of scale in increasing their prosperity. This led them to invite other tribes to come live with them, so they'd all be more prosperous. Pack-->tribe-->city-->state-->nation--> and now the transnational hegemonies like the EU.

. . . . and before we could get to nationalism, we have to have the uniting force of religion.

Do you have some evidence to cite for that assertion? I'm wracking my brain and every time since the Stone Age when two or more groups of people united to form a larger "nation," it was rarely about a common religion. In fact it was more often a stronger one assimilating a weaker one and forcing their own religion on them. In the days of polytheism, people rather easily figured out that they had the same gods, just with different names. Jung teaches us that the gods of the ancients were archetypes, hard-wired into our synapses by DNA. We each have a Warrior, a Healer, a King, a Hunter, etc., inside us.

I also don't understand your phrase, "the uniting force of religion." For centuries, at least ever since the counterintuitive horror of monotheism began metastasizing across the globe, religion has been a dividing force. Most of the wars of the modern era have been fought over religious differences, going all the way back to the Reformation, which was a euphemism for a century of non-stop warfare between different cults of Christianity.

I don't find your premise the least bit credible, so your conclusion is irrelevant.

I think your anger directed at religion is miss placed, because people always seem to find something to fight about . . . .

Yet more often than not it is, precisely, religion. You're sitting here in 2013 staring at a brewing three-way Nuclear Holy War between Muslims, Christians and Jews. How can you say my anger at religion is misplaced? Those various flavors of Abrahamists all want to kill ME because I'm not aligned with any of them!

. . . . what the good book says that prevents conflicts and unites people.

The Bible has a lot of lovely prose, but people have a knack for misinterpreting it to support their own goals. As for preventing conflicts and uniting people, as I showed above in a brief synopsis of history, you're simply dead wrong. Religion has killed more people than any other cause in the last 2,000 years. Just start with the Holocaust and work backward. And don't throw communism at me: it's an offshoot of Christianity. "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability," is an elaboration of a line from the Book of Acts.

Living for the love of God has many benefits on an individual level and at the cultural level.

Yes, I understand that delusions and misinformation can be comforting.

Your emotion are based on a limited understanding of religion . . . .

Very funny. No one understands the cesspool of religion better than those of us who have had to carefully avoid being brought down by the people who dwell in it.

. . . . and as said, the problem is human, not exclusively religious.

Yes we have other flaws but religion is arguably the worst of the lot. Christian armies destroyed two entire civilizations, the Aztec and Inca, for being "heathens." They even burned the Aztec libraries and melted down the Inca art. How much worse than that can an institution be??? That's the kind of evil you only expect to find in a videogame.

You have not named your emotion. It appears to be anger but anger is a secondary emotion. What is the feeling beneath your anger?

What's wrong with anger being a primary emotion? These people murdered a bunch of my relatives in Europe for being of Jewish descent without even practicing the religion. As I already noted, they destroyed two civilizations and even tried their best to obliterate evidence of their culture; as a scholar I find that to be the worst crime that can be committed. The Taliban prohibit music and treat musicians as criminals; as a musician I hardly have to explain my feelings about that. They also separate themselves from the rest of civilization by declaring dogs "unclean," while in fact children who grow up with dogs have much healthier immune systems and don't grow up loaded down with allergies and other autoimmune diseases--not to mention the mental-health benefits of having one family member whose love is unconditional. The Orthodox Jews in Israel throw rocks at EMTs who dare to drive their ambulances on the Sabbath. How about the Westboro Baptist Church and their screed against gays, actually picketing military funerals since "God hates the USA because we tolerate homosexuality."

I haven't run out of examples but I have run out of energy. If you can't see the unforgivable (and in many cases irreparable) harm that has been done to civilization by religion--especially the execrable monotheistic Abrahamic varieties that now dominate the globe--you're beyond hope.

What I say of God is based on nature and science, not religion, and you have directed your anger at me.

Hmm. Well I didn't intend to the first time, and looking back over my post I still don't quite see it. But I apologize because it wasn't meant for you. However, this time you have pushed my buttons by defending religion, at a time when it's clear to anyone with two eyes and a brain that it may well destroy us all. Christians, Muslims and Jews all have nuclear weapons. They're no longer just termites; they're termites with chainsaws!

See, now I have to question how much of the NT you've actually studied, because I find it hard to believe anyone could say with a straight face that Jesus was good who doesn't also believe he's the son of God.

I haven't read much of the Bible. It probably doesn't matter because very few Christians actually attempt to follow its rules rigorously. But just looking at the Christian community as an outsider, Jesus looks pretty good.

"Turn the other cheek," for example. I have always said that the old playground rant is 100% true: "It all started when he hit me back." If you just laugh it off the other guy will usually stop.

Sure that doesn't work among so-called "adults" who fight wars. But the reason we have so many wars is that a lot of bullies are still bullies as adults and they're looking for a fight. If we could cure them in childhood they wouldn't grow up wanting to kill each other. And religion presents bullies as role models. The Old Testament is crammed full of them.

That's what's so great about Jesus. He tells you that instead of hitting the bully back and having him whomp you with a stick next, you should just leave him standing there looking like the fool he is. There's nothing a bully hates worse than being laughed at.

 

[kx000]

I know the passive lamb was born, destined for slaughter. He knew all along his fate in those days, so the faith would turn from the passive lord so he could remain.

Fire & Light killed the Christ, but behold his day will come again. Faith, feet on the ground, head in the clouds can not follow to a cross the passive way. Knowledgable light look up to the son on the cross and only say I know, fire look up and say I believe here, I have betrayed.

RIP Passive Lamb.

 

[spidergoat]

Rehtorical question,

Is there a reason why there is this desire to debate between Christian beliefs and Atheist beliefs? I'm already aware of the reasons. The question is really just meant for analyzing or introspecting one's own reason for doing so.

Christians/Atheists... different sides of the same "coin".

Which coin? How so? I don't think they are alike at all. One uses science and reason, and the other is simply correct because Bible.