Thread For Christians Only.

[MarcAC]

...i accept the definition of knowledge to be...

Well that is much more clear - so you meant scientific knowledge. One of the most disgusting definitons I can see in a dictionary is something like: "Knowledge - the act of knowing" Well as long as you accept that scientific knowledge evolves with awareness - whatever floats your boat - like when astronomers were aware that the Sun "went around the earth". It really doesn't float my boat to place knowledge which changes with how people think above belief which changes with what people trust. It's all muddled in perception.

 

[SnakeLord]

like when astronomers were aware that the Sun "went around the earth". It really doesn't float my boat to place knowledge which changes with how people think above belief which changes with what people trust.

The same people that wrote the bible.. Lol.

 

[MarcAC]

Floods. Creation. Stars being halted from orbiting their planets. Seas being parted to allow cult followers to pass. Whales swallowing people whole only to spit them out again later. Etc, etc.

So these are the religious concepts: how are they in favour of science?

So the "blood of christ" shared was really Jesus' blood? The bread the broke was really his body? If not, was the author in err? Was the author in err when he claimed that the "sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day?" Particularly when the sun does not orbit the Earth? Particularly when there is no geologic evidence to support that the planet stopped rotating suddenly then, just as suddenly, began again?

Now questions like the first two are what make me lose respect for skeptics. The one about the sun is a difficult one.

Hey, faith is fine for that which can be observed. If I observe that rain is always occompanied by clouds but clouds don't always occompany rain, I can have faith that it will not rain on a day that remains sunny. If I observe that the moon's appearance changes regularly with time, I can have faith that I'll see two quarters in roughly a month.

Of course; the ciritical religious person will have faith based on observation through experience. The major difference between the faith of science and that of religions is simply this: science uses numbers with which there can be no ambiguity - barring infinity while religion doesn't. It is personal and someone decribing a religious experience is like someone telling you how it feels to be hit by a truck while you've never been hit by one. But really, what is 1? What truth is in the number 1? Where did it come from? Did it come from our mind or from nature? What is science without numbers?

Of course. I even wrote a paper about it. But the flooding of the Black Sea hardly qualifies as a global flood. It may very well be the source of some of the local mythology that surrounds this flood, but I rather believe that the Deluge myth was the result of a flooding of the Tigris & Euphrates, which may have carried a merchant to the gulf.

Well, whatever floats your boat. I have no problem with the history or origins of the story of Noah's flood - it's meaning comes out clear in the Jewish tradition - trust the one true God, don't be arrogant.

Surely you aren't so daft as to imply that because they're both "processes" that they're the same? If so, then masturbation is also a process. Does that mean that scientists and clerics are merely jacking off? Its fascinating to watch cult followers attempt to justify their cults by accusing those that don't believe their drivel as being "religious too." Strawman nonsense.

Be assured; you stated that science is a process and I wanted to highlight the non-profundity of the statement. Stating science is a process and knowing that religion is also a process doesn't explain the difference between the processes.

It could be said, but I doubt it could be quantified. My point is clear:

How do you come about doubting that? And no, your point may expose some clear difference to you but we just see things differently. You surely could not be equating atheist to scientist.

The strangest thing scientists try to do is remove themselves from an equation of which they are the root - the scientific process - such that it may be "impersonal". If we fail to see that we'll fool ourselves into thinking that science (the process) is anything greater than the human mind (or imagination) when it is just a product. It certainly isn't greater than the One who envisioned that mind in the first instance.

 

[MarcAC]

The same people that wrote the bible.. Lol.

I just hope you don't fill the naiive minds of those immediately close to you with such fiction. You may teach them to be critical but are they critical of what you say? It's good, however, when we can laugh at our own jokes.

 

[SkinWalker]

So these are the religious concepts: how are they in favour of science?

I think I see the problem. Over the course of several posts/replies, the original context of my original statement is lost. The sentence was probably ambiguously written to begin with. When I said "religious concepts in favor of science" I meant religious "truths" like those I listed in your quote above, favored over what science can tell us.

Science doesn't support things like planets suddenly ceasing their rotations for a few hours, seas parting a few meters to allow people to traverse their seabeds, global/planetwide floods, etc. These things are myth and victim of many generations of oral tradition prior to their being written. As myths, they're good stories (fun to tell & hear from a good story teller), they provide some explanation(s), they allow for justification of a belief system, and they often have a meaningful message or moral.

 

[SnakeLord]

I just hope you don't fill the naiive minds of those immediately close to you with such fiction. You may teach them to be critical but are they critical of what you say? It's good, however, when we can laugh at our own jokes.

I think what you missed is that the very authors of the bible aspired to such belief and wrote it down as gods truth. Not only that but the things mentioned beforehand such as the sun instantly stopping, stars falling on the earth but the earth somehow surviving with a star poking out of it, supposed global floods and the former non-existence of rainbows and all other kinds of lunatic nonsense - but while completely ignoring one, indeed probably stretching to claim it as a reality, you think you're in a position to have a pop at modern day science because of the mistakes of ancient nitwits.

 

[c20H25N3o]

... I want you to support your statement that it's hard to imagine the 'pain' that god 2 suffered, or some ancient rabbi suffered. You can either take the stance that he is god - which makes temporary pain meaningless, or that he's a human - which means his pain is not hard to imagine considering many humans go through worse on a daily basis and are much more in need of sympathy than some ancient guy.

Stop avoiding the issue.

Unless you have actually suffered either by crucifixion or as a 5 yr old girl raped and killed (to use one of your examples), it is hard to imagine the pain suffered by either but not one more or less than the other surely?

An innocent death is an innocent death and should be abhorred irrespective of timelines.

Would you agree with that?

The 'ancient rabbi' didn't deserve to die any more than the countless examples of 'innocents' that I am sure you would be only to happy to cite, however for the purposes of this discussion we are focusing on the Rabbi.
Now you say that if Jesus was 'God' then temporary pain would have been meaningless because 'God' would know what was what and would 'know' that He would return to a state of perfection with the world at His feet - no sacrifice at all. You also say if Jesus was just a 'man' then His pain is as easy to comprehend as that of any innocent suffering and if He was just a man then what the hell are we having this discussion for when we really should be concentrating on sorting out the modern day sufferings without all this God nonsense getting in the way.

Jesus came as a human being the bible tells us. This means the same as you or I, the only difference being that He was born of a virgin after 'God' (His Father) planted a seed in the virgin. Jesus' father truly was 'God' and Jesus is the only one of us truly begotten of God. The rest of us are born in the line of Adam with human fathers.
The difference between Jesus and us was in His attitude towards God and mankind. He spent His time teaching the people of the day what it meant to have a relationship with God and what was preventing that relationship from happening with us i.e. sin. He also explained that He was going to be the sacrificial lamb whose blood would wash away the sins of the world so that mankind could claim Jesus' victory over death and in His name be saved.
Jesus only had the scriptures and His faith to back up His mission. A carpenter from Nazereth existing on conviction born of faith. So much faith that even when he was murdered as an innocent, he was still asking God to forgive those who were killing him. Near his last breath, Jesus was alone asking why His Father had left him, given up on Him. Not the words of an omnipotent God but rather the words of a mortal man. Jesus had become sin and had been put to death that the power of sin might be put to death once and for all.
Personally I am a believer and would like to think that even under torture I would not denounce my faith, however I cry like a baby if I twist my ankle badly and I think facing a bunch of people baying for my blood because of my faith might make me question that faith's validity under those circumstances. In fact I am pretty sure I would justify denouncement by convincing myself that surely this cant be what God would want for my life. Jesus didnt do that and for that I have the utmost respect. Jesus desperately wanted the cup of suffering to be taken away from Him however he was more afraid of disobeying his Father than drinking the cup hence 'Not what I will but what you will.'
If you believe the bible, then Jesus' death has special significance because of what it means in the long term for believers. I have not said that His suffering was worse or less than any other that has suffered. I am not asking anyone to believe the message of Jesus out of some kind of pity for His suffering either.
I was challenging Angelic Being's understanding of what Jesus' blood meant because for me it is a very easy way to determine someone's 'brand' of Christianity by their response to that question and many of the things Angelic Being had said seemed to be a very strange interpretation of Christianity as I see it.
For me it is simple, no science needed. The law says that a pure life must be offered in exchange for an impure life. The law also states that one who is sinless cannot be kept prisoner by death. So if the innocent offers their life for the guilty and the guilty accepts the grace humbly, then the law must set both free.

peace

c20

 

[(Q)]

whatever floats your boat ... Well, whatever floats your boat... It really doesn't float my boat to place knowledge...

Intelligence, education, knowledge and understanding are not some flip-of-the-coin decisions one makes in their lives, not like theists who choose their religion-du-jour, whatever floats their beliefs.

The fact that you don't choose to educate yourself and instead have fantasies rule your decision making process certainly doesn't give you the right to chastise those who do.

Of course; the ciritical religious person will have faith based on observation through experience. The major difference between the faith of science and that of religions is simply this: science uses numbers with which there can be no ambiguity

Could you please point out exactly what observations would lead a "critical religious person" to believe in that which is not observable? Have they (you) observed gods, angels, demons, spirits, etc.?

Stating science is a process and knowing that religion is also a process doesn't explain the difference between the processes.

How is religion a process?

It certainly isn't greater than the One who envisioned that mind in the first instance.

And the Earth is 6000 years old too?

 

[SkinWalker]

a very strange interpretation of Christianity as I see it.

Was the most substantive thing you mentioned. Everything else is fine, its your belief system and, if it works for you, comforts you, etc., then more power to you.

But what is most fascinating is the "brands" of Christianity that are competing with one another and the points at which these "brands" delineate the differences between them. What was it, exactly, that Angelic Being said which seemed to be a strange interpretation?

 

[c20H25N3o]

Was the most substantive thing you mentioned. Everything else is fine, its your belief system and, if it works for you, comforts you, etc., then more power to you.

But what is most fascinating is the "brands" of Christianity that are competing with one another and the points at which these "brands" delineate the differences between them. What was it, exactly, that Angelic Being said which seemed to be a strange interpretation?

The quote below doesn't make a lot of sense to me and to define Christianity as a 'science' seems to me that the poster expects to find 'proof' of God's existence through scientific discovery. If I have misinterpreted that in anyway I am happy to be put straight. I do not believe that it is possible or indeed worthwhile to 'prove' God's existence with hardcore material evidence. If you cannot take 'creation' as a whole as 'proof' then I see little point in trying to categorise individual elements of matter and showing that they form a pattern that conclusively proves a 'creator' was at work. All the knowledge in the world doesnt matter a bean to a believer if that believer is assured of God's love for them through faith. God's love is quite clearly and beautifully defined in the bible for the believer in the central figure of Jesus.
I am a believer, I dont think I am 'special' or above anyone because I believe, it is just that my inner being delights in the meaning of the scriptures. They speak volumes to me.

peace

c20

My argument is that Religion ie. Christianity is a Science. Sadly , many just refuse to admit that alot of the events in The Holy Scriptures have Scientific Reasoning - for example, the miracles stated all can be explained Scientifically. If we cannot do so for a particular miracle then it is simply because we still do not have the Knowledge.

PS - I find this to be embarresing. I would rather not be associated with 'Christianity' at all if this was actually a valid statement according to the principals of Christianity.

Get Lost Atheists And Mormons - This Thread Is For Christians Aka Beautiful People Only.!!

Do Not Contaminate This Thread With Your Ugliness.

Thank You.

 

[MarcAC]

When I said "religious concepts in favor of science" I meant religious "truths" like those I listed in your quote above, favored over what science can tell us.

Well that clearly is American English or SkinWalker English... Anyway thanks for clearing.

Science doesn't support things like planets suddenly ceasing their rotations for a few hours, seas parting a few meters to allow people to traverse their seabeds, global/planetwide floods, etc.

There is evidence for a localised flood. The "parting" of the sea of reeds may have been the result of a tsunami produced by a volcanic landslide.

 

[charles cure]

Well that is much more clear - so you meant scientific knowledge. One of the most disgusting definitons I can see in a dictionary is something like: "Knowledge - the act of knowing" Well as long as you accept that scientific knowledge evolves with awareness - whatever floats your boat - like when astronomers were aware that the Sun "went around the earth". It really doesn't float my boat to place knowledge which changes with how people think above belief which changes with what people trust. It's all muddled in perception.

the problem with what you are saying here is that astronomers were never aware that the sun went around the earth. there was no scientific process that confirmed or denied the assumption, the idea of a geocentric universe rose out of an era where an astronomer was more like a priest and had a pathetically limited knowledge of scientific processes or even his own surroundings. astronomers initially believed in the geocentric model, if i am not mistaken, because they believed that god loved his creation so that he placed them in the center of the universe or something to that basic effect. in addition to this, the belief in the geocentric model became accepted by the Catholic church and orthodoxy in this belief was enforced at the end of a sword.

so what made the crucial change there? knowledge. because belief was a wall to keep knowledge out for a long time. knowledge changes as access to information widens and understanding deepens. people used to think for example that the smallest particle of matter was the atom. a fallacy now, after the discovery of subatomic particles, however, the atom still exists and is still relevant to the study of our world. just because it turned out not to be the smallest particle doesnt make the knowledge of it wrong or useless. knowledge widens the scope of understanding, belief narrows it because the rules of many believers preclude an understanding of information that runs contrary to the established belief.

 

[SkinWalker]

There is evidence for many localized floods in the Near East in antiquity. But with regard to the "tsunami hypothesis," I doubt that you could model one that could be created that would move that much water for enough time to allow several thousand people the opportunity to travel with their wives, kids and whatever else they may be carrying from shore to shore. The Red Sea is too small for that much water to be displaced and not come rushing back in far quicker time that it would take a pedestrian to travel from bank to bank.

Moreover, such an event should be reflected in the geologic record. I will, however, grant that the plates between Africa and the Sinai are tectonically active. A more plausible explanation for the myth might be that it was passed down in oral fashion for generations after such an event was observed and curious onlookers walked out into the seabed only to be swallowed by the returning water and observed by other, slightly less curious, onlookers.

Such behavior was evident in the tsunami in South East Asia last year. Also evident was the ability of oral tradition to survive well enough to warn future generations of similar events. Finding geologic evidence would be needed, however, to support such a hypothesis.

 

[MarcAC]

Intelligence, education, knowledge and understanding are not some flip-of-the-coin decisions one makes in their lives, not like theists who choose their religion-du-jour, whatever floats their beliefs.

Well naturally; however, I will not attempt to label theist or atheist as intelligent, educated, knowledgable and wise - or not - as an informed person will know that they both fall along both sides of that line of best fit. A belief isn't a flip-of-a-coin decision dear Q, through your faith you test, you accept, you trust - you believe.

The fact that you don't choose to educate yourself and instead have fantasies rule your decision making process certainly doesn't give you the right to chastise those who do.

Well certainly, and whichever you view yourself to do (whatever you view as educated and whatever you view as fantasy) surely doesn't give you any right to chastise those who do or do not either. In that context we're all on the same boat. What is your point?

Could you please point out exactly what observations would lead a "critical religious person" to believe in that which is not observable? Have they (you) observed gods, angels, demons, spirits, etc.?

Why obviously, we believe don't we? I have observed God working in the world and I have observed that which tries to undermine it. Existence, evolution, life, intelligence, science, morality - they all reinforce my faith in God.

How is religion a process?

It's clear: religions come, religions go - religious thought evolves as time and knowledge progresses, and humanity gravitates to a knowledge of truth. I think Hinduism will be one of the next ones to go.

And the Earth is 6000 years old too?

You can believe that if you want - it certainly will not affect your salvation (or lack thereof) - whatever floats your boat.

 

[MarcAC]

The Red Sea is too small for that much water to be displaced and not come rushing back in far quicker time that it would take a pedestrian to travel from bank to bank.
...
A more plausible explanation for the myth might be that it was passed down in oral fashion for generations after such an event was observed and curious onlookers walked out into the seabed only to be swallowed by the returning water and observed by other, slightly less curious, onlookers.

I know that various evidences suggest that the group of people might have been exxagerated in number. I don't see why your explanation is more plausible than a small group of people being led by a character called Moses who were blessed enough to get away from their pursuers in such a miraculous situation - it is certainly possible.

 

[SkinWalker]

I'm still stuck on the lack of geologic evidence to support the tsunami event. I don't mind speculating on the possibilities, this certainly can give rise to directions of investigation, such as looking for volcanic/tectonic evidence that could trigger a tsunami. But in modeling this supposed tsunami, my first question would be what amount of energy would be required to displace enough water for enough time to allow even 1 fast runner to get through?

The minimum width of the Red Sea is about 26km and there is a trench at its medial line that is up to 2500 m deep. The average depth is about 500m.

Speculation is fine, but, as I said, the story as told is myth. There's little chance that even one person fled via the Red Sea on foot while being chased by Egyptians. There's that middle trench that has to be crossed. There is, however, a better chance that a group of people walked out into the Red Sea basin to pick up fish as the waters drew back only to be swallowed by the wave -an event observed by their friends who were high enough up on the bank to survive.

Such an event would certainly be passed down in oral history. It is a good story, exciting to tell, exciting to hear, and can be used to make a point about particular beliefs... whatever those beliefs are.

 

[MarcAC]

the problem with what you are saying here is that astronomers were never aware that the sun went around the earth. there was no scientific process that confirmed or denied the assumption, the idea of a geocentric universe rose out of an era where an astronomer was more like a priest and had a pathetically limited knowledge of scientific processes or even his own surroundings. astronomers initially believed in the geocentric model, if i am not mistaken, because they believed that god loved his creation so that he placed them in the center of the universe or something to that basic effect.

Astronomers believed in a geocentric universe due to the fact they were not generally aware of any evidence which points to some other explanation. What they did have problems with was consistently predicting the motions of the heavenly bodies with a geocentric model. The Church played it's part only with Galileo - influencial though he was. The most curious point to bring up in this is that what orbits what is just a general indicator of which is more massive - not so much what "goes around" what. The Sun may be said to "go around" the earth, the earth "around" the sun or they may both be said to go "around" a point in space between them if we look at each mentioned as a centre of rotation.

 

[charles cure]

Astronomers believed in a geocentric universe due to the fact they were not generally aware of any evidence which points to some other explanation. What they did have problems with was consistently predicting the motions of the heavenly bodies with a geocentric model. The Church played it's part only with Galileo - influencial though he was. The most curious point to bring up in this is that what orbits what is just a general indicator of which is more massive - not so much what "goes around" what. The Sun may be said to "go around" the earth, the earth "around" the sun or they may both be said to go "around" a point in space between them if we look at each mentioned as a centre of rotation.

youre not addressing the point. what i was talking about here isnt what celestial body revolves around what other celestial body. the sun actually cannot be said to go around the earth in any sort of proveable way. the astronomers who conceived the geocentric model did so having only observed bits of the phenomona of celestial bodies moving through the sky in different positions at different times of the year. they combined their incomplete analysis with an incorrect assumption that god would have placed us at the center of the universe and then tried to gather evidence for that premise as a conclusion instead of arriving at a conclusion through empirical analysis. therefore they mistook belief for knowledge and came to the wrong conclusions about the structure of the universe because of it.

and the only example of the church having a scientist executed for refuting the geocentric model was indeed with galileo, however, there are im sure many less famous scientists that were persecuted without the publicity that he received, or merely kept silent about their discoveries because the Galileo example had been effective.

my point was to dilineate the difference between belief and knowledge. the thrust of the argument was that the geocentric model failed because it was based initially on an acceptance of belief and not independently verifiable knowledge. in a larger context i was saying that knowledge furthers the goal of understanding the realities of ourselves and our environment, belief puts forth a possible, but not proveable explanation for observable phenomena and then attempts to justify itself by either eradicating phenomena that contradict the explanation offered by the belief, or altering the belief itself to include the disparate information. science is not a belief. scientific statements and claims are based on what we know now, as we progress forward, the claims are proved and disproved as the new information dictates, but the past claims are never rendered useless, they become part of a body of supporting evidence for further understanding of the issue. this is not so with belief, particularly religious belief.

 

[Hapsburg]

I'm still stuck on the lack of geologic evidence to support the tsunami event. I don't mind speculating on the possibilities, this certainly can give rise to directions of investigation, such as looking for volcanic/tectonic evidence that could trigger a tsunami. But in modeling this supposed tsunami, my first question would be what amount of energy would be required to displace enough water for enough time to allow even 1 fast runner to get through?

The minimum width of the Red Sea is about 26km and there is a trench at its medial line that is up to 2500 m deep. The average depth is about 500m.

Speculation is fine, but, as I said, the story as told is myth. There's little chance that even one person fled via the Red Sea on foot while being chased by Egyptians. There's that middle trench that has to be crossed. There is, however, a better chance that a group of people walked out into the Red Sea basin to pick up fish as the waters drew back only to be swallowed by the wave -an event observed by their friends who were high enough up on the bank to survive.

Such an event would certainly be passed down in oral history. It is a good story, exciting to tell, exciting to hear, and can be used to make a point about particular beliefs... whatever those beliefs are.

Yeah, I mean, it seems more likely that they just walked across the Sinai peninsula...which didn't have a damn canal in it at that time.
Supposing that the monotheistic myths are true, which they aren't.

 

[Angelic Being]

Allow me to embolden your boldest.

What is the storage capacity of the human brain? And how do you quantify one that has reaced maximum? Try speaking as though you are genuinely interested in discussion and less like one who is merely interested in trading insults.

You would not know.



The limitations of your education would probably preclude a full definition, and, in spite of the obvious response that a supernatural being that has never been proven to exist would necessarily have the omnipotent power to do whatever he wanted, I'll offer two very simple and obvious problems that anyone with an eighth grade education should recognize: 1) the kinetic energy of the earth's rotation must have gone somewhere and the energy needed to restore the rotation must also have originated from somewhere. Such energies don't simply disappear or manifest themselves at will. 2) the equatorial bulge of the planet itself is a result of the earth's rotation and a pause in rotation, however long, would have traumatic and lasting effects upon the geology. Indeed, it would likely be an event that would cause mass extinctions.

Are you such a dunce? - I know that so I take the risk whent I say something contrary to that - you dunce - that is what I mean when I say you and wannabe geniuses like you have limited brains.

I'll not delve into the particulars and the specifics because, as I said, the magical thinker will explain away such supernatural occurances with the supernatural. But such explanations are weak to the point of silly and have no modern analogs with which to compare. There exist only the mythical writings of ancient, superstitious cult leaders who were moved to organize and unite their cult followers.

You seem to have a fascination with the word cult when by definitionthe branch of science you seem to be involved in is the cult - philosophical science - all you do is steal other peoples work and proclaim it as your own. when as a matter of fact, science is where it is today because of the work of Christian Individuals.

Another nonsensical and pointless comment from the undereducated. My knowledge in your own cult clearly outpaces your own. I'm actually aware of the origins of your cult's doctrines and myths. I'm able to compare and contrast these doctrines and myths with other, similar texts and stories. You, however, are limited by the indoctrination and emic perspective of your cult.

You are aware of nothing - believe me when I tell you this.

You have yet to present (nor has anyone else of your cult, so don't feel bad) any evidence that your particular cult is the correct one or that any religious cult is necessary. Your particular cult is no more valid than the Hindu, the Navajo, the Wiccan, or the ancient Maya.

The evidence has been presented - you just cannot see it - Dunce.



Again, you demonstrate your own ignorance. I write from an anthropological perspective -an etic one- rather than the religiocentric one. The christian cults are very much at odds with one another. Catholics view theirs as the true cult of christianity. Mormans see theirs as the correct version. The Baptist cult is, perhaps the worst of them all and qualifies "true christiandom" by their own interpretations of old and new laws. The cult of Jehovah's Witness is would certainly not recognize any of the other cults as valid. From and anthropological perspective (an objective one), they are all cults of Christianity.

Like I said you know nothing.

But true Christians are those that subscribe to the teachings of the alleged Christ. A philosophy that I'm very much partial to. I happen to agree with 99% of the alleged Christ's so-called word. I have my doubts that this person ever actually existed, but the philosophy is sound. You, sir, do not apparently represent this particular cult of christianity -the "true" Christians. This is evident by your attitude and loose insults that you claim aren't insults. Not only to you insult your fellow human being, you lie about it. You claim that your use of the word dunce "should be taken lightly and with good humour." Your constant and frequent repetition of its use with those with whom you disagree demonstrates otherwise. In other words, you're lying. Neither of these are "Christian" characters.

You know not the meaning of lying.



There are those who require forceful and direct attack. You, sir, are one. Those that make wild and unsupported claims deserve not only critical review but even ridicule if done in an intellectual manner. Poppycock should not be allowed to propogate itself. Particularly when this particular brand of poppycock seeks position and status within government. It certainly has no place of stature on a science board and deserves whatever criticism and ridicule it receives.

Speak to me - not to others.



Anyone with the arrogance and audacity to join a science board and post in the section where we discuss the anthropological and sociological aspects of religion and cult beliefs only to begin his first post with "This thread is for Christians only," deserves aggression. That person deserves intellectual ridicule and criticism as well. This board is overrun with religious nutters who seek to sharpen their debate swords and hone their skills with the "atheists." Clearly such a comment as your opening post was baiting and, as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.

Do not talk about aggression - because at the end of the day it is the Christians who will be defending your country and your freedom.

What is the proof? What is the evidence? Simply stating there is evidence and refusing to cite it means little. It demonstrates your own ignorance and lack of education and does not support your weak attempt at ridicule with your liberal use of "dunce."

Getting personal again, are we?



I contend that, as an atheist, I'm more of a "Christian" than you.

Here we go again!!!!



You're welcome.

Thank you.