I have no idea of any stats on that...But,many of the athiests that I know, that at one time subscribed to any religion, were in deed Catholics.
I just saw no reason to believe after age 13-14... Catholic doctrine didn't make any sense to me.
What would it take?
- Thread starter answers
- Start date
I have no idea of any stats on that...But,many of the athiests that I know, that at one time subscribed to any religion, were in deed Catholics.
I just saw no reason to believe after age 13-14... Catholic doctrine didn't make any sense to me.
98%
He gets a whole percentage point?:wtf:
lol..that counts others like him too..you know..where there is one there is more...
i've thought of this before.
i found certain stores of the bible amusing such as the turning water into wine at a wedding when the wine ran out and the three fish/bread that was passed out to feed the hungry masses. these two in particular. the lazarus story is not the best since he may not have been dead and this would take too long to corroborate from beginning to end for proof. the other two were rather direct and instantaneous hypothetically speaking for an observer.
i always thought that if i could have actually witnessed that for myself (direct and close observer), assuming it did happen, i would definitely believe. but of course, that is impossible so there is nothing that could make me believe. sort of the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. otherwise, it will remain suspect.
i found certain stores of the bible amusing such as the turning water into wine at a wedding when the wine ran out and the three fish/bread that was passed out to feed the hungry masses. these two in particular. the lazarus story is not the best since he may not have been dead and this would take too long to corroborate from beginning to end for proof. the other two were rather direct and instantaneous hypothetically speaking for an observer.
i always thought that if i could have actually witnessed that for myself (direct and close observer), assuming it did happen, i would definitely believe. but of course, that is impossible so there is nothing that could make me believe. sort of the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. otherwise, it will remain suspect.
Last edited:
the wine thing i may be able to believe,but the other doesn't make sense to me..I mean 5000 ppl (not including women and children)and no-one else brought anything??
i think the key words there are 'make me'..that intones force, which is in our nature to resist.
it would be cool to see a miracle..but how many times do we dismiss something that would qualify for a miracle? I mean for some to admit they have seen a miracle (or god for that matter) would give them the sense of now they don't have any control of their lives anymore,they have to do what god says from now on..forget about what they think they need to do..
this is where i believe the catholic church has capitalized on,
tell ppl if they do 'this' their salvation is assured..(till they screw up)..who are they (MEN) to say whether I get into heaven or not..It is not their call!.
sorry..i think it got away from me for a sec..
Church of the living Squirrel..
well, see the way you think totally confuses me. you might as well be babbling in alien language. um, you can believe water (just water now) turned into wine but you have a hard time believing that two fish and some bread was used to feed thousands. i don't understand your logic because both are outrageous. k?
"make me" does not intone force to me (because you are taking it out of context?!) or that is not what i was inferring. i don't care what your idea of proof or miracle is or crazy losing control of life or whatever you were saying which makes no sense to me and after reading your post, it's like mental arbitrary banging on piano keys with a blindfold on to boot. your post makes no sense to me at all. it's like a fragmented, pieced together, schizo, possibly psycho, illogical mess.
theists need to learn to stop vomiting on people. they are the rudest people who don't have the courtesy to make themselves understood and expect others to take their mental molestation.
Last edited:
why would you lump them all together? that's not very scientific..science breaks down every element of the story to gauge its Authenticity ..
and yet you can't believe how i can see those as separate instances?
why don't you question me as far as being a christian and totally disrespecting that one story??
appropriate analogy as it was directly from my thoughts..
I'm still searching for a translator..
k
just because nobody understands what i am saying, doesn't mean i don't..:bugeye:
most of that is true..
i started to make a point and got carried away trying to diss the catholics.
the make me part, was an attempt to show that the decision ultimately rests with you..not someone else..
the miracle part was a diversion, thinking about 'what if' we were to see miracles..
the catholic part is my own bitch about catholics and how they have screwed it up for god.
and i did say sorry..
In the case of Flew:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA115_1.html
Flew's conversion is, by Flew's own admission, baseless.
We don't need to carry on down this line, it's flawed reasoning. Just because someone changes worldview does not argue that their earlier worldview was wrong or that their new one is correct. Please remember that to save yourself falling into this error again.
Hitler was an atheist therefore all atheists are wrong! Or was he a christian? Therefore all christians are wrong! ...Well whatever the case is, a group of people are completely wrong based on whatever it was that Hitler was... yes that's perfect logic...I really don't see your point snakelord
Hitler was an atheist therefore all atheists are wrong! Or was he a christian? Therefore all christians are wrong! ...Well whatever the case is, a group of people are completely wrong based on whatever it was that Hitler was... yes that's perfect logic...I really don't see your point snakelord
typical..assign bad characteristics of one person to all persons..
its like saying all blacks like chicken,come on answers..your better than that..
For future reference, the smilie called 'roll eyes (sarcastic)' indicates sarcasm
I hope you were being sarcastic to. Otherwise that was a reaaaaaaally stupid comment you just made.
For future reference, the smilie called 'roll eyes (sarcastic)' indicates sarcasm
I hope you were being sarcastic to. Otherwise that was a reaaaaaaally stupid comment you just made.
um..for the record that smilie means alot more than just that...
and i do tend to miss sarcasm in real life..imagine how it gets lost to me here..
and yes i was being sarcastic..
Considering it's called 'sarcastic' I'm guessing that it's meant to denote sarcasm. Maybe you should have used it if you were being sarcastic before.
James R,
Hi James R.
There is no doubt, as can be understood here
However, it seems quite obvious that he chooses his words with caution.
Collins regarded himself an atheist.
"Collins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian"
and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist."
MaGrath was also and atheist.
jan.
Hi James R.
There is no doubt, as can be understood here
However, it seems quite obvious that he chooses his words with caution.
Collins regarded himself an atheist.
"Collins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian"
and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist."
MaGrath was also and atheist.
jan.