Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

It is total bullshit for you to back his actions...UNLESS he went to Creasy who made that topic then it is fair game...Much like I went in that topic, and said I do not condone this type of position...When you attack others based on what one does....then your being a dickhead.....And your as much of a dick for thinking that is acceptable conduct!....

And from 7 years ago, till now, not much has changed by what I can see...There is a lot more atheist bashing of theists than the other way around...Talk to your fellow atheists before harping to me, about how wrong I am, to tell a dick to go, if he has nothing beneficial to add...and it was what he wanted to do! none the less...I guess you forgot that!!

And when you CONSTANTLY get defensive with me! Like you have, that is tough **** for you too Frank!...If you can dish it out, then be prepared to take it back in!

I am not a sit back goodie too shoe Christian, I am rather fiery....What and how you approach me, is what you get...If you need a reminder go read your last post!

I do not go around telling you or Ed, your lives are pointless...So I would expect you and him to treat every theists how they treat you! Just like atheist to atheist ask to be treated how they feel, and act with their lack of belief...

If you or he cant respect that, and treat other theists different than one theist does or says to atheists...Then perhaps you can't handle a bulletin board such as this one....

If you feel like your just checking in, but feel the need to sneer at me...Perhaps you can take the advice I gave to ED...If you feel unwelcome, and say **** like he does, or may in the future...And feel persecuted in being here, then by all means go...No one is stopping you...and no one specifically has said please stay to answer...

If you take it upon yourself to stay...then that is the choice you made...If your guys are gonna stay, and ED posts **** like that...and I have not attacked him, I will Gladly voice my displeasure, and if you or another do the same, I will say the same to them...and if I do it to you, Would you call me out on it??? Game, set, match!

REAL BENDING, RIGHT?

HOW? THEY ARE ALL PAGAN RELIGIONS RIGHT?

My my a real Christian of the kind who had cheerfully torture people down through the ages for not being believers not only in Jesus but for also disagreeing in any aspect of dogma concerning Jesus.

LOL and Christianity deserve more respect then religions that you had label Pagan?

WHY????????

My My, Did you forget the patron Saints who were tortured for trying to spread the words of Christ? Or does this not apply both ways?? Since you feel you know a theism better than an actual theist does...

Go look at the patron Saints of China and read what they had to endure rather than trample the cross...

I said they are all one and the same did I NOT??? I said it is called Christianity TODAY! and Jesus is the God they for tolled, and his life and death, was the Savior part....What did you not understand about the other posts I made??? I said pagan, because people on here call them pagan...When it is easy to see they all point to the same truth...

Did any of those other "pagan religions" produce a Virgin Birth? Or a savior? that you can prove? Why would you not believe they are one and the same?? How is that bending? That is logical to think that way...Jesus is the same God they speak of....futures down the road...

Show me a stigmata, or the injury people suffer from the way, these pagan religions say their savior was killed, and I will believe they are different, and their savior is the real deal....

Till then the Savior = Jesus to all the religions who speak of a virgin birth, and a savior....

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2012/04/the-top-10-reasons-i-dont-believe-in-god/

odd, I could have swore I put the link in there.

I really don't intend to get involved in this little online dispute because I don't have the time. (Pressing concerns, you know.) But I'll make the following comment for your benefit, XXSpadeMasterXX: As far as torturing and killing people is concerned, atheistic Communism has managed to accomplish quite a record in less time than a century -- a relatively short period of time, historically speaking. 100 million people in less than a century. (To be fair, I should point out that some of the casualties were atheists themselves.) That's quite impressive! It's a record that beats any religion. Torquemada would have been quite jealous of Stalin.

You missed something out Mr Cardsharp. They also will not be told. They cannot afford to be told because due to the effects of many discussions of this nature there's no going back. There are too many witnesses to them emptying their lungs on these matters. Too many lines have been learned. The patchwork of what Walter Miller called "doohickii, squiggles, quids, laminulae, and thingumbob" is so interwoven that there's no way of unpicking it short of penitence at the altar rails in sackcloth and ashes. And there's no way an Epicurian is going to submit to that. And they are only not full-blown Epicurians because they are skint and can't afford to buy a frog a jacket.

They have no answer because they have no confidence that any answer they can think of won't make everybody's hair stand on end and the blood drain out of their faces. They imagine there is no future. That there is only the eternal present of this debate from which will flow no consequences.

What they do is define the name by pointing to what they have named. Christianity. And what they point at is not the true meaning of Christianity but what is the best meaning of it to suit their purposes. What Christianity itself represents they have never even considered. Darwin named a lot of life manifestations but never what life represents. He knew it had to represent either something or nothing. I think that the intellectual bind of that gave him the nervous disorders with which he was riddled. But that's speculation.

If what Christianity represents is an attempt to design a culture that will last longer than any other culture has managed to last, which it is, then attacks on it need to show that it is foundering and that it's time to jetison the booster stage and set it gracefully falling away with wisps of smoke coming from it's spent orifices.

Failure to do that represents not being serious.

This is the heart of the matter. The rest... on both sides... is so much hot air. In the end it's not about Christianity but what it represents within a given culture.

It's a blueprint for humanity one of many possible blueprints. Like democracy it's a facet of it. It will be judged on what it currently has to offer compared to all the other goods on offer... the problem is... is it fading like so many past empires?

Sorry but the good Christians had 2000 years to kill whole people and civilizations so I question if they still do not hold the record in total killings.

See what the loving Christians did in South American as an example of their behaviors.

Try imagining being born in any other culture. They all have wars.

Religious teachings are not fighting science being taught in schools or anywhere else. Don't confuse evolution theory with science.

What civil rights are being blocked by the Church? Which "US base Christian groups" are backing the execution of homosexuals in Africa?

LOL thank for making my point for me and evolution theory is science and the only ones who claim otherwise is doing so for religion reasons.

What evidence do you have that alleged atheists killed others because they were not atheists? Where did you come up with that bullshit 100,000,000 figure?

Footnote the Catholic church is backing away from being hostile to evolution theory just as they once stop harming people for expressing the idea that the earth is not the center of the universe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html


By Chris Irvine
8:03AM GMT 11 Feb 2009
Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin's theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.

Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish" and forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time". Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages.

Ahead of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the Vatican is also set to play down the idea of Intelligent Design, which argues a "higher power" must be responsible for the complexities of life.

The conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University will discuss Intelligent Design to an extent, but only as a "cultural phenomenon" rather than a scientific or theological issue.

Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, pointing to comments more than 50 years ago, when Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans.

Thanks for being civil.

Uh, I said I wouldn't get involved in this; but here I am (albeit only briefly, as my time is limited).

Needless to say, I deplore all brutality. I don't care who does it or who did it. I just don't think religion is the sole cause. Incidentally, not all religious bodies have a history of torture and murder. For example, do Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses have such a record? To be fair to religious bodies that aren't denominations, how about the Baha'i Faith, an often persecuted group (see "Iran")?

Well, gotta go. Have an appointment with my personal trainer.



Work out! Work out!

Some small religions branches are known to be peaceful but not the main branches and most had spread over the world at the end of a sword point to a large degree.

Where those small peaceful branches exist it tend to be under the protection of societies that limit or do not allow religion killings and wars between faiths.

Take note even under the US the Mormons ended up in arm conflict with the US over their then dogma of the men having more then one wife and needed at least officially change that dogma at rifle point.

Who's backing anything. Ive used it as exemplar re: how it counters your claim that stheists are " bushwahacking the religious" when just the opposite is true.

Then I submit that youve got a very myopic view .

Is gainsay the only debate trick youve got in your flask? Ive never gotten defensive with you. You are basically unar,med to debate the issues of science that youve brought up. I suppose you were trying to impress your followers with a fact that you can even spell science. Youve brought up ridiculous points and then disappeared when theyve become unsustainable. Then you claim IM defensive?


My reasons are a bit different than Frank or Ed. I dont want you to be spreading the bullshit that is your favorite sammich toping. If anything, Ill periodically drop in and challenge most of the topics in science you attempt to undermine or subvert. I dont care about Buddha quotes or Biblical passages much, Ill let that pass. However, when you act like my 4th Grade nun teacher who was famous for truth-stretching and fabrication, then I like to drop in and remind you that bullshit is easily detectable (like your aliens and evolution tripe). First you linked aliens as some kind of "evidentiary argument" in nihilo, then you dropped evolution altogether (probably cause your arguments werent holding water). Then you started ridiculing anyone who dared to hold up your aiens story to closer inspection.


Dont punch holes in your back from patting yourself too much. What the hell are you even talking about? when you speak drivvle, you should be called out on the drivvle. Whether you need to hide al your arguments behind some myth set, then you open them to inspection. If , at that point, you claim Im being unfair, then its just because you feel uncomfortable with your lack of evidence in just about anything you say having to do with the natural world. I would hope you deal with us all as individuals. Most of us dont even agree on particulars about the LAWS of gravity let aone whether we need a myth based worldview.

Oh excuuuuuuse meee! When you were excoriating Frank for some point you just jumped over and started calling me names. Thats when I figgered you werent worthy of any kind of respect. Kinda ike spendi who insults people all aong and then whines when someone bites him back. You guys are passive aggressives with high end needs for attention. All Im interested in is that your shallow opinion of the truth doesnt carry forward to other people

FM, my experience is that Spade just can't handle contradiction. Earlier in this thead, he said he knew atheists who said they'd change their beliefs if they saw a "sign from god." Without any personal reflections at all, i told him that i doubted that. (I refrained from pointing out that for many, perhaps most atheists, it's not a belief, but a rejection of belief. I didn't point out the idiocy of saying that someone who doesn't believe there is a god would ask for a sign from said god.) I asked for proof. He said he could link the posts. Then he backed off, but said there had been two such atheists asking for that good ol' sign from god. So i said fine, link the posts.

At that point, he declined on an allegation that i'd "go to war with them." I told him i'd laugh at them, if they really claimed to be atheists and were asking for a sign from something they didn't believe in. He bacame progressively shrill and accusatory, making more and more personal remarks, just as he's doing with you.

He just can't handle criticism or having his bullshit questioned. He loses it when that happens.