Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

To be fair we do have to touch on a few things here. Yes many universities and hospitals were established by religious groups. However; they had an agenda behind it, they weren't doing it to promote health or education, they wanted to win converts and create publicity for their religion. Which is what happened. The problem is as we become more educated and start to examine religous doctrines and teachings, we discover they are nonsense.

There are many religious people who are in conflict with science, but not all science, they ONLY object to the science that proves their religious concepts to be false. They are more than happy to utilize all the other science but when it comes down to these aspects that poke holes in their religious concepts the challenge it. I find this not only inconsistent but it also shows that they are in a struggle. They don't actually care about truth, they just want to hold onto these concepts regardless if they have been proven to be wrong.

A really good example of this deals with young earth creationists. They believe the earth is less than ten thousand years old. But there is a huge amount of information that proves this simply is not the case. You can look at the surface of the earth and determine it.

A good example is to pull up google earth and look at the ocean floor over by hawaii. You will notice a line of peaks that head in a north west direction towards japan. Why are these under water peaks there? Well the pacific plate is moving in that direction. The reason hawaii exists is because there is a crack in the plate that allows magma to rise to the surface in the form of lava. This formed the islands but not only that it formed this line of peaks under the ocean. We know how fast this plate moves and can use an average amount of time to determine how long it would take to create these peaks.

Not only that but we can drill holes into these rocks and check their composition. When lava cools underwater it traps pockets of ocean water into the rocks which leave behind crystals. As time goes on these crystals actually grow and cause the rocks to crumble from the force they exert on the surrounding rock. This is something that we can actually reproduce and have determined how long it takes for these crystals to start breaking open the rocks. It is not anywhere near ten thousand years, it takes millions of years.

So we have just two examples that support each other that clearly state the earth can not be less than ten thousand years old. This is just two, there are dozens of other forms of data that back this up. Yet they refuse to acknowledge all this data and desperately hold onto their young earth concept because they don't care about truth, they only care about their biblical beliefs. This puts them at odds with the science that the earth is billions of years old, not ten thousand.

You can bring up other subjects like the ark story or even the genesis story of adam and eve. Obviously humans didn't just pop onto the scene, we evolved over time from earlier species. There is no debate, we know that we have and we know that all life on earth has evolved over time changing from species to species. Yet since the theory of evolution pokes holes in the genesis story they refuse to acknowledge the science that reveals it to be wrong. They don't care about truth and desperately cling to their biblical story as being more accurate than the data.

Time and time again the biblica stories do not hold up to any scrutiny, not even the most simple of examinations these stories quickly fall apart. Yet this does not waver a believer from holding onto them and ignoring the science that proves them to be absurd.

Most christians who do realize the science is proving these stories to be contradictory to the data, try to bypass it by claiming they are instead metaphors and are not meant to be taken literally. But when the detail and aspects of the stories are told in the way that they are, it reveals that they were not meant to be metaphors at all, they were indeed meant to be taken as historical events. For example the ark story, it describes the size of the ship, which if the story were meant to be taken as a metaphor, explaining the size of the ship is redundant and unnecessary. No one explains that level of detail when they are trying to use a metaphor to explain a concept.

So many christians are hypocrits when they accuse science to be less than reliable and at the same time utilize the fruits of science on a daily basis. They completely ignore all the other success that science has to offer and only attack the science that proves their religious ideas to be false.

I hope not! Matter of fact, I will be the bigger man, and walk away soon....And wait till the Crypt-keeper leaves....

But it will start up shortly after he jumps out from the bushes, to ambush me....Then I will hold nothing back again....Till he goes or I do....

It almost always starts with him, and ends with me....

Well, i asked your first, so you can forget any answers from me until you answer.

How many atheists here do you know of? If you knew every atheist at this site, you still would still no be justified in that extrapolation. The web site Religious Tolerance dot org provides these statistics, with the caveat that: "Estimates of the numbers of Atheists are hopelessly inaccurate and essentially meaningless."



Now that's 205 million atheists world wide--even if that is wildly inaccurate, and there were only 10% of that number, somewhat over 20 million, how many do you know? What makes you think you have the right to tell us what atheists think?

I have no reason to agree to your ludicrous contention that of the tens of thousands of members here, 15-20% are "irreligious." Even if they were, that would not make them atheists. You're just making **** up again, which seems to be about all you do when obliged to defend you goofy claims. This is a perfect example of the dictum that 95% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

I'm not clinging to anything. Your original statement was disingenuous and misleading. But if all you meant were religious people, that still leaves 30% of universities which were not founded by religious people. The source i cited above lists 2618 accredited universities and colleges. So you're telling me that 785 universities and universities in the United were founded by people with no religion? Once again, who were they? Atheists, agnostics, satanists? I'm not clinging to anything but my chair, because i'm laughing so hard at you that i'm in danger of falling off it. It's been a trial typing this posts.

YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT ALL THAT HURTFUL **** YOU SAID ABOUT CHRISTIANS!!! If what you said it TRUE! Than you can "THANK" Christians for starting science 7 out of 10 Universities in the US....Right now, atheists have not done a thing for religious, but try to spit in their face at every turn....

But religious clearly care about humanity, and are not about all that **** you said....Because your very science which you think is right, most likely came from a Christian!!

If you can prove the founders who were Christian were about forcing people to accept there views, and not educate people, I will be glad to listen to it....

If it is an opinion, or hearsay, I do not trust it, so do not even bother posting it.....

Think about what I said before....The Very thing you cling to (science) was founded most likely by a Christian....And now, atheists use this science to DENY the fact that Christians, and religion did just that for them!

You tell me just on that basis alone which one you would trust....and who had their heart in the right place?

That is why I will always believe there is a God, because if there is no proof...There certainly is little tid-bits here and there that intellects pick up on!

Your own fellow atheists said it not me! Go back and read it! I am not gonna link it, for you to weasel out again!

Your the idiot, because I meant 15-20% of the US is Irreligious....I know I know its my fault for not posting coherently right?? If you have a problem with me saying Irreligious, Go talk to Wikipedia, not pick another fight with me....

Just like that last one!!!

Not gonna answer, I tested you, If I truly am just not that important...than you are the same to me....Keep clinging to the minority, not maj.

If you were smart enough to understand things you could get an answer yourself....and it is quite easy...If the US is 76% Christian, then probably 76% were started by Christians, 15% Irreligious, and the rest being what ever percent is left....Now the numbers are skew, because you would have to do a consensus of the US as the universities went up, but it is probably close to that.....

But I guess you were not smart enough to think of that without someone who just isn't that important's help! Huh?

Good! it suits you! Because your just a big Joker anyways!

Why, this is very midsummer madness.

I'm quite enjoying it, can't speak for Malvolio.

Has he been hassling you as well? That's Guy Fawkes disrememberance for you.

Do you want to know what I am laughing at???

The fact that you tried to smear me to Frank Apisa....And said his glutton for punishment....And without me bothering to link it....I said you said your glutton is in for a waxing! Then you snapped back at me how I could not coherently link what one said to another....

So I ask you again, Are you mad I said waxing in there????

So are you theistic, Agnostic, or Atheistic about men getting their gluttons waxed???????

At a time when EVolutionary theory or even the calculus had not yet been developed in Darwin or Newton's minds formed, there were several universities in what is now the US. Harvard and YAle etc were all Bible colleges because there werent any institutions like state ed boards that could sponsor "colleges" becuase "Land Grant laws " didnt even exist. All you are doing is sounding like the rooster who is taking credit for the dawn. When institutions are begun what they are today has often very little to do with their original purposes. When University de Notre Dame was founded it was more of a place for "Vocational training" (in the RC sense of the word). Back then, the RC church celebrated Creationist thinking and believed in a seven day Creation and even the "Flood"

In most histories of US education, you would find that most church related universities had come kicking and screaming into the modern age. SCience becomes an overwhelming force especially when things like medicine and chemistry were being forwarded without help of churches. In fact, things we take for scientific fact today were considered heresies only 100 years ago
Rememeber the Roman Inquisition wasnt declared "Over" until 1908. and the last "heretic" was garroted sometime in the mid 1800's. SO please Mr rooster, the sun rises because of physical laws, not some religious dictates.

PA, That was a very good summary of how to look at aspects of the age of the earth from EVIDENCE.

It was also a great way, to slam Christians, who brought forth most Universities, and DENY that religious, and Christians ever did such a thing!

Whether you or anyone says they did it for this or that, they brought it! End of story....7 out of every 10!

You know what else.....In all that praise you gave him for his science....You, nor any other atheist on here told Krumple to be nice, be good for humanity, and not insult a Christian just to make his points....

If a believer did that, there would be about 5 or 6 atheists attacking them right now...And they would have voted there post to -2.....And not only that, but another Good honest believer would have said to them, it is not a good thing to insult someone, even if they are an atheist....

Yet Krumple insults Christians....No one but me stood up to defend them....I did not vote his post down, and not one other atheist said anything about how he maybe should not have said that about Christians....Because it was not even necessary for him to make his points....

In fact I can see it now, after I post this....Atheists will justify how they are right for insulting a Christian....And they "think" they are progressing humanity....

There was no 5 or 6 theists coming to attack him etc....

Are these tid-bits ENOUGH PROOF or EVIDENCE of who is probably right, and has their heart in the right place, and care about progressing humanity???

To be fair I am sure there were many theist included in our science and the progress of modern day society. We have to consider that there are many more people out there that believe in God, UFOs and so forth than there are that do not believe. Just because people believe in some far out things does not mean that they can not be good in one area or another of science. Many theist do tend to be ignorant or intellectual dishonest about evolution though. I guess that theist just evolve a little slower than atheist do.

Especially if he takes to wearing 'yellow stockings'!

He has to start smiling first.

That's because they pick and choose which science they are prepared to use the scientific method on.

Advertising experts use a scientific method relating to mood creation which the Church has been using for a long time. And to use it for an effect which is intended to promote the hegemony of Christianity and all you see laid out before you, and you are free to decide on its utility or otherwise, starting from a position of the utmost desperation which can best be described as dreading waking up in the morning for fear of what the day might bring.

That sort of science can live with your sort of science but your sort of science can't live with mood science.

Your sort of science can only do mood creation individually with pharmaceuticals and carrots and sticks but the other sort of science creates mass moods travelling in waves from the epicentre.

It must be nice to win every argument by the simple expedient of basing your conclusions upon your own premisses. Show you another premiss and you go all distracted like and looking away and shuffling your feet when you really ought to be grinning sheepishly like **** eaters are said to do in American literature.

We have seen atheist mood creation on a mass scale. In the USSR, China and North Korea. If that's what you want it's okay by me. It's a free country.

Perhaps the non-atheists among us have imbibed a mood which senses that is what you want and they use irrational arguments merely because they can't translate the mood into words in any sort of polite way.

But you will be stopped. Languishing in the doldrums of the polls as they are, atheists are not seen as much of a threat or even taken seriously. Except amongst themselves of course. Knitting circles are the same.

Most atheists can't even behave like an atheist really ought to.



And advertisers tell many lies.

...When that I was and a little tiny boy,
With hey, ho, the wind and the rain,
A foolish thing was but a toy,
For the rain it raineth every day.
But when I came to man’s estate,
With hey, ho, the wind and the rain,
'Gainst knaves and thieves men shut their gate,
For the rain it raineth every day.
But when I came, alas! to wive,
With hey, ho, the wind and the rain,
By swaggering could I never thrive,
For the rain it raineth every day.
But when I came unto my beds,
With hey, ho, the wind and the rain,
With toss-pots still had drunken heads,
For the rain it raineth every day.
A great while ago the world begun,
With hey, ho, the wind and the rain,
But that’s all one, our play is done,
And we’ll strive to please you every day.

Fool exits stage right....

It depends what you mean by "developed".

Eudoxus (408--355 BC) developed a method of calculating areas and volumes by exhaustion. A Chinese guy about the 3 rd century. And others in Europe before Columbus set sail. Liebniz was dead by 1716.

It was a son, John, of Alderman Rogers' daughter, who married William Harvard of Southwark in 1611, who founded Harvard College. So that would be after Liebniz was dead. Shakespeare was a contemporary and neighbour of the Rogers.

It is known that the failure to develop the calculus by the mathematicians of Classical times was due to a religious taboo on such magic. Even their statues were required to show one foot in contact with the ground.

You know nothing about these matters fm. You find the world in the same way one finds fruit growing on trees.

I could take exception to this--



but I have already explained that to you before. You are fond of ignoring explanations without the botheration of offering a rebuttal.

Just Remember the rooster and the dawn .

Mr Rooster, like you, has no idea of his relationship to the ongoing event he announces.
Even if ALL colleges were founded as religious institutions , what does that have to do with the science curriculum that each are famous for today?

I wonder whther places like LSU or Tulane feel beholden to "religion" as they try to attract research funding and some of the best students while their states legislative and executive branches of government (louisiana) act like a bunch of Hillbillies and openly defy the US Constitutions interpretation that they not teach "Creationism" or prosyletize for a state religion in the Sportsmans STate.

The battle was never ever over whe some religious cult founded Ave MAria or Bob Jones Universities.
(Many courses of their science curricula arent even accredited for degree status). Nope, the game is hardly over. If religion was involved in opening universities, today, in many states, its actually IN THE WAY of continued research and teaching.
I wouldnt expect you to see much in that since you seem to prefer naivete'.

Im making no judgements except for a single post made by a single person. You have a rather annoying propensity to "bundle" offerings about folks. You take single presentations and often make vast assertions about folks worldviews. I dont think thats a fair way to carry out debate.
Krumple made very good science statement in a field that I have a lot of daily dealings. So , in effect, I was asying "Good Job" about his post.

Ive never met Krumple and I think that Ive gotten into disagreements with him elsewehere as well as set and especially RL. However, for that oe post, with that reference regarding scientific evidence and conclusions, hes correct. If you disagree, then state your case. Otherwise dont make a case out of a bottle cap.

You seem to exist to celebrate the superlative, whether true oir not. Ive only disgareed with you on specific areas of technical aspects of my own worldview. I tried being somewhat subdued in my posts because I seem to notice that you dont respond well. I too, will strike back if pricked, so I try to skirt the edges of personality. Im not linking anything I say to "All Atheists". They can handle their own lives and cases Im sure.

You were the one who opened the dialogue when you titled this thread ..."WHO DO OR DO NOT DOUBT CHRISTIANITY"... Im just an invitee.