Atheists who attack Christianity

well i don't attack christians. I accept they believe in thier misguided notion of a trascendent divine entity. They are wrong-there is not a god. Elightenment is just a matter of seeing the world for what it is, without illusion. God is a comforting illusion, that is all.

Chiristianity has some very good moral foundations, and thus is largelya good religion, if misguided. Now scientology-that is a religion I freely attack.

They're not. As with any other category in life, if you don't meet the required parameters, you're not part of the club.

Wow wow where to start.

First off the board is called "Atheists who attack Christianity" I decided to simply write Atheists instead of Atheists who attack Christianity because my fingers hurt already.

Tisk tisk Siro, I need do not need to prove the existance of God to you anymore than you need to try and disprove His existance to me. And why you wrap your brain around this take a gamble for once since Im willing to bet you have no moral qualms against it. The odds are in your favor if your a Christian: If Christianity is correct (Which I have made quite clear that I believe it is) then if you die and you are a Christian you get to go to Heaven and meet exciting people, like Teddy Roosevelt and Jesus! If you are not a Christian you go to hell which sucks. Now lets flip it around and just for kicks say that Christianity is wrong. Ok so then no matter what you do in life, when you die thats it. So lets recap. If you are a Christian than the worst that can happen to you when you die is nothing. So care to wager?

Michael..Michael...wait I remember you, werent you that Iraqi Information Minister that said all those funny things about there not being any Americans in Baghdad?

Seriously though it would be in vain to argue with you cause I believed I covered in one of my previous posts in a different topic how its a waste of time to argue with someone who isnt going to even consider what you have to say. (The Fox News Propoganda remark gave you away my Liberal friend )

Well im going to go partially against my remarks in that post and try to poke fun with a little hint of hidden meaning to keep you fellows on your toes.

No war on Christmas? Of course there was, I was there.... *has flashbacks*

Reasonable scientific explanation = in the beginning there was nothing and it all came from a big exposion...yeah that makes perfect sense. Something from nothing...sounds like entitlement to me and i dont like that kinda stuff.

As for where babies come from I suggest you talk to your parents or maybe even read "Handmaid's Tale" as was suggested earlier.

My Liberal Friend you and some of the other people on this board (like good old Siro) are proof that Atheists do not understand Christians. The fact that that Christianity is a religion and Atheism is the lag there of has nothing to do with understanding.

Atheists are not offended by...so are you claiming to speak for all Atheists now?

Historical Scrutiny? Wow you guys love big words dont you? Seriously though its kinda sad to see you try to act smart so drop the bad acting. Whether somthing is right or wrong has absolutely nothing to do with how nice some group was to another group in the past.

In closing to you Mikey, GROW UP!

Atheists and agnostics and buddhists aren't "scared they might be wrong"--it's usually the opposite, which is why this post /112/e7/119854/3.html#post1136585/112/e7/119854/3.html#post1136585 is generally true.

I think you should read /112/e7/119854/3.html#post1136585/112/e7/119854/3.html#post1136585 again, and try to say something to counter that. You probably can't.

Or not, and is, in fact, the type of person this thread was targeted at.

-take a look at the back of the US$ dollar bill. The inscription in the Great Seal (designed while FDR was in office) reads "Novus Ordo Seclorum" - New Secular Order. secular...
meaning non religious.

You either are doing what Jesus said or you're not.

Who is this thread targetted at, Rei? Atheists that crash planes into buildings? Atheist suicide bombers? Atheist church burners? I'd guess not since there really aren't any in this day and age. I think this thread was aimed at people who openly criticize Christianity and its tenets and subject it to rational debate. That's what's considered attacking Christians these days.

-take a look at the back of the US$ dollar bill. The inscription in the Great Seal (designed while FDR was in office) reads "Novus Ordo Seclorum" - New Secular Order. secular...
meaning non religious.

You have proof of this? Do tell!

Do you REALLY want to get into asking for proof of things?

You can think that. I can't speak for Kevn, but I don't consider criticism an attack - to a point.

But - and this ties in to that post that you claim is "excellent" and the Fhem asserts there is no response to - discussion about religion, the pros and cons thereof, or the velidity thereof, are fine - while they are discussion.

Today, "moderates" read those texts selectively, taking what they can fit comfortably into their modern lives and discarding the rest. By themselves, they're (mostly) harmless, but by virtue of the fact that they effectively stifle serious discussion of the legitimacy of religion, they're just as dangerous as the "extremists" -- the true believers -- they effectively protect.

You, however, Chip, and a lot of other people - you have no interest in honest discussion. You are as set in your belief as any fundamentalist. You believe absolutely that you're right, and you're not going to change that no matter how much you and I discuss the issue.

Likewise, many people won't accept that the other person isn't going to change their view (I'm not going to give up my faith because you think its silly, you're not going to embrace mine because I believe in it), but continue to "discuss" the issue, agressively, even still - when its obvious that said "discussion" is nothing but thinly veiled antagonism.

You wanna discuss my beliefs? Fine. Hell, I discuss religion daily - one of my favorite people to discuss religion with is a southern baptist preacher thats a friend of the family. As far as he's concerned I'm quite heretical and probably damned to hell - but I enjoy the discussion. I also talk with athiests, fundamentalists, and everything in between.

But discussion has to be more than "You deserve attacking for the same reason Nazis do" or "You're delusional" or "You're going to burn in hell". That shit isn't discussion, it's just bickering and fighting. Thats also the type of crap I criticise.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume, among the Powers of the earth, the separate
and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God
entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires
that they should declare the causes which impel them to the
separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness.

I'm going to quote the part that really resonated with me because it's something in our politically correct culture that rarely gets stated openly and with which I wholeheartedly agree...



I think that's brilliantly stated and absolutely true.

How very narrow minded of you Rei. I've had literally hundreds of honest discussions about religion on this forum and others and they can and do impact my beliefs and perceptions. Do you believe we pop out of the womb with our beliefs fully formed?

If not then stating that open and honest discussions are unimportant to anyone is a ridiculous thing to say. I've had many good honest discussion with you but I guess you have a short memory. Honest discussion to me means literally being honest... not candy-coating or hiding behind political correctness so as not to offend anyone. That's not honesty, it's equivocation.

The same kind of thinly veiled antagonism as calling me a fundamentalist who's incapable of being affected by other points of view? I disagree, but you're of course welcome to your opinion.

Do you want a medal? One of my favorite people to discuss religion with is my parent's Methodist pastor. She's a remarkable and highly educated woman and her intent is never to change my mind but to better understand other points of view. I also talk to people of many different belief systems, mainstream and fringe. I do not in any way think that makes me unique and I wouldn't hold it up as a way to claim some sort of superiority as you seem to be doing.

It's discussion, whether or not you approve of the content or tone. It's people of varying beliefs and dispositions honestly stating their beliefs and feelings. I find it richly rewarding. I'm sorry that you do not.

I just don't get this "Absence of proof is not proof of absence" thing.

By your logic, Zeus and Thor exist, as do Spider-Man and Captain America... and Bigfoot... and The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You can't prove they don't exist either...

This is where you and I disagree. I don't find some things "discussion" at all... for example, I don't consider "You faggots are going to hell!" discussion, despite the apparently very open and talkative person who told me and my boyfriend this at lunch. Without a modicum of respect, trying to "discuss" things benefits nobody.

Actually, that's NOT what it means.

The phrase is traced back to Virgil. The whole phrase is:

Ultima Cumaei venit iam carminis aetas;
magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo.
iam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna,
iam nova progenies caelo demittitur alto.

Novus Ordo Seclorum, in context, translates as "New Order of the Ages", and the complete passage is:

The last prophecy has come to the Cumaean Sibyl; a brand new great order of the ages is born; for now the Virgin and the age of Saturn have returned; now a new Child has been sent from the heavens.

This phrase has been thought since medieval times by religious sorts to be a reference to the comming of Christ.

This exact quote of yours I feel can be attributed to both sides Kevn. Your christians do the same thing for the same reason.

Now, as far as attacking christian religion, well, I'd attack ANY religion that gets right up in my face telling me I have to believe in what they believe in or their version of god will roast my chestnuts for eternity.

It also irritates the hell out of me when a significant portion of said religion DEMAND that this secular country I live and was born in should be run by the religious laws that I do not believe in.

It really bothers me when said religious group DEMANDS that their version of history and religious dogma be taught in public schools as some sort of fact instead of the fairy tales they are.

And finally, I take a perverse personal pleasure out of upsetting the boat of any smug self righteous holier than thou individual or individuals who get on a soapbox and vomit out their beliefs and truly truly expect everyone who hears them to accept their nonsense because their words are the words of god and therefor cannot be denied.

If I didn't respect the people in this forum I wouldn't be a participant, and if I just wanted a mutual appreciation society I'd go to a specifically atheist forum. That I bother to read anyone's point of view and respond to it is, to me, respect. I don't tend to debate in order to change minds. I debate to be understood, which I think ultimately is one of the few universal desires we all share. Disagreement, even strongly worded, is in no way mutually exclusive from understanding.

I am also familiar with the Virgil (who lived in the 1st century BC, i.e. before jesus) quote from a poem, but it had NOTHING to do with christ- it was a pastoral poem musing about a hope for a new era of peace.

Also, if the specific intention on US currency was to reference the coming of christ on the dollar bill, why is it under a picture of a pyramid (egyptian not christian) and the eye in the triangle (symbol of the Masons) and not a crucifix or a little baby jesus? It was the designer of the bill that coined the phrase for use on the Great Seal (perhaps borrowing/paraphrasing from Virgil) along with the date of the signing Declaration of Independence, not the birthdate of christ.