Is this the call for a confused Atheist?

[humble_in_doubt]

Logical as in that you are not illogical. How can you refute us if you do not have answer for what we believe and you do not have complete belief in yourself? I think you are not logical.

huh? I’m not sure why you say I don’t know what you believe … I’m well aware of Catholic teachings (as I’ve explained ad nausea). As far as what I believe; yes there are things I don’t know (which I why I say atheism or agnosticism is very “humble” … because we freely admit we don’t know it all). We don’t need to think we know everything, even at the expense of the truth.

Christianity can hardly be compared to Greek mythology. You are wrong again on this score.

I didn’t compare it to Greek mythology, except insofar as it’s also mythology.

Jesus gave us the signs and wonders, even if you don’t believe him. Even the Sanhedrin admitted this even though they did not accept him.

I don’t believe any of the events you’re describing here (or at least most of them … particularly the “signs and wonder”) ever happened.

**Acts 4:16-17 “What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everybody living in Jerusalem knows they have done an outstanding miracle, and we cannot deny it. But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn these men to speak no longer to anyone in this name.” **

John 10: 25 … the works I do in my father’s name are my witness, (but you do not believe … .)

You don’t believe even though the signs are right before you.

where’s these signs & wonders that are right before me? How about this, why don’t you begin by explaining the “signs and wonders” that are right before you so I can evaluate your claims.

Now you might say something like, I won’t believe them anyway, which of course is the programmed Christian response. The New Testament wasn’t a poorly thought out document … it anticipated many of the objections it would face, and programmed its believers to think a certain way when they hear those objections.

It’s a common tactic in marketing (between undergrad and law school I worked in corporate sales for a few years). In the sales world we would call it overcoming an objection. The best way to overcome objections is to anticipate them and deal with them before they come. This is what the New Testament does so well.

You said this as if it is definite but you are merely assuming. If you think religious is belief and faith, would that make you any different from us in your own belief? In fact I would say you are an imagination run wild.

Only a person who believes in the unbelievable and irrational would say I’m an “imagination run wild.” Indeed my imagination runs far less wild than the Christian imagination (who believes in talking snakes, an invisible power splitting apart oceans, raising men from the dead, turning rivers into blood, and all the rest). I’m the one who doesn’t believe in these wild ancient fables … remember?

You have no proof that we are superstitious. In this forum, we are talking about Christianity. Everything in it can be explained and it is not superstition. We are not superstitious nor do we obstruct ‘progress’. I am tempted to ask you what the definition of progress is. Is it totally necessary in every aspect? Have you thought about moral progress, spiritual progress?

everyone talks about the “spiritual” … yet there’s no proof that we have any thing like an intangible spirit inside of us (whether good or bad). So no I see no value in working on something that doesn’t exist. If you want to say why don’t we work on creating an enlightened society, why don’t we strive toward intellectual excellence, and why not work on the psychological betterment of our people … I’d be with you 100%.

We are not scared; we are governed by a principle. That is far from what you have because you do not have a stand on an issue – it up to the lawmakers. Today it a yes, tomorrow it’s a no.

what are you talking about? I was smart enough to make it through a pretty good law school … do you really think I don’t have stances on issues (and every issue for that matter)? It’s you guys who rely on something that doesn’t exist, not me. I am fully cognizant of the fact that WE determine the course of our society. Although there are things that lie beyond our control, such as the weather, many elements of our biology, and various other things … I’m willing to believe we can gain control over these things if we just try. I don’t have a low opinion of mankind, nor am I willing to surrender our fate to the musings of ancient mythology.

So what? Do you know the Ten Commandments? We have our set of rule and it is unchanging until eternity; even if some of the contents confirm to man-made laws, so be it. What’s more important is the undying principle that does not bend according to the majority thought.

The ten commandments are man made laws. It’s not that they’re bad or that the “majority” (as you put it) stands against most of them. Few would say murder or theft is a good thing (except for criminals that is). I’m really not sure what you’re point is?

But for you, you are like a blade of grass – you bend according to where the wind blows.

Ahh … Christian philosophy. I love how you guys so arrogantly paint those who don’t believe as you do with such a broad brush; and then going around deluding yourselves into believing your not bigoted toward non-Christians.

I am not religious bigot. You have committed a major error in assumption. Our religion teaches us not to judge because we do not know what is in his heart. Do you think it is a virtue to judge? I remember you once said you are so good almost to a fault.

really … then apparently you don’t understand what it means to judge someone, since you’ve been judging me throughout your entire post here?

The law of U.S. government is built upon the foundation of Christianity and this is what the founding fathers had in mind.

I’d be glad to discuss the formation of our constitution with you any day (this is my area of expertise). BTW our founding fathers were not religious zealots (for the most part). Indeed they were just the opposite … but I don’t expect you to learn beyond the rhetoric or your own religion.

I was not saying whether we should have a law on abortion. I was saying how is that what’s right or wrong changes with the majority or changes with time? I am saying that because you said you are a good man and the law of the state of Texas is you guide that’s determine what’s right and what’s wrong. How can then that right and wrong be changed?

I said I obey the law, I didn’t say I “always” agree with it. I voice my disagreements in acceptable ways, such as in the voting booth.

You are out of point. We are not zealots. We are trying to be good Christians and good citizens of the country. You are creating a false premise and trying to put us in there. You are talking nonsense and out of topic.

I never said “you” or others here on CAF are bad citizens (I’m sure you’re all decent citizens). However, I’m not sure if one can be truly religious and not be a zealot (though perhaps that’s arguable). The Christian religion by its nature is a zealous religion (like Islam … though thankfully Christianity had to remold itself according to evolved Western ideas, such as liberty).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I will say that humble_in_doubt shows his ignorance at least on the issue of abortion. That is not to say he is not ignorant on the case of religion generally, but this ignorance is severe. Abortion is a business. Abortion providers have an interest in keeping it available, acceptable, and necessary; or legal, safe, and rare.

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=403
Agreed, the website I just posted is obviously Catholic. However, is does not rely on fabricated statistics. Saying there were “millions” of abortions per year prior to Roe is not only absurd but obviously fabricated. [Why would it significantly decrease after it becomes legal? Is the forbidden fruit theorem applicable to this (like drugs)? A reasonable man would see that it isn’t. A modestly educated man could see through their veil.] In reality, which some of us have to base our facts on, innumerable more women are hurt now from abortion than before it was legalized.

I didn’t say “millions” I said one million (and that’s a pretty well researched and cited number, actually it was something like 1.1 or 1.2 million). As for why it was so high … I don’t know nor do I think it really matters. It was that high (ironically it’s lower today, just a little over 800,000).

If I were to speculate as to why it’s so low today as compared with the early 70’s … I would say religious opposition (which really only began in the mid 1970’s).

As an aside: previously when I posted, I was not attempting to prove God’s existence. My understanding of the conversation is that we were discussing practical consequences of different worldviews in which I was attempting to show that the idealization of atheism is futile. To say my argument does not show God exists may be true, but it is a straw man; it was not the subject of conversation or argument.

I completely disagree that trying to idealize atheism is futile. In fact I believe atheism or at least agnosticism is ideal, because we base our presumptions on reality & not fiction. We understand that there’s no invisible force controlling nature … and only we can control it if we first begin to believe we can.

However, I also find liberty to be the highest ideal … therefore I don’t believe in social engineering (or trying to abolish religion or any other set of beliefs that doesn’t rise to the level of insurrection or causes harm toward others). However, as a free country people can and should challenge ingrained ideas if they believe they’re wrong. We’re the great marketplace of ideas, if the slippery slope of religion ever leads us into theocracy we will cease being that great place of free thought and progress (and there’s plenty of other countries eager to replace us).

 

[buffgbob]

publicagenda.org/charts/number-abortions
euthanasia.com/usstat.html
nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html

Check your facts. I have attempted to find as many websites as I can; most reference the CDC. Over a million isn’t even close to accurate. If you notice, abortions are rising prior to 1973. This is consistant with the fact that some states were making it legal and softening their abortion laws. The website you post makes it sound like law or not, people procured the same number of abortions (or apparently less.) We are asked to believe that after abortion becomes legal the number of abortions drop in half in one year!? I’ll say it again: it is an outright fabrication. It’s laughable. It doesn’t make sense and should have raised red flags for you. I think it is fair enough to question the integrity of the website you posted. Not suprisingly, they are making things up to support their fallicious argument.

Did you even read the abortion article I posted earlier? If you did you would know that fabrication of statistics is a strategy “pro-choice” people have used before to promote their cause. Abortion is a business. People are becoming very wealthy off this business. They’ll lie and do what they need to in order to keep public opinion. Another example (other than the website you posted) is that Planned Parenthood condoms are the most ineffective on the market; and they have their number on every wrapper. Nothing like making defective products to keep yourself in business.

About the idealization of atheism: certain of your previous posts outline explicitly its futility. I won’t bother reiterating your own argument that you didn’t answer.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

publicagenda.org/charts/number-abortions
euthanasia.com/usstat.html
nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html

Check your facts. I have attempted to find as many websites as I can; most reference the CDC. Over a million isn’t even close to accurate. If you notice, abortions are rising prior to 1973. This is consistant with the fact that some states were making it legal and softening their abortion laws.

The number of “legal” abortions were rising prior to 1973 … because yes as you say an increasing number of states were legalizing abortion leading up to Roe. However, you’re ignoring the number of “illegal” abortions during that period (which is what I was referring to).

The website you post makes it sound like law or not, people procured the same number of abortions (or apparently less.) We are asked to believe that after abortion becomes legal the number of abortions drop in half in one year!? I’ll say it again: it is an outright fabrication. It’s laughable. It doesn’t make sense and should have raised red flags for you. I think it is fair enough to question the integrity of the website you posted. Not suprisingly, they are making things up to support their fallicious argument.

The fact is I’ve said numbers like 1.2 million are “high end” estimates, even organizations such as NOW state this:

*Estimates of the annual number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 60s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million, even though abortion procedures were unsafe and often life-threatening, in addition to being illegal. *

now.org/issues/abortion/roe30/beforeafter.html

Did you even read the abortion article I posted earlier? If you did you would know that fabrication of statistics is a strategy

Yes … but sadly one most often employed by religious organizations. The stats I see from organizations like NOW seem honest & consistent with reports from non-biased organizations (such as the stats from Wiki and other sites I’ve been providing). So the weight of evidence seems to support the veracity of their reports versus your own (although I don’t say they never skew stats or twist the truth, any advocacy group spins the truth to favor their own position).

About the idealization of atheism: certain of your previous posts outline explicitly its futility. I won’t bother reiterating your own argument that you didn’t answer.

Umm … OK (I guess I can’t respond to such an ambiguous statement). Since I know I’ve never outlined the futility of atheism (much to the contrary) … I suspect you’re just evading my prior statement.

 

[Tezza]

Just a little info from “nonreligious” sites:

From the CDC: A total of 820,151 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2005 from 49 reporting areas, the abortion ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) was 233, and the abortion rate was 15 per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years
cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5713a1.htm

From the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood: In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005more than 45 million legal abortions occurred.
guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

That’s a bit of a discrepancy, don’t you think? It seems the people actually performing the abortions are doing a better job of keeping track of abortions than the government. Go figure.

 

[buffgbob]

Fine I’ll outline atheism’s futility.

Existentialism. I know you said this isn’t a blanket statement applicable to all atheists, but as I said earlier it is applicable to anyone who understands atheism and actually believes it (and is not just atheist as a convenience.) Because it is consequential atheist idea ‘per se’, I’ll discuss it involving atheism (even though practically atheists may not understand or live by it.) Existentialism exposes the pointlessness of life. By that it robs man of his motivation unless he blinds himself from the existentialist conclusion: that our causes are to no effect.

Second, by my discussion on “subjective” purpose or meaningfulness, you assumed I was talking about morality. I wasn’t. You did, however, expose another weakness in atheism: no foundation at all for any sense of morality. In fact, an “objective” morality that apparently you believe cannot be a product of materialism [or atheism]. An objective morality has to lie in a sense of perfection, i.e. a moralistic goal of some kind. However these are metaphysical ideas. Once someone believes in metaphysical ideas God’s existence is easily proven. In fact, the modern age of philosophy is most noted by recognizing this and the rejection of metaphysics.

Third, you attempt to say that atheists have some advantage because they “see things as they are.” Even conceding this, how is my faith a barrier between myself and science? I have my MS in electromagnetism and I have not once come across a problem in which I assumed my inability to understand it was because “that’s just how God made it.” Quite the opposite actually. If you look at the western world, Christianity says, “you are made in the image of God” aka you have a rational mind. It says, “our God who is rational makes a rational world” aka it can be understood. Hence, the Church established the university system and scientific method [and innumerable other goods]. Even further, specifically speaking, knowing that there is an uncaused cause (God) cannot be a barrier to knowledge. Because even if [as I assume you posit] that there is some infinite chain of events prior this this current one; wouldn’t the ignorant theists just say, “oh, God is before that”? Meaning, that this knowledge of God would never be a barrier or risk in substituting God for ignorance.

Finally, an infinite chain of causes is merely untenable.

Granted, I will say that men do pervert Christianity; however, I rarely meet an atheist who has an intellectually honest view of atheism. Like the summary I wrote on my first post: they have perverted it to make themselves a god.

 

[josie_L]

Just a little info from “nonreligious” sites:

From the CDC: A total of 820,151 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2005 from 49 reporting areas, the abortion ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) was 233, and the abortion rate was 15 per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years
cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5713a1.htm

From the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood: In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005more than 45 million legal abortions occurred.
guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

That’s a bit of a discrepancy, don’t you think? It seems the people actually performing the abortions are doing a better job of keeping track of abortions than the government. Go figure.

Thank you Tezza.

 

[josie_L]

The fact is I’ve said numbers like 1.2 million are “high end” estimates, even organizations such as NOW state this:

*Estimates of the annual number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 60s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million, even though abortion procedures were unsafe and often life-threatening, in addition to being illegal. *

now.org/issues/abortion/roe30/beforeafter.html

My question is which is it, 200 000 or 1.2 million, I mean you have to admit there is a pretty big range between the two numbers posited? And If this were truly a matter of research there would be no way you would have such a discrepancy.

 

[josie_L]

66 babies in a year left to die after NHS abortions that go wrong
Last updated at 01:22am on 05.02.08

Botched abortions mean that scores of babies are being born alive and left to die, an official report has revealed.

A total of 66 infants survived NHS termination attempts in one year alone, it emerged.

Rather than dying at birth as was intended, they were able to breathe unaided. About half were alive for an hour, while one survived ten hours.

A 3D scan of a foetus taken at 23 weeks by obstetrician Prof Stuart Campbell - terminations are legal until 24 weeks but some babies have continued breathing after being aborted

The figures are the first to give a national picture of the number of babies who survive abortion but are left to die.

Experts previously believed the phenomenon was limited to a handful of cases a year.

The babies were aborted using a drug to soften the cervix and induce labour. Once born no medical help is offered.

The statistics are contained in the small print of an official report by the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health, commissioned by the Government.

thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23435549-details/66+babies+in+a+year+left+to+die+after+NHS+abortions+that+go+wrong/article.do

to be continued . . .

 

[josie_L]

Dr. Nathanson’s observation is borne out in the best official statistical studies available. According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics, there were a mere 39 women who died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade.[4] Dr. Andre Hellegers, the late Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Georgetown University Hospital, pointed out that there has been a steady decrease of abortion-related deaths since 1942. That year there were 1,231 deaths. Due to improved medical care and the use of penicillin, this number fell to 133 by 1968.[5] The year before the first state-legalized abortion, 1966, there were about 120 abortion-related deaths.[6]

christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life003.html

 

[humble_in_doubt]

My question is which is it, 200 000 or 1.2 million, I mean you have to admit there is a pretty big range between the two numbers posited? And If this were truly a matter of research there would be no way you would have such a discrepancy.

look … I don’t really care about abortion rights. The way I see it, yeah it’s ugly, but we can’t force people to do things against their will (it goes against our legal tradition to compel people into labor of any sort … including carrying and bearing a child as unfortunate as abortion is).Moreover, the reason I generally find pro-choice numbers more reliable is because they more often corresponded to what at least appears to be numbers from unbiased sources.

That being said … yeah 200,000 and 1.2 million is a huge discrepancy & it does seem peculiar considering most females who had abortions between let’s say 1965 and 1975 are still alive (and can be polled). I’m surprised there’s been no extensive poll done (but from what I gather there hasn’t … by either side). At any rate I will continue not to care about this issue (as much as you guys want to make me believe the sky is falling).

Like I said before it isn’t intelligent atheists who have a legal or physics degree visiting the abortion doctor; so what do you expect out of us? Why should my tax dollars go to babysit yet another group of wayward Americans who would like me to subsidize their poor choices. If you guys are bothered by it so much then get off your couch and go do something about it & best of luck to you (I mean that sincerely)!

Abortion is not a fight I have any desire to pick with anyone. I don’t have anything at stake in this debate … and it truly doesn’t bother me either way. I’m sure there’s a pro-choicer on this site who would love to slug it out with you over this issue (but please not me … I’m not sure how many ways I can say I don’t care, not gonna care, and I don’t care how callous I sound).

 

[josie_L]

look … I don’t really care about abortion rights. The way I see it, yeah it’s ugly, but we can’t force people to do things against their will (it goes against our legal tradition to compel people into labor of any sort … including carrying and bearing a child as unfortunate as abortion is).Moreover, the reason I generally find pro-choice numbers more reliable is because they more often corresponded to what at least appears to be numbers from unbiased sources.

That being said … yeah 200,000 and 1.2 million is a huge discrepancy & it does seem peculiar considering most females who had abortions between let’s say 1965 and 1975 are still alive (and can be polled). I’m surprised there’s been no extensive poll done (but from what I gather there hasn’t … by either side). At any rate I will remain pro-choice & I’ll continue not to care about this issue (as much as you guys want to make me believe the sky is falling and wicked little doctors are killing defenseless infants in mass).

Like I said before it isn’t intelligent atheists who have a legal or physics degree visiting the abortion doctor; so what do you expect out of us? Why should my tax dollars go to babysit yet another group of wayward Americans. If you guys are bothered by it so much then get off your couch and go do something about it & good luck!

I’m not trying to force anything on anyone, I am simply stating abortion is wrong, an evil in fact. And for me, abortion is not so much a matter of the law as it is a matter of morality. I just wish people would make conscientious decisions before getting to the point where they have to consider abortion has a viable option.

P.S. Why should my tax dollars provide people with abortions (I speak of Canada and of many other countries, and possibly yours too, for it’s in the process of being considered)?

 

[josie_L]

Abortion is not a fight I have any desire to pick with anyone. I don’t have anything at stake in this debate … and it truly doesn’t bother me either way. I’m sure there’s a pro-choicer on this site who would love to slug it out with you over this issue (but please not me … I’m not sure how many ways I can say I don’t care, not gonna care, and I don’t care how callous I sound).

Well then, if you didn’t care why were you arguing with me? You confuse me, humble.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Well then, if you didn’t care why were you arguing with me? You confuse me, humble.

I wasn’t (I’ve been begging to retract myself from this debate since nearly the first time I chimed in on it). It was something you said initially that I responded to (and then the flood gates opened … but I know I should have kept my trap shut & I really mean that … I’m not just being a smart-alick).

I know abortion is a touchy subject for Catholics, and like I said I’m a neutral bystander in this whole mess (I’ve never protested abortion for either side, nor do I ever intend to). As far as I’m concerned if a girl want to have an abortion … go right ahead. If a Catholic wants to handcuff themselves to the clinic door, go for it. I’ll continue to think you’re all sort of wacky, and simply flip the newspaper page to the next story of people acting silly (and soak it for all the entertainment value it’s worth).

Not that I don’t care about this issue at all … it’s just really really low on my list if you know what I mean.

 

[josie_L]

I wasn’t (I’ve been begging to retract myself from this debate since nearly the first time I chimed in on it). It was something you said initially that I responded to (and then the flood gates opened … but I know I should have kept my trap shut & I really mean that … I’m not just being a smart-alick).

I know abortion is a touchy subject for Catholics, and like I said I’m a neutral bystander in this whole mess (I’ve never protested abortion for either side, nor do I ever intend to). As far as I’m concerned if a girl want to have an abortion … go right ahead. If a Catholic wants to handcuff themselves to the clinic door, go for it. **I’ll continue to think you’re all sort of wacky, and simply flip the newspaper page to the next story of people acting silly (and soak it for all the entertainment value it’s worth). **

Not that I don’t care about this issue at all … it’s just really really low on my list if you know what I mean.

When I read this I wasn’t sure whether I wanted to laugh or mentally hit you over the head. You can be so provoking at times. And yesterday, I was ready to throw a hissy fit the likes of which I’ve not felt in a long while. Thanks for the emotional turmoil.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

When I read this I wasn’t sure whether I wanted to laugh or mentally hit you over the head. You can be so provoking at times. And yesterday, I was ready to throw a hissy fit the likes of which I’ve not felt in a long while. Thanks for the emotional turmoil.

come on Josie … this is no more provoking than SNL? I know not taking many things seriously can be annoying (it annoys my mom all the time); but I do take many things seriously (I just require that they be real that’s all … oh and profitable is also nice ).

 

[Reuben_J]

1/2

huh? I’m not sure why you say I don’t know what you believe … I’m well aware of Catholic teachings (as I’ve explained ad nausea). As far as what I believe; yes there are things I don’t know (which I why I say atheism or agnosticism is very “humble” … because we freely admit we don’t know it all).

I feel that you don’t have credibility to question my belief as you admit there are things you don’t know yourself. What do you do with the things you don’t know?

We don’t need to think we know everything, even at the expense of the truth.

Huh? You admit you don’t know everything. How could you know what we believe is at the expense of the truth?

I didn’t compare it to Greek mythology, except insofar as it’s also mythology.

Word play. You brought up Greek mythology on the same breath.
You don’t have proof that Christianity IS a myth. I said it is all there right before your eyes –the Vatican, the Bible, the faith, the faithfuls.

I don’t believe any of the events you’re describing here (or at least most of them … particularly the “signs and wonder”) ever happened. where’s these signs & wonders that are right before me?

Same as above. Why do you suppose we are still here today? We could have been wiped out by the Romans, for starters.

You are turning blind eyes to the reality before you.

How about this, why don’t you begin by explaining the “signs and wonders” that are right before you so I can evaluate your claims.

In short I was NOT what I was before. I was perhaps even more skeptical than you. I believed in what I see and I believed in myself. But when I surrendered myself to Jesus, something cried out and I changed.

That is the biggest sign and wonder because nobody can make me do thing that I don’t want to, but that was what I did. I changed to a new person.

I am telling you this because you asked. This is beside the wonders mentioned earlier.

Now you might say something like, I won’t believe them anyway, which of course is the programmed Christian response. The New Testament wasn’t a poorly thought out document … it anticipated many of the objections it would face, and programmed its believers to think a certain way when they hear those objections.

You are wrong again. I am not programmed just because I am a Christian. You are presumptuous.
You can’t speak for the New Testaments. In any case it is not what you meant it to be.

It’s a common tactic in marketing (between undergrad and law school I worked in corporate sales for a few years). In the sales world we would call it overcoming an objection. The best way to overcome objections is to anticipate them and deal with them before they come. This is what the New Testament does so well.

Tactic! Again presumptuous. You think just because I am a Christian I am trying to ‘evangelize’. No. In fact I don’t care much about you. You can be an atheist all you want to be. I thought I had made that very clear in your earlier entry here.
The NT is a book of faith. Someone may be able to say it better but I can only say that to an atheist.
If you admit that NT did very well, then perhaps there is something to it after all.

Only a person who believes in the unbelievable and irrational would say I’m an “imagination run wild.” Indeed my imagination runs far less wild than the Christian imagination (who believes in talking snakes, an invisible power splitting apart oceans, raising men from the dead, turning rivers into blood, and all the rest). I’m the one who doesn’t believe in these wild ancient fables … remember?

You were talking about wormhole and time machine. If this is unbelievable and irrational, I don’t know what is.

Why wouldn’t you believe what’s in the Bible? What about if they had happened after all? We know that Jesus was a historical person.

everyone talks about the “spiritual” … yet there’s no proof that we have any thing like an intangible spirit inside of us (whether good or bad). So no I see no value in working on something that doesn’t exist. If you want to say why don’t we work on creating an enlightened society, why don’t we strive toward intellectual excellence, and why not work on the psychological betterment of our people … I’d be with you 100%.

I already testified to you my own ‘sign’. To me that is the tangible proof. It is not what people tell me but what I experienced to enforced what is revealed.

Like I already said, what make you think Christians do not work towards the goal you mentioned? The founding fathers were Christians who quoted the Bible and arise out of their minds came the constitution and ideal of the country we have today.
I may not be a lawyer by profession but I don’t need to be one to know this.

 

[Reuben_J]

2/2

what are you talking about? I was smart enough to make it through a pretty good law school … do you really think I don’t have stances on issues (and every issue for that matter)?

You are just trying to say you are good, follow traffic rule, etc, and these are your guides in life. You did not answer me regarding who determine the good. You are humble because you obey the state law and you do not make any problem. If this is your stand, I admit, that could be a stand. It is a principle too.

But your value therefore varies and changes according to the state law. Don’t you have any of your own? Do you think on your own? Because Christians also follow state laws but we have a set of guidance in our life, and that never change. Do you have that? If you don’t, then what are you (?) and coming back to my earlier questions which you did not answer? Are you just clump of human cells to be expired when the time come? Is that all to life?

It’s you guys who rely on something that doesn’t exist, not me.

As been pointed to you, you cannot prove this.

I am fully cognizant of the fact that WE determine the course of our society. Although there are things that lie beyond our control, such as the weather, many elements of our biology, and various other things … I’m willing to believe we can gain control over these things if we just try. I don’t have a low opinion of mankind, nor am I willing to surrender our fate to the musings of ancient mythology.

Let me tell you. Your friends, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al, killed more people than any other Christians combined. They were atheists who tried to determine the course of their societies.
Whether it is mythology or not, it is your belief that will decide the course of the society that you mentioned.
OK. I am not saying you are like Hitler. I am only saying that he was an atheist.

The ten commandments are man made laws.

As I said, I have no problem with this. I only believe that it is inspired by a higher being. It is the content and the belief in that content that makes the difference and the content never changes.

Do you think those who hold unto the Ten Command would commit genocide of an unimaginable scale?

It’s not that they’re bad or that the “majority” (as you put it) stands against most of them. Few would say murder or theft is a good thing (except for criminals that is). I’m really not sure what you’re point is?

My point is, these laws are subjected to changes. On day, people will say it is alright to kill if the majority believes it is so.

Ahh … Christian philosophy. I love how you guys so arrogantly paint those who don’t believe as you do with such a broad brush; and then going around deluding yourselves into believing your not bigoted toward non-Christians.

Arrogantly … . This is all in your mind. What did I say to you that makes me a bigot? Is not that it is you who are sensitive to the word ‘Christian’ and attach something to it?

really … then apparently you don’t understand what it means to judge someone, since you’ve been judging me throughout your entire post here?

You already done it in your preceding sentence … .

I’d be glad to discuss the formation of our constitution with you any day (this is my area of expertise). BTW our founding fathers were not religious zealots (for the most part). Indeed they were just the opposite … but I don’t expect you to learn beyond the rhetoric or your own religion.

I did not say the founding fathers were religious zealots. Do you get it, buddy? I said they were Christians.

I said I obey the law, I didn’t say I “always” agree with it. I voice my disagreements in acceptable ways, such as in the voting booth.

Yeah, … .

I never said “you” or others here on CAF are bad citizens (I’m sure you’re all decent citizens). However, I’m not sure if one can be truly religious and not be a zealot (though perhaps that’s arguable). The Christian religion by its nature is a zealous religion (like Islam … though thankfully Christianity had to remold itself according to evolved Western ideas, such as liberty).

We are all trying to be good citizens, not much different from you. You somehow put the word ‘zealot’ with a bad connotation which I object. If one is a good Christian, I can assure you, he/she will not be in jail. (refer earlier post).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

First of all friend … frankly I think your post is riddled with religious diatribe that I won’t entertain. You can say it’s because I’m blinded, or whatever the newest way you guys slam atheists is, I really don’t care. If you like being Catholic then be Catholic.

I’ve answered all these type of questions ad nausea … you don’t accept my view of things & oh well. Not something I’ll lose sleep over (and nor do I expect anyone else to lose sleep over my views). I know religion is hogwash, I don’t just think it is. This is my view to which I’m entitled.

If you think there’s little angels persuading you to act one way or the other … then think it (and I’ll continue to think it’s nonsense). Whether or not Jesus ever really did exist is debatable (even though there are allegedly some non-Christian accounts of Christ, though of course we don’t have a single original manuscript supporting these claims … but I won’t spend any time debating the historicity of Jesus since it’s not a relevant point to me). I’m pretty sure a guy named Muhammad existed … yet I don’t think he talked to any god (that is unless he ate the funny button on the cactus).

I simply believe claims of miraculous events were fabricated for whatever reason. The fact that the CC (or protestantism) still exists is equally unimpressive. I believe in the ability of man, which includes our ability to sustain false mythology indefinitely if there’s enough determined people with the wherewithal to do it.

As for your notion that since I don’t claim to know it all religion must be true … that’s the most illogical assertion I’ve heard in a while I have to admit. If you think you know it all then good for you

Oh yeah … wormholes, they actually exist!

 

[Reuben_J]

get a grip.

You come here and you are answered. It is easy to sweep with a big brush and then hold up your hands.

You did not read my posts obviously.