Atheist Most Distrusted/Hated Group in America

[Late2TheParty]

It boggles my mind. In my experience, atheists are good decent people for the most part, in fact, the ratio of good-people vs idiots/criminials/etc are probably the same as for the religious part of society, on top of not going violent for their beliefs. I wonder where this distrust springs from?

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/

Studies carried out by the University of Minnesota yielded these answeres:
This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society…
Atheist: 39.6%
Muslims: 26.3%
Homosexuals: 22.6%
Hispanics: 20%
Conservative Christians: 13.5%
Recent Immigrants: 12.5%
Jews: 7.6%

I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group….
Atheist: 47.6%
Muslim: 33.5%
African-American 27.2%
Asian-Americans: 18.5%
Hispanics: 18.5%
Jews: 11.8%
Conservative Christians: 6.9%
Whites: 2.3%

[byzantine catholic]

It boggles my mind. In my experience, atheists are good decent people for the most part, in fact, the ratio of good-people vs idiots/criminials/etc are probably the same as for the religious part of society, on top of not going violent for their beliefs. I wonder where this intolerance springs from?

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/

Studies carried out by the University of Minnesota yielded these answeres:Hmmm...I think you should change that to Christians. Um considering that 94% of this country is religious I would think they would not want to marry a non-religious person.

[RayMan]

It boggles my mind. In my experience, atheists are good decent people for the most part, in fact, the ratio of good-people vs idiots/criminials/etc are probably the same as for the religious part of society, on top of not going violent for their beliefs. I wonder where this intolerance springs from?

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/

Studies carried out by the University of Minnesota yielded these answeres:

Intolerance is probably the wrong word.

[Late2TheParty]

Intolerance is probably the wrong word.

I changed it to distrust.

[RayMan]

I changed it to distrust.

That may come closer to hitting the mark, although I think that for many religious people it would simply be a matter of disagreement with basic beliefs rather than active distrust.

As you pointed out, many if not most atheists are decent, hard working, intelligent people who make a positive impact on our society.

[Meriweather]

It boggles my mind. In my experience, atheists are good decent people for the most part, in fact, the ratio of good-people vs idiots/criminials/etc are probably the same as for the religious part of society, on top of not going violent for their beliefs. I wonder where this distrust springs from?


"Distrust" might not be the most precise word--at least when it comes to the marriage statistic. Concern is probably more apropos, and rightly so. Loving God is central in a believers life--it permeates all aspects of it. That is a large chunk of life one cannot share with an atheist spouse. It also becomes a large part a spouse can start to feel left out--or at least apart from.

[CID_0687]

It boggles my mind. In my experience, atheists are good decent people for the most part, in fact, the ratio of good-people vs idiots/criminials/etc are probably the same as for the religious part of society, on top of not going violent for their beliefs. I wonder where this distrust springs from?

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/

Studies carried out by the University of Minnesota yielded these answeres:
So...this is a survey of white fundamentalists?

[captusa]

Hmmm...I think you should change that to Christians. Um considering that 94% of this country is religious I would think they would not want to marry a non-religious person.

Belonging to a particular religion is not necessarily being religious.
I think 94% is an extreme over-estimate.

[Late2TheParty]

Belonging to a particular religion is not necessarily being religious.
I think 94% is an extreme over-estimate.

Yeah, my dad classifies himself as Christian, but really doesn't believe in Jesus, Mary or any doctrine of any branch.

He observes Christmas, Easter, and believes in God... but actual beliefs are closest to a deist.

[Mikko]

Hmmm...I think you should change that to Christians. Um considering that 94% of this country is religious I would think they would not want to marry a non-religious person.

Nowhere near 94% of this country is religious.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117409/easter-smaller-percentage-americans-christian.aspx

[captusa]

That may come closer to hitting the mark, although I think that for many religious people it would simply be a matter of disagreement with basic beliefs rather than active distrust.

As you pointed out, many if not most atheists are decent, hard working, intelligent people who make a positive impact on our society.

I think the presence of people who disagree with beliefs that people hold sacred make them uncertain of those beliefs and the animousity is a result of insecurity.

[Clintville]

I changed it to distrust.
Not trusting someone because of their religious views is pretty intolerant.

[HardHammer]

I think the presence of people who disagree with beliefs that people hold sacred make them uncertain of those beliefs and the animousity is a result of insecurity.

Or maybe we just get tired of their foolish blathering. You can choose to disagee, but I see it more as a introspective defect than a result of insecurity on my behalf.

[markd]

Or maybe we just get tired of their foolish blathering. You can choose to disagee, but I see it more as a introspective defect than a result of insecurity on my behalf.Foolish blathering?? Please elaborate.

[RayMan]

I think the presence of people who disagree with beliefs that people hold sacred make them uncertain of those beliefs and the animousity is a result of insecurity.

Probably true in some cases.

[Wake-Up]

I think the presence of people who disagree with beliefs that people hold sacred make them uncertain of those beliefs and the animousity is a result of insecurity.

I would agree. Religious beliefs go the very core of who people perceive themselves to be. Human nature makes people feel safer in settings where they are surrounded by people of similar beliefs.

Growing up in the 50's and 60's (certainly even before that) you saw entire neighborhoods established around similar ethnic and religious groups. Immigrants migrated to same neighborhoods for financial, emotional and religious support. Italians, Germans, Poles etc all had their own little communities within cities.

As we have become more mobile the tendency to cluster in similar groups as diminished. It would be very interesting to see a study like this on age groups. I would bet that the older the groups are, the more likely they are to distrust and atheist or any of the groups in the poll.

It's not necessarily that younger generations are more tolerant or better educated but that may play into the results as well. A larger component is that the increased mobility of our society has forced groups to find places to live outside those enclaves.

My parents generation, for the most part ended up living in communities they grew up in. My generation was more likely to move away. My kids generation, again a generality but appears to be true at this point from what I can see, has little to no expectation that they will live where we raised them. Those trends increase diversity within communities and the beliefs people hold.

[baysidetrey]

It boggles my mind. In my experience, atheists are good decent people for the most part, in fact, the ratio of good-people vs idiots/criminials/etc are probably the same as for the religious part of society, on top of not going violent for their beliefs. I wonder where this distrust springs from?

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/

Studies carried out by the University of Minnesota yielded these answeres:

For one, I would like to address your view that athiest/philosophers are non violent in their beliefs. The Roman Emperor Marcus Antoninus was such a person who tortured christians in the first century and we could go on from there.
Next, IMO, athiesm/evolutionism followed to the end of its natural course is a theory of survival of the fittest and we are no better or worse than an animal. That being the case, why should someone who truly believed in this not decide to take all they can by whatever means without reguard for morals?
This being said, I have no more of a problem with someone believing whatever it is they wish to as long as they do not try to force it on others i.e. evolution or a certain religious belief being taught in schools as a truth without the other views is wrong IMO.

[Czhorat]

For one, I would like to address your view that athiest/philosophers are non violent in their beliefs. The Roman Emperor Marcus Antoninus was such a person who tortured christians in the first century and we could go on from there.

Was Marcus Antonius an atheist or just a non-Christian? There is, you know, a difference.


Next, IMO, athiesm/evolutionism followed to the end of its natural course is a theory of survival of the fittest and we are no better or worse than an animal. That being the case, why should someone who truly believed in this not decide to take all they can by whatever means without reguard for morals?

Because most atheists, like most other people, have developed codes of morality that allow them to live as productive members of society. Is your only reason for behaving well the fear of divine retribution?


This being said, I have no more of a problem with someone believing whatever it is they wish to as long as they do not try to force it on others i.e. evolution or a certain religious belief being taught in schools as a truth without the other views is wrong IMO.

I know of no religious beliefs that are taught in public schools. I'm fine with public schools teaching science, regardless of that science's conflict with some people's religions. The evolution debate is a few threads over from here, but I'll just let it suffice to say that I strongly dispute your assertion that it is a religion.

[captusa]

Or maybe we just get tired of their foolish blathering. You can choose to disagee, but I see it more as a introspective defect than a result of insecurity on my behalf.

The question only applies to those who hate or distrust Atheists because they are Atheists.
Do you hate or distrust Atheists because they are Atheists ?

[Mobulis]

For one, I would like to address your view that athiest/philosophers are non violent in their beliefs. The Roman Emperor Marcus Antoninus was such a person who tortured christians in the first century and we could go on from there.
Next, IMO, athiesm/evolutionism followed to the end of its natural course is a theory of survival of the fittest and we are no better or worse than an animal. That being the case, why should someone who truly believed in this not decide to take all they can by whatever means without reguard for morals?
This being said, I have no more of a problem with someone believing whatever it is they wish to as long as they do not try to force it on others i.e. evolution or a certain religious belief being taught in schools as a truth without the other views is wrong IMO.

You realize this is the essence of capitalism.

[baysidetrey]

Was Marcus Antonius an atheist or just a non-Christian? There is, you know, a difference.



Because most atheists, like most other people, have developed codes of morality that allow them to live as productive members of society. Is your only reason for behaving well the fear of divine retribution?



I know of no religious beliefs that are taught in public schools. I'm fine with public schools teaching science, regardless of that science's conflict with some people's religions. The evolution debate is a few threads over from here, but I'll just let it suffice to say that I strongly dispute your assertion that it is a religion.

1. Antonius, like others, was a philosopher/athiest. I was using this to show that the poster was incorrect in stating that athiest were "non-violent". You can read up on your history and see why people would fear athiest in power.
2. I did not know that "athiest" developed their own morals. Who was the first athiest that stated "thou shalt not...."? Why would you follow such a code if you are no better than a dog, tree or bug? Yes, one reason I follow the laws because I fear punishment both secular and spiritual. BTW, where did the idea of God come from in your opinion?
3. Yes evolution is a form of a religious view and is not scientific (IMO). It leaves you with more "We don't know" answers than the thought of creationism. I have stated before and I still believe that everyone has a god. Most peoples god is themselves (whether religious or athiest).

[baysidetrey]

You realize this is the essence of capitalism.

It is also the essence of mere animals such as lions, hogs and bees. How do you relate a business practice to how a society would view one another? Also, you can read in the OT of how the Jews were to conduct themselves in business which I believe also applies to the christian today.

[AeroEngineer]

That being the case, why should someone who truly believed in this not decide to take all they can by whatever means without reguard for morals?

In my experience, atheists do good because it is the right thing to do, not because of any anticipated reward/punishment in the afterlife.

IMO, its a more selfless reason.

[baysidetrey]

In my experience, atheists do good because it is the right thing to do, not because of any anticipated reward/punishment in the afterlife.

IMO, its a more selfless reason.

Who decides it is the right thing? Dawkins , Owen, Paine....? Why doesn't the lion do the "right thing"?

[AeroEngineer]

Who decides it is the right thing? Dawkins , Owen, Paine....? Why doesn't the lion do the "right thing"?

I decide the right thing. I act how I'd expect others to act towards me.

The lion does its own thing. We're more social creatures.

[baysidetrey]

I decide the right thing. I act how I'd expect others to act towards me.

The lion does its own thing. We're more social creatures.

1. So, you are the most powerful being/creator you know? You are the ultimate judge of right and wrong? The laws in the land have not had an influence on your judgement?
2. You/your generations can never evolve then under the complete theory of survival of the fittest and therefore you are not following your own belief system IMO.
3. So, the social aspect is the only difference between us and animals in your opinion? How did we become more social beings if we all evolved from a single cell?

[Apatriot]

It boggles my mind. In my experience, atheists are good decent people for the most part, in fact, the ratio of good-people vs idiots/criminials/etc are probably the same as for the religious part of society, on top of not going violent for their beliefs. I wonder where this distrust springs from?

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/

Studies carried out by the University of Minnesota yielded these answeres:

Well, I wish that they had also had agnostics in that survey. Personally, I find agnostics to be good decent people. Atheists (and by that, I mean strong atheists) tend to be as strident and obnoxious as most fundamentalists are.

[Finality]

1. So, you are the most powerful being/creator you know? You are the ultimate judge of right and wrong? The laws in the land have not had an influence on your judgement?
2. You/your generations can never evolve then under the complete theory of survival of the fittest and therefore you are not following your own belief system IMO.
3. So, the social aspect is the only difference between us and animals in your opinion? How did we become more social beings if we all evolved from a single cell?
Are you not at all a judge of right and wrong? Are you saying you wouldn't know what is morally right unless someone else tells you what is morally right?

Do you have a conscience, for example?

[Finality]

Well, I wish that they had also had agnostics in that survey. Personally, I find agnostics to be good decent people. Atheists (and by that, I mean strong atheists) tend to be as strident and obnoxious as most fundamentalists are.
I don't think there are really very many strong atheists, especially outside of Internet Forums of Anonymous Invincibility.

[Clintville]

For one, I would like to address your view that athiest/philosophers are non violent in their beliefs. The Roman Emperor Marcus Antoninus was such a person who tortured christians in the first century and we could go on from there.
Next, IMO, athiesm/evolutionism followed to the end of its natural course is a theory of survival of the fittest and we are no better or worse than an animal. That being the case, why should someone who truly believed in this not decide to take all they can by whatever means without reguard for morals?
This being said, I have no more of a problem with someone believing whatever it is they wish to as long as they do not try to force it on others i.e. evolution or a certain religious belief being taught in schools as a truth without the other views is wrong IMO.
Please tell me you don't actually believe that atheists or people who believe in evolution live without morals. That is crap. Don't listen to Ben Stein, he is a moron.

And evolution is the only scientific theory for that issue, so it kind of has to be taught in schools. It certainly isn't a religion.

[Clintville]

1. Antonius, like others, was a philosopher/athiest. I was using this to show that the poster was incorrect in stating that athiest were "non-violent". You can read up on your history and see why people would fear athiest in power.

Did he kill because he was an atheist? I am pretty sure the OP's (or whoever you are referring to) point was that being an atheist doesn't make the person immoral or violent.

2. I did not know that "athiest" developed their own morals. Who was the first athiest that stated "thou shalt not...."? Why would you follow such a code if you are no better than a dog, tree or bug? Yes, one reason I follow the laws because I fear punishment both secular and spiritual. BTW, where did the idea of God come from in your opinion?

First, I did not know atheists equated themselves to trees or bugs. I certainly do not (though I don't see trees killing people). I am an atheist and I try to do what is right because that is what I believe. I want to make society a better place. Not because I am afraid I'll be punished when I am dead. That is kind of selfish in a way, even if the action is not.

3. Yes evolution is a form of a religious view and is not scientific (IMO). It leaves you with more "We don't know" answers than the thought of creationism. I have stated before and I still believe that everyone has a god. Most peoples god is themselves (whether religious or athiest).
It isn't up to opinion. You are either wrong or right. Evolution became a theory using the scientific method, therefore, it is a scientific theory and part of science.

[mtdim]

I think Atheists are a very misunderstood group. Every time Atheism comes up in a discussion, certain believers invariably begin asking questions about how atheists can possibly be moral people. If someone holds this popular misunderstanding about Atheists, it's not at all surprising that he or she would distrust them. However, most people, when they spend a few moments to examine themselves, realize that they don't get their morality from religion at all. It's almost as though people have just assumed it to be true that morality comes from religion/belief in god without giving it a moment's thought.

[Clintville]

Who decides it is the right thing? Dawkins , Owen, Paine....? Why doesn't the lion do the "right thing"?
The person. As well as society. We are talking about basic things here, like not killing or giving to charity. Things that are pretty non disputable by themselves.

[mtdim]

Well, I wish that they had also had agnostics in that survey. Personally, I find agnostics to be good decent people. Atheists (and by that, I mean strong atheists) tend to be as strident and obnoxious as most fundamentalists are.

How do you define a "strong atheist"? I take the positive position that god does not exist, does that make me a strong atheist in your view? Note that I don't take the position that I know god doesn't exist, however I assert it to be true based on evidence.

[captusa]

1. So, you are the most powerful being/creator you know? You are the ultimate judge of right and wrong? The laws in the land have not had an influence on your judgement?
Who said I was the the most powerful being/creator I know ?
I just do not believe there exists an omipotent ,omnicient entity involves ITSELF with the minutia of the lives of a species on one of a billions of planets, around billions of stars in billions of galleries.
The developement of rules of society "evolved" as man learned that banding together in a social unit had survival advantages.
The laws of the land were taught to me as part of attaining maturity and it was in my best interest to contribute an orderly society.
My decision to obey the laws and adhere to the mores of society is my decision just as it may be your decision that the existance of some GUY in the SKY compels you to obey the laws.
The idea that people stealing from each other and people killing each other was detrimental to a society did not require a Deity for most humans to figure that out.

2. You/your generations can never evolve then under the complete theory of survival of the fittest and therefore you are not following your own belief system IMO.

Co-operation is one of the traits that allowed humans to be the fittest species on the planet.

3. So, the social aspect is the only difference between us and animals in your opinion? How did we become more social beings if we all evolved from a single cell?


Our brain capacities that enabled us to develope our ability to store and transmit information from generation to generation is one thing that seperates us from other animals.
We became social creatures long after our ancestors had evolved from a single cell.
ANd how did you become a social being when you grew from a single (zygote) cell ?

[captusa]

How do you define a "strong atheist"? I take the positive position that god does not exist, does that make me a strong atheist in your view? Note that I don't take the position that I know god doesn't exist, however I assert it to be true based on evidence.
I think Apatriot refers to an Atheist that is so unsure of his beliefs that he prosyletizes his beliefs and has no respect for those that do not share his beliefs (or lack thereof) as a strong Atheist.

[captusa]

Are you not at all a judge of right and wrong? Are you saying you wouldn't know what is morally right unless someone else tells you what is morally right?

Do you have a conscience, for example?

May I rephrase ?

Are you saying you wouldn't know what is morally right unless someone else tells you that a Deity told him what is morally right?

[captusa]

.......3. Yes evolution is a form of a religious view and is not scientific (IMO). It leaves you with more "We don't know" answers than the thought of creationism.
.................

Just think of where medicine would be if humans did not develop the germ theory of disease.
It engendered a lot more "We don't know" answers than the idea that "GODDIDIT" was the cause of disease.

[AeroEngineer]

I think Apatriot refers to an Atheist that is so unsure of his beliefs that he prosyletizes his beliefs and has no respect for those that do not share his beliefs (or lack thereof) as a strong Atheist.




I heard I good term for them - "Anti-theists."

I don't care for them, either.

[baysidetrey]

Are you not at all a judge of right and wrong? Are you saying you wouldn't know what is morally right unless someone else tells you what is morally right?

Do you have a conscience, for example?

Let's take for example a person who believed in the hard core evolution and survivial of the fittest. He felt that all his actions were fine because we were no more than a higher class of animals. This man was Jeffery Dalmer. (He also later became a christian so I am not trying to use his name as a slander of evolution merely how he justified his actions) So yes, I would have to say that something greater than I would need to give me the conscience to discern right from wrong. Evolution does not provide this. BTW, in the US you are living by Judeo-Christian laws for the most part.

[baysidetrey]

Please tell me you don't actually believe that atheists or people who believe in evolution live without morals. That is crap. Don't listen to Ben Stein, he is a moron.

And evolution is the only scientific theory for that issue, so it kind of has to be taught in schools. It certainly isn't a religion.

No I do not believe that most athiest live without morals. The morals they live by are usually Judeo or Christian morals that have been past down to them. As to evolution being the only scientific theory, that is truly sad as it can not come up with anyting better that "I don't know, I just know it wasn't God". And yes, IMO evolution is a religion just as much as christianity etc. People are their own gods IMO for they feel they are the greatest thing in the universe.

[baysidetrey]

Did he kill because he was an atheist? I am pretty sure the OP's (or whoever you are referring to) point was that being an atheist doesn't make the person immoral or violent.

First, I did not know atheists equated themselves to trees or bugs. I certainly do not (though I don't see trees killing people). I am an atheist and I try to do what is right because that is what I believe. I want to make society a better place. Not because I am afraid I'll be punished when I am dead. That is kind of selfish in a way, even if the action is not.

It isn't up to opinion. You are either wrong or right. Evolution became a theory using the scientific method, therefore, it is a scientific theory and part of science.

1) Yes, that is one reason why he killed christians (read early christian history to find more)
2) If you have no hope of eternity because we are as good as it gets, it then reasons that a dog, a bug or a tree has the same hope and the same meaning as you and I (IMO).
3) Evolution (in its fullest) is a theory accepted by those who can not believe that a God created everything but that something came from nothing and then stopped creating something from nothing. BTW, there was a theory that the sun revolved around the earth that was an accepted scientific theory.

[baysidetrey]

The person. As well as society. We are talking about basic things here, like not killing or giving to charity. Things that are pretty non disputable by themselves.

Why don't animals have this same basic understanding of right and wrong?

[mtdim]

Why don't animals have this same basic understanding of right and wrong?

Many animals do. Being generous has been shown to be quite beneficial, from an evolutionary standpoint, for certain species. There are mathematical models (in game theory, for example) which demonstrate that reciprocal kindness is a "winning" strategy for many species. There have been several books written about this, I'll look a few up tomorrow.

[Clintville]

BTW, in the US you are living by Judeo-Christian laws for the most part.
Which laws? We are not.

[Clintville]

No I do not believe that most athiest live without morals. The morals they live by are usually Judeo or Christian morals

Simply because there are basic morals listed in the Bible does not mean a religion, or group of religions, can take credit for them. Things like no stealing and no murder have been around in written laws before any of the Abrahamic religions came up.



that have been past down to them. As to evolution being the only scientific theory, that is truly sad as it can not come up with anyting better that "I don't know, I just know it wasn't God". And yes, IMO evolution is a religion just as much as christianity etc. People are their own gods IMO for they feel they are the greatest thing in the universe.
No, it is more the opposite. While creationism simply states "God did it" with no evidence, evolution does have tons of evidence. Even so, there is still evidence that shows that the Earth is a lot older than 10,000 years.

[captusa]

No I do not believe that most athiest live without morals. The morals they live by are usually Judeo or Christian morals that have been past down to them. As to evolution being the only scientific theory, that is truly sad as it can not come up with anyting better that "I don't know, I just know it wasn't God". And yes, IMO evolution is a religion just as much as christianity etc. People are their own gods IMO for they feel they are the greatest thing in the universe.


Evolution NEVER said it wasn't God.
Evolution examines the process and history of the development of species.
It analyzes what happened not why it happened or the impetous for how it started.

As I have said many times before, as a confirmed non-Theist there is no evidence that evolution was not the modus operendi of God or any other Creator to develop the species.
AND the largest Christian denomination has no problem accepting God and Evolution..

[biggles53]

No I do not believe that most athiest live without morals.

How magnanimous of you....!

The morals they live by are usually Judeo or Christian morals that have been past down to them.

Nonsense. Are you really trying to tell us that mankind DIDN'T know it was wrong to kill, lie, steal BEFORE Mt Sinai..??? The moral traditions by which we (largely) live our lives today pre-date your particular religion by a loooong chalk...

As to evolution being the only scientific theory, that is truly sad as it can not come up with anyting better that "I don't know, I just know it wasn't God".

It says no such thing. Go look at the 'Evolution' thread and broaden your knowledge....please!

And yes, IMO evolution is a religion just as much as christianity etc. People are their own gods IMO for they feel they are the greatest thing in the universe.

Poppycock. That's so bad, it's not even wrong.....:rolleyes:

[Clintville]

If you have no hope of eternity because we are as good as it gets, it then reasons that a dog, a bug or a tree has the same hope and the same meaning as you and I (IMO).

Well, that logic isn't accepted by atheists.

3) Evolution (in its fullest) is a theory accepted by those who can not believe that a God created everything but that something came from nothing and then stopped creating something from nothing. BTW, there was a theory that the sun revolved around the earth that was an accepted scientific theory.
The theory of evolution does not state that something came from nothing. That is actually more what creationism says.

Yes, there was a theory that the Sun revolved around the Earth. That was disproved by scientists, and would not be able to pass the scientific method.

[baysidetrey]

Simply because there are basic morals listed in the Bible does not mean a religion, or group of religions, can take credit for them. Things like no stealing and no murder have been around in written laws before any of the Abrahamic religions came up.



No, it is more the opposite. While creationism simply states "God did it" with no evidence, evolution does have tons of evidence. Even so, there is still evidence that shows that the Earth is a lot older than 10,000 years.

1) Proof please of the written laws and then please prove they are older than the laws given to Adam.
Now, you contend that we were created by a single cell evolving into a human or something like that. (Either that or they grew on trees) Please refer back to science and mitochondrial eve. One first woman we all came from. Now you would have me believe that this first woman and man who came from apes or such were born into the same village and got along and produced offspring. Now back to science and like animals reproducing. Can a mule reproduce? Then how did this mutated pair reproduce? Next, who taught this first pair language, that they should wear clothes and the idea of an afterlife?
2) If you would refer to Genesis you would see that God gave the Earth the apperence of age. This was written long before the debate of the age of the Earth. Basically the chicken came first as an adult chicken to take care of the eggs or they would have died.

[Clintville]

Why don't animals have this same basic understanding of right and wrong?
Animals (the ones you are referring to) are not humans.

[baysidetrey]

Well, that logic isn't accepted by atheists.

3) Evolution (in its fullest) is a theory accepted by those who can not believe that a God created everything but that something came from nothing and then stopped creating something from nothing. BTW, there was a theory that the sun revolved around the earth that was an accepted scientific theory.
The theory of evolution does not state that something came from nothing. That is actually more what creationism says.

Yes, there was a theory that the Sun revolved around the Earth. That was disproved by scientists, and would not be able to pass the scientific method.[/QUOTE]

Then please enlighten me as to how athiest/evolutionis propose that matter was created.
My point was that theories can be wrong even though they are accepted by the masses.

[biggles53]

Let's take for example a person who believed in the hard core evolution and survivial of the fittest.

You clearly do NOT understand what this means. "Fitness" refers to the ability to reproduce more effectively than your 'competitors'. It has nothing to do with a more aggressive behaviour.

He felt that all his actions were fine because we were no more than a higher class of animals. This man was Jeffery Dalmer. (He also later became a christian so I am not trying to use his name as a slander of evolution merely how he justified his actions)

(my bold) So, if he hadn't become a Christian, we can surmise that you would be using him as a slander of evolution....? Nice....

So yes, I would have to say that something greater than I would need to give me the conscience to discern right from wrong. Evolution does not provide this.

Wrong. Do yourself a favour, and google up 'evolution of morality'. You'll find copious amounts of scientific evidence to support the contention that morality can develop sans dieu...

BTW, in the US you are living by Judeo-Christian laws for the most part.

Wrong, again. Your laws are based largely on British law, which is largely based on Roman law....which was based largely on Greek law...!

[Clintville]

1) Proof please of the written laws and then please prove they are older than the laws given to Adam.

The Code of Hammurabi is the oldest law code, from ancient Babylonia. They weren't Christians.

2) If you would refer to Genesis you would see that God gave the Earth the apperence of age. This was written long before the debate of the age of the Earth. Basically the chicken came first as an adult chicken to take care of the eggs or they would have died.
Well, "God did it" is not good enough for scientists. And that is exactly why it isn't a religion.

[captusa]

Why don't animals have this same basic understanding of right and wrong?

Because most non-human animals have evolves more complex brains including a more complex Cerebrum and Cerebellum.
There is reasonable evidence that some non-human animals do have at least some understanding of right and wrong that might be different than yours.
A wolf pack or a pride of lions conform to rules of their societies.

[baysidetrey]

You clearly do NOT understand what this means. "Fitness" refers to the ability to reproduce more effectively than your 'competitors'. It has nothing to do with a more aggressive behaviour.



(my bold) So, if he hadn't become a Christian, we can surmise that you would be using him as a slander of evolution....? Nice....



Wrong. Do yourself a favour, and google up 'evolution of morality'. You'll find copious amounts of scientific evidence to support the contention that morality can develop sans dieu...



Wrong, again. Your laws are based largely on British law, which is largely based on Roman law....which was based largely on Greek law...!

1) Please turn to the discovery channel and watch the episode about the pigs and their survival.
2) Getting a little low on your morals there.
3) Someone says it so I believe it mentality is not proof.
4) Continue down the line and you will end up with what I am contending for.

[Clintville]

Then please enlighten me as to how athiest/evolutionis propose that matter was created.
My point was that theories can be wrong even though they are accepted by the masses.The theory of evolution and abiogenesis are two different things.

[baysidetrey]

Because most non-human animals have evolves more complex brains including a more complex Cerebrum and Cerebellum.
There is reasonable evidence that some non-human animals do have at least some understanding of right and wrong that might be different than yours.
A wolf pack or a pride of lions conform to rules of their societies.

I can't wait to see them evolve into smarter greater beings than humans. They may even invent a religion all their own that we can not understand. Do you think they will be like the transformers? BTW, I believe that is called instinct not morals.

[baysidetrey]

The theory of evolution and abiogenesis are two different things.

Science is science. You can't pick and choose, or can you?

[Clintville]

4) Continue down the line and you will end up with what I am contending for.
The Greeks and Romans predated Judaism. And their laws existed before the Jews.

[baysidetrey]

Many animals do. Being generous has been shown to be quite beneficial, from an evolutionary standpoint, for certain species. There are mathematical models (in game theory, for example) which demonstrate that reciprocal kindness is a "winning" strategy for many species. There have been several books written about this, I'll look a few up tomorrow.

I'll agree with you to a certain degree and do find your evidence interesting. However I would think that the "kindness" is for self benefit and therefore does not fit into morals.

[biggles53]

1) Proof please of the written laws and then please prove they are older than the laws given to Adam.

Greek law pre-dates your religion considerably. And the laws were given to Adam...??? What was the purpose of that trek up Mt Sinai then.....??

Now, you contend that we were created by a single cell evolving into a human or something like that. (Either that or they grew on trees) Please refer back to science and mitochondrial eve. One first woman we all came from. Now you would have me believe that this first woman and man who came from apes or such were born into the same village and got along and produced offspring. Now back to science and like animals reproducing. Can a mule reproduce? Then how did this mutated pair reproduce? Next, who taught this first pair language, that they should wear clothes and the idea of an afterlife?

Possibly because of your ingrained religious beliefs, you have a view of evolution similar to that of your creation myths. POOF! and suddenly an entirely new 'creature' appears! It doesn't work that way. Evolution is an EXTREMELY SLOW process. You wouldn't see the chages taking place from one generation to the next.

Let me give you two examples.

1. Suppose a photo was taken of you every day of your life and those photos were arranged in chronological oreder. If you viewed the first one (new born) and then the last one (taken today), you would see an enormous difference, not only in the appearance of the two people in those pictures, but also in their behaviours and capacities. But, if you look at two consecutive pictures, you can't see a difference, can you? And yet, change must be happening, because we can see its eventual outcome. So it is with evolution.

2. Did you know that there are around 150-200 mutations within your genome that aren't in either of your parents, and that a similar number will be in your children's that aren't in yours or their mother's? So, in a very literal sense, each generation is an evolution from the one before.

2) If you would refer to Genesis you would see that God gave the Earth the apperence of age. This was written long before the debate of the age of the Earth. Basically the chicken came first as an adult chicken to take care of the eggs or they would have died.

So, your god is a deceiver.....??

[Clintville]

Science is science. You can't pick and choose, or can you?
The theory of evolution is widely accepted and passed the scientific method. The origins of life, as far as I know, is not.

[captusa]

The theory of evolution does not state that something came from nothing. That is actually more what creationism says.

Yes, there was a theory that the Sun revolved around the Earth. That was disproved by scientists, and would not be able to pass the scientific method

Then please enlighten me as to how athiest/evolutionis propose that matter was created.
My point was that theories can be wrong even though they are accepted by the masses.

How matter was created is not the slightest concern of the theory of evolution.
(evolutionist is hardly an accurate term)

Ask the Atheist/physicists.
And no scientific theory is considered absolute.
But the more established ones are backed by so much evidence that the major premisses are accepted as fact.
Newton's theory of gravity was wrong but a great deal of it was useful in many limited situations and the major proponent of the Big Bang theory was a Catholic Theologian and Physicist and the theory was attacked by Atheist scientists** as Creationism.

**Before I saw the Discovery Channel's discussion of the Big Bang theory I though Atheist scientist was a figment of Fundamentalists' imagination.
Their own Boogity Man.(Siefeld reference)

[baysidetrey]

The Greeks and Romans predated Judaism. And their laws existed before the Jews.

Incorrect. Here is where I will ask you to show your proof as the Romans did not come onto the scene in history until way after the Jews. Now you could have said many other cultures such as Sumerians, Egyptians and Chinese but to say the Greeks and Romans shows a lack of historical accuracy.

[baysidetrey]

Greek law pre-dates your religion considerably. And the laws were given to Adam...??? What was the purpose of that trek up Mt Sinai then.....??



Possibly because of your ingrained religious beliefs, you have a view of evolution similar to that of your creation myths. POOF! and suddenly an entirely new 'creature' appears! It doesn't work that way. Evolution is an EXTREMELY SLOW process. You wouldn't see the chages taking place from one generation to the next.

Let me give you two examples.

1. Suppose a photo was taken of you every day of your life and those photos were arranged in chronological oreder. If you viewed the first one (new born) and then the last one (taken today), you would see an enormous difference, not only in the appearance of the two people in those pictures, but also in their behaviours and capacities. But, if you look at two consecutive pictures, you can't see a difference, can you? And yet, change must be happening, because we can see its eventual outcome. So it is with evolution.

2. Did you know that there are around 150-200 mutations within your genome that aren't in either of your parents, and that a similar number will be in your children's that aren't in yours or their mother's? So, in a very literal sense, each generation is an evolution from the one before.



So, your god is a deceiver.....??

1) Incorrect.
2) You did not even attempt this one other than ramble on about a subject as macro evolution in which I was not refering to.
3) No, He told us what He did. You can believe it or not, it is your free will to choose.

[biggles53]

I'll agree with you to a certain degree and do find your evidence interesting. However I would think that the "kindness" is for self benefit and therefore does not fit into morals.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA....!!!!

ALL morality is "for self benefit"...!!! We behave well towards others because of that old maxim about "do unto others..." (which also pre-dates your religion..). We put ourselves in the other's moccasins and imagine how WE would feel if certain behaviour were meted out to US!

I can't believe you said that........

[baysidetrey]

Then please enlighten me as to how athiest/evolutionis propose that matter was created.
My point was that theories can be wrong even though they are accepted by the masses.

How matter was created is not the slightest concern of the theory of evolution.
(evolutionist is hardly an accurate term)

Ask the Atheist/physicists.
And no scientific theory is considered absolute.
But the more established ones are backed by so much evidence that the major premisses are accepted as fact.
Newton's theory of gravity was wrong but a great deal of it was useful in many limited situations and the major proponent of the Big Bang theory was a Catholic Theologian and Physicist and the theory was attacked by Atheist scientists** as Creationism.

**Before I saw the Discovery Channel's discussion of the Big Bang theory I though Atheist scientist was a figment of Fundamentalists' imagination.
Their own Boogity Man.(Siefeld reference)
That was actually not my statement the computer messed up the quotes and I think that is what Clintville said. I could be wrong though and it might be another posters.

[baysidetrey]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA....!!!!

ALL morality is "for self benefit"...!!! We behave well towards others because of that old maxim about "do unto others..." (which also pre-dates your religion..). We put ourselves in the other's moccasins and imagine how WE would feel if certain behaviour were meted out to US!

I can't believe you said that........

How sad. Also goes to prove a point at least for one athiest and morals.

[biggles53]

How sad. Also goes to prove a point at least for one athiest and morals.

Oh please....!!

You've already pointed out in an earlier post how your belief in a god is entirely predicated upon your desire to live an eternal life after your death, and to avoid never-ending pain! YOU, YOU, YOU....!

ALL morality is self-serving. We do what we feel is the best thing for a happy and secure and comfortable existence. And one of those 'things' is making sure that your neighbour looks kindly upon you

[baysidetrey]

Oh please....!!

You've already pointed out in an earlier post how your belief in a god is entirely predicated upon your desire to live an eternal life after your death, and to avoid never-ending pain! YOU, YOU, YOU....!

ALL morality is self-serving. We do what we feel is the best thing for a happy and secure and comfortable existence. And one of those 'things' is making sure that your neighbour looks kindly upon you

And this is why I seldom debate with people such as yourself. You take a word or two, twist it as much as possible and then try to debate off of your preconcieved notions. Seriously, in a thread about not liking and distrusting athiest you do not seem to be the role model. I am sure there are more athiest out there that do not put so much contempt in their posts and can ratonally and logically dispute the points. Thanks though.

[Clintville]

Incorrect. Here is where I will ask you to show your proof as the Romans did not come onto the scene in history until way after the Jews. Now you could have said many other cultures such as Sumerians, Egyptians and Chinese but to say the Greeks and Romans shows a lack of historical accuracy.
Greeks came about in the 1100s BC. When did the Jewish religion come about? And how exactly did Judaism influence Greco-Roman law?

[captusa]

Incorrect. Here is where I will ask you to show your proof as the Romans did not come onto the scene in history until way after the Jews. Now you could have said many other cultures such as Sumerians, Egyptians and Chinese but to say the Greeks and Romans shows a lack of historical accuracy.

Moses fled Egypt because he killed an overseer.
Murder must have been against the law in Egypt before Moses gave the law.
And Moses was Egyptian royalty.
The Codes of Hammarabi preceded the Exodus.

[RayMan]

1) Proof please of the written laws and then please prove they are older than the laws given to Adam. <snip>

"The laws given to Adam?"

Where are you getting this stuff?

One commandmant, "don't eat from that tree over there," can hardly be stretched out into "laws."

[baysidetrey]

Greeks came about in the 1100s BC. When did the Jewish religion come about? And how exactly did Judaism influence Greco-Roman law?

Read your history and then we can debate. I am not trying to be mean, I just can tell that you have many of your facts incorrect and it would take a long time to explain in which you probably won't believe me anyway. You can google much of the information for now but it is much better to read the historical books. If you are however open to discuss this with an open mind and accept facts, I'm still on board.

[baysidetrey]

Moses fled Egypt because he killed an overseer.
Murder must have been against the law in Egypt before Moses gave the law.
And Moses was Egyptian royalty.
The Codes of Hammarabi preceded the Exodus.

I agree. Moses however gave the Jewish Law to the Jews. The Jews came from Abraham (who was the first Jew). Again, go back to Adam, Noah and Abraham to see the laws they were under.
BTW, would you explain what you mean by your sig.
"THE ONLY THING THAT SEPARATES MAN FROM ANIMAL IS MINDLESS SUPERSTITION AND POINTLESS RITUAL."

[RayMan]

1) Proof please of the written laws and then please prove they are older than the laws given to Adam. <snip>

He didn't say anything was older than the laws given to Adam. Whatever the heck you mean by that.

Originally Posted by Clintville http://forums.hannity.com/firestorm/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=61396491#post61396491)
Simply because there are basic morals listed in the Bible does not mean a religion, or group of religions, can take credit for them. Things like no stealing and no murder have been around in written laws before any of the Abrahamic religions came up.
Abrahamic religions means, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Hammurabi's Code with written laws about not stealing or murdering were around something like two hundred years before Moses received the Law at Mt. Sinai.

[captusa]

I can't wait to see them evolve into smarter greater beings than humans. They may even invent a religion all their own that we can not understand. Do you think they will be like the transformers? BTW, I believe that is called instinct not morals.

If you have a few 100 million years things might change.
Humans have a quite a few millenia head start so it is unlikely that a canine decendent will pass our progeny.
There are many things (especially in canines) that are instinctual but some of the rules of the pack are developed by being born into the society of the pack and some of the things humans do have itheir origins in instinct.

[baysidetrey]

If you have a few 100 million years things might change.
Humans have a quite a few millenia head start so it is unlikely that a canine decendent will pass our progeny.
There are many things (especially in canines) that are instinctual but some of the rules of the pack are developed by being born into the society of the pack and some of the things humans do have itheir origins in instinct.

So some things are voluntary and some are involuntary? If this is what you mean, I can agree.

[captusa]

He didn't say anything was older than the laws given to Adam. Whatever the heck you mean by that.

Abrahamic religions means, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Hammurabi's Code with written laws about not stealing or murdering were around something like two hundred years before Moses received the Law at Mt. Sinai.
A quick check came up with these estimates.
The King-lists would suggest 2342 B.C. as the date of Hammurabi.
This would put the date of the Exodus at around 1450 BC.
And of course Mosaic would have not have had any influence outside of Palestine until the Babylonian Conquest or the conquest by Rome.

[Clintville]

Hammurabi's Code with written laws about not stealing or murdering were around something like two hundred years before Moses received the Law at Mt. Sinai.
Yeah, there is no proof of Moses even existing, so that kind of has to be discarded, even if that is what is believed.

[Clintville]

Read your history and then we can debate. I am not trying to be mean, I just can tell that you have many of your facts incorrect and it would take a long time to explain in which you probably won't believe me anyway. You can google much of the information for now but it is much better to read the historical books. If you are however open to discuss this with an open mind and accept facts, I'm still on board.
So when did modern Judaism come into existence? The Bible isn't evidence, keep that in mind. And how were the Greeks influenced by them?

[captusa]

So some things are voluntary and some are involuntary? If this is what you mean, I can agree.

Instincts suggest behaviors.
Animals can reject those inborn suggestions and being more thoughtful than other animals humans are more likely to ignore or not recognize instincts.

[Dem]

Yeah, there is no proof of Moses even existing, so that kind of has to be discarded, even if that is what is believed.
Sadly this is true. When I learned that there is no archeological evidence for the existence of Moses or Exodus happening, is when I began to question the Bible, and eventually become an Atheist.

[biggles53]

And this is why I seldom debate with people such as yourself. You take a word or two, twist it as much as possible and then try to debate off of your preconcieved notions. Seriously, in a thread about not liking and distrusting athiest you do not seem to be the role model. I am sure there are more athiest out there that do not put so much contempt in their posts and can ratonally and logically dispute the points. Thanks though.

Oh please go right ahead and show where my rationality and logic break down....I'm ready to be educated!

And, remember buddy, they were YOUR words that I was addressing. YOU are the one charging 'no morality without god'. YOU are the one that claims that our laws are based on your religion. If you don't like my "comtemptuous" manner, I suggest you go back and review the source of that contempt......!

[captusa]

Yeah, there is no proof of Moses even existing, so that kind of has to be discarded, even if that is what is believed.

Some interesting points indicate the existance of Moses.
At the time of the Exodus there were monotheistic palace cults.
If a leader emerged from among Egyptian royalty the bullrushes story might have been added to rationalize the Israelites being lead by an Egyptian.

[baysidetrey]

So when did modern Judaism come into existence? The Bible isn't evidence, keep that in mind. And how were the Greeks influenced by them?

First let me say if there is no proof Moses existed then there is no proof that George Washington existed. Now if you would like to call eye-witnesses (historians) then we can say "Yes, they existed". Now I will go with Captusa and date the exodus around 1450 b.c. which is before those you mentioned earlier. That is for the Mosaic law however and does not reach back into the biblical history that I am refering to. BTW, I notice that you do not believe the bible to be evidence. Do you have much knowledge of Alexander the Great and his timeline?

[baysidetrey]

Instincts suggest behaviors.
Animals can reject those inborn suggestions and being more thoughtful than other animals humans are more likely to ignore or not recognize instincts.

O.K. but this does not touch my earlier questions about why we have language, wear clothes and have ideas that we have a spirit/afterlife.

[captusa]

Sadly this is true. When I learned that there is no archeological evidence for the existence of Moses or Exodus happening, is when I began to question the Bible, and eventually become an Atheist.

I am an Atheist but there is evidence of an Exodus.
When David Ben Gurion, who was a Biblical scholar, was president of Israel he made the statement that evidence of the Exodus indicated about 40 people.
As a politician, his statement hit the fan among the religious residents.
The Joseph story is consistant with a period when the Hittites, a Semitic race, ruled Egypt.
I believe the Bible is a collection of folk history with a great deal based on fact including stories from other cultures that the writers of the Bible creditted to the Israelites.

[biggles53]

O.K. but this does not touch my earlier questions about why we have language, wear clothes and have ideas that we have a spirit/afterlife.


We are not the only species that have language. Do some research please. The wearing of clothes and the development of imagination are a function of the higher cerebral powers that have evolved in our species.

[captusa]

O.K. but this does not touch my earlier questions about why we have language, wear clothes and have ideas that we have a spirit/afterlife.

Several animals send verbal messages.
We, or at least I, have a much larger brains (and a cerebellum) than most animals so probably we developed a more efficient language than many other animals.
Neanderthal most likely did not have the physical ability to articulate sounds as well as cro-magnum.
That and some physical differences contributed to the survival of cro-magnum and the extinction of Neanderthal.
Neanderthal were the first to bury their dead and had larger brains but our ancestors survived and they did not.
I don't consider it especially brilliant to come up with the idea covering ones self with a skin or some brush would be protect us from rain and cold.
We also have the power to conceive ideas.
WE HAVE EVOLVED LARGER BRAINS, OPPOSED THUMBS, and other traits that make us different and some might say superior to most other animals.

[baysidetrey]

Instincts suggest behaviors.
Animals can reject those inborn suggestions and being more thoughtful than other animals humans are more likely to ignore or not recognize instincts.

So you don't believe in materialism and do believe in free will, correct?

[Dem]

I am an Atheist but there is evidence of an Exodus.
When David Ben Gurion, who was a Biblical scholar, was president of Israel he made the statement that evidence of the Exodus indicated about 40 people.
As a politician, his statement hit the fan among the religious residents.
The Joseph story is consistant with a period when the Hittites, a Semitic race, ruled Egypt.
I believe the Bible is a collection of folk history with a great deal based on fact including stories from other cultures that the writers of the Bible creditted to the Israelites.
And What was Mr. Gurion's evidence for Exodus?

“Really, it’s a myth,” Dr. Hawass said of the story of the Exodus, as he stood at the foot of a wall built during what is calledthe New Kingdom.

...

“If they get upset, I don’t care,” Dr. Hawass said. “This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem.”

...

But nothing was showing up that might help prove the Old Testament story of Moses and the Israelites fleeing Egypt, or wandering in the desert. Dr. Hawass said he was not surprised, given the lack of archaeological evidence to date. But even scientists can find room to hold on to beliefs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/africa/03exodus.html


http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/13/news/mn-50481On Passover last Sunday, Rabbi David Wolpe raised that provocative question before 2,200 faithful at Sinai Temple in Westwood. He minced no words.

"The truth is that virtually every modern archeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all," Wolpe told his congregants.

Wolpe's startling sermon may have seemed blasphemy to some. In fact, however, the rabbi was merely telling his flock what scholars have known for more than a decade. Slowly and often outside wide public purview, archeologists are radically reshaping modern understanding of the Bible. It was time for his people to know about it, Wolpe decided.

After a century of excavations trying to prove the ancient accounts true, archeologists say there is no conclusive evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, were ever enslaved, ever wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years or ever conquered the land of Canaan under Joshua's leadership. To the contrary, the prevailing view is that most of Joshua's fabled military campaigns never occurred--archeologists have uncovered ash layers and other signs of destruction at the relevant time at only one of the many battlegrounds mentioned in the Bible.
...
"Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we've broken the news very gently," said William Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and one of America's preeminent archeologists.

Dever's view is emblematic of a fundamental shift in archeology. Three decades ago as a Christian seminary student, he wrote a paper defending the Exodus and got an A, but "no one would do that today," he says. The old emphasis on trying to prove the Bible--often in excavations by amateur archeologists funded by religious groups.

But the modern archeological consensus over the Exodus is just beginning to reach the public. In 1999, an Israeli archeologist, Ze'ev Herzog of Tel Aviv University, set off a furor in Israel by writing in a popular magazine that stories of the patriarchs were myths and that neither the Exodus nor Joshua's conquests ever occurred. In the hottest controversy today, Herzog also argued that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, described as grand and glorious in the Bible, was at best a small tribal kingdom.

In a new book this year, "The Bible Unearthed," Israeli archeologist Israel Finklestein of Tel Aviv University and archeological journalist Neil Asher Silberman raised similar doubts and offered a new theory about the roots of the Exodus story. The authors argue that the story was written during the time of King Josia of Judah in the 7th century BC--600 years after the Exodus supposedly occurred in 1250 BC--as a political manifesto to unite Israelites against the rival Egyptian empire as both states sought to expand their territory.
Dever argued that the Exodus story was produced for theological reasons: to give an origin and history to a people and distinguish them from others by claiming a divine destiny.

[baysidetrey]

Several animals send verbal messages.
We, or at least I, have a much larger brains (and a cerebellum) than most animals so probably we developed a more efficient language than many other animals.
Neanderthal most likely did not have the physical ability to articulate sounds as well as cro-magnum.
That and some physical differences contributed to the survival of cro-magnum and the extinction of Neanderthal.
Neanderthal were the first to bury their dead and had larger brains but our ancestors survived and they did not.
I don't consider it especially brilliant to come up with the idea covering ones self with a skin or some brush would be protect us from rain and cold.
We also have the power to conceive ideas.
WE HAVE EVOLVED LARGER BRAINS, OPPOSED THUMBS, and other traits that make us different and some might say superior to most other animals.

Here is where you and I will have to disagree. I believe that we must be taught things in order to understand them. Now of course I know that you will disagree but I believe that the oldest language known to man is the Hebrew language (scholars can not agree but it is in the running). I believe it was taught.
Next let us go to the clothing issue. If we are no more than evolved animals, why don't animals wear clothes to cover their unmentionables? Who/what told the first humans they were naked?
Finally, the power to concieve ideas. Can we concieve something that we never sensed? I know that we can compound ideas of what our 5 senses tell us but I do not believe that we can concieve something that we have never felt with our senses. Therefore, we must have been taught by something/someone about the inner spirit/afterlife IMO.

[Clintville]

First let me say if there is no proof Moses existed then there is no proof that George Washington existed. Now if you would like to call eye-witnesses (historians) then we can say "Yes, they existed". Now I will go with Captusa and date the exodus around 1450 b.c. which is before those you mentioned earlier. That is for the Mosaic law however and does not reach back into the biblical history that I am refering to. BTW, I notice that you do not believe the bible to be evidence. Do you have much knowledge of Alexander the Great and his timeline?
First, there is plenty of evidence that George Washington existed. There is no records of Moses existing or their being a Exodus. There are also not records of Jesus actually existing from the that time, but that is a different topic I guess.

And still, how exactly does this link American law to Christian? Only some of the Ten Commandments is actual law. And our regime is not in anyway founded upon religion.

[Finality]

...why don't animals wear clothes to cover their unmentionables? Who/what told the first humans they were naked?...
Unmentionables? Really? I didn't know anyone actually used that term in conversation these days. :)) Like penis and vagina? They were mentioned plenty starting in high school, and I went to a conservative Catholic school. Maybe even as far back as fourth or fifth grade, in my education.

I can just imagine
God: Now Abraham, I want you to circumcise your unmentionable.
Abraham: My what?
God: Your unmentionable.
A: I'm sorry, God, I don't know what that is.
God: You know, that thing, that you cover with your clothes. Don't make me say it.
A: Well, if you want me to chop it off, then I want to be ABSOLUTELY sure we're on the same page here!

[captusa]

So you don't believe in materialism and do believe in free will, correct?

I don't think you understand either philosophical point of view.
They certainly not mutually exclusive nor did any of my statements relate to either philosophy.

[biggles53]

Here is where you and I will have to disagree. I believe that we must be taught things in order to understand them. Now of course I know that you will disagree but I believe that the oldest language known to man is the Hebrew language (scholars can not agree but it is in the running). I believe it was taught.

Why is it impossible that it developed from a more primitive language, and then one before that, and so on...??

Next let us go to the clothing issue. If we are no more than evolved animals, why don't animals wear clothes to cover their unmentionables? Who/what told the first humans they were naked?

Why is it impossible that, as humans evolved, they came to such decisions themselves...??

Finally, the power to concieve ideas. Can we concieve something that we never sensed? I know that we can compound ideas of what our 5 senses tell us but I do not believe that we can concieve something that we have never felt with our senses. Therefore, we must have been taught by something/someone about the inner spirit/afterlife IMO.

You see that prominent forehead above your eyes? It contains your frontal lobe, the part of your brain responsible for the cerebral processes which separate us from other species - the ability to reason, to imagine, etc.

Also, why can we not "concieve (sic) something that we have never felt with our senses"..??? Have you never imagined stories like those in Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings??? Have you never dreamed...??

[baysidetrey]

I don't think you understand either philosophical point of view.
They certainly not mutually exclusive nor did any of my statements relate to either philosophy.

I have read enough to understand the basics and understand that they are not exclusive, that is why I asked you your stance. Your statement of voluntary and involuntary actions are related to free will, no free will means no involuntary actions or ability to overcome our thoughts. Materialism is a view that physical matter is all there is as opposed to spititualism and you seem to be somewhere in the middle. I am just trying to understand your thoughts better.

[baysidetrey]

Unmentionables? Really? I didn't know anyone actually used that term in conversation these days. :)) Like penis and vagina? They were mentioned plenty starting in high school, and I went to a conservative Catholic school. Maybe even as far back as fourth or fifth grade, in my education.

I can just imagine
God: Now Abraham, I want you to circumcise your unmentionable.
Abraham: My what?
God: Your unmentionable.
A: I'm sorry, God, I don't know what that is.
God: You know, that thing, that you cover with your clothes. Don't make me say it.
A: Well, if you want me to chop it off, then I want to be ABSOLUTELY sure we're on the same page here!

I know, but in my defence it was late and I was trying to explain my position as well as possible and couldn't come up with anything better. The Abraham joke is pretty funny.

[Apatriot]

How do you define a "strong atheist"? I take the positive position that god does not exist, does that make me a strong atheist in your view? Note that I don't take the position that I know god doesn't exist, however I assert it to be true based on evidence.

A strong atheist is one who is absolutely convinced that gods do not exist. A weak atheist is one who may believe that gods do not exist, but recognizes that there is a possibility that gods do exist.

There is no evidence for or against the existence of God or gods.

[Apatriot]

I don't think there are really very many strong atheists, especially outside of Internet Forums of Anonymous Invincibility.

I agree. There aren't many.

[Apatriot]

Let's take for example a person who believed in the hard core evolution and survivial of the fittest. He felt that all his actions were fine because we were no more than a higher class of animals. This man was Jeffery Dalmer. (He also later became a christian so I am not trying to use his name as a slander of evolution merely how he justified his actions) So yes, I would have to say that something greater than I would need to give me the conscience to discern right from wrong. Evolution does not provide this. BTW, in the US you are living by Judeo-Christian laws for the most part.


Dahmer didn't make the claim about evolution until he was a baptized Christian while in prison. IMHO, it is a highly suspect statement, and is one of the ways he justified his own sick actions.

[baysidetrey]

Dahmer didn't make the claim about evolution until he was a baptized Christian while in prison. IMHO, it is a highly suspect statement, and is one of the ways he justified his own sick actions.

So becomming a christian made him a suspected liar in your opinion? I was using him to show how some can take these theories to their ultimate end.

[baysidetrey]

And What was Mr. Gurion's evidence for Exodus?

And I can give you scientist. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html There are more including Einstein, Newton, Mendel etc.

[Conservatizzle]

That may come closer to hitting the mark, although I think that for many religious people it would simply be a matter of disagreement with basic beliefs rather than active distrust.

As you pointed out, many if not most atheists are decent, hard working, intelligent people who make a positive impact on our society.


Agreed that the questions specifically asked the participants about those that agreed with their view of America and had to do with marriage. The issue of distrust is assumed by the OP.

I'd say that your last statement is subjective.

[Apatriot]

So becomming a christian made him a suspected liar in your opinion? I was using him to show how some can take these theories to their ultimate end.

Well, if he was lying, then possibly he wasn't truly becoming a Christian. As mentally ill as Dahmer was, I'm not sure he recognized a difference between a lie and the truth.

[Dem]

And I can give you scientist. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html There are more including Einstein, Newton, Mendel etc.
1. That article has nothing to do with Exodus.
2. Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal god
3 And from your article:

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

[RayMan]

<snip>

I'd say that your last statement is subjective.

Well, yeah. :cool:

[baysidetrey]

1. That article has nothing to do with Exodus.
2. Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal god
3 And from your article:

True the article had nothing to do with Exodus but was used (as well as the other evidences) to show that there is always dissension among the ranks. Even the great Einstein believed in a higher power (god) which true athiest do not.

[baysidetrey]

Well, if he was lying, then possibly he wasn't truly becoming a Christian. As mentally ill as Dahmer was, I'm not sure he recognized a difference between a lie and the truth.

The courts found him sane enough to face trial. Should he have been found innocent by reason of insanity in your opinion?

[Finality]

True the article had nothing to do with Exodus but was used (as well as the other evidences) to show that there is always dissension among the ranks. Even the great Einstein believed in a higher power (god) which true athiest do not.
Einstein didn't believe in a "higher" power. As best we can tell, he believed in more like a unifying power, because he was faithfully certain of the underlying uniformity of the entire universe. He didn't believe that anything was lording over us. If you want to have an idea of what Einstein believed, read Spinoza.

[baysidetrey]

Einstein didn't believe in a "higher" power. As best we can tell, he believed in more like a unifying power, because he was faithfully certain of the underlying uniformity of the entire universe. He didn't believe that anything was lording over us. If you want to have an idea of what Einstein believed, read Spinoza.

Albert Einstein: Idea of a Personal God is Childlike
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2

[mtdim]

A strong atheist is one who is absolutely convinced that gods do not exist. A weak atheist is one who may believe that gods do not exist, but recognizes that there is a possibility that gods do exist.

I'm a weak atheist under that definition as I am not absolutely convinced, but just mostly convinced.


There is no evidence for or against the existence of God or gods.

That really depends on what you believe constitutes evidence. My definition of evidence says that, if what you say above is true, then the rational position would be that there is a 50% chance of god existing. After all, if there is literally no evidence for or against then we can say absolutely nothing about whether it is more or less likely that god exists than that he doesn't exist.

However, I don't believe this to be the case. Say I were to arbitrarily posit the existence of something for which there was no evidence; would you say that there was a 50% chance of me being correct? If I posit that there is an invisible animal which orbits the sun between Mars and Earth, you would probably not believe me, even though on the face of it it seems that there is no evidence against such a proposition. However, close exmination reveals that there are certain things we know about biology and physics which make the existence of such a creature unlikely. This knowledge constitutes evidence against the proposition even though it seems rather indirect.

Evidence against god takes the same form. We know things about probability, for example, which makes a being as complex as god coming about through any process apart from evolution by natural selection extremely unlikely. This consitutes evidence against god's existence.

[captusa]

And I can give you scientist. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html There are more including Einstein, Newton, Mendel etc.
Did you read the opinion of this scientist who is a Christian has on evolution.
So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

[captusa]

1. That article has nothing to do with Exodus.
2. Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal god
3 And from your article:

I'm sorry for being redundant.
I didn't see that you got to the quote first.
Since it won't appear in this replay I'll requote baysidetrey's expert witness.
Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true.

[captusa]

Originally Posted by baysidetrey
True the article had nothing to do with Exodus but was used (as well as the other evidences) to show that there is always dissension among the ranks. Even the great Einstein believed in a higher power (god) which true athiest do not.

Einstein was a Deist in that he did not believe the Creator involved ITSELF with anything other than the initial creation.
Here are his own words:
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
He wrote, 'I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.'22

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

And the commentary:
In it, Einstein said that "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

"For me," he added, "the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

[Clintville]

True the article had nothing to do with Exodus but was used (as well as the other evidences) to show that there is always dissension among the ranks. Even the great Einstein believed in a higher power (god) which true athiest do not.
How is that dissent? Where does it say that a scientist cannot believe in God? True, someone that believes in evolution cannot believe in the literal creation stories, but how many people actually believe that?

[Dem]

Interesting article I read today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-22-no-religion_N.htm

15% of Americans identify themselves as None Religious. Although 51% of that 15% still believe in God.

[hben]

Interesting article I read today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-22-no-religion_N.htm

15% of Americans identify themselves as None Religious. Although 51% of that 15% still believe in God.

Give me those people to hang with everytime. Jesus wasn't real big on religion either in my opinion.

[baysidetrey]

Einstein was a Deist in that he did not believe the Creator involved ITSELF with anything other than the initial creation.
Here are his own words:

And the commentary:
In it, Einstein said that "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

"For me," he added, "the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

See, this is where I find debates interesting and can usually figure out whether or not the other party wishes to be logical and ethical in order that we may both learn from each other. For one, I showed a scientist who believed in God was no different than a Jewish Rabbi who did not believe in the Exodus (neither holds much credibility with the other side). Instead of asking what I meant, it was assumed by others and went south from there. Next, I said that Einstein was not a true athiest (believed in a higher power), which is true, and now you are stuck on trying to prove what I have contended for in the first place. I have read many quotes from Einstein and understand that he did not believe in a God as I do, that is not the point. The point was that he was not a true athiest.
Anyhow, back to my earlier points that were glossed over. Can we imagine things outside of our 5 senses?

[biggles53]

Anyhow, back to my earlier points that were glossed over. Can we imagine things outside of our 5 senses?

Of course we can! If you have a dream/nightmare about hobgoblins and trolls, you have imagined something that is quite obviously "outside of our 5 senses".

(Unless you're also asserting that you have seen/ heard/smelt/tasted/touched such beings....??)

[baysidetrey]

Just thougth of a few more reasons why some would distrust/dislike athiest/atheism. Marx, Lenin etc..... There agenda didn't turn out so well.

[biggles53]

Just thougth of a few more reasons why some would distrust/dislike athiest/atheism. Marx, Lenin etc..... There agenda didn't turn out so well.

No it didn't.

Nor did it have anything to do with atheism......:rolleyes:

[captusa]

See, this is where I find debates interesting and can usually figure out whether or not the other party wishes to be logical and ethical in order that we may both learn from each other. For one, I showed a scientist who believed in God was no different than a Jewish Rabbi who did not believe in the Exodus (neither holds much credibility with the other side). Instead of asking what I meant, it was assumed by others and went south from there. Next, I said that Einstein was not a true athiest (believed in a higher power), which is true, and now you are stuck on trying to prove what I have contended for in the first place. I have read many quotes from Einstein and understand that he did not believe in a God as I do, that is not the point. The point was that he was not a true athiest.
Anyhow, back to my earlier points that were glossed over. Can we imagine things outside of our 5 senses?

I apologize.
I realize I was confusing you with Davetexas who stated that science was an attempt to deny God and that belief in God and evolution were mutually exclusive.

I have always maintained that even though I'm a non-Theist there is nothing in any scientific theory that denies God although Einstein implied Heissenberg's theories did./.

[baysidetrey]

I apologize.
I realize I was confusing you with Davetexas who stated that science was an attempt to deny God and that belief in God and evolution were mutually exclusive.

I have always maintained that even though I'm a non-Theist there is nothing in any scientific theory that denies God although Einstein implied Heissenberg's theories did./.

No problem and I can agree the scientific theory does not necessarily deny a god/greater power, it just contradicts the God of the bible. However, true athiest do deny any god/greater power.

[biggles53]

No problem and I can agree the scientific theory does not necessarily deny a god/greater power, it just contradicts the God of the bible.

If this were true, please explain why the biggest Christian church on the planet accepts the theory?

However, true athiest do deny any god/greater power.

Poppycock. Who made you arbiter of what "true" is...??

And atheism is simply the witholding of belief in deities - no more.

[biggles53]

Something I just noticed in re-reading the OP....

It boggles my mind. In my experience, atheists are good decent people for the most part, in fact, the ratio of good-people vs idiots/criminials/etc are probably the same as for the religious part of society, on top of not going violent for their beliefs. I wonder where this distrust springs from?



(my bold)

In fact, the proportion of "idiots/criminals/etc" are HIGHER amongst people of faith than amongst atheists!

I invite you to study the figures on prison populations. Whereas atheists form about 15% of the general population, they occupy less than 1% of prison inmates.

The numbers of those on death row are even less flattering for the faithful...

The image of the baby-eating, anarchic atheist is totally out of focus.......

[baysidetrey]

If this were true, please explain why the biggest Christian church on the planet accepts the theory?



Poppycock. Who made you arbiter of what "true" is...??

And atheism is simply the witholding of belief in deities - no more.

I really don't want to respond to your posts as you seem to have a lack of understanding word definitions and word associations but here goes. Here are my definitions to the last post that my help you understand my views.

God of the bible: 100% belief in all that the bible says is true fact.

a⋅the⋅ist  /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA

–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist


Synonyms:
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

[mtdim]

Something I just noticed in re-reading the OP....



(my bold)

In fact, the proportion of "idiots/criminals/etc" are HIGHER amongst people of faith than amongst atheists!

I invite you to study the figures on prison populations. Whereas atheists form about 15% of the general population, they occupy less than 1% of prison inmates.

The numbers of those on death row are even less flattering for the faithful...

The image of the baby-eating, anarchic atheist is totally out of focus.......

I've also seen studies that show the average atheist is better educated than the average theist. I'd bet that this accounts for the disparity in the prison population more than the moral implications of atheism itself, though I certainly agree that there is nothing about atheism that would make someone less moral.

[biggles53]

I really don't want to respond to your posts as you seem to have a lack of understanding word definitions and word associations but here goes. Here are my definitions to the last post that my help you understand my views.

God of the bible: 100% belief in all that the bible says is true fact.

a⋅the⋅ist  /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA

–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist


Synonyms:
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.


And you've now discovered the pitfalls that exist when you try to shoehorn literal, dictionary definitions into the discourse.

There is nothing about "denial" in atheism. It is, as I've tried to point out to you, simply a witholding of belief. That belief is witheld because NO evidence exists to support the assertion that god/s, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, FSM's, etc exist.

That prefix 'a' means nothing more than 'without' - so an 'a-theist' is a person who is 'without' a belief in deities. Now, there is a small number of atheists who posit that there is no god. I find their position untenable, as it represents an unfalsifiable proposition....however, the vast majority of atheists simply say something like..."While I don't assign a probability of zero to the existence of god/s, I find the complete absence of any evidence an indicator that the likelihood of one existing vanishingly small..."

[biggles53]

I've also seen studies that show the average atheist is better educated than the average theist. I'd bet that this accounts for the disparity in the prison population more than the moral implications of atheism itself, though I certainly agree that there is nothing about atheism that would make someone less moral.

Yep, I could agree with that. :cool:

[Finality]

I really don't want to respond to your posts as you seem to have a lack of understanding word definitions and word associations but here goes. Here are my definitions to the last post that my help you understand my views.

God of the bible: 100% belief in all that the bible says is true fact.

a⋅the⋅ist  /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA

–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist


Synonyms:
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
So ... not actually going to respond to him, are ya ...

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

[Clintville]

Just thougth of a few more reasons why some would distrust/dislike athiest/atheism. Marx, Lenin etc..... There agenda didn't turn out so well.
You watched that Ben Stein movie didn't you?

I can name a lot of Christians that were pretty bad guys.

[biggles53]

Yes, Finality kindly reminds me of this......

Quote:
Originally Posted by baysidetrey
No problem and I can agree the scientific theory does not necessarily deny a god/greater power, it just contradicts the God of the bible.

If this were true, please explain why the biggest Christian church on the planet accepts the theory?

Do you have an answer.....that doesn't involve a dictionary...?:whistle:

[baysidetrey]

And you've now discovered the pitfalls that exist when you try to shoehorn literal, dictionary definitions into the discourse.

There is nothing about "denial" in atheism. It is, as I've tried to point out to you, simply a witholding of belief. That belief is witheld because NO evidence exists to support the assertion that god/s, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, FSM's, etc exist.

That prefix 'a' means nothing more than 'without' - so an 'a-theist' is a person who is 'without' a belief in deities. Now, there is a small number of atheists who posit that there is no god. I find their position untenable, as it represents an unfalsifiable proposition....however, the vast majority of atheists simply say something like..."While I don't assign a probability of zero to the existence of god/s, I find the complete absence of any evidence an indicator that the likelihood of one existing vanishingly small..."

I am trying to show you the definitions I use when I am responding to posts. I will say that I would define you and the many others as agnostic not athiest.

[biggles53]

I am trying to show you the definitions I use when I am responding to posts. I will say that I would define you and the many others as agnostic not athiest.

Again, your understanding may be lacking.

Agnosticism is the position of declaring what may or may not be known. In other words, agnostics posit that it is not possible to know whether or not gods exist. So, it is possible for one to be an agnostic theist, just as much as an agnostic atheist.

Simple isn't it.....;)

[baysidetrey]

You watched that Ben Stein movie didn't you?

I can name a lot of Christians that were pretty bad guys.

No, I haven't watch the Ben Stein movie.
I would not classify them as christians if they are not following Christ. (BTW, I have the same distrust towards the groups you are speaking of)
The OP was about distrusting/hating athiest not christians.

[biggles53]

You watched that Ben Stein movie didn't you?

I can name a lot of Christians that were pretty bad guys.

Indeed you can. And, moreover, you can directly associate their bad behaviour with their faith. I would challenge anyone to make a case that Lenin's, Mao's, etc bad behaviour was clearly associated with their lack of faith.....;)

[baysidetrey]

So ... not actually going to respond to him, are ya ...


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Which part would you like me to respond to?

[Clintville]

No, I haven't watch the Ben Stein movie.
I would not classify them as christians if they are not following Christ. (BTW, I have the same distrust towards the groups you are speaking of)

Well, they were doing in the name of their religion, so it doesn't matter whether you think they are "true" Christians or not. It can still be argued that their religion caused them to do what they did.

The OP was about distrusting/hating athiest not christians.
Yes, and I was countering your argument.

Of course, you still would need to explain how Lenin and Stalin's religious beliefs were connected to their political beliefs and acts.

[baysidetrey]

Well, they were doing in the name of their religion, so it doesn't matter whether you think they are "true" Christians or not. It can still be argued that their religion caused them to do what they did.

Yes, and I was countering your argument.

Of course, you still would need to explain how Lenin and Stalin's religious beliefs were connected to their political beliefs and acts.

I agree that they used their religion but as I stated they were not following the principals of Christ therefore they were not christians (followers of Christ) IMO.
I did not mention Stalin so I will go with Lenin. To say his beliefs were not connected to his actions would be like me arguing that the "christians" you mentioned were not motivated by their beliefs.

[RayMan]

<snip> To say his beliefs were not connected to his actions would be like me arguing that the "christians" you mentioned were not motivated by their beliefs.


+1

That which we do is in line with and a reflection of what we believe. As true of the atheist as it is of the Christian.

[Clintville]

I did not mention Stalin so I will go with Lenin. To say his beliefs were not connected to his actions would be like me arguing that the "christians" you mentioned were not motivated by their beliefs.
But its not. At least as far as I know, I don't too much about Lenin's religious beliefs and what they did to his policies, so I may be wrong. But the violent Christians being referred to are for a fact being influenced by their religion. They are saying it in their own words. Even if you cannot call them Christians, it is still religion that affects their actions.

[biggles53]

But its not. At least as far as I know, I don't too much about Lenin's religious beliefs and what they did to his policies, so I may be wrong. But the violent Christians being referred to are for a fact being influenced by their religion. They are saying it in their own words. Even if you cannot call them Christians, it is still religion that affects their actions.

+1

The HUGE difference is that the actions of Torquemada, etc were justified BY THEM in terms of their religious beliefs. They would refer to Aquinas and Augustine to argue that what they did MUST be done as 'good' Christians.

I know of NO example of the people that bayside mentions as doing their deeds "in the name of atheism".

"Good men can do good deeds....bad men can do bad deeds. But for good men to do bad deeds, you require a religion..." Steven Weinberg.

[biggles53]

+1

That which we do is in line with and a reflection of what we believe. As true of the atheist as it is of the Christian.

I agree to a point. But you still have to demonstrate a causal link. Was it their atheism that inspired their actions, or was it their political leanings, their views on race, on nationalism, etc...?

[biggles53]

I agree that they used their religion but as I stated they were not following the principals of Christ therefore they were not christians (followers of Christ) IMO.


Hmmmmmm........

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

[captusa]

No problem and I can agree the scientific theory does not necessarily deny a god/greater power, it just contradicts the God of the bible. However, true athiest do deny any god/greater power.

That's why I define myself as a non-Theist because (as Einstein) I firmly belief in the non-existance of a Theistic Deity (i.e.watching every sparrow falling).
To me a one act creator is possible.

[biggles53]

"Time Magazine" in 1965? had an article calling "Madalyn Murray O'Hare" the most hated woman in America. It was because she sued the "Board of Education" & single handily had prayer removed from schools in America. That could give you a hint. Now I don't argue religion, so that's all I'll say about it. I've heard all the rebuttles too.

Nice hit and run.....

A couple of points you might want to consider.

1. It would be as equally logical for a person of faith to move to have school prayer removed - as the mandation of such is contrary to your Constitution. This was not necessarily the action of an atheist, but of one concerned with religion being enforced in schools.

2. It was NOT Murray O'Hair who had school prayer removed from your schools - it was the United States Supreme Court! THEY decided that her complaint had merit - and they agreed with her to the tune of 8-1!

3. Hers was but one of several actions that were pending to have prayer removed. Hers just happened to be dealt with first. So, the result was inevitable.

4. Many people who have done great things have been "hated" for doing so. Martin Luther King Jr was obviously hated by many, as was JFK, as was Rosa Parks, Bobby Kennedy, Gandhi, etc, etc. Being hated shouldn't necessarily be a defining principle for doing what one believes to be right.........

[Koushi Shinigami]

Nice hit and run.....

A couple of points you might want to consider.

1. It would be as equally logical for a person of faith to move to have school prayer removed - as the mandation of such is contrary to your Constitution. This was not necessarily the action of an atheist, but of one concerned with religion being enforced in schools.

2. It was NOT Murray O'Hair who had school prayer removed from your schools - it was the United States Supreme Court! THEY decided that her complaint had merit - and they agreed with her to the tune of 8-1!

3. Hers was but one of several actions that were pending to have prayer removed. Hers just happened to be dealt with first. So, the result was inevitable.

4. Many people who have done great things have been "hated" for doing so. Martin Luther King Jr was obviously hated by many, as was JFK, as was Rosa Parks, Bobby Kennedy, Gandhi, etc, etc. Being hated shouldn't necessarily be a defining principle for doing what one believes to be right.........

Something tells me you might be waiting a long time for a response from him.

[Meriweather]

Something tells me you might be waiting a long time for a response from him.

Just a day or two more.

[baysidetrey]

Hmmmmmm........

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

See, now this is a more honest debate. You have given your proof of why you feel christians have killed in the name of religion. Now, I think that this is talking about a spiritual sword not a literal sword and here is why.
John 18:33 Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? 34 Jesus answered, Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee concerning me? 35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Now this tells me that those in His kingdom do not take up arms and fight so those who have taken up arms for His name are not of His kingdom IMO.

[biggles53]

See, now this is a more honest debate. You have given your proof of why you feel christians have killed in the name of religion. Now, I think that this is talking about a spiritual sword not a literal sword and here is why.
John 18:33 Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? 34 Jesus answered, Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee concerning me? 35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Now this tells me that those in His kingdom do not take up arms and fight so those who have taken up arms for His name are not of His kingdom IMO.

Two points....no, make that three...

1. Your problem is that he's not talking about "his kingdom" in that quote of mine - he's talking about "coming to EARTH"! So, while things may or may not be just hunky-dory in his backyard, on earth he has come with a "sword".

2. Why is it that, when those of faith are presented with an excerpt from the Bible that contradicts or embarasses, their response is almost inevitably "Oh, you're not supposed to read that literally - it's one of the bits that's a metaphor!"....?? Who appoints whom to decide which bits are in 'code'..?

3. You identified this as "honest debate". How do you determine that what I have said previously was DIShonest....??

[biggles53]

Now, YOUR work is still all ahead of you.

YOU claim that atheists have done evil things (and they have) and that evil has been done specifically because they were atheists. So, again I challenge you....describe any act of attrocity committed by an atheist in the name of atheism....!

[baysidetrey]

Two points....no, make that three...

1. Your problem is that he's not talking about "his kingdom" in that quote of mine - he's talking about "coming to EARTH"! So, while things may or may not be just hunky-dory in his backyard, on earth he has come with a "sword".

2. Why is it that, when those of faith are presented with an excerpt from the Bible that contradicts or embarasses, their response is almost inevitably "Oh, you're not supposed to read that literally - it's one of the bits that's a metaphor!"....?? Who appoints whom to decide which bits are in 'code'..?

3. You identified this as "honest debate". How do you determine that what I have said previously was DIShonest....??

1) Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

Heb 4:12
For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.

You must read to understand.

2) Refer to 1

3) You have given proof of your position other than "I say.....". You seemed to want to debate rather than argue.

[baysidetrey]

Now, YOUR work is still all ahead of you.

YOU claim that atheists have done evil things (and they have) and that evil has been done specifically because they were atheists. So, again I challenge you....describe any act of attrocity committed by an atheist in the name of atheism....!

I could not prove to you that the color green was indeed green as you are not being honest with yourself or with me if you truly believe that athiest have not killed for their "religion". I will be honest with you and I will agree that prayer has no place in public schools (and explain if you would like). However, you seem to not want to be honest to common sense and admit the faults of the athiest. Remember, I defined what I consider as athiest earlier so please understand what I refer to as an athiest.

[biggles53]

1) Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

Heb 4:12
For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.

You must read to understand.

What nonsense! Read ALL of it! It's a statement of aggression and violence. A petulant outburst to assert that those who love their earthly relationships more than with him are in for a whuppin'...!

Regardless of how you might think it should be read, the fact remains that there are a whole host (NPI) of other Christians who use passages just like that one to justify all kinds of cruel and harsh behaviour. You surely cannot deny this...


3) You have given proof of your position other than "I say.....". You seemed to want to debate rather than argue.

Tosh. In all the other points I've argued with you, I've given you either evidence or a logical conclusion...

[baysidetrey]

That's why I define myself as a non-Theist because (as Einstein) I firmly belief in the non-existance of a Theistic Deity (i.e.watching every sparrow falling).
To me a one act creator is possible.

Let me ask you this. Would you object to a school teaching the theory of a creator, as you describe, as a theory that some believe is how the earth was created?

[baysidetrey]

What nonsense! Read ALL of it! It's a statement of aggression and violence. A petulant outburst to assert that those who love their earthly relationships more than with him are in for a whuppin'...!

Regardless of how you might think it should be read, the fact remains that there are a whole host (NPI) of other Christians who use passages just like that one to justify all kinds of cruel and harsh behaviour. You surely cannot deny this...




Tosh. In all the other points I've argued with you, I've given you either evidence or a logical conclusion...

1) I will agree after the regardless.
2) I am sorry but you have not been logical. If you want me to point out the errors (as I see them) that I would not respond to (as I felt you did not want to be ethical or logical, only bash christians) I will gladly do. All I ask is that you respond in a logical and ethical manner to simply discuss our different points of view.

[biggles53]

I could not prove to you that the color green was indeed green as you are not being honest with yourself or with me if you truly believe that athiest have not killed for their "religion".

Bad move. I can indeed demonstrate to you that the colour green is green. It occupies a particular wavelength position within the colour spectrum, so if I show you something that is 'green', we only need to check that wavelength to determine bthat it is, in fact, green.

Now, YOUR work is still undone. Name me one tyrant who killed, maimed, raped, tortured, persecuted, etc, specifically because he was an atheist! Remember, YOU are making the charge - it is incumbent upon YOU, therefore, to provide the evidence...

I will be honest with you and I will agree that prayer has no place in public schools (and explain if you would like).

We agree.

However, you seem to not want to be honest to common sense and admit the faults of the athiest.

I have conceded that atheists do evil things, just as others do. What I won't accept is that they do those evil things because of the absence of a belief in something!

Remember, I defined what I consider as athiest earlier so please understand what I refer to as an athiest.

You'll have to remind me...

[biggles53]

1)
2) I am sorry but you have not been logical. If you want me to point out the errors (as I see them) that I would not respond to (as I felt you did not want to be ethical or logical, only bash christians) I will gladly do.

Go your hardest mate.....

[baysidetrey]

Bad move. I can indeed demonstrate to you that the colour green is green. It occupies a particular wavelength position within the colour spectrum, so if I show you something that is 'green', we only need to check that wavelength to determine bthat it is, in fact, green.

Now, YOUR work is still undone. Name me one tyrant who killed, maimed, raped, tortured, persecuted, etc, specifically because he was an atheist! Remember, YOU are making the charge - it is incumbent upon YOU, therefore, to provide the evidence...



We agree.



I have conceded that atheists do evil things, just as others do. What I won't accept is that they do those evil things because of the absence of a belief in something!



You'll have to remind me...

1) Not if I am color blind or blind.
2) Good, and I see you don't want the explanation.
3) It is not because of an absense of a belief, it is because of a belief.
4) Refer to earlier post.

I am sorry that I actually missed number 2. I refered you to Roman Emperors earlier. Do you not accept that as evidence?

[baysidetrey]

Go your hardest mate.....

You seemed ridiculous on the 5 senses question. You did not even stop to think that the things you spoke of were compounded ideas. Now, stop and think. Do yo believe that a person who has never sensed a dog with any of their 5 senses could draw a dog for you? Please think and be honest before you reply.

[biggles53]

1) Not if I am color blind or blind.

Wrong. Regardless of your eyesight, I can show you with a spectrometer that a particular colour is reflecting a particular wavelength. You don't even have to be looking at the colour, merely observing the measuring device. If you're blind, get someone you trust to call out the wavelength number to you...


3) It is not because of an absense of a belief, it is because of a belief.

Wrong. Atheism is the absence of a belief in deities. Nothing more

4) Refer to earlier post.

No thanks...

[Finality]

Now, YOUR work is still all ahead of you.

YOU claim that atheists have done evil things (and they have) and that evil has been done specifically because they were atheists. So, again I challenge you....describe any act of attrocity committed by an atheist in the name of atheism....!
I'd be interested in seeing a person named in response to this, also.

[baysidetrey]

I'd be interested in seeing a person named in response to this, also.

I have already named them. You just wish to not accept the evidence.

[biggles53]

You seemed ridiculous on the 5 senses question. You did not even stop to think that the things you spoke of were compounded ideas. Now, stop and think. Do yo believe that a person who has never sensed a dog with any of their 5 senses could draw a dog for you? Please think and be honest before you reply.

YES!! It may not be a dog that you and I might recognize. It may be the result of a dog that they dreamed of. But they would nevertheless be drawing something for you that they hadn't directly observed with their 5 senses! Why does this seem so impossible to you?? Have you never dreamed of strange, unreal things? Did you never play 'make believe' as a kid?

How about the much touted Flying Spaghetti Monster - there are any number of sketches of 'him' floating around the net. Now, because someone has drawn 'him', do you honestly think that means that someone has actually SEEN 'him'...??? If you do, then I've got some very inexpensive time-share you might be interested in, in downtown Baghdad.....:rolleyes:

[baysidetrey]

YES!! It may not be a dog that you and I might recognize. It may be the result of a dog that they dreamed of. But they would nevertheless be drawing something for you that they hadn't directly observed with their 5 senses! Why does this seem so impossible to you?? Have you never dreamed of strange, unreal things? Did you never play 'make believe' as a kid?

How about the much touted Flying Spaghetti Monster - there are any number of sketches of 'him' floating around the net. Now, because someone has drawn 'him', do you honestly think that means that someone has actually SEEN 'him'...??? If you do, then I've got some very inexpensive time-share you might be interested in, in downtown Baghdad.....:rolleyes:

You did not think logically IMO. Now, please do some SCIENTIFIC research on the issue I have presented and see if I am correct. You continue to use compounded ideas, not make something up outside of your senses. If you are wishing to debate the TRUTH, I would think that you would at least do some research before you respond.

[biggles53]

You seemed ridiculous on the 5 senses question. You did not even stop to think that the things you spoke of were compounded ideas. Now, stop and think. Do yo believe that a person who has never sensed a dog with any of their 5 senses could draw a dog for you? Please think and be honest before you reply.

Look, I knew exactly where you were always going with this one...you leave a pretty good bread-crumb trail.... Your argument is that because people say they saw the various miracles in the Bible, and were able to describe them and write them down, then they must be true.

Sorry, to disappoint you, but this line of reasoning means that all those other miracles, from all those other myths, contained in all those other religions...must be true too!

You wanna open that door....??

[biggles53]

You did not think logically IMO. Now, please do some SCIENTIFIC research on the issue I have presented and see if I am correct. You continue to use compounded ideas, not make something up outside of your senses. If you are wishing to debate the TRUTH, I would think that you would at least do some research before you respond.

What research do I need..!!???

Can you not see the logic of the possibility of humans being able to imagine something that they have not observed with their 5 senses...!???

It's really not that hard......

[biggles53]

Sorry, I'm out....football finals are about to start in Melbourne.....:cool:

[baysidetrey]

Look, I knew exactly where you were always going with this one...you leave a pretty good bread-crumb trail.... Your argument is that because people say they saw the various miracles in the Bible, and were able to describe them and write them down, then they must be true.

Sorry, to disappoint you, but this line of reasoning means that all those other miracles, from all those other myths, contained in all those other religions...must be true too!

You wanna open that door....??

I do not think that you really knew or know where I am going. I did not say that somebody saw something yet, I said that they were told. Now, please deal with the hearing and I promise that I will deal with the eye witnesses and other cultures after you have kept your end. BTW, in America, the eye wittneses would stand up in a court of law. Just a little bite before we continue.

[baysidetrey]

Sorry, I'm out....football finals are about to start in Melbourne.....:cool:

Good luck and I wish you the best. It is late and I need to get to sleep also. Please research my question before you discount it and get back to me latter.

[biggles53]

I do not think that you really knew or know where I am going. I did not say that somebody saw something yet, I said that they were told. Now, please deal with the hearing and I promise that I will deal with the eye witnesses and other cultures after you have kept your end. BTW, in America, the eye wittneses would stand up in a court of law. Just a little bite before we continue.

Sorry buddy, that's HEARSAY, not eye-witness testimony! And that most definitely does NOT stand up in a court of law!!

[RayMan]

Sorry buddy, that's HEARSAY, not eye-witness testimony! And that most definitely does NOT stand up in a court of law!!

Good thing you aren't in the U.S., biggles. People would be hating on you and distrusting you at every turn. ;)

Football, eh?

Enjoy and have a great weekend.

[mgifford]

Something tells me you might be waiting a long time for a response from him.

Is that right?

[RayMan]

Is that right?
:lol::lol:

[mgifford]

:lol::lol:

Since I didn't get an answer, I presume he didn't know after all.

[Rurudyne]

I know this has been said/asked before, BUT MIXING racial groups and belief groups in the same poll?!

What Ya'hoo thought that was a good idea?

[Stantz]

I know this has been said/asked before, BUT MIXING racial groups and belief groups in the same poll?!

What Ya'hoo thought that was a good idea?

yea that is a bit odd.. unless it was an "open" poll, I.E. fill in the blank as to who you do not trust the most.

In which case the right answer is "People from New Jersey"

[biggles53]

Since I didn't get an answer, I presume he didn't know after all.

Oh, you got an answer...............:rolleyes:

[biggles53]

Good thing you aren't in the U.S., biggles. People would be hating on you and distrusting you at every turn. ;)

Love the attention Ray.....;)

Football, eh?

Enjoy and have a great weekend.

Thanks mate.

Yes, there are two events on the Australian calendar which "stop the nation". One happens in about 5 weeks time - the running of the Melbourne Cup (I guess it's like your Kentucky Derby..??). The other happened yesterday - the Australian Rules football Grand Final, also played in Melbourne.

You know, that's the real football - where our guys go out without 50 lbs of body armour, dressed in little more than a basketball outfit......;)

Was a great game........

[windstar3x3]

Considering atheist have been quite vocal in relentlessly attacking Christian on the net and in the media as part of the far left agenda for decades now, atheist have earned the view people have of them.

[RayMan]

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

[natalie addict]

Considering atheist have been quite vocal in relentlessly attacking Christian on the net and in the media as part of the far left agenda for decades now, atheist have earned the view people have of them.

And considering that Christians have tortured and killed unbelievers for centuries in the past the atheists have every right to be on the offensive against those who lay their hands on us just because we refuse your beliefs. Consider yourself lucky.

[mgifford]

Oh, you got an answer...............:rolleyes:

Biggles, let me be very honest with you here. I DO NOT debate nor do I argue in any manner with atheists. I believe this way about atheists. As a Christian I've made my mind up as to where I'll spend eternity, as I guess atheists have done also, in some form or the other.

You can't pay me enough to get on the forum & type back & forth why you're wrong. It won't happen. I also don't try to argue with other religions which are far from what I believe. I wouldn't change them & they won't change me.

Have you noticed that I ignore your posts to me?

[biggles53]

Biggles, let me be very honest with you here. I DO NOT debate nor do I argue in any manner with atheists.

But you did, of course, feel it necessary to drop that juicy little comment in about Murray O'Hair and why atheists are 'hated' in the US...didn't you? Would that be a 'non-argument argument' do you think...??

I believe this way about atheists. As a Christian I've made my mind up as to where I'll spend eternity, as I guess atheists have done also, in some form or the other.

Please. Just because your own mind is closed on the possibilities that exist in the future, please don't include me in your group.......

You can't pay me enough to get on the forum & type back & forth why you're wrong. It won't happen. I also don't try to argue with other religions which are far from what I believe. I wouldn't change them & they won't change me.

Where do you get the idea that my aim is to "change" you....??? I'm sure you're a big boy and can make up your own mind about matters. However, one of the other things that big people do is to debate issues, even if it's only to test their own ideas about things. It also helps to get a better feel for what it's like to walk in the other guy's moccasins.....?

You might notice that I regularly debate with people like Meri and Ray on this board. I like them - I think they're good people....yet their ideas and mine are poles apart, at least on spiritual matters. Do you see me trying to "change" them, or them me...??

Are you sure your insecurities aren't showing...just a tad?


Have you noticed that I ignore your posts to me?

Why would you think that was so important to me that I'd notice....??

[biggles53]

Considering atheist have been quite vocal in relentlessly attacking Christian on the net and in the media as part of the far left agenda for decades now, atheist have earned the view people have of them.

Sir/Madam...

If you were fair in your analysis, I think you would find that there is FAAAAAAR more animosity expressed BETWEEN people of various religious beliefs, than you might find coming from those who have no beliefs.....

True....?

[Rurudyne]

yea that is a bit odd.. unless it was an "open" poll, I.E. fill in the blank as to who you do not trust the most.

In which case the right answer is "People from New Jersey"
:))

The only problem with it being an open poll is that lawyers didn't make the list. ;)

[baysidetrey]

Sorry buddy, that's HEARSAY, not eye-witness testimony! And that most definitely does NOT stand up in a court of law!!

Not hearsay, an eyewitness account to the facts they witnessed and wrote down. Now, I know that you want to discredit the wittneses because you do not believe them but now refer back to my 5 senses question (I hope you have done some research on the subject). Who "came up" with the idea of spiritual things outside our senses? What reason did they "come up" with them in your opinion?

[baysidetrey]

And considering that Christians have tortured and killed unbelievers for centuries in the past the atheists have every right to be on the offensive against those who lay their hands on us just because we refuse your beliefs. Consider yourself lucky.

How are christians lucky?

[CID_0687]

Not hearsay, an eyewitness account to the facts they witnessed and wrote down. Now, I know that you want to discredit the wittneses because you do not believe them but now refer back to my 5 senses question (I hope you have done some research on the subject). Who "came up" with the idea of spiritual things outside our senses? What reason did they "come up" with them in your opinion?

umm...here's your original post.

I do not think that you really knew or know where I am going. I did not say that somebody saw something yet, I said that they were told. Now, please deal with the hearing and I promise that I will deal with the eye witnesses and other cultures after you have kept your end. BTW, in America, the eye wittneses would stand up in a court of law. Just a little bite before we continue.

If someone was told something then it is hearsay...and hearsay doesn't stand up in a court of law.

[baysidetrey]

umm...here's your original post.



If someone was told something then it is hearsay...and hearsay doesn't stand up in a court of law.

Let me explain then. If I hear something and then write it down, I am the witness and my written testimony is not hearsay when read (think of a written confession). (I supposed it was understood that God told/revealed His Word to Moses etc. and they are the witnesses to what they heard)

[terri910]

How are christians lucky?
Well....we are blessed!

[natalie addict]

How are christians lucky?

That atheists only ridicule you and don't burn you at the stake.

[Rurudyne]

That atheists only ridicule you and don't burn you at the stake.
Christians under Stalin or Mao might have disagreed with you.

[baysidetrey]

That atheists only ridicule you and don't burn you at the stake.

So, what about the first century christians under Roman rule?

[Rurudyne]

So, what about the first century christians under Roman rule?
Curiously, the Romans were often accusing the Christians of BEING atheist.

[Stantz]

So, what about the first century christians under Roman rule?

The Romans did not burn, torture and decimate Christians because they were atheists, to the contrary they were highly religious pantheists .Their entire world view was ruled by the supernatural

[Stantz]

Curiously, the Romans were often accusing the Christians of BEING atheist.

Indeed that is true , the idea of monotheism seemed to pantheists as well as polytheists as being almost non religious.

[baysidetrey]

The Romans did not burn, torture and decimate Christians because they were atheists, to the contrary they were highly religious pantheists .Their entire world view was ruled by the supernatural

Read up on your first century emperors who were "philosophers".

[natalie addict]

So, what about the first century christians under Roman rule?

Strictly speaking the Romans weren't atheists as a rule but pagans. They did after all believe in gods just not the Christian one.

The atheists I mean come from the relatively recent thinking since about early 1700's in England and France, Diderot, Hume, Rousseau, those guys.

[Stantz]

Strictly speaking the Romans weren't atheists as a rule but pagans. They did after all believe in gods just not the Christian one.

The atheists I mean come from the relatively recent thinking since about early 1700's in England and France, Diderot, Hume, Rousseau, those guys.
i would add people like Spinoza, and Thomas Paine to that list.

[baysidetrey]

Strictly speaking the Romans weren't atheists as a rule but pagans. They did after all believe in gods just not the Christian one.

The atheists I mean come from the relatively recent thinking since about early 1700's in England and France, Diderot, Hume, Rousseau, those guys.

The philosophers did not believe in gods. Also, the athiest you refer to built their opinons through earlier philosophers. Since you want to associate yourself with only those athiest who have not killed, then I would submit that no christian has killed anyone for religious reasons, if the christian was a true follower of Christ.

[Stantz]

Read up on your first century emperors who were "philosophers".

I have done extensive reading on both the Roman empires as well as Early Christianity, and regardless of philosophers, you absolutely can not state that the Roman Empire was atheistic by any stretch of the word
the countless monuments, temples and statues dedicated to Jupiter, Juno, Neptune, Pluto, Apollo, Diana, Mars, Venus, Cupid, Mercury, Minerva, Ceres, Proserpine, Vulcan, Saturn, Vesta, Janus, Maia (and more) do not tell a story of atheism.
The divine rights of kings was based on interpretations of Roman Law.
Ancient Romans as well as Hellenistic religions produced countless cults and subcults as well as a massive amounts of record behind them.
To claim somehow that Romans were atheists is absolutely false.

[natalie addict]

The philosophers did not believe in gods. Also, the athiest you refer to built their opinons through earlier philosophers. Since you want to associate yourself with only those athiest who have not killed, then I would submit that no christian has killed anyone for religious reasons, if the christian was a true follower of Christ.

Which confirms a suspicion of mine, that there are damn few christians around in this world, now, in the past or ever.

Which philosophers? There were lots you know...And your point is? And I was speaking about Roman society as a whole not just some subset.

[Stantz]

The philosophers did not believe in gods
I'm curious as to which philosophers you are referring to here?

[baysidetrey]

I have done extensive reading on both the Roman empires as well as Early Christianity, and regardless of philosophers, you absolutely can not state that the Roman Empire was atheistic by any stretch of the word
the countless monuments, temples and statues dedicated to Jupiter, Juno, Neptune, Pluto, Apollo, Diana, Mars, Venus, Cupid, Mercury, Minerva, Ceres, Proserpine, Vulcan, Saturn, Vesta, Janus, Maia (and more) do not tell a story of atheism.
The divine rights of kings was based on interpretations of Roman Law.
Ancient Romans as well as Hellenistic religions produced countless cults and subcults as well as a massive amounts of record behind them.
To claim somehow that Romans were atheists is absolutely false.

I did not say Romans, I said Roman Emperors.

[baysidetrey]

Which confirms a suspicion of mine, that there are damn few christians around in this world, now, in the past or ever.

Which philosophers? There were lots you know...And your point is? And I was speaking about Roman society as a whole not just some subset.

First, you hit the nail on the head and I couldn't have said it better myself.
Next, Democritus, Lucretius, Epicurus etc. are some.

[natalie addict]

First, you hit the nail on the head and I couldn't have said it better myself.
I tend to view anyone who says they are christian and are here to save my soul with the same amount of disdain as some on these forums would view someone from the federal government showing up on their doorstep saying "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help."


Next, Democritus, Lucretius, Epicurus etc. are some.

So what about them, where are you going with this?

[Stantz]

I did not say Romans, I said Roman Emperors.
okay lets take Roman Emperors for a second
I'm going to look at the ones from the time of the birth of Christ (give or take)
to about the 1st century and the time of Christian persecution by the Romans
here we go:

Augustus - 27BC - 14AD - actually DECLARED TO BE A GOD to be worshipped, by the Roman Senate. promoted the idea that the gods granted Rome imperium sine fine.

Tiberius - up to 37AD - actually refused to be worshiped as a god (shocking), constructed a massive temple , and took part in most Hellenistic traditions.

Caligula - 41AD - this was the real sociopath - actually thought he was a god, was commonly dressed as ancient Roman gods such as mercury, everything about his reign was filled with religion.

Claudius - 54AD - instituted many religious reforms and actually refused a temple built to his divinity since as he stated only gods can build places of worship for other gods, he was highly religious

Nero - 68AD - responsible for a large amount of Christians martyrs being slaughtered wholesale, he was highly religious and commented many times about the conflicts between the many gods of Rome, and the new emerging monotheistic religion.

that is just a partial list

in any case to say that the persecutions visited upon Christians by the Roman Empire were somehow driven by atheism is nonsense I'm affraid.

[Stantz]

First, you hit the nail on the head and I couldn't have said it better myself.
Next, Democritus, Lucretius, Epicurus etc. are some.

what?
Democritus was a Greek who lived about 450 years before the birth of Jesus
Epicurus? another Greek who lived 300 years (I'm fairly certain) before the birth of Jesus
in the case of Lucretius we are talking about 100 years or so

It is funny you mentioned those particular three who's beliefs would have gone absolutely against the "divine" nature of the Roman emperors as well as the pantheistic traditions of Rome.

I absolutely do not see how those 3 show in anyway an atheist tinge to the anti-Christian atrocities committed by the Romans.

[baysidetrey]

I tend to view anyone who says they are christian and are here to save my soul with the same amount of disdain as some on these forums would view someone from the federal government showing up on their doorstep saying "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help."



So what about them, where are you going with this?

1) I am not here to save your soul and I understand and agree with your position. I am here to learn through debate and study. When you give me information from your view, I must study it to see if it is true or not. I have learned from many people on the boards.
2) They were athiest philosophers. Some of those who follwed them murdered christians. My point is that if we look, we can find all kinds of people killing others for what ever reason they choose.

[baysidetrey]

what?
Democritus was a Greek who lived about 450 years before the birth of Jesus
Epicurus? another Greek who lived 300 years (I'm fairly certain) before the birth of Jesus
in the case of Lucretius we are talking about 100 years or so

It is funny you mentioned those particular three who's beliefs would have gone absolutely against the "divine" nature of the Roman emperors as well as the pantheistic traditions of Rome.

I absolutely do not see how those 3 show in anyway an atheist tinge to the anti-Christian atrocities committed by the Romans.

I am sorry and was wrong about saying the first century. I meant the second century. Marcus Aurelius.

[natalie addict]

1) I am not here to save your soul and I understand and agree with your position. I am here to learn through debate and study. When you give me information from your view, I must study it to see if it is true or not. I have learned from many people on the boards.
2) They were athiest philosophers. Some of those who follwed them murdered christians. My point is that if we look, we can find all kinds of people killing others for what ever reason they choose.

And what of it. You have yet to show a causal thread from, say Epicurus, to why the Romans persected Christians.

And I won't buy into the idea of well lots of people do bad things what of it? Specifically my concern is that given the opportunity once again that non-believers, not just atheists, will be re-introduced to the horrors of past times again by those claiming to be christians.

[Stantz]

I am sorry and was wrong about saying the first century. I meant the second century. Marcus Aurelius.
he was by no means an Atheist im afraid, Marcus Aurelius has thanked the referred to the Gods on many occasions (his association with Fronto is one such instance)
He has written entire meditations on the nature of god.

One of the famous quote he has written about faith:

To them that ask, where have you seen the Gods, or how do you know for certain there are Gods, that you are so devout in their worship? I answer: Neither have I ever seen my own soul, and yet I respect and honor it.

you may say he had similar beliefs to Anaxagaros that gods and matter existed independent of each other.

He was by no means one of the more fanatic religious Emperors like Nero or Caligula but he was not a non-believer.

[captusa]

The philosophers did not believe in gods. Also, the athiest you refer to built their opinons through earlier philosophers. Since you want to associate yourself with only those athiest who have not killed, then I would submit that no christian has killed anyone for religious reasons, if the christian was a true follower of Christ.

The difference is that no Atheist ever killed anyone because of his religion.
Perhaps his greed.
Perhaps his paranoia.
Perhaps his lust for power BUT NEVER BECAUSE OF HIS RELIGION.
And the Christians (who didn't know they weren't true followers of Christ) that killed in the Inquisition, the wiych trials, the slaughter of the Albesesians (sp.), the Spanish conquestadors, Cromwell, Bloody Mary, Pope Innocent III, Gregory the Great............................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..........................
did so because they were doing it for their religion and their savior.
And often their targets were Christians that they KNEW weren't true followers of Christ.

[biggles53]

Not hearsay, an eyewitness account to the facts they witnessed and wrote down. Now, I know that you want to discredit the wittneses because you do not believe them but now refer back to my 5 senses question (I hope you have done some research on the subject). Who "came up" with the idea of spiritual things outside our senses? What reason did they "come up" with them in your opinion?

Bayside, you need to sit down and do a LOT of reading before you commit your arguments to these pages again. Because, mate believe me, you're batting with around about the average of a water boy at the moment.......!

OK, just on the above....

Are you aware that those books that are included in the New Testament were written, AT BEST, several decades after the reported death of Christ? In the case of other books, it was more like several CENTURIES! Now, much of the texts were preserved orally until they could be written.

Mate, when someone either writes down or reports something they have been told by someone else.....that's HEARSAY! And it ain't worth the paper it's written on....

Secondly, you need to clearly explain to me exactly what you mean with your "5 senses" questions...because they aren't making any 'sense' at the moment....??

And please don't try to argue that the Romans were atheists....it really makes you look silly. Take some time out to study, firstly, Ancient Greek gods and philosophers, and then the early history of the Romans and the manner in which they adopted wholesale much of the Greek tradition....

OK, lastly....let me present you with one of Hitchens' challenges....

You show me a society or civilization based upon the principles of people like Spinoza, Jefferson, Epicurus, Paine, Einstein and THEN show me how a society which chooses to base itself on principles other than those espoused by one religion or another has had cause to fail.........

[baysidetrey]

And what of it. You have yet to show a causal thread from, say Epicurus, to why the Romans persected Christians.

And I won't buy into the idea of well lots of people do bad things what of it? Specifically my concern is that given the opportunity once again that non-believers, not just atheists, will be re-introduced to the horrors of past times again by those claiming to be christians.

O.K. I am being honest in admitting that there were many so-called christians who killed in the name of their god. I agree that any religious fanatic who justify their deeds "in the name of God" are very dangerous not just to athiest, but also to christians. ( I also tend to lean to the idea that no christian should be in politics but that is another subject) When you read early church history, you will see that those "christians" you are refering to also killed other christians who did not agree with them. But to say that athiest in power have not done the same for their beliefs is dishonest IMO.

[baysidetrey]

he was by no means an Atheist im afraid, Marcus Aurelius has thanked the referred to the Gods on many occasions (his association with Fronto is one such instance)
He has written entire meditations on the nature of god.

One of the famous quote he has written about faith:



you may say he had similar beliefs to Anaxagaros that gods and matter existed independent of each other.

He was by no means one of the more fanatic religious Emperors like Nero or Caligula but he was not a non-believer.


Since it is possible that thou mayest depart from life this very moment, regulate every act and thought accordingly. But to go away from among men, if there are gods, is not a thing to be afraid of, for the gods will not involve thee in evil; but if indeed they do not exist, or if they have no concern about human affairs, what is it to me to live in a universe devoid of gods or devoid of Providence?
-- Marcus Aurelius, The Meditations (Book Two)
Also,
http://books.google.com/books?id=-aFtPdh6-2QC&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=marcus+aurelius+atheist&source=bl&ots=vI79nHXKeg&sig=qX3XtAvxa2DsukD2uewdWhg5PVk&hl=en&ei=4mq_SuXuFqrg8AaFrrywAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=marcus%20aurelius%20atheist&f=false

[baysidetrey]

Bayside, you need to sit down and do a LOT of reading before you commit your arguments to these pages again. Because, mate believe me, you're batting with around about the average of a water boy at the moment.......!

OK, just on the above....

Are you aware that those books that are included in the New Testament were written, AT BEST, several decades after the reported death of Christ? In the case of other books, it was more like several CENTURIES! Now, much of the texts were preserved orally until they could be written.

Mate, when someone either writes down or reports something they have been told by someone else.....that's HEARSAY! And it ain't worth the paper it's written on....

Secondly, you need to clearly explain to me exactly what you mean with your "5 senses" questions...because they aren't making any 'sense' at the moment....??

And please don't try to argue that the Romans were atheists....it really makes you look silly. Take some time out to study, firstly, Ancient Greek gods and philosophers, and then the early history of the Romans and the manner in which they adopted wholesale much of the Greek tradition....

OK, lastly....let me present you with one of Hitchens' challenges....

You show me a society or civilization based upon the principles of people like Spinoza, Jefferson, Epicurus, Paine, Einstein and THEN show me how a society which chooses to base itself on principles other than those espoused by one religion or another has had cause to fail.........

Let me try to explain this in a better way as you seem to keep missing the idea. If I go to court and say that I heard Jim say that he killed Joe, that is not hearsay. I can also write my testimony down to the fact that I heard (first hand account) the statement and it is admissible in a court of law. Now, hearsay is when I tell you Jack said he heard Jim say.... Does this help any?
Secondly, you still have failed to show that the human mind can inagine something outside of their 5 senses. We can compound ideas but we can not create something that we have never sensed. I can tell you about the weather in Alaska but you would not understand unless you used your previous knowledge of expierience.

[baysidetrey]

The difference is that no Atheist ever killed anyone because of his religion.
Perhaps his greed.
Perhaps his paranoia.
Perhaps his lust for power BUT NEVER BECAUSE OF HIS RELIGION.
And the Christians (who didn't know they weren't true followers of Christ) that killed in the Inquisition, the wiych trials, the slaughter of the Albesesians (sp.), the Spanish conquestadors, Cromwell, Bloody Mary, Pope Innocent III, Gregory the Great............................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..........................
did so because they were doing it for their religion and their savior.
And often their targets were Christians that they KNEW weren't true followers of Christ.

To your first point, could you say that it was because of his lack of religion?
Secondly, I agree with you. Ignorance has killed many people IMO.

[Stantz]

Since it is possible that thou mayest depart from life this very moment, regulate every act and thought accordingly. But to go away from among men, if there are gods, is not a thing to be afraid of, for the gods will not involve thee in evil; but if indeed they do not exist, or if they have no concern about human affairs, what is it to me to live in a universe devoid of gods or devoid of Providence?
-- Marcus Aurelius, The Meditations (Book Two)
Also,
http://books.google.com/books?id=-aFtPdh6-2QC&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=marcus+aurelius+atheist&source=bl&ots=vI79nHXKeg&sig=qX3XtAvxa2DsukD2uewdWhg5PVk&hl=en&ei=4mq_SuXuFqrg8AaFrrywAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=marcus%20aurelius%20atheist&f=false

In that same book he references the gods in many other ways, outside of "the meditations" as well, I'm sorry but he can not be qualified as an atheist.

[Poptart]

O.K. I am being honest in admitting that there were many so-called christians who killed in the name of their god. I agree that any religious fanatic who justify their deeds "in the name of God" are very dangerous not just to athiest, but also to christians. ( I also tend to lean to the idea that no christian should be in politics but that is another subject) When you read early church history, you will see that those "christians" you are refering to also killed other christians who did not agree with them. But to say that athiest in power have not done the same for their beliefs is dishonest IMO.

Sure, each individual atheist has beliefs apart from their atheism, and I'm sure one of these beliefs (whatever they might have been) may have led them to kill. However, since atheism is actually a lack of one particular belief (in gods specifically), then there is no "belief" there upon which to base a reason for killing others.

[baysidetrey]

In that same book he references the gods in many other ways, outside of "the meditations" as well, I'm sorry but he can not be qualified as an atheist.

Originally Posted by biggles53
And you've now discovered the pitfalls that exist when you try to shoehorn literal, dictionary definitions into the discourse.

There is nothing about "denial" in atheism. It is, as I've tried to point out to you, simply a witholding of belief. That belief is witheld because NO evidence exists to support the assertion that god/s, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, FSM's, etc exist.

That prefix 'a' means nothing more than 'without' - so an 'a-theist' is a person who is 'without' a belief in deities. Now, there is a small number of atheists who posit that there is no god. I find their position untenable, as it represents an unfalsifiable proposition....however, the vast majority of atheists simply say something like..."While I don't assign a probability of zero to the existence of god/s, I find the complete absence of any evidence an indicator that the likelihood of one existing vanishingly small..."
Can athiest get on the same page? One says this and then when it does not fit their ideology another changes it.

[baysidetrey]

Sure, each individual atheist has beliefs apart from their atheism, and I'm sure one of these beliefs (whatever they might have been) may have led them to kill. However, since atheism is actually a lack of one particular belief (in gods specifically), then there is no "belief" there upon which to base a reason for killing others.

Very true but I would hope that one who wished to have an honest discussion would understand the point. I can claim that no true christian has ever murdered in the name of religion as we have a hand book on christian beliefs to judge by, whereas there is no hand book for atheist per se and they try and wiggle out of the truth IMO.

[Stantz]

Can athiest get on the same page? One says this and then when it does not fit their ideology another changes it.

I think we can both (and any Historian) would agree on this

1. Roman Emperors were NOT atheists by any stretch of the imagination.
2. The persecution of Christians by Roman authorities had no atheistic motive behind it, but instead was carried out by the Pantheistic and highly religious Roman Empire.
that's it.

To the Romans, the Christians held some political ideas that were viewed as vary dangerous and on a religious level it was not the fact that Christians believed in God, which drove the Romans to commit their acts of persecution it was the fact that they only believed in ONE all powerful god (as opposed to the vast amount of gods in the Roman Pantheon)

[captusa]

Can athiest get on the same page? One says this and then when it does not fit their ideology another changes it.

Do all Theists belive in the same Theism.
AND it is the Theists that seem to be defining Atheism.
As I have said, I have complete faith in my belief in the non-existance of a transcendental Deity (Theistic) but the Einstein's Deism and/or Spinoza's Pantheism are acceptable possibilities.
That's why I consider non-Theist to be more accurate.
Spiritually I am definitely a Pantheist but no GUY in the sky.

[captusa]

Very true but I would hope that one who wished to have an honest discussion would understand the point. I can claim that no true christian has ever murdered in the name of religion as we have a hand book on christian beliefs to judge by, whereas there is no hand book for atheist per se and they try and wiggle out of the truth IMO.
The problem is there haven't been many true Christians and the other Christians found plenty of reason (not wiggle room) in the handbook on Christian beliefs to kill a lot of people.
Stalin killed because he was a meglomeniacal paranoid. Atheism (and even Marxism) was NOT* the direct cause .
Hitler was defintely NOT a Christian no matter how many times he said he was but he did believe he was doing God's work and believed it was God's will that Arians should rule the world.
*correction



Thank you Poptart.

[Poptart]

The problem is there haven't been many true Christians and the other Christians found plenty of reason (not wiggle room) in the handbook on Christian beliefs to kill a lot of people.
Stalin killed because he was a meglomeniacal paranoid. Atheism (and even Marxism) was the direct cause .
Hitler was defintely NOT a Christian no matter how many times he said he was but he did believe he was doing God's work and believed it was God's will that Arians should rule the world.

How can you say his lack of belief in gods was the cause of anything? How do you know it wasn't his lack of belief in lepechauns which was the direct cause?

[captusa]

How can you say his lack of belief in gods was the cause of anything? How do you know it wasn't his lack of belief in lepechauns which was the direct cause?
Because I left out the word "Not".
I will correct my typo.
Then we'll both be right.

[baysidetrey]

I think we can both (and any Historian) would agree on this

1. Roman Emperors were NOT atheists by any stretch of the imagination.
2. The persecution of Christians by Roman authorities had no atheistic motive behind it, but instead was carried out by the Pantheistic and highly religious Roman Empire.
that's it.

To the Romans, the Christians held some political ideas that were viewed as vary dangerous and on a religious level it was not the fact that Christians believed in God, which drove the Romans to commit their acts of persecution it was the fact that they only believed in ONE all powerful god (as opposed to the vast amount of gods in the Roman Pantheon)

No, we would not agree as you seem to ignore the evidence. Some Emperors yes, some Emperors no. Read early church history and apologetics and accept the evidence as it is presented. Read up on the early philosophers and what they taught. If you read the link you would have seen some of the evidence.

[baysidetrey]

Do all Theists belive in the same Theism.
AND it is the Theists that seem to be defining Atheism.
As I have said, I have complete faith in my belief in the non-existance of a transcendental Deity (Theistic) but the Einstein's Deism and/or Spinoza's Pantheism are acceptable possibilities.
That's why I consider non-Theist to be more accurate.
Spiritually I am definitely a Pantheist but no GUY in the sky.

As I have stated before with you, I understand your points. I am only asking for fairness for both sides of the issus which seems hard to get from many of the posters. Now to move on, I think people also associate Communism with Atheism which may be a reason for the answers in the poll.

[biggles53]

Let me try to explain this in a better way as you seem to keep missing the idea. If I go to court and say that I heard Jim say that he killed Joe, that is not hearsay. I can also write my testimony down to the fact that I heard (first hand account) the statement and it is admissible in a court of law. Now, hearsay is when I tell you Jack said he heard Jim say.... Does this help any?

Phew...Thank Thor I don't have you as an attorney....!;)

Mate, you've got it wrong. What you describe above is EXACTLY an example of hearsay. You are reporting what someone else (Jim) has told you. It is inadmissable as evidence in court because a) Jim's statement was made outside court and therefore not under oath, and b) it cannot be subjected to cross-examination. The BEST you can claim is that Jim spoke to you - but the content of Jim's statement is NOT evidence!

Secondly, you still have failed to show that the human mind can inagine something outside of their 5 senses. We can compound ideas but we can not create something that we have never sensed. I can tell you about the weather in Alaska but you would not understand unless you used your previous knowledge of expierience.

OK, you've explained what it is you were asserting, but it still doesn't hold water, I'm afraid...

Because of our evolved brains, humans are capable of imagination. We are able to visualize (and verbalize) images and concepts which may have no relationship to reality whatsoever. For example, a former partner of mine used to have terrible nightmares as a teenager. She used to 'see' some very scary creatures in her dreams...things so wild that she found it difficult to describe to me exactly how they 'appeared'. Now, those dreams and those beings were quite obviously something that her unconscious mind had conjoured up. They were NOT part of her reality. They were NOT something that she'd had "previous knowledge of expierience (sic)"....

Getting it yet...?

[biggles53]

Very true but I would hope that one who wished to have an honest discussion would understand the point. I can claim that no true christian has ever murdered in the name of religion as we have a hand book on christian beliefs to judge by, whereas there is no hand book for atheist per se and they try and wiggle out of the truth IMO.

Who made you arbiter of what is and isn't a "true christian"..?? Your problem is that those murderers and torturers were often waving that "handbook" and quoting from it as they did their dirty deeds! They would equally say that YOU were falling down in your duty by not supporting their actions! In a contemporary setting, how do we know you're right and Fred Phelps is broadcasting a perverted form of religion?

"wiggle out of the truth"...??? What "truth"...?

[biggles53]

Can athiest get on the same page? One says this and then when it does not fit their ideology another changes it.

Oh boy.......:rolleyes:

Bayside, do you know how many different Christian sects there are......? At last count, it was around 30,000..!!

[biggles53]

As I have stated before with you, I understand your points. I am only asking for fairness for both sides of the issus which seems hard to get from many of the posters. Now to move on, I think people also associate Communism with Atheism which may be a reason for the answers in the poll.

Just as there are right wing Christians and left wing Christians, so you will find atheists occupying positions right across the political spectrum....The political/economic system you prefer, has little to do with whether or not you choose to believe in deities.....

[baysidetrey]

Getting it yet...?

I am, but I am afraid that you are not for what ever reason. Here is a definition:
hear·say (hîr'sā')
n.
Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.

Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Thanks for the short discussion though.

[biggles53]

I am, but I am afraid that you are not for what ever reason. Here is a definition:
hear·say (hîr'sā')
n.
Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.

Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Thanks for the short discussion though.

Mate, it's right there in your own definition..!!

"Unverified information"...!!....."Evidence based on the reports of others ........not admissible as testimony"...!!!

How much clearer could it be...!???

[Poptart]

Because I left out the word "Not".
I will correct my typo.
Then we'll both be right.

Gotcha! :cool:

[Finality]

Let me try to explain this in a better way as you seem to keep missing the idea. If I go to court and say that I heard Jim say that he killed Joe, that is not hearsay. I can also write my testimony down to the fact that I heard (first hand account) the statement and it is admissible in a court of law. Now, hearsay is when I tell you Jack said he heard Jim say.... Does this help any?
Secondly, you still have failed to show that the human mind can inagine something outside of their 5 senses. We can compound ideas but we can not create something that we have never sensed. I can tell you about the weather in Alaska but you would not understand unless you used your previous knowledge of expierience.
You are confused about how many people removed from the utterance of another creates hearsay. Your first example is hearsay. Your second example (you -> Jack -> Jim) is double hearsay (hearsay within hearsay).

You can testify that you saw Jim kill Joe, if that's true, and that is not hearsay because it is eyewitness testimony. If I say that you told me that you saw Jim kill Joe, then my testimony is hearsay.

Any testimony as to the truth of the contents of the statements of another is hearsay. Period. You could testify about what Jim told you to prove that, e.g., Jim was with you and was able to have a conversation, but that is an exception to the hearsay rule. It's still hearsay; it's just hearsay that's allowed as evidence depending on the circumstances.

As for your second claims, have you or anyone you know ever sensed bosons or quarks or dark matter or tachyons? Some of these we think are real, and yet we've never sensed them, directly at least. One of them we have no idea if it's real, have never sensed it, and can still imagine it. Huh. Funny that.

[baysidetrey]

Mate, it's right there in your own definition..!!

"Unverified information"...!!....."Evidence based on the reports of others ........not admissible as testimony"...!!!

How much clearer could it be...!???

Let me try one last time.
"Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony".
If I say that I have a personal knowledge that I heard a gunshot, Jim told me he committed the murder etc. then I am the witness. If you read my written testimony, it is the testimony of a witness not hearsay. If you say that you heard me say that I heard a gunshot, Jim admitted to murder, that is hearsay. If you read back a report from the court stenographer, it is evidence that can be reintroduced in another court. It really should not take this much effort to prove a common sense idea.

[biggles53]

Let me try one last time.
"Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony".
If I say that I have a personal knowledge that I heard a gunshot, Jim told me he committed the murder etc. then I am the witness. If you read my written testimony, it is the testimony of a witness not hearsay. If you say that you heard me say that I heard a gunshot, Jim admitted to murder, that is hearsay. If you read back a report from the court stenographer, it is evidence that can be reintroduced in another court. It really should not take this much effort to prove a common sense idea.

Yes...you are 'trying'....!;)

You giving evidence of a gunshot is most definitely admissible evidence. You swear it under oath, and it is possible to cross-examine you over that evidence. You claiming to have a conversation is also admissible, for the same reasons. However, what the other person told you in that conversation is, in isolation, hearsay evidence! In order to admit what Jim has told you, we would have to get Jim into court and interrogate HIM about his words!

So, to complete the analogy, the writers of the various books of the New Testament were operating from hearsay. What they wrote was a result of what they had been told were the events of up to several centuries before. In order to be 'admissible', we would need those who actually saw the events to testify....and that we don't have.

[captusa]

Let me try one last time.
"Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony".
If I say that I have a personal knowledge that I heard a gunshot, Jim told me he committed the murder etc. then I am the witness. If you read my written testimony, it is the testimony of a witness not hearsay. If you say that you heard me say that I heard a gunshot, Jim admitted to murder, that is hearsay. If you read back a report from the court stenographer, it is evidence that can be reintroduced in another court. It really should not take this much effort to prove a common sense idea.

You can testify that you heard a gunshot.
You can not testify as to what you heard someone say.
The content of what you say you heard will not be allowed.
Yes you witnessed someone say something but the content of that statement is legally defined as hearsay.
You are testifying to something heard said hence hear-say.

[biggles53]

As for your second claims, have you or anyone you know ever sensed bosons or quarks or dark matter or tachyons? Some of these we think are real, and yet we've never sensed them, directly at least. One of them we have no idea if it's real, have never sensed it, and can still imagine it. Huh. Funny that.

Good one.

This reminds me also of the graviton, a hypothetical, massless particle, without which our modern understanding of gravity and quantum field theory won't work. And yet, we don't even know if it exists, and we certainly don't know what it looks, sounds, smells, tastes or feels like...!!

[baysidetrey]

You can testify that you heard a gunshot.
You can not testify as to what you heard someone say.
The content of what you say you heard will not be allowed.
Yes you witnessed someone say something but the content of that statement is legally defined as hearsay.
You are testifying to something heard said hence hear-say.

So, A blind person can not testify?

[biggles53]

So, A blind person can not testify?

Oh, groan.............!

[baysidetrey]

You can testify that you heard a gunshot.
You can not testify as to what you heard someone say.
The content of what you say you heard will not be allowed.
Yes you witnessed someone say something but the content of that statement is legally defined as hearsay.
You are testifying to something heard said hence hear-say.

Please read this source and see if I am still wrong.
http://www.gmsr.com/article/tips_for_trial_lawyers.pdf

[biggles53]

Please read this source and see if I am still wrong.
http://www.gmsr.com/article/tips_for_trial_lawyers.pdf

Yes, you are still wrong.

Declarations are not admissible unless the witness has "personal knowledge" of the matter being declared. This would be like the writers of the NT books being present themselves when the reported events took place!

[biggles53]

Bayside...not trying to be rude, but what age group do you fall into please....?