User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Community of Austin
Why do atheists hate/disaprove of Christiany?

Just out of curiosity. What is it about Christianity that atheists seem to hate so bad?

I can answer for myself. I think the concept of a god that you can "trade" with is inherently harmful to humanity. Some people have called this a "personal god". Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are included in this. By the way, they all worship the God of Abraham.

The reason that "trading" is such a bad thing is that it causes believers to want to give things to this god in exchange for favors: blessings, answered prayers, infinite bliss in the afterlife, etc. The more a person believes, the more likely they are to make the trade. While nobody has any evidence of a god, or what the god might want, they're still happy to make trades. Most often, the trade involves selling out somebody who doesn't believe in that god. It could be killing the infidels, torturing them until they repent, stealing their land, lying to them in order to get them to believe, offering threats of hell, persecution of women who won't make new babies for the religion, persecution of gays who won't make new babies for the religion, trashing the US Constitution's separation of church and state, creating a mythology of a Christian founding of the US, promoting prayer in schools, trying to siphon off taxpayer money for religious education, spreading propaganda and lies about evolution, shortening everyone's lives by sabotaging stem cell research, etc., etc., etc.

You can even see this "selling out" in Abraham's actions with his god. He was happy to kill his own child and his god rewarded him with blessings and land. What is your faith number? http://www.atheist-community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=747

So atheists like me hate Christianity and many other religions because they are inherently immoral and they have long histories of immoral actions.

What I find particularly surprising is that I haven't met any believers who feel any sense of responsibility for their beliefs. They just want the rewards.

Cold Dogs said, "Just out of curiosity. What is it about Christianity that atheists seem to hate so bad?"

They had the pleasure of meeting one.

Don, I agree that many people see God as a dispensing machine. If they deposit something into the machine, then the machine gives them something back. In fact you can call that manipulation, "trading" or "personal" interaction. Would you say that this is the same way people "relate" to each other?

You say there is "no evidence of a god." What kind of evidence would you accept? An organized universe, a called out people, His physical coming to this planet, a book that claims to be His that is like no other book this world has ever known which includes fulfilled prophecies, the testimonies and changed lives of people who claim to have met the one true living God?

You seem to misunderstand Abraham's obedience and his love for his son. He knew God so well that he knew God would provide another sacrifice in place of his son or would raise his son from the dead.

You say that you "hate Christianity and many other religions because they are inherently immoral" but what do you base your "morality" on? Survival of the fittest? Your ability to hate comes from where? What benefit is it to "hate" that allowed the evolutionary process to mutate it into existence?

Mato,

Why invest your energy worshiping something if you don't get a benefit out of it? There's nothing wrong with self-satisfaction. When you start having self-satisfaction at the expense of others, then you've crossed the line. How many people would you kill to please your god? It's my understanding that your god holds an infinite reward. I suppose that if you believe, you're so motivated. Would you kill Jesus, for example, for the infinite reward?

To answer your second question, if our relationships with each-other didn't give us pleasure or satisfaction, then we wouldn't have them. I avoid people who annoy me. Don't you?

As for evidence, how about a sound logical argument for the existence of god, or a universally repeatable test where "God" was the best explanation for the results? We have the same level of evidence for plate tectonics, the orbit of Pluto, and quantum mechanics (all of which were outside the experience of the time). Why shouldn't your claims be subject to any different criteria? Every test of god (or anything supernatural) has been a failure (or rigged). That is ample evidence for me not to believe. Humans are good at inventing gods.

On your response concerning Abraham: bullshit. You're projecting your own interpretation onto the story. Gen 22:12 clearly indicates the God character stopped because he knew Abraham would have followed through with murdering his son. He was rewarded for his fear of the god character.

I base my morality on weighing the potential harm or benefit of an action or inaction. I hate Christianity because it seems to sabotage this morality. Our morality comes from evolution, giving us empathy, a need for social contact, and intelligence. It also requires knowledge and the application of reason to understand the consequences of our actions. No supernatural gremlins, demons, or magic sky pixies are required.

Hate is beneficial if it spurs action to improve a situation.

As for your claims about Christianity, you seem to have a pretty low standard of evidence. Apparently, you think a herd of cows is evidence of your particular god as they represent order. Maybe a salt crystal does, as well. The popularity of Christianity is best explained by memetics. I don't consider the Bible particularly special, why do you? Which version is special and why not the others? Why are there so many versions if it is a single inspired work (from a perfect god), as so many Christians claim? Why does it have so many contradictions, atrocities, and absurdities? I'm assuming that you also think the Koran is inspired and the Bhagavad Gita and the Book of Mormon and L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics too. If not, why not? The Lord of the Rings has inspired people. So what? What Biblical prophecies have come true? I don't know of any. (I am aware that people mistakenly make that claim.)

--Don

don you say you believe in evolution well it takes more faith to believe that when you put 2 non organic materials together and wait around a billion years humans happen . and by the way evolution is still a theory and has not been proven and the only reason why its taught in schools is because creation is tied to God / religion. evolution is just another religion that atheism is tied to. its not even real science. let me say that God created hell for lucifer and his angels not for humans but the thing is that you would rather believe in the lies of the devil than the God who created you so you only condemn yourself and you may be a knowledgable man but you lack wisdom and discernment with that knowledge, other wise you would see the lie

boz said, "don you say you believe in evolution well it takes more faith to believe that

Where does Don say that he just "believes" in evolution? I can't find that. Everything he said indicates that he doesn't just believe in things without evidence. I think Don Baker explained explicitly that faith based on no evidence is wrong.

boz said, "when you put 2 non organic materials together and wait around a billion years humans happen ."

Stanley Lloyd Miller a chemist and biologist died in 2007. There was a Miller-Urey experiment, which demonstrated that organic compounds could be created by fairly simple physical processes from inorganic substances. In 1953 Miller published a famous paper, 'A Production of Amino Acids under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions', in which he reported the results of an experiment under the direction of Harold Urey. In 2008, researchers found the apparatus that Miller used in his early experiments and analyzed the material using more sensitive later techniques. The experiments included previously unreported simulations of other environments, such as gases released in volcanic eruptions. The later analysis turned up more amino acids and other compounds of interest. Biologists know that life on Earth is built almost exclusively out of left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars. Miller's experiment created both right-handed and left-handed amino acids. The problem (life on Earth is built almost exclusively out of left-handed amino acids) F L Falcon at the University of Havana in Cuba suggests a mechanism Geothermal vents created life's left-handed amino acids, according to a new theory that solves that problem. The imbalance in solution causes a process known as epimerisation in which d-alinine is converted into l-alinine.

There is also an interesting link between Falcon's ideas and the Miller-Urey experiments in the 1950s, in which the scientists recreated the early Earth's atmosphere in a test tube, discharged it with lightning and found that this process generated amino acids. It is exactly this Urey-Miller composition of amino acids that Falcon says leads to (the only left- handed) or homochirality. So, spontaneous generation has not been disproven as some anti-evolutionist claim and is very near being proven.

boz said, "and by the way evolution is still a theory and has not been proven and the only reason why its taught in schools is because creation is tied to God / religion. evolution is just another religion that atheism is tied to.

In scientific terms a theory is a collection of propositions supported by facts. Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. And its predictions that have been tested supports all observations. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Gravity is a theory and a law. A scientific law is a mathematical description of this natural occurrence. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory. Evolution is a theory and a fact. They have both been tested and observed.

Evolution has nothing to do with religion or atheism. It is a scientific theory (explanation) of how life evolved and that discovery led to the discovery of DNA and the mapping of the human genome, which both support evolution. The courts ruled that Creation could not be taught as science because it is not science. There is no scientific theory to teach "god did it' is not science, there is no theory or evidence. The idea of God the Creator of everything should be taught to those who believe that in Church, it is religion it is not science.

boz said, "its not even real science. let me say that God created hell for lucifer and his angels not for humans but the thing is that you would rather believe in the lies of the devil than the God who created you so you only condemn yourself and you may be a knowledgable man but you lack wisdom and discernment with that knowledge, other wise you would see the lie"

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Mathew 25:41,46).

That makes it really clear that people who don't worship the right god will go to hell. It's not about being good it is about worshiping the "one true god." Hell is something that was added by the authors of the gospels. The threat of hell was to force people into the "new religion" Christianity. All religions are false and Christianity is no exception. If you ever read any unbiased work written by people that do research into ancient writings, civilizations and history it will be apparent that religion is a human invention.

Evolution is the central organizing framework for the biological sciences. Evolution has been shown to be superior to competing theories. When possible scientists compare several explanations for a phenomenon to find which one does the better job of explaining a phenomenon. And the theory that did a much better job than any other was evolution.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I'm adding a comment after this to the persons who are making vicious attack on people responding on this message board. My comments are in reply to the comments in this post (and so was the person they attacked) she told them their arguments were not science they were creationist arguments. That's why they went on a rampage. Did they think the rest of us were too dumb to know?

My comments are exclusively about the comments in the post and so were theirs. They are not about the person who wrote the post. The vicious personal attacks (including cursing them) implying what they were saying was from personal knowledge of the person they attacked (they do not know them) saying that they know what that person would know, that their opinions are not their own, what they do at home and in public. Calling them a hypocrite and a coward. Saying that they are pretending to be an atheist. Making the comment that nobody can do anything about it. There is plenty they can do about that own their own.

If someone doesn't want to learn anything they need to get their asses out of here because they will not slander anyone into agreeing with them. They are so uneducated that they actually can't come up with any real answers, so they attack the person. Anyone can dispute these kinds of claims when they are put on "an atheist message board" and most atheists are too educated to agree with them. They need to post this stuff on apologist's sites if what they are after is agreement or approval.

Anyone who doesn't like this answer has the right to prove that it is wrong. If they are incapable of doing that because of their stupidity they do not then have the right to slander me or anyone else.

so tell me why did my last message not make it on the board was it too confronting or you clearly dont have an answer to it. so all you guys do is pick and choose and never answer the real questions. post my last response and let people respond to it . and if you dont it just goes to show that there are some things that you cant explain with science and then there comes the answer that pulls down your beliefs. just like you attack the foundations of christianity to undermine us athiesm is a flawed religion like you keep telling us christians our God is not real

ColdDogs - "Just out of curiosity. What is it about Christianity that atheists seem to hate so bad?"

Maybe the time you have spent reading one book and being told what to think is why you can't figure it out! That bothers me. Why do you hate reality? I have never seen an atheist condemn anyone to eternal damnation. I have never heard of an Atheist waving signs at funerals "no tears for queers" like christians do.

Christians want to silence atheists and others; you've got things all turned around. Turning things around is a christians favorite past time. People are not inspired to hate because of non- belief; exactly the opposite is the case, it is the belief that inspires hatred. Religion historically has always turned violent.

Since christians use the word godless as an insult, and consider atheists to be immoral by definition; I don't believe the question was posed because you are curious about why atheists wouldn't like christians. It's christian bull crap! You, my friends, are awash in religious hypocrisy...(And the bad news just keeps on comin'!

I don't think that the christian fanatics are past the stage of burning heretics at the stake given the vehemence with which christians have been fighting to prolong their ignorance by appealing to the lowest instincts, and intellects on earth. Trying to discount profound scientific discoveries. What's not to like? No real scholar believes the bible is "the enerrant word of a glorious genius god." The bible isn't true or enerrant and it is astonishing that anyone would believe these are actual historical events, they are myths. It is obscene and outrageous that anyone would teach these fables as truth. Ask yourself how the plants that were created on the third day grew without the sun, which was created after the plants. Did god create a giant sunlamp first?

Noah's flood - do you think that that there never was a rainbow before the flood? And isn't drowning a rather cruel way to kill people even if they were wicked?

Joshua 10:12-14: god made the sun and moon stand still. God in all his wisdom doesn't know that the sun does not orbit the earth. The sunrise is an optical illusion. In fact people who sit in a room every Sunday and listen to someone teach from a book that a child could understand needs to figure out what is wrong with them, not everybody else.

Nice cherry-picking there! "Tears for Queers." So, why don't we brand everything anything we want because a percentage of people do exactly the opposite of what or whom they confess?!. Wow!. I'm sure you've read the ten commandments a few times as most atheists, I find, are extremely well-read (I'm not being sarcastic or snide, either.) But "Love they neighbor as thyself" was not taken into account when those folks displayed those abhorent signs. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they were mis-guided. Gosh knows Christians aren't perfect. But please don't brand every one of us something that a few did. Just like I won't brand atheists something that some of them have done. Can we at least be cordial?

Joseph QUOTE: "Nice cherry-picking there! "Tears for Queers."

Referring to my response to - ColdDogs - "Just out of curiosity. What is it about Christianity that atheists seem to hate so bad?" Bladerdash! That's "no tears for queers" and that's all you took exception to?

Thanks Joseph for your interesting commentary. Unfortunately, you overlook a few things.

I would like to recommend a great book By Chris Hedges American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America

Read this article on the Internet it is by the same Chris Hedges. I recommend this to the atheists and any intelligent theists. This is an article by Chris Hedges that no major publication would print. THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT AND THE RISE OF AMERICAN FASCISM By -- CHRIS HEDGES 15 Nov 2004

The first line of the article is: "Dr. James Luther Adams, my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, told us that when we were his age, he was then close to 80, we would all be fighting the "Christian fascists."

I'm sorry I missed this the first go round. Joseph said, "I'm sure you've read the ten commandments a few times as most atheists, I find, are extremely well-read (I'm not being sarcastic or snide, either.) But "Love they neighbor as thyself" was not taken into account when those folks displayed those abhorent signs."

Most Christians think that the Ten Commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sanai. In fact, these principles were known by individuals long before Moses, Within the Papyrus of Ani better known as the Egyptian Book of the Dead. The Ten Commandments originated in ancient Egypt in the "Book of the Dead". It is what a man must swear to do in order to enter the afterlife. Long before the biblical "Ten Commandments" with the exact same concepts and phrasing in the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" almost identical to the "Ten Commandments" of the OT. Those Ten Commandments miraculously carved out of stone by God the Ten Commandments of the Bible were carved all the way through, and even the O's didn't fall out. They could be read from either side. What a miracle! Wouldn't you think they would be backwards on the back? Of coarse Moses (conveniently) destroyed them so nobody can prove that they ever existed, but we can prove that they were copied from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

Linda, yet again you assume that the person asking the question is religious, especially Christian. As a person that seems to value critical thinking you presume too much. And, as you were told before in previous posts by others concerned about boastful presumptions-- think before you comment.

Joseph said he was a Christian on this thread. You should learn how to read period -- let alone carefully. From: Joseph (Posted Mar 16, 2009 at 9:41 pm) "How thorough! As a Christian myself, I am no more worthy of God or Heaven than anyone else is -- probably much less. But, I've bet my life on Christ. I didn't do it blindly, but faith does play a role. I do have the belief that death is everyone's penalty for sin. Through the lens of the Bible, for me, so many things make sense. Not everything, but most things. I literally feel like I have a road map that helps me make the best choices possible."

Forget "Joseph" wasn't an atheist then? Maybe it's a slip up? "Joseph" posted many sermons before he realized that nobody was going to listen to him as a fanatic. Did "Joseph" say that he could be an atheist too? Well, that would require a name change.

Did anyone notice that Joseph was told off and cussed out by lots of people (on this thread and on other threads) but his objection was always about "Linda" as if nobody else said anything? These backward jerks can't win a debate since they know nothing so when they lose they come back (in another name) after they cook up an excuse to attack the person that they were far too dumb to ever win an argument with. They think posting fundie garbage, as an atheist will actually convince someone it's what atheists think, and it might work 'cause the Baptists far outnumber the atheists here. They actually like them better than Dawkins.

But I digress; were the others you were referring to the dimwit that posted creationist arguments as an atheist biologist? Did someone tell him he was posting creationist arguments? You didn't like that? Well, why don't you SHOVE IT! Did he think we would believe creation is real science? That proves how dumb he is! Plus, using the same 'original argument' in another name (flaws and holes in the theory of evolution) he lost the first debate but never admitted it, and the second one because he couldn't read all of that difficult scientific stuff. They interrupted the debate (by playing "sage") because the so-called biologist lost the debate. The "sage" repeated what Linda told the so-called atheist biologist who only knew creation not real science -- and the (we all know who) "sage" wrote pages of criticism and advice (filled with the usual complaints) about the length of Linda's 'real science' answers. By the way he is giving her advice when she won the debate hands down. As if he could give anyone advice! He has done all of this many times before. The "sage", disregarding what was stated many times in the debate posted the theory of evolution didn't have flaws. The idea was to show everyone how the "sage" could straighten out the atheist biologist with one short answer overlooking the fact that all of the so-called biologist arguments were multifaceted. The "sage" only told the atheist biologist one thing; then he went on a rant about Linda's answers, but his little copy cat reply had one big problem -- it was something Linda already told him. And an atheist biologist that doesn't know that evolution is the basis for all biological science? He didn't know that? He only knew creationist arguments and when he was presented with real science he didn't know a damn thing about science. These dullards don't know that you don't have to prove a thing about real science because it has been proven. A biologist would know real science -- but he didn't. They fabricate lies to evade the real issue -- he was using creationist arguments as real science and saying that he was an atheist biologist that believes creation is science? I would have flat out told him you are a phucking fake! You can forget about threatening anyone so you can pawn off your creation crap as real science. Yes, it is so sad, but there is something that can be done about fundies who think that they can cyber bully people.

Look at the General Discussion (Topic) "Evolution: Can it be disproved"? From: John McGlothlin (Posted Mar 18, 2011 at 4:38 pm) "As atheists point out to believers, the burden of proof is on he who proposes. Thus those who believe evolutionary theory must provide proof that the theory fits the facts and explains observed phenomena. In short, I don't think the theory works because it requires faith that genetic mutation, which sometimes results in producing a biological advange (THE BIOLOGIST MISSPELLED ADVANTAGE) to the mutants, is the source of all variation and that every living thing can be traced back to the first living cell. That cannot be true because a mutation can only alter what already exists (i.e. cannot increase complexity). The basis of evolutionary theory is thus a sort of alchemy and, if one is careful in one's questioning and does enough reading on the subject, one will discover that nobody can prove that genetic mutation can create new material or how mutation and selection could lead to such transformations as scales becoming feathers (to name one evolutionary claim). Now, that said, there is a lot of evidence of transisitional (THE BIOLOGIST MISSPELLED TRANSITIONAL) life forms and similar genetic code but the fact that such exists doesn't explain how it came to be. Evolutionary theory fails at the fundamental (no pun intended) level and thus I would say until a biologist can observe and prove the type of genetic/structural change proposed by the theory then it isn't proven (and really ought not be called a theory but rather a hypothesis). I am, by the way, a biologist and an atheist. I only mention the latter because I want to emphasise (THE BIOLOGIST MISSPELLED EMPHASIZE) that evolutionary theory is a biological theory and not really related to religion and, just to be clear, not to lead anyone to think that I in any way support creationist dogma.

It's just a fluke that he used well-known creationist arguments and continued to misspell words and use more blatant creationist arguments throughout the discussion -- as a matter of fact it gets worse in case anyone wants to go look at it. Plus, every one of those claims was thoroughly disputed in the debate with real science. No atheist would use creationist arguments or interrupt to complain when someone pointed out that they were creationist arguments unless they didn't like the fact that a creationist lost that debate. This is what you get when all you have is home and Christian school'n -- sorry it won't work. I know lies work if people can't read or understand anything they do read. They come back after the discussion is over -- sometimes for years -- and all of them with Linda -- he is really obsessed. He wants desperately to prove that he is smarter than Linda is, but he is as dumb as a sack load of horse hockey. These miserable losers can't win a debate -- all they can do is try to bully their way through life. They try to come back (as a scientists and an atheist) after they lost a debate and win by posting creationist crap as real science. When the junk that they are posting as scientists and atheists is exposed for banal creationist gibberish they interrupt with a rant about the person who exposed them for the fakes that they are -- they don't get tired of doing the same again and again in different (ridiculous) pseudonyms? Ever find out 'How Strong are Your Belief Tests'? Were 'The elements encoded in Genesis'? No! And who the hell is "Loving a Theists" with the same misspelled words and horrible grammar. No atheist went to church to make a Christians happy either! What will I tell my kids? What will I tell my family? My grandfather disinherited me? Gee! Maybe nobody should be an atheist since it's just one melodrama after another!

After the evolution debate -- on another fake topic -- it gave itself away by going on a rant about how Linda wouldn't make those remarks (about religion) in public. No atheist would ever make that dumb ass remark.. We all do know how violence prone ignorant uneducated fanatics are. Is there anyone that doesn't know that they are not atheists? Just deal with it pal!

Just a little advice -- do try to remember what name was used when saying I'm a Christian, because they might be "planting seeds" and "thawing people out" and try not to make the same tedious comments using the same words. Why would anyone continuously comment that they are atheists? We know an atheist without being told? And don't give advice if you are an ignorant uneducated clod? Some of us speak the way we do because we are not conversing with sally army rehab rejects. Remember nobody has to prove high school biology.

Listen up bozo -- the reply you're referring to only points out that Christians believe that the Ten Commandments supposedly given to Moses on Mount Sinai were around long before that time (in the Egyptian Book of the Dead) and he is using the Ten Commandments in his argument. Don't you comprehend anything that you ever read? Atheists know bible babble is regurgitated rubbish and the liars for Jeebeezus don't want to know. There isn't much here to attract atheists and the few that have joined the discussion were run off by these clowns. The theists outnumber the atheists and without them there is no show. That needs to change. I happen to think that it's pathetic since they really have nothing to say -- all they can do is parrot and cyber stalk.

///Just out of curiosity. What is it about Christianity that atheists seem to hate so bad?///

Just out of curiosity, What is it about reality that you are hiding from?

A mind is an eye perceiving its outer reality and itself. It is like a glass with a clear liquid in it (not water).

Every misconception that the mind introduces into itself impurifies the water, makes it dirty. But the mind can clean itself up, become clear again (no, I am not a goddamn Scientologist). If the dirt becomes to heavy, the ability to become totally clear again might get lost (or there is just a too steady input of dirt for the mind to recover). And the dirtier the mind is, the weaker its ability to clean itself. It even forgets what it means to be clear.

Religion is a misconception that is designed to *stay* in the mind. The mind even believes that this impurity is a good thing. It tries to stay away from the clear-state.

Ok, whoever loses his mind - not my problem, right?

Yes it is.

For there are several billion people on this planet who have dirty minds and believe it is a good thing. That impacts my life negatively on a local and global scale.

I have the right to defend myself!

Um, ok. I think that makes sense, sort of.?.?

Yes: Dismiss the religious. Surely, they don't realize that their minds are cluttered with unncessary 'dirt' which obviouly impedes their ability to think or, I don't know, be smart. Faith isn't logical. That doesn't mean that God is illogical (said Spock). The dilemma, though, is that God has to find you. Perhaps He has and you've rejected him. If that's the case, He does have His limit, so it says in the good book. Trust Him today - perhaps He will then reveal the things that us obviously-not-intelligient Christians already believe. Though it is something that I rarely say to atheists but feel the need to: if I had enough faith, I would be an atheist.

Joseph, *I am God*.

But I side with the atheists and their way of thinking because it is clearly rational (as opposed to that of the religious folks). And sanity is what needs followers on this planet, not God.

Christianity and christians seem to have a need to spread thier myth around. They have this smug, self righteous belief that they must "save" the godless from their heathen ways. I don't need "god" or a "messiah" to live a happy, fulfilling life. I don't need your interferance and your pity. This is what I hate about christianity. The belief that they are right and everyone else will burn in hell. GO FUCK YOURSELVES!

How thorough! As a Christian myself, I am no more worthy of God or Heaven than anyone else - probably much less. But, I've bet my life on Christ. I didn't do it blindly, but faith does play a role. I do have the belief that death is everyone's penalty for sin. Through the lens of the Bible, for me, so many things make sense. Not everything, but most things. I literally feel like I have a road map that helps me make the best choices possible. I still make mistakes but the stress in my life is much less. I truly feel joy no matter what I'm going through - not some pseudo let-sing-Kum-ba-yah-at-the-campfire-while-doing-yoga-in-the-morning, but a peace that truly passes all understanding. For me, it's one of many hands of God. If I'm wrong, then, I'm wrong. I don't think I am and I learn more and more everyday that confirms and strengthens my faith. It also helps to to TRULY love everybody, even those most have difficulty loving. If this makes me self-righteous, than so be it. Again, I take no credit, I'm just trying to live out my faith - which says that I'm not to take the credit - but to do so because Christ has taught to love thy neighbor as thyself and to love your enemies. I have a very long way to go, but I can be rest-assured that I cannot earn my way to Heaven. It's already been earned for me! My Creator died for me which means I will not have to be separated from him in eternity. I believe my soul will live beyond death - and I'm betting on Christ that it will rest with him for millenia times infinity. Hell is something that everyone must come to terms with. If you don't believe in it, then don't. But nobody knows for certain because those who've died aren't here to let us in on what happens. I'm so confused why folks would outright bet everything they have on something that no evidence is available to verify - especially when the concept is so horrific. I LOVE science. I don't think Science and a "god" are at odds; or that they have to be. As always, please allow me ask the same questions I always ask to atheists: "Why do we exist?" "Why do we die?" Not how, but why.

Joseph said: QUOTE: - But, I've bet my life on Christ. I didn't do it blindly, but faith does play a role. I do have the belief that death is everyone's penalty for sin. Through the lens of the Bible, for me, so many things make sense.

Have you ever thought of getting your lens changed?

QUOTE - I literally feel like I have a road map that helps me make the best choices possible.

Follow the yellow brick road!

QUOTE - I still make mistakes but the stress in my life is much less. I truly feel joy no matter what I'm going through - not some pseudo let-sing-Kum-ba-yah-at-the-campfire-while-doing-yoga-in-the-morning, but a peace that truly passes all understanding.

That warm and fuzzy religion is for sissies! What we need is Joel's Army! Nothing like war to bring those Xians together.

QUOTE - For me, it's one of many hands of God. If I'm wrong, then, I'm wrong. I don't think I am and I learn more and more everyday that confirms and strengthens my faith.

OOOPS! Maybe those ungodly scientists were right about a lot of things like (global warming)! If anyone has saved people from horrible things it's the scientists. Just think of all the diseases they have cured that the Bible says god inflicted upon us.

QUOTE - It also helps to to TRULY love everybody, even those most have difficulty loving. If this makes me self-righteous, than so be it. Again, I take no credit, I'm just trying to live out my faith - which says that I'm not to take the credit - but to do so because Christ has taught to love thy neighbor as thyself and to love your enemies.

Jesus said: "Resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." That was not a new ideal. The whole concept of a God is a derivative of the ancient oriental despotism. Lao-Tse, a contemporary of Confucius in China, founded Taoism. Among his best known sayings are to "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek. Lao-Tse and Buddha some 500 or 600 years before Christ.

QUOTE - I have a very long way to go, but I can be rest-assured that I cannot earn my way to Heaven. It's already been earned for me! My Creator died for me which means I will not have to be separated from him in eternity. I believe my soul will live beyond death - and I'm betting on Christ that it will rest with him for millenia times infinity.

Just stop thinking and believe! What have you got to lose! Well, how about all the knowledge we have acquired once we stopped letting religious fools stop science. And guess what some people have too much self respect to gravel before idiots.

QUOTE - Hell is something that everyone must come to terms with. If you don't believe in it, then don't. But nobody knows for certain because those who've died aren't here to let us in on what happens. I'm so confused why folks would outright bet everything they have on something that no evidence is available to verify - especially when the concept is so horrific.

There is no such thing as hell so quite your whining!

QUOTE - I LOVE science. I don't think Science and a "god" are at odds; or that they have to be. As always, please allow me ask the same questions I always ask to atheists: "Why do we exist?" "Why do we die?" Not how, but why.

You can find the answers to all those questions in a science book that you love so much!

It's grovel, Linda. As I've said before, the only problem with you is that you correct people's spelling, so don't take this the wrong way, as everyone has taken mild discussion too conspiratorily in their own minds. What do you have to say about Jesus in his missing years going to a budist temple?

Nobody is wrong about you, and you just proved that! Interesting because this is where you got started. You just went on a scavenger hunt to find a mistake out of the thousands of things she has written, for what reason? Oh! Your glaring spelling and grammar mistakes throughout all of your posts that were pointed out to you by many people, not just one. They did that because of your overbearing, insulting remarks when you were told that you were wrong. I see you are putting the software you got to correct your atrocious grammar and spelling to good use, trying to find a mistake on anything Linda has ever written. Here's a recap.

From - topic - The elements encoded in Genesis - General Discussion Rational Jen said, "Gross error in grammar aside (or maybe it was just a typo), did you read that before you posted it?" Mark said, "Devin, how about the flaw that you have not provided any reasonable basis for your claim etc." Then you started insulting people and saying you were never saying the elements were encoded in Genesis when you lost the debate. The entire first part of the thread proves that is not true. Then you started insulting everyone and saying they weren't good in comprehension, when Linda had to tell you things many times before you understood them, but that would not be the problem if you had not turned around and started insulting people. It's the fact that you must be smarter, you're the one that knows Jesus.

Dylan said, "That'll be the day (other people have corrected your grammar and spelling) maybe you couldn't comprehend that since you still don't comprehend how to spell Grammar." GR said, "You could take any symbolic writing and then make some connections between understood facts of today, and then say; 'Hey, this writing perfectly fits the stuff I'm making it fit." You dishonestly said that was what you were saying, when you never were, until you couldn't win. That's what Christianity does for you because it is based on lies. Emily said, "Devin, I think you may be suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder (an atheist who thinks the elements are encoded in Genesis?)" Don't kid yourself Emily, everyone knows this is a fake, but he does have a problem. Then you tried to find anything Linda said that you might could use to prove her wrong about something, which is stupid because it had nothing to do with the original debate, that you didn't concede until everyone told you that you were wrong, and you insulted them all. Devin said, "Outgassing isn't a word." Yes, it is, but your software didn't recognize it because it's a scientific term. As Dylan pointed out. Rene told you that you are not better in science than Linda is, because you claimed you were. This was a huge number of people that thought you were wrong. But Linda is the one you have followed all over the message board, still trying to prove she is wrong about something. At the end of the debate you became extremely abusive toward Linda although everyone else said that you were wrong. Your character is a perfect example of your faith. To borrow a quote "you are awash in religious hypocrisy." Linda said, "Lao-Tse, a contemporary of Confucius in China, founded Taoism. Among his best known sayings are to "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek. Lao-Tse and Buddha some 500 or 600 years before Christ." I don't think that you can fix that blunder either because the name Jesus Christ was not decided on until The Council of Nicaea - 325 A.D. The mythological figure was dead for 325 years before he got a name. There is no historic record of eyewitnesses of anyone named Jesus ever having lived. The only records are things written long after his death from hearsay. Like any myth. So, there are no lost records of any eyewitness accounts of anything involving this myth. You really do need to take your show on the road because there is nobody here that hasn't read the bible and doesn't know far more about the history of it than you do. You can read the King James Version of the Bible, or let someone read it to you, while a charismatic figure persuades you to believe whatever he wants you to believe. That's your business. If we think that there are lies involved in all of this that's our business. Linda is not going to answer you under any of your names.

Take your dogma elsewhere, because we know what it can do for others exactly what it's done for you, and we really do need to start fighting this affliction.

My bad, I almost decided to make it clear I didn't believe it in the beginning about Genesis. But, I came hear to work it out even if I didn't believe in it and see if it was wrong or not. So, you are you're basically right. You're also basically right about me finding Linda's mistakes. Although I was just reading through this stuff it was my responsibility to point out where she is wrong. I was dissing people because I felt dissed and I don't think there's a problem in that. You can see pictures of me on myspace but I don't think we're supposed to link to personal sites here. Oh yeah, look up Devin Harper, I'm 19.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "My bad, I almost decided to make it clear I didn't believe it in the beginning about Genesis. But, I came hear to work it out even if I didn't believe in it and see if it was wrong or not."

Oh wait, I just realized I'm arguing about something I don't believe, is another dishonest ignorant defense. Anyone can look at "the elements are encoded in Genesis" and know that's not true. You were going to put up a web page on it. You are a home schooled, private 'Christian schooled' fundamentalist Christian. If it weren't for Linda we would be "loving a theist," going to church and becoming brainwashed fundamentalists too. To say nothing of the comment on that thread about (not trading a born again Christian girlfriend for an atheist, no thanks!) Pretty stupid! Were we supposed to think that was from an atheist? With the same grammar not (grammer) mistake and the same grammatical errors as were distinct in "the elements are encoded in Genesis." Also, RobertN had the same penchant to prove Linda wrong and trying to get people to join in on an ignorant slanderous attack. He was proven wrong. How about Gore1 being taught something that is clearly wrong. Same kinds of lies, and that's been repeated several times.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "So, you are you're basically right."

So, you are basically right is the correct way to write that sentence, and yes I am thoroughly right. But then you have made far worse mistakes in grammar and spelling all over this message board. Along with your bad science.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "You're also basically right about me finding Linda's mistakes. Although I was just reading through this stuff it was my responsibility to point out where she is wrong."

Anyone who believes that, needs to have their head examined for holes. You didn't find any mistake(s) it's one, that you tediously used your software (you told us about that) to find. I can find those kinds of mistakes on everyone's posts. You did the same thing on "elements are encoded in Genesis" and you said outgassing was not a word. No, it's a scientific term that you didn't learn in creation science, and your software didn't recognize it. You did all of that because your creation science was wrong; that you're saying you didn't believe was true? Oh, I believe that one. You have very low self-esteem, and that's why you have used two threads to try and start a witch-hunt against Linda. You are too dense to understand that no atheist would agree with you. You don't like atheists and you have nothing in common with them. That's why you had a conflict with Don Baker and brought Linda into that conflict "where does the ACA stand on Capital Punishment" Linda was your problem there too, and she wasn't even on the thread?

It's very clear why you were reading through this stuff. Do you think people don't know creation science? It's creationist's idea of a weakness in evolution, and there is more of it on other threads, but Linda spoiled it by proving the apologist rebuttal in (the other pseudonym) was wrong. I saw the fake science and so did Tom.

Maybe someone thought Tom was going to answer them? Do you think Joseph thought he was dissed? Most people think that anyone that stupid should be. If you don't think so look at what Joey said.

You are not supposed to try and get personal with anyone on this message board, or try to occupy the message board with irrelevancies. You are trying to prove you are better than someone else that's all, with your software, while you are making more atrocious mistakes. Nobody with any sense would look at anything you are putting up anywhere. Especially since you think you have the right to go on a rampage against anyone who transgresses against your fundamentalist Biblical teachings.

Why don't you go back and correct the huge numbers of grammar and spelling mistakes of yours with your software? You are nothing but a waste of time.

I have a 12-year-old cousin and when someone explains to him that something is wrong he gets it. He doesn't go on a two-year-old rampage because he's not deranged and stupid, and that's why he is going to graduate early.

Frankly, I think that you are a perfect example of a fundamentalist upbringing with home and Christian schooling. The information about where to find you could be linked to a Christian Apologetics web page, but I don't doubt that some of them would not want to be responsible for the kinds of things you are doing. It will be your responsibility. Your apologist's arguments just haven't worked out here, and Linda is not the only one you have had trouble with. I won't even go to the trouble of warning people about you 'cause most people know when they run across someone with a screw loose on the Internet. Don't write back with anymore half-baked excuses, but I just couldn't resist pointing out the glaring error you made while correcting someone.

It would be a waste of time to use software to find one mistake. As I said, I didn't use it on this one. Also, my computer shows that I haven't even gone to Loving a Theist thread. Why do you post lies about me? At least I never lied about you guys. It only takes lies to make me seem bad.

After the discussion topic "the elements are encoded in Genesis" (General Discussion) went on for days, and many error in Genesis were pointed out more than once, as well as, the reason that the numbers could be applied to any verse.

Devin Wesley Harper said, "Even so, the best you can come up with against my argument is that the Bible is wrong about the sun and earth, chronologically. If you were to get past the impossibility of my claim and go with it for a second, you would see that my story has overcame that discrepency. That's why I said you did ad hominem. I now know that you just didn't understand my idea, that's all, sorry for insulting you."

That should be (overcome) and (discrepancy.) They understood your ideas; it was you who didn't get the point that it was wrong. Also, note the incredibly bad grammar and spelling. Maybe you should go back and apologize for it, and all of the insults at the bottom of the thread. This is what you could do with your software.

This thread has a topic and you are not discussing that topic. If you have nothing to contribute to the topic there is no reason to for you to be posting. Nobody is interested in your grievances against someone here. And don't give that lame excuse about needing to point out mistakes.

Before you do you better look at the sentence "So, you are you're basically right." A much bigger mistake as all of your mistakes are in grammar, spelling and the accuracy of your scientific knowledge.

I think I'll take a pass on anything about you out there in cyber space.

"and see if it was wrong or not," said Devin.

Wrong or not in the ends of the logic of a Christian anyway.

How can someone say I backed down away from my supposed beliefs once people started correcting me when I said near the beginning that I don't care that the Bible is wrong? You can contact the organization for the one who read my e-mail about the Elements Encoded in Genesis that I sent before I posted here and on it I only said that I believed it when I was a Christian.

General Discussion "The elements encoded in Genesis."

Devin Wesley Harper said, "I was bothered because I thought it wasn't getting through to you that it did not contradict my positions, except where I admited I was wrong, and they have been found to fuel my fire. Burden of proof is on you argument is the same as reformed epistemology. I'll have to approach you in a different way to get one of my points across that I didn't know the science so I programmed it to concur with the Bible. I like the Periodic Table of Elements and I liked the Bible. I did do what you say of conclusions making the evidence. But the elements in Genesis idea occured to me. It's not like I need the Table to be mentioned in there at all. Thinking can make some strange shit up. It has been obvious, however, that I am interested in constructive criticism, criticism of my idea and I have found none. The burden of proof is on you to convey a flaw with the idea. I don't care if you believe it or not. I'm asking you to be empathetic here. To say, wow, you're right, that is some weird shit and it makes sense. Mind you that even though things make perfect sense, doesn't make it proven."

You are saying right here that you thought this whole thing up. I know that I have read about this very same theory that was thought up by a famous apologist who wanted to overcome the errors in Genesis.

Admitted and occurred were spelled wrong and you don't know when to use commas.

Why would anyone say that the theory is right just to make you happy? You were not admitting to being wrong? And you are ignoring everyone that told you that you had not proven that theory. And this is at the bottom of the thread.

Mark said, "Devin, how about the flaw that you have not provided any reasonable basis for your claim that "the beginning of Genesis was an explanation of the first fourteen elements" and the flaw that you have not shown how such an explanation has resulted in a successful prediction?"

Devin Wesley Harper answers, "You have not proven that you understand what I have said."

You are telling him that he doesn't understand your theory. You are not saying that it is wrong at the very end of the thread.

You are saying that it would have been constructive criticism if Linda had not pointed out to you that science disputes your claims, and on that thread you said it didn't matter that science disputes your claims repeatedly. You thought that she should have just told you that you were right. The fact is that you thought you could use the numbers in other verses to fix the mistakes in Genesis. How was that going to help you when everyone else said that you were wrong? No, it would have been totally dishonest. You think constructive criticism is telling someone that they are right when they are wrong. When Linda used the word disingenuous on that thread; I think it was extremely generous.

You do not get along with atheists, and everyone knows that you are a foot loop Christian. You thought you could claim to be an atheist and get support from other atheists and turn them against Linda (pseudonym Leysin) "Loving a Theist" making exactly the same grammar and spelling errors as (Devin Wesley Harper) "The Elements are Encoded in Genesis." You tried to get people to go after Linda just like you have done on every thread, and you just did the same kind of attack. jonathan a faith healer (on another thread) and attacked Linda. You are disgusting and when she said that you were disingenuous it was very generous.

I have read almost everything you have written in all your pseudonyms and nobody in their right mind would think that you are any thing but a fundamentalist Christian. Don't post fundamentalists positions and support other fundamentalists and attack atheists, and expect support. I doubt that anyone here is dumb enough to think that you are anything but a fundamentalist Christian. Home schooled private Christian schooled fundamentalist. This has been done many times by idiots who thought they could propagandize their religion under the guise of being an atheist. But you did it because you thought you could turn atheists against Linda because she proved you were wrong.

Oh yeah, Why don't you tell that creep to do his own dirty work?

If you would be smart and believe some things people say about themselves, which is not your business to know, except when they tell you like I did, you would know that I was not looking for you to believe the theory. Maybe ACA has our DIFFERENT IP addresses to prove to you we aren't the same, you conspiracy nut job(s). Even Matt Dillahunty can tell you that that's all you are. I don't need people telling me what I'm doing, which is most of what you guys like to do. I swear I made up the theory. But as you can know, the same ideas do get made up by different people.

I can see that your Jesus skills haven't worn off. Jesus is the one who said that if you are for me you are not against me and if you aren't for me you are against me. You think that just because I'm not for Linda that makes me not an Atheist. This is similar to how Ray Comfort doesn't get how people can hear a fairy tale and still know who the bad guy is (in relation to God being talked about as the bad guy by Atheists even though they don't believe he exists).

Ray,

I don't think that you can fix that blunder either because the name Jesus Christ was not decided on until The Council of Nicaea - 325 A.D. The mythological figure was dead for 325 years before he got a name. There is no historic record of eyewitnesses of anyone named Jesus ever having lived. The only records are things written long after his death from hearsay. Like any myth. So, there are no lost records of any eyewitness accounts of anything involving this myth.

Devin,

I knew all that. It would be funny for you to teach me something I don't know, seeing how a hypocrite cannot teach a master.

Joseph ask "As always, please allow me ask the same questions I always ask to atheists: "Why do we exist?" "Why do we die?" Not how, but why".

I belive the answer to "Why do we exist?" is because of concept of Emergence.

Google it if you need more info or go here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3410/03.html

Anyway, here's my thought. We are made of atoms and molecolues. When there were no life on earth, how did life appear? Before we answer the Why, you have to understand the How. Certain elements bond together naturally. For instance Hydrogen bonds with Oxygen to make water. The reason certain elements bond readily together can be found using chemistry. From plain chemistry we can enter organic-chemistry where life forms are made of organic compounds. DNA is made of orangic compounds in the form of sugars and proteins. Reminder, all this stuff is naturally occuring because of chemical bonding. Through the process of evolution these organic compound eventually form cells and tissues and organs and basically life. And now you can answer why. Because of Emergence. Life started out very simply (single cell) and grew in complexity. From chaos to order. Emergence has no agenda or plan or leader. Firing of your neurons in your brain are basically random, but as a whole those excited neurons forms thoughts and ideas and action.

The answer to death: I think we die because that's the order of nature. Its called entropy. Everything that has order tend to disorder. Our cells and tissues and every element our bodies are made of goes back to disorder. And its this cycle of disorder to order to disorder that Life emerges from simple atoms to nerons allowing us to reason and think. No God, no reason, no plan, just the nature of the universe.

This is a ridiculous explanation of evolution. It looks like you are commenting where it's not needed.

@ Tom

Seems to me you are commenting where it's not needed. Even if you think that it's a ridiculous explanation of evolution, it's my ridiculous explanation. This is why I said that these are my own thoughts. From my understanding of the concept of emergence and chemistry and evolution, this is what I have come with. They are my personal opinions and if you have a problem with my assessment, then what is your explanation to Josephs questions? Do you even have one?

Joseph said, "Why do we exist?" "Why do we die?" Not how, but why."

"Why do we exist?" The chemical compounds of living things are known as organic compounds. One type is deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. The other is ribonucleic acid, or RNA.

Through the process of evolution these organic compound eventually form cells and tissues and organs and basically life.

A recent mathematical analysis says that life as we know it is written into the laws of reality. DNA is built from a set of twenty amino acids - the first ten of those can create simple prebiotic life, and now it seems that those ten are thermodynamically destined to occur wherever they can.

Thermodynamics is the biggest part all energy equations and science itself. An energy analysis shows that the first ten amino acids are likely to form at relatively low temperatures and pressures, and the calculated odds of formation match the concentrations of these life-chemicals found in meteorite samples.

They also match those in simulations of early Earth, and most critically, those simulations were performed by other people. The implications are staggering: good news for anyone who thinks we're alone, and bad news for anyone who demands some kind of "Designer" to put life together - it seems that physics can assemble the organic jigsaw all by itself, thank you very much, and has probably done so throughout space since the beginning of everything.

This study means that you don't need a miracle to arrive at the chemical cocktail for early life, just a decently large asteroid with the right components. That's all. The entire universe could be stuffed with life, from the earliest prebiotic protein-a-likes to fully DNAed descendants.

"Why do we die?" Each cell is only allowed to replicate a certain number of times. The DNA in the cells have what are called "Telomeres". A telomere is a region of highly repetitive DNA at the end of a linear chromosome that functions as a disposable buffer. Every time linear eukaryotic chromosomes are replicated during late S-phase the DNA polymerase complex is incapable of replicating all the way to the end of the chromosome; if it were not for telomeres, this would quickly result in the loss of useful genetic information, which is needed to sustain a cell's activities. Organs deteriorate as more and more of their cells die off or enter cellular senescence. Cellular senescence is the phenomenon where cells lose the ability to divide. Our cells are built to stop multiplying after a significant period of development.

Leysin - learn how to spell *molecolues* before our next science lesson. It's molecules.

If you were able to decipher "molecolues" meant molecules, why did you feel the need to point this out? Maybe I pressed the wrong key or I just didn't know how to spell. Either way, you figured out what I meant. But I appreciate all your hard work. You provide such a greatly needed service. Good to know I have spellcheckers to proofread my comments. Thanks for all your help.

This was a good answer Tom. I really enjoyed reading it.

Leysin reminded me of the Life game of a computer program, 7-10 minutes on this video, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7044753105944203252 . I put a space between the period and the link because I don't want it to not work if you copy and paste it with the link. They modeled it after some laws of nature and came up with dots, you'll understand if watch it, that perpetually make more like how life makes more and more cells; things like that.

Ah, Joe, Joe, Joe. My man. You ask, "Why do we exist?" "Why do we die?" Well, aside from the fact that that is how the universe works, I will assume that you are trying to insinuate that there is some sort of Purpose, a teleological goal, to which I counter: "Why does there have to be a why?" And you know what, Joe, I was you not that very long ago. Yep, a genuine certified chicken fried born again man o' god. What happened? Did I fall from grace, or commit some horrid sin, or maybe get demon possessed? Nope. I just took a good hard look around me, engaged my thinking, and realized that the universe seems to work just like it would if there were no god. And I'm not alone. People deconvert all the time. You ought to give it a shot, if you can get past the fear. Be intellectually honest with yourself and see if what you believe really measures up. Of course, I'm also assuming that you're still checking this forum to see if anyone is responding to what may well have been your parting shot. Wow, those questions are a zinger!

OH, and Makeroni… hail, my Lord and Savior!

Joseph said, "The dilemma, though, is that God has to find you. Perhaps He has and you've rejected him. If that's the case, He does have His limit, so it says in the good book." Your gawd sounds like an abusive stepfather (look out kid, I've got my limit!). No thanks. Joey said, "I don't need your interference and your pity. This is what I hate about Christianity. The belief that they are right and everyone else will burn in hell. GO FUCK YOURSELVES!" Ditto.

If a parent abandons their child or puts them up for adoption. The child then grows up realizing that they had to go through life without that parent being around physically to guide them through their life. Even though the parent was not around, supposedly a letter from that parent was given to that child about how they should live their life and that they loved them. If years later when the child is now an adult they do not follow what was demanded of them in that supposed letter or disagreed with what was written, is that child wrong for not obeying a letter of this supposed parent that abandon them. Let's imagine that when this child was old enough to search for the parent that left them, they chosen not to. Is this child wrong for not doing so? Is it wrong if that child decides to doubt how a parent could love them if they were able to casted them out? Is it possible that the child grew up not interested in finding that parent because they find no reason to or they grew up perfectly fine without having to? Let's say the child did want to know who this person was who casted them away, but couldn't because they were given incorrect information about their whereabouts. Maybe through their search they met someone that claimed to be their real parent and because they believed this person they had no reason to look further. And let's say that they wanted so much to believe that they found their real parent and did not need evidence like DNA testing to prove it or was so convinced that no inconsistency, contradiction, or rationality would sway them otherwise. No matter rather this child did not choose to or for whatever reason was not able to find the one true parent that abandon them so many years ago, how is it justifiable for this dead beat parent that left them as a child to say," Because you did not find me, it is your fault. Because it was your choice not to find me I will pass poor judgment on you and punish you. And because I have the authority to judge you wrong, I will also send you to a place where you will suffer for your failure of not finding me." How can one possibly agree that this parent can pass judgment on the actions of a child that they abandoned? How is it moral that this parent is "good" for not showing themselves to this child after years of waiting, but also claiming it is the child that is responsible for figuring out where to find them? To further add to this ethical premise, what if this child grew up to have kids of their own? Is it rational or moral to pass along this obligation of finding the real dead beat parent to future bloodlines and failure to achieve this task also justifiable in sending them to the bad place? If you agree that the abandoned child is not responsible for the actions of a detached parant, what reason do you have that a god can act this way and be moral. Why must the standard for God's behavior be different than the standards of moral behavior you set for yourself. Because God can do whatever it wants? Then the God that behaves this way is an asshole and why would anyone worship such a thing.

There are deviants who exploit systems for personal gain. Christianity is a system that can be abused (no different from money, government, windows, fire).

If atheists were truly wise the first issue to tackle would be human greed. But let's be real. The only reason people are atheists is because it's cool to go against the norm. People want fame and recognition.

However in some cases I've seen Christians who have become atheists, going out and gaining a firm understanding of science only to be convinced that there must be a God and once again return to Christianity.

Hah! What a hoot! Boy, you can't make this stuff up! I'm an atheist because I want to be famous. Who knew? It doesn't have ANYTHING to do with that silly lack of evidence.

As for Christianity being easily abused, it sure is too bad that there's nobody watching the shop there.

Another thought:

Isn't it greedy to lust after eternal life and perpetual orgasmic bliss? That is, after all, what you're doing here on this forum, right? Trying to improve your chances of a big payout?

What about the fact that you're doing it by telling lies about atheists and representing your bogus opinions as facts? Does that make it better?

You've already said that Christians bear no responsibility for the harm they do. Isn't shirking responsibility fundamentally greedy?

Mr. T,

If Christianity is so easily abused by deviants, why are trying to recruit more members to it and boost about how some would leave and then come back to the same abusive religion. Doesn't make too much sense. I think each person goes through their own path in life and for you to generalize their journey and exploit them in order to strengthen your personal belief is sleazy. And talk about greed and corruption? You can't find a better place where greed and corruption takes place than in religion. Seriously, you need to rethink you position because you are failing miserably.

**** If Christianity is so easily abused by deviants, why are trying to recruit more members to it and boost about how some would leave and then come back to the same abusive religion. ****

Christianity is as easily abused as money, government, fire, windows operating system. But we still use money, recruit people into government, use fire and use the windows operating system despite the vulnerabilities in these systems.

**** Doesn't make too much sense. I think each person goes through their own path in life and for you to generalize their journey and exploit them in order to strengthen your personal belief is sleazy. ****

Yes everyone has their own path. Free will a gift from the Lord. It is a powerful gift. So powerful that you can choose to go to Heaven or burn in Hell. The choice is YOURS. Fortunately it's an easy choice that involves you, Jesus & God and no one else. If you are ashamed or have too much pride say this prayer right now:

"Lord I have a problem with pride and ego. I have a problem wanting to be a know it all to feel superior to the common man because my life is empty. I come to you in secret now because I do believe in you and I submit to you. I accept Jesus as my Lord and savior and submit to you. Although I am not ready for the public to know at least you God will know my heart."

You don't have to tell anyone that you're a Christian since you may lose face, lose pride, lose ego. Just keep it between you & God for now.

**** And talk about greed and corruption? You can't find a better place where greed and corruption takes place than in religion. Seriously, you need to rethink you position because you are failing miserably. ****

The same level of corruption in religion can be found in government, money, fire, windows. Fire is a great thing since you can use it to cook food but if you're intentions are bad you can use fire to burn someone. Windows is a great operating system that helps us organize and pull date fast, but if you have bad intentions you can use Windows to hack, steal, create virus, etc.

Leysin let's analyze your personality. If I've failed miserably that means I haven't pushed your limits in anyway. I'm confident enough in myself to know I can push peoples limit at least by 1%. I know that I've made you "think" about certain things. Are you sure I've failed miserably or have I succeeded in pushing your limits by at least 1%? If you've shut out everything I've said, it's obvious you have a personality flaw of being a "know it all" without trying to understand someone elses point a view. This is an atheists biggest problem is that they are one sided and close minded.

If you guys don't want the public to know you believe in God. Start with you & God. I don't have to know about it and no one else does. You can worship in private. You can save face here but at least your soul can follow its true alpha master.

Leysin,

Leysin said, "If Christianity is so easily abused by deviants, why are trying to recruit more members to it and boost about how some would leave and then come back to the same abusive religion. Doesn't make too much sense."

No, it doesn't make sense if that was what he was saying; but it's not. What he is saying is actually just false. He is saying that people who have done all of these corrupt and disgusting things were not really Christians, but all religions use the same excuses when they get caught. Xians are not any worse than any other religion and no greedier. He says that they leave but they come back because they find out that god exists, which could only mean that they are idiots. I can't imagine why anyone would boast or brag about that.

Leysin said, "I think each person goes through their own path in life and for you to generalize their journey and exploit them in order to strengthen your personal belief is sleazy."

Well, many people are sleazy and do try to exploit people so that they can become more important.

Leysin said, "And talk about greed and corruption? You can't find a better place where greed and corruption takes place than in religion. Seriously, you need to rethink you position because you are failing miserably."

Well, he is probably not the only one failing miserably at what they are trying to do.

Mr. T.,

When was the last time you saw an atheist; selling genuine holy miracle water, anointed prayer cloths or trinkets? Atheists don't buy or sell absurdities.

The invisible god story only works with people who want to be deceived and never look for answers. Atheists don't believe in this nonsense; an invisible being that only talks to special people who can hear its voice. Giving money and worship something invisible? You know that wouldn't last very long with atheists who find the answers for themselves. The problem is atheists are not dumb or crazy, and they don't give money or worship something that nobody can prove exists.

Nobody would give one red cent to promote this crap if it meant that they couldn't buy something that they really needed - like food. Many people do not value or face the truth, until they have to. The invisible god only benefits those who are selling invisible nonsense. That's why atheists don't waste time or money on sheep dipping the public.

Linda wrote: "When was the last time you saw an atheist; selling genuine holy miracle water, anointed prayer cloths or trinkets? Atheists don't buy or sell absurdities. "

There -are- a group of Atheists selling pet-sitting services for those who are taken up bodily into heaven: Post Rapture Pet Care. Though this service isn't miraculous, it does depend on what you could describe as a miracle. I'd call that selling absurdity. :)

I'm fairly sure they aren't as rich as the combined Christian churches, though. :)

As far as hating Christianity, I think its from basic assumption that, as human beings, we are somehow deserving of hell simply by being created imperfect by an "omnipotent" being who's had at LEAST 2 chances to make humans good (creation & flood) but f'ed up so much that he's had to have his kid edit his mistakes in post.

The assumption we're worthless, but this institution has the get out of jail free card. That's what I hate about it. To say nothing of how it screws up secular life and government.

Well to be fair there are plenty of secular BS that atheists can subscribe to. Lots of bad psuedoscince out there...

Raelians for one are terrible atheists. And what about church of Satan that believe the same crap xiana believe but believe that xians have it bwkwards?

joec said, "Well to be fair there are plenty of secular BS that atheists can subscribe to. Lots of bad psuedoscince out there... Raelians for one are terrible atheists."

Well joec, atheists are not responsible for every idiotic notion that people who do not profess a belief in God have. People have told innumerable contradictory tales about humanity's genesis. Atheists do not believe life is under the control of a creator, and atheists do not believe in an afterlife, so that takes care of Rael's idiotic notion being atheistic. I read several articles about Raelians and from what I have read it's "Intelligent Design" with an alien (mortal) creator. The spiritual leader Claude Vorilhon claims he was taken aboard a spaceship by 4 feet tall green aliens (little green men with long hair) who told him to write down the revelations given to him by the aliens; they told him that aliens were the creators of human beings. Also, the aliens called him Rael, so I guess that's where they got the idea for Raelians. But this just sounds like Intelligent Design on crack to me.

Zecharia Sitchin already had the same ideas, but his ideas are based on the assumption that ancient Sumerian writings are not myths but historical and scientific texts. His translation of these Sumerian clay tablets reveal that superior beings (called gods) came from another planet (Nibiru that orbits our Sun every 3,600 years) arrived on Earth some 450,000 years ago and genetically engineered humans from a female ape. Sitchin (from ancient writings) came up with a theory of planetary collisions post-dating the early formation of the solar system, but it has no support within the scientific community. Immanuel Velikovsky's before Sitchin found evidence of ancient knowledge of the cosmos in a variety of mythological accounts. Velilovsky thought they described interplanetary collisions that took place within the span of human existence, but Sitchin says they occurred much earlier, and the story was passed down through alien survivors. Sitchin claims that his research coincides with many biblical texts and that the biblical texts came originally from the Sumerian writings of their history. Although, these ideas did come from the translation of ancient tablets, and not from their experiences on a trip in a space ship these interpretations of mythology (ancient writings) are not held to be reliable by the great majority of scholars in the field.

The idea that there is a creator but it's just a higher being is not atheistic and creation is not scientific. There is no scientific (little green men creator) theory that would hold up under scrutiny, and that is design. Raelians believe in infinity (the universe had no beginning, no end). Raelians believe the universe always existed and there is life in infinity in different places of this universe. The universe is not infinite but it is very likely that there is other intelligent life throughout the universe. I suggest that they read Carl Sagan's star stuff. We are the stuff that stars are made of. Carl Sagan said, "If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." The universe time, space and all of the energy and matter in the universe had a beginning; it has not just always been there.

The Rael movement claims to have no God or supernatural belief it is an atheistic religion, but the Raelians call the extraterrestrial creators Elohim.

Raelians do not believe in evolution; they do believe in a creator Elohim. That name comes from the ancient city of Ugarit and so does the Old Testament. Elohim is not the name of one god it is the name of a pantheon of gods from the Ugaritic texts. The word Elohim ('ilhm) is found in the Ugarit texts - it is the Canaanite pantheon of gods. El was the name of the supreme Canaanite deity, and El was known for his depraved acts. The Canaanite and Phoenician society was depraved (child sacrifice, sex slavery, vicious torture and execution) and so they made their gods and goddesses as violent and sexually perverse as themselves. Elohim was taken from Ugarit (Cannaites) by the Hebrews after their advent there and is used in the Old Testament as a descriptive term for the god El. This is also a name by which God is called in the Old Testament - El, the God (Elohim) of Israel. However, the Jews made Elohim "the one true God", and Elohim acquired some cooth.

Raelian do not consider Elohim gods, but beings like us, but Elohim is on a higher-level wisdom wise (or intellectually), and we are going to become like them. There is no doubt that our species will evolve to a higher level because that's what happens with evolution, but it will be millions of years before any big change happens, and it will not be because of some "hidden" aliens.

From what I read the Raelians have spiritual teaching, though they don't believe in eternal life or the soul, they do believe that the Elohim's scientific advancement allowed eternal life to a few individuals like Jesus and Mohammed, and other "deserving" humans that are living on another planet. The Raelians have rituals (by choice only) baptism and marriage. There are Raelian bishops, guides and trainees.

Actually, I think that this whimsical little story is par for the course in belief-ville.

I don't think atheist applies to just anything that doesn't have a supernatural being, and atheists do not have an ideology or give instructions. The word theory does not mean a half-ass notion; it is ideas that are grounded in reality. The problem with these kinds of beliefs or (Intelligent Design) in general is that it does not answer any questions; how did the universe and life in the universe evolve. The universe has not just always been there, and the universe was not created. I do not think anyone has any actual proof of humanoid clones or alien visitations, but ancient civilizations are very interesting, and Sitchin is one of the few scholars in the world that can read ancient Sumerian.

joec said, "And what about church of Satan that believe the same crap xiana believe but believe that xians have it bwkwards?"

I will post this as a "New Topic" under Demonology because it would make this too long, but the belief in the Devil or Satan came from a misinterpreted word. There is no Devil so it doesn't matter what anyone believes about it, and it is not atheistic.

Counterpoint: why do religious people hate/disapprove of atheists?

I'm really surprised no one has bother to point out the fallacies of the question itself.

Fallacy: Straw man Atheism does not equate to hatred of Christianity.

The question implies that all atheists have some kind of hatred for Christianity. An atheist need not have any feeling at all about Christianity.

Atheism itself is simply the absence of belief in any gods. It is not the hatred of any religion. Atheism by itself is not even the disbelief in any gods. The disbelief in any gods would be gnostic atheism.

An atheist doesn't even have to know anything about Christianity to be an atheist. For instance before the invention of the Christian religion someone that had no beliefs in any gods would still have been an atheist and they would have had no animosity for the as yet uncreated religion.

Fallacy: Composition One, or even many, members of the group of people calling themselves atheists having a dislike or hatred of Christianity does not equate to all atheists hating Christianity. The question implicitly asserts that atheists are one in their beliefs and that they all specifically hate Christianity as a whole.

It would be similar to me saying, "Why do all Christians believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?" Simply because some Christians believe this does not mean they all do.

The real question you should have asked was, "Among the atheist here that hate Christianity what are your individual reasons for this?"

Mitur Binesderti said, "I'm really surprised no one has bother to point out the fallacies of the question itself. Fallacy: Straw man Atheism does not equate to hatred of Christianity. The question implies that all atheists have some kind of hatred for Christianity. An atheist need not have any feeling at all about Christianity.

ColdDogs topic was: "Why do atheists hate/disaprove of Christiany?" He is asking why atheists either hate or disaprove of Christianity. We were pointing out to him some reasons for that. We were answering his question. Many Christian bigots do hate atheists and they do vilify atheists because they can't stand the fact that there are people that don't believe in their Beezus. On the other hand I personally don't know any atheists who admire Christianity. We were answering his question according to what he says he feels. I think the hate part is much more on the Christian side and studies have proven that it is true.

Mitur Binesderti said, "Atheism itself is simply the absence of belief in any gods. It is not the hatred of any religion. Atheism by itself is not even the disbelief in any gods. The disbelief in any gods would be gnostic atheism."

Gnosticism/Agnosticism is a separate school of thought from Theism/Atheism. Gnosticism/Agnosticism deals with knowledge. A Gnostic is one who claims to know that a deity exists. An Agnostic claims to have no knowledge about the existence of a deity. A Gnostic Atheist is one who claims to know that no deity exists. They are making a claim. In printed modern encyclopedia dictionaries (not the online definitions) atheist is defined as the absence of a belief in a God, or gods. "Disbelieve" means to "not believe" - a person who disbelieves a claim may simply not accept it. They are not making any claim they don't believe a claim. There is very little dispute about the definition of atheist among atheists. It is the Christian definition that is in disagreement with atheists. Christians dispute the atheist definition of atheist because Christians want to make atheists the ones who are making claims. Christians want to shift the burden of proof to the atheist.

Mitur Binesderti said, "An atheist doesn't even have to know anything about Christianity to be an atheist. For instance before the invention of the Christian religion someone that had no beliefs in any gods would still have been an atheist and they would have had no animosity for the as yet uncreated religion."

Well, before Christianity existed how could they hate it - but after is another story. Beginning with Constantine, and under succeeding Christian emperors, there is a series of scores of laws, which the Christians procured to be enacted for the suppression and persecution to death of Pagans, heretics and Jews. These laws and edicts are to be found in the Codes of Theodosius and of Justinian, the two famous codifleations of Roman Law. Most atheists know more about Christianity than almost any Christian, and what most Christians do know is false.

Mitur Binesderti said, "Fallacy: Composition One, or even many, members of the group of people calling themselves atheists having a dislike or hatred of Christianity does not equate to all atheists hating Christianity. The question implicitly asserts that atheists are one in their beliefs and that they all specifically hate Christianity as a whole."

ColdDogs didn't say all atheists hate Christianity. He said that they hate or disaprove of it. We were answering for ourselves not everyone. I know people who both hate and disaprove of Christianity.

Mitur Binesderti said, "It would be similar to me saying, "Why do all Christians believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?" Simply because some Christians believe this does not mean they all do."

We all know that Christians don't agree on their own religious beliefs because the Bible contradicts itself, and people do interpret the Bible to mean just about anything. Atheists don't have that problem because there is no theology. And frankly, we know that studies prove that atheists are the most hated minority group in America, not creationists. I don't think it is the same thing at all. I will not continue to debate that with someone who obviously has no understanding of atheists to begin with.

Mitur Binesderti said, "The real question you should have asked was, "Among the atheist here that hate Christianity what are your individual reasons for this?"

I would hate to have to read that laundry list. The objection I have to ColdDogs comments would be that his comment implies that the animosity originated from atheists who hate Christians, and not from the Christian bigots who hate atheists and many other groups of people.

i hate any belief that diminishes the importance of our actions here on earth. my actions while i'm living have context because they happen in some place and at some time. heaven, god and anything supernatural is outside of the realm of shared human experience. this is why most attacks on theists begin with what do you believe and why - their theistic beliefs have no context for another human's experience.

a midsummer night's dream tells the story of immortal beings messing with the lives of mortal beings for comedic and tragic effect. when i interact with people that believe they have immortal souls i feel their actions are colored by the idea that some thing outside of our shared experience will justify their seemingly unquenchable desire to complicate my life to great comedic and sometimes tragic effect.

i don't care how my desire to understand the world in rational and scientific terms without inserting some supernatural belief affects the supernatural world. and i hate that Christians do. and i hate when Christians use their supernatural beliefs as a cause for action in the lives of others.

tragicslip said, "i hate any belief that diminishes the importance of our actions here on earth.

Most people who profess a faith live in their own little world anyway. Our actions here on earth are the only actions that will ever be of any importance. That should be motivation enough for people to take matters into their own hands and start changing things for the better, but it's not. Most people are convinced that they should do nothing while they wait for prayers (that are never answered) to make things better (if not in this life maybe in the next) they are bribed and threatened to just sit there and do nothing. The vast majority of people do not think for themselves. Most people have never tried to find out what is true. They believe what someone else decided they should believe and they are what someone else decided they should be.

tragicslip said, "my actions while i'm living have context because they happen in some place and at some time. heaven, god and anything supernatural is outside of the realm of shared human experience.

It is also outside the realm of reality. There is no reason to believe that there is anything outside of reality. This is simply belief in belief.

tragicslip said, "this is why most attacks on theists begin with what do you believe and why - their theistic beliefs have no context for another human's experience."

I have never witnessed an attack on a theist. Who is attacking them? Despite, the fact that I know they actually consider asking them questions an attack; it is never necessary to ask theists what they believe. If theists want to preach about what they believe (and they all do) they shouldn't mind explaining to their listeners why they believe what they believe. The only truthful answer is because they were taught to believe that the Bible is true. I have never met a theist who questions the truth of what they believe or one that has looked for the answers outside of their Holy Book. Various religious groups are spending huge chunks of money trying to spread what they believe all over the world. They spend a great deal of their resources broadcasting what they believe far and wide. Theists want to tell people what they believe and why, but they do not want to be asked to present evidence for their claims; they do not want their claims challenged. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Theists want to make claims but they do not want to support them with evidence because they can't. They consider any challenge to their preaching an attack because they can't back up their claims. Due to scientific findings we know that a superior being would not make the claims that are found in the Bible (or any other Holy Book) the Creation stories in all the Holy Books are utterly absurd. A superior being did not inspire the writing of any of these Books.

Theists want to spread superstitious myths but they do not want their beliefs challenged by facts and reality. They are more than willing to preach, but they don't want to answer questions. They want to force their beliefs on others without a challenge. Atheists are attacked by vicious verbal slander every day and so are other groups that are targets for theist hate. We all know that, but the theists have to lie about that in order to come up with a persecution story!

tragicslip said, "a midsummer night's dream tells the story of immortal beings messing with the lives of mortal beings for comedic and tragic effect.

That review is very confusing - it sounds like they messed with mortals for tragic and comedic effect. When the fairies interfered with the mortals it had comedic and tragic consequences.

"A Midsummer Night's Dream" is a play by William Shakespeare. The play is a fantasy comedy and somewhat a tragedy, and the setting is Athens Greece, the plot involves love, fairies, magic, and dreams. The story revolves around the adventures of four young lovers and their encounters with the fairies that live in the woodland forest. The play takes place in what Shakespeare called midsummer; it was believed that on Midsummer Night the fairies and witches celebrated. The lovers enter the moonlit woodland forest where Oberon, the King of the Fairies and his Queen, Titania, preside.

tragicslip said, "when i interact with people that believe they have immortal souls i feel their actions are colored by the idea that some thing outside of our shared experience will justify their seemingly unquenchable desire to complicate my life to great comedic and sometimes tragic effect."

How interesting, that's exactly what happens in the play "A Midsummer Night's Dream", but the people were being messed with by fairies and witchcraft.

People who mess with people to produce some outcome prove that there are no fairies to do it for them. If they say that a fairy did it or they used witchcraft that is a lie. It is what they need to do to prove something about what they believe. If what they believed was true they wouldn't have to do it themselves. The dopes that follow people like that can't be very smart.

tragicslip said, "i don't care how my desire to understand the world in rational and scientific terms without inserting some supernatural belief affects the supernatural world. and i hate that Christians do. and i hate when Christians use their supernatural beliefs as a cause for action in the lives of others."

Using reason and science wouldn't affect the supernatural if it really existed. It is the very fact that the supernatural can't stand up to scientific examination that proves it is false. If Christians understood science they wouldn't believe in the supernatural. If there is something supernatural why would they have to mess with people. I wonder why the little minions don't ask, "why do we have to mess with people instead of asking the supernatural to do it for us." Wouldn't that be far more virtuous? I mean to use people they know they have messed with as an example of what happens to people who don't believe in God. Isn't it pretty empty headed to mess with people simply because they do not believe in fantasies about other realms.

I'm absolutely convinced that those in control not only do not believe in God, but they know that religion and God is a fabrication. Belief hasn't got a thing to do with what any of them are doing. Everything they do is for their own selfish purposes.

"Using reason and science wouldn't affect the supernatural if it really existed. It is the very fact that the supernatural can't stand up to scientific examination that proves it is false. If Christians understood science they wouldn't believe in the supernatural. If there is something supernatural why would they have to mess with people" i totally agree. i think people pushing faith don't think faeries are involved or that they are participating in witchcraft. nevertheless there irrational behavior affects my life. that is why the belief that science is somehow a threat to supernatural claims is ridiculous. science is not about the supernatural.

let me rephrase: my attacks on theism begin with "what do you believe and why." i have no problem calling this an attack because i attack all assertions. i test claims with vigor. it is unfortunate that christians react as if these questions are either not worth answering (they just use circular logic) or some unfair approach to their claims.

"Most people who profess a faith live in their own little world anyway. Our actions here on earth are the only actions that will ever be of any importance. That should be motivation enough for people to take matters into their own hands and start changing things for the better, but it's not. Most people are convinced that they should do nothing while they wait for prayers (that are never answered) to make things better (if not in this life maybe in the next) they are bribed and threatened to just sit there and do nothing." i have never been a theist so it is hard sometimes for me to understand how people come to their supernatural beliefs or to guess at how they mostly live. i will say that i certainly don't expect any logical consistency from people that have irrational beliefs.

"How interesting, that's exactly what happens in the play "A Midsummer Night's Dream", but the people were being messed with by fairies and witchcraft." right, this is why the play reminds me of my interactions with theists. people that think they live forever mess up the lives of mortal creatures (including themselves). people are actually hoping for signs of global war. they revel in humanities greatest mistakes and pray for armageddon.

tragicslip.

It is a good idea to put the person's name before their comments and a space between their comment and your reply. Running the comments and your answers together without the names on them is not a good way to post a reply. I know it is easy to over look things like that, but you have to put (who said what) and keep your answers separate for the reply to be understandable. I did it for you.

Linda said, "Using reason and science wouldn't affect the supernatural if it really existed. It is the very fact that the supernatural can't stand up to scientific examination that proves it is false. If Christians understood science they wouldn't believe in the supernatural. If there is something supernatural why would they have to mess with people"

tragicslip said, "i totally agree. i think people pushing faith don't think faeries are involved or that they are participating in witchcraft. nevertheless there irrational behavior affects my life."

No, witchcraft and fairies are not their thing, but supernatural is. They profess the belief that a supernatural God intervenes in people's lives when they know damn well that they interfere in people's lives. They do that so that the Dilberts will believe in God.

tragicslip said, "that is why the belief that science is somehow a threat to supernatural claims is ridiculous. science is not about the supernatural."

Yes, science does find the real answers, but in doing that science has made supernatural explanations invalid. The supernatural creation story in Genesis is ridiculous, and people know that because of science. Science is and always has been a dangerous threat to the inerrancy and truth of the Scriptures.

tragicslip said, "let me rephrase: my attacks on theism begin with "what do you believe and why." i have no problem calling this an attack because i attack all assertions. i test claims with vigor. it is unfortunate that christians react as if these questions are either not worth answering (they just use circular logic) or some unfair approach to their claims."

"What do you believe and why" is not an attack; it is simply a question. A verbal attack is when you insult someone or accuse them of something. It is what theists do when they encounter people who do not believe as they do. I have never witnessed an unprovoked atheist attack on a theist in my life. I have witnessed lots of theists who insult atheists, and then they are overwhelmed with amazement when the atheist tells them exactly how authentic what they believe is, and why it has no relationship to anyone's character or morals.

Linda said, "Most people who profess a faith live in their own little world anyway. Our actions here on earth are the only actions that will ever be of any importance. That should be motivation enough for people to take matters into their own hands and start changing things for the better, but it's not. Most people are convinced that they should do nothing while they wait for prayers (that are never answered) to make things better (if not in this life maybe in the next) they are bribed and threatened to just sit there and do nothing."

tragicslip said, "i have never been a theist so it is hard sometimes for me to understand how people come to their supernatural beliefs or to guess at how they mostly live. i will say that i certainly don't expect any logical consistency from people that have irrational beliefs."

Where the hell do you live that you have never witnessed a fanatic foaming at the mouth? Most everyone knows what theists are like and exactly how they think because they constantly advertise "what they believe and why" they believe it.

Linda said, "How interesting, that's exactly what happens in the play "A Midsummer Night's Dream", but the people were being messed with by fairies and witchcraft."

tragicslip said, "right, this is why the play reminds me of my interactions with theists. people that think they live forever mess up the lives of mortal creatures (including themselves).

I don't think there is the least bit of difference in what is written in the Bible and fairytales. The god/gods, angels, demons, witches and etc. in the Bible are fairytales. That's the reason people have to do their own dirty work; because their supernatural world with god, angels, demons and witches does not exist, and they themselves prove that by not depending on the supernatural to make things happen. That's why no talent slobs give God all the glory for their awards because they know damn well that if they didn't they wouldn't be getting an award they would be flipp'n burgers.

tragicslip said, "people are actually hoping for signs of global war. they revel in humanities greatest mistakes and pray for armageddon."

Actually, I think that there are people who have a financial interest in war, and that is why they constantly hype the idea that war is good.

i will try and format this so it is easier to understand. when i use certain devices this is easy, others- less so.

linda said: "Where the hell do you live that you have never witnessed a fanatic foaming at the mouth? Most everyone knows what theists are like and exactly how they think because they constantly advertise "what they believe and why" they believe it."

i live in south carolina. i know too many theists. they spend more time telling others how to live than telling me what they believe. when i do learn what they believe they almost NEVER tell me why they believe the way they do. i still have never been a theist. i was mostly left to myself as a kid and although i did have an imaginary friend, i always knew he wasn't "real". i learned to despise self delusion from a young age as for me it lead to an inability to act (or at least a lot of reasons/excuses not to act). i can still enjoy fantasy, but i don't understand how people can believe irrational things when reason provides both useful and relate-able answers to all of life's questions - granted sometimes that answer is i/we don't know.

Linda said: ""What do you believe and why" is not an attack; it is simply a question. A verbal attack is when you insult someone or accuse them of something. It is what theists do when they encounter people who do not believe as they do. I have never witnessed an unprovoked atheist attack on a theist in my life. I have witnessed lots of theists who insult atheists, and then they are overwhelmed with amazement when the atheist tells them exactly how authentic what they believe is, and why it has no relationship to anyone's character or morals."

then maybe i am equivocating. i don't mean that when i say attack. rather, i mean: the way i go about talking to someone about their irrational belief. in the end this is an attack on their irrationality because i expect reasonable answers. i realize that is not an attack on the person.

Christians believe some shit written in a "book" some 2,000 years ago right?

That being said, I don't believe half the stuff written YESTERDAY.... let alone some book that was written after the life-time of your "prophet" and has survived mostly untouched for a couple millennia supposedly.

Christians also tend not to be practical, are narrow minded and pushy, and can be down right self-righteous.

More reasons for not liking christians.... the Spanish inquisition, the rape and pillage of the new world, and the fact that I know alot of their grease ball missionary fucks are around the world right now duping unknowing underprivileged people into believing nonsense ideology.

Sure, they can't threaten them with death like they used to, now they just dangle food, water, shelter, education and any other needs they might have in their faces to get them to go to their churches and believe something that has no scientific basis or use. It's practically extortion.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

blip.tv ustream.tv

From the officers:

The audio and video from Steve Bratteng's July 13th lecture are now available.