Atheism is a Joke.

How can you prove us wrong? We don't believe is what is not able to be experienced in science or can be rationally understood using common sense. Kind of hard for people worshipping a faith to counter that.

Lets look at one issue murder as in killing in cold blood we all agree that is bad a faith would say that is against the will of their higher power, I would say its a violation of the common social contract that its taking a life innocently of a fellow human being a rational view.

And lets be blunt again say I do understand and accept a "spiritual side" of the universe as in religion which one is right, Christianity can't even agree on everything not to mention all the other faiths tiny to large out there? Faith belief will not necessarily lead to one faith will it?

If there is a god or goddess or other being they made us as humans questioning and thinking creatures and some will at some point logically choose not to believe on the grounds nature and rationalism eliminate the divine as a possibility - the more we learn the more we move away from the divine as a species. So why punish say me for doing what as a human I'm designed to do at some point?

 

Athe -ism could be reduced to an definition you might hid behind, of course.
The raw denotatioin that one denies any gods might seem benign if we failed to observe what Atheists actually promote instead of Theism.

In China, Atheism was a social force that ridculed religion, followed by the Atheists who banned worship and closed churches and religious site, then proceded to murder 60 million people once the ten commandments were ignored.

 

You fail to distinguish between believing in the Scriotures as opposed to believing in doctrines and teachings as we see differ and in such great numbers as found in the churches if today.

You don't have to believe in what christians say the bible means, but even you can not deny that the Big Bang corresponds to the statement that there WAS a beginning to this existence.
Right?

You don't have to be a christian to agree that once "all the waters under heaven were collected into one place" we call the Panthalassic Ocean which surround the one land mass we call Pangea.

see what I mean?

 

I'm an atheist but I'm not promoting replacing theism. I'm not a football fan but I don't have any objection to people playing football.

If you're going to condemn all atheists for the actions of some, you can be equally condemned for all the negative actions of any other theists. Unless you have a justification ready for 9/11, it would probably be easier to concede that not all atheists are the same. The label atheist in itself describes a singular minor characteristic in the make up of an individual, in exactly the same manner the label theist does.

 

Preventingthe killing of 1.2 million unborn babies is the major thrust of the muslim repression of sexual forces in their society.

Homosexuals, the money interests that use sex as an advertising and mechandising tool, the Media, Hollywood, the Feminists, etc, they that promote sexual promiscuity and encourage a feminism that intends to liberalize the trade in Sexual Favors, to push for multiple marriage opportunities with No Fault Divorce, and to create a professional harlotry that deals sexual favors for advantages and benefits as if a second currency is what Islam opposes with the Social Force of its Religious Institution.

Christianity also enforces these ideas with arguments and prophecies and attention getting actions like we see with the Westboro Church.

 

You have the emphasis wrong. -ist and -ism are suffixes, but the reason they're there is not because "Atheism" added it. The root of "Atheism" is not "Atheos" or "Atheo" but rather "Theism". So to correctly analyze the word in etymological context, one would refer to it as "A - theism", a lack of theism. That's the literal definition of the word. Anything else is meaning added on later. And no, "atheism" was not the social force that ridiculed and banned religion. That would be Maoist socialism. It's atheistic in nature, true (though some would argue that Mao is presented within the framework as a "replacement god"), but you're making a pretty basic logical error. Hiter was a vegetarian, but him being a vegetarian has next to nothing to do with gassing millions of jews. Similarly, the atheism of Maoism has little to do with the horrors of 1950/60s China. Given how well many societies without the ten commandments as a guideline are doing today, you cannot argue that it was the abandoning of god that led to those atrocities.

 

Wrong. The big bang aint been determined to be the beginning of existence, only the begining of the universe in it's current state.

The unproven claim that there was an exact moment when existence happened aint relevant to the big bang, which don't make such a claim.

If anyone agreed with that, it would only be because they don't understand what they are talking about.

First, the bible says that these waters were collected and then the first dry land appeared. Well, I got news for ya, bub. Pangea was not the first land mass. There were several supercontinents before Pangea.

Second, "all the waters collected together" aint a description of the Panthallassic ocea, which still had devisions by island chains.

We see that you have a kindergardner's understanding of these subjects.

 

Even if this were true (which, as John. pointed out, may not be the case), it's hardly divine to point this out. Hell, the famous Kalam Cosmological Argument is based on the idea that this is intuitive.

Yes, but what are you trying to prove? The veracity of the bible? New York exists, that doesn't mean that Ultimate Spiderman is a true story. Now, if you were about to present some piece of knowledge that was, regardless of how you interpret it, a message that people back then unreasonably could have known, then that might be evidence that something funny was going on. But that's not what you have, is it? You have a piece of literature which could, potentially, be subjectively interpreted to indicate knowledge of past events... But only if you interpret it a certain way, and only after already knowing what those past events are. This is why we never hear about the scientist who made a fantastic discovery by reading the bible - what's happening is essentially always the same. People are reading the bible, looking at modern knowledge, and interpreting the bible so that it matches what we know. A post-hoc rationalization. Meanwhile, the parts of the bible which can only be interpreted as "This is a direct message about history, medicine, or science" - things like the great flood, the biblical cure for leprosy, the genesis account - are almost all dead wrong.

 

What you say has merit, of course.
Live and let live soundsfair.
But I am responding to those who claim Atheism is benign and proposes nothing at all, while merely content to say there are no gods.

Of course, that is NOT the case.
Atheism is the claim against the scriptures and the cry that opposes sexual morals in our society.

The individual atheist my not do so, but that nevertheless is not the inference of the term, Atheism.
Atheism is de facto anti-christ.

 

1) Not only is John wrong about the fact that in the beginning with a Big Bang, time as we know it began and everything that followed can betraced backwards to that moment. But now he avoids the accepted concepts of Science becasue they DO correspond with Genesis.
Hypocritical, indeed.

2) Prove?
Argue is a better term for refuting what Mr. tkolter had said, above, and to which I had posted these remarks:

"How can you prove us wrong?"
"We don't believe what is not able to be experienced in science or can not be rationally understood using common sense."

My answer seem to the point, that Genesis CAN be understood since it corresponds to Science and is rational understandable..

 

That is exactly my point,...
It is misleading and/or a cope-out to pretend to a benign denotation of Atheism when the connotation is "social force that ridiculed and banned religion," which is the real nature of atheistic gospel as used by Mao.

 

BS.

While everything that follows any event should be able to be traced back to that event, it don't mean that nothing existed before that event.

Everything you have experienced, for example, may be traced back to the day you were born, but that does not mean that nothing exists outside of your own experience.

And, no, there is no accepted concept in cosmology that the big bang is a "first cause."

In fact, there is a singularity before the big bang.. Before that, we are uncertain and it would be anti-science to say claim something that is inconclusive. I accept actual science, which is irrelevant to Genesis.

That is a claim that has been disproven about a hundred different ways.

 

Atheism is simply not being a theist. Everyone who does not believe in the existence of god is an atheist - whether they are anti-christ, whether they oppose sexual morals, whether they are against scripture - none of that is directly relevant and none of that is required in order to be an atheist. And neither, for that matter, is ANYTHING else. People who say atheism makes a person smarter or nicer are just as wrong as you are.

That's simply the fact of the matter, stick your fingers in your ears and cry LALALA but that's how it is I'm afraid.

 

You keep saying "corresponds with", but really you mean "can be rationalised until it is no longer inconsistent with".

 

Why do you keep lying?

Mao never banned religion. If you keep repeating this you are simply branding yourself as an unapologetic liar.

 

Ever heard the term "maoist"? Why is it that we need a word for people who followed Mao, rather than just calling them "atheist"? It's because Mao was MORE than just an atheist. He has been described as a dictator, totalitarian, anti-intellectual, and plenty of other traits. It is NOT simply the fact that he was an atheist that made him do any of the things that he did.

Deal with it.

 

I don't know a single atheist who is opposed to sexual morality. What we are opposed it is totalitarian statists like yourself enforcing your subjective morality on others via government guns.

BTW I know quite a few Christians who engage in sexual behaviors that I don't. I am more moral than many Christians as an atheist.

 

So you must be yet another of those would-be killer angels hoping your "god' will tell you its time to start shooting all the atheists.

 

You may as well try to tell him that those black boys dont all drink colt 45 and have babies out of wedlock while selling crack.

 

But do they, really?

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.

Okay, so space came first, then the earth. Except that's not what happened. Immediately following the big bang, it was to hot for even simple molecules to form. It wasn't until several hundred thousand years later that it cooled off enough to allow protons and electrons to bond, forming mostly hydrogen, a tick of helium, and a TINY bit of lithium. Those were the only elements that existed. Fortunately gravity existed, for it called the hydrogen to clump together until it reached enough mass to start a fusion reaction in the core. These are commonly known as stars, of which our sun is one.

Now sometimes a really BIG star forms. Through it's lifetime, it turns hydrogen into helium. It turns helium into other stuff, mostly Oxygen and Carbon. Eventually it starts to fuse iron, which becomes the core because of it's weight. But, when the mass of that iron core reaches about 1.7 times the mass of OUR sun, the star explodes. During that process, other heavier elements are created, such as gold, lead, uranium, etc.

Because of the explosion, those elements are thrown out into space into a giant ball, filled with all that matter. Then something happens, perhaps another exploding star causes a shock wave, perhaps a Klingon vessel flew threw it and disturbed it just right so that the process started all over again. Gravity pulls the hydrogen into a ball, that ball starts spinning, causing the other matter to form a disc around it, and eventually, fusion begins and another star is born. All that matter in the disk starts to clump together, too, all because of gravity. It eventually forms what we call planets. In our case, a nice small, rocky planet formed with a molten iron core, right in the goldilocks zone. Fast forward 4.5 billion years, and here we are.

But the earth didn't come first. Not by a long shot. And if the author of the book was the supernatural creator of the universe (which I believe exists, only he/she/it/they are not accurately spoken for by any religion), that little detail would not have been missed.

PS... Didn't "Let there be light" ALSO come after the earth was created? Hmm. Doesn't really work that way in the real world.

Not to mention Genesis tells of a flood that we know to a scientific certainty never happened.

But thanks for playing.

 

duplicating posts are occurring for some unknown reason.

 

Good, that youknow about the Cosmic Dark Age that existed before god said, "Let there be light."
Visible light could not exist until neutral atoms formed, those that had electrons orbiting them.
Visible leight is only sourced from neutral atoms.


Gen. 1:3 And God, (next, after the creation of the Heavens), said, Let there be light : and there was light, (which had been delayed by 400 million years after the Big Bang by a Cosmic Dark Age throughout all the universe).



Gen. 1:4 And (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, saw the light, that it was good: and (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, divided the light from the darkness (as the stars formed).

Gen. 1:5 And (Father Nature, the Force behind the ever unfolding Reality), God, called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

And the Chaotian evening of the Formative/Cosmologic Era -



… and the Cryptic morning of the Hadean Era...



... "were the First Day."

 

I would present an argument to people who were not atheists that contends no such a person even exists.

People do have faith in something which is the foundation for their ability to cope with the external world and the people in it.

They of course would deny this, so that is the reason I do not present it to them.

Evidence that people do behave in specific patterns that can be called worship is available in the Myths that deified such behaviors.
These pattern that are found in societies, before our birth and after we die, are what is immortal.

That is why thes behaviors were attributed to gods.

Thees observatable repetitious behaviors at the crux of calling the patterns the worship of a God.

The craftsmen who depend upon the learned skills are an example of the God Thor's followers, for instance, while many people here are followers of the God Nebo, who invented writing, has the idol of the Pen, and is essentially the educated sector of our societies.

These pagan identies can be found in veirtual every culture, and they all contain the same figure heads or pantheons.
There is a Godess of Love, a Queen of Heaven, God of the Moon, etc in each and everyone of the myths.

Everyone fit into a role, took his seat in his own generation, and behaved accordingly until Moses proposed the one almighty God, Reality, itself.

 

Your contention is wrong, then. But even if it were not wrong, it would not mean that those were traits that were NECESSARY to be an atheist.