If you were God....

What case are you making? Because I see nothing but the standard atheistic propganda in what you are writing.

What is your thesis? Your supporting evidence? etc.

because you end that with the statement that criticising the Bible is not personal. Brother, I have been asking you to referrence it for several days now.

If I want to see random atheists thoughts, all I have to do is go here:

http://www.atheists.org/

And yes, even by the standards of this forum, things are still called flame bait if they are said simply with the intent of illiciting an emotional response. Them's the rules.

the ntersting part is why atheists will cal any anti-religious comment, no matter how far out of whack, 'critcism', but will call even slight criticism of atheism ... trolling and deliberate insults.

So tell me, why, when having a reasonable discussion about homosexuality and theological and legal standpoints (similiarities and differences), it is acceptable, by any standard, to jump in and say, "Well, one of the most important poeple in your faiths history was a woman hating homosexual!"

Would it be any different to jump into a science thread here about the possible genetic origins of some choices by saying, "Well, the scientist who wrote that is clearly a god hating homosexual!'"

But you don;t need God to get it?

 

It is in the paragraphs I have already written want me to copy and paste it for you. I have made multiple arguments over this thread.

I have no need to quote the bible to argue the existence of god and the worth for religion.

I know the rules quite well, I wrote nothing of flaimbait. You can be assured that I will not be breaking any of the rules of this forum and that I know all of them.

Why? Because it is relevant, these people are treated as heros or more. They are quite a bit different from scientists. Their ideals are followed and people take those ideals themselves. Ideals such as misogyny. These are supposed to be good people in the eyes of their religion, which is not displayed with hypocritical and misogynistic behavior.

Jump in a science thread and people will probably say so what? Homosexual who cares, god hating sounds like hyperbole for atheist or anti-theist in which case again who cares.

 

No, you haven't.

Yoh have stated multiple opinions, but you have yet to make an actual arguement. That woud require a:

Thesis statement - (Hence I asked you what your was)

Supporting evidence - (Wikipedia is the only thing you have referrenced)

Rebuttal of common positions - you have yet to reference a single religious position on God, and have indeed simply declared them all invalid.

Restated conclusion.

See above. All you are doing then is insulting people based on their religion, but you have rationalized that away as not being an insult - it is apparently valid cricticism to make up a strawman with no bearing in religion and then attack it?

Yes brother, you do need to reference our faith, and as a 'former Catholic' (amazing how many atheists make this claim), you should be able to do it quite easily.

So far, the depth of your knowledge rest solely upon wikipedia. Try Catholic Encylcopedia.

When you run around calling people insane, stupid, etc. based solely on their religion and call tha arguementation and debate, yes brother, you are flame baiting people.

Once again, please come down a notch or two, because you are not divinely smarter than everyone. Some of us do know what we are talking about.

So lawyers do not have heros? Plumbers? Football Players? Saints?

Yes, polygamy was part of the ancient world. No mainstream Christian faith preaches polygamy, indeed, it VIOLATES THE commandments of the family in the Bible as spelled out by men you simply dismiss as mysoginsitic.

In short, you are wrong.

Indeed, and notice that I have made the criticism MANY time, if you actually referrenced our faith, you will see that men and women are equal - but different. Many denominiations hav slightly different views, but, as I have also stated, you position on the subject is common and false. Men do have authority, and what do we do with it? We serve our wife and children. It's no different than being a leader who ensure that his or her subordinates arecared for, properly employed, etc. Its a responsibility, and as men of a certain faith persuation are always justifying fornication, perhaps you simply fear the diffrence of responsibility and accountability as authority?

It seem atheists hate the idea of hell to - that to is accountability.

See the trend? See the fact that this is not simply your opinion, but quite common in the atheist world?

http://www.evilbible.com/

Go ahead, take a look, see how many atheist arguements are not on that page?

http://www.atheists.org/religion

Explain if you will why so many atheists delight in bashing CReationism, even though most religious people are not Creationist? Why you all continuously call us mysoginstic, when most of us are happily married and deeply and obviously love our wives?

THanks for another opinion, glad to see the double standards.

Let me show you how this works:

Thesis: Joe is not debating, and, in typical atheist fashion, is just taking the opposite side of anything offered by a Christian and failing to support his conclusions. Why?

a. Because he is not making a logic based arguement at all. He is not looking at something observable, nor is he appealling to anything other than his opinion.

1) his example of jumping into a science thread to tell people that a scientist in question a God hating homosexual, is simply dismissed - because he says so. That brothers is an opinion. I think most people would be offended by it, and probably tell the person to shut up (hence proving flame bait)

2) When a person tell you that all of the good that is the Bible does not matter because it does not require God, and then turns around and claim that evil can ONLY exist with a God .... while not referrencing the Bible, or any other religious texts, we simply have an overt derisive opinion that says, "You guys are the cause of evil!" Running around calling people evil is not debate, its childish.

Its also quite common in atheism.

http://www.atheists.org/religion

3) When asked for actual historical comparison upon which this is based: nothing.

Hence it is only possible to conclude that the intent in curmedgeon status, of simply disagreeing to slam rather than actually test the premise and apply skepticism.

Rebuttal of common positions: Now atheists will tell you that this is normal, and indeed for them it is. However, skepticism, in the method our science based freinds attempt to us it is this," A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety"

1) One must wonder why this skepytical state only applies to Christians? Genuine skepticism and questioning have certainly not overturned evolution, but this process has greately refined it. Skepticism also allows people to question poor policy, etc. Yet, and this is key, when skepticism is applied to atheism, any and all manner of excuses are levelled to deny the skepticism - including the claim, often made, when the criticism is valid, that it must be some other other atheist making this case, because only individual atheists are allowed to define their faith for themsleves ... well, take a look at this thread, and see if the arguementation is indeed individual - or whether is all the same stuff? Case closed.

2) No where is skepticism is their a requirement for rudeness. Skepticism is taking a claim and expressing some kind of logic based doubt. That is not possible when you refuse to acknowledge what the claim is in the first place.

3) Has anyone else noticed that atheists avoid Jesus and what he actually says and teaches like the plauge itself? Once again, how is it possible to be skepitical about a position whose centrality you utterly avoid?

4) There is a steady stream of atheism that exaggerates Christian claims, or simply mis-states them. At best, in terms of Creationism, for example, atheists simply assume that everyone holds the fundamentalist approach and bash away. At worst, we see thing like the claim our faith is mysogenistic, often based on a few select quotes, deliberately ignoring the parts of the Bible that plpace the role of men in women in context, deliberately ignoring Christians stances on the position and indeed the very witness of our lives in which women are fully intergrated. At worst, we see this lead to calls of Christians being evil, murderers, rapists, etc. Please not that joe has repeatdly made comment like, "Evil is only possible with God." and, "Your religion has caused wars!"

Rstated conclusion, as is so often the case, the ad hoc disagreement and simple contrarianism is not about logical debate or arguementation. Indeed, the deliberate avoidance of the centrality of the other position to assure the person through fallacious appeals to authority such as, "Gee, I know the rules, and am therefore not flame baiting when I call people idiots and evil based solely on their religion whose positions I cannot even correctly define!," is not exactly logical. This is a common theme in atheism, where modern forms of atheism have become less and less about simply disagreeing with God and have become overt attacks on religion that are every bit as zealous and incoherent as midevial Crusaders were.

And it is having an effect on the community.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/Strib Atheist Faith and Values.html

Of course, that is not valid crictism, its obviously mean spirited people who pick on atheists and are too stupid to see how calling poeple evil is actually all about sceince.

That Joe is how its done.

 

Yes I have, you continue to either misunderstand them or mis-state them to turn them into strawmen.

Probably because so many are, atheism is growing, and that growth is from leaving religions, as that is one of the major religions it is likely that many come from it.

The philosophical positions I have stated exist in many philosophy books, I simply gave you a reference as I already knew them. I have no idea why you would reference the catholic encyclopedia, it has nothing on either of them.

Then report me or drop it, I am not violating the forum rules, I know that.

They do and they get in a lot of trouble from the public when they do something wrong, see Micheal Vick.

I do not know why you would bring up polygamy, it is not misogynistic, nor does it really have anything to do with the topic. I support polygamy.

What a nice way of typing men having authority over women, no that is not a leader, it is a dictator. I do not fear responsibility, I prefer to discuss things with my partner, make decisions as a unit instead of ruling over her.

Yes many atheists do hate the fear tactic that is hell, we do not need to the threat of a supernatural condemnation to be moral, many of us find the use of such fear tactics distasteful.

I already did, because these things have readily seen effects on the world, trying to teach creationism on par with evolution. People using their religion as a reason to mistreat women. Yes there are many that do not do these things, but there are also many that do.

That is why I am an anti-theist, it is why many others are as well.

Guess what unlike many religions, science generally does not give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about your sexuality, your religion however does. I have no desire to fix your strawman arguements yet again, nor do I care to go over your incorrect rantings about me.

I will however address any actual points you made.

It does not, if you noticed I have no more love for Christianity than I do Scientology. I have been referencing religion. Now why does Christianity take the brunt of the criticism, that is simply explained by it being the prominent religion in our society, it is a place of reference and it has the most effect on our lives. On another note, atheism is not a faith, nor is it defined by each individual.

I will say this once, misquote me again and we are done here and the rest goes to the moderators. I do not care if you can not seem to understand my arguments and repeat them, but do not quote me with text I have not stated.

I am quite aware of the dislike drawn by atheism. It is certainly not because they are critical of atheism views, no it is far from a reasoned response that this mistrust comes from.

 

Your opinions are just that. Everyone has them, some are better than others. The entirelty of your support is, "Because I say so." That is called fallacy, an appeal to authority.

Again, you cannot even define your thesis statement.

Agh, so its not just about belief in no God, it is about a messianic conquest. Gotcha.

And I have already stated that there is both religious and atheistic philopshy. The fact that these things exist does not mean your position is totally valid and all others are not.

You think you need God for evil? Well, there are plenty of philosophical positions that disgree.

Here is your answer from Saint Augustine - hundreds of years ago. But I am sure you knew that.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124

Therefore, as this answer comes after the question, I declare the entire imbriglio solved in Christianity's favor.

That is the standard is it not?

Now its personal? Yes, runnig around calling people insane based on their religion alone is flame bait. THe fact that you stopped when confronted in admission enough.

So does everyone else brother. I do not see you saying the entire sport of football should dismantled because Michael Vick exists. He's not the only quarterback is he?

Do we see how taking extreme examples and applying them to the whole is faulty? Its called the biased sample fallacy BTW.

The ooposite of anything a Christian says, remember that. And yes, polygamy is decidedly mysogenistic. Because although its supporters claim gender equality, the simply fact is that it is men who have multiple bound women to them. Those religions that allow it put multiple checks in place, and often the polygamy is about a fuedal/tribal tradition of political relationships. The fundamentalist LDS church for the reality of what you support. Even Mormons ban and excommunicate the practice as apostasy (In my opinion, quite convincingly so).

I have authority over my Soldiers. I work longer hours, put in more effort, take on harder tasks, take greater risks, and use authority to ensure unity of effort. Sound down right evil does it not?

I see nothing from you but the opposite again, nor do I see yo uattempting to figure out how relatiohsip decide intractable problems? Divorce? That would seem to be the current trend, but marriage is not about intractability and strife.

Now please notice the fundamental mis representation of the position, it is HUSBANDS who have authority over their wives - guess what comes next? Often avoided by atheists who simply view the concept of authority, any but their own, as evil.

Actualy pragmatism for which the authority is meant to address? Lost in the sauce, despite the critic being a former Catholic (appeal to authority) who should know better.

No many atheists, who do not believe in hell, use the concept of hell to misrepresent Christianity, Islam (you name) it, to say it is about fear, even though Jesus barely mentions it.

Notice the earlier criticisms that this fallacious position is both common and that is totally ignores what Jesus says about hell.

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html

The only people that put Creation on par with evolution are fundamentalist Christian (a tiny minority), and atheists.

The polls so often cited by atheists? Yes they require people to acknowledge evolution without God, and most Christians, myself included, will not do that. Science and faith work hand and hand.

Not that is prevents atheists from fundamentally misrepresenting that position as well.

http://www.faithandevolution.org/

You are anti-theist because you believe in overly general strawman positions of diverse faith groups?

Suit yourself.

Yes it does. If you cannot sexually reproduce, your genes die out and you undermine evolution.

Yes it does, promiscuity and abberent behavior have traumatic effects, and unless you are saying that people are devoid of cost benefot analysis, you are simply wrong.

http://www.recoverynation.com/recovery/w_promiscuity.php

Of course, pointing out these FACTS, is now incoherent ranting? I thought you were a skeptic? A scientist interested in debate? It look a great deal more like anger and rationalizing to justify harmful sexual behavior.

Well, I would love to see you actually address the powers of God as spelled out in the Bible or address any of the common Christian rebuttals to the problem of evil.

Go.

So it has nothing to do with objective criteria and analysis and is basically a popularity contest - knock down whatever is largest? Pay no attention to the reasons it is the largest?

Oh look, ANOTHER atheist super victim. Let me make this plain to you brother, you have pretty much done nothing but tell us how screwed up we are and then get angry. If you wish to leave, leave, but that (*)(*)(*)(*) will be no ones fault but yours. Feel free to report me. You will not be the first atheist to do so, nor indeed will it be the first time you have reported me. Go ahead.

Because you say so. Atheists are in fact perfect, and no criticism is valid. Isn't that exactly what I just said about the position of atheism? Your criticism of others is spot on and accurate, all criticism of atheism is 'far from reasoned'

Seems a perfect double standard.

Feel free to respond with a:

Thesis: the mistrust of atheism is not based on anything factual.

Arguementation or demonstration that commn criticism is faulty.

Rebuttal to show that everything that flows from just being no God isn't actually there.

Restated conclusion that atheism is absolutely perfect.

Go ahead. It is how logical arguementation works. So lets see .... any.

 

Addressing authority, for the general.

The biblical concept of authority of usband over their wives comes with strong caviates.

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

There is the offending passage. Notice that the part about the duties and responsibilities of husbands is longer?

It works like this in reality.

If husband and wife have careers, and they BOTH get job offers for 50K a year in different cities, and the different cities are EXACTLY the same distance from their parents, etc. it means that the man's career choice should come first. He is the provider, she the nuterer for any children in this case.

Things are rarely that straight forward. Remember that above, a man MUST LOVE HIS WIFE AS HIS OWN BODY. He MUST GIVE HIMSELF UP FOR HER. SO if the equation changes, and there is a job offer for 40K a year but it allows the family to live within a few blocks of teh wives family, even if there are jobs for 60K elsewhere, the husband is DUTY BOUND by his authority to take the lesser job as he is bound by obligation to love his wife as his own body and provide for her needs.

It is athority like unto the church. It is not command - but service.

Not surprisingly, atheists do not get this, but I think it mostly has to do with them deliberately not wanting to.

 

It is the simple fact that people are leaving religions in favor of atheism, therefore it is likely to find people like me that were raised religious but no longer are. You just have to accept that there are people that used to be religious that turned away from it.

I did not say you need God for evil, I already corrected you on saying that. At least you are trying with an argument though, unfortunately it does not work very well. This was a decent attempt at a solution of the problem of evil, it just does not work.

Two points main attempts need to be addressed:
" First: 1) All things that God created are good; 2) evil is not good; 3) therefore, evil was not created by God."

There is a problem with this line of thoughy:
If evil is not created by god, then where does it come from?
1: Freewill - Does not handle natural evil.


2: If evil is created by another source, an omnibenevolent being would remove that evil, an omniscient being would know of that source and the evil it creates, an omnipotent being would have the power to remove such evil and the being that created it.

3: Compatible solution suggested by Augustine. (See second point)

"Second: 1) God created every thing; 2) God did not create evil; 3) therefore, evil is not a thing."

Unfortunately this goes against common logic. We can readily see the evils of the world. On top of that we can see the unnecessary suffering inflicted upon the world that an omnibenevolent being would stop.

Unlike religion Michael Vick does not represent the views of football, he faced reprimand and public ridicule. He represents himself. Saints have a far different position in religion and are not being subjected to such treatment, maybe it would be different if the religion itself treated their wrongful views with such disdain.

No it is not, polygamy is having multiple partners, that is not limited to polygyny (The term for men with multiple female partners). You site religions putting constraints on it, yet you give no reason why having multiple partners is misogynistic.

When you think the womans place is to be the subservient soldier, yes it does.

The husband is the males position, as such it is one example of a misogynistic position taken by the religion.

It is often used as a scare tactic (You will burn in hell), by religious authority figures and its members.

This is a good enough summary for me to post:
"The most common New Testament term translated as "hell" is γέεννα (gehenna), a direct loan of Hebrew ge-hinnom. Apart from one use in James 3:6, this term is found exclusively in the synoptic gospels.[19][20][21] Gehenna is most frequently described as a place of fiery torment (e.g. Matthew 5:22, 18:8-9; Mark 9:43-49); other passages mention darkness and "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (e.g. Matthew 8:12; 22:13).[20]
Apart from the use of the term gehenna (translated as "hell" in all English translations of the bible), the Johannine writings refer to the destiny of the wicked in terms of "perishing", "death" and "condemnation" or "judgment". St. Paul speaks of "wrath" and "everlasting destruction" (cf. Romans 2:7-9; 2 Thessalonians 1:9), while the general epistles use a range of terms and images including "raging fire" (Hebrews 10:27), "destruction" (2 Peter 3:7), "eternal fire" (Jude 7) and "blackest darkness" (Jude 13). The Book of Revelation contains the image of a "lake of fire" and "burning sulphur" where "the devil, the beast, and false prophets" will be "tormented day and night for ever and ever" (Revelation 20:10) along with those who worship the beast or receive its mark (Revelation 14:11).[22]
The New Testament also uses the Greek word hades, usually to refer to the abode of the dead (e.g. Acts 2:31; Revelation 20:13).[5] Only one passage describes hades as a place of torment, the parable of Lazarus and Dives (Luke 16:19-31). Jesus here depicts a wicked man suffering fiery torment in hades, which is contrasted with the bosom of Abraham, and explains that it is impossible to cross over from one to the other. Some scholars believe that this parable reflects the intertestamental Jewish view of hades (or sheol) as containing separate divisions for the wicked and righteous.[5][22] In Revelation 20:13-14 hades is itself thrown into the "lake of fire" after being emptied of the dead."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hell

Your holy book, what jesus specifically said is not of the utmost importance.

That does not change the fight required to keep this stuff from being taught in our schools. Your suggestions are not in line with reality. I can assure you atheists are not the ones keeping that fight around.

Science is not about furthering evolution's path, just understanding it.

Also guess what sex addiction is not the same as homosexuality, that is a sex addiction site. That is quite insulting to homosexuality though.

Largest has the most effect on the world, this is the best step to reduce that effect. As well as it having the most effect on peoples personal lives creating personal issues for them, making them upset at Christianity.

 

Ya putting women in a subservient position because they are women, your not winning any points for your argument there. But that is not all your holy book has to say about women either, now is it?

Women are supposed to remain subserviant and out of the way. They are treated as unclean and not as good as men. It shows a completely unacceptable view on women. For much more feel free to review:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html

The bible:

 

A Chinese Fable
A man had only one son but that son found a beautiful stallion running free on their land and brought him home.
"My what good luck!" said the people of his village.
He tried to train it and fell and broke his leg.
"My what bad luck!" said the people of his village.
Then the emporers' soldiers came to conscript all the males of the village. Because his leg was broken, they did not take him.
"My what good luck!" said the people of his village.
But the enemy army attacked and killed only the son because he was the only male of fighting age in the village.
"My what bad luck!" said the people of his village.
Then he found out his wife was pregnant.

Who are we to know what is good or bad? Evil is label given by those who do not benefit from events but sometimes those same events are viewed as Good by someone else.

Personally, I do not believe in the personified version of a Supreme Being that decides the outcome of football games, based on the highest number of people who close their eyes and put in such a request, telepathically.

 

That is interesting, because many denominations of Christianity are experiencing growth as well. You will just have to accept that people are finding religion - more often than they are finding atheism.

BTW - I am a former atheist and am proof positive of the hollowness of atheism being a dead end. It leads to nothing but derision of others.

That's pretty interesting, because I have repeatedly stated that you do not need God for their to be evil, and indeed, the fact that God is there does not negate the existence of evil.

Nevertheless, you throw through this at us, and have repeatedly ignored several Christians reminding you about freewill, and, indeed, your doctrine and a wonderful counter arguement from St. Augustine - who is a hero who deserves to be caste down.

Have I mistated you?

If you referreced our doctrine, even that which you disdain, you would see you are ALREADY in error. God created Satan, the ebodiment of evil.

You have already drifted off the logical path. Once again, you referrence your opinion, clearly ignoring the Bible and indeed the rules and limitation that God, as an all powerful (and more important all wise) being as set for himself - because they are wise.

See above.

Why would he? And how does he do that withour removing your freewill and ability to learn?

Again, WHY does God have us here? What is the purpose?

"Evil, then, is the act itself of choosing the lesser good. To Augustine the source of evil is in the free will of persons: "And I strained to perceive what I now heard, that free-will was the cause of our doing ill."[v] Evil was a "perversion of the will, turned aside from...God" to lesser things.[vi]"

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124

Borther, you continue to argue with a strawman of our position rather than what we present you.

Yep, and rather assinine to think that religious people do not wouldn't you say? If that is your logical conclusion, that we just stick our heads in the sand, then clearly, even the most erudite of skeptics would notice the difference between prediction and reality. At some point a geuine skeptic would question is logical line.

.... not atheists though. Do you see the point?

There is a reason they are Saints. And yes, even people as good and kind as Mother Theresa get ridicule and reprimand - even when they do not desreve it. I do not see any criticism of Chris Hitchens here do I?

Saint are but examples, the center of our religion, our hero if you will, is Jesus. Feel free once again, to take issue with what is actually central to our faith.

We call this rationalization. Show me a period in history where women took multple husbands? Again, the reality of polygamy, whether it be amazonian tribes, Muslims, or even the fundamentalist LDS church are all men with multipe women.

You preach possiblity, reality speaks otherwise. Once again, a seleptic would look at the divergence between claim and reality and question why - not keep saying that the prediction is true when clearly ... it is not.

Nor indeed are you making any study of how such a thing would work - marriage between multiple partners. What you really advocate is promiscuity and sexual escapade, and that too has its price.

I tell you the truth brother, your intentions with this desire are laid bare whether you wish it or not.

Have I said that? Or do you insist on taking my position out of context. Athority is service, when you address that point ... wel, you can't can you?

I notice you have no problem with authority when it comes from you? You demand subserviance of all others, and then deride others who are embodied with authority .... and strict duties that come with that responsibility.

Basically, you need others to be screwed up, even if they are not.

Once again, take a look at the Christian marriages that have God in them, deliberately seeking this prescence, and tell me why your views are once again so far removed from this reality?

Again, a real skeptic would be moved to challenge his preconceptions and repeated failures of his prediction to ring true.

Yep, all men with authority hate women. Fallacy 101.

I hear abouy hell more from atheists than I do Christians. That simple. We focus on Jesus and largely ignore hell save to acknowledge it. Atheism, as we see, is quite the opposite.

This is a good enough summary for me to post:
"The most common New Testament term translated as "hell" is γέεννα (gehenna), a direct loan of Hebrew ge-hinnom. Apart from one use in James 3:6, this term is found exclusively in the synoptic gospels.[19][20][21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hell

Yep, the Bible has hundreds of pages, and you found a paragraph of disconnected single sentece lines. As stated, Jesus is not saying at any point, follow God or burn in hell. His message is about the love and wisdom of God. You ignore this and focus on hell.

Isn't that EXACTLY what I have been saying?

Hell is real to us, and fake to you, and you care about it far more than we do? Hell is nothing to you but a club - to all atheists.

It is nothing more the consequence to believers.

 

Oh, it is bad to educate our children about various religions? Knowing that there are various religions out there? Cultures that our increasingly global business have to deal with?

No, it is about preaching atheism, and REAL secularism is about balance, not exclusion. If you wish to banish religion, I suggest North Korea. Have fun.

Science is not about furthering evolution's path, just understanding it.

That has what to do with anything I wrote?

So, exactly as claimed, only its size and popularity matter to you.

No one is upset with Christianity save atheists. How is that our fault rather than yours? How are our beliefs a threat to us?

The entirety of your arguementation is about finding fault, even where there is none. All of it.

Let me remind you of Teddy Roosevelt.

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."


That quote, spoken a hundred years ago, is the emodiment of modern atheism. In fact, at this point, I would no longer term it atheism, but nihilism.

With all due respect brother, modern atheists have been classified. Take a good hard look at what you argue:

"An evangelical atheist is an atheist who is not content merely with his own lack of faith but is also obsessed with (i) censoring expressions of faith by others and (ii) attempting to sow disbelief in others around him.

Examples of techniques used by evangelical atheists include:

- insisting that morality is independent of religion
- claiming that goodness is not achieved through attending religious services or reading the Bible
- denying the atrocities committed by anti-Christian zealots
- denying any correlation between crime, depression, anxiety, immorality, insanity and rejection of Christianity
- insisting that it is hypocrisy for a sinner to attend church
- utilizing deceit if it advances atheistic goals
- criticizing religious institutions even though secular institutions are worse[1]
- claiming to be smarter or superior than people who have faith
- using Darwinism as a weapon against Christianity

Organizations devoted to evangelical atheism, which may include some or more of the above characteristics, are growing. One organization, the Evangelical Atheist, puts down Americans on its website by saying, "A new poll from the First Amendment Center reveals that I may have misunderestimated [sic] the American people. They are far more ignorant than I had believed ...."[2]

http://conservapedia.com/Evangelical_atheist

Now, would you still consider the growing body of opposition to atheism and its slide down the trust scale to be about simple bigotry? Again, we know the arguements you make. Everyone does. And you are losing, not gaining, trust.

 

Now Joe, what is your thesis statement?

 

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
-1 Corinthians 14:34

That deal speficially with the manner of speaking in tougnes.

The context:

" 26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God."

So the question a woman asks is, what the hell is going on?

And Paul's answer is:

34 Women[f] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[g]

39 Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

It certainly does not say, men go ahead and ask questions all you want! No, two or three men from the congregation are asked to interpret, that is what they are commanded to do. Being told to remain silent during a holy ritual is hardly daming of women is it?

And that is just one.

And of course, if it were reversed? If a man was told to be quite while a woman translated? Well, why is the woman the one being called to duty?

Are there not specific commandments to BOTH men and women in the Bible? Are they the same or different?

This is ripped not from study, but from a web site that scoures the Bible for things to ripe out of context to criticize. Were you even aware of the context of speaking in tounges? Of seeking prophesy?

Of course, atheists avoid similiar cirticism by simply not having rules. Not having standards. It is, instead, functional self worship. Atheist misogynists exist:

"New atheist hierarch Richard Dawkins and outspoken anti-religionist P Z Myers responded to Watson’s concerns, Myers with unusual tenderness, and Dawkins by suggesting that “zero harm” had come to her in the “elevator incident” (Watson was propositioned), suggesting that (a) her situation could not be compared to the indignities foisted on women in Islamic theocracies (small comfort if not irrelevant) and (b) the incident itself had no specific relevance to the atheist community, being part of much broader social patterns of marginalization (read: the genus of sexism is not atheism).

The remarks were interpreted as male thuggery and seemed to lend credence to Watson’s complaint: Even atheist men are Martians. Many of us back on earth were unaware that the simple profession of atheism had taken us to equality-heaven."

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/tag/atheist-misogyny/

I suppose a nice proposition in an elevator is all about speaking in tougnes for atheism? All the sanctimony, and atheist men still belittle women? Why, who would have thought?

 

Educating them on the existence of religion is one thing, we do that in classes like literature while going over the greek and norse mythologies. That is far from what is actually happening where people want it taught as true and have creationism be taught as a valid theory next to evolution.

 

This thread has been hijacked.

 

Hijacked, but at least in an intellectually stimulating direction, IMO anyways.

 

I think all the problems you mention are ones we cause ourselves.
If there is a God and he did not let us act in a manner which caused ourselves or others harm, we would not have free will.

That would make us basically slaves or at least perpetual children.

Our own children make mistakes which cause themselves and others harm.
Yet as they grow we relenquish control and allow them the opportunity to make these mistakes while we gnaw our fingernails and cross our fingers.

If we don't allow them to "grow up" and make their own mistakes they are little more than our property, or extensions of ourselves.

I don't know, but then I'm probably not the right one to answer.
I do believe in a higher power/intelligence/creative force, but not so much organized religion.

 

Obviously without the need to focus such resources on disease and fixing disease problems and ending or starting wars we could devote all resources the problem of which your speak. More farmland, agriculture towers, space colonization. All could stall the problem of which you speak.

 

Why have free will?

But God wants us to be that way - even Jesus said 'be as children!'

Which is exactly what God's view of us is.

Fair enough, I respect that.

 

What is the point without free will?
At least for me, I'm not sure I would survive as a mindless drone.

Yes, to be open and willing to learn.
I like to think I'm still flexible and capable of learning.
I believe we start to die, when we stop being capable of changing our preconceived beliefs and/or ideas.

Cosmic Joke?
Loving Father?
Bit of both?

Remember that long weekend with mother nature? (maybe an accident)

I like to think there is something noble about humanity.
My proof is we haven't killed eachother off yet which seems the plausible result.

I sometimes wonder if humanity as a species is on a path towards maturity and G/god (your preference) has revealed himself to us in a manner consistent with our ability to understand and grow. (similar to Bahai' beliefs)

I don't know, but I do know I'm happier, more productive and things seem to fall into place easier when I'm conscious of some kind of spiritual influence in my/our life/lives.

I do wonder about the separation of consciousness from physical presence.
I've had a few interesting out-of-body experiences.

I wonder about perceptions and awareness beyond the obvious 5.
I enjoy life and am in no hurry to leave it, but won't death in some ways be the ultimate 'what-if' adventure?

I wonder about spirits, ghosts or the feelings I sometimes get that others are near me who are either far away or gone from this plane of existence.(extended/continued consciouness or just my over-active imagination?)

I wonder why/how sometimes emotion has such power over my perceptions - sometimes intense emotion can feel transcendental.