Can Atheists go to Heaven?

[pat]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
@ Chris

Before you pat yourself on the back too much for being on the side that “founded” the scientific method…[/quote]

Oh really, based on what is that chart made? Is it fact or just plain old propaganda?[/quote]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm

Have fun.[/quote]

So, plain ol’ propaganda? Thanks for confirming.

I meant neutral sources with no predetermined bias and even potentially peer reviewed for accuracy. No atheist propaganda. I get enough hot air from you lot, right here.
I beginning to think you’ll believe anything so long as it’s posted on an atheist propaganda website…[/quote]

I wasn’t aware that it was propaganda to point out that science pre-dates Christianity.
[/quote]
The website is propaganda. Oh, are you claiming everything on it is 100% irrefutable fact? That there is no bias? I thought not. That there is no ax to grind that they are only interested in presenting facts, not proselytizing atheism? Yeah, I thought not.

Now that I think about it, I wasn’t aware one could simply brush off anything they wish by calling it ‘propaganda’.

So if I give you articles from Christian websites you will take it and agree with it sight unseen?

Just in case you didn’t already know, propaganda is simply “a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position”. In other words, literally every single piece of persuasive writing can be labelled as ‘propaganda’. Every argument that’s ever been made on this site for anything falls under propaganda if you chose to view it that way. Brushing something off for being ‘propaganda’ is no different than brushing something off for having any opinion whatsoever.

Correct. Therefore, if you want me to seriously consider any information you need a neutral source. That’s what I do. I don’t tell you to believe me because I saw it on a Christian website. I bring things it from sources that don’t have a dog in the fight. Otherwise the information can be accused of bias. Which is precisely what I am accusing that website and all others like it as being. Bullshit only atheists could believe.

I asked for an unbiased confirmation of your chart there and then you presented a biased confirmation, do you know the difference?

[quote]
I can say that the bible is propaganda. I guess that adequately debunks the bible. [/quote]
It wouldn’t be the first incorrect thing you said about it, just add that to the heap.

[sufiandy]

Pat, do you claim KNOW (don’t confuse with think/believe) for a fact at the cosmological argument is correct, or do you just know that it cannot be proved incorrect?

[TigerTime]

[quote]pat wrote:

The website is propaganda. Oh, are you claiming everything on it is 100% irrefutable fact? That there is no bias? I thought not. That there is no ax to grind that they are only interested in presenting facts, not proselytizing atheism? Yeah, I thought not.
[/quote]

They are presenting an atheist world view because that’s where the evidence leads, not the other way around. Being an atheist does NOT automatically invalidate your arguments against Catholicism. You know that and I know that.

So if I give you articles from Christian websites you will take it and agree with it sight unseen?

False dichotomy. It’s not a matter of accepting something blindly vs. finding a reason to immediately brush it off. If you have evidence for your God, I will review it and make up my own mind on it. That’s how rational people form opinions.

Correct. Therefore, if you want me to seriously consider any information you need a neutral source. That’s what I do. I don’t tell you to believe me because I saw it on a Christian website. I bring things it from sources that don’t have a dog in the fight. Otherwise the information can be accused of bias. Which is precisely what I am accusing that website and all others like it as being. Bullshit only atheists could believe.

I asked for an unbiased confirmation of your chart there and then you presented a biased confirmation, do you know the difference?

All right, I’ll meet you half way. I won’t use any ‘atheist leaning information’ so long as you don’t use any ‘theist leaning information’. Not having the bible is a bigger handicap to you than not having this website is to me anyway.

[quote]
It wouldn’t be the first incorrect thing you said about it, just add that to the heap.[/quote]

The bible fits the definition of propaganda at least as well as that chart. You can’t have it both ways, either they are both propaganda, or neither is.

[bigflamer]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
@ Chris

Before you pat yourself on the back too much for being on the side that “founded” the scientific method…[/quote]

Oh really, based on what is that chart made? Is it fact or just plain old propaganda?[/quote]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm

Have fun.[/quote]

So, plain ol’ propaganda? Thanks for confirming.

I meant neutral sources with no predetermined bias and even potentially peer reviewed for accuracy. No atheist propaganda. I get enough hot air from you lot, right here.
I beginning to think you’ll believe anything so long as it’s posted on an atheist propaganda website…[/quote]

I wasn’t aware that it was propaganda to point out that science pre-dates Christianity.
[/quote]
The website is propaganda. Oh, are you claiming everything on it is 100% irrefutable fact? That there is no bias? I thought not. That there is no ax to grind that they are only interested in presenting facts, not proselytizing atheism? Yeah, I thought not.

Now that I think about it, I wasn’t aware one could simply brush off anything they wish by calling it ‘propaganda’.

So if I give you articles from Christian websites you will take it and agree with it sight unseen?

Just in case you didn’t already know, propaganda is simply “a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position”. In other words, literally every single piece of persuasive writing can be labelled as ‘propaganda’. Every argument that’s ever been made on this site for anything falls under propaganda if you chose to view it that way. Brushing something off for being ‘propaganda’ is no different than brushing something off for having any opinion whatsoever.

Correct. Therefore, if you want me to seriously consider any information you need a neutral source. That’s what I do. I don’t tell you to believe me because I saw it on a Christian website. I bring things it from sources that don’t have a dog in the fight. Otherwise the information can be accused of bias. Which is precisely what I am accusing that website and all others like it as being. Bullshit only atheists could believe.

I asked for an unbiased confirmation of your chart there and then you presented a biased confirmation, do you know the difference?

[quote]
I can say that the bible is propaganda. I guess that adequately debunks the bible. [/quote]
It wouldn’t be the first incorrect thing you said about it, just add that to the heap.[/quote]

If it’s filled with misinformation and untruths, then just point it out. Shouldn’t you be attacking the message, and not the messenger?

[TigerTime]

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
@ Chris

Before you pat yourself on the back too much for being on the side that “founded” the scientific method…[/quote]

Oh really, based on what is that chart made? Is it fact or just plain old propaganda?[/quote]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm

Have fun.[/quote]

So, plain ol’ propaganda? Thanks for confirming.

I meant neutral sources with no predetermined bias and even potentially peer reviewed for accuracy. No atheist propaganda. I get enough hot air from you lot, right here.
I beginning to think you’ll believe anything so long as it’s posted on an atheist propaganda website…[/quote]

I wasn’t aware that it was propaganda to point out that science pre-dates Christianity.
[/quote]
The website is propaganda. Oh, are you claiming everything on it is 100% irrefutable fact? That there is no bias? I thought not. That there is no ax to grind that they are only interested in presenting facts, not proselytizing atheism? Yeah, I thought not.

Now that I think about it, I wasn’t aware one could simply brush off anything they wish by calling it ‘propaganda’.

So if I give you articles from Christian websites you will take it and agree with it sight unseen?

Just in case you didn’t already know, propaganda is simply “a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position”. In other words, literally every single piece of persuasive writing can be labelled as ‘propaganda’. Every argument that’s ever been made on this site for anything falls under propaganda if you chose to view it that way. Brushing something off for being ‘propaganda’ is no different than brushing something off for having any opinion whatsoever.

Correct. Therefore, if you want me to seriously consider any information you need a neutral source. That’s what I do. I don’t tell you to believe me because I saw it on a Christian website. I bring things it from sources that don’t have a dog in the fight. Otherwise the information can be accused of bias. Which is precisely what I am accusing that website and all others like it as being. Bullshit only atheists could believe.

I asked for an unbiased confirmation of your chart there and then you presented a biased confirmation, do you know the difference?

I can say that the bible is propaganda. I guess that adequately debunks the bible. [/quote]
It wouldn’t be the first incorrect thing you said about it, just add that to the heap.[/quote]

If it’s filled with misinformation and untruths, then just point it out. Shouldn’t you be attacking the message, and not the messenger?

Hey, it’s only a logical fallacy when YOU do it. When Pat does it, it’s A.O.K. (or at least he seems to think so…)

[Tiribulus]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Here’s a hint. No intellectual argument I have ever given here has anything to do with why I believe what I do. I had no knowledge of any of this philosophical/epistemological stuff til years after I was already a believer. True story. I believe what I believe because of a completely subjective relationship that I have with this God. He says that what I used to believe, which is what you say you believe, is foolishness because it denies the source of even man’s consciousness of his own existence. I believe him and do not believe you. I used to be you.[/quote]

No, you were never me.

A follow up question, if your relationship with God is entirely subjective and not constrained by logic (human logic, at least), then why do you bother coming on here? You won’t convince a logical mind with such an argument. I mean, if a muslim came on here and told you that his relationship with God is completely subjective, you wouldn’t convert, would you? [/quote]Yes, I really was you.
I come here because I love the people here regardless of how they respond to me and God commands that I use my gifts for His glory. My job is to tell you the truth. Not to convert you which I cannot do. I’m going to just keep right on saying this even though nobody seems to be listening. Becoming a Christian is NOT the acquiescence to a set of intellectual/religious principles among competing options. It IS the supernatural resurrection from true death in sin to true life in Christ. It is a bona fide miracle of spiritual birth as a new creature, cleansed in His blood from the guilt of sin and raised in new life in His resurrection from the dead.

He took MY sin to His grave and buried it there, bringing me forth alive in Himself, though I had not yet been born. Having no sin of His own, death could not hold Him. Being man He could die for me, being God he could not stay that way. My crimes were(and are) against He who Himself went to His death to save me from their penalty. It would be(sorta) like if I killed a man’s family and he walked into the courtroom and told the judge who was also his father that not only should I go free, but he will go to the chair in my place and I get to move into his house and he’s left me his inheritance.

I love Him. It is my joy and privilege to tell these folks what He’s done for me and declare the gloriously beautiful system of true knowledge He has bequeathed to those who surrender to Him. God uses men to bring His children home. One plants, another waters, but God gives the increase(1 Corinthians 3:7). He lets me participate. How could I say no?

[Tiribulus]

[quote]bigflamer wrote:<<< If it’s filled with misinformation and untruths, then just point it out. Shouldn’t you be attacking the message, and not the messenger?[/quote]YEAH!!! What kinda crap is this anyway? Give em what fer Sparky!!! =D

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:<<< If it’s filled with misinformation and untruths, then just point it out. Shouldn’t you be attacking the message, and not the messenger?[/quote]YEAH!!! What kinda crap is this anyway? Give em what fer Sparky!!! =D
[/quote]

lol

[bigflamer]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
@ Chris

Before you pat yourself on the back too much for being on the side that “founded” the scientific method…[/quote]

Oh really, based on what is that chart made? Is it fact or just plain old propaganda?[/quote]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm

Have fun.[/quote]

So, plain ol’ propaganda? Thanks for confirming.

I meant neutral sources with no predetermined bias and even potentially peer reviewed for accuracy. No atheist propaganda. I get enough hot air from you lot, right here.
I beginning to think you’ll believe anything so long as it’s posted on an atheist propaganda website…[/quote]

I wasn’t aware that it was propaganda to point out that science pre-dates Christianity.
[/quote]
The website is propaganda. Oh, are you claiming everything on it is 100% irrefutable fact? That there is no bias? I thought not. That there is no ax to grind that they are only interested in presenting facts, not proselytizing atheism? Yeah, I thought not.

Now that I think about it, I wasn’t aware one could simply brush off anything they wish by calling it ‘propaganda’.

So if I give you articles from Christian websites you will take it and agree with it sight unseen?

Just in case you didn’t already know, propaganda is simply “a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position”. In other words, literally every single piece of persuasive writing can be labelled as ‘propaganda’. Every argument that’s ever been made on this site for anything falls under propaganda if you chose to view it that way. Brushing something off for being ‘propaganda’ is no different than brushing something off for having any opinion whatsoever.

Correct. Therefore, if you want me to seriously consider any information you need a neutral source. That’s what I do. I don’t tell you to believe me because I saw it on a Christian website. I bring things it from sources that don’t have a dog in the fight. Otherwise the information can be accused of bias. Which is precisely what I am accusing that website and all others like it as being. Bullshit only atheists could believe.

I asked for an unbiased confirmation of your chart there and then you presented a biased confirmation, do you know the difference?

I can say that the bible is propaganda. I guess that adequately debunks the bible. [/quote]
It wouldn’t be the first incorrect thing you said about it, just add that to the heap.[/quote]

If it’s filled with misinformation and untruths, then just point it out. Shouldn’t you be attacking the message, and not the messenger?

Hey, it’s only a logical fallacy when YOU do it. When Pat does it, it’s A.O.K. (or at least he seems to think so…)[/quote]

WORD

[bigflamer]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

bigflamer wrote:<<< If it’s filled with misinformation and untruths, then just point it out. Shouldn’t you be attacking the message, and not the messenger?

YEAH!!! What kinda crap is this anyway? Give em what fer Sparky!!! =D[/quote]

Well…

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
@ Chris

Before you pat yourself on the back too much for being on the side that “founded” the scientific method…[/quote]

Oh really, based on what is that chart made? Is it fact or just plain old propaganda?[/quote]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm

Have fun.[/quote]

Science as a discipline was developed in the high middle ages. This was done in the Universities by the oh so torturous Roman Catholic Church. Specifically Robert Grosseteste ( Robert Grosseteste - Wikipedia ), the Catholic Bishop of Lincoln is credited for formalizing the Scientific Method. The bishops work is known today because of Roger Bacon, a Friar who explained and translated into the method we know today. He used words for the first time like observation, hypothesis, experimentation, &c. you know 'den atheist words.

Other founders of Modern Science: St. Albertus Magnus, William of Ockham, Petrus Peregrinus, Johannes de Scartobosco. It’s convenient to ignore that people like Galileo and Georges Lemaitre were devout Catholics who put forth enormous revolutions in the scientific community.

Oh, theory of genetics: Gregor Johann Mendel, a German-Czech Augustinian monk.

Ultimately the Christian West developed empirical science and the scientific method. Why? Monotheistic Religion. Yes, of course as orion points out that we saved the pieces of intellectualism from the collapse of several empires, specifically the Roman Empire, however the reason why the Church is responsible is because we introduced the philosophy that the Universe is the result of a supremely rational God. Thus, the Universe is rational.

If it were left up to atheists, unfortunately we’d have answered the question, “why does the universe appear to obey laws” with “It just does.” Not really a good foundation for science.

[sufiandy]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
@ Chris

Before you pat yourself on the back too much for being on the side that “founded” the scientific method…[/quote]

Oh really, based on what is that chart made? Is it fact or just plain old propaganda?[/quote]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm

Have fun.[/quote]

Science as a discipline was developed in the high middle ages. This was done in the Universities by the oh so torturous Roman Catholic Church. Specifically Robert Grosseteste ( Robert Grosseteste - Wikipedia ), the Catholic Bishop of Lincoln is credited for formalizing the Scientific Method. The bishops work is known today because of Roger Bacon, a Friar who explained and translated into the method we know today. He used words for the first time like observation, hypothesis, experimentation, &c. you know 'den atheist words.

Other founders of Modern Science: St. Albertus Magnus, William of Ockham, Petrus Peregrinus, Johannes de Scartobosco. It’s convenient to ignore that people like Galileo and Georges Lemaitre were devout Catholics who put forth enormous revolutions in the scientific community.

Oh, theory of genetics: Gregor Johann Mendel, a German-Czech Augustinian monk.

Ultimately the Christian West developed empirical science and the scientific method. Why? Monotheistic Religion. Yes, of course as orion points out that we saved the pieces of intellectualism from the collapse of several empires, specifically the Roman Empire, however the reason why the Church is responsible is because we introduced the philosophy that the Universe is the result of a supremely rational God. Thus, the Universe is rational.

If it were left up to atheists, unfortunately we’d have answered the question, “why does the universe appear to obey laws” with “It just does.” Not really a good foundation for science.[/quote]

So what your saying is there is a difference between these 2 answers?

A. It just does

B. It just does, because God made it that way

[TigerTime]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
@ Chris

Before you pat yourself on the back too much for being on the side that “founded” the scientific method…[/quote]

Oh really, based on what is that chart made? Is it fact or just plain old propaganda?[/quote]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm

Have fun.[/quote]

Science as a discipline was developed in the high middle ages. This was done in the Universities by the oh so torturous Roman Catholic Church. Specifically Robert Grosseteste ( Robert Grosseteste - Wikipedia ), the Catholic Bishop of Lincoln is credited for formalizing the Scientific Method. The bishops work is known today because of Roger Bacon, a Friar who explained and translated into the method we know today. He used words for the first time like observation, hypothesis, experimentation, &c. you know 'den atheist words.

Other founders of Modern Science: St. Albertus Magnus, William of Ockham, Petrus Peregrinus, Johannes de Scartobosco. It’s convenient to ignore that people like Galileo and Georges Lemaitre were devout Catholics who put forth enormous revolutions in the scientific community.

Oh, theory of genetics: Gregor Johann Mendel, a German-Czech Augustinian monk.

Ultimately the Christian West developed empirical science and the scientific method. Why? Monotheistic Religion. Yes, of course as orion points out that we saved the pieces of intellectualism from the collapse of several empires, specifically the Roman Empire, however the reason why the Church is responsible is because we introduced the philosophy that the Universe is the result of a supremely rational God. Thus, the Universe is rational.

If it were left up to atheists, unfortunately we’d have answered the question, “why does the universe appear to obey laws” with “It just does.” Not really a good foundation for science.[/quote]

Well, that explains why the Christian dark ages were such prosperous times. Oh wait, they weren’t. At all.

Also, science isn’t concerned with having an answer. That’s not good enough. We want the right answer. Just using God to fill the gap is absolutely not adequate. No foundation is better than a false foundation.

Monotheistic religion (especially Christianity) was literally the single worst thing to happen to science and it wasn’t until the stranglehold of religion loosened from the throat of the state (and therefore, the people) did science re-explode.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
@ Chris

Before you pat yourself on the back too much for being on the side that “founded” the scientific method…[/quote]

Oh really, based on what is that chart made? Is it fact or just plain old propaganda?[/quote]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm

Have fun.[/quote]

Science as a discipline was developed in the high middle ages. This was done in the Universities by the oh so torturous Roman Catholic Church. Specifically Robert Grosseteste ( Robert Grosseteste - Wikipedia ), the Catholic Bishop of Lincoln is credited for formalizing the Scientific Method. The bishops work is known today because of Roger Bacon, a Friar who explained and translated into the method we know today. He used words for the first time like observation, hypothesis, experimentation, &c. you know 'den atheist words.

Other founders of Modern Science: St. Albertus Magnus, William of Ockham, Petrus Peregrinus, Johannes de Scartobosco. It’s convenient to ignore that people like Galileo and Georges Lemaitre were devout Catholics who put forth enormous revolutions in the scientific community.

Oh, theory of genetics: Gregor Johann Mendel, a German-Czech Augustinian monk.

Ultimately the Christian West developed empirical science and the scientific method. Why? Monotheistic Religion. Yes, of course as orion points out that we saved the pieces of intellectualism from the collapse of several empires, specifically the Roman Empire, however the reason why the Church is responsible is because we introduced the philosophy that the Universe is the result of a supremely rational God. Thus, the Universe is rational.

If it were left up to atheists, unfortunately we’d have answered the question, “why does the universe appear to obey laws” with “It just does.” Not really a good foundation for science.[/quote]

So what your saying is there is a difference between these 2 answers?

A. It just does

B. It just does, because God made it that way[/quote]

Lol. No.

[kamui]

a few things :

-the darkness of the dark ages is vastly overrated.
It has been heavily revised by the most recent historiography.

-the cosmological argument is basically right.
But it may very well be a correct answer to a wrong question. (ie : in itself, it is not enough to disprove radical scepticism which is a theoretically valid position, yet a practically untenable one).

In other words : the only way to refute it is to deny the existence of causality itself.
Which can be perfectly be done.
One must simply be aware of the “cost” of such a position.

-there is two very different ways to understand the concept of a first cause.
It is either uncaused (ie transcendant)
or self-caused. (ie : immanent)

Christian believe it’s the former. I believe it is the latter.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]kamui wrote-there is two very different ways to understand the concept of a first cause.
It is either uncaused (ie transcendant)
or self-caused. (ie : immanent)
Christian believe it’s the former. I believe it is the latter.
[/quote]Understood correctly I say it’s both. The Father is uncaused, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from both.

[kamui]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote-there is two very different ways to understand the concept of a first cause.
It is either uncaused (ie transcendant)
or self-caused. (ie : immanent)
Christian believe it’s the former. I believe it is the latter.
[/quote]Understood correctly I say it’s both. The Father is uncaused, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from both.
[/quote]

Fair enough.
I was thinking about the Father, specifically. And oversimplifying.

[pat]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Pat, do you claim KNOW (don’t confuse with think/believe) for a fact at the cosmological argument is correct, or do you just know that it cannot be proved incorrect?[/quote]

I know it to be correct. Not because it has never been proven wrong. It’s because the premises are right, and the conclusion drawn from the premises are correct. I see it like a math problem, you don’t have to know everything to know a math problem is correct and always will be under any circumstance. For instance, A^2 + B^2=C^2. We don’t have to know what ‘A’ and ‘B’ are for this equation to be correct. It’s correct because if you add the square of ‘A’ to the square of ‘B’ you will always get the square of ‘C’.
Same with the cosmological argument it doesn’t matter what exists, it’s contingent, unless it’s the Uncaused-cause itself.
There cannot be another uncaused-cause, because the act of regression does not allow for that. You’d have to divide the causal chain, which isn’t possible.
Then even if such a thing as an uncaused object that does not cause could exist, it can never be known. The second you ‘know it’, it then caused something.

[pat]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The website is propaganda. Oh, are you claiming everything on it is 100% irrefutable fact? That there is no bias? I thought not. That there is no ax to grind that they are only interested in presenting facts, not proselytizing atheism? Yeah, I thought not.
[/quote]

They are presenting an atheist world view because that’s where the evidence leads, not the other way around. Being an atheist does NOT automatically invalidate your arguments against Catholicism. You know that and I know that.
[/quote]
That’s their purpose in life…

So if I give you articles from Christian websites you will take it and agree with it sight unseen?

False dichotomy. It’s not a matter of accepting something blindly vs. finding a reason to immediately brush it off. If you have evidence for your God, I will review it and make up my own mind on it. That’s how rational people form opinions.

No it’s not. You presented something from a source with extreme bias. I asked if you could present that same information without the bias.
If I present something from a Christian website, you are going to claim against their bias. Otherwise, I can just post you a bunch of links, ask you to refute each and every single point they make, and sometime next year when you are done, we can discuss whether they are wrong or right.

Correct. Therefore, if you want me to seriously consider any information you need a neutral source. That’s what I do. I don’t tell you to believe me because I saw it on a Christian website. I bring things it from sources that don’t have a dog in the fight. Otherwise the information can be accused of bias. Which is precisely what I am accusing that website and all others like it as being. Bullshit only atheists could believe.

I asked for an unbiased confirmation of your chart there and then you presented a biased confirmation, do you know the difference?

All right, I’ll meet you half way. I won’t use any ‘atheist leaning information’ so long as you don’t use any ‘theist leaning information’. Not having the bible is a bigger handicap to you than not having this website is to me anyway.

I have said this from the start, I don’t need the bible to make points with you guys. I have only addressed the bible when you lot bring it up. If you don’t believe in God, talking about the bible is pretty much a total waste of time. It requires you believe in God, otherwise it’s just a thick book.

[quote]

[quote]
It wouldn’t be the first incorrect thing you said about it, just add that to the heap.[/quote]

The bible fits the definition of propaganda at least as well as that chart. You can’t have it both ways, either they are both propaganda, or neither is. [/quote]

No it’s doesn’t. The bible the source, not a commentary or analysis about the source. It’s the thing itself. If you do a book report on Harry Potter, the bias lies in your report, not the source. The Bible is the source.

[pat]

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
@ Chris

Before you pat yourself on the back too much for being on the side that “founded” the scientific method…[/quote]

Oh really, based on what is that chart made? Is it fact or just plain old propaganda?[/quote]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm

Have fun.[/quote]

So, plain ol’ propaganda? Thanks for confirming.

I meant neutral sources with no predetermined bias and even potentially peer reviewed for accuracy. No atheist propaganda. I get enough hot air from you lot, right here.
I beginning to think you’ll believe anything so long as it’s posted on an atheist propaganda website…[/quote]

I wasn’t aware that it was propaganda to point out that science pre-dates Christianity.
[/quote]
The website is propaganda. Oh, are you claiming everything on it is 100% irrefutable fact? That there is no bias? I thought not. That there is no ax to grind that they are only interested in presenting facts, not proselytizing atheism? Yeah, I thought not.

Now that I think about it, I wasn’t aware one could simply brush off anything they wish by calling it ‘propaganda’.

So if I give you articles from Christian websites you will take it and agree with it sight unseen?

Just in case you didn’t already know, propaganda is simply “a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position”. In other words, literally every single piece of persuasive writing can be labelled as ‘propaganda’. Every argument that’s ever been made on this site for anything falls under propaganda if you chose to view it that way. Brushing something off for being ‘propaganda’ is no different than brushing something off for having any opinion whatsoever.

Correct. Therefore, if you want me to seriously consider any information you need a neutral source. That’s what I do. I don’t tell you to believe me because I saw it on a Christian website. I bring things it from sources that don’t have a dog in the fight. Otherwise the information can be accused of bias. Which is precisely what I am accusing that website and all others like it as being. Bullshit only atheists could believe.

I asked for an unbiased confirmation of your chart there and then you presented a biased confirmation, do you know the difference?

I can say that the bible is propaganda. I guess that adequately debunks the bible. [/quote]
It wouldn’t be the first incorrect thing you said about it, just add that to the heap.[/quote]

If it’s filled with misinformation and untruths, then just point it out. Shouldn’t you be attacking the message, and not the messenger?

Hey, it’s only a logical fallacy when YOU do it. When Pat does it, it’s A.O.K. (or at least he seems to think so…)[/quote]

Ok, this should be easy enough. Show me where I have done that. Where have I presented a biased source as objective?