Iconoclastic Atheist Turns To Belief In God

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]haney wrote:
That is a bold statement to make considering Christianity has not really changed in belief and practice over the centuries. We for the most part still agree with Martin Luther, someone who lived in the late 1500’s. Unless you are claiming the gift of prophecy I would not be so bold.
[/quote]

Actually, Christianity has changed a LOT since 1500. Just the fact that I can walk down the street and proclaim that I am an atheist and not get burned at the stake says a lot. Many people now work on Sundays. Dietary restrictions have been eased. Priests/ministers can now either get married, be female, be homosexual (depending on which form of Christianity you are talking about). The creation of Mormonism was a huge change in Christian thought. Compare Roman Catholicism with Catholicism that is practiced in the U.S. and then try to tell me that it has not changed.

Apparently, Martin Luther (not the King version) was an anti-Semite. That tidbit of historical information does not appear to bother you though.

Touche!

142

[quote]haney wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
I don’t think that there’s any evidence for or against God in science. It just isn’t there, unless you pretend.

I never thought science proved God. I think the eye witness testimony of Christ rising from the dead does that. The fact that the Christian faith survived against all odds is some of the evidence I use. I have a long list, that I will get into if you like,[/quote]
No thanks. If the fact that the book survived through nearly insurmountable odds or whatever astounds you, then what the hell… it astounds me, too. But that doesn’t validate any of the book’s contents. None of the circumstances surrounding the book mean anything to its teachings, or the truth of its writings. Shit happens.

[quote]How difficult is this? You won’t find the idea of God until you start trying to see it. WE are the creators of this idea. In other words, there is no God until somebody comes along and invents the idea of “HIM”.

Well that is to assume that God never revealed Himself to Adam or anyone else. Something that you cannot say for sure. [/quote]

Sure I can. Ready?

“God never revealed himself to Adam and Eve.”

Now go ahead and prove me wrong. You can’t, can you? So this whole thing is pointless. Neither one of our arguments in this matter have any logical weight. In other words, I am better off proving my point in this atheism vs. theism debate by saying “my car is purple”, because at least that can be verified. Get it?

[quote] This has nothing to do with science, which is why the “Creationism melds with Evolution” thread turned into what it did. It makes no sense to mix superstition with scientific method.

I am not trying to use science to prove God. I am using science to prove we still don’t have any answers. I have said it before I get tired of hearing “we are certain this is how it hapopened” Then ten years later them saying “wait we were wrong.” [/quote]

Scientists never say “we are certain”. They say “our best guess, and the evidence we’ve collected so far says” – there’s a big difference. The only people supposedly sure about the big unanswerable questions are you and your ilk. And when pressed for proof, you have to admit that there isn’t any. So you really aren’t “sure” are you? The fact that we can’t answer the origins of life or the universe with science yet is no excuse to just drop everything and start buying into some old book.

[quote]I know what you’re thinking now. “My beliefs aren’t superstition!” Oh yeah? Prove it. You look for proof everywhere else, you point to some book as proof, but it’s just some book. I could show you the occult section of the bookstore which is filled with books on Wicca and witchcraft and candle magic and shit, and those books are just as superstitious as yours. There is nothing magical about the bible. It’s words… just like any other. Until you get past that, you aren’t going to be able to see my point. And that’s fine.

Show me one other book in the world, that is as accurate in history, and is as accurate in foretelling future events. One that has survived such persecution, and tells the same story it told over 3,000 years ago?
Show me one and I will consider it being just a book. Its survival is a testiment that this is the most amazing book in our world. That may not make it the word of God, but please have respect for the survival of such a brilliant literary work.[/quote]

I kinda already answered this point earlier, so I won’t repeat myself except to say:

"Wow! A book that hasn’t changed in a while… ever been to China? They have some writings that will kick ass all over your bible. I suggest the “Dancing Wu Li masters”. Or perhaps the “Tao te Ching”. Those books described quantum mechanics before the advent of modern science. That’s pretty bad ass too, don’t you think? But that’s no reason to drop everything and become a Zen Buddhist.

[quote]And don’t call my Green Bunny a logical ploy! I’ll smite you! :slight_smile:

Sorry I was hoping to atleat field some of the problems that everyone has with the Christian belief.

By the way this wouldn’t happen to be the same bunny in Monty Python is it? :slight_smile:
[/quote]

No, that Monty Python bunny is a pussy. The Green Bunny would kungfu his sorry little ass in a Matrix-style slow motion ass-kick-fest. :slight_smile:

143

M.M. colls post conventional thinkin “instinct”.(I wunder what Lawrence Kohlberg would haf to say about that.) wonce agin pruveing that he ain’t abel to think outside of self, at an averge or abuv averge level.no wunder he ain’t graspin the concep of a higher powur.ANd now hees so mad hee wont evin check my spellin.
By the way, how do you solve these funy letter problims?
ax^2+bx+c=0 for(RR,i)
Ax^2+Bxy+Cy^2+Dx+Ey+F=0
they make both my heads hurt.

144

[quote]MentalMuscle wrote:

Killing: Wolves live in packs. If they were to kill each other until only one remained, they would no longer be as efficient as hunters. Therefore, they instinctively work together rather than fight for their mutual survival.
[/quote]

They also kill to become the most dominant one in the pack…or did you forget that? Again, why not do the same?

[quote]
Marriage: Why do eagles mate for life? Or wolves (which I mentioned above)? Or whales? Or condors? Or a shitload of other animals? Because it improves their chances of successfully producing viable offspring to carry on their genetic code.[/quote]

So you married in order to increase your chances of producing viable offspring? This was your soul reason for getting hitched? Do you even believe the bullshit that is being released upon your keyboard? Your logic is also off. The more partners an individual has, the greater the chances of producing viable off spring. Do you raise your kids to think like this?

This was sad. In effect, you are saying you justify racism and bigotry because we have evolved into it. Do you also believe in slavery?

[quote]
I figured your question about killing someone outside of self-defense was just a ruse to get a rise out of me; I didn’t think you were serious about that one. Again, it is instinct. There is no point in randomly killing someone. However, if the money is right and I won’t get caught…[/quote]

The question wasn’t about money, it was whether it would be wrong for you to do so. Do you believe it would be wrong for you to kill someone outside of self defense if no one would ever find out. Why attempt to run in circles as if no one can see it?

145

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

Sure I can. Ready?

“God never revealed himself to Adam and Eve.”

Now go ahead and prove me wrong. You can’t, can you? So this whole thing is pointless. Neither one of our arguments in this matter have any logical weight. In other words, I am better off proving my point in this atheism vs. theism debate by saying “my car is purple”, because at least that can be verified. Get it?
[/quote]

I get your point, I don’t think you got mine. I stated that is not the only proof. So here we go! Prove the Bible is wrong? Prove Christ didn’t rise from the Dead, despite four written testimonies, of people who lived in that time. All around the same time. All from different people. All in agreement. Then explain why if He didn’t rise from the dead, and the Jewish people knew where the body was why they didn’t produce it? It would certainly get rid of this whole Christianity problem. As I said it surviving, and having interesting things does not prove it. There are other things that have a huge amount of information stacked on its side.

I never said it was a reason to buy into it. I just said because science has not answered those things I have no reason to not accept an “old book”

I only stated it not changing because that is an amazing feet for a book as old as the Bible. There are no other books that have survived as long as it has, and with so few copyist problems. I ask you to have respect for ancient works in general, but especially ones that are as rare as the Bible with the care it received. There are more questions about Shakespeare’s plays being correct than there are the Bible. Who would care to alter Shakespeares plays? What good would it do? Altering the Bible could be used as a very powerful political tool for an ancient people. That is what is amazing. To be amazed at the care it received does not require you to believe, only respect what an ancient people thought about this text.

If it is slow motion than I think your Green bunny needs to do more westside DM days!

146

[quote]Professor X wrote:
[Wolves] also kill to become the most dominant one in the pack…or did you forget that? Again, why not do the same?[/quote]

Actually, they do not “kill” to become the dominate one in the pack, they fight to become dominate. Humans do the same whether it is on the playground or in the office. If wolves actually killed each other for dominance, there would be no wolf packs.

Instinct is a funny thing. You do not have to think about it for it to work. It is kind of like breathing or blinking. Instinct is what made me search out the female in the first place; instinct is what made me attracted to this particular female; instinct is what made me want to procreate with her to add her own genetic code to my own.

I am not saying EVERYTHING is purely based on instinct. Just many of the things that we do which we do not consciously rationalize are instinct.

I am not justifying racism and bigotry. I am just saying it is a way of life. Maybe someday we will be invaded by extraterrestrials and we will see “humanity” as our common bond. Until then, there will strife.

Do I believe in slavery? Sure, I believe it exists. I haven’t actually seen it, nor have I experienced it, but I know it is out there… somewhere…waiting.

Your question is too general. I would not randomly kill someone just for the sake of killing that person, if that is what you are asking. It would have to benefit me in some way. For example, killing a couple thousand people to hasten my morning commute.

Someone on this site in the “Things That Bug Me” thread said, “If it wasn’t for fear of being sued, I would kill you,” referring to a gym-goer who stood in front of a weight stack while training. To me, that shows an utter lack of respect for life. Obviously the poster must be some kind of Satanist.

(By the way, I thought your comments were hilarious, for what it is worth.)

147

lothario1132:

This is actually mindeffer’s girlfriend, let’s say Josephine for identity’s sake. As to your argument about proving whether or not God revealed Himself to Adam and Eve-- there are certain assumptions that “non-believers” make about those who are Christian. First, we do not all believe in every single printed word in the Bible. Just because places and people are mentioned does not mean that one has to lend credibility to all of the exaggerations that are written. I think this is primarily where those who do not believe in God or any other deity get the starting fuel for their fires.

Second, if you chose to ignore the basic principles that are present in any religious text, and discredited the beliefs of those people based on factual or proven events and scientific evidence, you are missing a great deal of what is fundamental in any belief. There is such a thing as a universal truth that does exist, believer or not, that connects all human beings together. I can list some of these truths for you if you wish, but I think you’re at least intelligent enough to understand what I mean.

Third, if you do not take into account that all of the religious texts of any time were written for the people of that time BY the people of that time, you can also misinterpret what the writings say. One has to remember that the people who were scribing these documents did so with what understanding of the world and the universe they had at that time. Sure, in some cases these were supposed to be the “words” of God. And for all intents and purposes they were. But only as the people of that time understood them. Let’s say if the Bible were written today, don’t you think it would have a very political, scientifically based slant to it? I do. Just because one can’t prove that Adam and Eve even existed doesn’t mean that one should lose sight of all that story had to offer and still does. I for one am not willing to dismiss something that I know to be true, through my own personal experience, just because all of the writings about it can’t be proven. Everyone has their own interpretations. But limiting yourself to the idea that it can’t be true based on lack of proof is a very narrow-minded approach.

The first book of the Bible was written many many years after the time in which it was supposed to have occurred. This is because before there was recorded/written language, people passed on their beliefs, ideas, and life events through stories. Word of mouth. So, yes, things became exaggerated over time. Same thing can happen today you know. Point in case, the way the chaos theory has been transformed into the butterfly effect. Or even kids playing “telephone” on the playground.

So to actually prove or disprove whether or not God revealed Himself to Adam and Eve or whether or not they were the first two original people seems a ridiculous point to argue. What you are missing is that these stories exist as a lesson, even in the form of hyperbole, to illustrate the point of a loving God as well as free will and many others.

By the way, if a bunny war breaks out in my garden, I’ll cast their asses out into the hinterland!!

Later,
Josephine

148

MM, I can see your point, and you’re right – humans are animals. But you’re going to have a hard time with this crowd drawing similarities in our behaviors with non-sentient animals. Why not draw similarities with us and the dolphin? The dolphin is self-aware, and they travel in groups for protection, nurture their young, and don’t kill each other. They will, however, beat the shit out of some sharks to protect their babies. And yet – as far as we know, there is no “dolphin savior” or “dolphin bible”. Do they possess a code of morality which they teach to their young, or is it more instinctual?

149

[quote]MentalMuscle wrote:

(By the way, I thought your comments were hilarious, for what it is worth.)[/quote]

And I think yours are lame and lack any real purpose. You didn’t get MARRIED because of instinct. You would have had a case if you only related it to staying with one woman but you lose your argument simply because you got married. Common animals don’t get married. Along with that, your comment about seperatism and bigotry also lacks any real purpose. You are basically claiming to feel no need in making any type of differences mute in order to promote unity. You simply perpetuate stereotypes. Again, your life seems to lack any real useful purpose. You are pretty bad at backing up your own “beliefs” (or lack there of). You seem to have no direction in life other than the promotion of “self”. Your arguments are weak. You avoid direct questions clearly because you have no foundation of values to support them.

One more time just to see if you can answer the question…hell, I’ll put it in all caps for you. IS IT WRONG TO YOU TO KILL SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF SELF DEFENSE OR PROTECTION? This question only requires a yes or no answer.

150

[quote]mindeffer01 wrote:
lothario1132:

This is actually mindeffer’s girlfriend, let’s say Josephine for identity’s sake. As to your argument about proving whether or not God revealed Himself to Adam and Eve-- there are certain assumptions that “non-believers” make about those who are Christian. First, we do not all believe in every single printed word in the Bible. Just because places and people are mentioned does not mean that one has to lend credibility to all of the exaggerations that are written. I think this is primarily where those who do not believe in God or any other deity get the starting fuel for their fires.

Second, if you chose to ignore the basic principles that are present in any religious text, and discredited the beliefs of those people based on factual or proven events and scientific evidence, you are missing a great deal of what is fundamental in any belief. There is such a thing as a universal truth that does exist, believer or not, that connects all human beings together. I can list some of these truths for you if you wish, but I think you’re at least intelligent enough to understand what I mean.

Third, if you do not take into account that all of the religious texts of any time were written for the people of that time BY the people of that time, you can also misinterpret what the writings say. One has to remember that the people who were scribing these documents did so with what understanding of the world and the universe they had at that time. Sure, in some cases these were supposed to be the “words” of God. And for all intents and purposes they were. But only as the people of that time understood them. Let’s say if the Bible were written today, don’t you think it would have a very political, scientifically based slant to it? I do. Just because one can’t prove that Adam and Eve even existed doesn’t mean that one should lose sight of all that story had to offer and still does. I for one am not willing to dismiss something that I know to be true, through my own personal experience, just because all of the writings about it can’t be proven. Everyone has their own interpretations. But limiting yourself to the idea that it can’t be true based on lack of proof is a very narrow-minded approach.

The first book of the Bible was written many many years after the time in which it was supposed to have occurred. This is because before there was recorded/written language, people passed on their beliefs, ideas, and life events through stories. Word of mouth. So, yes, things became exaggerated over time. Same thing can happen today you know. Point in case, the way the chaos theory has been transformed into the butterfly effect. Or even kids playing “telephone” on the playground.

So to actually prove or disprove whether or not God revealed Himself to Adam and Eve or whether or not they were the first two original people seems a ridiculous point to argue. What you are missing is that these stories exist as a lesson, even in the form of hyperbole, to illustrate the point of a loving God as well as free will and many others.

By the way, if a bunny war breaks out in my garden, I’ll cast their asses out into the hinterland!!

Later,
Josephine[/quote]

Just to keep the oral stories comment from getting out of hand. Ancient people had a very advanced form of oral tradition. One that we do not practice today. So to say that all of the stories might have been changed is a best guess scenario without any knowledge of oral tradition of ancient people. Not saying you are wrong, but their oral tradition is unlike ours today.

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/orality01.html

151

haney:

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. Still goes to the nature of my point; not every word printed in the Bible is based on scientific evidence and can be proved as factual because these people often know how to explain what they saw or, maybe more appropriately, what they couldn’t see. However, the truths were and are still there.
-Josephine

152

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You didn’t get MARRIED because of instinct. You would have had a case if you only related it to staying with one woman but you lose your argument simply because you got married. Common animals don’t get married.[/quote]

What is your obsession with marriage, Prof? It is a ceremony. Plain and simple. If marriage were universal to all humans (and no, it is not–I have watched enough National Geographic to know this), you would almost have a slight shimmer of a point. However, our instinct is to stay together. How we do that, or what ceremonies we perform is irrelevent. I had thought you were an intelligent man, but your complete lack of understanding of such basic knowledge has made me rescind that thought.

Not to mention, I gave you a compliment and you quote it to use to insult me. Very classy.

I am ignoring the rest of your diatribe because it seemed to be more of an exercise in mental masturbation than any sort of intelligent response. However, I will respond to the following since you seemed to have obsessed about this killing issue as well.

You should know based on what I have said previously that this question cannot be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.” Morality is very subjective and open to much interpretation, much like your religion.

Is it “wrong” to kill someone? According to the laws of this country it is. However, our troops are doing a lot of killing over in Iraq–not all of it in self-defense since we are the ones who invaded them. Is it wrong for them to kill Iraqis? Many would say no.

So I guess my answer to that question would be yes AND no. Does that make you happy now?

As the great (sarcasm) Joseph Stalin said, “To kill one is murder, to kill a million is a statistic.”

Wasn’t this thread supposed to be about religion?

lothario1132: Thank you. I will stick with dolphins from now on. So cute and cuddly…

153

[quote]mindeffer01 wrote:
lothario1132:

This is actually mindeffer’s girlfriend, let’s say Josephine for identity’s sake. As to your argument about proving whether or not God revealed Himself to Adam and Eve-- there are certain assumptions that “non-believers” make about those who are Christian. First, we do not all believe in every single printed word in the Bible.[/quote]

Welcome to the party, Josephine. The guy I’m debating with right now (haney) DOES think the bible is the exact word of God. Kinky, huh?

The only fire that is fueled in me is when I hear about how Jesus raised his hands and turkey sandwiches on rye and bags of doritos fell from the sky or whatever. This goes double for dying on some cross on a hill somewhere, and then magically coming back to life after three days. I’m just calling bullshit on this, that’s all.

Good point. I’d like to add that pretty much every religion is based on a “do as I say (or what some book says) or else this will happen” maxim. To be more specific, there is a causality link established which does not make sense. This departs from that “common bond” which you mentioned, and it is here where the belief system becomes mythology and superstition, and not persuant to any good purpose except to the benfit of the respective church(es). For example, thinking that splashing some water on somebody’s head and pronouncing a few words will give them entrance into some post-mortem paradise. I can list more of the BS if you wish, but I think you’re intelligent enough to know what I mean. :slight_smile:

You can call it narrow-minded, I guess. But I would say that the fact that I don’t make any judgments and don’t ascribe to anything which I cannot prove to myself (should I wish to) makes me just “clear-minded”, and without illusions. I do see what you’re saying, however, and I understand why you feel the way that you do. You’re not doing anything wrong.

[quote]The first book of the Bible was written many many years after the time in which it was supposed to have occurred. This is because before there was recorded/written language, people passed on their beliefs, ideas, and life events through stories. Word of mouth. So, yes, things became exaggerated over time. Same thing can happen today you know. Point in case, the way the chaos theory has been transformed into the butterfly effect. Or even kids playing “telephone” on the playground.

So to actually prove or disprove whether or not God revealed Himself to Adam and Eve or whether or not they were the first two original people seems a ridiculous point to argue. What you are missing is that these stories exist as a lesson, even in the form of hyperbole, to illustrate the point of a loving God as well as free will and many others.[/quote]

I wholeheartedly agree, and I think that was the point I was trying to make. Like I said, if I said “my car is purple”, at least that’s verifiable. It doesn’t make sense to drag Adam and Eve into this to prove or disprove the validity of anything. That’s what I was trying to tell haney.

[quote]By the way, if a bunny war breaks out in my garden, I’ll cast their asses out into the hinterland!!

Later,
Josephine[/quote]

Good luck kicking the Green Bunny’s ass. He is quick like lightning, and can strike the sacred eighteen fists into your head before you can blink. He’s one bad mofo. :slight_smile:

154

Prof. X,
Allthough I usualy blather on and jerk easy targets around, while sliding a couple of gems in with it, I’ll skip that this time.
I realy admire your unwavering adherence to your values,and your ability to justify them is second to none.The hard core attitude kicks ass too. Just had to express some admiration.
Thanks

155

[quote]haney wrote:
I get your point, I don’t think you got mine. I stated that is not the only proof. So here we go! Prove the Bible is wrong? Prove Christ didn’t rise from the Dead, despite four written testimonies, of people who lived in that time. All around the same time. All from different people. All in agreement. Then explain why if He didn’t rise from the dead, and the Jewish people knew where the body was why they didn’t produce it? It would certainly get rid of this whole Christianity problem. As I said it surviving, and having interesting things does not prove it. There are other things that have a huge amount of information stacked on its side.[/quote]

I’m sorry, buddy. But you did miss my point. Making some unverifiable claim like “Jesus raised my dog from the dead, and then vanished into thin air”, and then saying “I’m right, because you can’t prove me wrong” doesn’t make any logical sense. This is the basis of your “bible is truth” argument. It just doesn’t hold water.

This is more of the same. By your reasoning, you have just as much reason to follow the Green Bunny – no, I correct myself – you have MORE reason to follow the Green Bunny than to follow Jesus. The Green Bunny at least teaches you kungfu, right? And let’s not forget how fun our Sunday morning smokefests are. Church rules! :slight_smile:

I have respect for it as an embattled work of art. This is different than the reverence that you feel for it.

[quote]If it is slow motion than I think your Green bunny needs to do more westside DM days!
[/quote]

The Green One is fast as shit. He loves westside. Seeing a Green Bunny bench press is pretty unreal. We only see him when we’re really baked, but I’m sure that has nothing to do with it! :slight_smile:

156

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
I’m sorry, buddy. But you did miss my point. Making some unverifiable claim like “Jesus raised my dog from the dead, and then vanished into thin air”, and then saying “I’m right, because you can’t prove me wrong” doesn’t make any logical sense. This is the basis of your “bible is truth” argument. It just doesn’t hold water.
[/quote]

No, i’m sorry you’re wrong… your analogy doesnt apply here.

No one would believe you (i think you would agree) so your claim would die right there… people obviously believed He rose from the dead at that time - when it happened, they must have had some kind of proof, like, oh i dont know… some eye-witnesses or something.

So what haney was saying is that NOW when you say that you cant “prove it” your trying to refute what they said 2000 years ago (the four testimonies) with no proof of your own… he’s also claiming that they didnt prove his non-existense back then… so now with your claims that he doesnt exist, how will you prove it now?

you’re ananology neglects almost his entire statement… you merely focused on the “prove the bible is wrong” and not on the four testimonies and the inability of the jews to produce a body.

a more accurate analogy would be: “i claim Jesus raised my dog from the dead… many saw it… four wrote about it… and those who were against me failed to produce proof that He didnt (for example some of the dog’s blood). then 2000 years pass, still no one can prove other wise.”

157

[quote]MentalMuscle wrote:

What is your obsession with marriage, Prof? It is a ceremony. Plain and simple. [/quote]

Yes, a religious ceremony which is why that priest/preacher was there standing in front of you. You have yet to write about how you allowed this to happen with your “lack of belief” and thoughts that believing in God makes you pitiful. You have spent several posts only showing that you have no foundation of values. You clearly seem to only do whatever is cute at the moment. For you to be right in anything you have written, your marriage would have to be a pitiful display of religious ceremony that you simply did with no concept of why or for what reason. Your lack of center about right and wrong would also question how you place love within that scheme and how you handle your own daily contradictions.

158

A scientist actually spontaneously created amino acids from a mixture of gases representing the primordial atmosphere and some electricity to simulate lightening.

Faith is logical jump. It isn’t rational that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being that created and controls everything. The arguement that an Intelligent Designer must have designed the world to be as it is today is often based on the miniscule chance of the spontaneous creation of life. Still, it is a possiblity, just like that great possibility of a god that Professor X wrote about. Intelligent Design is typically a pursuit of Christians to blend science and religion. The two most cited Intelligent Design scientists are Michael Behe and William Dembski, both of the Discovery Institute in Seattle. Coincidentally, they are largley funded by Christian foundations.

http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

159

[quote]Professor X wrote:

You have spent several posts only showing that you have no foundation of values. You clearly seem to only do whatever is cute at the moment…Your lack of center about right and wrong would also question how you place love within that scheme and how you handle your own daily contradictions.[/quote]

You know, I said I was jumping out of this conversation, but reading what transpired over the last day really got me going.

I’ve got to say, Prof, that on the whole you’ve got to be the most bigoted and hypocritical SOB I’ve ever seen post on these forums. You take offense at analogies like the multi-colored Bunny gods, yet feel free to be dismissive and critical of others’ beliefs. You continue to insist that your little book of fables is the sole source of morality and ethics in the world, despite evidence that other religions, countless cultures which were primarily atheist or multi-theist (think Greeks and Romans)–and even advanced mammalian groupings like wolf packs, great ape families, etc.–all exhibit standards of behavior that are completely in line with your beloved “commandments.” And the fact that many of those pre-dated Moses doesn’t make you the least bit suspicious that you Christians didn’t think up this stuff??

Read back to the beginnings of this thread, and all the talk about “narrowmindedness.” Sound like anybody we know, Prof??

It’s one thing to believe what you wish and vigorously debate those beliefs in a fair exchange. It’s another entirely to engage in ad hominem attacks on your opponents, continually claiming the moral high ground when you know little or nothing about the person across the internet ethers from you.

The bottom line is, your bullying and smug demeanor does nothing to bolster your weak, perhaps even non-existent, claims regarding the veracity of your christian god. If anything, you simply offer proof to the contrary, because if your beloved sandal-wearing Son of God actually existed, he’d probably already have come back to smack you across the head for your decidedly “un-christian” ways.

Later…

160

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:

It’s one thing to believe what you wish and vigorously debate those beliefs in a fair exchange. It’s another entirely to engage in ad hominem attacks on your opponents, continually claiming the moral high ground when you know little or nothing about the person across the internet ethers from you…[/quote]

If this isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is. Not one person insulted anyone’s point of view until YOU and one other atheist jumped into the forum to degrade those with religious beliefs. You can dish it but can’t take it.