[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
Of all the things that I can’t understand about atheist’s or what have you. Is the fact that they seem to spend most of their time trying to bash religion, or disprove God.[/quote]
Atheist don’t need to disprove god. It’s up to religious types to prove the existence of god…
[/quote]
Nonsense.
It takes a fair amount of hubris to make this demand. Unmerited hubris.
Atheists have faith. In spades, they have faith.
In fact, it takes far more faith to look at this universe and say, “Nope! Ain’t no God out there, I’m purty darn sure of it.”
[/quote]
Push, you’re just saying words, there’s nothing behind them.
And my statement is not nonsense. If you and I are out taking a stroll through the woods and we come upon an old cabin and you turn to me and say “you know Edge, I do believe there’s a beach ball in this here cabin, as matter of fact I’m sure of it.”
I look sideways at you and say “you’re kidding, right?”
You say “No, I’m sure of it, there’s a beach ball in this cabin”.
I’m going to say prove it and it’s up to you to do so.
In short; you can’t just make shit up and expect people to believe you without proving it.
He’s very smart, even more knowledgeable (than he is smart), and he’s got the astronomically better argument vis-a-vis his most direct opponent, which is creationism. But he’s a real asshole.
I think Christians are wrong. I also think lots of other people are wrong about all kinds of things. In fact, there probably isn’t a single person on this planet who doesn’t have at least one belief I think incorrect. If I began publicly mocking people with whom I disagree, I’d quickly find myself friendless (and sexually etiolated: Who has ever dated a man/woman of utterly kindred opinions?)
But Sufi is right. None of you believers have to answer for James David Manning’s public conduct, and no atheist has to answer for Dawkins’.
[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
Of all the things that I can’t understand about atheist’s or what have you. Is the fact that they seem to spend most of their time trying to bash religion, or disprove God.[/quote]
Atheist don’t need to disprove god. It’s up to religious types to prove the existence of god…
[/quote]
Nonsense.
It takes a fair amount of hubris to make this demand. Unmerited hubris.
Atheists have faith. In spades, they have faith.
In fact, it takes far more faith to look at this universe and say, “Nope! Ain’t no God out there, I’m purty darn sure of it.”
[/quote]
Push, you’re just saying words, there’s nothing behind them.
And my statement is not nonsense. If you and I are out taking a stroll through the woods and we come upon an old cabin and you turn to me and say “you know Edge, I do believe there’s a beach ball in this here cabin, as matter of fact I’m sure of it.”
I look sideways at you and say “you’re kidding, right?”
You say “No, I’m sure of it, there’s a beach ball in this cabin”.
I’m going to say prove it and it’s up to you to do so.
In short; you can’t just make shit up and expect people to believe you without proving it.[/quote]
Yep.
The burden of proof is on the one who says that the sun froze in the sky and a man rose from the dead after three days and a serpent tempted the first woman (who’d been from a rib) to eat an apple (and this is why our mothers had such a hell of a time giving birth to us) and the first ever man was made from dust and water was walked on and also turned to wine, not on the person who finds no good reason to believe any of it.
That said, Push is right about atheism (as certainty of godlessness): it requires a great deal of faith, possibly more than theism*
i don’t believe that there will ever be proof of God that all will accept.
even in the day’s of Jesus/Yeshua, people saw things IN PERSON that many tried to explain away. i have mentioned before the apostles that were murdered in horrible deaths because they would not deny the things they were witness to and held to be true in their hearts. i am sure their last moments put even william wallace’s death to shame.
of course we all know that many turned on Him and he was taken before the roman leader Pontious Pilate, beaten, nailed to a cross and pierced in his side with a spear, before being taken down from the cross. it is even historically mentioned outside the Bible that it became very dark at that time, although it is explained away as an eclipse of the sun. what a coincidence eh?
(it was also argued that because no roman records were ever found [and they kept meticulous records] with Pilate’s name, that the Bible was then historically incorrect. as always and almost as if by design his place in history was proven aside from Biblical mention by archeologists.)
even evidence of Israel’s King David (David & Goliath) was only recently discovered by archeologists.
the Bible is actually not a religious book; it is a history book of God’s dealings with mankind.
there is a reason, no matter what atheists try,that the Bible has been called “the anvil that wears out all hammers.”
…
CAMELS IN GENESIS PROVE OLD TESTAMENT IS “VERY ACCURATE,” PROFESSOR CLAIMS AS HE REFUTES ARCHAEOLOGISTS’ FINDINGS [Excerpts]
A professor of theology and Hebrew from Illinois has refuted the claims of Israeli archaeologists that camels could not have been used for transportation by Jewish patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob because the animals weren’t domesticated in Israel until hundreds of years after they lived.
"What these archaeologists are doing… is when they read about somebody like Abraham having camels, they’re saying, “Aha! The Bible is saying that camels were widespread in Palestine during this period of time, and there’s no archaeological evidence for that,” Dr. Andrew Steinmann of Concordia University-Chicago tells Issues, Etc., a Christian radio station.
Two archaeologists at Tel Aviv University, Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen, claimed earlier this month they have dated the earliest domesticated camels to the end of the 10th century BC. “In addition to challenging the Bible’s historicity, this anachronism is direct proof that the text was compiled well after the events it describes,” the university said in a statement.
Steinmann agrees there’s no archaeological evidence for widespread use of camels in Palestine at this time, but adds that that’s not what the Bible is saying.
Amy Hall, a staff with the Christian group Stand to Reason, has transcribed the professor’s interview on her blog.
“What it is showing is that somebody who originally came from Mesopotamia, like Abraham, he did have some camels,” she quotes the professor as saying. “And then the other mentions of camels in Genesis and in the early part of the Bible have to do with either people related to Abraham that were living in the Arabian Desert (for instance, the Ishmaelites…have camels when they come and buy Joseph and take him down to Egypt), or other peoples like that, associated with the Arabian Desert - the Amalekites…who live on the edge of the Arabian Desert are mentioned a number of times having camels. But there’s no mention of Israelites owning camels…”
Steinmann was also asked about the charge that the new archaeological finding is proof that “someone’s been tampering with the text and unwittingly gave themselves away by putting camels in Abraham’s possession.”
On the contrary, the findings show that Old Testament accounts are “very accurate,” the professor responds. “Because they confine it to people from Mesopotamia or the Arabian Peninsula. If this person was going to give himself away, you would expect [to see] him depicting the Canaanites having camels, or people like that. But he doesn’t say the Canaanites or the Phoenicians are making extensive use of camels.”
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
smh fun fact…what was the first liquid and food consumed on the moon?[/quote]
Yes, I know.
I have always found great irony in this.
Space, which gives us some of the simplest and best reasons to conclude that the Genesis account of creation is fiction, playing host–get it?–to the Sacrament of Communion.
Gagarin was reportedly the first to eat in space, and ate three 160 g toothpaste-type tubes, containing two servings of puréed meat and one serving of chocolate sauce.
[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
Of all the things that I can’t understand about atheist’s or what have you. Is the fact that they seem to spend most of their time trying to bash religion, or disprove God.[/quote]
Atheist don’t need to disprove god. It’s up to religious types to prove the existence of god…
[/quote]
Nonsense.
It takes a fair amount of hubris to make this demand. Unmerited hubris.
Atheists have faith. In spades, they have faith.
In fact, it takes far more faith to look at this universe and say, “Nope! Ain’t no God out there, I’m purty darn sure of it.”
[/quote]
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
smh fun fact…what was the first liquid and food consumed on the moon?[/quote]
Yes, I know.
I have always found great irony in this.
Space, which gives us some of the simplest and best reasons to conclude that the Genesis account of creation is fiction, playing host–get it?–to the Sacrament of Communion.[/quote]
What irony? What has the one to do with the other?
Well I found this enlightening…
Is this the real atheism? Has it shown it’s true face?
“Mock them, ridicule them, in public”
“… need to be ridiculed with contempt”
How many atheists believe Richard Dawkins? We should be mocked and ridiculed for our beliefs? This isn’t non-belief, this is raw, pure hatred. I want to hear from atheists, do you practice what is preached?[/quote]
Pat, I believe that Dawkins has a brilliant mind, and agree with a large portion of what he says. That being said, I also believe that he’s a poor messenger of non-belief. I have a hard time listening to him speak, as he has a very unpleasant personality. I don’t hate the guy, I just think that his personality is very grating.
Listening to Dawkins, makes me miss Hitchens even more.
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
smh fun fact…what was the first liquid and food consumed on the moon?[/quote]
Yes, I know.
I have always found great irony in this.
Space, which gives us some of the simplest and best reasons to conclude that the Genesis account of creation is fiction, playing host–get it?–to the Sacrament of Communion.[/quote]
i don’t know those reasons as sure as i am that you know nothing about certain scientific observations/discoveries (rarely ever put out on media) that appear as if they are the way they are by design.
for those who don’t know the first food & drink taken on the moon:
Forty-four years ago two human beings changed history by walking on the
surface of the moon. But what happened before Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong
exited the Lunar Module is perhaps even more amazing, if only because so few
people know about it. “I’m talking about the fact that Buzz Aldrin took
communion on the surface of the moon. Some months after his return.” he
wrote about it in Guideposts.
The background to the story is that Aldrin was an elder at his Presbyterian
Church in Texas during this period in his life, and knowing that he would
soon be doing something unprecedented in human history, he felt he should
mark the occasion somehow, and he asked his minister to help him. And so the
minister consecrated a communion wafer and a small vial of communion wine.
And Buzz Aldrin took them with him out of the Earth’s orbit and on to the
surface of the moon. He and Armstrong had only been on the lunar surface for
a few minutes when Aldrin made the following public statement:
This is the LM pilot. I’d like to take this opportunity to ask every person
listening in, whoever and wherever they may be, to pause for a moment and
contemplate the events of the past few hours and to give thanks in his or
her own way. He then ended radio communication and there, on the silent
surface of the moon, 250,000 miles from home, he read a verse from the
Gospel of John, and he took communion. Here is his own account of what
happened: “In the radio blackout, I opened the little plastic packages which
contained the bread and the wine. I poured the wine into the chalice our
church had given me. In the one-sixth gravity of the moon, the wine slowly
curled and gracefully came up the side of the cup. Then I read the
scripture, 'I am the vine, you are the branches. Whosoever abides in me will
bring forth much fruit …Apart from me you can do nothing.”
“I had intended to read my communion passage back to earth, but at the last
minute [they] had requested that I not do this. NASA was already embroiled
in a legal battle with Madelyn Murray O’Hare, the celebrated opponent of
religion, over the Apollo 8 crew reading from Genesis while orbiting the
moon at Christmas. I agreed … Reluctantly.”
“I ate the tiny Host and swallowed the wine. I gave thanks for the
intelligence and spirit that had brought two young pilots to the Sea of
Tranquility . It was interesting for me to think the very first liquid ever
poured on the moon, and the very first food eaten there, were the communion
elements.”
"And of course, it’s interesting to think that some of the first
words spoken on the moon were the words of Jesus Christ , who made the Earth
and the moon - and Who, in the immortal words of Dante, is Himself the “Love
that moves the Sun and other stars.”
Humorous Side Note: Madalyn Murray O’Hair, a self-avowed atheist also tried to sue NASA because the Apollo 8 astronauts, Anders, Borman and Lovell, read a few Bible verses from the book of Genesis.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So with Fred Phelps dead who will take over as the new Christian? For now I’m going with crazy guy holding the sign at the large public area near where I work.[/quote]
So you liken Richard Dawkins to Fred Phelps?[/quote]
I don’t know about comparisons but he was the first that came to mind. If you had to pick someone to represent Christians in America he is a decent choice you think?[/quote]
Oh good grief. Andy, you are flashing your degree from the University of Pittttbulll again.[/quote]
Still a step up from mensa so at least I’m doing something right.
[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
Of all the things that I can’t understand about atheist’s or what have you. Is the fact that they seem to spend most of their time trying to bash religion, or disprove God.[/quote]
Atheist don’t need to disprove god. It’s up to religious types to prove the existence of god…
[/quote]
Nonsense.
It takes a fair amount of hubris to make this demand. Unmerited hubris.
Atheists have faith. In spades, they have faith.
In fact, it takes far more faith to look at this universe and say, “Nope! Ain’t no God out there, I’m purty darn sure of it.”
[/quote]
[/quote]
Atheism ala Richard Dawkins has a certain dogma to it.
Some people have criticized people of his mind in that their zeal against Theism resembles a sort of dogma about Atheism. I tend to agree.
Also, the first video talks about going to Saudi and criticizing Islam, and that the reaction there would be a lot different. I think this is pretty stupid as well, considering you would get the same result in most places in
Brazil criticizing Christ as you would in Saudi criticizing Islam.
Dawkins also came up with a technical language to categorize belief types that is pretty ignorant towards what are traditionally agnostic positions as well as the etymology of the word Agnostic by categorizing agnostics as either athistic agnostic or theistic agnostic. It’s also retarded towards theists who have faith, in that they are categorized as agnostic theists…
Personally, I think he does the whole religion thing in order put himself out there in a bigger way than most professors. He needs funding and support as a professor and this is his way of getting attention and funding.
I don’t believe in God, therefore, I suppose this could be directed at me, in a wildly general sense.
I never voted for Dawkins to be my leader.
Simply because this guy wants to advocate being a jerk in public to other people, he’s now appointed over me and stands as my representative? Calling myself the leader of the free world doesn’t make me the POTUS.
This also implies there is a group or a movement of which to be a leader. This is a false assumption. I don’t have an atheist/agnostic membership card. Or a mensa card, for that matter…
