Hey guys!

You certainly made no distinctions in your initial post.
You have become a little more reasonable...
I was harsh to begin with because you were too.
I'd say the next time you find somebody who fits your description ask them why they are being the way they are.
All we really have is certain people being obnoxious on both sides.
Wow, big deal.
Sorry...actually, no I'm not since you neg repped me for being as brutal as you.

 

I'm too fucking metal, ya seeeee?

 

Nope.

 

certainly no one believing in christianity has ever thought themselves more worthy a person than someone who does not

never!

all it really takes to be an atheist is to believe in what you see, as opposed to what you imagine

 

I just get annoyed with religious people who are always concerned about heaven and hell. Christians that live in the moment, here and now, I am typically very cool with. Those tend to be the most Christ-like Christians anyways, IME.

 

I choose.....BOTH!

 

actually i tend to do both as well

i would be a lousy atheist except for this:

what i imagine is not yahweh . . .

 

Actually it is a fundamental aspect of perception that we see to believe and believe to see. Doesn't matter if you are atheist or theist. We believe in what we see and we look for what we believe.

 

well, perhaps it is a fundamental aspect of your perception, but not mine

i see in order to avoid country-western records, and being hit by cars

[i don't even know what "we look for what we believe" means]

 

do not confusing seeing and interpreting

i may see a child run over by a car [or forced to listen to country-western records] and interpret it one way or another [dumb kid, bad driver, need to put a stop sign there, luck, coincidence, whatever]

a theist will invariably interpret these tragedies differently; in fact, one or both of them may not even be tragic to their way of thinking

this because they imagine a deity who was calling the child home or had some "purpose" in mind or some other such nonsense

[and, yeah, they tell me he likes country-western]

 

I mean you are unlikely to produce evidence supporting my arguments.
We naturally look for the evidence that supports our own perceptions.

 

well, when yahweh appears to me [at the scene of an accident or elsewhere] i'll let you know . . .

until then, what the fuck am i supposed to think?

 

The sounds in my mind just come to me, how about you?

 

i'm a musician, that's how i write music

listening to it, you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that it came from god

no, the troubled noises i hear come from a troubled mind

either that, or god is really messed up

 

I meant by making this thread. And this time I'm not calling you dumb just to be cute; you jackass.

You are bitching about other people's ideology that there is reason to bitch about other people's ideology.

 

hmmm.. I didn't know you were so sensitive.

You are aware this is a predominantly non Christian site, right? I think that any of the Christians who CHOOSE to be here can probably handle being challenged.

If you'd rather be around Christians attacking atheists, chill on sites like this.
www.christianforums.com/

or, if it's the confrontation that just makes you well up deep inside your soul, maybe you should gtfo of forums like this, because that's pretty much what happens.

Just a tip, you're welcome.

 

Intellect is the ability to learn. The difference between not being able to learn, and refusing to learn, is the arrogance involved. To refuse the knowledge of evolution because it does not fit with yours, is very very backwards.

You seem to be under the impression that religion is the only unreasonable idea atheists disagree with. And that's just not true. In fact, I could care less what someone thinks about the universe, but if they are equating that with legislature and suicide bombings, then we have a problem.

This is about how people are governing themselves, and unfortunately, also how they are governing (and or hurting) other people.

 

I assume your using the word "yours" in the generic sense, since I don't recall anybody here rejecting evolution. If so, I concur. I've been in the Christian Sanctuary for the past few weeks, particularly on the thread concerning whether or not the earth is 6,000 years old. I should have known, but it hadn't sunk in before, that some Christians are still essentially living in the Bronze Age, not only rejecting evolution but large swaths of paleontolgy, geology, archaeology and history, to the extent that they conflict with biblical literalism. When I cite scientific studies and scholarship, I get a derisive brushoff. Don't I know those academic fuddy duddies are out to lunch, and that any evidence they present is falsified, propaganda, and/or just plain mistaken? In fact, it's suggested, they're may even be inspired by Satan, who me must be constantly looking out for. These positions are probably beyond rational argument, since the mechanisms behind them are strongly reinforced by social pressure and psychological needs. What's disturbing is that support for them is rapidly growing, and being translated into political action, with possibly devastating consequences for our future.

But that's just a viral form of Christianity. I have a strong commitment to Progressive Christianity, which I consider to be a plausible hypothesis to be evaluated on the basis of new arguments and evidence. I think sometimes atheists treat Progressive Christianity as though it doesn't exist, or is some kind of wishy washy compromise with fundamentalism (See Sam Harris, The End of Faith). Atheists like the "Four Horsemen" limit their effectiveness when they paint with too broad a brush, fail to recognize the limits of science, and often show an ignorance of the religious literature they're generalizing about because they don't consider it worth their time to try to understand it.

 

I don't mean to turn this into an interview but I'm curious.

What exactly is your plausible hypothesis and what is its function?

And what do you mean by "limits of science".

From what I understand, most atheist aren't against the idea of god, but rather why people believe in the idea. My past belief doesn't make since to me now either, because I'm much happier now than when i was a christian, and that's exactly the point. The "Four horsemen" have at least considered the idea, while consideration is exactly what the dogmas of "viral forms" of religions suppress.

 

I think it's very close minded and arrogant to believe that athe only truth is what little we can see now with our very very limitd understaning of the universe around us. In the last 50 years the scientific community just figured out it as wrong about it's entire understanding of matter and the universe. Anti-matter, black holes, practally everything known as 'fact' has changed in the last 50 years.

Science is only now moving past the stage of infancy. You're takeing guesses, assumptions, and the vaguest facts which are still probably being misunderstood and misinterpreted and calling that ultimate truth. It's arrogant, it's ignoriant... and it's just plain lazy. So is theology for the most part, but my whole point is you're not any better.