Athiest Playbook

[ChrisL]

That's nonsense. An agnostics knows that there is no philosophical answer wether god exists or not. Agnosticism is a philosophy not a religion. An Atheist believes not in god (or transcendence or spirituality). He thinks a-atheists(=theists=Jew+Christians+Muslim+...) are wrong. The big problem of atheists is to to think that they could be wrong on their own. God could exist.

Agnosticism is a cowardly position to take.

Again: Agnosticism is not a religious position. It's a philosophy. For Christians philosophies are important because we believe "god is logos". But not everyone thinks in categories of philosophy; God loves this people too.

It is the non-offensive way to be an atheist. We can all be defined agnostic.

I'm agnostic on my own - and I'm Catholic. Agnosticism is part of my philosophy, Catholicism part of my christian religion.

Even the most devout Christian has a hair of doubt. Even the most staunch atheist isn't completely closed to the possibility.

We are all some unmeasurable mix of theist/atheist. It could be 49.999/50.001 but we all more to one side than the other.

That's exactly not this what agnosticism says. Agnosticism knows 100% that no one knows wether god exists or not.

Taken an agnostic position on the matter is like saying, "I have to talk to sound smart but I'm not going to defend anything." If you are afraid of the debate then why bother sticking your head into the discussion?

Not at all. It is saying, "I am not ruling out the possibility, but since there is no evidence . . . I am skeptical" There is nothing wrong with that position

When god created existance he was not existing because there was no existance. So you know now: God was once not existing when nothing was existing. If we speak about "Holy is he who never begun and who always was" then we speak not about a form of existance what's able to be thought in categories of philosophies or sciences. You can believe it or let it be to believe this. That's all.

and it is more honest than saying there definitely is or definitely is not a God. Also, many agnostics might even believe in a higher power but that it is not the Christian God or the Muslim God, or whatever god someone else may believe in. Also, many agnostics do not believe in any of the "organized religions" since they were made up by ancient men who were ignorant of the world around them. They attributed such things as volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes and other such events to "works of God" or "the gods are angry, time to sacrifice a virgin or a sheep."

You defend your belief - better to say: you agress your belief and your belief is just simple atheism. You are not skeptic in case of atheism.

I don't know if you meant to quote me here, but I am not an atheist since I do not know whether or not there is a "higher power."

We are for example not able to produce energy. But energy exists. This energy came from a higher power. Now you know that there was once a higher power.

That is to say, there is the possibility

Agnosticism speaks not about possibilities. Agnosticism speaks about what we are able to know about the existance of god. And the result is: We are not able to know wether god exists or not.

but since there is no evidence of a higher power in existence, I reserve some skepticism, perhaps a lot.

The problem is you are not able to build a falsifyable hypothese about the existance of the creator of existance.

Also, believing in the possibility

sigh

of a "higher power" doesn't mean it has to be the Christian, Muslim or whomever's "god." It could be something completely different. I can say without much doubt that I do not believe in the organized religions though. Atheists believe that there is no higher power or god.

So why is something here and not only nothing here?

agnostic
[ag-nos-tik]

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God,and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic,secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge insome area of study.
3.
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:
Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

Give me the writing of Socrates where he said so, then you will understand why I doubt in definitions in general. And furthermore: I read your other answer before. You started with a senseless counterquestion, continued with intentional ignorace and hurted the maxime "live and let live". Then you used an empty phrase for an agressive attack in the kind "You are wrong". Did you stomp with your foot this moment? And then you tried to flee in definitions. So: Calm down first and start to think on your own. Some ideological phrases help no one anything.

Let me say now something to this definition. A synonym for agnostic is here for example "unbeliever". But "a-gnostic" means "not to know" verbally. Who not knows has to believe. I believe in god (my religion) and I am an agnostic (my philosophy), because I don't know wether god exists or not. Since Christians are existing we say "We believe in god". This means normally: not to know but to trust in god.

Why should I do that? You "doubt" definitions? Lol. Okay.

I am going to ask questions of the Christians and other religious people, even HARD questions (OMG). If you don't like that, too bad. I have "attacked" no one, fool. Flee in definitions? Er, no, posting facts if not fleeing in definitions, and I am calm. You seem to be the one who is bothered by my questions. Oh well, sucks to be you I guess.

Right, I am an agnostic. Anything else I can help you with?

 

[ChrisL]

So, you think the scientists, archaeologists and others who discovered and studied these bones, which are well described and talked about in textbooks are lies or what?

Also, what is your personal belief? Do tell.

I believe what the scientists and archaeologists say. It doesn't matter if it is true or not. I believe it and lots of others believe it. That alone makes it important. The truth is irrelevant. What is relevant is whatever source binds us together as a people. Science and archaeology binds us here in the United States and that is our culture. You have to believe what scientists say or you will be labelled an idiot and cast out of society. I'm not going to challenge them.

What personal beliefs do you want to know about? I am an atheist that believes Christianity is the most awesome religion on the planet. I believe that Mormonism is the second most awesome religion on the planet. I believe that what I personally experience is the only thing that is verifiable. The other things that I believe are based upon my biased confidence in the person(s) making the claim and their persuasive description of their beliefs. I can't prove any of the things that scientist say are true. You can call me a skeptic. I'm skeptical but not cynical. Just because something is a lie doesn't mean that it lacks philosophical merit. Perhaps I am a Kantian by virtue.

Science has produced much evidence. I really don't know what you are skeptical about when it comes to fossils and other solid evidence. You can actually go to museums and see some of these fossils for yourself too.

when they dig them out of the ground do they have etchings in the bone that say tyrannosaurus 2.4 so they can fit them in the evolutionary table correctly?.......

So, you don't believe in the dating methods that the scientists use? What are you arguing about? You think the earth is only as old as Christianity? Perhaps you should clarify the argument you are making against fossils here.

 

[ChrisL]

But the cross was not originally a Christian symbol. It was a pagan symbol, which was borrowed and changed to fit Christianity.

lol......where did you hear that one?.....

Research. The cross as well as other symbols and holidays are a mishmash of a bunch of different beliefs. You didn't know that? For example, the symbol of the Christmas tree was borrowed from pagans.

 

[ChrisL]

The major religions like to present a reality where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. It all gets back to the threats and the fear mongering that is at the core of faith based religions such as christianity and islam.

If they can assign a title of "human being" to what is in the womb from the instant of pregnancy then they believe they have the authority to speak for said human being. If the unborn pregnancy is not a human being with all the rights given to live births then their house of cards never gets built.

These religious zealots believe ALL abortion is the murder of a human being. Therefore all parting out and distribution of cells for research is likewise partially responsible for murder.

The truth is that christians and muslims are clinically crazy...insane. There is no future in wanting christian's and muslim's votes. Take your votes and shove them where the sun don't shine. You are wrong about so many things it just boggles the mind on where to start.

The courts have ruled essentially that most abortions are just NONE of your damned business. THAT is your answer to that condition. Deal with it.

I don't think they are insane. I think they just don't question things and believe what they are told to believe. They fear questioning their God (s) and their beliefs and customs.

 

[sealybobo]

Who would lead us off this rock or to solving global warming or cures? .

certainly not a liberal....when has a liberal ever had an intelligent thought....

Carl Sagan baby. I love the stupid comebacks from you nutjobs. Makes me feel like I stumped you guys

 

[sealybobo]

I truly believe we can survive long after this planet expires. Long after our entire solar system expires. But we can't use up all our natural resources first. Wtf? We are wasting time on bullshit like no offense but who's God is the true God? Who gives a fuck? And if Muslims want a holy war maybe Christians and Jews need to change their behaviors because its not completely good vs. Evil. I'll pick Christianity all day everyday over Islam but only as a lesser of two evils. I say no offense to Christians because they aren't evil, just ignorant for believing lies.

the funny part is, if a Muslim were only allowed to kill one person and had to choose between a Christian and an atheist, they would likely kill the atheist first.......

Exactly cause you are two different nuts in a bag of mixed nuts.

 

[sealybobo]

Interesting to know we are the fastest growing segment of the population

Have you see the statistic that says of children who were raised atheist, only 30 percent remain atheist? As opposed to those who were raised Catholic, 68 percent, remained Catholic.

I ask because I always regard statistics with suspicion. In my small circle of atheists, that statistic doesn't seem to bear out (as all have remained atheists), but then I don't have a large circle of atheists from which to draw.

In other words a lot of people who's parents weren't religious become religious?

I don't know about those statistics but I can speculate. A lot of people that were raised "athiest" might just mean their parents didn't practice or talk about religion. The 70% of there children end up hearing about religion and get sucked in. Then they try to convert their parents.

Athiests like you and me would educate our kids and the chances of them falling for a religion would be much lower.

I am not an atheist. I'm one of those 68 percenters who was born and raised Catholic and am still Catholic. However, my grandfather was an atheist and so is my uncle. I married an atheist, and my brother-in-law is an atheist as well.

Do you think your husband is going to hell? Cherry picker. Lol.

Glad to see you don't let a fairytale stop you from being happy. A real Christian would never marry an athiest.

 

[zaangalewa]

That's nonsense. An agnostics knows that there is no philosophical answer wether god exists or not. Agnosticism is a philosophy not a religion. An Atheist believes not in god (or transcendence or spirituality). He thinks a-atheists(=theists=Jew+Christians+Muslim+...) are wrong. The big problem of atheists is to to think that they could be wrong on their own. God could exist.

Again: Agnosticism is not a religious position. It's a philosophy. For Christians philosophies are important because we believe "god is logos". But not everyone thinks in categories of philosophy; God loves this people too.

I'm agnostic on my own - and I'm Catholic. Agnosticism is part of my philosophy, Catholicism part of my christian religion.

That's exactly not this what agnosticism says. Agnosticism knows 100% that no one knows wether god exists or not.

When god created existance he was not existing because there was no existance. So you know now: God was once not existing when nothing was existing. If we speak about "Holy is he who never begun and who always was" then we speak not about a form of existance what's able to be thought in categories of philosophies or sciences. You can believe it or let it be to believe this. That's all.

You defend your belief - better to say: you agress your belief and your belief is just simple atheism. You are not skeptic in case of atheism.

I don't know if you meant to quote me here, but I am not an atheist since I do not know whether or not there is a "higher power."

We are for example not able to produce energy. But energy exists. This energy came from a higher power. Now you know that there was once a higher power.

That is to say, there is the possibility

Agnosticism speaks not about possibilities. Agnosticism speaks about what we are able to know about the existance of god. And the result is: We are not able to know wether god exists or not.

but since there is no evidence of a higher power in existence, I reserve some skepticism, perhaps a lot.

The problem is you are not able to build a falsifyable hypothese about the existance of the creator of existance.

Also, believing in the possibility

sigh

of a "higher power" doesn't mean it has to be the Christian, Muslim or whomever's "god." It could be something completely different. I can say without much doubt that I do not believe in the organized religions though. Atheists believe that there is no higher power or god.

So why is something here and not only nothing here?

agnostic
[ag-nos-tik]

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God,and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic,secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge insome area of study.
3.
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:
Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

Give me the writing of Socrates where he said so, then you will understand why I doubt in definitions in general. And furthermore: I read your other answer before. You started with a senseless counterquestion, continued with intentional ignorace and hurted the maxime "live and let live". Then you used an empty phrase for an agressive attack in the kind "You are wrong". Did you stomp with your foot this moment? And then you tried to flee in definitions. So: Calm down first and start to think on your own. Some ideological phrases help no one anything.

Let me say now something to this definition. A synonym for agnostic is here for example "unbeliever". But "a-gnostic" means "not to know" verbally. Who not knows has to believe. I believe in god (my religion) and I am an agnostic (my philosophy), because I don't know wether god exists or not. Since Christians are existing we say "We believe in god". This means normally: not to know but to trust in god.

Why should I do that?

Why should you do what?

You "doubt" definitions? Lol. Okay.

I am going to ask questions of the Christians and other religious people, even HARD questions (OMG). If you don't like that, too bad. I have "attacked" no one, fool.

Not?

Flee in definitions? Er, no, posting facts if not fleeing in definitions, and I am calm. You seem to be the one who is bothered by my questions. Oh well, sucks to be you I guess.

Fascinating.

Right, I am an agnostic. Anything else I can help you with?

Best greetings to your mother. Tell her I don't think it's her fault.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't know if you meant to quote me here, but I am not an atheist since I do not know whether or not there is a "higher power."

We are for example not able to produce energy. But energy exists. This energy came from a higher power. Now you know that there was once a higher power.

That is to say, there is the possibility

Agnosticism speaks not about possibilities. Agnosticism speaks about what we are able to know about the existance of god. And the result is: We are not able to know wether god exists or not.

but since there is no evidence of a higher power in existence, I reserve some skepticism, perhaps a lot.

The problem is you are not able to build a falsifyable hypothese about the existance of the creator of existance.

Also, believing in the possibility

sigh

of a "higher power" doesn't mean it has to be the Christian, Muslim or whomever's "god." It could be something completely different. I can say without much doubt that I do not believe in the organized religions though. Atheists believe that there is no higher power or god.

So why is something here and not only nothing here?

agnostic
[ag-nos-tik]

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God,and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic,secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge insome area of study.
3.
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:
Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

Give me the writing of Socrates where he said so, then you will understand why I doubt in definitions in general. And furthermore: I read your other answer before. You started with a senseless counterquestion, continued with intentional ignorace and hurted the maxime "live and let live". Then you used an empty phrase for an agressive attack in the kind "You are wrong". Did you stomp with your foot this moment? And then you tried to flee in definitions. So: Calm down first and start to think on your own. Some ideological phrases help no one anything.

Let me say now something to this definition. A synonym for agnostic is here for example "unbeliever". But "a-gnostic" means "not to know" verbally. Who not knows has to believe. I believe in god (my religion) and I am an agnostic (my philosophy), because I don't know wether god exists or not. Since Christians are existing we say "We believe in god". This means normally: not to know but to trust in god.

Why should I do that?

Why should you do what?

You "doubt" definitions? Lol. Okay.

I am going to ask questions of the Christians and other religious people, even HARD questions (OMG). If you don't like that, too bad. I have "attacked" no one, fool.

Not?

Flee in definitions? Er, no, posting facts if not fleeing in definitions, and I am calm. You seem to be the one who is bothered by my questions. Oh well, sucks to be you I guess.

Fascinating.

Right, I am an agnostic. Anything else I can help you with?

Best greetings to your mother. Tell her I don't think it's her fault.

I apologize for calling you a fool, but that is how you are behaving here. I didn't attack anyone. I am asking questions and stating some pretty well known facts, despite your denials.

Yeah, I get it. You don't like it when people even question your beliefs, and you feel that is an attack upon you. I suggest you don't participate in these types of discussions if you feel any questioning of your beliefs and/or customs is an attack.

 

[Meriweather]

Glad to see you don't let a fairytale stop you from being happy. A real Christian would never marry an athiest.

(Quizzical) Are you telling me that I (and my grandmother before me) cannot call ourselves "real Christians" because we both married atheists? I anxiously await your decision, because if we are not, I need to call up the genealogy data I have input for the family and change our religion from Catholic to.... What do you have in mind? Grin. (I am looking forward to something very creative!)

I think you may be the first atheist who told me someone married to an atheist is not a real Christian. It is usually Protestant fundamentalists who tell me that because I am Catholic, I am not a "real Christian." You have just given them more ammo, me being a Catholic married to an atheist. Hey, thanks a bunch.

Scripture isn't a fairy tale. I truly advise you atheists to stop playing that card because it is the ignorant card, and being married to an atheist (and because I happen to like you) I'm not in favor of atheists looking ignorant. That much torturous twisting of scripture goes beyond painful into ludicrous. It puts you in with the fanatics who won't believe the moon landing took place.

To understand stories like the Great Flood, one cannot approach it with the attitude, "I am an intelligent, knowledgeable person who speaks English, and I have the modern person's basic education/understanding of science, so I know this is a fairy tale. Let me count the ways."

Instead of bringing the above knowledge into your reading of scripture, to do it justice, you must have a knowledge of the culture of the day, a basic understanding of what happens when a language (like Hebrew which uses words that stem from literal concepts) is translated into a language like English which uses abstract concepts. You must have a knowledge of the culture and the author's audience to understand the point he is making in the telling of the story in the way he chose to do so.

Instead, your understanding of science and the English language is making it impossible for you to see the forest for the trees. You are stuck upon the single branch at which you are looking. It is your one branch vision that allows you to spin reality into fairy tale. You cannot see the original theme, so you fabricate one of your own--thus authoring an entirely different story, claiming it is the "true" version of the original. It's not.

Do you think your husband is going to hell? Cherry picker. Lol.

If by "hell" you mean Dante's fictional portrayal of hell (which some Christian fundamentalists believe is the real deal), then no, my husband is not going to Dante's hell. You see, I don't believe in fairy tales. (Psst! Do you know Dante cherry picked a few scripture passages to write Dante's Inferno? Also note, it is Dante's inferno, not God's hell.

I believe people can choose to place an eternal distance between themselves and God. Choosing evil over good can accomplish this. Choosing self over God also creates a distance between the individual and God.

My husband's general feeling is that he would rather rely on himself than rely on anyone else, including having a reliance on God. I don't believe God is going to roast him for this, but if my husband remains with this conviction, I do believe God will give him the distance needed where he can rely on himself.

 

[zaangalewa]

We are for example not able to produce energy. But energy exists. This energy came from a higher power. Now you know that there was once a higher power.

Agnosticism speaks not about possibilities. Agnosticism speaks about what we are able to know about the existance of god. And the result is: We are not able to know wether god exists or not.

The problem is you are not able to build a falsifyable hypothese about the existance of the creator of existance.

sigh

So why is something here and not only nothing here?

agnostic
[ag-nos-tik]

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God,and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic,secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge insome area of study.
3.
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:
Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

Give me the writing of Socrates where he said so, then you will understand why I doubt in definitions in general. And furthermore: I read your other answer before. You started with a senseless counterquestion, continued with intentional ignorace and hurted the maxime "live and let live". Then you used an empty phrase for an agressive attack in the kind "You are wrong". Did you stomp with your foot this moment? And then you tried to flee in definitions. So: Calm down first and start to think on your own. Some ideological phrases help no one anything.

Let me say now something to this definition. A synonym for agnostic is here for example "unbeliever". But "a-gnostic" means "not to know" verbally. Who not knows has to believe. I believe in god (my religion) and I am an agnostic (my philosophy), because I don't know wether god exists or not. Since Christians are existing we say "We believe in god". This means normally: not to know but to trust in god.

Why should I do that?

Why should you do what?

You "doubt" definitions? Lol. Okay.

I am going to ask questions of the Christians and other religious people, even HARD questions (OMG). If you don't like that, too bad. I have "attacked" no one, fool.

Not?

Flee in definitions? Er, no, posting facts if not fleeing in definitions, and I am calm. You seem to be the one who is bothered by my questions. Oh well, sucks to be you I guess.

Fascinating.

Right, I am an agnostic. Anything else I can help you with?

Best greetings to your mother. Tell her I don't think it's her fault.

I apologize for calling you a fool,

?

is how you are behaving here.

I understand. You had to call me fool because of my foolish behavior - so I forced you to make wrong what you did not like to make wrong.

I didn't attack anyone.

Good to know. But can it be your self-perception is not the best? My perception of you is: You dont have a big idea what you are speaking about, but you like to tell others you are right and they are wrong. You seem to think if someone says you are right this would be important.

I am asking questions and stating some pretty well known facts, despite your denials.

You speak with your thoughts - not with me.

Yeah, I get it.

?

You don't like it when people even question your beliefs, and you feel that is an attack upon you. I suggest you don't participate in these types of discussions if you feel any questioning of your beliefs and/or customs is an attack.

You still speak with your thoughts and not with me. It's for me personally completly unimportant what you believe or not. I tried to speak with you only about some worse philosophical mistakes.

 

[sealybobo]

Glad to see you don't let a fairytale stop you from being happy. A real Christian would never marry an athiest.

(Quizzical) Are you telling me that I (and my grandmother before me) cannot call ourselves "real Christians" because we both married atheists? I anxiously await your decision, because if we are not, I need to call up the genealogy data I have input for the family and change our religion from Catholic to.... What do you have in mind? Grin. (I am looking forward to something very creative!)

I think you may be the first atheist who told me someone married to an atheist is not a real Christian. It is usually Protestant fundamentalists who tell me that because I am Catholic, I am not a "real Christian." You have just given them more ammo, me being a Catholic married to an atheist. Hey, thanks a bunch.

Scripture isn't a fairy tale. I truly advise you atheists to stop playing that card because it is the ignorant card, and being married to an atheist (and because I happen to like you) I'm not in favor of atheists looking ignorant. That much torturous twisting of scripture goes beyond painful into ludicrous. It puts you in with the fanatics who won't believe the moon landing took place.

To understand stories like the Great Flood, one cannot approach it with the attitude, "I am an intelligent, knowledgeable person who speaks English, and I have the modern person's basic education/understanding of science, so I know this is a fairy tale. Let me count the ways."

Instead of bringing the above knowledge into your reading of scripture, to do it justice, you must have a knowledge of the culture of the day, a basic understanding of what happens when a language (like Hebrew which uses words that stem from literal concepts) is translated into a language like English which uses abstract concepts. You must have a knowledge of the culture and the author's audience to understand the point he is making in the telling of the story in the way he chose to do so.

Instead, your understanding of science and the English language is making it impossible for you to see the forest for the trees. You are stuck upon the single branch at which you are looking. It is your one branch vision that allows you to spin reality into fairy tale. You cannot see the original theme, so you fabricate one of your own--thus authoring an entirely different story, claiming it is the "true" version of the original. It's not.

Do you think your husband is going to hell? Cherry picker. Lol.

If by "hell" you mean Dante's fictional portrayal of hell (which some Christian fundamentalists believe is the real deal), then no, my husband is not going to Dante's hell. You see, I don't believe in fairy tales. (Psst! Do you know Dante cherry picked a few scripture passages to write Dante's Inferno? Also note, it is Dante's inferno, not God's hell.

I believe people can choose to place an eternal distance between themselves and God. Choosing evil over good can accomplish this. Choosing self over God also creates a distance between the individual and God.

My husband's general feeling is that he would rather rely on himself than rely on anyone else, including having a reliance on God. I don't believe God is going to roast him for this, but if my husband remains with this conviction, I do believe God will give him the distance needed where he can rely on himself.

I will go back and read the rest of your post but I want to start with your husband being an atheist. So you can sit there and look at the man you love everyday knowing his soul will burn in eternity for all hell? Because that is what your religion believes and if you don't believe that then maybe you're not really a Christian?

 

[Meriweather]

I will go back and read the rest of your post but I want to start with your husband being an atheist. So you can sit there and look at the man you love everyday knowing his soul will burn in eternity for all hell? Because that is what your religion believes and if you don't believe that then maybe you're not really a Christian?

Once you read my post (and I do apologize for its length), you will understand that Christianity does NOT teach the atheist soul will burn in hell for eternity. Some Christian sects teach that is what happens, but that is not the majority of Christians, though perhaps the majority of Christians you know.

The Catholic Church teaches that those who do not follow the Catholic Faith (be they non-Catholic or atheist) are entrusted to the loving kindness and mercy of God. Catholics, Orthodox, and a few other of the larger denominations, have an entirely different approach to the Cross, to Christ, to God, and to hell than the aspects you seem to assign to all of Christianity.

 

[sealybobo]

I will go back and read the rest of your post but I want to start with your husband being an atheist. So you can sit there and look at the man you love everyday knowing his soul will burn in eternity for all hell? Because that is what your religion believes and if you don't believe that then maybe you're not really a Christian?

Once you read my post (and I do apologize for its length), you will understand that Christianity does NOT teach the atheist soul will burn in hell for eternity. Some Christian sects teach that is what happens, but that is not the majority of Christians, though perhaps the majority of Christians you know.

The Catholic Church teaches that those who do not follow the Catholic Faith (be they non-Catholic or atheist) are entrusted to the loving kindness and mercy of God. Catholics, Orthodox, and a few other of the larger denominations, have an entirely different approach to the Cross, to Christ, to God, and to hell than the aspects you seem to assign to all of Christianity.

Let's start from the beginning. Pretend you're a child going into your parents room and you tell them the boogeyman is in your closet. As your parent do you want me to believe you? Are you going to take me and show me the boogie man? But when I don't see the boogie man are you going to swear he was there talking to you? Are your parents smart to not believe you? So you see why we don't believe you the same way you don't believe Muslims or that God talk to Joseph Smith etc

 

[sealybobo]

If we don't believe our children when they tell us stories that cannot be true why do we believe churches when they tell a story that cannot be true?

 

[Meriweather]

Let's start from the beginning. Pretend you're a child going into your parents room and you tell them the boogeyman is in your closet. As your parent do you want me to believe you? Are you going to take me and show me the boogie man? But when I don't see the boogie man are you going to swear he was there talking to you? Are your parents smart to not believe you? So you see why we don't believe you the same way you don't believe Muslims or that God talk to Joseph Smith etc

I come from a family of ten. No one ever had tales of boogeymen in the closet. My older brother used to put his Pop-eye punching bag in the closet and close the door on it every night, because when he woke up in the middle of the night, that form gave him the willies. My sister and I used to try and creep up on our room, throw open the door so we might catch our dolls running back into their original positions. And, of course, we read/listened to stories about "monsters" in closets turning out to be something else entirely. Anyway, no fear of monsters in closets. We girls had absolutely no reservations of pretending to be monsters in closets to try and scare our brothers.

We believed in Santa Claus, tooth fairy, etc., and the group of us had a serious conversation whether we should let on we knew rather than risk the game being over if we confessed we were onto our parents. (Parents pretending to be Santa was way more cool than we pretending to be monsters.)

 

[Vandalshandle]

I will go back and read the rest of your post but I want to start with your husband being an atheist. So you can sit there and look at the man you love everyday knowing his soul will burn in eternity for all hell? Because that is what your religion believes and if you don't believe that then maybe you're not really a Christian?

Once you read my post (and I do apologize for its length), you will understand that Christianity does NOT teach the atheist soul will burn in hell for eternity. Some Christian sects teach that is what happens, but that is not the majority of Christians, though perhaps the majority of Christians you know.

The Catholic Church teaches that those who do not follow the Catholic Faith (be they non-Catholic or atheist) are entrusted to the loving kindness and mercy of God. Catholics, Orthodox, and a few other of the larger denominations, have an entirely different approach to the Cross, to Christ, to God, and to hell than the aspects you seem to assign to all of Christianity.

I'm not sure I buy that. My x-wife was told by her Catholic priest, back in the 1960's, that her first child, who was born dead, could not be buried in hallowed ground, since it had not been baptised; and further, the child would spend eternity in purgatory, separated from my x-wife.

She never stepped foot in a Catholic church again.

 

[Meriweather]

If we don't believe our children when they tell us stories that cannot be true why do we believe churches when they tell a story that cannot be true?

As a very tiny child I had books that old of people in the olden days having experiences of God. That opened up the possibility that anyone could have an experience of God--not just believe in Him. I understood this to be a very rare occurrence--but not unheard of. As I grew, I learned people did have experiences of God--maybe not on the grand order that Abraham and Moses did, because most of them were like Elijah's experience, one of a tiny whispering sound passing by.

The purpose of scripture is not to tell us how rainbows came into being, but rather it seeks to inform us of those "rainbows" we cannot see, those experiences of God. The Bible records experiences of God, which in turn prompts many to seek that experience. Our experiences will never make it into scripture, but as small as they are, they mean a great deal to us--certainly as much as scripture, possibly more.

 

[rdean]

If ever a theist stumps you, come here and post what they said. There isn't one argument for God that doesn't come without some fatal flaw.

Today I was having breakfast and listening to some stupid hillbillies talking about abortion and what the bible says. Then it hits me just how far gone theists are. Where would I even begin with this woman? Doesn't she realize men wrote that book? Why do I care what guys 1500 years ago wrote about a guy 2000 years ago? Imagine if people 1500 years ago could come know what we know now. Do you think people today would swallow such stories? Actually 200 years ago a large segment of us swallowed the Joseph Smith story and Arabs swallow the Mohammad experience.

You're all swallowing a 2000 or 7000 year old story if you count the founders of our lie the Jews. Moses is a myth. Let's stop this nonsense. It's holding us back.

I don't believe what they said happened happened 2000 years ago. So stop telling me what your story book says. We don't buy it! So what other reasons do you think "we are the only animals on this planet that God made in his image"

That is what the woman in the restaurant said. What possibly would make her believe this? A 2000 year old story? Imagine how much smarter we are today than we were 2000 years ago. I really hope we aren't as dumb as we are now 2000 years from now

If only they knew to wash after wiping. I never want to shake that hand.

 

[presonorek]

So, you don't believe in the dating methods that the scientists use? What are you arguing about? You think the earth is only as old as Christianity? Perhaps you should clarify the argument you are making against fossils here.

I don't have any way of knowing if the dating methods of scientist is right. The Christian's method of determining the age of the earth actually is verifiable.

I'm not saying either one is correct. I'm just saying that one is more valid than the other. Why do you believe the dating methods of scientist are accurate or honest?