Athiest Playbook

[ChrisL]

the earliest religious beliefs recorded were related to paganism, not Christianity. Even Judaism didn't come about until around 4000 years ago.

That is very interesting.

Judaism Origins Judaism History Judaism Beliefs

Judaism is a religious tradition with origins dating back nearly four thousand years, rooted in the ancient near eastern region of Canaan (which is now Israel and Palestinian territories). Originating as the beliefs and practices of the people known as "Israel," classical, or rabbinic, Judaism did not emerge until the 1st century C.E. Judaism traces its heritage to the covenant God made with Abraham and his lineage — that God would make them a sacred people and give them a holy land. The primary figures of Israelite culture include the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the prophet Moses, who received God's law at Mt. Sinai. Judaism is a tradition grounded in the religious, ethical, and social laws as they are articulated in the Torah — the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. Jews refer to the Bible as the Tanakh, an acronym for the texts of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings. Other sacred texts include the Talmud and Midrash, the rabbinic, legal, and narrative interpretations of the Torah. The contemporary branches of J

 

[ChrisL]

An ancient temple devoted to the god Zeus. Credit: MM, Public Domain

Read more: The true meaning of Paganism Ancient Origins
Follow us: @ancientorigins on Twitter | ancientoriginsweb on Facebook

The word "paganism" has come to refer to various pre-Christian religions belonging to a number of ancient cultures—those from Greece, Rome, Egypt, Scandinavia, and so on. It has come to also represent, in some circles, the modern ideology of Wicca and the followers of revived versions of the old practices. The truth about "paganism", however, is that it is a historically inaccurate phrase in the context of these aforementioned faiths. Although it is now the accepted term for these religions, it is important to examine where the word truly came from and what it initially meant, allowing for a better, all-inclusive understanding of the world's religious past.

The term "paganism" was revived during the Renaissance when writers were trying to differentiate the old traditions from their contemporary Christian faith. The term itself stems from the Latin paganus translated loosely along the lines of "country dweller" or "rustic"; thus it was initially a word describing a person of locality rather than a religion. However, because of its usage in ancient texts, medieval authors mistakenly believed it referenced a religious sect and thereby gave it the corresponding connotation. In actuality, there was a different word used to describe the "pagans" as they are called today, and that word too stemmed first and foremost from the location of the religious supporters.

 

[Capstone]

...Agnosticism is a cowardly position to take. It is the non-offensive way to be an atheist. We can all be defined agnostic. Even the most devout Christian has a hair of doubt. Even the most staunch atheist isn't completely closed to the possibility. ...

There's nothing cowardly about deferring to one's own ignorance in deciding not to take a strong stance one way or the other on a given issue. In fact, I think it takes a degree of courage to acknowledge, on a personal level, the importance of one's deficiency of knowledge. Generally speaking, I don't believe many enjoy the thought of being perceived as ignorant on any matter by their peers. For this reason alone, I think it's patently unfair for those of us who have taken strong stances on the matter of theism (myself included BTW - strident pantheist here) to disparage others on the fence as "cowardly" or wishy washy. If anything, it would be cowardly of them to succumb to such ridicule and take a strong stance in spite of their convictions that none is warranted.

 

[Meriweather]

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

This is a fallacy. The cross is a symbol for Christians because Christ died on a cross. The cultures that did use similar symbols were not in the same regions where Christianity originated.

The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop and Babylon Mystery Religion by Ralph Woodrow are what started the 'pagan influence' fallacy. What's not remembered is that later Woodrow realized he had made some erroneous conclusions and wrote another book repudiating his first and refuting those and Hislops claims about pagan influence. Naturally, not a lot of people cared about the second book.

When someone claims "pagan influence" they have to be able to accurately show at least three things:

1) Is there an accurate parallel? i.e., three Hindhu Gods do not make up a Trinity.
2) If a parallel is found, is it dependent or independent? (Many cultures develop similar or identical ideas.) For example, if there is a carving of a mother and child in Africa, was it copied (dependent) of the Africa carving, or did the same inspiration arise independently? Was one the result of the other?
3) Scholarship has shown that many pagan ideas/events arose in reaction to Christianity--not vice-versa. Saturnalia is one example.

One of my other true childhood loves was Greek and Roman mythology. When someone presents "similarities", the differences is what tells the tale. (Inaccurate parallels.)

No, the cross was not copied; it developed independently.

 

[ChrisL]

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

This is a fallacy. The cross is a symbol for Christians because Christ died on a cross. The cultures that did use similar symbols were not in the same regions where Christianity originated.

The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop and Babylon Mystery Religion by Ralph Woodrow are what started the 'pagan influence' fallacy. What's not remembered is that later Woodrow realized he had made some erroneous conclusions and wrote another book repudiating his first and refuting those and Hislops claims about pagan influence. Naturally, not a lot of people cared about the second book.

When someone claims "pagan influence" they have to be able to accurately show at least three things:

1) Is there an accurate parallel? i.e., three Hindhu Gods do not make up a Trinity.
2) If a parallel is found, is it dependent or independent? (Many cultures develop similar or identical ideas.) For example, if there is a carving of a mother and child in Africa, was it copied (dependent) of the Africa carving, or did the same inspiration arise independently? Was one the result of the other?
3) Scholarship has shown that many pagan ideas/events arose in reaction to Christianity--not vice-versa. Saturnalia is one example.

One of my other true childhood loves was Greek and Roman mythology. When someone presents "similarities", the differences is what tells the tale. (Inaccurate parallels.)

No, the cross was not copied; it developed independently.

I think it's pretty well known fact that Christians borrowed a lot of pagan symbols. It is the same with our holidays. They are a mixture of pagan and Christian beliefs, especially much of the symbolism.

 

[Meriweather]

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

This is a fallacy. The cross is a symbol for Christians because Christ died on a cross. The cultures that did use similar symbols were not in the same regions where Christianity originated.

The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop and Babylon Mystery Religion by Ralph Woodrow are what started the 'pagan influence' fallacy. What's not remembered is that later Woodrow realized he had made some erroneous conclusions and wrote another book repudiating his first and refuting those and Hislops claims about pagan influence. Naturally, not a lot of people cared about the second book.

When someone claims "pagan influence" they have to be able to accurately show at least three things:

1) Is there an accurate parallel? i.e., three Hindhu Gods do not make up a Trinity.
2) If a parallel is found, is it dependent or independent? (Many cultures develop similar or identical ideas.) For example, if there is a carving of a mother and child in Africa, was it copied (dependent) of the Africa carving, or did the same inspiration arise independently? Was one the result of the other?
3) Scholarship has shown that many pagan ideas/events arose in reaction to Christianity--not vice-versa. Saturnalia is one example.

One of my other true childhood loves was Greek and Roman mythology. When someone presents "similarities", the differences is what tells the tale. (Inaccurate parallels.)

No, the cross was not copied; it developed independently.

I think it's pretty well known fact that Christians borrowed a lot of pagan symbols. It is the same with our holidays. They are a mixture of pagan and Christian beliefs, especially much of the symbolism.

Yes, especially thanks to the Internet, the fallacies are known. The question is, how correct are they? Scholars respond, "Not very."

It's kind of like going into a neighbor's house and claiming that since they have a recliner, dining table and chairs, beds, and a TV the obvious conclusion is that they copied you! It is much more complex than that.

 

[ChrisL]

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

This is a fallacy. The cross is a symbol for Christians because Christ died on a cross. The cultures that did use similar symbols were not in the same regions where Christianity originated.

The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop and Babylon Mystery Religion by Ralph Woodrow are what started the 'pagan influence' fallacy. What's not remembered is that later Woodrow realized he had made some erroneous conclusions and wrote another book repudiating his first and refuting those and Hislops claims about pagan influence. Naturally, not a lot of people cared about the second book.

When someone claims "pagan influence" they have to be able to accurately show at least three things:

1) Is there an accurate parallel? i.e., three Hindhu Gods do not make up a Trinity.
2) If a parallel is found, is it dependent or independent? (Many cultures develop similar or identical ideas.) For example, if there is a carving of a mother and child in Africa, was it copied (dependent) of the Africa carving, or did the same inspiration arise independently? Was one the result of the other?
3) Scholarship has shown that many pagan ideas/events arose in reaction to Christianity--not vice-versa. Saturnalia is one example.

One of my other true childhood loves was Greek and Roman mythology. When someone presents "similarities", the differences is what tells the tale. (Inaccurate parallels.)

No, the cross was not copied; it developed independently.

I think it's pretty well known fact that Christians borrowed a lot of pagan symbols. It is the same with our holidays. They are a mixture of pagan and Christian beliefs, especially much of the symbolism.

Yes, especially thanks to the Internet, the fallacies are known. The question is, how correct are they? Scholars respond, "Not very."

It's kind of like going into a neighbor's house and claiming that since they have a recliner, dining table and chairs, beds, and a TV the obvious conclusion is that they copied you! It is much more complex than that.

Well, I agree. I didn't say it was simplistic. I said that a lot of Christian symbols and holidays were in fact "borrowed" from pagan belief systems. Like the belief that Christ was born on December 25.

Origin of Christmas The history of Christmas and how it began

How Did Christmas Come to Be Celebrated on December 25?

A.Roman pagans first introduced the holiday of Saturnalia, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25. During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration. The festival began when Roman authorities chose “an enemy of the Roman people” to represent the “Lord of Misrule.” Each Roman community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week. At the festival’s conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed they were destroying the forces of darkness by brutally murdering this innocent man or woman.

B.The ancient Greek writer poet and historian Lucian (in his dialogue entitled Saturnalia) describes the festival’s observance in his time. In addition to human sacrifice, he mentions these customs: widespread intoxication; going from house to house while singing naked; rape and other sexual license; and consuming human-shaped biscuits (still produced in some English and most German bakeries during the Christmas season).

C.In the 4th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it. Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians.[2]

D.The problem was that there was nothing intrinsically Christian about Saturnalia. To remedy this, these Christian leaders named Saturnalia’s concluding day, December 25th, to be Jesus’ birthday.

 

[defcon4]

The cross is a symbol for Christians because Christ died on a cross.

..the Tau Cross that is.
The so called Calvary Cross has a deeper meaning. I just assume it became the symbol of Christianity through the Gnostics whose teachings were "purged."

 

[presonorek]

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.

 

[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.

What's so awesome about these religions? I thought pastafarianism was the most awesome religion? That's what you used to say.

 

[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.

 

[presonorek]

What's so awesome about these religions? I thought pastafarianism was the most awesome religion? That's what you used to say.

Then I used to be a poor communicator. Pastafarianism is a great discussion tool. It cannot possibly compete with Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or Judaism. I have never believed that Pastafarianism was the most awesome religion. I am a Pastafarian minister. I joined the religion because I had fantasies of making the religion better by living like Gandhi or Mother Teresa. These fantasies have been extinguished by the lack of quality of Pastafarians. I don't think the ideology has any potential no matter how much passion I pour into it. I'm no longer an active Pastafarian but I never believe it was even an ok religion. I certainly didn't believe it was awesome as a religion.

 

[Ernie S.]

I'm fine with that too.
I have to wonder why atheists are so eager to attack theists.

It is simple really.

The collective willful ignorance of so many billions of people are holding back the progress of human kind.

Yes it does make us, that don't want to have our existence held hostage to fairy tales, angry.

You may as well say that your right to believe in faith allows you to drive 5 mph on the freeway. I have no doubt that if it was supposedly said by your Jesus that men should not travel any faster than a donkey that is exactly what you would do.

And what makes YOUR faith and beliefs so special? Why can't ANYONE use that excuse to do anything they want?

The problem is that you people don't want to acknowledge the effect religion has on the world we live in. You take absolutely no responsibility for the damage caused by religion in the past and even now in the present.

Why should those that live their lives doing right by their neighbors, without having to rely on some formula supposedly written some 2000 years ago, give deference to this obvious sham?

Even a person of limited mental horse power would laugh at such a ridiculous story if not for the massive peer pressure extended in support of this so called faith.

If not for the deeply and overwhelmingly embedded advantage enjoyed by organized religion against living just by reasoned thinking we could do just fine.

Yes it is irritating from the perspective of those of us that live our lives just fine without faith in an afterlife or the special super powers you have bestowed upon Jesus and your god.

The only difference between you and some wacko that believes in Superman and Batman are the numbers of people involved.

Yes it is true that we find your fantasies ridiculous and intrusive. We find your faith in a Heaven, Hell, Jesus and God childish.

Much like a child that clings too long to the fable of Santa Claus we hope for the day you will all grow up.

Good for you. I think differently. If that were it, I'd be fine.
You go on ahead and live your life as though existence is some cosmic accident. I won't ridicule your belief system nor try to take you into the fold.
Please afford me the same courtesy.

 

[ChrisL]

What's so awesome about these religions? I thought pastafarianism was the most awesome religion? That's what you used to say.

Then I used to be a poor communicator. Pastafarianism is a great discussion tool. It cannot possibly compete with Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or Judaism. I have never believed that Pastafarianism was the most awesome religion. I am a Pastafarian minister. I joined the religion because I had fantasies of making the religion better by living like Gandhi or Mother Teresa. These fantasies have been extinguished by the lack of quality of Pastafarians. I don't think the ideology has any potential no matter how much passion I pour into it. I'm no longer an active Pastafarian but I never believe it was even an ok religion. I certainly didn't believe it was awesome as a religion.

What do you find so wonderful about these religions? Please elaborate. It's not very often that you find an atheist who thinks any religion is "awesome."

 

[sealybobo]

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

What is unique about the Bible that sets it apart from all other religious books ever written?
Is there any evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word?

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

One evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is seen in its unity. Even though it is really sixty-six individual books, written on three continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years, by more than 40 authors who came from many walks of life, the Bible remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction. This unity is unique from all other books and is evidence of the divine origin of the words which God moved men to record.

Another evidence that indicates the Bible is truly God’s Word is the prophecies in the Bible. The Bible contains hundreds of detailed prophecies relating to the future of individual nations including Israel, certain cities, and mankind. Other prophecies concern the coming of One who would be the Messiah, the Savior of all who would believe in Him. Unlike the prophecies found in other religious books or those by men such as Nostradamus, biblical prophecies are extremely detailed. There are over three hundred prophecies concerning Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. Not only was it foretold where He would be born and His lineage, but also how He would die and that He would rise again. There simply is no logical way to explain the fulfilled prophecies in the Bible other than by divine origin. There is no other religious book with the extent or type of predictive prophecy that the Bible contains.

A third evidence is its unique authority and power. The Bible’s authority is unlike any other book ever written. This authority and power are best seen in the way countless lives have been transformed by the supernatural power of God’s Word. Drug addicts have been cured by it, homosexuals set free by it, derelicts and deadbeats transformed by it, hardened criminals reformed by it, sinners rebuked by it, and hate turned to love by it. The Bible does possess a dynamic and transforming power that is only possible because it is truly God’s Word.

Because the Bible details historical events, its truthfulness and accuracy are subject to verification like any other historical document. Through both archaeological evidences and other writings, the historical accounts of the Bible have been proven time and time again to be accurate and true. In fact, all the archaeological and manuscript evidence supporting the Bible makes it the best-documented book from the ancient world. The fact that the Bible accurately and truthfully records historically verifiable events is a great indication of its truthfulness when dealing with religious subjects and doctrines and helps substantiate its claim to be the very Word of God.

One last evidence to point out that that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the indestructibility of the Bible. Because of its importance and its claim to be the very Word of God, the Bible has suffered more vicious attacks and attempts to destroy it than any other book in history. From early Roman Emperors like Diocletian, through communist dictators and on to modern-day atheists and agnostics, the Bible has withstood and outlasted all of its attackers and is still today the most widely published book in the world.

Opponents have attacked its teaching as primitive and outdated, but its moral and legal concepts and teachings have had a positive influence on societies and cultures throughout the world. It continues to be attacked by pseudo-science, psychology, and political movements, yet it remains just as true and relevant today as it was when it was first written. It is a book that has transformed countless lives and cultures throughout the last 2000 years. No matter how its opponents try to attack, destroy, or discredit it, the Bible remains; its veracity and impact on lives is unmistakable. The accuracy which has been preserved despite every attempt to corrupt, attack, or destroy it is clear testimony to the fact that the Bible is truly God’s Word and is supernaturally protected by Him.

It should not surprise us that, no matter how the Bible is attacked, it always comes out unchanged and unscathed.

Which version of the Bible are you talking about? And when you have 500 years to get your story straight no s*** it's well written

It's not a textbook.
People need to stop viewing it that way to understand it.
Nit picking versions of the Bible and translations don't detract from the facts above..... maybe in your mind they do, but, that's only because you choose not to believe so you are looking for flaws.

I'm not here to change your mind. I'm here to speak the truth. God CAN change YOU!

Can it be ammended or misinterpreted? I mean is it?

What is it you believe actually? You believe a God talked to moses or impregnated Mary?

First you have to prove God exists before you tell me what he can do for me. Otherwise it's wishful thinking.

You lost me at hello. Lol

 

[sealybobo]

So, what happened to all the people BEFORE Christianity existed? Are they all "burning in hell" right now? What about those who "chose the wrong religion?" Perhaps they followed Zeus.

If they made God up then probably the Jews did too then Christians Muslims and Mormons.

This thread is about when a theist stumps you not when you stump them. Lol

 

[sealybobo]

What's so awesome about these religions? I thought pastafarianism was the most awesome religion? That's what you used to say.

Then I used to be a poor communicator. Pastafarianism is a great discussion tool. It cannot possibly compete with Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or Judaism. I have never believed that Pastafarianism was the most awesome religion. I am a Pastafarian minister. I joined the religion because I had fantasies of making the religion better by living like Gandhi or Mother Teresa. These fantasies have been extinguished by the lack of quality of Pastafarians. I don't think the ideology has any potential no matter how much passion I pour into it. I'm no longer an active Pastafarian but I never believe it was even an ok religion. I certainly didn't believe it was awesome as a religion.

What do you find so wonderful about these religions? Please elaborate. It's not very often that you find an atheist who thinks any religion is "awesome."

He thinks he's smarter than the masses and we need it to keep them from revolting. This is why I say they use religion to control us

 

[sealybobo]

I'm fine with that too.
I have to wonder why atheists are so eager to attack theists.

It is simple really.

The collective willful ignorance of so many billions of people are holding back the progress of human kind.

Yes it does make us, that don't want to have our existence held hostage to fairy tales, angry.

You may as well say that your right to believe in faith allows you to drive 5 mph on the freeway. I have no doubt that if it was supposedly said by your Jesus that men should not travel any faster than a donkey that is exactly what you would do.

And what makes YOUR faith and beliefs so special? Why can't ANYONE use that excuse to do anything they want?

The problem is that you people don't want to acknowledge the effect religion has on the world we live in. You take absolutely no responsibility for the damage caused by religion in the past and even now in the present.

Why should those that live their lives doing right by their neighbors, without having to rely on some formula supposedly written some 2000 years ago, give deference to this obvious sham?

Even a person of limited mental horse power would laugh at such a ridiculous story if not for the massive peer pressure extended in support of this so called faith.

If not for the deeply and overwhelmingly embedded advantage enjoyed by organized religion against living just by reasoned thinking we could do just fine.

Yes it is irritating from the perspective of those of us that live our lives just fine without faith in an afterlife or the special super powers you have bestowed upon Jesus and your god.

The only difference between you and some wacko that believes in Superman and Batman are the numbers of people involved.

Yes it is true that we find your fantasies ridiculous and intrusive. We find your faith in a Heaven, Hell, Jesus and God childish.

Much like a child that clings too long to the fable of Santa Claus we hope for the day you will all grow up.

Good for you. I think differently. If that were it, I'd be fine.
You go on ahead and live your life as though existence is some cosmic accident. I won't ridicule your belief system nor try to take you into the fold.
Please afford me the same courtesy.

Stop trying to rally all the Christians to vote GOP and we will stop pointing out why you are wrong to ban stem cell or abortion or gay marriage.

You guys are the ones asseting this is a Christian nation. The phuck it is.

 

[sealybobo]

No Christian is going to listen to your arguments. They see wisdom as sinister and unrighteous. What you need to do is become familiar with human beings and find out what makes them tick if you are truly interested in making an impact on this world. Resigning to petty bickering will only result in a lot of won arguments. Do you want to win arguments? Is that your goal? They keep believing in their religion and you will have a few more points to put on the scoreboard. If you want to change minds and change hearts you are just going to have to learn about humans. Logic will get you nowhere because 100% of humans are not logical creatures. We are however creatures of habit. Using logic is like trying to fix a lawnmower by replacing the toner cartridge. Yes, sometimes you have to replace the toner cartridge in your printer but not in your lawnmower. Weaning people off of religion can't be done with logic. I'm sorry but you have to use something that works.

The reason believers seem not to be listening to atheist arguments is because atheists start with the premise there is no God--and present scriptures in a way they think supports their position. That's kind of like using a recipe book to convince people not to cook.

Scripture is an account of people's experiences with God, where they see God's hand in their lives, in world history. People who have had experiences of God are going to relate to the Bible. People who have had no experience of God are going to think those who have must be imagining it. Those who have will pay about as much attention to atheist rants as they would to a blind person arguing there is no such thing as color.

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

 

[Meriweather]

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.