Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
God is not recognized universally- not God with a big G. Christians and Muslims and Jews can't always even agree if they worship the same god.
Is Coyote God? Is Ganesh God?
Do you really think that the argument for belief in a 'god' is because more people believe in a god?
God is a term easily recognized here for discussion purposes. Personally I think the Native American designation of Great Spirit (some say more accurately defined as the Great Mystery) may be an even better depiction. Be that as it may, we are all talking about a Supreme Being (some will say Beings). That is why the Great Spirit/Mystery kind of says it all when people of different times and cultures can't seem to agree on a common description. If we all understood God as the Great Mystery, then the squabbling among religions wouldn't be over whether we recognize the same God--it would be over who best understands the mystery.
My argument is not over the number of believers, but the authenticity of people's experiences and interactions with God. There is also the question of if it takes a force to put an object in motion, what/who was the first to start motion? The Great Mystery, perhaps?
The religious right has done immense and irreparable damage to Christians with their political hijacking.I had someone ask me recently why, if atheism is so fulfilling, why are atheists so angry? I have been thinking about it and this is what I came up with:
Number one, atheists have to establish some kind of victimhood status so they can make it personal. They'll go back a thousand years to complain about something the Church allegedly did (and they usually make that up) to establish some level of butthurtedness. (I know, that's not a word, stay on point.) The Crusades is one of their favorites because they can make things up about that and nobody bothers to check the facts.
One of their complaints is that they claim Christianity (It's always Christianity, they never bitch about Judaism or Islam) "passes laws" that keep them from doing things they want to do, whatever that is. Well, we don't "pass laws", we have state and federal legislatures to do that. So the real problem is that we vote. The idea that people who don't believe what they believe vote is repugnant to them. So they hate freedom.
Finally, if I ever meet an atheist who has the slightest inkling of a clue about what Christianity really believes I will shake his hand and buy him a cigar. What they usually do is twist the beliefs of a doomsday cult and claim that's what the Bible teaches and what Christianity believes.
BUT, let some cult (you know who you are) speak up and they will defend them with their dying breath because they think the very fact that heretics exist must mean they have a case.
Pathetic. Hypocritical. Illogical. Non factual. Atheists.
My experience with atheists is different. Yes, some are angry, more are non-committal and matter-of-fact. As a whole they are intelligent, caring people. What I have noticed is something different than what you have picked up on.
It has been my experience that people are atheist, or become atheist, because God does not meet their expectations--neither in scripture nor in their individual life. They have their own ideas about what God would do, or would not do. God--even--or maybe especially--the one described by Christians does not live up to those ideas. Their conclusion is that there is no God, or if there is, He is useless, which is pretty much the same as no God.
If we, as Christians, are losing people to atheism, perhaps our approach to teaching about God is lacking.
People become atheists because God won't get with their program. Perhaps their mother or father died, God didn't drop a pot of gold on them when they needed it, or they find out that their favorite sin is in fact a sin. Sometimes it's because they hate their parents, but mostly it's because they think that Christians don't share their politics.
From what I have seen, most of them think that religion is politics. Look at the Trump haters, the Bush haters, the Romney haters.
Most outspoken atheists argue for separation of church and state- which I agree with.
This is a democracy. .
What militant atheists think that Christians should not be allowed to vote? None. That's why I find their desires absurd. Of course Christians are going to vote for candidates that have the same values as them. It would be ridiculous to expect otherwise..
Most outspoken atheists argue for separation of church and state- which I agree with.
This is a democracy. .
And by the way- we are not a democracy.
Christians don't get to impose their values on everyone simply because there are more Christians.
We are a Constitutional, Democratically elected Republic.
What militant atheists think that Christians should not be allowed to vote? None. That's why I find their desires absurd. Of course Christians are going to vote for candidates that have the same values as them. It would be ridiculous to expect otherwise..
Hmmm so you can't find any militant atheists who think that Christians should not be able to vote.....but you think that militant atheists think that Christians should not be able to vote for candidates that have the same values?
What militant atheists think that Christians should not be allowed to vote? None. That's why I find their desires absurd. Of course Christians are going to vote for candidates that have the same values as them. It would be ridiculous to expect otherwise.
Why exactly do you think that a Jewish child should be forced to pray to Jesus in public school? I don't.
Or that an atheist should be required to swear on a Bible? I think that is a pretty odd custom myself.
Or that Muslims should have their tax dollars used to build a giant cross in the city park? That could easily happen. Muslims are a minority. They wouldn't have enough votes to block it from happening.
Most outspoken atheists argue for separation of church and state- which I agree with.
This is a democracy. .
And by the way- we are not a democracy.
Christians don't get to impose their values on everyone simply because there are more Christians.
We are a Constitutional, Democratically elected Republic.
Yes but Christians have still managed to gain more influence than atheist.
What militant atheists think that Christians should not be allowed to vote? None. That's why I find their desires absurd. Of course Christians are going to vote for candidates that have the same values as them. It would be ridiculous to expect otherwise..
Hmmm so you can't find any militant atheists who think that Christians should not be able to vote.....but you think that militant atheists think that Christians should not be able to vote for candidates that have the same values?
Right. There are lots of those on youtube. They think Christians should be allowed to vote but they shouldn't be allowed to vote for candidates with Christian values. Pretty stupid. Huh?
What militant atheists think that Christians should not be allowed to vote? None. That's why I find their desires absurd. Of course Christians are going to vote for candidates that have the same values as them. It would be ridiculous to expect otherwise.
Why exactly do you think that a Jewish child should be forced to pray to Jesus in public school? I don't.
Or that an atheist should be required to swear on a Bible? I think that is a pretty odd custom myself.
Or that Muslims should have their tax dollars used to build a giant cross in the city park? That could easily happen. Muslims are a minority. They wouldn't have enough votes to block it from happening.
If there is no separation of church and state- what prevents schools from requiring a Jewish child to pray to Jesus?
So stupid I have never heard of any of them.
I think it more our witness, as Christians, is failing, or has failed rather. There is a popular quote going around that encapsulates it succinctly, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians." See the religious right for a prime example of what I'm talking about.
I think that most Christians would take an exception to the god of Jesus being lumped together with Ganesh- with Ganesh being called God.
Do I agree that humans have always found some supernatural explanation for the unknown? Sure.
Now we have UFO's.
If there is no separation of church and state- what prevents schools from requiring a Jewish child to pray to Jesus? And this is not hypothetical- this happened for decades.
And that is by the way just a different side of the coin from using public money to support a specific religion.
Not quite what he said, but that is no surprise. What he said is you can't use today's standards to judge behavior that was tolerated in the past, and as an example he said he was not damaged by what happened to him while he was a young student.Ah yes, now they come along and cite Dawkins, who says 'A little pedophilia is okay.'.
In an interview in The Times magazine, Dawkins, 72, said he was unable to condemn what he called “the mild pedophilia” he experienced at an English school when he was a child in the 1950s. Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”
Here is the actual quote:
“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,”
I merely exposed your lie about what Dawkins said. In your sick perverted mind, exposing you as a liar makes me a "pedo apologist."Not quite what he said, but that is no surprise. What he said is you can't use today's standards to judge behavior that was tolerated in the past, and as an example he said he was not damaged by what happened to him while he was a young student.Ah yes, now they come along and cite Dawkins, who says 'A little pedophilia is okay.'.
In an interview in The Times magazine, Dawkins, 72, said he was unable to condemn what he called “the mild pedophilia” he experienced at an English school when he was a child in the 1950s. Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”
Here is the actual quote:
“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,”
Ah yes, and a pedo apologist posts an apologia for a pedo apologist. Yes, it's already been noted that most of the Dawkins crowd are sexual deviants of one sort or another. Thanks for being helpful with that.
[. You see the same pattern in many of the 'new atheist' nutjobs who spam Religion forums all over the Web, and almost all of it directed at Christianity.
Note this thread was created by a Christian nutjob who spams the Religion forum here at USMB- all of it directed against atheists.
I merely exposed your lie about what Dawkins said. In your sick perverted mind, exposing you as a liar makes me a "pedo apologist."Not quite what he said, but that is no surprise. What he said is you can't use today's standards to judge behavior that was tolerated in the past, and as an example he said he was not damaged by what happened to him while he was a young student.Ah yes, now they come along and cite Dawkins, who says 'A little pedophilia is okay.'.
In an interview in The Times magazine, Dawkins, 72, said he was unable to condemn what he called “the mild pedophilia” he experienced at an English school when he was a child in the 1950s. Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”
Here is the actual quote:
“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,”
Ah yes, and a pedo apologist posts an apologia for a pedo apologist. Yes, it's already been noted that most of the Dawkins crowd are sexual deviants of one sort or another. Thanks for being helpful with that.
I posted Dawkins' real quote to compare to the fake quote you made up, which proved you a liar since they didn't even come close to matching.I merely exposed your lie about what Dawkins said. In your sick perverted mind, exposing you as a liar makes me a "pedo apologist."Not quite what he said, but that is no surprise. What he said is you can't use today's standards to judge behavior that was tolerated in the past, and as an example he said he was not damaged by what happened to him while he was a young student.Ah yes, now they come along and cite Dawkins, who says 'A little pedophilia is okay.'.
In an interview in The Times magazine, Dawkins, 72, said he was unable to condemn what he called “the mild pedophilia” he experienced at an English school when he was a child in the 1950s. Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”
Here is the actual quote:
“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,”
Ah yes, and a pedo apologist posts an apologia for a pedo apologist. Yes, it's already been noted that most of the Dawkins crowd are sexual deviants of one sort or another. Thanks for being helpful with that.
I'm not a liar, you're just a moron pedo apologist, and it's too late for you to claim you aren't a gimp.
