Who here is an atheist?

[sealybobo]

In the past, atheists were indeed oppressed by the religious and the religious have oppressed other religious people.I never stated that I was being oppressed. I stated that that we are standing up for our non-belief. I don't want to stop you from going to church or practicing your religion. I just don't want any part of it. There are many theists who want to instate prayer back into public schools. Do you agree with that?

First of all when and who were oppressed? Do you have any specifics?

If you don't want any part of religion, then what are you doing here?

I see nothing wrong with students praying. I see everything wrong with students being forced to pray.

You said it yourself, you are standing up for NON-BELIEF. Which means you don't have arguments FOR your belief because it is a non-belief. You only have arguments against others having beliefs. That's what you are doing here. You are trying to validate your beliefs by criticizing the beliefs of others.

Do you know what that is called? Critical theory. The Cultural Marxist practice of critical theory is to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

Isn’t that what conservative Americans are guilty of? Let me give you an example. Europe has conservatives too. What’s different about American conservatives is they don’t believe in global warming or evolution. Is that what you meant about not critical thinking?

No. We practice traditional theory, not critical theory. Traditional theory is when you make an affirmative case for what something is. Critical thinking is when you challenge what you believe to test it's validity. That's what we do. You on the other hand practice critical theory. You don't know how to make an affirmative case for something and sure as heck don't challenge your own beliefs to test their validity. You have arguments against other people's arguments.

Here is an example of what Traditional theory looks like in practice. Given that we are still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycle, and given that the geologic record shows that CO2 does not drive climate change, CO2 reinforces climate change, and given that for most of the planet's history earth has been a greenhouse world and only in the last 5 million years transitioned to an icehouse world and given that for the past 500,000 years we have oscillated between pretty severe glacial cycles and interglacial cycles, and given that the conditions which led to this transition are still in place today, I'd be more worried about what triggers the ice age than I would be of a 1 C increase.

Besides do you really believe they can represent the earth's average temperature with one number for the last 2000 years? C'mon man. You got days and night and you have seasons.

The most comical of all though is how you over exaggerate the damage caused by atmospheric CO2. It's like you don't even logic.

Riddle me this batman, if it is the rest of the world is responsible for increasing CO2 emissions by ~ 1 billion tons per year, are you going to send our money to other nations so they don't build gas and coal fired power plants?

Because our emissions could go to zero overnight and the rest of the world would replace what we are presently emitting in 5 short years.

The only "comedy" I see is some uneducated slob of a climate denier listing things that were all taught to him by the very same scientists who have concluded that our actions are warming the planet, then trying to peddle some stupid con that these things are the reason these scientists are wrong. Embarrassing and absurd. Think about the absurdity of your entire line of bullshit...you are explicitly stating that the people who have dedicated their lives to these fields of science and taught you anything and everything you know are so incompetent that they are laboring under the ignorance of the very knowledge they discovered. Fuckin A people, how do you not realize how idiotic you sound?

What's next? Got a few boxing tips for Floyd Mayweather, do ya? I'm sure Yo Yo Ma would really appreciate your advice on how to play the cello. Maybe you could travel back in time and show Van Gogh how to paint? Make sure, just for accuracy of the analogy, you show him one of his own paintings and ask him why he can't paint better, like the guy who painted it.

uu huh. How much have you studied on climate change? It is one of my favorite subjects. I've studied it quite extensively.

Do you really need for me to walk you through each point? Because I suspect you are behaving religiously over your dogma and have never really done your own investigation and know very little about it.

Now given that, do you really want for me to make you look like an ass?

Funny you say that because what it looks like to the rest of the world and half of America that it’s you fundamentalist Christians who are the only ones denying evolution and global warming.

In other words it’s you who’s brainwashed.

 

[sealybobo]

In the past, atheists were indeed oppressed by the religious and the religious have oppressed other religious people.I never stated that I was being oppressed. I stated that that we are standing up for our non-belief. I don't want to stop you from going to church or practicing your religion. I just don't want any part of it. There are many theists who want to instate prayer back into public schools. Do you agree with that?

First of all when and who were oppressed? Do you have any specifics?

If you don't want any part of religion, then what are you doing here?

I see nothing wrong with students praying. I see everything wrong with students being forced to pray.

You said it yourself, you are standing up for NON-BELIEF. Which means you don't have arguments FOR your belief because it is a non-belief. You only have arguments against others having beliefs. That's what you are doing here. You are trying to validate your beliefs by criticizing the beliefs of others.

Do you know what that is called? Critical theory. The Cultural Marxist practice of critical theory is to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

Isn’t that what conservative Americans are guilty of? Let me give you an example. Europe has conservatives too. What’s different about American conservatives is they don’t believe in global warming or evolution. Is that what you meant about not critical thinking?

No. We practice traditional theory, not critical theory. Traditional theory is when you make an affirmative case for what something is. Critical thinking is when you challenge what you believe to test it's validity. That's what we do. You on the other hand practice critical theory. You don't know how to make an affirmative case for something and sure as heck don't challenge your own beliefs to test their validity. You have arguments against other people's arguments.

Here is an example of what Traditional theory looks like in practice. Given that we are still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycle, and given that the geologic record shows that CO2 does not drive climate change, CO2 reinforces climate change, and given that for most of the planet's history earth has been a greenhouse world and only in the last 5 million years transitioned to an icehouse world and given that for the past 500,000 years we have oscillated between pretty severe glacial cycles and interglacial cycles, and given that the conditions which led to this transition are still in place today, I'd be more worried about what triggers the ice age than I would be of a 1 C increase.

Besides do you really believe they can represent the earth's average temperature with one number for the last 2000 years? C'mon man. You got days and night and you have seasons.

The most comical of all though is how you over exaggerate the damage caused by atmospheric CO2. It's like you don't even logic.

Riddle me this batman, if it is the rest of the world is responsible for increasing CO2 emissions by ~ 1 billion tons per year, are you going to send our money to other nations so they don't build gas and coal fired power plants?

Because our emissions could go to zero overnight and the rest of the world would replace what we are presently emitting in 5 short years.

The only "comedy" I see is some uneducated slob of a climate denier listing things that were all taught to him by the very same scientists who have concluded that our actions are warming the planet, then trying to peddle some stupid con that these things are the reason these scientists are wrong. Embarrassing and absurd. Think about the absurdity of your entire line of bullshit...you are explicitly stating that the people who have dedicated their lives to these fields of science and taught you anything and everything you know are so incompetent that they are laboring under the ignorance of the very knowledge they discovered. Fuckin A people, how do you not realize how idiotic you sound?

What's next? Got a few boxing tips for Floyd Mayweather, do ya? I'm sure Yo Yo Ma would really appreciate your advice on how to play the cello. Maybe you could travel back in time and show Van Gogh how to paint? Make sure, just for accuracy of the analogy, you show him one of his own paintings and ask him why he can't paint better, like the guy who painted it.

uu huh. How much have you studied on climate change? It is one of my favorite subjects. I've studied it quite extensively.

Do you really need for me to walk you through each point? Because I suspect you are behaving religiously over your dogma and have never really done your own investigation and know very little about it.

Now given that, do you really want for me to make you look like an ass?

We know global warming denier is something right wing conservative Christians are passionately against. They believe it’s a hoax because the Bible tells you when and how the world ends. You don’t need to worry about gw because the Bible never mentioned it. And I’m sure when it’s undeniable even for a nut like you you’ll just find a verse that foretold it.

When a book rambles on that long it says everything. Greatest bullshit story ever told. Sure you had to first force it on everyone but never mind all that

 

[LittleNipper]

As for religious studies being taught I'm all for it in the higher grades. Definitely not elementary. The problem with favouritism or bias once a religion or a part of that religion is criticized by students or staff all hell would break loose.

This is like saying one is in favor of math being taught in the higher grades, but definitely not elementary. Elementary school studies is what prepares one for higher learning. Like any other subject, elementary school studies is like first setting the nail on which to hang a hat. When there is no nail, there is no place later hang the hat.

I saw this first hand. Grade 7 students were being taught religious studies. First a student waked out when the subject of the reformation came up, yelling "Why is everyone picking on the Catholics!" and when Wicca was presented there were several complaints from many Christian parents. It does not work in an elementary school.

The school didn't teach religion, they began the morning by reading a few verses of scripture --- usually from the Psalms and Proverbs. It started the mind wondering.

What are you talking about. The school was teaching religious studies. Not the indoctrination of students. You do realize there is more than one religion.

The reality is that Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus all hold the Bible in high regard. I really cannot see how philosophy can be discussed without any regard for religious concepts. And there are some interesting mathematical equations to be found in the Word. Students have much to lose who have no idea of what the Bible contains.

 

[Peach]

I don't believe in atheists.

Nor do I, thank you! : ) And the Bible does state, THE FIRE NEXT TIME.

 

[sealybobo]

No I think knowing who’s telling us what god said is very important.

Why?

If your house was on fire would it matter who told you?

If I was told my house was on fire, it might matter who told me. If a man wearing a fireman's uniform ran up to me, and told me my house was on fire, I would probably rush home. If some drunken sot waddled up to me, and slurred out that my house was on fire, before puking on my shoes? Wellll...I might be more inclined to ignore him...

Well... the fireman would be a stranger because the reasonable assumption is that is how he would have knowledge that YOUR house was on fire. He may have transposed the numbers of the address and it's your neighbors house that's on fire.

Whereas that drunk would have had to know YOU personally. How else would he know it was YOUR house that was on fire.

Putting that aside, I submit that of the 99% of knowledge that you possess came from accepting it on authority of others. I am willing to bet that you do not know the source of the knowledge of the vast majority of it.

It really is a BS argument to say we should have all the knowledge in the world on an event that happened 2000 years ago. Especially since this is the only event in antiquity that you hold to that standard. And especially since this event had more information recorded closer to the event than any other event in antiquity. And especially since it was orders of magnitude more. And especially since no other event in antiquity has been studied as extensively. And especially since it was orders of magnitude more. And especially since no other event in the history of the world has had a greater impact on mankind than the ministry of Jesus Christ. Not bad for a convicted criminal who was put to death by the superpower of the day whose ministry only lasted 3 1/2 years.

Stop acting like there is little to know evidence that hasn't been studied.

First you are changing subjects. The question wasn't about the account of Jesus. However, let's leave that, for a moment.

No one is suggesting that we should have "all the knowledge in the world" about the life, and death of Jesus. However, especially considering the alleged 100 witnesses of the alleged resurrection, would it not see reasonable, that there would be, at least, a few independent, contemporary accounts? Yet, we have not found even a single one.

Can you give me an example of a contemporary account of Julius Caesars Gallic Wars so that I may better understand what you are asking for?

And I didn't change subjects. You are calling into question the tangible evidence for the existence, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, right? Placing that evidence in its proper context to other events in antiquity is 100% relevant and not off subject.

Other rulers outside of Rome met and wrote about julius ceasar. The only outsiders that that wrote about Jesus were people who were told the stories same as you. Paul didn’t write the Bible. He didn’t sign off on the written bible that was written in the 6th century

 

[Peach]

So. Big Bang.

What caused the "Big Bang"?

Did the Big Bang bring existence into existence? Or did something exist before that?

If so, how?

What caused "God"?

Did God bring existence into existence? Or did something exist before that?

If so, how?

GOD created TIME. Before that there was none --- yet GOD was.

So who created God? If you try to claim God was always here, how can you be so sure that what caused the Big Bang wasn't always here?

Prove love, it is probably a myth, self interest at best. Some beliefs, feelings, and ideas defy science.

 

[sealybobo]

Authorship is a hard one to determine. They have good ideas of the who for some things, a guess for others and no clue at all for some.

More important than the who, is understanding the literary style used by the author and the context of the day.

No I think knowing who’s telling us what god said is very important.

Why?

If your house was on fire would it matter who told you?

If I was told my house was on fire, it might matter who told me. If a man wearing a fireman's uniform ran up to me, and told me my house was on fire, I would probably rush home. If some drunken sot waddled up to me, and slurred out that my house was on fire, before puking on my shoes? Wellll...I might be more inclined to ignore him...

Well... the fireman would be a stranger because the reasonable assumption is that is how he would have knowledge that YOUR house was on fire. He may have transposed the numbers of the address and it's your neighbors house that's on fire.

Whereas that drunk would have had to know YOU personally. How else would he know it was YOUR house that was on fire.

Putting that aside, I submit that of the 99% of knowledge that you possess came from accepting it on authority of others. I am willing to bet that you do not know the source of the knowledge of the vast majority of it.

It really is a BS argument to say we should have all the knowledge in the world on an event that happened 2000 years ago. Especially since this is the only event in antiquity that you hold to that standard. And especially since this event had more information recorded closer to the event than any other event in antiquity. And especially since it was orders of magnitude more. And especially since no other event in antiquity has been studied as extensively. And especially since it was orders of magnitude more. And especially since no other event in the history of the world has had a greater impact on mankind than the ministry of Jesus Christ. Not bad for a convicted criminal who was put to death by the superpower of the day whose ministry only lasted 3 1/2 years.

Stop acting like there is little to know evidence that hasn't been studied.

First you are changing subjects. The question wasn't about the account of Jesus. However, let's leave that, for a moment.

No one is suggesting that we should have "all the knowledge in the world" about the life, and death of Jesus. However, especially considering the alleged 100 witnesses of the alleged resurrection, would it not see reasonable, that there would be, at least, a few independent, contemporary accounts? Yet, we have not found even a single one.

I saw the Scientology schtick and I see how these religions lure people in.

These people could easily join us in another thread if we would just pick on Islam or Scientology but we don’t descriminate. They are all made up.

 

[sealybobo]

As for religious studies being taught I'm all for it in the higher grades. Definitely not elementary. The problem with favouritism or bias once a religion or a part of that religion is criticized by students or staff all hell would break loose.

This is like saying one is in favor of math being taught in the higher grades, but definitely not elementary. Elementary school studies is what prepares one for higher learning. Like any other subject, elementary school studies is like first setting the nail on which to hang a hat. When there is no nail, there is no place later hang the hat.

I saw this first hand. Grade 7 students were being taught religious studies. First a student waked out when the subject of the reformation came up, yelling "Why is everyone picking on the Catholics!" and when Wicca was presented there were several complaints from many Christian parents. It does not work in an elementary school.

The school didn't teach religion, they began the morning by reading a few verses of scripture --- usually from the Psalms and Proverbs. It started the mind wondering.

What are you talking about. The school was teaching religious studies. Not the indoctrination of students. You do realize there is more than one religion.

The reality is that Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus all hold the Bible in high regard. I really cannot see how philosophy can be discussed without any regard for religious concepts. And there are some interesting mathematical equations to be found in the Word. Students have much to lose who have no idea of what the Bible contains.

The Jews say Jesus wasn’t the messia. Like us atheists they’re pretty much calling bs on your entire premise.

You now can’t call the Jewish religion out as being ridiculous because you are a spin off.

Muslims can’t call you out because they make the same claims.

Yes all religions have a truce. They don’t call each other out same as pick pockets and con men

 

[BULLDOG]

So. Big Bang.

What caused the "Big Bang"?

Did the Big Bang bring existence into existence? Or did something exist before that?

If so, how?

What caused "God"?

Did God bring existence into existence? Or did something exist before that?

If so, how?

GOD created TIME. Before that there was none --- yet GOD was.

So who created God? If you try to claim God was always here, how can you be so sure that what caused the Big Bang wasn't always here?

Prove love, it is probably a myth, self interest at best. Some beliefs, feelings, and ideas defy science.

Why? I have no need or desire to prove love to you. You can believe in love or not, makes no difference to me. Religious nuts like yourself claim you have an obligation to "share" God., and you do it by insulting and trying to remove the rights of all who aren't just like you.

 

[ding]

Why?

If your house was on fire would it matter who told you?

If I was told my house was on fire, it might matter who told me. If a man wearing a fireman's uniform ran up to me, and told me my house was on fire, I would probably rush home. If some drunken sot waddled up to me, and slurred out that my house was on fire, before puking on my shoes? Wellll...I might be more inclined to ignore him...

Well... the fireman would be a stranger because the reasonable assumption is that is how he would have knowledge that YOUR house was on fire. He may have transposed the numbers of the address and it's your neighbors house that's on fire.

Whereas that drunk would have had to know YOU personally. How else would he know it was YOUR house that was on fire.

Putting that aside, I submit that of the 99% of knowledge that you possess came from accepting it on authority of others. I am willing to bet that you do not know the source of the knowledge of the vast majority of it.

It really is a BS argument to say we should have all the knowledge in the world on an event that happened 2000 years ago. Especially since this is the only event in antiquity that you hold to that standard. And especially since this event had more information recorded closer to the event than any other event in antiquity. And especially since it was orders of magnitude more. And especially since no other event in antiquity has been studied as extensively. And especially since it was orders of magnitude more. And especially since no other event in the history of the world has had a greater impact on mankind than the ministry of Jesus Christ. Not bad for a convicted criminal who was put to death by the superpower of the day whose ministry only lasted 3 1/2 years.

Stop acting like there is little to know evidence that hasn't been studied.

First you are changing subjects. The question wasn't about the account of Jesus. However, let's leave that, for a moment.

No one is suggesting that we should have "all the knowledge in the world" about the life, and death of Jesus. However, especially considering the alleged 100 witnesses of the alleged resurrection, would it not see reasonable, that there would be, at least, a few independent, contemporary accounts? Yet, we have not found even a single one.

Can you give me an example of a contemporary account of Julius Caesars Gallic Wars so that I may better understand what you are asking for?

And I didn't change subjects. You are calling into question the tangible evidence for the existence, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, right? Placing that evidence in its proper context to other events in antiquity is 100% relevant and not off subject.

Cassius Dio Histories, Caesar's Commentaries, The writings of Plutarch, just to name a few.

Ok, but when was the event? And when were Cassius Dio Histories, Caesar's Commentaries, The writings of Plutarch compiled?

Because I seem to recall there being only 10 manuscripts with the earliest being 1000 years after the event. Is that wrong?

 

[ding]

Authorship is a hard one to determine. They have good ideas of the who for some things, a guess for others and no clue at all for some.

More important than the who, is understanding the literary style used by the author and the context of the day.

No I think knowing who’s telling us what god said is very important.

Why?

If your house was on fire would it matter who told you?

If I was told my house was on fire, it might matter who told me. If a man wearing a fireman's uniform ran up to me, and told me my house was on fire, I would probably rush home. If some drunken sot waddled up to me, and slurred out that my house was on fire, before puking on my shoes? Wellll...I might be more inclined to ignore him...

Well... the fireman would be a stranger because the reasonable assumption is that is how he would have knowledge that YOUR house was on fire. He may have transposed the numbers of the address and it's your neighbors house that's on fire.

Whereas that drunk would have had to know YOU personally. How else would he know it was YOUR house that was on fire.

Putting that aside, I submit that of the 99% of knowledge that you possess came from accepting it on authority of others. I am willing to bet that you do not know the source of the knowledge of the vast majority of it.

It really is a BS argument to say we should have all the knowledge in the world on an event that happened 2000 years ago. Especially since this is the only event in antiquity that you hold to that standard. And especially since this event had more information recorded closer to the event than any other event in antiquity. And especially since it was orders of magnitude more. And especially since no other event in antiquity has been studied as extensively. And especially since it was orders of magnitude more. And especially since no other event in the history of the world has had a greater impact on mankind than the ministry of Jesus Christ. Not bad for a convicted criminal who was put to death by the superpower of the day whose ministry only lasted 3 1/2 years.

Stop acting like there is little to know evidence that hasn't been studied.

When telling a bullshit story never be too specific. You will get caught in a lie. So the foundinging of your religion is pretty vague. Who told you this? And he knows that how? Who is saying that? Yes I need to know the answer to all these things before I go believing something this unbelievable and I’m ashamed my fellow humans are still so gullible but we are still evolving. This is something we will shed

I don't think you understand. The amount and timing of the manuscripts is unparalleled in antiquity.

 

[ding]

This is like saying one is in favor of math being taught in the higher grades, but definitely not elementary. Elementary school studies is what prepares one for higher learning. Like any other subject, elementary school studies is like first setting the nail on which to hang a hat. When there is no nail, there is no place later hang the hat.

I saw this first hand. Grade 7 students were being taught religious studies. First a student waked out when the subject of the reformation came up, yelling "Why is everyone picking on the Catholics!" and when Wicca was presented there were several complaints from many Christian parents. It does not work in an elementary school.

The school didn't teach religion, they began the morning by reading a few verses of scripture --- usually from the Psalms and Proverbs. It started the mind wondering.

What are you talking about. The school was teaching religious studies. Not the indoctrination of students. You do realize there is more than one religion.

The reality is that Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus all hold the Bible in high regard. I really cannot see how philosophy can be discussed without any regard for religious concepts. And there are some interesting mathematical equations to be found in the Word. Students have much to lose who have no idea of what the Bible contains.

The Jews say Jesus wasn’t the messia. Like us atheists they’re pretty much calling bs on your entire premise.

You now can’t call the Jewish religion out as being ridiculous because you are a spin off.

Muslims can’t call you out because they make the same claims.

Yes all religions have a truce. They don’t call each other out same as pick pockets and con men

I don't know any Christians who call the Jewish faith ridiculous.

Maybe its the people you hang around with.

After all, I've read you posts about blacks.

Are you from South Carolina per chance?

 

[ding]

First of all when and who were oppressed? Do you have any specifics?

If you don't want any part of religion, then what are you doing here?

I see nothing wrong with students praying. I see everything wrong with students being forced to pray.

You said it yourself, you are standing up for NON-BELIEF. Which means you don't have arguments FOR your belief because it is a non-belief. You only have arguments against others having beliefs. That's what you are doing here. You are trying to validate your beliefs by criticizing the beliefs of others.

Do you know what that is called? Critical theory. The Cultural Marxist practice of critical theory is to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

Isn’t that what conservative Americans are guilty of? Let me give you an example. Europe has conservatives too. What’s different about American conservatives is they don’t believe in global warming or evolution. Is that what you meant about not critical thinking?

No. We practice traditional theory, not critical theory. Traditional theory is when you make an affirmative case for what something is. Critical thinking is when you challenge what you believe to test it's validity. That's what we do. You on the other hand practice critical theory. You don't know how to make an affirmative case for something and sure as heck don't challenge your own beliefs to test their validity. You have arguments against other people's arguments.

Here is an example of what Traditional theory looks like in practice. Given that we are still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycle, and given that the geologic record shows that CO2 does not drive climate change, CO2 reinforces climate change, and given that for most of the planet's history earth has been a greenhouse world and only in the last 5 million years transitioned to an icehouse world and given that for the past 500,000 years we have oscillated between pretty severe glacial cycles and interglacial cycles, and given that the conditions which led to this transition are still in place today, I'd be more worried about what triggers the ice age than I would be of a 1 C increase.

Besides do you really believe they can represent the earth's average temperature with one number for the last 2000 years? C'mon man. You got days and night and you have seasons.

The most comical of all though is how you over exaggerate the damage caused by atmospheric CO2. It's like you don't even logic.

Riddle me this batman, if it is the rest of the world is responsible for increasing CO2 emissions by ~ 1 billion tons per year, are you going to send our money to other nations so they don't build gas and coal fired power plants?

Because our emissions could go to zero overnight and the rest of the world would replace what we are presently emitting in 5 short years.

The only "comedy" I see is some uneducated slob of a climate denier listing things that were all taught to him by the very same scientists who have concluded that our actions are warming the planet, then trying to peddle some stupid con that these things are the reason these scientists are wrong. Embarrassing and absurd. Think about the absurdity of your entire line of bullshit...you are explicitly stating that the people who have dedicated their lives to these fields of science and taught you anything and everything you know are so incompetent that they are laboring under the ignorance of the very knowledge they discovered. Fuckin A people, how do you not realize how idiotic you sound?

What's next? Got a few boxing tips for Floyd Mayweather, do ya? I'm sure Yo Yo Ma would really appreciate your advice on how to play the cello. Maybe you could travel back in time and show Van Gogh how to paint? Make sure, just for accuracy of the analogy, you show him one of his own paintings and ask him why he can't paint better, like the guy who painted it.

uu huh. How much have you studied on climate change? It is one of my favorite subjects. I've studied it quite extensively.

Do you really need for me to walk you through each point? Because I suspect you are behaving religiously over your dogma and have never really done your own investigation and know very little about it.

Now given that, do you really want for me to make you look like an ass?

Funny you say that because what it looks like to the rest of the world and half of America that it’s you fundamentalist Christians who are the only ones denying evolution and global warming.

In other words it’s you who’s brainwashed.

If you added up all the CO2 that has ever been emitted by man, do you know what percentage of CO2 that is compared to what is presently stored in the ocean and the atmosphere. We'll just ignore plants and grasses for the moment?

If you don't know that answer and what it means, maybe you are the one who is brainwashed, no?

You say things based upon emotion. You saying things like "it looks like to the rest of the world and half of America that it’s you fundamentalist Christians who are the only ones denying evolution and global warming" is so riddled with error that no rational person would say that.

First of all the facts are this.... the US and Western Europe CO2 emissions have been falling for the past 14 plus years, while the emissions of your so called rest of the world have been increasing by 1 billion tons per year. They will produce a new US worth of emissions every 5 years. Where do the Christians live?

I absolutely deny that atmospheric CO drive climate change. The data does not support it. That data you think you have is a model. That's inaccurate. Has been revised downwards multiple times. And has multiple cases for emissions most of which are unrealistically high.

I would love to share more data and information with you but you have been brainwashed by your religion of climatology (Scientology's kissing cousin).

As for evolution, compared to me, you are an evolution denier.

 

[ding]

No I think knowing who’s telling us what god said is very important.

Why?

If your house was on fire would it matter who told you?

If I was told my house was on fire, it might matter who told me. If a man wearing a fireman's uniform ran up to me, and told me my house was on fire, I would probably rush home. If some drunken sot waddled up to me, and slurred out that my house was on fire, before puking on my shoes? Wellll...I might be more inclined to ignore him...

Well... the fireman would be a stranger because the reasonable assumption is that is how he would have knowledge that YOUR house was on fire. He may have transposed the numbers of the address and it's your neighbors house that's on fire.

Whereas that drunk would have had to know YOU personally. How else would he know it was YOUR house that was on fire.

Putting that aside, I submit that of the 99% of knowledge that you possess came from accepting it on authority of others. I am willing to bet that you do not know the source of the knowledge of the vast majority of it.

It really is a BS argument to say we should have all the knowledge in the world on an event that happened 2000 years ago. Especially since this is the only event in antiquity that you hold to that standard. And especially since this event had more information recorded closer to the event than any other event in antiquity. And especially since it was orders of magnitude more. And especially since no other event in antiquity has been studied as extensively. And especially since it was orders of magnitude more. And especially since no other event in the history of the world has had a greater impact on mankind than the ministry of Jesus Christ. Not bad for a convicted criminal who was put to death by the superpower of the day whose ministry only lasted 3 1/2 years.

Stop acting like there is little to know evidence that hasn't been studied.

First you are changing subjects. The question wasn't about the account of Jesus. However, let's leave that, for a moment.

No one is suggesting that we should have "all the knowledge in the world" about the life, and death of Jesus. However, especially considering the alleged 100 witnesses of the alleged resurrection, would it not see reasonable, that there would be, at least, a few independent, contemporary accounts? Yet, we have not found even a single one.

I saw the Scientology schtick and I see how these religions lure people in.

These people could easily join us in another thread if we would just pick on Islam or Scientology but we don’t descriminate. They are all made up.

Like climate change, huh?

 

[Tuatara]

No I don't look down on believers. I do point out hypocrisies though.

Me too, except I call them incongruities. What hypocrisy of mine have you pointed out?

You showed disrespect to other religions when you state your god is the only one or when you state Zeus is part of mythology instead of a religion. I treat all religions equally. You pick and chose which ones you disrespect.

That is absolutely ridiculous. Based on your belief no one could believe in any God without offending someone else. Did you offend all the women you didn't marry?

I give all religions respect. Greek mythology isn't a religion. Can you show me how I disrespect other religions that are not my own without basing it on I didn't select that religion to follow. Because if I had, I would still be disrespecting the ones I didn't choose. amirite?

I already stated Atheists were standing up to the backlash they have encountered over the centuries. Let's start with today. Did you know there are 7 states that do not allow atheists to hold public office. During the inquisition atheists were tortured and executed. I don't need to give you a history lesson, it would take up too much space. Atheists are certainly persecuted in the US though.

So you are upset about ancient history? Could you show me something a little more recent that shows how atheists are being persecuted TODAY. Because if you want to go back in history to see persecution, you only need to go back the the 20th century for the 200 million souls that were murdered by oppressive atheistic nations.

How are atheists persecuted in the US today?

The title of this thread is 'Who here is an Atheist?". Why are you here?

Good question. I seek out incongruities and present them. It's up to them what they do about it. My obligation is satisfied when I present the info.

Well we agree on this but when they had prayer in school many non-christians were forced to pray. Religion should be kept out of school.

No. Students should be allowed to express their faith.

Besides religious studies are a valid subject matter to discuss as long as favoritism isn't shown by the administrators. Maybe if it had, you wouldn't only see half the picture.

Everybody here is criticizing each other. This is a debate forum.

Don't kid yourself. No one is debating here. They are here for the car crashes.

Where did you get the bull from. It has defecated all over this.

Dude, it is 100% what you do. You practice critical theory. Not critical thinking. As to where it came from? It came from Cultural Marxists at the Frankfort School in Germany. They married Freud with Marx for the express purpose of socially engineering a solution to replace loyalty to God, family and country with loyalty to state. As WWI was approaching, the Marxists were pissing their pants in anticipation of the workers revolution. Funny thing though, it never happened. Why? Because the people reverted back to loyalty of country. So they set about the deceitful practice to subordinate God, family, religion and country through behavioral engineering (i.e. brainwashing). When Hitler came to power, the Cultural Marxists fled Germany to America and took up residence in the east coast universities. Now you know.

Greek mythology was a real religion.

Is atheism a religion?

Today, Greek Mythology is not a religion. We don't see anyone practicing these beliefs and we don't see anyone exhibiting behaviors that would be associated with a religious person (let me know if you need for me to explain what these behaviors are).

Today, Militant Atheism is a religion. People practice it and exhibit religious behaviors.

Wow, this will be the third time I have said this. Yes there are people today who practice the religion of Hellenism. Not many about 100,000 worldwide, but they exist.

The Ancient Greek practice of Hellenism lives on as a modern religion

Also you and your cohorts need to stop using the term "Militant Atheists" Militant means to be aggressive and combatant, favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods in support of a political or social cause. Again, you have zero understanding what the word religion means. Now people have used the informal use of the word religion" like "Hockey is my religion" but this practice does not mean hockey is a religion. They use the term to describe the importance or their pursuit or interest.

And in post #308 I explained to you that I would be disrespecting them if I argued with them about their beliefs and tried to tell them what their religion said.

So you feel I would not be disrespecting your religion if I called it mythology?

 

[ding]

First of all when and who were oppressed? Do you have any specifics?

If you don't want any part of religion, then what are you doing here?

I see nothing wrong with students praying. I see everything wrong with students being forced to pray.

You said it yourself, you are standing up for NON-BELIEF. Which means you don't have arguments FOR your belief because it is a non-belief. You only have arguments against others having beliefs. That's what you are doing here. You are trying to validate your beliefs by criticizing the beliefs of others.

Do you know what that is called? Critical theory. The Cultural Marxist practice of critical theory is to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

Isn’t that what conservative Americans are guilty of? Let me give you an example. Europe has conservatives too. What’s different about American conservatives is they don’t believe in global warming or evolution. Is that what you meant about not critical thinking?

No. We practice traditional theory, not critical theory. Traditional theory is when you make an affirmative case for what something is. Critical thinking is when you challenge what you believe to test it's validity. That's what we do. You on the other hand practice critical theory. You don't know how to make an affirmative case for something and sure as heck don't challenge your own beliefs to test their validity. You have arguments against other people's arguments.

Here is an example of what Traditional theory looks like in practice. Given that we are still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycle, and given that the geologic record shows that CO2 does not drive climate change, CO2 reinforces climate change, and given that for most of the planet's history earth has been a greenhouse world and only in the last 5 million years transitioned to an icehouse world and given that for the past 500,000 years we have oscillated between pretty severe glacial cycles and interglacial cycles, and given that the conditions which led to this transition are still in place today, I'd be more worried about what triggers the ice age than I would be of a 1 C increase.

Besides do you really believe they can represent the earth's average temperature with one number for the last 2000 years? C'mon man. You got days and night and you have seasons.

The most comical of all though is how you over exaggerate the damage caused by atmospheric CO2. It's like you don't even logic.

Riddle me this batman, if it is the rest of the world is responsible for increasing CO2 emissions by ~ 1 billion tons per year, are you going to send our money to other nations so they don't build gas and coal fired power plants?

Because our emissions could go to zero overnight and the rest of the world would replace what we are presently emitting in 5 short years.

The only "comedy" I see is some uneducated slob of a climate denier listing things that were all taught to him by the very same scientists who have concluded that our actions are warming the planet, then trying to peddle some stupid con that these things are the reason these scientists are wrong. Embarrassing and absurd. Think about the absurdity of your entire line of bullshit...you are explicitly stating that the people who have dedicated their lives to these fields of science and taught you anything and everything you know are so incompetent that they are laboring under the ignorance of the very knowledge they discovered. Fuckin A people, how do you not realize how idiotic you sound?

What's next? Got a few boxing tips for Floyd Mayweather, do ya? I'm sure Yo Yo Ma would really appreciate your advice on how to play the cello. Maybe you could travel back in time and show Van Gogh how to paint? Make sure, just for accuracy of the analogy, you show him one of his own paintings and ask him why he can't paint better, like the guy who painted it.

uu huh. How much have you studied on climate change? It is one of my favorite subjects. I've studied it quite extensively.

Do you really need for me to walk you through each point? Because I suspect you are behaving religiously over your dogma and have never really done your own investigation and know very little about it.

Now given that, do you really want for me to make you look like an ass?

We know global warming denier is something right wing conservative Christians are passionately against. They believe it’s a hoax because the Bible tells you when and how the world ends. You don’t need to worry about gw because the Bible never mentioned it. And I’m sure when it’s undeniable even for a nut like you you’ll just find a verse that foretold it.

When a book rambles on that long it says everything. Greatest bullshit story ever told. Sure you had to first force it on everyone but never mind all that

You do realize that the big picture shows the earth trending to be colder, right?

The glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 500,000 years had never existed in the previous 55 million years. The same conditions which led to bipolar glaciation with periods of intense northern hemisphere glaciation still exist today. We should be emitting more CO2, not less.

 

[ding]

Me too, except I call them incongruities. What hypocrisy of mine have you pointed out?

That is absolutely ridiculous. Based on your belief no one could believe in any God without offending someone else. Did you offend all the women you didn't marry?

I give all religions respect. Greek mythology isn't a religion. Can you show me how I disrespect other religions that are not my own without basing it on I didn't select that religion to follow. Because if I had, I would still be disrespecting the ones I didn't choose. amirite?

So you are upset about ancient history? Could you show me something a little more recent that shows how atheists are being persecuted TODAY. Because if you want to go back in history to see persecution, you only need to go back the the 20th century for the 200 million souls that were murdered by oppressive atheistic nations.

How are atheists persecuted in the US today?

Good question. I seek out incongruities and present them. It's up to them what they do about it. My obligation is satisfied when I present the info.

No. Students should be allowed to express their faith.

Besides religious studies are a valid subject matter to discuss as long as favoritism isn't shown by the administrators. Maybe if it had, you wouldn't only see half the picture.

Don't kid yourself. No one is debating here. They are here for the car crashes.

Dude, it is 100% what you do. You practice critical theory. Not critical thinking. As to where it came from? It came from Cultural Marxists at the Frankfort School in Germany. They married Freud with Marx for the express purpose of socially engineering a solution to replace loyalty to God, family and country with loyalty to state. As WWI was approaching, the Marxists were pissing their pants in anticipation of the workers revolution. Funny thing though, it never happened. Why? Because the people reverted back to loyalty of country. So they set about the deceitful practice to subordinate God, family, religion and country through behavioral engineering (i.e. brainwashing). When Hitler came to power, the Cultural Marxists fled Germany to America and took up residence in the east coast universities. Now you know.

Greek mythology was a real religion.

Is atheism a religion?

Today, Greek Mythology is not a religion. We don't see anyone practicing these beliefs and we don't see anyone exhibiting behaviors that would be associated with a religious person (let me know if you need for me to explain what these behaviors are).

Today, Militant Atheism is a religion. People practice it and exhibit religious behaviors.

Wow, this will be the third time I have said this. Yes there are people today who practice the religion of Hellenism. Not many about 100,000 worldwide, but they exist.

The Ancient Greek practice of Hellenism lives on as a modern religion

Also you and your cohorts need to stop using the term "Militant Atheists" Militant means to be aggressive and combatant, favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods in support of a political or social cause. Again, you have zero understanding what the word religion means. Now people have used the informal use of the word religion" like "Hockey is my religion" but this practice does not mean hockey is a religion. They use the term to describe the importance or their pursuit or interest.

And in post #308 I explained to you that I would be disrespecting them if I argued with them about their beliefs and tried to tell them what their religion said.

So you feel I would not be disrespecting your religion if I called it mythology?

You tell me and then explain your reasoning to me.

I think I would learn a lot about your objectivity.

 

[Tuatara]

I already stated Atheists were standing up to the backlash they have encountered over the centuries. Let's start with today. Did you know there are 7 states that do not allow atheists to hold public office. During the inquisition atheists were tortured and executed. I don't need to give you a history lesson, it would take up too much space. Atheists are certainly persecuted in the US though.

So you are upset about ancient history? Could you show me something a little more recent that shows how atheists are being persecuted TODAY. Because if you want to go back in history to see persecution, you only need to go back the the 20th century for the 200 million souls that were murdered by oppressive atheistic nations.

How are atheists persecuted in the US today?

Did you not see the part about Atheists not allowed to hold public office in 7 States? Did you not watch the video I submitted. Here is another. There used to be a real good video out there but I can't find it anymore.

Yeah, I'm going to call BS on that. Long standing law from long ago, back when states had established religions, as permitted by the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, that are not likely being enforced.

No where did I see a report of anyone having to sign an affidavit that they were not atheists. Can you show me where someone was actually denied the right to serve based on being an atheist.

They have been challenged in the recent past.

"Cecil Bothwell (North Carolina) was elected on November 3, 2009, to the city council after he won the third highest number of votes in the city election. Following the election, opponents of Bothwell, including H. K. Edgerton, a former president of the Asheville NAACP, challenged his election because the North Carolina Constitution does not allow for atheists to hold public office in the state. Law experts argued the provision was invalid because the United States Constitution prevents religious tests for public office. The Supreme Court of the United States held in Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) that such provisions violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution."

The Constitution of North Carolina was written in 1776 and had amendments to it twice in 1868 and 1971. The part about Atheists was not amended.

And this is persecution to you? You really see it that way? It's not someone trying to game the system because they lost an election? Never mind that their plan failed and justice prevailed.

Yes, I can see why we should form a nation for atheists like we did for Israel. This is like the holocaust all over again.

Dude, this is exactly how I called it. Long standing law with no effect. And yet this is the best anyone can show for atheist persecution.

I also provide 2 videos which I know you didn't watch either because you didn't comment on. Persecution comes in many forms besides the most extreme ones. Does not make it right.

 

[ding]

So you are upset about ancient history? Could you show me something a little more recent that shows how atheists are being persecuted TODAY. Because if you want to go back in history to see persecution, you only need to go back the the 20th century for the 200 million souls that were murdered by oppressive atheistic nations.

How are atheists persecuted in the US today?

Did you not see the part about Atheists not allowed to hold public office in 7 States? Did you not watch the video I submitted. Here is another. There used to be a real good video out there but I can't find it anymore.

Yeah, I'm going to call BS on that. Long standing law from long ago, back when states had established religions, as permitted by the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, that are not likely being enforced.

No where did I see a report of anyone having to sign an affidavit that they were not atheists. Can you show me where someone was actually denied the right to serve based on being an atheist.

They have been challenged in the recent past.

"Cecil Bothwell (North Carolina) was elected on November 3, 2009, to the city council after he won the third highest number of votes in the city election. Following the election, opponents of Bothwell, including H. K. Edgerton, a former president of the Asheville NAACP, challenged his election because the North Carolina Constitution does not allow for atheists to hold public office in the state. Law experts argued the provision was invalid because the United States Constitution prevents religious tests for public office. The Supreme Court of the United States held in Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) that such provisions violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution."

The Constitution of North Carolina was written in 1776 and had amendments to it twice in 1868 and 1971. The part about Atheists was not amended.

And this is persecution to you? You really see it that way? It's not someone trying to game the system because they lost an election? Never mind that their plan failed and justice prevailed.

Yes, I can see why we should form a nation for atheists like we did for Israel. This is like the holocaust all over again.

Dude, this is exactly how I called it. Long standing law with no effect. And yet this is the best anyone can show for atheist persecution.

I also provide 2 videos which I know you didn't watch either because you didn't comment on. Persecution comes in many forms besides the most extreme ones. Does not make it right.

You're right. I didn't watch them.

Is that a worse sin than you proffering up fake persecution?

No one is persecuting atheists here.

 

[Czernobog]

If I was told my house was on fire, it might matter who told me. If a man wearing a fireman's uniform ran up to me, and told me my house was on fire, I would probably rush home. If some drunken sot waddled up to me, and slurred out that my house was on fire, before puking on my shoes? Wellll...I might be more inclined to ignore him...

Well... the fireman would be a stranger because the reasonable assumption is that is how he would have knowledge that YOUR house was on fire. He may have transposed the numbers of the address and it's your neighbors house that's on fire.

Whereas that drunk would have had to know YOU personally. How else would he know it was YOUR house that was on fire.

Putting that aside, I submit that of the 99% of knowledge that you possess came from accepting it on authority of others. I am willing to bet that you do not know the source of the knowledge of the vast majority of it.

It really is a BS argument to say we should have all the knowledge in the world on an event that happened 2000 years ago. Especially since this is the only event in antiquity that you hold to that standard. And especially since this event had more information recorded closer to the event than any other event in antiquity. And especially since it was orders of magnitude more. And especially since no other event in antiquity has been studied as extensively. And especially since it was orders of magnitude more. And especially since no other event in the history of the world has had a greater impact on mankind than the ministry of Jesus Christ. Not bad for a convicted criminal who was put to death by the superpower of the day whose ministry only lasted 3 1/2 years.

Stop acting like there is little to know evidence that hasn't been studied.

First you are changing subjects. The question wasn't about the account of Jesus. However, let's leave that, for a moment.

No one is suggesting that we should have "all the knowledge in the world" about the life, and death of Jesus. However, especially considering the alleged 100 witnesses of the alleged resurrection, would it not see reasonable, that there would be, at least, a few independent, contemporary accounts? Yet, we have not found even a single one.

Can you give me an example of a contemporary account of Julius Caesars Gallic Wars so that I may better understand what you are asking for?

And I didn't change subjects. You are calling into question the tangible evidence for the existence, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, right? Placing that evidence in its proper context to other events in antiquity is 100% relevant and not off subject.

Cassius Dio Histories, Caesar's Commentaries, The writings of Plutarch, just to name a few.

Ok, but when was the event? And when were Cassius Dio Histories, Caesar's Commentaries, The writings of Plutarch compiled?

Because I seem to recall there being only 10 manuscripts with the earliest being 1000 years after the event. Is that wrong?

I believe it is. I believe that Plutarch's writings have been dated to around 30 BC - that would have been within a couple of decades of the wars. And Caesar's accounts are of course from that time. The cassius Deo was within 100 years.

Your point? There are likewise no accounts of Jesus,