Why is it so important to atheists to evangelize?

[THE LIGHT]

Light: Sure, but when scientists talk about religion, they revert to imbeciles. You can be Nobel prize winner in chemistry and believe in Hell, that doesn't negate your brilliance in chemistry, just as having a Nobel prize in chemistry doesn't validate your belief in an invisible superbeing that lives in another dimension.

Cecilie: religion doesn't recognize all scientific discoveries, especially when they contradict the bible.

So you just have a problem with the concept of a creator. Not because it isn't correct, but because you just don't like it. Which is fine, but it is just your belief and should remain as such. However, those brilliant scientists have examined the concept of creation and come to the conclusion that it is the best most logical theory.

Appeal to authority.

Your point being?

 

[THE LIGHT]

Yeah just look at Ayn Rand.

“At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.
G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s, relates:
"I began to speak of God. Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence, said:
"‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .’
"I was astonished at these words. I had never heard anything like it before.
"‘How can you say such things, Soso?’ I exclaimed.
"‘I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,’ Joseph said.
"‘What book is that?’ I enquired.
"‘Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me.”

EmelianYaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1940), 8-9.

Your point being?

Stalin killed 60-100 million of his own people.

 

[Father Time]

So you just have a problem with the concept of a creator. Not because it isn't correct, but because you just don't like it. Which is fine, but it is just your belief and should remain as such. However, those brilliant scientists have examined the concept of creation and come to the conclusion that it is the best most logical theory.

Appeal to authority.

Your point being?

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

 

[Father Time]

“At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.
G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s, relates:
"I began to speak of God. Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence, said:
"‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .’
"I was astonished at these words. I had never heard anything like it before.
"‘How can you say such things, Soso?’ I exclaimed.
"‘I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,’ Joseph said.
"‘What book is that?’ I enquired.
"‘Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me.”

EmelianYaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1940), 8-9.

Your point being?

Stalin killed 60-100 million of his own people.

So because Stalin was an atheist then most atheists are communists? Is that what you're saying?

 

[THE LIGHT]

Appeal to authority.

Your point being?

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Could you expound on this?

 

[Father Time]

Your point being?

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Could you expound on this?

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[THE LIGHT]

Your point being?

Stalin killed 60-100 million of his own people.

So because Stalin was an atheist then most atheists are communists? Is that what you're saying?

No, I am saying that Stalin's Russia was run by an atheist in power with an atheistic system in contrast with the US run by Christian leaders with a system founded on Christian principles.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Could you expound on this?

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I never said that it was based on that. But I am glad that you admit to that. I'll keep that in mind next time I run into someone who claims that. I get that from evolutionists all the time.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Stalin killed 60-100 million of his own people.

So because Stalin was an atheist then most atheists are communists? Is that what you're saying?

No, I am saying that Stalin's Russia was run by an atheist in power with an atheistic system in contrast with the US run by Christian leaders with a system founded on Christian principles.

Since when did the US become a theocratic Christian nation with Christian leaders?

 

[Mr Natural]

What do you get when you cross an atheist with a Jehovas Witness?







Someone who knocks on your door for no reason.

 

[Father Time]

Could you expound on this?

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I never said that it was based on that. But I am glad that you admit to that. I'll keep that in mind next time I run into someone who claims that. I get that from evolutionists all the time.

You argument was essentially 'these smart scientists believe it so you should too'. That is appeal to authority.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I never said that it was based on that. But I am glad that you admit to that. I'll keep that in mind next time I run into someone who claims that. I get that from evolutionists all the time.

You argument was essentially 'these smart scientists believe it so you should too'. That is appeal to authority.

I did not say that. I said that Hister was entitled to his belief that he doesn't like creation theory and proceeded to defend the conclusions of the scientists being discussed.

You likely took it that way because you, along with Hister, seem to think that you are the only ones who posses science. However, nowhere in the definition of science is the "need to believe in evolution" it is merely based on "testing" and "observation" among other things.

 

[THE LIGHT]

So because Stalin was an atheist then most atheists are communists? Is that what you're saying?

No, I am saying that Stalin's Russia was run by an atheist in power with an atheistic system in contrast with the US run by Christian leaders with a system founded on Christian principles.

Since when did the US become a theocratic Christian nation with Christian leaders?

I don't know. You seem to be the only one envisioning that as I never said that. Since when did you find it necessary to misquote me?

FACT: The majority if not all US Presidents have been Christians.

FACT: America was founded by Christian leaders based on Biblical Principles by a people trying to escape religious persecution by a specific sect.

FACT: Many of the early state constitutions required belief in a higher being and some the belief in G-d because they felt that those with a belief in a higher power would be much more morally accountable.

FACT: Our early school system was steeped in references to G-d and much learning came from passages out of the Bible.

Is America a Theocracy? NO
Is America founded upon the Christian principles of freedom and liberty for ALL? YES

 

[hipeter924]

Stalin killed 60-100 million of his own people.

So because Stalin was an atheist then most atheists are communists? Is that what you're saying?

No, I am saying that Stalin's Russia was run by an atheist in power with an atheistic system in contrast with the US run by Christian leaders with a system founded on Christian principles.

Stalin was brought up as an orthodox Christian, most Russians then and today are Orthodox Christians, and the US was no way founded totally on Christian principles. Plus I think you fail to realize that Stalin didn't care about ideology he just enjoyed his personal power and making people suffer, ny ideology or belief system makes no difference when you are a sadist.

 

[Madeline]

The Light wrote in part:

Is America founded upon the Christian principles of freedom and liberty for ALL? YES

Leaving aside the interesting question of whether this freedom really is a "christian principle", I wonder why you refuse religious expression to people of other faiths? If we truely live in a diverse culture and everyone is to be respected, why's it so hard for you to admit that sometimes, that duty to accomodate will fall to christians?

 

[hipeter924]

The Light wrote in part:

Is America founded upon the Christian principles of freedom and liberty for ALL? YES

Leaving aside the interesting question of whether this freedom really is a "christian principle", I wonder why you refuse religious expression to people of other faiths? If we truely live in a diverse culture and everyone is to be respected, why's it so hard for you to admit that sometimes, that duty to accomodate with fall to christians?

The US wasn't founded as a Christian state or as a Christian theocracy, but as a nation of many faiths where religion wasn't meant to have a major controlling role in society (as it did in the Europe people left).

 

[Hister]

Last time I checked, every single branch of science was founded by Catholic scientists - the vast majority of them priests - seeking to become closer to God by understanding His creation.

Light: Sure, but when scientists talk about religion, they revert to imbeciles. You can be Nobel prize winner in chemistry and believe in Hell, that doesn't negate your brilliance in chemistry, just as having a Nobel prize in chemistry doesn't validate your belief in an invisible superbeing that lives in another dimension.

Cecilie: religion doesn't recognize all scientific discoveries, especially when they contradict the bible.

So you just have a problem with the concept of a creator. Not because it isn't correct, but because you just don't like it. Which is fine, but it is just your belief and should remain as such. However, those brilliant scientists have examined the concept of creation and come to the conclusion that it is the best most logical theory.

I don't have a problem with a creator, once someone can prove that it exists (I'm an agnostic). Ya, how about a source for your claim about the scientists who conclude that creation is logical?

Btw, Stalin the atheist didn't kill all those people because they believed in god or for some other atheist dogma, so it's pretty much irrelevant that he was an atheist.

 

[edthecynic]

Last time I checked, every single branch of science was founded by Catholic scientists - the vast majority of them priests - seeking to become closer to God by understanding His creation.

Light: Sure, but when scientists talk about religion, they revert to imbeciles. You can be Nobel prize winner in chemistry and believe in Hell, that doesn't negate your brilliance in chemistry, just as having a Nobel prize in chemistry doesn't validate your belief in an invisible superbeing that lives in another dimension.

Cecilie: religion doesn't recognize all scientific discoveries, especially when they contradict the bible.

So you just have a problem with the concept of a creator. Not because it isn't correct, but because you just don't like it. Which is fine, but it is just your belief and should remain as such. However, those brilliant scientists have examined the concept of creation and come to the conclusion that it is the best most logical theory.

Creation violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, so NO scientist would ever conclude Creation is "logical."

 

[THE LIGHT]

Light: Sure, but when scientists talk about religion, they revert to imbeciles. You can be Nobel prize winner in chemistry and believe in Hell, that doesn't negate your brilliance in chemistry, just as having a Nobel prize in chemistry doesn't validate your belief in an invisible superbeing that lives in another dimension.

Cecilie: religion doesn't recognize all scientific discoveries, especially when they contradict the bible.

So you just have a problem with the concept of a creator. Not because it isn't correct, but because you just don't like it. Which is fine, but it is just your belief and should remain as such. However, those brilliant scientists have examined the concept of creation and come to the conclusion that it is the best most logical theory.

Creation violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, so NO scientist would ever conclude Creation is "logical."

Wrong. They have concluded that. Regardless...

The big bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

and

Evolution voilates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[edthecynic]

So you just have a problem with the concept of a creator. Not because it isn't correct, but because you just don't like it. Which is fine, but it is just your belief and should remain as such. However, those brilliant scientists have examined the concept of creation and come to the conclusion that it is the best most logical theory.

Creation violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, so NO scientist would ever conclude Creation is "logical."

Wrong. They have concluded that. Regardless...

The big bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

and

Evolution voilates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Big Bang does not violate any Law Of Thermodynamics and you have no idea what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is. I'll bet you can neither state the SLoT correctly or give the correct equation for it even after googling it!

But please explain your two false claims.
Thank you.