***The Official Atheist and Christian Friendly Discussion***

[Brackneyc]

I know you don't want to interact with me because you know I bring destruction upon your house of cards. If you engage me in any serious way about your beliefs they will be dismantled one by one. That's why I keep spouting off that block of cheese because each sentance in that block of cheese is a question to which if you respond you will be shredded.

But really you shouldn't take it that way. I actually like you and your crab outfit. Athiests have generally figured out that it is completely useless to discuss religion with 'normal people'. Because you will not listen in any way. It makes what I'm doing both sadistic (because it's like kicking a puppy, playing with insects, telling a child there is no santa clause and easter bunny)...and masochistic (because nobody smart comes on bb.com for a religious debate).

My point is. You have no chance. Explain your beliefs if you dare. You know mine.

You can dismantle someone's beliefs?

[GreatOldOne]

You can dismantle someone's beliefs?

good point..i still encourage what's his face to respond, but it's true. you can't choose to believe in something. you just do or don't given other information.

so...i think it's possible to dismantle somebody's beliefs, but in no means is it a certain proposition. you can expose people to stress and discord amongst their own beliefs...that often has effects.

but when those beliefs happen to be 'christianity'. yes. you can dismantle those. or be punched.

[2nd_chance]

I know you don't want to interact with me because you know I bring destruction upon your house of cards. If you engage me in any serious way about your beliefs they will be dismantled one by one. That's why I keep spouting off that block of cheese because each sentance in that block of cheese is a question to which if you respond you will be shredded.

But really you shouldn't take it that way. I actually like you and your crab outfit. Athiests have generally figured out that it is completely useless to discuss religion with 'normal people'. Because you will not listen in any way. It makes what I'm doing both sadistic (because it's like kicking a puppy, playing with insects, telling a child there is no santa clause and easter bunny)...and masochistic (because nobody smart comes on bb.com for a religious debate).

My point is. You have no chance. Explain your beliefs if you dare. You know mine.

I nominate this for the comedy post of the year.

[GreatOldOne]

I nominate this for the comedy post of the year.

i laughed myself. but wait for the response. it will be golden. and btw it applies to you too david. it's your thread. what's your creed? i'm fairly sure you know mine but let me know if not i can repeat.

you probably should have taken your fiend john's advice and have 'ignored me'. i will rustle your non-existant xtian jimmies and take them home with me as a sacrifice to my pagan gods.

but really not you. i want to sacrifice lashers jimmies.

[2nd_chance]

i laughed myself. but wait for the response. it will be golden. and btw it applies to you too david. it's your thread. what's your creed? i'm fairly sure you know mine but let me know if not i can repeat.

you probably should have taken your fiend john's advice and have 'ignored me'. i will rustle your non-existant xtian jimmies and take them home with me as a sacrifice to my pagan gods.

but really not you. i want to sacrifice lashers jimmies.

There have been some pretty intelligent atheists post in here. You're not one of them.

[lasher]

There have been some pretty intelligent atheists post in here. You're not one of them.

You know the metaphor of the pigeon knocking over all the chess pieces, taking a crap on the chess board, and strutting around like it's the winner?
He's that pigeon.

[GreatOldOne]

Hello all. I want to bump this thread and apologize publicly for being a gigantic ass. Specifically to David and Lasher, I apologize for the copious amounts of verbal diarrhea I've spouted in this thread. I realize the entire caustic approach and vitriolic nature of basically everything I said was well, childish.

I would have entered into this all differently if I could, but not being able to I'll just apologize and say if you wanted to carry on your previous discussion I will not troll it and destroy it again. I'm not really sure what I could say to restart a friendly discussion given the bad taste I'm sure I've put in your mouths. But I would start with I'm sorry.

Part of my vitriol here started from a personal loss, but honestly putting some space between that and now I am realizing what an ass I've been lately and wanted to apologize for putting in effort to destroy a conversation some of you may have been enjoying and was started by the OP in good faith.

[2nd_chance]

Hello all. I want to bump this thread and apologize publicly for being a gigantic ass. Specifically to David and Lasher, I apologize for the copious amounts of verbal diarrhea I've spouted in this thread. I realize the entire caustic approach and vitriolic nature of basically everything I said was well, childish.

I would have entered into this all differently if I could, but not being able to I'll just apologize and say if you wanted to carry on your previous discussion I will not troll it and destroy it again. I'm not really sure what I could say to restart a friendly discussion given the bad taste I'm sure I've put in your mouths. But I would start with I'm sorry.

Part of my vitriol here started from a personal loss, but honestly putting some space between that and now I am realizing what an ass I've been lately and wanted to apologize for putting in effort to destroy a conversation some of you may have been enjoying and was started by the OP in good faith.

All is good bro. Life sucks for all of us at times. If this thread picks back up, I look forward to your comments, no matter what side they are on.

[Hannah82]

Hello hello checking in to side with atheists. Not much to say tho...flogging a dead horse is exhausting.

[Hannah82]

Oh wait I do have one thing. Joel Osteen show on yesterday so I watch a few min for a laugh....guy opens by insulting another religion.....click...funs over.

[Wayne Evans]

If this thread picks back up,

It appears that it has.
I got in early on this one.

Thanks for the kind note and per usual I'm on spread.
Hope all is well with you also.
I remain above dirt as of this typing so all is well.

Back to topic...as in....carry on.

[lasher]

Hello all. I want to bump this thread and apologize publicly for being a gigantic ass. Specifically to David and Lasher, I apologize for the copious amounts of verbal diarrhea I've spouted in this thread. I realize the entire caustic approach and vitriolic nature of basically everything I said was well, childish.

I would have entered into this all differently if I could, but not being able to I'll just apologize and say if you wanted to carry on your previous discussion I will not troll it and destroy it again. I'm not really sure what I could say to restart a friendly discussion given the bad taste I'm sure I've put in your mouths. But I would start with I'm sorry.

Part of my vitriol here started from a personal loss, but honestly putting some space between that and now I am realizing what an ass I've been lately and wanted to apologize for putting in effort to destroy a conversation some of you may have been enjoying and was started by the OP in good faith.

well, to be fair, I wasn't exactly the pinnacle of politeness to you either

It's all good bro, and I apologize as well.

[2nd_chance]

Bumped for fun...

[OldFartTom]

Bumped for fun...

You sure that was wise?

[2nd_chance]

You sure that was wise?

Quite sure. What does either side have to fear?

[ArchAngel'73]

Quite sure. What does either side have to fear?

Imo, eternal damnation.
but they'll come anyway

[Wayne Evans]

Bumped for fun...

Howdy David....

Long time, no see.
A 'resurrection' of sorts. (thanks to Constantine at the Council Of Nicaea IIRC )
I may have to revisit some of the early posts hoping I didn't embarrass myself.

Been a while since this thread.
I do recall some contentious posts but that's bound to occur in this context.
For those who desire to engage in this topic I do hope all contribute in a favorable manner.

Let the 'fun' begin.

Hope all is well...do carry on.

[2nd_chance]

Howdy David....

Long time, no see.
A 'resurrection' of sorts. (thanks to Constantine at the Council Of Nicaea IIRC )
I may have to revisit some of the early posts hoping I didn't embarrass myself.

Been a while since this thread.
I do recall some contentious posts but that's bound to occur in this context.
For those who desire to engage in this topic I do hope all contribute in a favorable manner.

Let the 'fun' begin.

Hope all is well...do carry on.

Good to see you Wayne! I was searching for a different thread and this one showed up in the results. I couldn't resist. I'm a glutton for punishment lol.

[2nd_chance]

Just think... this thread is so old that some of the atheists that posted nine years ago are already in hell! [I couldn't resist ]

[Wayne Evans]

Just think... this thread is so old that some of the atheists that posted nine years ago are already in hell! [I couldn't resist ]

Haha....good one.

I just hope they kept a sinful safe space available for me to occupy.
Hmmm....I wonder if they have Crown Royal in hell....that would make my less than temperate stay of incarceration far more tolerable.

Back at it....

[Payton1221]

Christianity is, obviously, a belief system (one in which I believe in). But what I find odd/irritating is how so many today forget evolution is a theory. Microevolution is observable (we're taller, we mature sooner, etc.), but macroevolution? Questions like where did matter come from (BEFORE the big bang ); how did we get from no life to life; and how did we get from life to intelligent life can only be theorized. These are hyooge questions with answers that can only be theorized.

Shouldn't we have observed significant and many macroevolutionary changes since Darwin postulated his theory? The world has never seen such turmoil and change with industrialization, deforestation, acid rain, etc., yet we hear so much about animals going extinct and none evolving. Without clear evidence of macroevolution ever occurring, how long will the majority of the scientific community continue to hold to this theory? I mean, if no macroevolutionary observations have been made in 200, 500, or 1,000 years from now, will science continue to "believe" in this theory?

[didn't check but I wouldn't be surprised that I posted something similar somewhere in these 71 pages years ago]

[OldFartTom]

I'm nervous to contribute but here goes

Evolution as a principle can be demonstrated, example of microevolution as Payton says. We can also debate whether the word normally translated to English as created in 7 days could also mean 7 ages or 7 stages. Evolution isn't entirely incompatable with even a biblical literalist view (which I hold). But who expletive cares. This is missing the big point.

I hope nothing like this ever happens to your nearest and dearest, but imagine for a moment someone phones you to say your partner/child etc has been hit by a car and you must go as soon as possible to the hospital to be with them as they don't have much time.

You would be utterly insane to stay on the phone asking questions what was the driver wearing, what exact model of car, what type of tires - then disputing if the message is true because those tires shouldn't fit on that model so either they have details wrong or the whole thing is not true or it was all just figurative and the call could mean to look after people you know as a life principle. That would be completely insane and missing the whole significance of the phone call.

The problem I have with a lot of these discussions is that they do the equivalent of obsess on the tires. Debating a specific word example above days/ages/etc or some complex side argument.

The big divider to my mind is do you see the world like laws of physics, endless possibilities, big bang, chance, etc. Or do you recognize it as the creation of God, because that decision is the HUGE big deal change in world-view. That choice of perspective changes absolutely everything.

My real concern that these debates always end up as 2 sides arguing over the tires and people's positions rarely change. We can spend countless hours on complex logical debate and argue the tires later.


Edit: just want to add context in case of misunderstanding. None of this was any criticism or aimed at Payton's post mentioning evolution, that's not what I was trying to say, please continue Payton

[7Seconds]

I'm nervous to contribute but here goes

Evolution as a principle can be demonstrated, example of microevolution as Payton says. We can also debate whether the word normally translated to English as created in 7 days could also mean 7 ages or 7 stages. Evolution isn't entirely incompatable with even a biblical literalist view (which I hold). But who expletive cares. This is missing the big point.

I hope nothing like this ever happens to your nearest and dearest, but imagine for a moment someone phones you to say your partner/child etc has been hit by a car and you must go as soon as possible to the hospital to be with them as they don't have much time.

You would be utterly insane to stay on the phone asking questions what was the driver wearing, what exact model of car, what type of tires - then disputing if the message is true because those tires shouldn't fit on that model so either they have details wrong or the whole thing is not true or it was all just figurative and the call could mean to look after people you know as a life principle. That would be completely insane and missing the whole significance of the phone call.

The problem I have with a lot of these discussions is that they do the equivalent of obsess on the tires. Debating a specific word example above days/ages/etc or some complex side argument.

The big divider to my mind is do you see the world like laws of physics, endless possibilities, big bang, chance, etc. Or do you recognize it as the creation of God, because that decision is the HUGE big deal change in world-view. That choice of perspective changes absolutely everything.

My real concern that these debates always end up as 2 sides arguing over the tires and people's positions rarely change. We can spend countless hours on complex logical debate and argue the tires later.


Edit: just want to add context in case of misunderstanding. None of this was any criticism or aimed at Payton's post mentioning evolution, that's not what I was trying to say, please continue Payton

There are parts of the Bible that are among the most radically life-affirming, love-demanding and morality-promoting texts any human being could ever read. But there are also deeply, deeply flawed parts that Western society has begun to realize should be set aside (like issues of sexuality). It is my conviction that the best way for believers (i.e., not for myself) to treat the Bible is to recognize that it is a human construct intended as an expression of faith in God, rather than as a divine construct intended as an expression of control over humanity.

[7Seconds]

The big divider to my mind is do you see the world like laws of physics, endless possibilities, big bang, chance, etc. Or do you recognize it as the creation of God, because that decision is the HUGE big deal change in world-view. That choice of perspective changes absolutely everything.

When i look at the world described by science i feel the emotions described by religion.

I don’t think one needs theism for awe and reverence and i agree with theists that these things are the proper response to the miracles which surround us.

[supramax]

... eternal damnation...

... implies continuity, which is the reason why the Catholic church redefined 'Hell' as non existance.

[7Seconds]

... implies continuity, which is the reason why the Catholic church redefined 'Hell' as non existance.

I read Ehrman's Heaven and Hell not to long ago, and he seems to believe that given the fact that the earliest Christians were Jews, they most likely had a Jewish concept of death - ie sheol, a dark dusty place where the soul (or whatever is left of a human after the body decays/dies) are parked while they fade away. The gospels present an apocalyptic view of religion, ie the 'son of man' will at some time during the life of those hearing Jesus speak will come to our sad evil world and defeat the forces of evil and construct a kingdom of God, and perhaps the dead who were believers will be raised to live in that new creation along with the current living persons who keep the proper faith.

As time passed and the 'son of man' never came, the idea of an Apocalypse became less tenable, so the idea of an immediate judgement of worthiness upon death became prevalent - instead of all of humanity being judged at one time at the 'end time', each person who dies would be judged after their personal death. Some will be elevated to heaven, some sent to hell. The construction of a 'hell' to eternally punish selected persons seems to be a mechanism of social control - do what the church and it's elders say or you will be punished in the afterlife forever! The idea of heaven/hell developed in non-canonical tracts in the 100's and 200's, at a time when Christianity was not a favored religion and had no ability to grant or give adherents rewards during life on earth (it was a despised and persecuted religion after all). All Christianity could offer adherents was a promise of a better afterlife - until the acceptance of Christianity as a state religion after ~300 or so there was nothing concrete that the religion could give to or grant for it's faithful adherents other than promises of an improved station in the 'next' life.

So the historical Jesus, a Jew of early 1st century, probably saw death as ending in residence in sheol (a place to park a soul or whatever you call it), and the creation of a Kingdom of God as something happening as a one-time event (ie upon the arrival of the son of man on the clouds with power). The later evolution of the concept of a full-fledged "heaven" and "hell" were likely a reaction to the failure of the Son of Man arrive and to do his thing.

/JMHO

[ArchAngel'73]

... implies continuity, which is the reason why the Catholic church redefined 'Hell' as non existance.

I'm not Catholic and I associate with no Christian denomination so it does not matter to me what some churches may define as hell because what really matters is how the individual defines hell based on their relationship with God.

I don't claim to know what hell is neither. By my definition, spending eternity out of favor with God is hell. And that's all I give a f*ck about.

[jellodirt]

I believe in God. It's not logical to believe any of this randomly happened. Rocks, coconuts, bananas, duck billed platypus. I call bull**** on evolution.

[7Seconds]

I call bull**** on evolution.

Evolution is the theory that explains the diversity of life on this planet. It has nothing to do with the origins of life. That's called abiogenesis. And our understanding of that has grown much more than where we were even a few decades ago. We have now observed tons of steps in the process. One of the current, best theories is called The RNA World. Basically it states that RNA preceded DNA and was the original molecule that led to self replication. Why do we think this?

We see the amino acids of RNA naturally in the environment. We see these lego blocks build themselves into strands naturally in the environment. And we know that there are certain arrangements that, once made, have the chemical property of duplicating themselves.

So imagine that there is a lego erector robot set. That set has a certain configuration that once made, is able to build other copies of itself.

Now imagine that we have a box that has all the parts necessary to make that specific robot. And we know that if we shake the box, every now and then legos will just attach themselves together in different clumps because of how legos work (this is where the analogy breaks down because i don't think legos would ever link up in a shaken box... but it is a useful metaphor).

So we see the lego blocks (nucleotides in nature). We see them link up by themselves (legos connecting in the shaken box). And we know that if they link in the right way it kicks off self replication (because we have examples of that).

Basically the only part we are missing right now is that we haven't watched long enough to see the random shapes in the shaken box hit upon one of those specific designs yet. Which isn't surprising, since we have a handful of labs doing this for a decade instead of billions of gallons of sea water doung the experiment for billions of years.

But it is intriguing.

If you are interested here is a really accessible video that explains it. It is part of a very nice animated series on life:

[thedickus]

Life long agnostic atheist here. Bart Ehrman is one of my favorite authors on religion along with Richard Price. I like how Ehrman describes himself as an agnostic atheist, because agnostic simply means I don't know and atheist is not believing in a god.
What some christians fail to understand is that for some of us to be stuck worshipping a loving blood thirsty vengeful god for all of eternity would be its own type of hell. I'm not too worried about hell since Jesus himself didn't even believe in it.