[W:973] Put a Fork in American Christianity

gfm7175 said:

You are asserting [through that question] that God is imaginary. That assertion stems from your belief that God does not exist. You make use of circular argumentation (fundamentalism) when you do that.

Click to expand...

Elvira said:

True...not everyone has the courage to break away from something they've been taught all their lives, even when evidence s given that what they were taught is false...believe me, I know first hand...

Click to expand...

devildavid said:

It us meaningless to attach the word fundamentalist to a lack of belief.

Click to expand...

devildavid said:

I did not ask about god.

Click to expand...

gfm7175 said:

Atheism is not a 'lack of belief'... That definition is self-refuting.

I 'lack belief' in atheism. THAT, according to your own definition of the word, would be considered atheism. In other words, you are "lacking belief" in something that you simultaneously assert the existence of. Welcome to Paradox City, DD!!


Atheism is rather a belief that no god(s) exist. There is only theism and atheism; either god(s) exist(s) or (t)he do(es)n't. There is no "inbetween" answer that one can choose with regards to existence.

Click to expand...

devildavid said:

Name one religious tenet of atheism.

Atheism is not a religion. Neither is theism. Neither one has any religious tenets.

Click to expand...

devildavid said:

The bible is a book written and promulgated to promote a particular religious faith. Why don't you read the Koran?

Click to expand...

devildavid said:

Having thoughts or feelings in your head and calling them god

Click to expand...

devildavid said:

is a personal, subjective interpretation of those thoughts and feelings.

Click to expand...

devildavid said:

You choose to call it god.

Click to expand...

devildavid said:

You choose it because you are predisposed to do so,

Click to expand...

devildavid said:

not because you have any certainty that it comes from a god.

Click to expand...

it's just me said:

Every one of you hates Christianity. Not Islam, you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist with the guts to criticize Islam. No, you do not simply "not believe", you are highly motivated to destroy Christianity, I have read it here many times. Militant atheism is as bad as the KKK.

Click to expand...

Logician Man said:

Incorrect again.There is also agnosticism. Educate yourself. Do you not understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism?

Click to expand...

it's just me said:

Every one of you hates Christianity. Not Islam, you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist with the guts to criticize Islam. No, you do not simply "not believe", you are highly motivated to destroy Christianity, I have read it here many times. Militant atheism is as bad as the KKK.

Click to expand...

PoS said:

lolwhut? Both Dawkins and Hitchens bashed Islam relentlessly, and they bring up very good points.

Click to expand...

ataraxia said:

Nah. Most atheists are pretty equal religion bashers.

Click to expand...

it's just me said:

Every one of you hates Christianity. Not Islam, you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist with the guts to criticize Islam. No, you do not simply "not believe", you are highly motivated to destroy Christianity, I have read it here many times. Militant atheism is as bad as the KKK.

Click to expand...

The founding of the city of Babylon on the Plains of Shinar was concurrent with the attempt at building the Tower of Babel. (Ge 11:2-9) The popular cause to be advanced by the tower and city construction was, not the exaltation of God’s name, but that the builders might “make a celebrated name” for themselves. The ziggurat towers uncovered not only in the ruins of ancient Babylon but elsewhere in Mesopotamia would seem to confirm the essentially religious nature of the original tower, whatever its form or style. The decisive action taken by Jehovah God to overthrow the temple construction clearly condemns it as of a false religious origin. Whereas the Hebrew name given the city, Babel, means “Confusion,” the Sumerian name (Ka-dingir-ra) and the Akkadian name (Bab-ilu) both mean “Gate of God.” Thus the remaining inhabitants of the city altered the form of its name to avoid the original condemnatory sense, but the new or substitute form still identified the city with religion.

The Bible lists Babel first when giving the ‘beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom.’ (Ge 10:8-10) Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures the ancient city of Babylon is featured prominently as the longtime enemy of Jehovah God and his people.

Though Babylon became the capital of a political empire in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E., it was outstandingly prominent during its entire history as a religious center from which religious influence radiated in many directions.

Professor Morris Jastrow, Jr., in his work The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (1898, pp. 699-701), says regarding this: “In the ancient world, prior to the rise of Christianity, Egypt, Persia, and Greece felt the influence of the Babylonian religion. . . . In Persia, the Mithra cult reveals the unmistakable influence of Babylonian conceptions; and if it be recalled what a degree of importance the mysteries connected with this cult acquired among the Romans, another link will be added connecting the ramifications of ancient culture with the civilization of the Euphrates Valley.” In conclusion he refers to “the profound impression made upon the ancient world by the remarkable manifestations of religious thought in Babylonia and by the religious activity that prevailed in that region.”

Babylon’s religious influence is traced eastward to India in the book New Light on the Most Ancient East, by archaeologist V. Childe (1957, p. 185). Among other points he states: “The swastika and the cross, common on stamps and plaques, were religious or magical symbols as in Babylonia and Elam in the earliest prehistoric period, but preserve that character also in modern India as elsewhere.” Thus, ancient Babylon’s religious influence spread out to many peoples and nations, much farther and with greater potency and endurance than did her political strength.

Like mystic Babylon, the ancient city of Babylon, in effect, sat on the waters, located, as it was, astride the Euphrates River and having various canals and water-filled moats. (Jer 51:1, 13; Re 17:1, 15) These waters served as a defense to the city, and they provided the thoroughfares upon which ships brought wealth and luxuries from many sources. Notably, the water of the Euphrates is depicted as drying up prior to Babylon the Great’s experiencing the wrath of divine judgment.​—Re 16:12, 19.

Click to expand...

devildavid said:

I asked a question which you incorrectly called an argument. Is the question too simple to answer?

Click to expand...

ataraxia said:

Most atheists, when pressed, are really agnostics. Even Richard Dawkins.



There are really only just a few who are passionately against the concept of God. And that's usually because of some bad experiences they have had with some of the craziness of religious beliefs and its consequences.

Click to expand...

Logician Man said:

Nonsense.I'm in a group in which I go after Islam with vigor,but only after the Fundamental extremists who believe in the world wide Caliphate directive to 'forcefully' convert all to Islam or be murdered,and who wish to force their Caliphate and Shariah Law unto to all humans.Those are a small majority of sunni extremists.The rest of the Muslims simply want to live and let live.That is why the Muslim extremists murder the non-extremists. Also, I hate no one.What I do hate are idiots who tell other fine people they are going to hell simply because those people happen to not believe as the condemners do.They are the real 'Christian extremists."

Click to expand...

Logician Man said:

Incorrect again. There is also agnosticism. ...deleted 'lack of intelligence' mantra... Do you not understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism?

Click to expand...

it's just me said:

Straw man argument, nobody here can condemn anyone to anything. BUT, what we can do is point out pretenders. I noticed that you allow that most Muslims want to live in peace but you are unwilling to extend that same courtesy to Christians who live and let live but end up having to defend themselves against falsehoods like yours.

Finally, I hate no one, either, but I do hate lies and dishonesty.

Click to expand...

it's just me said:

Straw man argument, nobody here can condemn anyone to anything. BUT, what we can do is point out pretenders. I noticed that you allow that most Muslims want to live in peace but you are unwilling to extend that same courtesy to Christians who live and let live but end up having to defend themselves against falsehoods like yours.

Finally, I hate no one, either, but I do hate lies and dishonesty.

Click to expand...

gfm7175 said:

I do; however, it seems as if you don't. I used to see it the way that you currently see it, but I've changed my mind on that position since I first came on these boards.

Theism is the belief that god(s) exist.
Atheism is the belief that god(s) do not exist.
Agnosticism isn't an option, and is simply one not being honest with oneself.

God(s) either exist or (t)he don't... There is no "option C" that 'agnosticism' attempts to create...

Click to expand...

"The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.
Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science against the church. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained...

This method was a result of the fact that science was already showing itself to be a successful venture at the end of the eighteenth century. Even then it was clear to socially minded people that the openness of possibilities was an opportunity, and that doubt and discussion were essential to progress into the unknown. If we want to solve a problem that we have never solved before, we must leave the door to the unknown ajar."
_Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate in physics

Click to expand...

gfm7175 said:

I do; however, it seems as if you don't. I used to see it the way that you currently see it, but I've changed my mind on that position since I first came on these boards.

Theism is the belief that god(s) exist.
Atheism is the belief that god(s) do not exist.
Agnosticism isn't an option, and is simply one not being honest with oneself.

God(s) either exist or (t)he don't... There is no "option C" that 'agnosticism' attempts to create...

Click to expand...

Into the Night said:

Really?? What part of the Bible to you think they don't believe in?

Everyone believes in doctrines unsupported by the Bible. Even you. Do you believe in science? That comes from a doctrine that comes from philosophy, not the Bible.

The Mormons believe their additional books ARE scripture. They also believe that the Bible is not the only scripture, but is simply part of scripture so far revealed to the world. They also believe that a living prophet of God is alive today, teaching just as the prophets in the Bible did. Currently they believe that prophet to be Russel M. Nelson, their current president of that church.

Click to expand...

it's just me said:

Dawkins and Hitchens post here?

Click to expand...