common ailments of atheists?

[ShAoLiN]

here's a small list of things ive come to believe as near-truths concerning atheists : D Keep in mind that, this is a generalization, and not to be taken literally.. enjoy.

atheists...

1. would rather indulge themselves than admit allegiance to a higher power.. or face responsability

2. like to recant half-truths, or second-hand "knowledge," from other sources, and never take the time to examine or research religions in earnest to find out the truth.

[Master of Ossus]

I have studied both Islam and Christianity, and I am an atheist who allies himself very quickly to people who are either wealthy or powerful, especially if they are Republicans.

[Gil Hamilton]

[Durandal]

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we've found our newest Village Idiot.

[Darik Sdair]

1. would rather indulge themselves than admit allegiance to a higher power.. or face responsability

2. like to recant half-truths, or second-hand "knowledge," from other sources, and never take the time to examine or research religions in earnest to find out the truth.

Funny you mention that, I've actually always found religeon to be fascinating and I've often indulged in religeous materials - but I've yet to find something that makes me doubt my decision to go through life as an atheist.

By the way, its "Classified," not "Classefied."

[Darth Wong]

here's a small list of things ive come to believe as near-truths concerning atheists : D Keep in mind that, this is a generalization, and not to be taken literally.. enjoy.

I like the way you put in the smiley, so that you can just say "hey, I was just joking around!" later. Sort of like when racists tell jokes about black people.

atheists...

1. would rather indulge themselves than admit allegiance to a higher power.. or face responsability

Admit allegiance to a higher power? You act as though we actually have said allegiance and are concealing it, and that this "higher power" actually exists, rather than being a figment of your imagination.

No, the ultimate self-indulgence is to believe that one's own imagination can actually override objective reality, and that supreme self-indulgence is one which is uniquely religious in nature.

2. like to recant half-truths, or second-hand "knowledge," from other sources, and never take the time to examine or research religions in earnest to find out the truth.

By "other sources", are you referring to our tendency to examine the Bible or the Koran itself, with a clear and open mind rather than one that is clouded by dogma and "preferred" interpretations which have been rammed down your throat since childhood? Oh, wait. You're right. The Bible is nothing but half-truths and second-hand testimony, so by examining it directly, we are looking only at half-truths and second-hand testimony, aren't we?

[Stuart Mackey]

here's a small list of things ive come to believe as near-truths concerning atheists : D Keep in mind that, this is a generalization, and not to be taken literally.. enjoy.

atheists...

1. would rather indulge themselves than admit allegiance to a higher power.. or face responsability

You assume that atheists beleive in a higher power, which is the opposite of atheist. As to responsibility, everyone who lives faces responcibility for their actions, one way or another, to assume otherwise is to be ignorant of life and reality.

2. like to recant half-truths, or second-hand "knowledge," from other sources, and never take the time to examine or research religions in earnest to find out the truth.

Sounds like a lot of overly religeous people I have met.

[Mr. B]

here's a small list of things ive come to believe as near-truths concerning atheists : D Keep in mind that, this is a generalization, and not to be taken literally.. enjoy.

atheists...

1. would rather indulge themselves than admit allegiance to a higher power.. or face responsability

Just because some people(myself included) don't believe in god it makes them hypocrites and irresponsible. Bullshit. Do you think we do it just to say we are athiests. I put a lot of time and study into my actions and know that it is not the easiest path. People like you think that we are just lost sheep and need to return to the shepard. Well FUCK THE SHEPARD. I follow my own path, and belive what I want to believe.


2. like to recant half-truths, or second-hand "knowledge," from other sources, and never take the time to examine or research religions in earnest to find out the truth.

There are more "half-truths and "seond hand knoledge" in the bible than in science. I have researched religions and I know that they do not have the truth. Science is the pursuit of truth. And have you read the bible, it is full of more violence and bigotry than some KKK speeches.

Are you "John Clark" That bastard put classified in his location too. It's too much a cooincidence for me.

[AdmiralKanos]

Are you "John Clark" That bastard put classified in his location too. It's too much a cooincidence for me.

It is. But this guy is an AOL user, and I doubt John Clark would use an AOL account. The risk of being tracked down would be too great for him; AOL has a privacy policy, but they'll give personal information out to law enforcement, and this guy has publicly threatened to hack the board, which is illegal.

[ShAoLiN]

(Admit allegiance to a higher power? You act as though we actually have said allegiance and are concealing it, and that this "higher power" actually exists, rather than being a figment of your imagination.)


nah, merely pointing out that its so much easier to hold yourself apart, rather than consider that there might be a God out there to deal with.


(No, the ultimate self-indulgence is to believe that one's own imagination can actually override objective reality, and that supreme self-indulgence is one which is uniquely religious in nature.)


ok, you've got your statements - now you just need the facts to back them up. How can being a moral person, and following the teachings of the Bible possibly be easier than doing your own thing?


(By "other sources", are you referring to our tendency to examine the Bible or the Koran itself, with a clear and open mind rather than one that is clouded by dogma and "preferred" interpretations which have been rammed down your throat since childhood? Oh, wait. You're right. The Bible is nothing but half-truths and second-hand testimony, so by examining it directly, we are looking only at half-truths and second-hand testimony, aren't we?)


nah.. what about various prophecies that have come true? Tyre.. The Fall of Israel. History validates the Bible. like the other dood, you've got your statements but lack the facts to back them up. Suffice it to say, many of the things people interpret as half-truths or second-hand testimony are passages taken out of context, or interpreted in such a way that usually is inaccurate.


(You assume that atheists beleive in a higher power, which is the opposite of atheist. As to responsibility, everyone who lives faces responcibility for their actions, one way or another, to assume otherwise is to be ignorant of life and reality.)


nah.. the meaning was more along the lines of, the Bible promotes a strong sense of morality which most people would rather ignore, in favor of indulging themself. thus becoming an atheist is more convenient. while this might not be true in your case, or anyone who posts here, it does seem to be true.


(Just because some people(myself included) don't believe in god it makes them hypocrites and irresponsible. Bullshit. Do you think we do it just to say we are athiests. I put a lot of time and study into my actions and know that it is not the easiest path. People like you think that we are just lost sheep and need to return to the shepard. Well FUCK THE SHEPARD. I follow my own path, and belive what I want to believe.)


people like me? you dont even know me. dont stereotype


( There are more "half-truths and "seond hand knoledge" in the bible than in science. I have researched religions and I know that they do not have the truth. Science is the pursuit of truth. And have you read the bible, it is full of more violence and bigotry than some KKK speeches. )


science is biased - in my opinion. over-rated. "science," can't even explain aerodynamically, how a bee flies. Also, geneticists and other scientists often try to manipulate facts to support their own point of view. Like those fewls that try to convince us there is only 10% difference in DNA of a human from a cow or something.. They ignore the fact that DNA strands - being as long as they are.. 10% difference could be like.. 283834283242342343420943243232043 differences. and people buy it.

violence and bigotry in the bible lends credence to its historical accuracy.. and sounds A LOT more like the uncensored truth, the way it is.. rather than other trumped up tales, like that of Buddha, and other religious leaders.. your study of "religion," should have taught you that.


(Are you "John Clark" That bastard put classified in his location too. It's too much a cooincidence for me.)


never heard of him.. script kiddy?

[Stuart Mackey]

(You assume that atheists beleive in a higher power, which is the opposite of atheist. As to responsibility, everyone who lives faces responcibility for their actions, one way or another, to assume otherwise is to be ignorant of life and reality.)

nah.. the meaning was more along the lines of, the Bible promotes a strong sense of morality which most people would rather ignore, in favor of indulging themself. thus becoming an atheist is more convenient. while this might not be true in your case, or anyone who posts here, it does seem to be true.

A form of morality sure, but not one that would find much favour in western democratic nations. Would this form of morality be the smiting of jericho? including innocent, unarmed, men, woman and children? some morality that, but hey, thats ok right? they were Isralites so that absolves them of mass murder cause they are Gods chosen people?.
The way you refer to morality, as if atheists, or non christians, veiws is somehow wrong, is quite offensive. Is that what you are sugesting?, that not beliving in gods or deigtys, and their supposed teachings, is wrong?.
Whom do you think you are to foister your belifs on another?
Democratic nations have a number of principles that all people, regardless of religeion, or race, have these rights, the freedom of speech, assembly, freedom from arbitary arrest etc. What you say above is a affront to the morality of freedom. Freedom to live our lives as we ourselfs choose to do, so long as we harm no other in so doing.

[ShAoLiN]

(You assume that atheists beleive in a higher power, which is the opposite of atheist. As to responsibility, everyone who lives faces responcibility for their actions, one way or another, to assume otherwise is to be ignorant of life and reality.)

nah.. the meaning was more along the lines of, the Bible promotes a strong sense of morality which most people would rather ignore, in favor of indulging themself. thus becoming an atheist is more convenient. while this might not be true in your case, or anyone who posts here, it does seem to be true.

A form of morality sure, but not one that would find much favour in western democratic nations. Would this form of morality be the smiting of jericho? including innocent, unarmed, men, woman and children? some morality that, but hey, thats ok right? they were Isralites so that absolves them of mass murder cause they are Gods chosen people?.
The way you refer to morality, as if atheists, or non christians, veiws is somehow wrong, is quite offensive. Is that what you are sugesting?, that not beliving in gods or deigtys, and their supposed teachings, is wrong?.
Whom do you think you are to foister your belifs on another?
Democratic nations have a number of principles that all people, regardless of religeion, or race, have these rights, the freedom of speech, assembly, freedom from arbitary arrest etc. What you say above is a affront to the morality of freedom. Freedom to live our lives as we ourselfs choose to do, so long as we harm no other in so doing.

unbelievable.. the way you can take 2 + 2 and have it equal 83837259. you said christian morality isn't one that would find favor in western democratic nations. This country was founded largely on christianity, like it or not. So, how can it not find favor?

Jericho's significance.. has exactly what to do with a religion that has "thou shalt not kill," as one of its central themes?

I never said anything about other morals being wrong.. What I said - if you'd bother to read, is that its easier to take the path of self-indulgence and convenience as opposed to one of morality.

In what way is it an affront to freedom? All I did is point out a few scant observations concerning atheists, and you accuse me of all this bs.

[Galvatron]

nah, merely pointing out that its so much easier to hold yourself apart, rather than consider that there might be a God out there to deal with.

Yes, it's much easier to live without an irrational fear of an imaginary God, just like it's easier to live in a free country without fear of a tyrannical dictator. Trying to paint atheists as immoral debauchers simply because we don't believe in the existance of an Ultimate Tyrant (aka God) is hardly going to win you a lot of converts here. You're not exactly approaching this age-old debate from a new and exciting angle, pal. We've heard it all before.

[Tosho]

[quote="ShAoLiN"]nah.. what about various prophecies that have come true? Tyre.. The Fall of Israel. History validates the Bible. like the other dood, you've got your statements but lack the facts to back them up. Suffice it to say, many of the things people interpret as half-truths or second-hand testimony are passages taken out of context, or interpreted in such a way that usually is inaccurate.[quote]

You talk about prophecies but you don't explain how they are Prophecies.

[quote]nah.. the meaning was more along the lines of, the Bible promotes a strong sense of morality which most people would rather ignore, in favor of indulging themself.[quote]

What strong sense of morality? Are you talking about stoning a women to death if she is not a virgin when she gets married? Admittedly there are moral parts of the bible but I don't an ancient book to tell me its wrong to lie, murder, steal ect.

[quote]and sounds A LOT more like the uncensored truth, the way it is.. rather than other trumped up tales, like that of Buddha, and other religious leaders.. your study of "religion," should have taught you that.[quote]

Pherhaps I misinterpreted you but it sound likes your assuming That the tales of the Buddha (this is a nit pick but I can't help myself, Buddha is a title not a name.) are trumped up because they're not violent, this is extremly bigoted if you can't see why, well that's kind of sad actually.

[Nick]

Shaolin, you currently get credit that your remarks come from naivete and ignorance. In other words, I'm assuming you haven't bothered reading anything anywhere on this site or these forums. Regardless, I get to have fun taking your "argument" apart

(Admit allegiance to a higher power? You act as though we actually have said allegiance and are concealing it, and that this "higher power" actually exists, rather than being a figment of your imagination.)

nah, merely pointing out that its so much easier to hold yourself apart, rather than consider that there might be a God out there to deal with.

Bullshit. You think it's easier because you equate "no belief in God" with "no concern for the consequences of one's actions". See below.

(No, the ultimate self-indulgence is to believe that one's own imagination can actually override objective reality, and that supreme self-indulgence is one which is uniquely religious in nature.)

ok, you've got your statements - now you just need the facts to back them up. How can being a moral person, and following the teachings of the Bible possibly be easier than doing your own thing?

First point - you have constructed a fallacious 'complex question' here.

Now, on to the meat of the argument. Lets consider the following four people:

Person 1: Following the teachings of the Bible, as interpreted by themselves.
You can make that thing justify pretty much anything you want. As Jesus himself (IIRC, and according to the Bible) said "Even the Devil can quote scripture."

Person 2: Following the teachings of the Bible, as interpreted by their religion.
Possibly the easiest job of all, since this person never has to think. Instead, when they have a tough question in front of them, they run off to their pastor or co-religionists to get the "official doctrine", thus saving them the need of figuring out the moral thing for themselves

Person 3: Reconciling the Bible and their faith with a humanist moral code
Possibly the _hardest_ job of all, since the mere act of attempting the reconciliation admits that morality is more important than faith.

Person 4: Atheist, attempting to develop a consistent humanist moral code
Accepting that it is possible for moral truths to be self-evident, this persons job isn't quite as tough as that of person 3, since they don't have to worry about the reconciliation part. However, on points of morality, person 3 and person 4 will usually agree.

So in other words, 'doing your own thing' can be enormously difficult, if 'your own thing' includes identifying your moral foundations and extrapolating those into a workable moral code (with possible assistance from others who have gone through the same journey).

Blindly 'Following the teaching's of the Bible' can be ridiculously easy, because it means never having to think about anything really important - your pastor or your faith will always have a canned, knee-jerk reaction for you.

Obviously, I don't believe all religionists are like the fundamentalists that final paragraph describes - but such people _do_ have it easy, because they never have to learn to use their brain.

(By "other sources", are you referring to our tendency to examine the Bible or the Koran itself, with a clear and open mind rather than one that is clouded by dogma and "preferred" interpretations which have been rammed down your throat since childhood? Oh, wait. You're right. The Bible is nothing but half-truths and second-hand testimony, so by examining it directly, we are looking only at half-truths and second-hand testimony, aren't we?)

nah.. what about various prophecies that have come true? Tyre.. The Fall of Israel. History validates the Bible. like the other dood, you've got your statements but lack the facts to back them up. Suffice it to say, many of the things people interpret as half-truths or second-hand testimony are passages taken out of context, or interpreted in such a way that usually is inaccurate.

Yeah, history validates the prophecies of Nostradamus, too.

Here's a tip - you want to get good at the fortune telling game, be vague. Don't say "In 15 days time, the heavens will open, and Jesus will appear before humanity, and everyone will fall down and worship him." Instead say, "And lo, there will come a day, when the will heavens open. . . yadda yadda yadda".

Interesting how people are so found of mentioning the Bible passages which can (with a little mental gymnastics) be interepreted as maybe, just possibly, referring to this particular event that occurred on this particular day, but run like the wind when someone brings up the examples of _specific_ predictions being made, which then turn out to be wrong (the whole problem with Jesus not returning before the apostles all died is a perennial favourite).

People play exactly the same games with Nostradamus.

(You assume that atheists beleive in a higher power, which is the opposite of atheist. As to responsibility, everyone who lives faces responcibility for their actions, one way or another, to assume otherwise is to be ignorant of life and reality.)

nah.. the meaning was more along the lines of, the Bible promotes a strong sense of morality which most people would rather ignore, in favor of indulging themself. thus becoming an atheist is more convenient. while this might not be true in your case, or anyone who posts here, it does seem to be true.

No, the Bible, as grossly reinterpreted and distorted by modern liberal Christians promotes a strong sense of morality. The Bible, per se, is a long list of grossly immoral acts, many of which were condoned, actively encouraged, or even carried out by God! Thrown in amongst all of this is a certain amount of good moral reasoning, which is almost exactly the stuff which is not unique to Christianity!.

Are there people out there who are lazy and immoral, because they don't give a shit about anyone but themselves? Certainly. But you are tring to establish a correlation between immorality and atheism which simply does not exist.

(Just because some people(myself included) don't believe in god it makes them hypocrites and irresponsible. Bullshit. Do you think we do it just to say we are athiests. I put a lot of time and study into my actions and know that it is not the easiest path. People like you think that we are just lost sheep and need to return to the shepard. Well FUCK THE SHEPARD. I follow my own path, and belive what I want to believe.)

people like me? you dont even know me. dont stereotype

That's a fair cop. However, I notice that you nitpicked his mistake in using the phrase 'people like you', and completely failed to address his point that your generalistion is a little, shall we say, hasty.

( There are more "half-truths and "seond hand knoledge" in the bible than in science. I have researched religions and I know that they do not have the truth. Science is the pursuit of truth. And have you read the bible, it is full of more violence and bigotry than some KKK speeches. )

science is biased - in my opinion. over-rated. "science," can't even explain aerodynamically, how a bee flies. Also, geneticists and other scientists often try to manipulate facts to support their own point of view. Like those fewls that try to convince us there is only 10% difference in DNA of a human from a cow or something.. They ignore the fact that DNA strands - being as long as they are.. 10% difference could be like.. 283834283242342343420943243232043 differences. and people buy it.

Oh, for crying out loud. . .

Yes, scientists are susceptible to all the same fallacies and lapses of reason as the rest of us - the difference is that the scientific method and rigorous peer review are expressly designed to counter these tendencies

No, science doesn't have all the answers. But, instead of throwing up it's hands in despair, it actively seeks to acquire greater knowledge, about such things as say, how a bumblebee manages to fly. (http://faculty.washington.edu/callis/Fl ... t_A-99.htm http://plus.maths.org/issue17/news/bumble/) In other words, a simple aerodynamic model says bumblebees can't fly. But they do fly. So we need a better model. Of course, it's hardly seen as a major questions demanding an immediate answer, so there aren't that many people trying to figure it out.

And as for the DNA thing. . . umm, you do know that the entire point of quoting a percentage is to make the absolute magnitude of the numbers irrelevant, don't you? We share 98% of our genome with chimpanzees. The number of individual differences that make up that 2% difference (be it 2 or 2 billion) is irrelevant.

violence and bigotry in the bible lends credence to its historical accuracy.. and sounds A LOT more like the uncensored truth, the way it is.. rather than other trumped up tales, like that of Buddha, and other religious leaders.. your study of "religion," should have taught you that.

Yeah, and the fact that God condones and even encourages all of this says good things about him as a source of morality, too.

Look, does the Bible talk about real people and real events? Yes, it does - we have independent records showing that (such as a certain Nazarene being put to death for sedition). Does that change the fact that the Bible is primarily mythology, written by people out to achieve a certain agenda (such as, oh, I don't know, maybe gaining and keeping converts to their faith?)

(Are you "John Clark" That bastard put classified in his location too. It's too much a cooincidence for me.)

never heard of him.. script kiddy?

ASU Coward. You really haven't read anything on this site, have you?

[Nick]

unbelievable.. the way you can take 2 + 2 and have it equal 83837259. you said christian morality isn't one that would find favor in western democratic nations. This country was founded largely on christianity, like it or not. So, how can it not find favor?

Ah, interesting that you should refer to 'this country' and assume everyone will know what you mean. Your location is 'classified', remember? Or did you perhaps forget this is an international board, my American friend?

Anyway, in general, it was modern humanist morality that acted to improve the morals of Christianity, not the other way around.

Jericho's significance.. has exactly what to do with a religion that has "thou shalt not kill," as one of its central themes?

Little phrase: "Actions speak louder than words"

Christianity has come a long way in the last few decades - it's getting so that large numbers of its adherents are actually civilised.

Shame about the bigoted, vocal minority that give the rest a bad name.

I never said anything about other morals being wrong.. What I said - if you'd bother to read, is that its easier to take the path of self-indulgence and convenience as opposed to one of morality.

In what way is it an affront to freedom? All I did is point out a few scant observations concerning atheists, and you accuse me of all this bs.

Oh, and you were doing so well, too.

If you'd just left it at that first paragraph, you might even have got away with it. Let's juxtapose a couple of sentences from above (the original is still there, so no moaning about 'quotes-out-of-context' please)

"What I said - if you'd bother to read, is that its easier to take the path of self-indulgence and convenience as opposed to one of morality"
"All I did is point out a few scant observations concerning atheists"

Ooops. I believe you just said that you think atheists in general are self-indulgent and choose their own convenience over morality.

And you wonder how anyone could possibly take offense.

Oh dear, perhaps I was mistaken. Maybe there isn't any hope for you, after all.

[Eleas]

"nah, merely pointing out that its so much easier to hold yourself apart, rather than consider that there might be a God out there to deal with."

The problem is that it isn't. Psychologically, it's much easier to conform, as you apparently do. I, myself, have considered that there is a God out there. I've also considered the existence of Nirvana, the Hindu Pantheon, the Easter Bunny etc. And I decided to give each of them the exact same amount of thought: none.

"ok, you've got your statements - now you just need the facts to back them up. How can being a moral person, and following the teachings of the Bible possibly be easier than doing your own thing?"

Being a moral person and following the teachings of the Bible are two different things, pal. Real morality does not lie in mindlessly following authoritarian commandments. A really ethical person can follow his own heart and mind.

"nah.. what about various prophecies that have come true? Tyre.. The Fall of Israel. History validates the Bible. like the other dood, you've got your statements but lack the facts to back them up."

You are the one who professes Biblical inerrancy. Then you must believe that there are gigantic storehouses for hail up in the sky.

"Suffice it to say, many of the things people interpret as half-truths or second-hand testimony are passages taken out of context, or interpreted in such a way that usually is inaccurate."

But your interpretations, of course, are the only valid ones.

"nah.. the meaning was more along the lines of, the Bible promotes a strong sense of morality which most people would rather ignore, in favor of indulging themself."

Indeed. We see this in Africa, where the Catholic Church... wait a minute. Well then what about the Ku Klux Klan, who is a secular... no, wait, they're not. But the Nazi Party were at least... oh, pardon me for forgetting the fact that they were pro-Christian.

"thus becoming an atheist is more convenient. while this might not be true in your case, or anyone who posts here, it does seem to be true."

Apparently it does seem true, to a ravening lunatic. It's just so entertaining to see yet another completely clueless fundamentalist run into the forum and splatter all over the wall. "What? Free-thinking minds untainted by dogma and childhood brainwashing? Mother, hold me!"

"people like me? you dont even know me. dont stereotype"

You just did the same thing, oh hypocrite, but a few lines up.

"science is biased - in my opinion. over-rated. "science," can't even explain aerodynamically, how a bee flies."

False, my ignorant friend. It's been proven long ago.

There is an old myth that conventional aerodynamics indicates that the flight of the bumble-bee is impossible. This is true only if one treats a bee like an aeroplane, which of course is absurd: insects, unlike aircraft, stay aloft by flapping their wings very rapidly. So air, instead of flowing smoothly over the wing, is whipped into a frenzy of curling vortices.
-Philip Ball, Nature Magazine

"Also, geneticists and other scientists often try to manipulate facts to support their own point of view."

Ah, the Evil Scientist Conspiracy. Never saw that one coming.

"Like those fewls that try to convince us there is only 10% difference in DNA of a human from a cow or something.. They ignore the fact that DNA strands - being as long as they are.. 10% difference could be like.. 283834283242342343420943243232043 differences. and people buy it."

Oh, yes, those "fewls". Damn them for being absolutely correct. You haven't proven them wrong at all. If a ten percent difference is about a billion differences or ten has no relevance at all to the rational person; it's still a ten percent difference. But don't feel left out just because you can't understand what I'm saying.

"violence and bigotry in the bible lends credence to its historical accuracy.. and sounds A LOT more like the uncensored truth, the way it is.. rather than other trumped up tales, like that of Buddha, and other religious leaders.. your study of "religion," should have taught you that."

It tells us that God is a mass murderer, a genocidal tyrant, and that a truly moral person would find it difficult to choose between living with God and going to Hell.

[Pablo Sanchez]

1. would rather indulge themselves than admit allegiance to a higher power.. or face responsability

I'm the one indulging myself? By being an atheist, I'm admitting that I have no immortal soul, and that my existence as a thinking being ceases forever at my death. This is not an easy thing to think about, and much harder than just saying "God will save me."

2. like to recant half-truths, or second-hand "knowledge," from other sources, and never take the time to examine or research religions in earnest to find out the truth.

I was educated at a Catholic School for a fair portion of my childhood. I know enough about the Bible to make an informed decision about it.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I was educated at a Catholic School for a fair portion of my childhood. I know enough about the Bible to make an informed decision about it.[/quote]

I suspect most Atheist started out with a religious background. Although that will change, as the number of people who actively go to church has hit an all time low.

I read on a website that the Christian faith could disappear as an organized religion within our lifetime.

[Stravo]

I read on a website that the Christian faith could disappear as an organized religion within our lifetime.

Really??? I wonder how many people have been predicting that since the ROMAN EMPIRE!

[Alyrium Denryle]

You know ShAoLiN I used to be a born again christian I hated athiests, gays(yes Mr. Bean feel free to laugh at the irony of that statement) , women who wore pants, and politicians for taking prayer out of schools. And then I started to think for myself, I then realized that god is a crock of shit(this was when I was about 13) I started to toss out the window everything I had been taught from birth and I am a better person for it. So been there, done that.

[Peregrin Toker]

I read on a website that the Christian faith could disappear as an organized religion within our lifetime.

Although Christianity might shrink down to an extreme minority religion in West European countries and most other heavily industrialized nations, I doubt it will die out in USA, where more than 40% of the population supports creationism - and since the Raëlian Movement (probably the only Atheistic Creationist organization I've known yet) only has 55.000 members worldwide, I am pretty much convinced that most of the US creationists follow monotheistic religions. I also doubt that christianity will die out in Latin America and Eastern Europe (Poland, Russia, Romania, etc.).

[/url]

[VF5SS]

I swear if a group of atheists got together and put a guy with lots of charisma on TV who said" Become an atheist now and you don't have to donate, go to church, do anything you don't want to on holidays, or be ashamed of watching porn!" You'd get a pretty hefty sum of people

[ShAoLiN]

(Yes, it's much easier to live without an irrational fear of an imaginary God, just like it's easier to live in a free country without fear of a tyrannical dictator. Trying to paint atheists as immoral debauchers simply because we don't believe in the existance of an Ultimate Tyrant (aka God) is hardly going to win you a lot of converts here. You're not exactly approaching this age-old debate from a new and exciting angle, pal. We've heard it all before.)

im not trying to convert anyone.. i wouldnt want anyone to make as important a decision as whether or not to believe in God, based solely on my words/actions. seems there are some intelligent people here, defending my own viewpoint will only help me strive to become better educated and more focused on the truth.. prove me wrong if you can.

the phrase that God is a tyrant, is uneducated at best. we lack the knowledge to judge other people most times, much less a deity.


(You talk about prophecies but you don't explain how they are Prophecies. )

this site' can explain it better than i ever could.. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/two.html


(What strong sense of morality? Are you talking about stoning a women to death if she is not a virgin when she gets married? Admittedly there are moral parts of the bible but I don't an ancient book to tell me its wrong to lie, murder, steal ect. )

that's taken out of context, as most pplz gripes with the Bible or Christianity are. Old Testament is mostly a collection of stories, prophecies, and history.. New Testament is what applies for the most part... Its like calling all Americans indian haters or something, because of events that happened years ago.. times have changed.


(Pherhaps I misinterpreted you but it sound likes your assuming That the tales of the Buddha (this is a nit pick but I can't help myself, Buddha is a title not a name.) are trumped up because they're not violent, this is extremly bigoted if you can't see why, well that's kind of sad actually.)

bigoted? part of buddha's(the individual) legacy, is that he wanted to be known as an ordinary person. He NEVER claimed to be anything other than a man.. Yet after his death, people have exaggereted certain parts of his life, and tried to fashion some cosmic or extra-worldly image for him.
history with all of its quarks, violence, and "reality," factor.. wouldn't you think that any "historical reference," that cites everyone living perfectly, or even an individual living and doing no wrong or enduring no suffering would seem...... edited?


(Shaolin, you currently get credit that your remarks come from naivete and ignorance. In other words, I'm assuming you haven't bothered reading anything anywhere on this site or these forums. Regardless, I get to have fun taking your "argument" apart )


like the other ppl.. you have your statements - my remarks come from "naivete and ignorance," but lack the means to back it up..


(Bullshit. You think it's easier because you equate "no belief in God" with "no concern for the consequences of one's actions". See below. )

nahh..

(Now, on to the meat of the argument. Lets consider the following four people:

Person 1: Following the teachings of the Bible, as interpreted by themselves.
You can make that thing justify pretty much anything you want. As Jesus himself (IIRC, and according to the Bible) said "Even the Devil can quote scripture."

Person 2: Following the teachings of the Bible, as interpreted by their religion.
Possibly the easiest job of all, since this person never has to think. Instead, when they have a tough question in front of them, they run off to their pastor or co-religionists to get the "official doctrine", thus saving them the need of figuring out the moral thing for themselves

Person 3: Reconciling the Bible and their faith with a humanist moral code
Possibly the _hardest_ job of all, since the mere act of attempting the reconciliation admits that morality is more important than faith.

Person 4: Atheist, attempting to develop a consistent humanist moral code
Accepting that it is possible for moral truths to be self-evident, this persons job isn't quite as tough as that of person 3, since they don't have to worry about the reconciliation part. However, on points of morality, person 3 and person 4 will usually agree.

So in other words, 'doing your own thing' can be enormously difficult, if 'your own thing' includes identifying your moral foundations and extrapolating those into a workable moral code (with possible assistance from others who have gone through the same journey).

Blindly 'Following the teaching's of the Bible' can be ridiculously easy, because it means never having to think about anything really important - your pastor or your faith will always have a canned, knee-jerk reaction for you.

Obviously, I don't believe all religionists are like the fundamentalists that final paragraph describes - but such people _do_ have it easy, because they never have to learn to use their brain.)


likewise.. im sure there are people who are comparable among "atheists," for every category you mentioned.. I'd probably be a mix of 1 + 3.. although the categories you mentioned - any categories have their limitations.. and exceptions.

(Yeah, history validates the prophecies of Nostradamus, too.

Here's a tip - you want to get good at the fortune telling game, be vague . Don't say "In 15 days time, the heavens will open, and Jesus will appear before humanity, and everyone will fall down and worship him." Instead say, "And lo, there will come a day, when the will heavens open. . . yadda yadda yadda".

Interesting how people are so found of mentioning the Bible passages which can (with a little mental gymnastics) be interepreted as maybe, just possibly, referring to this particular event that occurred on this particular day, but run like the wind when someone brings up the examples of _specific_ predictions being made, which then turn out to be wrong (the whole problem with Jesus not returning before the apostles all died is a perennial favourite).

People play exactly the same games with Nostradamus. )


see above URL for some account of historical fact backing up prophecy.. there were specific prophecies that seem to validate christianity.

this is getting a bit long so im making this into two posts.. for easier reading.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I read on a website that the Christian faith could disappear as an organized religion within our lifetime.

Really??? I wonder how many people have been predicting that since the ROMAN EMPIRE!

Only 4% of Eurpeans go to church on a regular Basis.

In a recent poll in Canada asking, 'What Religion are you?', Atheist was the most common answer.

In the US Church attendance has dropped by 50% in two decades, and that's speeding up.

You do the math.