Are atheists destroying the US?

[JakeStarkey]

And not one atheist can prove God does not exist.

Back to the OP. No proof has been given that atheists are destroying the US. Much evidence has been, some by themselves, they don't reason well at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do you believe in Bigfoot, Jake? There are books out on the subject, and there are lots of people who claim to have seen Bigfoot, with evidence to prove it.

We are talking about the nature of proof or life of it. You have not disproved that God exists.

Others have disproved your gawds. You have not disproved that disproof.

No one has ever done any such thing.

Your testimony is you own and has no importance in itself to others except which they may give it..

 

[Hollie]

If you believe that a man lived inside of a whale, (cough, cough, I'm sorry, a big fish) Jesus walked on water, or in the miracle of faith healing, then you believe in witchcraft and wizardry....MAGIC!

I have walked on water many times. There was a lake by my house when I lived in northern Idaho and in the winter when it got REALLY ******* cold, we would walk over it on our way to school. There would be a whole line of us walking on water.

Hallelujah, "ice" is what some call it.

Well, ice is still water. It's just in a different form. However, it's pretty difficult to imagine that the Sea of Galilee froze over allowing Jesus to walk upon it, since it's in the middle of a desert. I don't know whether He walked on water or not. I wasn't there. I can say that if we try to duplicate the experiment, the odds that anyone will successfully walk on water are extraordinarily low. But, then again, that is what would make it a miracle, huh? Its certainly possible that it is an account that was exaggerated by oral tradition over several decades. But perhaps, it's not that He physically walked on water so much as it represents a metaphor. "Jesus can be the calm that gets you through the turbulent storms of life" so to speak. The Bible is full of stuff that is symbolic instead of literal.

In other words, maybe the question of whether Jesus walking on water was a historical event is not really what is important. Perhaps, it is what we can take from the story and apply to our lives in a meaningful way that is valuable

So, when one applies reason and logic, we can conclude that the Bible is full of historical events that never really happened. Thank you.

Blasphemer!

Some are true some not, some kinda' true some not. Some yes, some no.

Caliber of weapons will decide who's right.

 

[BluePhantom]

If you believe that a man lived inside of a whale, (cough, cough, I'm sorry, a big fish) Jesus walked on water, or in the miracle of faith healing, then you believe in witchcraft and wizardry....MAGIC!

I have walked on water many times. There was a lake by my house when I lived in northern Idaho and in the winter when it got REALLY ******* cold, we would walk over it on our way to school. There would be a whole line of us walking on water.

Hallelujah, "ice" is what some call it.

Well, ice is still water. It's just in a different form. However, it's pretty difficult to imagine that the Sea of Galilee froze over allowing Jesus to walk upon it, since it's in the middle of a desert. I don't know whether He walked on water or not. I wasn't there. I can say that if we try to duplicate the experiment, the odds that anyone will successfully walk on water are extraordinarily low. But, then again, that is what would make it a miracle, huh? Its certainly possible that it is an account that was exaggerated by oral tradition over several decades. But perhaps, it's not that He physically walked on water so much as it represents a metaphor. "Jesus can be the calm that gets you through the turbulent storms of life" so to speak. The Bible is full of stuff that is symbolic instead of literal.

In other words, maybe the question of whether Jesus walking on water was a historical event is not really what is important. Perhaps, it is what we can take from the story and apply to our lives in a meaningful way that is valuable

So, when one applies reason and logic, we can conclude that the Bible is full of historical events that never really happened. Thank you.

Well first of all, I am not the one arguing that the Bible is a historical document. There are certain things in there that are historical, but there is a lot that is not. Personally, I don't think the Bible is to be taken literally or historically. I view it as allegorical. But that is not to say there are not good lessons in it that cannot benefit the life of the individual or society as a whole.

 

[Hollie]

Do you believe in Bigfoot, Jake? There are books out on the subject, and there are lots of people who claim to have seen Bigfoot, with evidence to prove it.

We are talking about the nature of proof or life of it. You have not disproved that God exists.

Others have disproved your gawds. You have not disproved that disproof.

No one has ever done any such thing.

Your testimony is you own and has no importance to others.

You can't disprove the disproof. That's obvious. Do you need a hanky?

 

[Carla_Danger]

militant atheists are the equivalent of religious fundamentalists

Nope, you don't get to put us on the same level as your witchcraft and wizardry.

That's your problem. The OP is asking whether atheists are destroying the U.S. The answer is no.

I agree.

 

[Vandalshandle]

God is real. he has just been on vacation for the last 2000 years. When he gets back, he is going to be rested and a whole lot more laid back than he used to be. I'm guessing that he will have dropped his Jewish identity and maybe have become a Hare Krishna. I just hope that he doesn't start hanging around air ports.

 

[Carla_Danger]

If you believe that a man lived inside of a whale, (cough, cough, I'm sorry, a big fish) Jesus walked on water, or in the miracle of faith healing, then you believe in witchcraft and wizardry....MAGIC!

I have walked on water many times. There was a lake by my house when I lived in northern Idaho and in the winter when it got REALLY ******* cold, we would walk over it on our way to school. There would be a whole line of us walking on water.

Hallelujah, "ice" is what some call it.

Well, ice is still water. It's just in a different form. However, it's pretty difficult to imagine that the Sea of Galilee froze over allowing Jesus to walk upon it, since it's in the middle of a desert. I don't know whether He walked on water or not. I wasn't there. I can say that if we try to duplicate the experiment, the odds that anyone will successfully walk on water are extraordinarily low. But, then again, that is what would make it a miracle, huh? Its certainly possible that it is an account that was exaggerated by oral tradition over several decades. But perhaps, it's not that He physically walked on water so much as it represents a metaphor. "Jesus can be the calm that gets you through the turbulent storms of life" so to speak. The Bible is full of stuff that is symbolic instead of literal.

In other words, maybe the question of whether Jesus walking on water was a historical event is not really what is important. Perhaps, it is what we can take from the story and apply to our lives in a meaningful way that is valuable

So, when one applies reason and logic, we can conclude that the Bible is full of historical events that never really happened. Thank you.

Well first of all, I am not the one arguing that the Bible is a historical document. There are certain things in there that are historical, but there is a lot that is not. Personally, I don't think the Bible is to be taken literally or historically. I view it as allegorical. But that is not to say there are not good lessons in it that cannot benefit the life of the individual or society as a whole.

Horton Hatches the Egg or The Velveteen Rabbit, are two good books to read for lessons in ethics and morality.

 

[Hollie]

I have walked on water many times. There was a lake by my house when I lived in northern Idaho and in the winter when it got REALLY ******* cold, we would walk over it on our way to school. There would be a whole line of us walking on water.

Hallelujah, "ice" is what some call it.

Well, ice is still water. It's just in a different form. However, it's pretty difficult to imagine that the Sea of Galilee froze over allowing Jesus to walk upon it, since it's in the middle of a desert. I don't know whether He walked on water or not. I wasn't there. I can say that if we try to duplicate the experiment, the odds that anyone will successfully walk on water are extraordinarily low. But, then again, that is what would make it a miracle, huh? Its certainly possible that it is an account that was exaggerated by oral tradition over several decades. But perhaps, it's not that He physically walked on water so much as it represents a metaphor. "Jesus can be the calm that gets you through the turbulent storms of life" so to speak. The Bible is full of stuff that is symbolic instead of literal.

In other words, maybe the question of whether Jesus walking on water was a historical event is not really what is important. Perhaps, it is what we can take from the story and apply to our lives in a meaningful way that is valuable

So, when one applies reason and logic, we can conclude that the Bible is full of historical events that never really happened. Thank you.

Well first of all, I am not the one arguing that the Bible is a historical document. There are certain things in there that are historical, but there is a lot that is not. Personally, I don't think the Bible is to be taken literally or historically. I view it as allegorical. But that is not to say there are not good lessons in it that cannot benefit the life of the individual or society as a whole.

Horton Hatches the Egg, or The Velveteen Rabbit are two good books to read for lessons in ethics and morality.

The Little Engine That Could.

Truly inspirational and the little engine doesn't jump the rails and squish people because they're a disappointment to him.

 

[hangover]

The atheists here have proved beyond any doubt, that they are as fanatical as any fundamentalist evangelical. And their hate for anyone that doesn't subscribe to their ideology is just as stupid.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Hallelujah, "ice" is what some call it.

Well, ice is still water. It's just in a different form. However, it's pretty difficult to imagine that the Sea of Galilee froze over allowing Jesus to walk upon it, since it's in the middle of a desert. I don't know whether He walked on water or not. I wasn't there. I can say that if we try to duplicate the experiment, the odds that anyone will successfully walk on water are extraordinarily low. But, then again, that is what would make it a miracle, huh? Its certainly possible that it is an account that was exaggerated by oral tradition over several decades. But perhaps, it's not that He physically walked on water so much as it represents a metaphor. "Jesus can be the calm that gets you through the turbulent storms of life" so to speak. The Bible is full of stuff that is symbolic instead of literal.

In other words, maybe the question of whether Jesus walking on water was a historical event is not really what is important. Perhaps, it is what we can take from the story and apply to our lives in a meaningful way that is valuable

So, when one applies reason and logic, we can conclude that the Bible is full of historical events that never really happened. Thank you.

Well first of all, I am not the one arguing that the Bible is a historical document. There are certain things in there that are historical, but there is a lot that is not. Personally, I don't think the Bible is to be taken literally or historically. I view it as allegorical. But that is not to say there are not good lessons in it that cannot benefit the life of the individual or society as a whole.

Horton Hatches the Egg, or The Velveteen Rabbit are two good books to read for lessons in ethics and morality.

The Little Engine That Could.

Truly inspirational and the little engine doesn't jump the rails and squish people because they're a disappointment to him.

It appears that our modern morality is much more humane.

 

[BluePhantom]

Horton Hatches the Egg or The Velveteen Rabbit, are two good books to read for lessons in ethics and morality.

Perhaps, but would you refuse good advice simply because you didn't like the source? Whether one believes in God or not, the overriding principle of how to treat your fellow man according to Christianity is a pretty good thing. If everyone treated each other as Jesus suggested, I imagine the world would be a much better place whether you accept Jesus as divine or not.

Now I will add something. I paraphrase Gandhi who said, essentially, 'Christianity is a wonderful thing. I wish more Christians would give it a try.' Maybe instead of pounding your shoe on the table like Nikita Khruschev, atheists and theists should stop bickering about what they disagree upon and find points that they do agree upon.

I think in the case of this thread all have agreed that atheists are not destroying the US...at least no more so than anyone else. That's a start

 

[Vandalshandle]

The atheists here have proved beyond any doubt, that they are as fanatical as any fundamentalist evangelical. And their hate for anyone that doesn't subscribe to their ideology is just as stupid.

I confess that I get so worked up about it that sometimes I forget to go to my church bombing meetings.....

 

[Carla_Danger]

Horton Hatches the Egg or The Velveteen Rabbit, are two good books to read for lessons in ethics and morality.

Perhaps, but would you refuse good advice simply because you didn't like the source? Whether one believes in God or not, the overriding principle of how to treat your fellow man according to Christianity is a pretty good thing. If everyone treated each other as Jesus suggested, I imagine the world would be a much better place whether you accept Jesus as divine or not.

Now I will add something. I paraphrase Gandhi who said, essentially, 'Christianity is a wonderful thing. I wish more Christians would give it a try.' Maybe instead of pounding your shoe on the table like Nikita Khruschev, atheists and theists should stop bickering about what they disagree upon and find points that they do agree upon.

I think in the case of this thread all have agreed that atheists are not destroying the US...at least no more so than anyone else. That's a start

Sure, you can suck a teaspoon of meaning out of the Bible, but the problem is, you have to suck, and suck, and suck. Jesus said to turn the other cheek, but he really wasn't a liberator. He never really voiced any concerns over slavery. Jesus said to love thy neighbor, but his family values were horrible. He had no relationship with his parents, and he blew his mother off, over and over. Jesus was angry and impatient, and his parables were often foggy and meaningless.

Again, our modern morality is superior.

 

[BluePhantom]

Well He said to turn the other cheek and then caused a shit storm in the Temple. If you have to suck, and suck, and suck to get life lessons from the Bible, you don't have a great deal of intellectual capacity. As far as what Jesus had to say about slavery, we really don't know His opinion. If He said something about it, it never made it to the Bible. But, one has to keep in mind as well, that the material world was not the primary concern of Jesus. For Jesus, it was not where you were in life that was important so much as what you make out of life that was important. His message was primarily internal; that being focused on one's inner self and personal interactions as opposed to major social revolution. There are a lot of reasons for this but that would be a thread unto itself.

As far as your "modern morality" and statement of superiority is concerned, you are certainly portraying yourself as an elitist. I ask you this: "what is moral?" Doesn't morality depend on the environment around you? I would argue that what is moral is based almost exclusively on geography, time, culture, etc. For you to say that your definition of morality is superior is quite ethnocentric. That's the kind of stuff extremists say.

 

[Hollie]

Horton Hatches the Egg or The Velveteen Rabbit, are two good books to read for lessons in ethics and morality.

Perhaps, but would you refuse good advice simply because you didn't like the source? Whether one believes in God or not, the overriding principle of how to treat your fellow man according to Christianity is a pretty good thing. If everyone treated each other as Jesus suggested, I imagine the world would be a much better place whether you accept Jesus as divine or not.

Now I will add something. I paraphrase Gandhi who said, essentially, 'Christianity is a wonderful thing. I wish more Christians would give it a try.' Maybe instead of pounding your shoe on the table like Nikita Khruschev, atheists and theists should stop bickering about what they disagree upon and find points that they do agree upon.

I think in the case of this thread all have agreed that atheists are not destroying the US...at least no more so than anyone else. That's a start

Good comments, BP.

I would be cautious about using the judeo-christian gawds as a standard for how to treat people. Those gawds are among the most cruel and ruthless gawds ever to be devised by the mind of man. Try living your life per the standards of behavior in the bibles, the OT especially, and you will quickly be jailed. Morality isn't the province of Judaism or Christianity or Islam. Whatever did we do before religion? How is it we are here despite our ancestors total lack of moral compass?

Plenty of civilizations who never heard of the christian religious myths operated under the same rules and codes of behavior and they did just fine-- in fact, better in many cases.

As it was noted previously, the tales surrounding Jesus (gawd Jr.?), have been changed, edited and embellished by the writers of the bibles. Ultimately, how does anyone "find the gawds" when "finding" the gawds depends on how you define the gawds. If we proceed with "there are many paths to God", it would also suggest there are many differing standards of morality and thus Christians are in a constant state of conflict when these differing standards of morality clash. If you believe in the christian gawds, you're faced with the many conceptions and configurations of belief systems represented by the various sects and subdivisions of christianity. Quite often, theses various sects don't often recognize the validity of the competing sect.

I think these questions and many more naturally follow when one believes in any of the competing gawds and the religions built around them. It is the fact that differing religions answer these questions about morality with differing degrees of coherence.

My suggestion is to scrap the various bibles now in circulation and press for one, single establishment of christianity via the Jefferson Bible.

Jefferson opines:
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

 

[Carla_Danger]

Well He said to turn the other cheek and then caused a shit storm in the Temple. If you have to suck, and suck, and suck to get life lessons from the Bible, you don't have a great deal of intellectual capacity. As far as what Jesus had to say about slavery, we really don't know His opinion. If He said something about it, it never made it to the Bible. But, one has to keep in mind as well, that the material world was not the primary concern of Jesus. For Jesus, it was not where you were in life that was important so much as what you make out of life that was important. His message was primarily internal; that being focused on one's inner self and personal interactions as opposed to major social revolution. There are a lot of reasons for this but that would be a thread unto itself.

As far as your "modern morality" and statement of superiority is concerned, you are certainly portraying yourself as an elitist. I ask you this: "what is moral?" Doesn't morality depend on the environment around you? I would argue that what is moral is based almost exclusively on geography, time, culture, etc. For you to say that your definition of morality is superior is quite ethnocentric. That's the kind of stuff extremists say.

In Luke Jesus helps us understand Gawd's relationship with humans by telling us that Gawd treats people the way people treat their slaves...they beat some more than others. Then Jesus gets really crazy and condemns a fig tree, simply because the fig tree stopped producing figs. Yet, here you are, blaming me for not being able to suck enough meaning out of the Bible.

To date, I haven't run out and murdered any of the people I dislike because I feel that living in such a vigilante society would be a step back in societal evolution, and thus less good a life for me and for everyone else. The old "Wild West" of America was such a lawless, vigilante society, even though its denizens were steeped in religiosity. Everybody "open carried", and a careless word taken as an affront could cause a shootout in the public streets, resulting in death. Common in those days, even though nearly all of those Western gunslingers were Christian born and raised. I think society has come a long way since then, for the better. And it's due to secular law and personal ethics, not religion. Obviously.

I'm sorry you feel that I'm an elitist simply because our ethics and morality have evolved.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The classic mistake Christians make is to perceive their bible as written by a 'god' or 'deity,' and consequently possessing some sort of 'authority' on matters concerning morals and values.

In fact this is utter nonsense.

The bible was written by men, imbued with man's fear, ignorance, and hate, and is therefore completely devoid of 'authority' concerning morals and values.

 

[Hollie]

Well He said to turn the other cheek and then caused a shit storm in the Temple. If you have to suck, and suck, and suck to get life lessons from the Bible, you don't have a great deal of intellectual capacity. As far as what Jesus had to say about slavery, we really don't know His opinion. If He said something about it, it never made it to the Bible. But, one has to keep in mind as well, that the material world was not the primary concern of Jesus. For Jesus, it was not where you were in life that was important so much as what you make out of life that was important. His message was primarily internal; that being focused on one's inner self and personal interactions as opposed to major social revolution. There are a lot of reasons for this but that would be a thread unto itself.

As far as your "modern morality" and statement of superiority is concerned, you are certainly portraying yourself as an elitist. I ask you this: "what is moral?" Doesn't morality depend on the environment around you? I would argue that what is moral is based almost exclusively on geography, time, culture, etc. For you to say that your definition of morality is superior is quite ethnocentric. That's the kind of stuff extremists say.

In Luke Jesus helps us understand Gawd's relationship with humans by telling us that Gawd treats people the way people treat their slaves...they beat some more than others. Then Jesus gets really crazy and condemns a fig tree, simple because the fig tree stopped producing figs. Yet, here you are, blaming me for not being able to suck enough meaning out of the Bible.

To date, I haven't run out and murdered any of the people I dislike because I feel that living in such a vigilante society would be a step back in societal evolution, and thus less good a life for me and for everyone else. The old "Wild West" of America was such a lawless, vigilante society, even though its denizens were steeped in religiosity. Everybody "open carried", and a careless word taken as an affront could cause a shootout in the public streets, resulting in death. Common in those days, even though nearly all of those Western gunslingers were Christian born and raised. I think society has come a long way since then, for the better. And it's due to secular law and personal ethics, not religion. Obviously.

I'm sorry you feel that I'm an elitist simply because our ethics and morality have evolved.

Applause aplenty'.


Late edit - if you do run out and murder someone you don't like, umm, PM me and I can recommend a good Jew lawyer.

 

[BluePhantom]

Good comments, BP.

I would be cautious about using the judeo-christian gawds as a standard for how to treat people. Those gawds are among the most cruel and ruthless gawds ever to be devised by the mind of man. Try living your life per the standards of behavior in the bibles, the OT especially, and you will quickly be jailed. Morality isn't the province of Judaism or Christianity or Islam. Whatever did we do before religion? How is it we are here despite our ancestors total lack of moral compass?

I would agree, but a lot of that has to do with the social evolution of Judaism and the history of the Jews. The attributes and characteristics of God softened over the centuries as the concept of Satan developed. Satan wasn't part of the equation for the early Israelites. He came far later and as his identity became further defined, negative characteristics that were previously attributed to God were instead given to Satan, leaving God as all loving and all forgiving. That's essentially why in Genesis God is wrathful ass-kicker and by Matthew He is completely different.

I agree that morality is not exclusive to Christianity or religion in general. In fact, I can point to many "Christians" that are about as immoral as one can get (at least according to how we as a society define morality). However, as the United States is overwhelming Christian, the values and mores that our society have adopted have largely been Christian in nature. Thus, what we define as 'moral' in the United States is heavily influenced by Christian thought and tradition. So even if an atheist says "I behave morally for the sake of morality itself", they are still defining morality according to Christian influences that have been established in our society.

As it was noted previously, the tales surrounding Jesus (gawd Jr.?), have been changed, edited and embellished by the writers of the bibles. Ultimately, how does anyone "find the gawds" when "finding" the gawds depends on how you define the gawds. If we proceed with "there are many paths to God", it would also suggest there are many differing standards of morality and thus Christians are in a constant state of conflict when these differing standards of morality clash. If you believe in the christian gawds, you're faced with the many conceptions and configurations of belief systems represented by the various sects and subdivisions of christianity. Quite often, theses various sects don't often recognize the validity of the competing sect.

I think these questions and many more naturally follow when one believes in any of the competing gawds and the religions built around them. It is the fact that differing religions answer these questions about morality with differing degrees of coherence.

Well I think that's the big question isn't it? I am of the opinion that when scripture was first written it may have been the divine word of God. I will at least grant that as a possibility. However, it has been redacted so much over time and so many of the concepts have been misinterpreted because the cultural and historical contexts have been forgotten that it has become the word of man. That is a position that seriously pisses off Christian fundamentalists who believe in the Bible as historical, literal, and inerrant. But, for me, that does not necessarily mean the quest for God should be abandoned. It simply means we must rely upon our own inner-truths. When one does that, they (in theory) create a personal path to God. The trick is to let other people do the same or not do the same as they see fit. It demands that other people will reach different conclusions and you have to let them because it works for them and gives them value and meaning.

My suggestion is to scrap the various bibles now in circulation and press for one, single establishment of christianity via the Jefferson Bible.

Jefferson opines:
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

I could not agree with Jefferson more. I am not sure there should be, or ever will be, 'one true Bible'. I am not sure there is 'one true way'. There is only what works for the individual and in my opinion it is best left at that