God does exist. Itelligent design in the Universe is prof of God.

[Donald H]

You should learn to be precise with terms and definitions. There is every reason to accept a naturalistic origin of the universe as opposed to your claimed supernatural origin. It is a pretty simple matter that the supernaturalists fail to comprehend; you need to provide some support for the existence of your supernatural gods before you can assign universe building tasks to them.

It's above our human ability to reason Holly.
But when the Christians bring their bible and Christian beliefs into the picture, it becomes elementary.

I'll allow them their myriad of interpretations on a superior force or being because I don't have the credentials to say with any authority that they are wrong.

But there's just no possibility of them being right when they turn to their bible.

The smart ones will run for cover before debating on the basis of their Christian beliefs. The ignorant ones will stand their ground and make themselves look foolish.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Uh huh........sure.

And after so many THOUSANDS of years now.........you still don't have one teeny tiny shred of rock solid proof!!!

 

[ChemEngineer]

I'll state briefly my position in this discussion. It hasn't become a debate yet and it doesn't appear to be headed in that direction.

A million different ways to believe in a god are fine with me and are of no interest of me to debate.
But when christianity (sic) or the Christian bible enters the conversation is when there's something worth debated (sic) because the superstitious nonsense just can't be ignored.

You are talking about context when you obviously cannot write simple English.

{QUOTE]
My premise to begin with is that if a Christian doesn't believe the bible (sic) is the literal word of their god (sic) then they're backsliding away from being able to take the pro side of any debate.
[Says you.]

They can't be believers and be full of 'maybes' and 'ifs' and other qualified beliefs at the same time.
[Says you.]
A new modern religion may be required, which is consistent with science, but subject to updating and amending every 3 or 4 years as science marches on to greater knowledge.
[/QUOTE]

Do you know what science IS? What is the root word for science? What is its etiology?
Semantics is everything and you clearly know nothing about semantics, much less science.

Read The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski.
Read The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

Explain, as I previously requested, whence everything came and use your "science" very precisely.

 

[surada]

I'll state briefly my position in this discussion. It hasn't become a debate yet and it doesn't appear to be headed in that direction.

A million different ways to believe in a god are fine with me and are of no interest of me to debate.
But when christianity (sic) or the Christian bible enters the conversation is when there's something worth debated (sic) because the superstitious nonsense just can't be ignored.

You are talking about context when you obviously cannot write simple English.

{QUOTE]
My premise to begin with is that if a Christian doesn't believe the bible (sic) is the literal word of their god (sic) then they're backsliding away from being able to take the pro side of any debate.
[Says you.]

They can't be believers and be full of 'maybes' and 'ifs' and other qualified beliefs at the same time.
[Says you.]
A new modern religion may be required, which is consistent with science, but subject to updating and amending every 3 or 4 years as science marches on to greater knowledge.

Do you know what science IS? What is the root word for science? What is its etiology?
Semantics is everything and you clearly know nothing about semantics, much less science.

Read The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski.
Read The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

Explain, as I previously requested, whence everything came and use your "science" very precisely.
[/QUOTE]

Why do you think you have to "prove" God?

 

[Hollie]

Read The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski.
Read The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

Why bring the charlatan David Berlinski into the thread?

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

#24: David Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon

 

[Donald H]

Uh huh........sure.

And after so many THOUSANDS of years now.........you still don't have one teeny tiny shred of rock solid proof!!!

Proof that the bible is nonsense? Most Christians in other countries throughout the world have resigned themselves to declaring their bible isn't meant to be taken literally as the word of the god.
That's christians proving a negative for you.

On the positive side of proof, the sheer weight of impossibilities contained in ther hundreds of different bible with different interpretations has settle the question in Darwin's favour.

Stick to a generic super powerful force or being; you can't lose with that.
Most christians have been able to accept that compromise by now. Their 6000 year old earth has become just too humiliating!

 

[Donald H]

Uh huh........sure.

And after so many THOUSANDS of years now.........you still don't have one teeny tiny shred of rock solid proof!!!

You can have your super natural being or force, but you can't have your bible and christian beliefs.
Settle for the compromise and you can go home as a conditional winner.

Push biblical nonsense and we're on for a debate!

Keep up the deflections from having to proclaim your bible as literal word of the god and you lose me from your audience.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Uh huh........sure.

And after so many THOUSANDS of years now.........you still don't have one teeny tiny shred of rock solid proof!!!

You can have your super natural being or force, but you can't have your bible and christian beliefs.
Settle for the compromise and you can go home as a conditional winner.

Push biblical nonsense and we're on for a debate!

Keep up the deflections from having to proclaim your bible as literal word of the god and you lose me from your audience.

You got the wrong commenter...........I don't have a bible, and I sure as hell ain't anything as heinous and hypocritical as a christian!!!

 

[Hollie]

Read The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski.
Read The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

You mean this Josh Mcdowell?

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

#263: Joslin “Josh” McDowell
Josh McDowell is an evangelical preacher and Christian apologist – and one of the most famous ones at that. His book “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” tries to establish the historicity and divinity of Jesus and the inerrancy of scripture. To do that, he primarily uses Scripture (+ confirmation bias, selective use of (and mangling of) actual historical science). And he lies. A pretty extensive commentary on and rebuttal of his claims can be found here. The arguments are really, really, really bad. They belong either to the “Many people have died for their faith. Would they be prepared to do this for a lie? Therefore God exists” category, or the “Jesus Christ is either who he says he is, or he is the biggest con man history has ever known. But he cannot be the latter since he is the son of God, and no son of a perfectly good God could be a liar” category. And no, McDowell is no new Aquinas, even though certain other famous apologists may arguably make him look that way in comparison.


McDowell has been associated with Campus Crusade for Christ since 1964. He has also written “More Than a Carpenter”, “A Ready Defense”, “Right from Wrong”, “Why Wait?” (with Dick Day – a defense of abstinence) and a lot of other books. He’s very concerned about the Internet, however, since the Internet enables skeptics to share information with people who could otherwise have become good Christians

 

[Donald H]

You got the wrong commenter...........I don't have a bible, and I sure as hell ain't anything as heinous and hypocritical as a christian!!!

No matter, the quote function of this board destroys mostly everyone's intent anyway. It's only important that the message is seen and heard.

 

[ChemEngineer]

It's above our human ability to reason Holly.

Speaking for himself.
I've had enough of Donald's inability to reason, as he has admitted.
He just joined his fellow godless Leftists on my Ignore List.

ciao brutto

-----------------------------------------------
The Fallacy of Science vs. Religion
The atheists' frequent claim that science and religion are mutually exclusive is demonstrably false. If atheists were as "rational" and "intelligent" as they are always claiming, they would not constantly resort to mendacity. Science pursues truth.
The list of scientists as men and women faith is long and growing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”” - Demon Haunted World, page 29, by Carl Sagan

Valid criticism does you a favor. - Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World, page 32

“I believe in God more because of science than in spite of it.” – William Phillips, Nobel Laureate in Physics

“I think as Psalm 19, ‘the heavens proclaim the glory of God,’ that is, God reveals himself in all there is. All reality, to a greater or lesser extent, reveals the purpose of God. There is some purpose and connection to the world in all aspects of human experience.” – Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize winner in physics for co-discovery of background cosmic radiation, confirming the Big Bang, or the moment of creation
_____________________________________

The Atheist Claim of Rationality and Intellectual Superiority

Atheists claim intellectual superiority as if it were their birthright. Three separate problems arise immediately from their claims.
1. I have seen no evidence that atheists are, as a group, more intelligent than people of faith.
2. If such evidence of atheist intellectualism can be shown, it obviously does not apply to all atheists, but only the group average.
3. Most critically, intelligence has little correlation with wisdom, goodness, decency. Theodore Kaczynski, former math professor at UC Berkeley, is a genius. He just liked to mail package bombs to people he hated, to kill them.

If atheists are, on average, intellectually superior to people of faith, then why do they abandon their religious belief in atheism at a rate higher than any other group? (The Supreme Court has adjudged atheism a religion. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961))

One sacred symbol to atheists is the 'A' that symbolizes atheism. Three 'A' symbols are prominent in atheism. One 'A' symbol was created in 2007 by Atheist Alliance International and has a circle around it. The circle is meant to symbolize the unity of all atheists and the inclusion of all other atheist symbols. As you can tell, not only are these symbols for atheism, there is atheist religious symbolism within them that only atheists or those who study atheism know.

Atheist Idols/Symbols
Some appear on atheist headstones, much as crosses adorn Christians' headstones.

A second popular 'A' symbol was created by Richard Dawkins and is a red letter 'A' on a right leaning slant. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has adopted this symbol to represent it when they set up monuments to atheism. The third sacred 'A' symbol was created by the American Atheists and is placed in the middle of an atomic circle. The organization chose this as their symbol in 1963 to demonstrate their faith that science can save and free mankind. The letter 'A' stands in the middle of the atomic sign but rather than meaning atheism, it represents the first letter of the country in which the group is located. This obviously leads to problems since 'A' could stand for Austria, Algeria, Australia, and so on, but I suppose they weren't thinking that far ahead. The Atomic A, as it is known, is allowed on gravestones of U.S. military personnel who are atheists. Atheism is so sacred to some atheists that they want the atheist 'A' to represent them to the world after their death. - Atheism as a Religion by Mike Dobbins

Atheists commonly defend false beliefs about science because their certitude gives them a reassuring sense of order, commonly found in people of religious faith. Thus atheism/scientism are often defended unscientifically and emotionally, even as proponents claim otherwise. Science thrives on uncertainty, not the cock-sure certitude so universally and maliciously expressed by atheists.
_________________________________
Ivy League Colleges all have Christian charters. Is there a single college with an atheist charter? Please name it.

Atheists marry less, by far, than those of faith. Marriage confers enormous mental and physical health benefits, showing how rational and intelligent it is to marry the opposite sex.

Recently the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has published its mammoth study on Religion in America based on 35,000 interviews... According to the Pew Forum a whopping 37% of atheists never marry as opposed to 19% of the American population, 17% of Protestants and 17% of Catholics.[3]

The religious have better mental health into adulthood.
The abstract for the journal article Health and Well-Being Among the Non-religious: Atheists, Agnostics, and No Preference Compared with Religious Group Members published in the Journal of Religion and Health indicates: "On dimensions related to psychological well-being, atheists and agnostics tended to have worse outcomes than either those with religious affiliation or those with no religious preference."[2]
Global News reported:

“

Children who are raised with religious or spiritual beliefs tend to have better mental health into their adulthood, a new study from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found. According to the study’s findings, people who attended weekly religious services or prayed or meditated daily in their childhood reported greater life satisfaction in their 20s. People who grew up in a religious household also reported fewer symptoms of depression and lower rates of post-traumatic stress disorder.[3]

Pointing out that people of faith are happier elicits another atheist snark: "Ignorance is bliss, ha ha ha". This is a clear reflection of atheist anger and hostility, further confirming that atheists are generally more miserable than people of faith.
Atheist anger and hostility
Apparently many atheists believe that calling you stupid and unscientific is supposed to win you over to their way of thinking. You don't really believe in that flying spaghetti monster, do you?

"Ridicule and show contempt" for the religious and their doctrines, said leading atheist, Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion.

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." - Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, a book he "dedicated to lucifer"



Philipians 4:8 "...whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
Psychological professionals in the 21st Century have affirmed the substantial benefits, both mental and physical, of positive thinking in countless scholarly experiments, published papers and books.
________________________________​

 

[Hollie]

It's above our human ability to reason Holly.

Speaking for himself.
I've had enough of Donald's inability to reason, as he has admitted.
He just joined his fellow godless Leftists on my Ignore List.

ciao brutto

-----------------------------------------------
The Fallacy of Science vs. Religion
The atheists' frequent claim that science and religion are mutually exclusive is demonstrably false. If atheists were as "rational" and "intelligent" as they are always claiming, they would not constantly resort to mendacity. Science pursues truth.
The list of scientists as men and women faith is long and growing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”” - Demon Haunted World, page 29, by Carl Sagan
​

Valid criticism does you a favor. - Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World, page 32

“I believe in God more because of science than in spite of it.” – William Phillips, Nobel Laureate in Physics

“I think as Psalm 19, ‘the heavens proclaim the glory of God,’ that is, God reveals himself in all there is. All reality, to a greater or lesser extent, reveals the purpose of God. There is some purpose and connection to the world in all aspects of human experience.” – Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize winner in physics for co-discovery of background cosmic radiation, confirming the Big Bang, or the moment of creation
_____________________________________

The Atheist Claim of Rationality and Intellectual Superiority

Atheists claim intellectual superiority as if it were their birthright. Three separate problems arise immediately from their claims.
1. I have seen no evidence that atheists are, as a group, more intelligent than people of faith.
2. If such evidence of atheist intellectualism can be shown, it obviously does not apply to all atheists, but only the group average.
3. Most critically, intelligence has little correlation with wisdom, goodness, decency. Theodore Kaczynski, former math professor at UC Berkeley, is a genius. He just liked to mail package bombs to people he hated, to kill them.

If atheists are, on average, intellectually superior to people of faith, then why do they abandon their religious belief in atheism at a rate higher than any other group? (The Supreme Court has adjudged atheism a religion. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961))

One sacred symbol to atheists is the 'A' that symbolizes atheism. Three 'A' symbols are prominent in atheism. One 'A' symbol was created in 2007 by Atheist Alliance International and has a circle around it. The circle is meant to symbolize the unity of all atheists and the inclusion of all other atheist symbols. As you can tell, not only are these symbols for atheism, there is atheist religious symbolism within them that only atheists or those who study atheism know.

Atheist Idols/Symbols
Some appear on atheist headstones, much as crosses adorn Christians' headstones.

View attachment 483906

A second popular 'A' symbol was created by Richard Dawkins and is a red letter 'A' on a right leaning slant. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has adopted this symbol to represent it when they set up monuments to atheism. The third sacred 'A' symbol was created by the American Atheists and is placed in the middle of an atomic circle. The organization chose this as their symbol in 1963 to demonstrate their faith that science can save and free mankind. The letter 'A' stands in the middle of the atomic sign but rather than meaning atheism, it represents the first letter of the country in which the group is located. This obviously leads to problems since 'A' could stand for Austria, Algeria, Australia, and so on, but I suppose they weren't thinking that far ahead. The Atomic A, as it is known, is allowed on gravestones of U.S. military personnel who are atheists. Atheism is so sacred to some atheists that they want the atheist 'A' to represent them to the world after their death. - Atheism as a Religion by Mike Dobbins

Atheists commonly defend false beliefs about science because their certitude gives them a reassuring sense of order, commonly found in people of religious faith. Thus atheism/scientism are often defended unscientifically and emotionally, even as proponents claim otherwise. Science thrives on uncertainty, not the cock-sure certitude so universally and maliciously expressed by atheists.
_________________________________
Ivy League Colleges all have Christian charters. Is there a single college with an atheist charter? Please name it.

Atheists marry less, by far, than those of faith. Marriage confers enormous mental and physical health benefits, showing how rational and intelligent it is to marry the opposite sex.

Recently the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has published its mammoth study on Religion in America based on 35,000 interviews... According to the Pew Forum a whopping 37% of atheists never marry as opposed to 19% of the American population, 17% of Protestants and 17% of Catholics.[3]

The religious have better mental health into adulthood.
The abstract for the journal article Health and Well-Being Among the Non-religious: Atheists, Agnostics, and No Preference Compared with Religious Group Members published in the Journal of Religion and Health indicates: "On dimensions related to psychological well-being, atheists and agnostics tended to have worse outcomes than either those with religious affiliation or those with no religious preference."[2]
Global News reported:

“

Children who are raised with religious or spiritual beliefs tend to have better mental health into their adulthood, a new study from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found. According to the study’s findings, people who attended weekly religious services or prayed or meditated daily in their childhood reported greater life satisfaction in their 20s. People who grew up in a religious household also reported fewer symptoms of depression and lower rates of post-traumatic stress disorder.[3]

Pointing out that people of faith are happier elicits another atheist snark: "Ignorance is bliss, ha ha ha". This is a clear reflection of atheist anger and hostility, further confirming that atheists are generally more miserable than people of faith.
Atheist anger and hostility
Apparently many atheists believe that calling you stupid and unscientific is supposed to win you over to their way of thinking. You don't really believe in that flying spaghetti monster, do you?

"Ridicule and show contempt" for the religious and their doctrines, said leading atheist, Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion.

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." - Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, a book he "dedicated to lucifer"



Philipians 4:8 "...whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
Psychological professionals in the 21st Century have affirmed the substantial benefits, both mental and physical, of positive thinking in countless scholarly experiments, published papers and books.
________________________________

The most pompous, self-righteous, bible thumping, fundamentalist christians are the angriest people on the planet.

 

[Donald H]

Speaking for himself.
I've had enough of Donald's inability to reason, as he has admitted.
He just joined his fellow godless Leftists on my Ignore List.

You're too smart to try to defend the christian bible or christianity because you know they're losing propositions.

Your generic god or super being or force are acceptable to me and so you're rejecting me after I have become your confederate.

You're not going to get the compromise I've granted you from anybody else.

And my only imposed conditions are that you debate the substance of your bible.

 

[Donald H]

The most pompous, self-righteous, bible thumping, fundamentalist christians are the angriest people on the planet.

All it took with Chem Engineer was to hold his feet to the fire and force him to address the embarrassing nonsense his bible tries to impress upon him.

He couldn't do that and so far none of the others want to pick up the sword for him.

 

[Blues Man]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Since there are still people in bondage and children still are abused it seems that not all humans have the same access to your universal code of morals therefore it isn't universal

Again... that's because of subjectivity. Which I have already explained to you before.

Exactly morals are subjective

No. Humans are subjective. Morals are standards of behavior.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Standards don't have personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Humans do.

Morality is a human concept and if humans are subjective then morals are too because morals have changed over time and are inconsistent.

Morality is a standard of conduct. Standards exist for logical reasons.

But it is no the reality of conduct. So it's the actual conduct that is the standard not the ideal

Behaviors and standards are two different things. The standard is never negated because the behavior does not meet the standard.

The standard is a man made concept therefore not absolute.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Logic is a man made thing.

Logic is the rules of reasoning that were authored by man.

Indeed, very similar to religious doctrine. Often desperately overstated, terribly unclear, self-serving, and horribly self-contradictory. On the other hand, much of what we erroneously consider logic is actually math. Though always logical, only math is math. We discover math through application of scientific logic or reasoning. Where rules of apparent logic still apply without exception, given repeated, independent, peer reviewed trials, we can confidently presume we've actually discovered some tasty bit of math or Nature itself.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It's above our human ability to reason Holly.

Speaking for himself.
I've had enough of Donald's inability to reason, as he has admitted.
He just joined his fellow godless Leftists on my Ignore List.

ciao brutto

-----------------------------------------------
The Fallacy of Science vs. Religion
The atheists' frequent claim that science and religion are mutually exclusive is demonstrably false. If atheists were as "rational" and "intelligent" as they are always claiming, they would not constantly resort to mendacity. Science pursues truth.
The list of scientists as men and women faith is long and growing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”” - Demon Haunted World, page 29, by Carl Sagan
​

Valid criticism does you a favor. - Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World, page 32

“I believe in God more because of science than in spite of it.” – William Phillips, Nobel Laureate in Physics

“I think as Psalm 19, ‘the heavens proclaim the glory of God,’ that is, God reveals himself in all there is. All reality, to a greater or lesser extent, reveals the purpose of God. There is some purpose and connection to the world in all aspects of human experience.” – Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize winner in physics for co-discovery of background cosmic radiation, confirming the Big Bang, or the moment of creation
_____________________________________

The Atheist Claim of Rationality and Intellectual Superiority

Atheists claim intellectual superiority as if it were their birthright. Three separate problems arise immediately from their claims.
1. I have seen no evidence that atheists are, as a group, more intelligent than people of faith.
2. If such evidence of atheist intellectualism can be shown, it obviously does not apply to all atheists, but only the group average.
3. Most critically, intelligence has little correlation with wisdom, goodness, decency. Theodore Kaczynski, former math professor at UC Berkeley, is a genius. He just liked to mail package bombs to people he hated, to kill them.

If atheists are, on average, intellectually superior to people of faith, then why do they abandon their religious belief in atheism at a rate higher than any other group? (The Supreme Court has adjudged atheism a religion. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961))

One sacred symbol to atheists is the 'A' that symbolizes atheism. Three 'A' symbols are prominent in atheism. One 'A' symbol was created in 2007 by Atheist Alliance International and has a circle around it. The circle is meant to symbolize the unity of all atheists and the inclusion of all other atheist symbols. As you can tell, not only are these symbols for atheism, there is atheist religious symbolism within them that only atheists or those who study atheism know.

Atheist Idols/Symbols
Some appear on atheist headstones, much as crosses adorn Christians' headstones.

View attachment 483906

A second popular 'A' symbol was created by Richard Dawkins and is a red letter 'A' on a right leaning slant. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has adopted this symbol to represent it when they set up monuments to atheism. The third sacred 'A' symbol was created by the American Atheists and is placed in the middle of an atomic circle. The organization chose this as their symbol in 1963 to demonstrate their faith that science can save and free mankind. The letter 'A' stands in the middle of the atomic sign but rather than meaning atheism, it represents the first letter of the country in which the group is located. This obviously leads to problems since 'A' could stand for Austria, Algeria, Australia, and so on, but I suppose they weren't thinking that far ahead. The Atomic A, as it is known, is allowed on gravestones of U.S. military personnel who are atheists. Atheism is so sacred to some atheists that they want the atheist 'A' to represent them to the world after their death. - Atheism as a Religion by Mike Dobbins

Atheists commonly defend false beliefs about science because their certitude gives them a reassuring sense of order, commonly found in people of religious faith. Thus atheism/scientism are often defended unscientifically and emotionally, even as proponents claim otherwise. Science thrives on uncertainty, not the cock-sure certitude so universally and maliciously expressed by atheists.
_________________________________
Ivy League Colleges all have Christian charters. Is there a single college with an atheist charter? Please name it.

Atheists marry less, by far, than those of faith. Marriage confers enormous mental and physical health benefits, showing how rational and intelligent it is to marry the opposite sex.

Recently the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has published its mammoth study on Religion in America based on 35,000 interviews... According to the Pew Forum a whopping 37% of atheists never marry as opposed to 19% of the American population, 17% of Protestants and 17% of Catholics.[3]

The religious have better mental health into adulthood.
The abstract for the journal article Health and Well-Being Among the Non-religious: Atheists, Agnostics, and No Preference Compared with Religious Group Members published in the Journal of Religion and Health indicates: "On dimensions related to psychological well-being, atheists and agnostics tended to have worse outcomes than either those with religious affiliation or those with no religious preference."[2]
Global News reported:

“

Children who are raised with religious or spiritual beliefs tend to have better mental health into their adulthood, a new study from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found. According to the study’s findings, people who attended weekly religious services or prayed or meditated daily in their childhood reported greater life satisfaction in their 20s. People who grew up in a religious household also reported fewer symptoms of depression and lower rates of post-traumatic stress disorder.[3]

Pointing out that people of faith are happier elicits another atheist snark: "Ignorance is bliss, ha ha ha". This is a clear reflection of atheist anger and hostility, further confirming that atheists are generally more miserable than people of faith.
Atheist anger and hostility
Apparently many atheists believe that calling you stupid and unscientific is supposed to win you over to their way of thinking. You don't really believe in that flying spaghetti monster, do you?

"Ridicule and show contempt" for the religious and their doctrines, said leading atheist, Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion.

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." - Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, a book he "dedicated to lucifer"



Philipians 4:8 "...whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
Psychological professionals in the 21st Century have affirmed the substantial benefits, both mental and physical, of positive thinking in countless scholarly experiments, published papers and books.
________________________________

The most pompous, self-righteous, bible thumping, fundamentalist christians are the angriest people on the planet.

Holy shit, you ain't kidding! Probably why I've had him on ignore for like ever.

 

[ding]

Behaviors and standards are two different things. The standard is never negated because the behavior does not meet the standard.

I'll state briefly my position in this discussion. It hasn't become a debate yet and it doesn't appear to be headed in that direction.

A million different ways to believe in a god are fine with me and are of no interest of me to debate.
But when christianity or the Christian bible enters the conversation is when there's something worth debated because the superstitious nonsense just can't be ignored.

My premise to begin with is that if a Christian doesn't believe the bible is the literal word of their god then they're backsliding away from being able to take the pro side of any debate.

They can't be believers and be full of 'maybes' and 'ifs' and other qualified beliefs at the same time.

A new modern religion may be required, which is consistent with science, but subject to updating and amending every 3 or 4 years as science marches on to greater knowledge.

I'm not obligated by your misunderstanding of the Bible. You have never read the Bible for meaning. You have only read it to confirm your bias.

 

[ding]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Since there are still people in bondage and children still are abused it seems that not all humans have the same access to your universal code of morals therefore it isn't universal

Again... that's because of subjectivity. Which I have already explained to you before.

Exactly morals are subjective

No. Humans are subjective. Morals are standards of behavior.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Standards don't have personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Humans do.

Morality is a human concept and if humans are subjective then morals are too because morals have changed over time and are inconsistent.

Morality is a standard of conduct. Standards exist for logical reasons.

But it is no the reality of conduct. So it's the actual conduct that is the standard not the ideal

Behaviors and standards are two different things. The standard is never negated because the behavior does not meet the standard.

The standard is a man made concept therefore not absolute.

Logic is objective and absolute. Man is subjective and relative. Man is free to establish any standard he wishes but he is not free to avoid the consequences of establishing an inferior standard. See the cause, normalization of deviance and predictable surprise of the Challenger disaster for proof.

 

[Blues Man]

You have some need to feel like you win don't you? That's kind of sad that you think you have to claim victory on an anonymous message board.

Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. So seeing reality instead of perception of reality is indeed winning as there can only be one correct view which is known as reality.

And just because i think some behaviors are unacceptable doesn't mean everyone does.

Doesn't matter how many people believe it. It only matters what logic determines to be the objective truth. There is only one objective truth. Objective truth is the final state of fact. Once discovered it will be known that objective truth was always that way and will always be that way even if others don't believe it.

I'm not arrogant enough to think my thoughts and opinions constitute some absolute law as you seem to.

That's incorrect. It's not me that determines anything. It is logic which determines objective truth which is also known as reality. Standards exist for logical reasons so people can choose any standard they like but only the correct standard won't have negative consequences. I am not arguing that I know better. I am arguing that logic knows better.

So no i don't condone the abuse of children or slavery. But I am not the absolute authority on these matters and neither are you

Correct. Logic is. Logic determines the standard. Anything less will lead to predictable surprises because standards exist for logical reasons.

Since there are still people in bondage and children still are abused it seems that not all humans have the same access to your universal code of morals therefore it isn't universal

Again... that's because of subjectivity. Which I have already explained to you before.

Exactly morals are subjective

No. Humans are subjective. Morals are standards of behavior.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Standards don't have personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Humans do.

Morality is a human concept and if humans are subjective then morals are too because morals have changed over time and are inconsistent.

Morality is a standard of conduct. Standards exist for logical reasons.

But it is no the reality of conduct. So it's the actual conduct that is the standard not the ideal

Behaviors and standards are two different things. The standard is never negated because the behavior does not meet the standard.

The standard is a man made concept therefore not absolute.

Logic is objective and absolute. Man is subjective and relative. Man is free to establish any standard he wishes but he is not free to avoid the consequences of establishing an inferior standard. See the cause, normalization of deviance and predictable surprise of the Challenger disaster for proof.

Most accidents involving machinery of any kind boiled down to human error and that has nothing to do with the rules of logic.

There can be no absolute standard unless one concedes that there is an absolute authority. I have seen no reason to believe there is an absolute authority.