Let's Examine the Claims of Atheists
Chem Engineer
Mar 22, 2021
Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
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 resort to mendacity. Science pursues truth.
The list of scientists as men and women faith is long and growing.
List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia
“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
“I believe in God more because of science than in spite of it.” – William Phillips, Nobel Laureate in Physics
and more in post one
=====
I am an Atheist, shall I ignore the hard nasty bashing made by a religionist?
IMO, threads like those belong in forums where bashing is authorized, aka Zone 3.
but for atheists, and assholes, (notice how I separate them), there is no place for them trolling in R&E.
I completely understand. You feel it is completely proper and even advised for religious folk to insult and degrade those who don't share their particular religious beliefs, and the victims of those attacks should just STFU and take it. Who could possibly find fault with that?
You feel it is completely proper and even advised for religious folk to insult and degrade those who don't share their particular religious beliefs, and the victims of those attacks should just STFU and take it.
IF you see that happening in a Zone One thread, ANY Zone One thread, report it, so it can be moved downstairs.
You don't see that claiming anyone who doesn't share their belief is deserving of hell as an insult? Really?
Did you NOT read my post?
" IF you see that happening in a Zone One thread, ANY Zone One thread, report it, so it can be moved downstairs. "
Can you imagine a religious discussion by Christians that didn't mention their only goal, which is an eternity in heaven to the exclusion of all that don't share their beliefs? No I can't either. Perhaps a private, invitation only thread where you don't have to allow any differences of opinion, but if you have an open discussion, it has to be open to even those that don't fall in line.
??? I know lots of liberal Christians who value inclusion and not judging.
I think the problem is those types may not have time to spare arguing with people who aren't going to change their minds.
The ones who bother to argue are the ones who like to argue!
I don't blame Christianity or religion.
Plenty of believers don't do that.
Yet plenty of believers do. The OP seems to think non believers shouldn't have a right to say they disagree.
The OP seems to think non believers shouldn't have a right to say they disagree.
They have the right to disagree.
In Zone 1, they wouldn't have the right to troll.
(just how hard is that to understand?)
Who decides what is trolling? You? Taz?
Some beaureaucrat in Washington?
Trolling is not difficult to see.
If you are making no contribution to the topic, and attacking the subject, you are trolling. It is NOT the same has having a different view or opinion.
Poster 1. Only those who have accepted the lord Jesus Christ as their personal savior will be saved, and all others deserve to suffer throughout eternity in great anguish, because they chose evil.
Poster 2. You're full of shit. If that is what your imaginary sky fairy told you, he's full of shit too. You are free to believe what you want, but don't expect me too not disagree.
Which is the troll?
As a Christian who forgives why people reject and why they say it with emotions anger or blame attached, I read the response as expressing "No, I don't believe or understand any of that. It makes no sense to me. Thus, I call it BS and think you and all other religionists are pushing some weird BS that has abused and manipulated people collectively."
This person is projecting their personal issues and using the post or poster as the target for expressing collective grievances.
As long as the Poster addresses the topic, of Christian fairh, I can still answer and ask what they do or do not believe about justice, peace, forgiveness etc.
I can still use what they posted to ask about their own experiences and why they don't get the message in Christianity but only see the opposite.
BULLDOG
Just because someone posts a baiting or trolling post with charged collective statements to pick a fight
Doesn't mean we have to respond that way.
I find it more effective to respond to the meaning or what objections the person is expressing. We can start from there
and still discuss points that are relevant.
If they continue to troll or have no other intent but to troll or incite, they will bow out.
And usually another person who is serious or curious will chime in and pick up if the other person quits out of disinterest.
So you weed out trolls by sticking to the process of discussing what or why do people believe or not and what they think it means which causes the rejection.