Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[Retro Rob]

ohhh k then.

You're right about them abandoning those stories, but it's not because of so-called "increase in knowledge" since mostly everything supernatural cannot be falsified anyway. You either believe them, or you don't.

Frankly, they don't want to be seen as anti-science or "unscientific". Believing the Flood actually happened and Adam and Eve were real, puts them dead in the crosshairs of science and evolution, so to speak.

I don't buy for one second that Orthodox Christianity is open to "increases in knowledge" -- many Churches are losing members due to this, so they're "going to where the people are", scientifically speaking.


You may be right in some repsects, but I think the evidence favors my POV.

 

[sandorski]

You're right about them abandoning those stories, but it's not because of so-called "increase in knowledge" since mostly everything supernatural cannot be falsified anyway. You either believe them, or you don't.

Frankly, they don't want to be seen as anti-science or "unscientific". Believing the Flood actually happened and Adam and Eve were real, puts them dead in the crosshairs of science and evolution, so to speak.

I don't buy for one second that Orthodox Christianity is open to "increases in knowledge" -- many Churches are losing members due to this, so they're "going to where the people are", scientifically speaking.


You may be right in some repsects, but I think the evidence favors my POV.

Science introduced Knowledge, Religion receded from an indefensible position. You are going to ridiculous lengths to avoid reality here. They haven't stopped believing in their gods, they just changed their beliefs to fit reality better.

 

[Retro Rob]

Science introduced Knowledge, Religion receded from an indefensible position. You are going to ridiculous lengths to avoid reality here.

NM

 

[Retro Rob]

Science introduced Knowledge, Religion receded from an indefensible position. You are going to ridiculous lengths to avoid reality here. They haven't stopped believing in their gods, they just changed their beliefs to fit reality better.

So they're abandoning their beliefs in face of modern scrutiny, not because they've been proven "wrong".

This is what I've been saying. Not that it's science's job to prove stories in the Bible wrong, though.

 

[JD50]

So they're abandoning their beliefs in face of modern scrutiny, not because they've been proven "wrong".

This is what I've been saying. Not that it's science's job to prove stories in the Bible wrong, though.

They're abandoning belief because the more we learn, the more ridiculous stories in the bible become.

 

[sandorski]

So they're abandoning their beliefs in face of modern scrutiny, not because they've been proven "wrong".

This is what I've been saying. Not that it's science's job to prove stories in the Bible wrong, though.

On those points they were proven wrong. Scientists didn't intend to do that, they just discovered it. The early Geologists went looking for the evidence, that they expected to find, of the Flood, they found evidence for something else.

Biologists/Naturalists did not expect to find evidence against the Creation account, but they did.

 

[Retro Rob]

They're abandoning belief because the more we learn, the more ridiculous stories in the bible become.

Lol -- you disown the flood story but still believe a man rose form the dead??

Evidently theyre picking and choosing what they want to accept based modern science and since they can't force it on people anymore, they "change their beliefs".

 

[sandorski]

Lol -- you disown the flood story but still believe a man rose form the dead??

Evidently theyre picking and choosing what they want to accept based modern science and since they can't force it on people anymore, they "change their beliefs".

Though I agree that people rising from the dead, especially after 3 days, is ridiculous, there is a difference here. The Creation and Flood stories are 2 things that would leave a huge pile of evidence.

Even if we absolutely found the tomb of Jesus, there is nothing that could be discovered as evidence of whether he rose from the dead or not. At least not at this time, if ever.

 

[Retro Rob]

Though I agree that people rising from the dead, especially after 3 days, is ridiculous, there is a difference here. The Creation and Flood stories are 2 things that would leave a huge pile of evidence.

Even if we absolutely found the tomb of Jesus, there is nothing that could be discovered as evidence of whether he rose from the dead or not. At least not at this time, if ever.

I'm more apt to believe in a flood -- after all, most for the earth is covered with water. But a dude being raised after 3 days dead?

That's more falsifiable -- go raise a dead person after 3 days and see what you get.

They are picking and choosing.

 

[sandorski]

I'm more apt to believe in a flood -- after all, most for the earth is covered with water. But a dude being raised after 3 days dead?

That's more falsifiable -- go raise a dead person after 3 days and see what you get.

They are picking and choosing.

I'm just saying, if one is predisposed to believing in Miracles, that those Miracles that should leave lots of Evidence but don't, are more easily dismissed.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm just saying, if one is predisposed to believing in Miracles, that those Miracles that should leave lots of Evidence but don't, are more easily dismissed.

When you say you know your history, I believe you, but you should be aware of the "people pleasing" history of mainline Christianity.

The First Counsel if Nicaea in 325, they wholesale accepted the Trinity doctrine, not because it was scriptural, because a group of Roman Pagans, lead by Constantine, wanted it to unite his subjects. The Church agreed.

Where does Christmas come from? Is it Biblical? NO! In fact, Jesus' birthday is unknown. It was to commemorate Saturnalia, a Pagan festival to the Sun god. They wanted more pagans (adherents) in their religion. Same thing with the immortality of the soul, which was influenced by Plato, and the "Church" wanted Greek Pagans too, so they taught that. Was that "new knowledge" then?

No. Orthodox Christianity isn't concerned about new knowledge as much as they're concerned about attracting people to their congregations. Regardless if evolution is true or not, I don't believe the veracity of the theory had as much bearing on religion as much as what people generally accepted -- history bears this out.

What people believe is what they'll believe/accept.

 

[sandorski]

When you say you know your history, I believe you, but you should be aware of the "people pleasing" history of mainline Christianity.

The First Counsel if Nicaea in 325, they wholesale accepted the Trinity doctrine, not because it was scriptural, because a group of Roman Pagans, lead by Constantine, wanted it to unite his subjects. The Church agreed.

Where does Christmas come from? Is it Biblical? NO! In fact, Jesus' birthday is unknown. It was to commemorate Saturnalia, a Pagan festival to the Sun god. They wanted more pagans (adherents) in their religion. Same thing with the immortality of the soul, which was influenced by Plato, and the "Church" wanted Greek Pagans too, so they taught that. Was that "new knowledge" then?

No. Orthodox Christianity isn't concerned about new knowledge as much as they're concerned about attracting people to their congregations. Regardless if evolution is true or not, I don't believe the veracity of the theory had as much bearing on religion as much as what people generally accepted -- history bears this out.

What people believe is what they'll believe/accept.

I understand. They have fought new Knowledge all along the way, but when they lose they abandon unsupportable Biblical claims.

 

[Retro Rob]

I understand. They have fought new Knowledge all along the way, but when they lose they abandon unsupportable Biblical claims.

Yes, they have, but I won't pretend that mainstream religion is sincerely open to advancing scientific knowledge as you seemed to imply earlier.

Deep down, they aren't open to abandoning scripture period, but as numbers dwindle and donations dry up, they'll accept anything to get people back.

It's all a front, IMO.

 

[sandorski]

Yes, they have, but I won't pretend that mainstream religion is sincerely open to advancing scientific knowledge as you seemed to imply earlier.

Deep down, they aren't open to abandoning scripture period, but as numbers dwindle and donations dry up, they'll accept anything to get people back.

It's all a front, IMO.

Perhaps amongst the top echelons, but not the members.

 

[Retro Rob]

Perhaps amongst the top echelons, but not the members.

I think my point is, you either believe the Bible, or you don't (generic you)

The flood account was extremely specific, it gave the length of time from God's revealing it to Noah (120 years till the flood happened) it gave the names of people, the age Noah was upon entering the Ark, the duration of the rain, the length of time the water took to recede, etc.

The creation account was similar, it gave the age Adam was when he died (that's where YEC's get the 6000-earth years from) so you have information to count backwards on.

This is NOT to say the account is real, but my point is that these sort of details aren't given to "teach a moral lesson"... the Bible writer wrote this account as if it actually happened (please, I'm not saying the flood etc is true).

So a believer simply has to decide to believe it, or not. Writing it off as allegorical is just undermining your own faith. The account is recording as real, and by both accounts being repeated in other parts of the Bible means it was meant to be taken as a real event.

 

[buckshot24]

I disagree with almost everything you write, troll.

You just quoted me then re-said everything in the quote in your own words.

You won't accept ANY physical evidence you want supernatural evidence (whatever that is). Since you won't accept any physical evidence and you won't tell me what "supernatural evidence" even is, how can I provide you with evidence?

 

[buckshot24]

I'm waiting for you to show evidence since you are the one making the positive claim. I'll wait.

I see, you have no evidence. Look, you're the one who says you base your beliefs on evidence and I simply "believe on faith". Where is the evidence? So far you've posted a video where sinbad tells us something about stars and elements.

 

[ThinClient]

You just quoted me then re-said everything in the quote in your own words.

Wrong.

You won't accept ANY physical evidence you want supernatural evidence (whatever that is). Since you won't accept any physical evidence and you won't tell me what "supernatural evidence" even is, how can I provide you with evidence?

Show me the supernatural evidence that you've seen. You believe, right? If your belief isn't based on bullshit, like looking at physical evidence and making the wildly irrational jump to a supernatural conclusion, then what what you seen -what REAL evidence have you seen- that lead you to the conclusion that some sort of supernatural entity exists?

If it's anything less than supernatural evidence, then the explanation is simple: delusion.

 

[ThinClient]

I see, you have no evidence. Look, you're the one who says you base your beliefs on evidence and I simply "believe on faith". Where is the evidence? So far you've posted a video where sinbad tells us something about stars and elements.

What evidence am I supposed to be supplying? I'm confused. I have no evidence? Of what?

I'm not the one making the positive claim that a supernatural being exists.

You can dodge the bullet all you want. We all know you're full of shit. We're just waiting around, entertaining ourselves while you find some other excuse not to support your claim.

 

[sandorski]

I think my point is, you either believe the Bible, or you don't (generic you)

The flood account was extremely specific, it gave the length of time from God's revealing it to Noah (120 years till the flood happened) it gave the names of people, the age Noah was upon entering the Ark, the duration of the rain, the length of time the water took to recede, etc.

The creation account was similar, it gave the age Adam was when he died (that's where YEC's get the 6000-earth years from) so you have information to count backwards on.

This is NOT to say the account is real, but my point is that these sort of details aren't given to "teach a moral lesson"... the Bible writer wrote this account as if it actually happened (please, I'm not saying the flood etc is true).

So a believer simply has to decide to believe it, or not. Writing it off as allegorical is just undermining your own faith. The account is recording as real, and by both accounts being repeated in other parts of the Bible means it was meant to be taken as a real event.

Some take that position, some don't. The question becomes: Do you have Faith in "God" or in the Bible.

 

[buckshot24]

Wrong.



Show me the supernatural evidence that you've seen. You believe, right? If your belief isn't based on bullshit, like looking at physical evidence and making the wildly irrational jump to a supernatural conclusion, then what what you seen -what REAL evidence have you seen- that lead you to the conclusion that some sort of supernatural entity exists?

If it's anything less than supernatural evidence, then the explanation is simple: delusion.

What is supernatural evidence?

 

[buckshot24]

What evidence am I supposed to be supplying? I'm confused. I have no evidence? Of what?

I'm not the one making the positive claim that a supernatural being exists.

If I am claiming that God exists then you're claiming that life came from non-life. Since you've rejected all physical evidence for God and have refused to describe supernatural evidence I can't provide any evidence. However I'll accept physical evidence that life came from non-life. Do you have any?

 

[Retro Rob]

Some take that position, some don't. The question becomes: Do you have Faith in "God" or in the Bible.

???

Don't quite understand the statement. I think that without the Bible, there is no way to know if the Judaic/Christian/Islamic God even exists... so how can you have faith in a God you have no idea exists (Biblically speaking)?

That's really like accepting the evidence for evolution apart from the evidence.

 

[ThinClient]

What is supernatural evidence?

Why would you, who are so convinced that a supernatural being exists, not know what supernatural evidence is?

 

[ThinClient]

If I am claiming that God exists then you're claiming that life came from non-life. Since you've rejected all physical evidence for God and have refused to describe supernatural evidence I can't provide any evidence. However I'll accept physical evidence that life came from non-life. Do you have any?

You can't provide any evidence for your god? Then why do you believe that he exists?

Life isn't some magical mystical thing. You don't have a fucking soul. There's no such thing as spirits and demons, you worthless troll.

Now show me what REAL evidence you have for a supernatural being or stfu already.