Atheists check this site out

[Zenmervolt]

<<Ok, so why did Jesus' disciples (-JI) all let themselves be brutally martyred? Why would they die for something if they knew they had just made it up?

Why would millions upon millions give up their lives when they could live if only they answered, &quot;No.&quot; There must be something more than O2 and food here. >>

How do we know for certain that the &quot;deciples&quot; even existed? Even if they did exist, how would we know if they had really been martyred? The bible is not redible historical evidence, it is (in the King James Version) very good prose and an excellent book of mythology, but it is hardly a history text. Millions of people have given their lives for religions other than christianity, if christianity is the &quot;one truth&quot; why do all these people give their lives for other, &quot;false&quot; religions? Christianity is very comforting, if you are a christian you never have to deal with anything, just dump all your problems on your god and he'll make it all better. There are a lot of people who are just too weak to deal with their lives on their own, to give up christianity and live is worse to these people than to die. Also, I suspect that many of these people who could have saved themselves by saying &quot;no&quot;, said &quot;yes&quot; because they had the idea that they were making big points with god for the afterlife. Furthermore, christianity is programmed into people at a very young age in most Western cultures, once a person is thoroughly indoctrinated in anything it is very hard for him to give that thing up. Life is emotionally rough for the Atheist, but we do not dump our problems on a mythological creation, we handle them ourselves. I have a summary of my views on christianity on my website, the specific URL is http://www.crosswinds.net/~zenmervolt/rave/religion.html. It is very basic and it will be updated when I have the time, but it will serve for now.

Aaron Meyer

 

[UG]

xcannibalx;

<...Maybe your getting me wrong...>

No, I know you're an Atheist because you said you were.

<...They are so wraped up in all their beliefs, things wont change...>

We aren't engaging in attempts to change the minds of the already convinced. We are engaged in providing contrasting opinions to aid others who still are unconvinced either way, people who's deliberations on the topic can benefit from more than a single unopposed, polarized view of reality.

Religionists contrast good against evil, moral against amoral, right against wrong.

Why should the constrast between Atheism and Theism remain silent and unobservable as you advocate?

I disagree with your logic and your conclusion, Atheist or not.

 

[mosdef]

MrPALCO - You assume there must be an answer to everything, or at least we must already know it. That's the problem with most organized religions which preach 'knowledge'. They assume they are right because there must be answer. And you were using circular logic whether you want to admit it or not.

-mosdef

 

[MrPALCO]

There is alot to answer in this thread...i'll take a piece at a time.



<< The fact is, you put no smiley either after 'Hitler' or 'Stalin' -- other than the stock smiley you place at the end of most of your posts for times just such as this -- so expecting a smiley after Bigot! is hypocritical of you >>



But will you answer my question? I'll try it again:



<< I'd say that the rhetoric should be toned down so the facts and rational, logical message can be better appreciated by a wider audience, and not just the choir.&quot; >>





I agree...





<< If you're testing Atheists by calling them Hitlers and Stalins, then test this: Bigot! >>





Hmmm...that didn't last long...also, please refer to the place where I said this.

 

Zenmer-- I like your page, it's cool.

To me, the thing that sets apart Christianity from the examples given (Waco, Heaven's Gate, Jones) is the message. I'm choking up even trying to sum Christ's character into words. It's easy to see how 'someone' like that could have a lasting impact on people's lives 2000 years later.

All these cults and whatnot die along with their leader, because there is nothing there. I think Rev. Moon is still alive, he's somewhere in Asia and claims that he is Jesus. He has a HUGE following, and claims he will never die. I wonder what is going to happen when he dies?

Also, I want to comment on the perceived &quot;Christian&quot; status quo of America. It's a lethargic form of unBiblically-based religion. When I read the Bible, I see churches like the churches of Acts, Ephesus, Corinth, etc... In America, you see very little of this bucking-the-system, radical, dynamic, on fire Christianity. From reading the scripture, I find that to be what God intended.

-Fundie

 

[Napalm381]

<< please refer to the place where I said this. >>


You said something to that effect right here. If you were not implying that atheists are in the same category as Hitler and Stalin, than what were you implying?

 

[MrPALCO]

<< You said something to that effect right here. If you were not implying that atheists are in the same category as Hitler and Stalin, than what were you implying? >>



Implying comes from your conscience, not mine.

I asked a simple question.

 

[Napalm381]

<< I asked a simple question. >>

And answered it yourself with offensive answers that you pulled out of your ass for the sole purpose of insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you. You want some great men? Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Darwin, Euler, Pascal, Fermi, Feynman to name a few. I consider the religions of these men irrelevant, their contributions to science and our understanding of the natural world are all that matters to me.

I'll ask YOU a simple question. Why did you volunteer the names of two of the most horrific individuals in history for &quot;great men&quot;?

 

[Dedpuhl]

<<<Ok, so why did Jesus' disciples (-JI) all let themselves be brutally martyred? Why would they die for something if they knew they had just made it up?>>>>

UG summed it up. People aren't too bright sometimes...

Zenmervolt

<<<christianity is programmed into people at a very young age in most Western cultures...>>>

EXACTLY. Also, If you were born into a Jewish family, odds are you will be a practicing Jew all of your life. If you were born into a Muslim family, you would practice their religion. The point is simple. Is the Christian God supposed to be angry at a little kid that worships Buddha, Ra, Allah, Judge Judy, or the Ice cream man? Is it his fault that his family was raised that way? Is it his fault that he believes what he believes?

 

[Dedpuhl]

'God is as real as I am', the old man said. I was relieved
since I knew Santa wouldn't lie to me...

Author Unknown

 

[mosdef]

Dedpuhl's on point.

-mosdef

 

[MrPALCO]

<< I consider the religions of these men irrelevant, their contributions to science and our understanding of the natural world are all that matters to me. >>



While I disagree that religion is &quot;irrelevant&quot;, I do believe that it is a poor substitute for Truth.

The natural world is a tiny piece in the tapestry of Eternity.



Edit:



<< And answered it yourself with offensive answers that you pulled out of your ass for the sole purpose of insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you. >>



OK, now we are making good progress. My answers that offend you, are seated in your conscience, quite another matter from saying something that I did not say.

Also, if the atheist is going to offer up a site such as
this, then stand tall for your beliefs, while your veracity is tested by Truth..

 

[Napalm381]

You asked a question, I answered. Your turn to answer MY question. Or are you afraid?

 

[MrPALCO]

See my edit..

Edit:



<< And you were using circular logic whether you want to admit it or not. >>



I would still like one of you &quot;atheists&quot; to clearly define this &quot;circular logic&quot; buzzword, so that I can respond...

 

[Napalm381]

You didn't answer my question worth a damn, you just posted up more of your pseudo-philosophical drivel and ended it with a smiley face.

I'll ask it again, and make it clearer this time:
Why did you volunteer the names of two of the most horrific individuals in history for &quot;great men&quot;? Why did you put Hitler and Stalin instead of, say, Newton and Einstein?

 

[Napalm381]

From here



<< Circulus in demonstrando
This fallacy occurs if you assume as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach. Often, the proposition is rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument. For example:

&quot;Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence any government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will lose his job. Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their secret, and will be open to blackmail. Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold government office.&quot;

Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same as the conclusion. An argument like the above has actually been cited as the reason for the British Secret Services' official ban on homosexual employees.

Circular arguments are surprisingly common, unfortunately. If you've already reached a particular conclusion once, it's easy to accidentally make it an assertion when explaining your reasoning to someone else. >>

 

[MrPALCO]

<< I'll ask it again, and make it clearer this time:
Why did you volunteer the names of two of the most horrific individuals in history for &quot;great men&quot;? Why did you put Hitler and Stalin instead of, say, Newton and Einstein? >>




And I will answer again, I asked a simple question, your conscience ran away with that question.

I will define &quot;circular logic&quot; .....and that is, any statement that befuddles the conscience and mind of the person that calls on the god of &quot;circular logic&quot; for rescue.

 

[Napalm381]

<< and that is, any statement that befuddles the conscience and mind of the person that calls on the god of &quot;circular logic&quot; for rescue. >>

Worthless definition. Refer to a list of defintions of logical terms.



<< your conscience ran away with that question. >>

More wannabe quasi-philosophical bullsh!t. I will make it even simpler for you. Did you have a reason for picking those two examples, or not? YES or NO, why is that so tough for you?

 

[MrPALCO]

<< Worthless definition. Refer to a list of defintions of logical terms. >>



Logic is under the authority of Truth, and must be subject to it.



<< More wannabe quasi-philosophical bullsh!t. I will make it even simpler for you. Did you have a reason for picking those two examples, or not? YES or NO, why is that so tough for you? >>



Again, has your conscience hamstrung you? Can you give me a simple &quot;YES or No&quot; answer to MY original, innocent question?

 

[UG]

MrPalco;

My sense of the essense of your approach to comprehending other people is best summed up by the phrase &quot;Nanananananananananananananananananana&quot;, as in:

MrPalco puts his hands over his ears and audiblizes the personal mantra &quot;Nanananananananananananananananananana&quot; to drown out the other voices around him.

 

[MrPALCO]

<< MrPALCO - You assume there must be an answer to everything, or at least we must already know it. That's the problem with most organized religions which preach 'knowledge'. They assume they are right because there must be answer. And you were using circular logic whether you want to admit it or not. >>



It is Written...&quot;there is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed&quot;.

Yes..through Wisdom, there is an answer to every question.

Organized religion is most often the source of &quot;error&quot;, not Truth.



Ed..sp.

Ed..2




<< MrPalco puts his hands over his ears and audiblizes the personal mantra &quot;Nanananananananananananananananananana&quot; to drown out the other voices around him. >>



Would the above be a good example of &quot;circular logic&quot;?

Yes...

 

[UG]

<...a good example of &quot;circular logic&quot;?..>

Nope. An opinion based on observation, not assumption.

 

[MrPALCO]

The physical realm is manipulated by the Fallen One.

Observation is filtered through previous bias, and cannot be relied upon for Truth.

It is Written....is the source of Truth.

 

[Napalm381]

<< << . Atheists, instead, look to philosophers and &quot;Great Men&quot; for the answers. >>
Great men? Hitler, Stalin, Darwin, ...?.....who? >>

That's your post, verbatim. &quot;Who?&quot; was your question, am I correct?


<< Can you give me a simple &quot;YES or No&quot; answer to MY original, innocent question? >>

What kind of idiot response is that? No, I cannot, because &quot;Who?&quot; cannot be answered with just yes or no. I answered it simply by giving examples of who I consider great men. Quit contradicting yourself, nitwit.

BTW, quit smiling. Your idiocy is not offset by it.

 

[UG]

MrPalco:

Bingo!

<...Observation is filtered through previous bias, and cannot be relied upon for Truth....>

<...I have already &quot;realized&quot; that Truth is not based on what I think. It is based on what is...Written...>

What is &quot;reading what is 'Written' &quot; but not the act of observation of what is printed?

How you interpret Written Truth is based on your own previous bias; by your own reasoning.