Remember when "atheist" had a negative connotation?

thejeff wrote:

1. Pain and suffering are relative. What seemed horrible to us as three year olds isn't so bad now. What seems horrible now won't compare to what hell will be like. Yes, it is that simple. Cancer and ebola are horrible. Hell will be infinitely more so.

thejeff wrote:

2. I didn't see a need to cite specific questions I have asked about sections of the OT possibly being allegorical; I was simply trying to relate to you be acknowledging that I have had some of the same questions that you have. Mine is not a "blind faith". Is it possible that Creation, Noah's Ark, and the Tower of Babel are allegorical? Yes. Are there circumstances in which those events could possibly be interpreted as literal? Actually, yes. I have no idea which is true, but more importantly, it doesn't matter, because neither affect the central message of the Gospels.

a la cartesian wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I am sorry you feel that way.

There is a big difference between me not answering your question and you not liking or accepting my answer.

1. Pain and suffering are relative. What seemed horrible to us as three year olds isn't so bad now. What seems horrible now won't compare to what hell will be like. Yes, it is that simple. Cancer and ebola are horrible. Hell will be infinitely more so.

2. I didn't see a need to cite specific questions I have asked about sections of the OT possibly being allegorical; I was simply trying to relate to you be acknowledging that I have had some of the same questions that you have. Mine is not a "blind faith". Is it possible that Creation, Noah's Ark, and the Tower of Babel are allegorical? Yes. Are there circumstances in which those events could possibly be interpreted as literal? Actually, yes. I have no idea which is true, but more importantly, it doesn't matter, because neither affect the central message of the Gospels.

3. My dad looks just like Ned Flanders. True Story.

4. Thanks for calling me "polite". I will tell my mom that she and Ned did a good job :-)

I get that it must be a considerable strain to be able to UNDERSTAND the concepts of historical context and allegory, yet also need to believe in the literal truth of the bible, but you're verging on straight-up intellectual dishonesty here. A few pages ago you were actually musing on your loving god's possible motives for encouraging rape and infanticide (which a literal reading of the bible would require that you consider), and now you admit that important accounts in the bible, like the Flood, could be simply allegorical, AND, that it wouldn't matter to you if they actually were, because the MESSAGE would be the same!? You don't think you could have admitted at little earlier that some of things you were attempting to rationalize MAY NOT ACTUALLY BE LITERALLY TRUE, thus saving us all a little time and effort, to say nothing of saving the embarrassment making the rationalizations themselves (which you've just added to by referring to fish fossils at the top of mountains to support the theory of the Flood!). Again, if your mission in this thread has been to defend your faith against skepticism, you are failing rather spectacularly.

It's becoming pretty obvious exactly why atheism has been finally been making some serious inroads in a place as religious as the USA. Even its more intelligent defenders are apparently spectacularly self-deluded.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

truely millennial wrote:

I'd love to see your evidence for that.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd Edition. Pages 953-954.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

truely millennial wrote:

Ok i see your point and agree with you. But I say that the timelessness of the points that are made in Ecclesiastes only support the idea that it be scripture inspired by God's spirit.

Plato made points that are timeless and are as true today as they were when he wrote them 2500 years ago. That in no way means that Plato's writings have anything other than natural origins.

truely millennial wrote:

Sloetry in Motion wrote:

Could you choose, through sheer force of will, to not believe in the existence of the last person you met? For example, you are introduced to someone. Do you have a choice whether or not to believe they exist or are you bound by the evidence you have been presented to believe in their existence?

Ah. You could believe whatever you want I suppose, but the person either exists or doesn't. So I say that you are bound by the evidence to know the truth, but you may choose fight it and deny it all you want despite the fact that you know.

So when people say the existence of creation doesn't prove that God exits, they do indeed know that God exists but they are denying that they know this. This is because they don't want him to exist because they don't want to be judged for the sin that they love.

truely millennial wrote:

Sloetry in Motion wrote:

Could you choose, through sheer force of will, to not believe in the existence of the last person you met? For example, you are introduced to someone. Do you have a choice whether or not to believe they exist or are you bound by the evidence you have been presented to believe in their existence?

Ah. You could believe whatever you want I suppose, but the person either exists or doesn't. So I say that you are bound by the evidence to know the truth, but you may choose fight it and deny it all you want despite the fact that you know.

So when people say the existence of creation doesn't prove that God exits, they do indeed know that God exists but they are denying that they know this. This is because they don't want him to exist because they don't want to be judged for the sin that they love.

Stagger Lee wrote:

Non-Atheist wrote:

The core struggle for both Christians and atheists is that both beliefs can lead to pride - each side wants to take the moral high ground. The issue isn't who is right. The issue is that insecure individuals allow their belief system to become the sole component of their identity. Accordingly, any challenge to that belief system is interpreted as a personal challenge to their identity.

In order to feel important, the atheist neckbeard in his parents' basement builds his self-esteem by proclaiming that billions of Christian believers are stupider than him because they have "imaginary friends," and that somehow the choice to not believe in a higher power is some groundbreaking intellectual revolution in which the neckbeard is a pioneering participant.

Unfortunately, creating an atheist cut-out is not an argument. It is cute though. Care to make an argument, or can you just perpetuate lame stereotypes? Do you not see the irony in the last paragraph you wrote, when juxtaposed with the first one?