Remember when "atheist" had a negative connotation?

oops! wrote:

So, B&S (ironic), you're saying that God used natural events to (help Moses) part the Red Sea? Why would he bother? Why not just part it himself? Why did he have to use the wind?

God could have done it in different ways, no doubt. He created Adam from dirt, for example. I don't know is my answer to your last 3 questions.

Bible and slavery wrote:

... I don't know is my answer to your last 3 questions.

Given your use of "... could have done it different ways ..." .. it appears you don't really know the answer to any of the questions you replied to.

I made a man out of dirt once. An invisible person told people I did. You believe that invisible person, right?

Adam was made with dirt, specifically primordial ooze and it took millions of years to achieve the finished product.

Stagger Lee wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

No offense but your 'logic' here is so full of holes it makes swiss cheese look rock solid by comparison.

Try harder or just give up. Posts like yours above make your side look bad (which I don't think is your intention).

Your post isn't really an argument. Care to make one?

You are correct, my post was not an argument. It was simply pointing out something that was blindingly obvious to anyone who thinks logically. I am a bit embarrassed that you have come back and essentially requested that the sad state of your 'argument' be pointed out to you. Oh, well...

1) "There is no such thing as a 'supernatural event.' If it occurs it is a 'natural event.' If it occurred, it could be 'explained.'

What exactly are you trying to say here IF you are not trying to simply dismiss such things as 'miracles' out of hand? And if you ARE trying to simply dismiss such things out of hand then you have ASSUMED that which you are trying to PROVE lending your "argument" absolutely ZERO merit.

2) "If an event is beyond using reason or evidence to comprehend it, it is by definition a non-event. "

See 1) above

3) "If God violated the laws/patterns of our physical world, that would be a contradiction on his part because an omnipotent being should have been powerful enough to create a universe in which this kind of intercession was not necessary."

This one is so mind-blowingly stupid that it suggests that you are just trolling for kicks. So, you are going to allow for the possibility of a "God" in the classic sense of the word (just for the sake of argument, of course) and then you are going to proceed to dictate to none other than God him/herself how he/she should behave?!? Seriously?

No offense but that is just over-the-top stupid.

Please, do your side a favor and drop out of the discussion.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

This one is so mind-blowingly stupid that it suggests that you are just trolling for kicks. So, you are going to allow for the possibility of a "God" in the classic sense of the word (just for the sake of argument, of course) and then you are going to proceed to dictate to none other than God him/herself how he/she should behave?!? Seriously?

No offense but that is just over-the-top stupid.

Please, do your side a favor and drop out of the discussion.

Come on, now. Your argument is filled with just as many logical fallacies. The beauty of your side is that when it makes no sense you just say, "well, that's the way God wanted it."

Why both posting links to bogus archaeological finds? If there is no evidence, it doesn't matter, because you have faith. If there is "evidence" it's "hey, look, we found evidence!" If the evidence is simply (or less simply) explained by natural events it's "God caused those natural events!"

You have set up a system where:

No evidence

Suspect evidence

Evidence easily explained by other causes

All dictate that it must be a miracle!

If a sea parts and nobody is there is it still a miracle?

If a tree falls.... wrote:

If a sea parts and nobody is there is it still a miracle?

All I know is if your new wife is suddenly pregnant and swears she's never had sex, it's apparently a miracle! Yup, that's the only explanation I can think of too!!

You know how I hate to point out the obvious but there is NOT A SINGLE THING which you posted that would be CORRECTLY attributable to me. NOT ONE.

I do like asking obvious questions though. HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL RIGHT NOW? Or are you even capable of recognizing the infinite stupidity of your post?

So when you said God caused a the seas to part, then posted articles showing how that can happen naturally, you wouldn't consider that a contradiction? If God caused it (or you believe that) you are inherently saying it's a miracle. Am I wrong on that?

Can any mere mortal explain how Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine or how he raised Lazarus from the dead? Let's hear your answer.

N0bama... wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

You know how I hate to point out the obvious but there is NOT A SINGLE THING which you posted that would be CORRECTLY attributable to me. NOT ONE.

I do like asking obvious questions though. HOW STUPID DO YOU FEEL RIGHT NOW? Or are you even capable of recognizing the infinite stupidity of your post?

So when you said God caused a the seas to part, then posted articles showing how that can happen naturally, you wouldn't consider that a contradiction? If God caused it (or you believe that) you are inherently saying it's a miracle. Am I wrong on that?

Yes, you most certainly are WRONG on that. Maybe you should go back and see who posted what. Then get back to me ABOUT WHAT I ACTUALLY POSTED.

Or just admit that you have reading difficulties and/or are monumentally stupid. Either way works.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Yes, you most certainly are WRONG on that. Maybe you should go back and see who posted what. Then get back to me ABOUT WHAT I ACTUALLY POSTED.

Or just admit that you have reading difficulties and/or are monumentally stupid. Either way works.

Sorry, POtO, this is all due to a faulty quote job I did earlier. Then, when you replied to it, I didn't look closely enough to notice that it was you, not Bible and slavery (what the hell does that username mean anyway?) responding. I actually agree with you, not him. And, my post was meant for you, not him.

To answer the thread title's question (seems like some people have gone off on a very weird tangent!): sure, I remember. I think it still does, though not as much so.

Atheists are among the most hated groups in America (

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-secular-life/201406/why-americans-hate-atheists

), and it's largely because people don't trust them (

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/poorest-list/the-5-most-distrusted-minorities-in-america/?view=all

).

That seems to be changing, though slowly. I think there are at least three big reasons:

1. Atheists are an increasing percentage of the population, and are more willing to identify themselves as such (compared to earlier days, when the "out" atheists were mostly the obnoxious ones). As a result a given person is more likely to have friends and/or relatives who are nonbelievers, and to see that most of them are fairly decent people.

2. ...Which makes sense given that, for example, atheists are seriously underrepresented in the nation's prisons. Atheists are at least 3% of the general population, yet are just 0.1% of the federal prison population.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/08/21/atheists-now-make-up-0-1-of-the-federal-prison-population/

3. Moreover, the general hatefulness and avowed irrationality of SOME religiously-committed theists may make SOME atheists look better by comparison.

I still tend to think that people are better advised to identify themselves as nonbelievers (which means the same thing), given the baggage that the word "atheist" still carries.

He row wrote:

...

2. ...Which makes sense given that, for example, atheists are seriously underrepresented in the nation's prisons. Atheists are at least 3% of the general population, yet are just 0.1% of the federal prison population.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/08/21/atheists-now-make-up-0-1-of-the-federal-prison-population/

...

Hard to believe that atheists represent only 3% of the population. I would have guessed somewhere in the 10 - 12% range.

Dunno Much About History wrote:

Hard to believe that atheists represent only 3% of the population. I would have guessed somewhere in the 10 - 12% range.

I did say "at least"! People who have no religious affiliation are now more than 20% of the American population, but in this Pew poll only 3.1% declared themselves to be atheists:

Again, it's possible that the baggage the word carries may have prompted some (perhaps quite a few) respondents to choose the "agnostic" or "nothing in particular" options.

He row wrote:

Dunno Much About History wrote:

Hard to believe that atheists represent only 3% of the population. I would have guessed somewhere in the 10 - 12% range.

I did say "at least"! People who have no religious affiliation are now more than 20% of the American population, but in this Pew poll only 3.1% declared themselves to be atheists:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

Again, it's possible that the baggage the word carries may have prompted some (perhaps quite a few) respondents to choose the "agnostic" or "nothing in particular" options.

Yeah, I noticed the "at least" qualifier. Not questioning your stats at all. Just kind of thinking out loud regarding my sense of what the "real" number might be.

There was a discussion about slavery earlier in the thread, hence the username.

Bible and slavery wrote:

There was a discussion about slavery earlier in the thread, hence the username.

A friendly comment ... given your pro-Bible comments, the name "Bible and slavery" might make some implications that I doubt you intend.