(January 2, 2012 at 3:58 am)chipan Wrote: et me see if i can simplify it with an example. saying you reject God is like saying you reject Santa. unless he meant he rejects the idea that God exists.

Yes, the latter would seem to be more appropiate.

(January 2, 2012 at 3:58 am)chipan Wrote: ah, you athiests always ask for proof but when it comes down to it even if there is proof you will still reject it.

We atheists always ask for evidence, yes.
Don't assume things to which you don't know the answer.

As to faith, yes, religion requires faith. That's why I reject it.
I have no reason to believe any of what those deluded fools say.

(January 2, 2012 at 3:58 am)chipan Wrote: this is not true, this is stating that athiesm is the result of rejection of christianity. though i'm being picky right now i do understand what you're saying. you have some very good arguements and i have a lot to think about now.

It's absolutely true.
People always accuse atheists of stating that their atheism is a positive claim that needs to be backed up by evidence as though "God Exists" is a default presumption.
That is not a default assumption. Positing that god exists and christian beliefs is a fact of reality is a positive, unsubstantiated claim.
There is no reason for anyone to believe it.

TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:As to faith, yes, religion requires faith. That's why I reject it.
I have no reason to believe any of what those deluded fools say.

don't think your beliefs don't require faith. science has been wrong over and over again since it's origin. it changes over and over again so to believe in such theories they come up with for the origin of everything requires faith. in 100 years, they will probably come up with new evidence and laugh at the old theories we have today.

TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:It's absolutely true.
People always accuse atheists of stating that their atheism is a positive claim that needs to be backed up by evidence as though "God Exists" is a default presumption.
That is not a default assumption. Positing that god exists and christian beliefs is a fact of reality is a positive, unsubstantiated claim.
There is no reason for anyone to believe it.

i don't think you caught what i said. the reason i said i'm being picky is b/c athiesm is not just a rejection of christianity. it would be of all religions. otherwise you have a good arguement.

(January 2, 2012 at 3:32 pm)chipan Wrote: don't think your beliefs don't require faith. science has been wrong over and over again since it's origin. it changes over and over again so to believe in such theories they come up with for the origin of everything requires faith. in 100 years, they will probably come up with new evidence and laugh at the old theories we have today.

You know, the difference between the 'truths' that scientific research and development reveals about the world and the 'revelations' from christianity is that science is often wrong because they are trying to figure out the right answers the hard way.
Religion makes up its answers and states that because they didn't change their unproven beliefs, they can somehow claim superiority over how science always 'changes its mind.'
Well, that's an advantage, not a disadvantage. I'll take 'studying for a test and failing the test" over "not studying and just making up the answers for the test" any day of the week.

(January 2, 2012 at 3:32 pm)chipan Wrote: i don't think you caught what i said. the reason i said i'm being picky is b/c athiesm is not just a rejection of christianity. it would be of all religions. otherwise you have a good arguement.

I didn't say it was "just" a rejection of christianity.
I was specific in mentioning christianity, yes, but I was not implying that atheism is a rejection of christianity and no other religion.
Your 'pickyness" doesn't apply.

TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:You know, the difference between the 'truths' that scientific research and development reveals about the world and the 'revelations' from christianity is that science is often wrong because they are trying to figure out the right answers the hard way. Religion makes up its answers and states that because they didn't change their unproven beliefs, they can somehow claim superiority over how science always 'changes its mind.'

the bible actually makes a few scientific claims that aren't wrong.
Job 26:7- speaks of in the northern heavens there is a vast space in which the most powerful telescopes have been unable to locate any celestial bodies. in every other direction stars can be found but not there. it also says he hangs the earth upon nothing, which is it speaking of the fact that the earth is floating in space not supported by anything (as it doesn't need to be supported). Ptolemy, Aristotle, and Plato all thought that the earth was a flat disc of land surrounded by a great world river.
Luke 17:24-36- Jesus speaks of his second coming. He points out that for some His return would be during the day and for others it would be at night. this establishes that the earth is round and there is day on one side of the earth and night on the other.
Proverbs 8:27- states that God “set a compass (or circle) upon the face of the depth.” Isaiah teaches, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth. (back then there was no word for sphere for the hebrew)
Isaiah 40:22- not only states that the earth's round, but has a part where God "streaches out the heavens." this refers to the fact that the universe is expanding.
Psalms 8:8- the paths of the sea- This passage led Matthew Fontaine Maury to discover the safest paths of ocean travel. We now know that there are great rivers such as the Gulf Stream and the Labrador Current which pursue their “paths” across the ocean.

this evidence was found on this site and there is much more evidence here
http://teacherscommentary.net/salvation/whythebible.pdf

TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:I didn't say it was "just" a rejection of christianity.
I was specific in mentioning christianity, yes, but I was not implying that atheism is a rejection of christianity and no other religion.
Your 'pickyness" doesn't apply.

ok

(January 2, 2012 at 4:03 pm)chipan Wrote: the bible actually makes a few scientific claims that aren't wrong.
Job 26:7- speaks of in the northern heavens there is a vast space in which the most powerful telescopes have been unable to locate any celestial bodies. in every other direction stars can be found but not there. it also says he hangs the earth upon nothing, which is it speaking of the fact that the earth is floating in space not supported by anything (as it doesn't need to be supported). Ptolemy, Aristotle, and Plato all thought that the earth was a flat disc of land surrounded by a great world river.
Luke 17:24-36- Jesus speaks of his second coming. He points out that for some His return would be during the day and for others it would be at night. this establishes that the earth is round and there is day on one side of the earth and night on the other.
Proverbs 8:27- states that God “set a compass (or circle) upon the face of the depth.” Isaiah teaches, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth. (back then there was no word for sphere for the hebrew)
Isaiah 40:22- not only states that the earth's round, but has a part where God "streaches out the heavens." this refers to the fact that the universe is expanding.
Psalms 8:8- the paths of the sea- This passage led Matthew Fontaine Maury to discover the safest paths of ocean travel. We now know that there are great rivers such as the Gulf Stream and the Labrador Current which pursue their “paths” across the ocean.

this evidence was found on this site and there is much more evidence here
http://teacherscommentary.net/salvation/whythebible.pdf

I could actually take apart every comment you made there, but there are so many elementary errors, I can't be bothered to do it. You think the Gulf Stream is a fucking river, I cannot compete with doziness of that level.

I'll just settle for saying you are wronger than a great big wrong thing, with the letters "W.R.O.N.G" in big neon lights decorating it.

You are so wrong, you are possibly the thickest person on planet earth.

Norfolk And Chance Wrote:You think the Gulf Stream is a fucking river,

sorry, this was an error from the source. it's a quote. of course i know of the Golf stream as a current. other than that, i don't see anything wrong

(January 2, 2012 at 4:27 pm)chipan Wrote:

Norfolk And Chance Wrote:You think the Gulf Stream is a fucking river,

sorry, this was an error from the source. it's a quote. of course i know of the Golf stream as a current. other than that, i don't see anything wrong

The fact that the source can be so wrong undermines it, does it not? No?

You're not even worth debating with.

---

And also, your astoundingly poor grammar makes you look, thick, uneducated (no surprise really) and irritates me. I mean I'm no mastermind, but you're going to have to massively improve just to hold even my attention.

Norfolk And Chance Wrote:The fact that the source can be so wrong undermines it, does it not? No?

You're not even worth debating with.

just because it was wrong on one detail of science doesn't mean it's all wrong. iven if that passage is desraguarded there's still a lot of evidence.

There isn't chipan.

I'm sorry to tell you that the link that you supplied (and yes I did read some of it until my eyeballs burst), is absolute fucking shite.

came to that conclusion how?