Quote :

"The bible is the basis for Christianity."

the bible is a book, people were the basis of christianity. without the bible christianity would have existed through oral history, as it did before the gospels were written and then much later when the bible was assembled.

Quote :

"I feel like I'm in bizarro world here. The resurrection story of Jesus, the thing that makes Christians not-Jews (an over-simplification sure) is found in the Bible. That's where the story comes from. Believing that Jesus is the messiah predicted by the Jews is what makes a Christian a Christian. I mean, there might be some hemming and hawing about the literalness of certain passages, but c'mon! The Gospels are what Christianity is based on. "

actually the resurection story was recorded years to decades after it happened, and was only assembled into the bible much later after that. the bible is just a book, an assembly of various things. christianity existed before it and would without it. the bible is just a book with this stuff in it.

essentially what you all are claiming is that without my biology text book biology as a subject would not exist. (and hell to some denominations that would be a much stronger relationship in that anaogy)

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 11:39 AM. Reason : .]

8/4/2010 11:27:11 AM

When a person refers to a work of literature i.e., "The Bible", "The Gospels", "The Iliad", they are referring to the story or passages contained therein, not the physical book itself. You are acting like a child.

You (assuming you're a Christian) were not present at the time of the supposed resurrection event, nor were you present during the oral retelling of the story. You learned about Jesus from the Bible, or from someone else who learned it from the Bible.

Quote :

"essentially what you all are claiming is that without my biology text book biology as a subject would not exist. (and hell to some denominations that would be a much stronger relationship in that anaogy)"

Except Biology is not a religion and what is contained within a Biology book could be replicated quite easily (and has been for centuries by various biologists) through observation and testing.

See the difference between a Biology book and a religious text like the Bible? It would be trivial to write a new Biology book based on observation and evidence. And we'd know it was accurate based on....you guessed it!....observation and evidence.

You could not do the same with the Bible (and in case you get hung up on this I'll remind you that I'm referring to the content of the Bible, not the physical book itself). It would be impossible to recreate based on observation and evidence and in fact could not exist if created on a basis of observation and evidence.

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 11:47 AM. Reason : .]

8/4/2010 11:47:15 AM

so if you weren't referring to the actual book then i'm confused

yes, if those things didn't happen the religion that is based on them would be different. i hardly see how this is revolutionary or supposed to change anything.

Quote :

"When a person refers to a work of literature i.e., "The Bible", "The Gospels", "The Iliad", they are referring to the story or passages contained therein, not the physical book itself. You are acting like a child"

look you dolt, when most people refer to the bible they are talking about the book.

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 11:52 AM. Reason : .]

8/4/2010 11:51:28 AM

Holy shit dude.

Replace "The Bible" with "acceptance of the literalness of the story of the resurrection of Jesus Christ which is found in the motherfucking Bible" in all of my posts.

Without this, Christianity would not exist. If you never heard of Jesus, you wouldn't be a Christian. See: everyone who has never heard of Jesus and everyone who doesn't accept the literalness of the story found in the Bible.

Why the hell are you trying to disassociate Christianity from the Bible anyway? Without that, what in the world do Christians have to convince anyone else that they're speaking the truth?

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 11:59 AM. Reason : not saying the Bible is good for that, but shit it's better than nothing]

V, Would you prefer another conversation about politics or Obama?

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 12:01 PM. Reason : V]

8/4/2010 11:57:25 AM

oh look an argument about christianity

8/4/2010 12:00:07 PM

Quote :

"Why the hell are you trying to disassociate Christianity from the Bible anyway? "

you continually try to associate christianity with some literal interpretation of the bible that is not true about christianity. some have that kind of understanding about the bible but it is hardly central or true about all christianity.

Quote :

"Without that, what in the world do Christians have to convince anyone else that they're speaking the truth? "

some christians believe that is what the holy spirit is for, not all christians think they need to convince anyone about anything. and even fewer think that the bible is the tool to do it.

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 12:03 PM. Reason : .]

8/4/2010 12:02:52 PM

As I've attempted to clear up, I associate Christianity with a literal interpretation of the Resurrection Story found within the Gospels of the new Testament of the Bible.

This is not my personal opinion. This is what makes a Christian a Christian and not a Jew or something else.

Quote :

"some christians believe that is what the holy spirit is for, not all christians think they need to convince anyone about anything. and even fewer think that the bible is the tool to do it. "

Guess where you learned about the Holy Spirit from.

8/4/2010 12:10:17 PM

Quote :

"actually the resurection story was recorded years to decades after it happened a millennium beforehand when the Egyptians co-opted the story of Horace they had lifted from previous ancient religions and mythologies, and was only assembled into the bible much later after that because it would fit their new religion's power grab. the bible is just a book, an assembly of various things myths. christianity existed before it and would without it have died out long ago without the power of the catholic church and their [ab]use of the book. the bible is just a book with this stuff in it. "

FTFY

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 12:20 PM. Reason : *]

8/4/2010 12:20:30 PM

1.When you here the word Christian what denomination or group do you think of.

Any person who professes to believe in Christ as their savior

2. Your views on the history of the Christian faith.

The history is interesting to me. I feel like Christianity has been bastardized through out history and is far from what is was originally meant to be. Its been set up as a way to control people, but some people need it to feel like they have purpose in life. I am not one of those people but I don't look down on some one if they need that crutch to make them a better person.

3. Your views on Christian beliefs.

Christian beliefs to me are ancient. A lot of what Christians believe was established at time when the bow and arrow was the pinnacle of technology. A lot has changed since then. We've learned so much and no longer need mythological explanations for why things happen. I do believe that the people who wrote the books of the Bible had good intentions and there are good moral lessons. Unfortunately there are also lots of scriptures that can be misinterpreted to accomplish evil.

4. What your spiritual beliefs are.

If i had to pick something the best fits me I would say I am a Secular Humanist and I am an atheist, simply becasue I have not come across any solid evidence that proves the existence of god. I will admit that there is tons of anecdotal evidence of a spiritual realm that science has yet to explain, but this still does not prove that there is an almighty god.

5. The experiences that brought about your spiritual beliefs.

I was raised one of Jehovah's Witnesses. After intense study, secular education and a lot of introspective reflection I have come to finally accept that "divine" literature produced by fellow humans does not constitute divine authority, nor verify the existence of any such authority. Thus we are presented with many famous human works supposedly written to answer all of life's inquiries, explain the past, predict the future and rectify the present. As humans, we are gullible to the notion of divinity, due to in part our own personal fear of death and the unknown. Once we accept that we can not prevent death or the final eventuality after death, we are faced with acceptance and reconciliation. We must move forward making our life positive and achieving goals. A legacy is a noble thing to strive for along with loving memories and a good reputation. I believe that all holy books make that assertion as well.

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 1:21 PM. Reason : typos]

8/4/2010 1:06:20 PM

Quote :

"As I've attempted to clear up, I associate Christianity with a literal interpretation of the Resurrection Story found within the Gospels of the new Testament of the Bible."

but the story is different among the gospels, its not a literal translation

8/4/2010 1:21:01 PM

You have to be trolling. I bet you're not even Christian...

8/4/2010 1:33:54 PM

Quote :

"I will admit that there is tons of anecdotal evidence of a spiritual realm that science has yet to explain, but this still does not prove that there is an almighty god."

Like what?

8/4/2010 1:35:11 PM

^^ well i haven't ever claimed to be in this thread so i'm not sure why you would think i am, in fact i posted where i stand. the four gospels are the same about a few points, but if you read them literally you would have four separate accounts.

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 1:39 PM. Reason : .]

8/4/2010 1:39:16 PM

When I say anecdotal evidence what I mean is evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay. There are numerous accounts of people having been in the presence of a ghost or spirit. The accounts of these experiences can not be refuted. Whether or not it was actually a spiritual being or just the subjective validation is another questions all together. What I was stating is that the stories of such accounts are too numerous to be ignored, so for now I won't say that the spiritual realm does or does not exist. All I can honestly say is that I don't know. But regardless, the existence of a spiritual realm still does not prove the existence of an almighty god.

8/4/2010 1:42:20 PM

He's probably being too restrictive in including "within the Gospels of the new Testament of the Bible," but besides that, I think the belief in the redemptive power of Christ's crucifixion is a pretty fair baseline definition of what it means to be Christian. And I would bet the percentage of self-professed Christians who fundamentally question the authenticity of the Gospels (despite the discrepancies) is less than one percent.

Quote :

"There are numerous accounts of people having been in the presence of a ghost or spirit. The accounts of these experiences can not be refuted. Whether or not it was actually a spiritual being or just the subjective validation is another questions all together. What I was stating is that the stories of such accounts are too numerous to be ignored, so for now I won't say that the spiritual realm does or does not exist. All I can honestly say is that I don't know."

Considering what we know about human psychology and neuroscience, I would have to disagree that fantastical claims about ghosts and spirits, not to mention aliens, fairies, and Sasquatches, cannot be refuted. There are much better assumptions to be made about these claims than to suppose they are authentic (beyond the mind of the person making the claim).

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 2:00 PM. Reason : ]

8/4/2010 1:47:23 PM

my problem was with his use of "literal"

8/4/2010 1:51:25 PM

^^^
I just don't think that distinction is necessary. There are plenty of anecdotal reports of the healing powers of magnets, of unicorns, of alien abductions.

I think we can safely rule all of the above, and the existence of a "spiritual world" out pending actual evidence.
-----------------------------------------------------------
^Literal as in there really was a person named Jesus and he really did die and really was resurrected and he really is the spiritual savior.

8/4/2010 1:53:11 PM

Chapter 6: The Resurrection: Historically Probable, Religiously Insignificant
http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=3145&C=2634

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 2:10 PM. Reason : .]

8/4/2010 1:53:35 PM

^^ i agree with you, however, I believe there are more accounts of spiritual activity then people seeing fairies or being abducted by aliens (however i'm not ruling that out either). if you are basing your beliefs on hard science and hard facts then i think that's a bit narrow minded as there is still a lot for science to explain. the only way I can honestly answer regarding these claims is "I don't know"; however, I am skeptical and do believe that subjective validation has a lot to do with explaining such paranormal claims.

8/4/2010 2:07:30 PM

^^
I think I'd agree with lazarus that that would represent less than 1% of Christian opinion.

But he's making some pretty serious leaps for a "careful and objective historian".

8/4/2010 2:20:20 PM

ah yes, way easier to just dismiss it and keep defining christians the way thats most convenient for you.

8/4/2010 2:31:12 PM

You're problem is with 99% of Christians, not anyone on this board.

8/4/2010 2:33:31 PM

i have a problem with outspoken critics of christianity that don't try to understand it or misrepresent it

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 2:42 PM. Reason : sp]

8/4/2010 2:42:14 PM

In what way have I misrepresented Christianity?

A Christian is someone who accepts that Jesus Christ was the Messiah as predicted by Jewish tradition. All of them believe the story of the Gospels that states he was crucified and resurrected.

It's not misrepresenting the religion to describe them thusly. You're being overly picky.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote :

"^^ i agree with you, however, I believe there are more accounts of spiritual activity then people seeing fairies or being abducted by aliens (however i'm not ruling that out either). if you are basing your beliefs on hard science and hard facts then i think that's a bit narrow minded as there is still a lot for science to explain. the only way I can honestly answer regarding these claims is "I don't know"; however, I am skeptical and do believe that subjective validation has a lot to do with explaining such paranormal claims."

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that something doesn't exist pending evidence. The fact that people have been making up stories about mysticism for as long as there have been people is not evidence.

I'm not saying that alien abductions or some spiritual world or even some type of god that is entirely unobservable is impossible. Only you can reasonably rule it out as a possibility pending evidence. There are infinite number of fantastical things things that you could make up that currently have no evidence. It would be maddening to entertain every single one of them so why give any of them credence?

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .]

8/4/2010 3:05:45 PM

Quote :

"In what way have I misrepresented Christianity?"

i guess you've forgotten using contradictions in the bible as some kind of proof of its ridiculousness? and i'm pretty sure it was you who didn't understand the difference between the old and new covenants.

8/4/2010 3:26:48 PM

i was raised in an Assemblies of God (Pentecostal) church. i went to a church camp in middle school where they basically forced you to "speak in tongues"

needless to say, my opinions on Christians and Christianity are not very favorable

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 3:32 PM. Reason : .]

8/4/2010 3:32:23 PM

I have forgotten. Can you remind me of the time where I demonstrated that I don't understand the concept of the Christian new covenant?

(BTW, independent of the concept of the new covenant, the Bible is ridiculous. Also I suspect you're pulling this out of your ass at this point.)

^No, shit, that's awesome. Did they actually coach you to speak in tongues?

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 3:38 PM. Reason : .]

8/4/2010 3:33:13 PM

Quote :

"i guess you've forgotten using contradictions in the bible as some kind of proof of its ridiculousness?"

Oh get real. That's one of a bunch of things that prove it's ridiculousness.

8/4/2010 3:33:27 PM

only to simple minded mouth breathers

8/4/2010 3:43:27 PM

Ahhh, name calling. Paragon of intellectual discussion. Still waiting to be schooled on my supposed demonstration of lack of knowledge of the new covenant.

8/4/2010 3:54:45 PM

Quote :

"lolwut? If it's not a book, what is it? It may not be a novel, but it sure as shit is a book that the entire faith of Christianity is based on. Is it your claim that if a person never heard of the Bible or any of it's teachings they could become a Christian independent of it?"

The Bible, as you know it, is a collection of individual acient writings from many time periods....so the Bible is a collection of individual books....hence the books of the bible....if you wish, you can call it a book, but its just not the best term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible heres some good information for you disco_stu so you can learn about all the different types of bibles out there and a little about the contradictions that you question so much.

Quote :

" The Big Bang theory is accepted because there is a mountain of observable evidence in its favor. Compare this to the complete lack of evidence for any of the extraordinary claims made in the compilation of Jewish folklore commonly known as "the Bible," and you will begin to see the difference between religious faith and science. "

You are out to "prove" chrisitanity. What I'm telling you is you'll never "prove" anything that happened that long ago....you believe in the big bang, but you'll never be able to prove it happened...you just can't disprove it.

And, just to let you know, there is also a moutain of historical evidence around Jesus also....

Quote :

"Bigun was attempting to undermine science by saying "See, you believe the theory of the Big Bang without any falsifiable evidence." and I was presenting evidence to the contrary."

Bigun was not...Bigun was simply stating the obvious...you want "proof" and you will never find it....thats why its called "faith".

Quote :

"Believing that Jesus is the messiah predicted by the Jews is what makes a Christian a Christian. "

Wrong.

8/4/2010 4:43:56 PM

Quote :

"You are out to "prove" chrisitanity. What I'm telling you is you'll never "prove" anything that happened that long ago....you believe in the big bang, but you'll never be able to prove it happened...you just can't disprove it. And, just to let you know, there is also a moutain of historical evidence around Jesus also...."

A)Burden of Proof, meet Bigun. Bigun, burden of proof. I am not out to "prove" Christianity. I am refuting the claim that it's is the truth. It's not my burden to disprove it. It has yet to be proven.
B)Big Bang Cosmology CAN BE DISPROVEN. What the hell is wrong with you? If there is evidence that contradicts Big Bang Cosmology, then Big Bang Cosmology will be modified to reconcile that evidence or be tossed out entirely if the evidence is incompatible.
C)You're right, there's no way to be absolutely certain that something happened that you didn't directly observe (and in some cases things you directly observe). The key here is justified belief. Are you justified in believing in something that has observable evidence? I think so. Things that don't have evidence? I think not.
D)Please present the mountain of evidence regarding the historicity of Jesus. I am not convinced. I am especially not convinced if there ever was a person named Jesus that this person died, was resurrected, and committed miracles. Is there also mountains of historical evidence suggesting that this happened?

Quote :

"Bigun was not...Bigun was simply stating the obvious...you want "proof" and you will never find it....thats why its called "faith". "

Which is precisely why faith is a delusion.

Quote :

"Wrong."

In what way? If you are a Christian, would you care to share what it is about your religious beliefs make you a Christian instead of say, a Jew?

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 5:08 PM. Reason : C]

8/4/2010 4:56:45 PM

I'm going home form work now so I'll be back tomorrow. But in the mean time....

Quote :

"Please present the mountain of evidence regarding the historicity of Jesus."

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

8/4/2010 5:19:21 PM

I know how much people hate wikipedia, but if "gotquestions.org" is a valid source....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Each of the secular references your website are questionable at best, and several are admitted by biblical scholars as being unauthentic or worthless. Ancient texts about people describing what the then Christians were saying about Jesus is hearsay.

Even the website has to admit:

Quote :

"Typically, when this question is asked, the person asking qualifies the question with “outside of the Bible.” We do not grant this idea that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus."

because outside of the Bible, the evidence is non-existent or dubious at best. Hardly a "mountain".

Finally, and this is the very important part:

I am not convinced that even if a person named Jesus existed and was crucified as authorized by Pontius Pilate that he was resurrected, committed miracles, and ascended to a place known as Heaven. Of this there is exactly 0 extra-biblical evidence.

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 5:49 PM. Reason : finally.]

8/4/2010 5:35:07 PM

Quote :

"Can you remind me of the time where I demonstrated that I don't understand the concept of the Christian new covenant?"

actually i found what i was thinking about, but it was d357r0y3r

8/4/2010 6:09:46 PM

Oh, yeah. Is that when I explained to you guys that it didn't matter that there was a new covenant, because the fact that God said, at any moment in time, that it was okay for anyone (Jew or non-Jew) to stone a homosexual or enslave someone, proves that the God of the bible is immoral?

See, the problem was never that I didn't understand Christianity. I've sat through enough church services in my life to know what the religion is about. In fact, at one point, I actually believed the stuff, and actively sought out to learn more about it. You either don't understand what I can only assume is your own religion, or you're unable to come to terms with the reality that your "belief system" is just another fairy tale with a boat load of plot holes.

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 6:41 PM. Reason : ]

8/4/2010 6:34:27 PM

you were completely misreading the scripture you were using and were using a piecewise construction of various versus to construct your argument. you only settled on your conclusion after about 3 pages of me pointing this out.

8/4/2010 6:41:50 PM

Quote :

"Oh, yeah. Is that when I explained to you guys that it didn't matter that there was a new covenant, because the fact that God said, at any moment in time, that it was okay for anyone (Jew or non-Jew) to stone a homosexual or enslave someone, proves that the God of the bible is immoral?"

Who gets to define immoral in this argument? You, God, or Society, or something else?

If you do, then you are in effect attempting to play God and write him off because you disagree.

If society defines morality, then in effect you are pulling from a subjective source to define morality.

If God defines morality then who is it that you are trying to prove immoral? If He defines morality, how can He be immoral

Now you could argue that God says thou shalt not kill and then there are instances in the Bible where God strikes people down (see Exodus). Well, for starters, the only person that is allowed to take away life is God, because he is the creator of life. We can't create life from nothing, he can. This God that you are trying to call immoral also says that all have sinned and the wages of sin is death. Therefore, he is just in killing anyone at anytime, and the fact that he doesn't is grace towards us because he desires that all men might come to know him.

In other words I don't think that you can posit that the God of the Bible is immoral without having a foundation to define morality. That foundation can only be found in God which is the very thing you are trying to prove immoral.

8/4/2010 7:24:29 PM

Oh holy shit. Don't even try to argue with lunatics like this ^. They drag you down to their level of stupid and then beat you with experience.

8/4/2010 8:03:42 PM

^haha. and yes, I am quite the lunatic

8/4/2010 8:09:40 PM

disco_stu.....My hypothesis is that Jesus existed.

Please disprove this (note: people far smarter than you have tried)

8/4/2010 9:31:34 PM

Everyone knows the guy existed. You, however, believe that he:

1. Walked on water
2. Raised the dead
3. Cured those with Leprosy by touch alone
4. Magically made food appear
5. Turned water into wine
6. Died himself only to rise 3 days later

Those are the things people want any writing of that doesn't come from the bible. I would think that the notoriously good record keeping Romans would've had a few things to say about these things happening amongst those they ruled, especially a little incident where they executed somebody but he showed back up first thing Monday morning, but astonishingly there's not one scrap to be found. SHOCKING!

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 10:21 PM. Reason : *]

8/4/2010 10:17:13 PM

Enjoy that hypothesis. It is entirely irrelevant.

Outside of the Bible, the evidence is scant of the historicity of Jesus, but not outside of the realm of possibility. But as I said, that wouldn't matter. Christianity is not based on the fact that a man named Jesus existed.

It's not up to me to disprove the fact that Jesus existed. It's not even up to me to prove that Jesus did not commit miracles and was not really resurrected.

It is Christians making this claim and the burden of proof is on them. There is not evidence to support this claim outside of the Bible and the Bible is not a reliable source. Until there is evidence to support this claim, it should not be accepted just like every other fantastical claim that has no basis in reality.


[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 10:29 PM. Reason : img]

8/4/2010 10:21:34 PM

Quote :

"1.When you hear the word Christian what denomination or group do you think of. A variety of them. It inherently strikes me as a big tent kind of word. It usually gets me thinking of what falls around the edges. Some people say Catholics don't count, some say Mormons don't count, and I wonder where the line is drawn, but over all it strikes me as a blanket term. 2. Your views on the history of the Christian faith. They borrowed so much from earlier religions like the water to wine, immaculate conception, the resurrection, the demi-god with the healing touch, heck they even rescheduled Christ's birthday to have it line up with pagan traditions, that its hard to take a lot of the mythology around it seriously. But in so far as it as prompted people to love thy neighbor throughout its history, good for it, and in so far as its prompted religious war/conflict/inquisitions bad for it. Its a mixed history that makes the history of the world richer in culture. 3. Your views on Christian beliefs. They are fine, when not imposed on others via governments or force. Some people take some poorly translated bronzed age mythologies a little too seriously though. And they say the bible is the literal word of God & then pick and choose which parts of it actually count. 4. What your spiritual beliefs are. Agnostic. I don't have any particular belief that if I follow a particular set of rules that I get to be immortal, but I figure as long as I try to be a good person, who doesn't make anyone's life I encounter intentionally worse, and act charitably when I can, anything else will sort itself out. 5. The experiences that brought about your spiritual beliefs. I certainly grew up Christian, and was saved, and all that jazz. But with a dose of college, philosophy, ancient mythology, encountering other religions, and some thought, I cannot find any reason to commit to one particular spiritual avenue over another so I just call myself agnostic. Although undefined might be a better term. Asking me what my religion is, is sort of like asking me what my official stance is on whether or not orange is a good color. I just don't have an official stance on the Orange question. But I don't mind that others do, so long as they don't hassle me about it."

That's pretty much exactly me.

I don't disbelieve in Christianity. I don't believe in it, either. I'm not hostile to it, and in fact get very irritated at "evangelical atheists"--even more so than evangelical Christians, so long as they aren't trying to impose rules and regs on me. I'm best described as agnostic, but that term is somewhat loaded. It's really just a matter of recognizing that not only do I not know, but that I cannot conceivably know, so I don't really try.

Quote :

"ibsolinari&hooksaw&grumpygop"

I'm fairly sure that solinari is an atheist (not to mention that hooksaw said that he's "not a Christian.")


[Edited on August 5, 2010 at 12:43 AM. Reason : goddamned evangelical atheists...the worst of all]

8/5/2010 12:42:14 AM

.

[Edited on August 5, 2010 at 3:26 AM. Reason : ]

8/5/2010 3:25:51 AM

I enjoy the term 'evangelical atheist' like atheists have TV shows or go from door to door trying to convince people they're wrong.

It's like a religious thread on a message board called "Soap Box" isn't the appropriate location to have a religious discussion.

Being outspoken about secularism is a defense mechanism. We are constantly being assaulted by fundamentalists in our schools and our governments. There are sects of Christians whose plan is to simply out-breed us heathens into oblivion. People are still killing us in the name of religion. Until the scales aren't tipped so far against non-believers I don't think it's fair to demonize non-believers for speaking up about the falsity of belief. I'd wager for every "evangelical" atheist there are 10,000 evangelical Christians in America.

V, THIS.

[Edited on August 5, 2010 at 9:32 AM. Reason : V]

8/5/2010 9:11:59 AM

Quote :

"It's really just a matter of recognizing that not only do I not know, but that I cannot conceivably know, so I don't really try."

The atheist position is not one of claiming to know the unknowable; it's a tentative conclusion based on evidence and reason. In other words, I am an atheist for the same reasons you don't believe in Thor, Zeus, or Huehuecoyotl (I presume).

8/5/2010 9:21:15 AM

I dunno, man. I mean, I have proof that Huehuecoyotl exists, but you just don't want to listen.

8/5/2010 10:50:55 AM

He's in my heart too, spöokyjon.

8/5/2010 10:59:03 AM

8/5/2010 12:26:17 PM