Landover Baptist Pastor Preaches To Atheists

[Schultzie]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

But who needs the argument... if you believe there's a 10 armed blue guy in the centre of the earth, go nuts. Who are atheists to tell believers they're wrong? Who are believers to tell atheists they're wrong?

That whole argument you hate is Pascal's Wager. Its been used to defend the existence of God, and recently, to promote the climate change agenda. Essentially, if God exists and you don't believe in him, the end result is way worse than if God doesn't exist and you believe in him. Therefore, I may as well believe in God just in case.... just like with Global Warming... if it does exist and we do nothing... the end result is way worse than if it doesn't exist and we go nuts trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

My burden of proof is only relevant if I'm trying to convert you. I'm not. I could care less what you believe in. I'm just opposed to both atheists and fanatical christians getting all aggressive in their agendas one way or the other.

Personally, I think the CP forums should ban religious arguments on this site altogether. They go nowhere and it just seems to get everyone's dander up since its such a volatile subject.

I'm not trying to tell anyone that they are wrong, I just want to get my point across that to an outsider looking in, a belief in god can seem ridiculous and absurd, even though the theist may see nothing funny about it and believe it to be fact.

I do hate Pascal's Wager, but I hate irrationality even more so. I'm more inclined to buy into Global Warming than I am to god because there are facts to back it up. So, they aren't really the same, but I get your point. No, it's not 100% proof that Global Warming exists, but that goes back to my point about looking at situations using objectivity and rationality to determine the best solution.

I'm all about rationality. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It absolutely boggles my mind that anyone can believe in the most extraordinary claim in history, that of an omnipotent, omniscient space daddy existing without even the tiniest shred of proof. It just drives me nuts. Especially in this day and age, where science has advanced to the point that it has. I just can't get my head around it.

(By the way, the Bible doesn't count as evidence. That would be the same as me saying that the Wizard of Oz exists and then using the yellow brick road as evidence to back up that claim.)

I know what you mean about banning these types of threads. But, even though they go absolutely nowhere, I still do enjoy them.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

It was kind of funny... but kind of pathetic at the same time that many athetists dedicate themselves to convince people not to believe.

I don't know many (any) people that "dedicate" themselves to convincing people not to believe. They might say they don't believe, and question why people do, but they don't meet once or more a week in building (that enjoys rather favorable tax-status) to re-enforce their ideas and talk about where they'll end up after they die if they don't follow the rules from "the book".

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Mainstream Christianity could give a crap about atheists or non-believers...

Well I hate to say it, but if that's true (which it isn't), that's not very Christian of them.

Anyway, I'd like to hear what exactly qualifies/disqualifies someone as a "mainstream Christian". Can you tell me?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

You've hand waved and made all kinds of outrageous claims about how the percentage of Christians who have motives other than your own are very low, but that almost all atheists can be characterized by intolerance.. now you have to back those up.

The basic tenants that all atheists adhere to and how those are intolerant should be a good start.

Ok well lets use the web. You show me as many sites as you can that promotes or discusses atheism without attacking Christianity and in turn I will show you ten that are hostile to Christianity.

The reverse will be true for Christian sites. For every one that is hostile to atheism I'll easily show you ten that don't even address it.

I think you'll quickly find I have the easier task.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know many (any) people that "dedicate" themselves to convincing people not to believe. They might say they don't believe, and question why people do, but they don't meet once or more a week in building (that enjoys rather favorable tax-status) to re-enforce their ideas and talk about where they'll end up after they die if they don't follow the rules from "the book".


Well I hate to say it, but if that's true (which it isn't), that's not very Christian of them.

Anyway, I'd like to hear what exactly qualifies/disqualifies someone as a "mainstream Christian". Can you tell me?

I already have answered that. Mainstream is increasingly liberal minded, about ecumenical goals and being more of an advisor then a demanding presence. Yet, there are too many fire and brimstone people out there, and that is a substantial reason why more and more people become agnostic, apathetic or atheist. I'm pretty firmly with the first two of those... I just tend to like arguing for its contextual contributions cause I studied it and enjoyed it. I also find it annoying when people group all Christians together with a few radicals and attack it like Landover Baptists and others do. Many people get quite angry and offended with Islam is grouped with Al Qaeda... why is the stereotype alright here?

Also, its not a "dedication" as much as an enjoyment to trumpet how stupid people who believe are. I think literal readers of the Bible are fairly naiive... I also think there's too many maybes to take a stand, though it doesn't hurt to be educated.

The major churches have started to realize society is outgrowing them as a life warden and are liberalizing. Part of that is accepting people for who they are. Some are taking longer than others to do this and some are more dogmatic and devout than others. Hell, if you read the Bible, Jesus fraternized with a prostitute and she was one of his closest disciples (perhaps even his wife?). Good Christians tolerate. That's a tough pill to swallow for many.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Schultzie

(By the way, the Bible doesn't count as evidence. That would be the same as me saying that the Wizard of Oz exists and then using the yellow brick road as evidence to back up that claim.)

I know what you mean about banning these types of threads. But, even though they go absolutely nowhere, I still do enjoy them.

I didn't say it did, did I?? If I did, it was a mistake. Its not evidence in and of itself.

I'm actually pretty agnostic, though I was raised Catholic/Protestant. I just learned a lot about Christian Theology, and its more fun to defend it then attack it. Attacking it is pretty easy sometimes because like most broad sweeping groups, there's a lot of morons under the umbrella.

[Schultzie]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I didn't say it did, did I?? If I did, it was a mistake. Its not evidence in and of itself.

I'm actually pretty agnostic, though I was raised Catholic/Protestant. I just learned a lot about Christian Theology, and its more fun to defend it then attack it. Attacking it is pretty easy sometimes because like most broad sweeping groups, there's a lot of morons under the umbrella.

No, I was saying it as a general statement, so don't think it was directed towards you.

I always get the "Bible is proof" argument, so I figured I'd throw that one out there in case someone was thinking of posting it.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

why do you keep calling it the atheist religion? the meaning of the word itself is to have a complete lack of religion. there is no church, there is no supreme leader, there is no book of rules, and before this recent storm of christians trying to force their way into politics and law there were no real organized groups of atheists of any kind. in fact, there still aren't, the most you'll get out of placing a group of atheists together is a protest group. i don't see many out there calling Greenpeace or PETA religions (though they certainly have enough wackjobs in each to qualify)

Atheism is a view of who God is and what our response to Him should be. Believing that their is no God effects how an atheist conducts their life and their hope for the future. There are religions without church buildings or supreme leaders. There are religions without any written record or inspired book.

You can belong to PETA or Greenpeace and answer those two questions(who is God and what should our response to Him be?) in different ways so they are not religions. An Atheist or a Baptist or a Muslim will reveal their distinctive faith by answering those questions.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Agreed. Noone can know if anyone else is going to Hell, damnit! That's my worst pet peeve. Tell them they're going to Hell for trying to take judgement day away from their "god" and laugh in their face for damning themselves hahaha.

ATR:

I doubt they are making fun of Christians or a belief system in general. Just those so fundamentally taken they try to save others, or enforce their beliefs on others through laws (which is a real concern in the US).

As you I condone all beliefs, and I know atheists do too. They are just tired of having to put up with debate about religious rules in a country that has supposedly separated church and state.

Believe what you want and be proud of it.

But they are making fun of the evangelicals that wield GREAT power in the States.

For a country that claims to have separated church and state, they battle every day and often lose to fundamentalist beliefs.

The kicker is, they bomb other nations for their lack of freedom of belief.

The battle is not against religion. It's against control under the guise of religion.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I also find it annoying when people group all Christians together with a few radicals and attack it like Landover Baptists and others do.

But there is the rub -- it is not just "radicals". If it was just a bunch of loons yakking about this stuff then nobody cares. But the "Most Powerful Man In The World" and a few of his potential successors are neither "radicals" or outside the mainstream. They have millions of followers and they influence some pretty important stuff.

Originally Posted by Thunderball

The major churches have started to realize society is outgrowing them as a life warden and are liberalizing.

That sounds to me like you are saying "the major churches were wrong".

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Atheism is a view of who God is and what our response to Him should be.

Nope.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Nope.

Great argument.

I think I got sick a little, but I think Calgaryborn has a point.

Atheism could be our thought of who god is and more importantly how we respond to him.

For instance, it's hard to believe, an All Loving God would not send his fallen to hell (nor his disbelievers, etc etc.)

But apparently he does.

That's always struck me as stupid, because a loving parent, no matter how much their child disappointed them, even disappointed the world, wouldn't send them to an eternity of suffering.

Cept for a few in control of the world.

So god, as our construct, has taken values that our construct would want us to believe to shape his world. To give him control.

We believe those in control.

Even though it's easy to see them as morally and logically wrong.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Great argument.

Thanks.

Tell me, what do you think of the woman who scored the winning goal for the Flames in Finals in 1989?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Thanks.

Tell me, what do you think of the woman who scored the winning goal for the Flames in Finals in 1989?

You'll have to give me more details.

P.S. Another great argument. A one liner before and a sideswipe now.

Nice.

[RougeUnderoos]

Yeah, that was kind of weak.

The point is "CalgaryBorn" claims my atheism is based on who I think god is and what my response to him is. My atheism isn't based on who I think god is, because I think god isn't, and I don't have a response.

Sort of like what I think of the woman who scored the big goal and my response to her. She doesn't exist, so I don't have a response.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Atheism is a view of who God is and what our response to Him should be. Believing that their is no God effects how an atheist conducts their life and their hope for the future. There are religions without church buildings or supreme leaders. There are religions without any written record or inspired book.

You can belong to PETA or Greenpeace and answer those two questions(who is God and what should our response to Him be?) in different ways so they are not religions. An Atheist or a Baptist or a Muslim will reveal their distinctive faith by answering those questions.

Atheism is not a view of who god is, because there is no god. it is not a view of Santa Claus, the toothfairy, or the easter bunny either because they are all viewed in the same light, non existing. the whole definition of religion is to have a spiritual connection to some force greater than yourself. i have no such connection, thus i have no religion

saying that Atheism is a religion is equal to saying that black is a color. it is the exact opposite, when we see black we are seeing a complete absence of color. Atheism is the black of the religious spectrum, a complete absence of faith. it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with that statement, it is the scientific definition of the word

[photon]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

and what about all the passages that were written which didn't make the final cut into the bible, who was in charge of determining what was and wasn't the true word of god?

This is actually a fascinating topic. A great place to start is a series of lectures by Bart Ehrman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman).

Early Christianity looked very different than current Christianity.. none of the books in the NT are first-hand accounts of Jesus, they're all written well after his life (decades or even centuries), and there are no direct accounts from other sources, so knowing exactly what Jesus said and did is problematic.

Early Christianity had many different beliefs (Jesus as divine but not human, human not divine, there was 1 God who wasn't the God of the OT, there was 3 gods, there was 30 gods, there was 365 gods), all of which used Jesus as their source. Over time as the church grew and the struggles over which writings were used, one set of beliefs and set of scriptures won out, eventually being ratified 400 years after Jesus or so.

It's a huge topic though, something people devote their entire lives to. But very interesting.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Ok well lets use the web. You show me as many sites as you can that promotes or discusses atheism without attacking Christianity and in turn I will show you ten that are hostile to Christianity.

The reverse will be true for Christian sites. For every one that is hostile to atheism I'll easily show you ten that don't even address it.

I think you'll quickly find I have the easier task.

Lol, that's really scientific (by scientific I mean stupid). How about this then, we'll determine who is more intolerant by a google fight shall we?

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...ate+christians

There, "I hate atheists" has 1,900,000 results on Google, while "I hate Christians" has 282,000 results. That makes about as much sense as your suggestion, so I claim victory.

Plus you haven't said what is WRONG with attacking Christianity? Heck you yourself attacked Christianity in this thread.

Attacking the religion is different than attacking an individual, and attacking the religion by saying it's silly is different than attacking the religion by saying it should be outlawed. No one claims the second. (well except the government in the US who make and enforce laws that marginalize atheists and limit their rights based on their lack of beliefs).

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Atheism is a view of who God is and what our response to Him should be. Believing that their is no God effects how an atheist conducts their life and their hope for the future.

Again, what is your point?? How does that relate to intolerance? Of course how a person thinks affects how the conduct their lives, so what?

Santa Atheism is a view of who Santa is and what our response to Him should be. Your Santa atheism effects how you conduct your life and your hope for the future you know..

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Atheism is a view of who God is and what our response to Him should be. Believing that their is no God effects how an atheist conducts their life and their hope for the future. There are religions without church buildings or supreme leaders. There are religions without any written record or inspired book.

Guy. Where did you get this idea? Atheism is a lack of belief in god. What you've bolded describes a theist.

And as for your second point about believing that there is no god affecting life conduct and hope for the future, I agree. I agree wholeheartedly. Note that atheists do not base their lives on the idea that the world will end soon or that they need to sing and pay money once a week to buy their way into a place that doesn't exist.
I actually see atheists as having alot more hope for the future of mankind. No, the world isn't going to end because jesus returns. Mankind may threaten their own extinction through war, but I have a little more faith in our inherent desire to survive.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Really, as much as some religious types want to flame the athiests,

I'll be the last person who 'flames' atheists.

you really gotta look at your own organizations first.

Eh? Last time I checked there is nothing 'wrong' with my organization.

Maybe today's version doesn't creep you out like the mideval version,

And thats where you are wrong.

Medieval version was strictly Catholic. Catholics during that time were basically corrupt.

They tortured, burnt, raped and basically killed anyone that opposed their belief system.

Then came this thing called the reformation.

The movement began as an attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church. Many western Christians were troubled by what they saw as false doctrines and malpractices within the Roman Catholic Church, particularly involving the teaching and sale of indulgences. Another major contention was the practice of buying and selling church positions (simony) and the tremendous corruption found at the time within the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy. This corruption was systemic at the time, even reaching the position of the Pope.

Here, read about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation

Fascinating really, and exactly the reason why you cannot lump ALL Christians together into the 'Catholic' melting pot.

but therein lies the truth, no? I mean if we can look back at what you believed 500 years ago and say "geez, you fought these wars and gave this money and built these building all to save your soul, and now you acknowledge that it is all unnecessary"...

I never fought all those wars, nor did I build those buildings, nor did I spend money to save my soul....considering that is exactly where you're going.

Everything you mentioned above speaks about a physical component of a corrupt Catholic Church. NOTHING is mentioned about the spiritual side, the 'true' spiritual side of 'true' Christianity. You know the part about believing on Jesus Christ....etc, etc?

Right, the Catholics forgot about all that too somewhere in their process of becoming a corrupt church.

Sadly enough, too many people look at the Catholics, their history and lump all Christians together into the same 'pot.' And that my friend is simply not right.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

But there is the rub -- it is not just "radicals". If it was just a bunch of loons yakking about this stuff then nobody cares. But the "Most Powerful Man In The World" and a few of his potential successors are neither "radicals" or outside the mainstream. They have millions of followers and they influence some pretty important stuff.

True, but they influence their own. Its like a union or club. They influence their own... if their own are numerous enough, their opinion will become more relevant. I guess its a much more passive influence then say, what we consider to be the Christian right. You don't see the Catholic, Anglican, United or Lutheran (not sure if there has been a Lutheran PM or Premier) Churches so ardently involving themselves in politics like some of these more radical Christian groups. That's where the difference lies. Nor do they preach to "convert the heathens" like the more radical groups do. Like I said, evangelism was abandoned by the major faiths a long time ago for myriad of reasons, most notably the liberalization of the church to reflect society. Because its an antiquated moral group, it takes time.

That sounds to me like you are saying "the major churches were wrong".

Absolutely. To an extent. They're far from perfect. Yes, they contributed more to Western civilization than any other single group, but they also contributed a lot of crap. Change is to adapt... adapt because you were wrong and/or to adapt to a changing world that one no longers holds significant influence.