What moves atheists to tears?
Offline Well, I had an interesting experience on Sunday. I was singing on the vocal team at my church for the Easter service. I get teary sometimes, because of the words and power of the music along with it, sometimes it becomes overwhelming, in a good, but also very humbling way. On Sunday, I made it thru all the songs, but the last one was a traditional spiritual. A very simple song, simple melody, but quite beautiful melody, at that...with some interesting minor/jazz chords thrown in.
The second verse..."Were you there when they nailed Him to the tree"...then the third verse..."Were you there when they laid him in the tomb," and I felt it coming...not just tears, sobs...in front of 250 or so people. This is not how I wanted it to happen, I don't relish allowing 250 people to see my weakness, but the truth of those lyrics, so simple, so incredibly profound. I couldn't sing anymore, I just looked down...and...bawled. But you know what? The fact that I was in front of all those people, it doesn't really matter. I knew they would not judge me.
The reality of those words is what caused me to sob. Jesus was brutally beaten, disgraced, humiliated, his hands were nailed...and then He, God, died a human death. A more horrible death than any of us will experience. And he walked into that situation, willingly, for me. In the process of walking to his death, He spoke volumes about the character of God. And if we so chose, we can learn about God by studying how Christ died...and lived. He did all this, so 2000 years later, a person like me can know God personally. Intimately.
Now, you all will tear this post apart, say, I made all this up in my mind. It was the music, the setting, all the people around me... You all can look in from the outside and criticize. But it's okay. Because what I experienced in that moment, as I fully understood what Christ did for me, was Truth. And this Truth is so magnificent that everything you throw at me pales in comparison.
- Login to post comments
sugarfree, in some ways you remind me of myself the way I was as a Christian. I always meant well. I always strove to do the good. In hindsight, I did not always succeed because I was basing my morality on a very flawed dogma.
One of the things that most upsets me about religion is its ability to influence good people to do evil things. A religious person can kill in the name of god and feel absolutely no twinge of conscience. A little "assholery" in the name of god is nothing. When I was a Christian I gave my boyfriend an ultimatum: "Sever ties with your gay father or I walk." In my mind I was doing the right thing. I was being "on fire" for Jesus and accepting no evil. The sad thing is I was actually committing evil and didn't even know it.
A Christian can be very arrogant in his or her belief and not even know it. Somehow the normal twinges of conscience are re-routed from what hurts other people to what hurts god. Well, if god were truly omniscient and omnipotent nothing could hurt him. Of course, I never even considered that thought. I was willing and able to hurt other people for the glory of god. I think that's where the disconnect is. You don't see how your post could have possibly hurt us because you were singing and crying for the benefit of god.
Take a step back and try to look at your original post with new eyes. What is the title? "What moves atheists to tears?" To me, that title and the ensuing post basically says: "Christians feel things deeper than do atheists." That is arrogance, plain and simple. The rest of the post screams, "Look at me! Look how humble I am!" I'm going to borrow a wonderful little tirade from Bill Maher.
Well, if you have to say you're humble, it probably isn't true. A lot of people have noticed the odd blend of faux humility and arrogance that tends to be an inseparable part of modern-day Christianity. I can see it in my past self and I can see it in the Christians I know. I've seen it in my dealings with Christians who have tried to win me back to the fold. I admit it has grown tiresome. I'm tired of being made out to be the bad guy by people whose sense of morality is so twisted by dogma they no longer understand that actions taken on "god's behalf" hurt actual people.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Okay, I'm just gonna say it, zarathustra, you seem to be just plain mean. I suppose if that's what you are going for, you have succeeded. I think when you read my post, you read it from your own point of view. Certainly, if you wrote a post like that, it would be a fake, a lie, because you do not believe as I do.
Or you're self-deluded and the difference is you, superficially at least, believe in your lies. Oh, but right, a prerequisite to getting proof of your point of view is skipping the nasty business of proof itself.
But, even tho it seems hard for you to understand, I wrote that post out of utmost sincerity.
Sincerity isn't proof, which is why eyewitnesses can't be relied upon if they're prone to delusions. Make sense?
Now, it did in fact, come with a challenge. The implied challenge was, show me why I should give up what I have.
WHAT?! Get outta here, whitebread. You just posed this rubbish in your first thread! It was bull then and still is.
[...][more of the same]
Now, you tell me why I should want to adopt your belief system, when from my perspective, all it has done is turned you into a rude and insensitive human being.
A notion that thrills your wormy heart to a patter. Before, it was your heart's desire to think of atheism as an irrational reaction to a bad church experience; now you want to prove to yourself that atheism precludes anything good or positive by antagonizing atheists with repetitive, presumptuous and insulting questions. If you have any intellect at all, there's a tiny kernel of rationality working away in your mind somewhere, and you'll eventually realize you're using us as a sounding board for your self-deception.
So this is how you turn people into atheists? Is this what you mean by deconversion? Make the person feel so stupid and bad about themselves, try to confuse them so much that they finally just give in to you and say “you're right, stupid me“? If it is, I am so not impressed. In fact I am repulsed.
How will we get over the loss?
That made me chuckle.
Sugarfree, I think the reason you feel that we have been harsh on you is because we have told you the blunt truth and it isn't what you are used to. Christianity is far from blunt truth. Atheism is entirely blunt truth. There is no God. There is no Heaven. You will die one day and that will be it. I'm sorry but there's really no way around it.
It may not be the happiest story in the world, but hey, thus is life. If you really want us to convince you that Christianity is false, you'll have to first come to level with the possibility that Christianity is false. I really dont think that you have done that.
ASK A PRIEST!!!!
I am collecting questions for the next couple of weeks. Do you have a question you'd like to ask a priest? Post it here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5959
Was I there? No. Were you there? No. Was the person who wrote the song there? No. Were the people who penned the bible there? No. Is there any unbroken (actual verifiable) historical chain of evidence between that moment and the present day? Don't think so.
Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.
Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best
NarcolepticSun:
Correlation does not equal causation. Just because you find similarities between the two does not mean that one caused the other. This is an assertion that I can understand and accept as possible but nothing more solid than that.
This might be true. Heh.. but "pretending" takes a rather strong stance with regards to the mindset of other people, because "pretending" does not refer, merely, to an action but to a specific, conscious, purpose of deception in the the action as well... a purpose that you, or I, cannot know when speaking of "Christianity" as a whole.
I probably would've used "presents itself" but thats just me. I can understand though.. I just find that certain language turns conversations into antagonistic/antagonistic verbal assertions as opposed to trying to understand one individual to another.
In anycase.. "henotheistic" would require the existence of multiple go's as opposed to the concept of three forms of the same one (yes.. I realize this is what you consider "pretending" and I consider "presenting"
At any point in time water is existent in three forms in our word.. yet it is always the same molecule that forms them all--yet they each have distinct qualities.
Umm.. I think I might have to break this one down.
"Christianity is STILL henotheistic."
Only if you assume that one can not speak of "three forms of the same God" and still be not henotheistic-- something I think that, definitively, is not true.
"Trying to pretend an obviously henotheistic religion is monotheistic leads to confusion for believers."
Hm.. perhaps this is an accurate description and perhaps it is not. I could easily state that "presenting a new and complex monotheistic concept leads to confusion for believers".
Confusion isn't necessarily bad.. it seems to be just a function of our limited ability to perceive and define.
Fascinating.. that's good for them, it was their mythology afterall.
In Christian 'mythology', for me at least, it is understand that when Jesus speak of him at "the Father" as the same or one, he speaks only to those qualities which he speaks of-- perhaps the mind, perhaps some other quality.
It is why the water analogy is used.. 'some quality' binds them enough together, within Christian theology, in order to refer to themselves as the same or one.
Heh. Okay.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Mouse:
That God reached out to man where man was despite the fact he knew he would die.
More that he lived on earth.
More that he raised at all-- thus representing his power over something man seems to have no power over.
Here is my story of Lord of the Rings without any distractions or without employing dramatic nature.
Ring gets lost. Ring gets found. Good fights bad with ring. Good becomes bad through ring. Good overcomes innerbad through friends. Good overcomes bad in destroying ring.
Perhaps dramatics do not serve a purpose to all individuals.. but they do reach out to some when trying to capture attention and bring out a point..
Wouldn't have been as dramatic.
All things being equal? Probably the same. Since, with regards to that hypothetical, I would not know of the story I know of now.. and thus, could still construct the same connotations out of it.
All things being equal? Yes.
Rhad,
Your statement from earlier in the thread
"But nonetheless.. Jesus was not "God" in the sense that "God" was "God".. obviously.. because if you accept christian principles.. how could he refer to "his father" if they were, in every aspect the same."
blows this most recent statement out of the water. Or do you not accept Christian principles?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Some say that surgarfree is arrogant and insulting. Sugarfree denies it.
This is for me another example of how religion, especially monotheistic religion, can turn people into arrogant insulting assholes without them even noticing.
Yeah. I've been there and done that. It's pretty sad. At least now when I'm an arrogant, insulting asshole I have no one but myself to blame.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
hey rhad, i quoted your response and moved it to a new thread:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/6027?page=0#comment-52818
i think this will be a good discussion, thanks for your response!
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
Of course nobody wants you to hate yourself, but you are completely incapable of seeing what you posted through an objective lens. You truly cant see why your words would irk anyone here, and that's because you really cant understand how someone cant view the world from a christian perspective. The kool-aid is potent, no? Everyone here says/does dumb things, and likewise good things too. You're probably a good-hearted person at the core, Sugarfree, but your religion is turning you into an arrogant, condescending sheep, and you aren't even seeing it.
That's dishonest, or maybe you cant see this either. You didn't want us to see it as objectively good, you wanted us to see how good christianity makes you feel. Nobody hates you, but we all have had enough of your complete disregard for non-christian viewpoints. It's like you cant believe this site isnt a big joke or something.
We don't "turn" people into anything. We have information, objective information that is neither feel-good nor negative. Much of this information is of the sort that is misunderstood by the general public. Some of it has been twisted and misconstrued by theists that dont want to lose their crutch, or their power over those less-informed or of weaker mindset. This information is made available to those who wish to locate it. Those people will then make their own choices, and none of us will ever come knocking on their door. If it seems as though any of us are "pushing" our "beliefs" on anyone, it is mostly due to the fact that we dont want our rights and freedoms repressed by those of you who feel it's your god-given right to do so. I'm less pushy because I'm pretty mainstream america in a lot of ways. If I were gay, for example, I'd probably want to actively participate in burning every church I could find to the ground.
Out of frustration, I know that some folks here will also resort to condescention and insults. It's not the right thing to do, IMHO, but when you refuse to answer our questions with anything other than "JESUS," or admitting that you wont budge on some of your beliefs because, essentially, atheism doesnt make me happy, well what do you expect?
You come here in arrogance, and your definition of hope is nothing more than an attempt to convert us. If you really thought you'd have any luck in this endeavor, then that lends even more strength to the argument that you just dont get it. You come off like you think this site is populated by simple-minded fools who simply are mad at the church because priests molest little boys. All we need is someone to show us the way! You've given us virtually no credit, and now you're upset that we wont listen to you? Piss off.
You're taking your ball and going home? An immature response from someone with an immature mindset and an immature belief system. Sad part is, it doesnt have to be this way, because like I said, I think you're probably a good person at heart.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
I qualified my statement "in every aspect the same". I have conceded that there are differences between the two.. but whether or not one can still consider them the same "thing".. and therefore the same "God".. is a different issue.
Granted.. there is some difficult of language.. as there always is with language in any sort of conversation. This is why I used the analogy of water.
If I pointed out to you a body of pure water and a piece of pure ice.. would you consider these different "waters" or "forms of water"?
In the same way.. "Jesus" is not in every aspect the same as "God" (the father) yet is "God" (supreme being).
The confusion between the two principles as presented by me may have been unclear because of me.. whenever one may have understand I was stating that Jesus was different then "God"-- I should have qualified by stated "God the Father".. and "God the Father" is different in some respects then "God" (trinity).
So.. I apologize.. my bad for that.
Nothing to apologize for - this is how discourse happens.
Nonetheless, I hope you wouldn't point me to steam and ice and steam is not water in the same sense that ice is.
Using your analogy that way implies that God is changeable. A changeable God is not Biblical and really not worth having.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I know it is not water in the same sense that steam is. This is part of the analogy. Yet.. they are both water.
Water still exists whether or not you see a body of liquid-water and ice-water at the same time.
Water.. in the analogy is "God".. and for the three forms of water.. equate to them any form you want: Steam/Holy Spirit. Water/Jesus. Ice/Father.
"God", even as water, exists within this (theological) universe. It will always be one "thing" even though it can be three forms at once.
Umm wrong, false analogy. A single water molecule cannot exist in three forms all at once. Either the molecule is bound in liquid, bound in ice or bound in steam, but never all three at once.
Try another analogy.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
You are correct, the analogy does not work on so many levels.
BGH, AiiA,
Thanks for putting into proper words what I was thinking when I wrote my post.
Is this another version of Francis Collin's three-part waterfall?
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Here's a link to the story for the benifit of those who want to know what Iruka Naminori is refering to
Unbelievable! Well, I guess it's not that unbelievable.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Heh. The purpose of the analogy is not to present the position that "God" can be "father, son, and holy spirit" at the same time that each father, son and holy spirit is "God".. but that rather, "God" is something that can be "father, son, and holy spirit" all at once.
To say that "water" can be "ice, liquid, and steam" at the same time that each is "ice, liquid, and steam" is ridiculous. Yet.. to say that "ice, liquid, steam" can exist at the same time within existence.. is a generally held fact.
You might be assuming that I'm saying that Jesus is "God", the father is "God", the Holy Spirit is "God". And that.. if two of them were removed then there would still be "God". I am saying now.. however.. "God" is the three entities. Even as "water" is the three forms. And while I can say that ice is water, steam is water, and a liquid is water, so I can say that Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God.
The use of a term does not necessarily mean the exclusion of others within the definition of that term.
(Christian Theology, all.. I believe).
The major flaw in your counterargument is A, you state as a premise what you set out to argue.. in that, God is imaginary and not real.
I would agree that God is a concept as of now, even as black matter is a concept, you can 'see' it only in so far as you have 'defined' it's qualities and characteristics.
'Imaginary' exists no place outside of you head.. although it may be related to some real life things.
Secondly.. even if he was imaginary, and you defined 'imaginary' as 'anything not inside the natural universe', your counter argument would still not work since the purpose of an analogy is not to relate to each other on all levels-- just a "sufficient" amount of levels.
And.. unless you can define 'anything not in the natural universe', I could conceptualize it in any way I want and explain it *through* any analogy I feel would *sufficiently* represent a certain amount of levels.
The only way you could say this is if you have a concept of God already. Granted.. this analogy may not work for you with your concept.. but this does not change that it can work for some based upon their concept of God.
Unless you can give an objectively verifiable entity by which to challenge that your concept of God is more right than another's concept of God, then your statement is nothing more than subjective opinion.
Which, of course, again, is fine.
The original question was directed at me to explain.. so I did.. to ask for further explanation is fine-- to say state a subjective opinion as objective fact, however, is something I will have to contend with.. question.. put into words.. for the sake of some third party to make their decision.
Not sure.. never read Francis Collin's.
Ummm, that seems to be an awful lot of splainin' for something that is logically impossible.
Your phrasing is starting to remind me of another poster, have you read any of mythman_j's post?
THANK YOU!!
I think you might be confused. My argument is not meant to point out logical possibilities.. it's meant to point out how language is used.
If you want me to make a logical argument for the possibility integrating my points about language.
Water is water.
Ice is water.
Steam is water.
Liquid water is water.
If I say that Ice is water, it is not to say that steam is not water.
If I say that Liquid water is not water, it is not to say that ice is not water.
If I say that Steam is water, it is not to say that water is not water.
God is God.
"God the Father" is God.
"The Holy Spirit" is God.
"Jesus" is God.
If I say that "God the Father" is God, it is not to say that "The Holy Spirit" is not God.
If I say that "Jesus" is God, it is not to say that "God the Father" is not God.
If I say that "The Holy Spirit" is God, it is not to say that "Jesus" is not God.
These are logical constructions built of premises and making conditional statements based upon those premises.
I'm not saying the latter is absolute truth (as in, real) but.. it is nonetheless a logical construct and explanation-- and is constructed in such a manner that the former is used an analogy for the latter.
Hm.. don't believe so. I'm not a fan of reading other theists posts. I use to read St. Michael's... but they wore me out after awhile. I skim over some others from time to time...
It's just a completely different relationship between theist and theist.
I smell something....what is it? Oh yeah, bullshit!
Hmm.. as a far as counterarguments go-- this is severly lacking. But then again.. perhaps that was your purpose-- or perhaps you were just speaking to those who think like you as opposed to creating an sort of relatable argument for a third-party.
If this specifically was the point you were responding too.. in that case. I can give my thoughts on the sentiment.. but, I don't believe that was your point.
In order for it to be a counterargument there would have needed to be a valid argument presented first. You did not present one.
Let me clear this up for you. I did not use a counterargument in the sense that you think I meant counterargument. It was a statement observing the obvious in that it could be taken to be a counterargument or it could not.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
At room temperature and under normal pressure it is a liquid.
Yes.. water is (h2o)... but this does not necessitate it being a liquid. However.. "water" is many times used to refer to "liquid water"-- yet, still, technically it is correct either way.. but.. in the most limited sense it water is merely (h2o). (I believe.. a chemist or language expert is free to argue against this since I believe it probably does have a "right" answer.)
Er... whether you believe it logical or not does not stop it, at the end of the day, being total shit.
Sorry giz, but this is dead horse flogging of the worst kind. At the end of the day, it is predicated on the writings of the bible being gospel truth. Perhaps attempting to make a case for that may prove a little more fruitful?
Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.
Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best
Well it's about as valid an argument as this:
Q: How can god exist in 3 parts, but still be one thing?
A: Water.
There are no theists on operating tables.
I don't think the previous posters object to your analogy from your construction of it. Yes water does have three phases, as do all normal matter. The problem arises from your premises, as they are completely arbitrary. Water, ice and steam have natural properties, you can measure stuff and find out which is which under what circumstances. God, the holy spirit and jesus are devoid of such properties, which makes the whole analogy meaningless.
I'm English, and I vote we have a festival. It's never, ever, too late to start calibrations with food and alcohol. Maybe we can call it the worlds first counter-religious holiday?
Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.
Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best
For that I would share my Bud Light! (The midwestern US users will understand the significance of this...trust me - it's HUGE.)
Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.
Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best
Have I stated any differently? I have stated time and again within my posts that my wish is not to 'prove' anything.
Furthermore, constituted here.. my explanation is only valid based upon the bible being gospel truth.
I have not stated anything different.
Did I give only a one word answer?
I don't believe I did. In fact, I stated both how the use of language allows for water to refer to three separate forms that can coexist in the same world at the same time-- I then stated this could be used as an analogy for the concept of a "three in one" "God".
I then used the same process of language for water and applied it to God in order to state why this analogy is applicable to this particular concept.
The way they have stated it.. is that the analogy itself is faulty... which I would disagree with. If they had stated that "my premises were arbitrary".. I would agree to the extent that it is "arbitrarily interpretation of the bible"-- while I may be "absolutely wrong" with regards to reality.. as I've stated before, and I'll state again, it's possible that the premises are wrong.
But the question was not to prove my premises but rather to explain a concept.
They are not "devoid of properties".. if this were the case then I could not speak of them at all. They do, however, have 'properties' which can be interpreted as 'properties' of one thing or another. In otherwords.. the 'properties' by which one can describe and speak of now are not exclusive to "God". Yet, he must have "some" properties.. otherwise absolutely no conversation could be spoken of him whatsoever.
Unless you mean "physical properties" or "verifiable properties" or "complete description of all properties".. in which case.. it's a slightly different argument that is necessary for me to make.
But.. I'll reiterate.. my purpose was not to prove the existence of God or the absolute realness of the "trinity".. merely to explain a concept.
You might not wish to prove anything, but as far as I am concerned you have no choice. I think the bible is made up fiction. How can you possibly argue to the contrary?
The NT is built on the OT. And the OT is rubbish. It is absolute rambling fiction. Man was made in god's image? Eh? What did god need arms and legs for, especially if he is discorporate? Eyes, ears, mouth, nose and cock? What use are they when you live in space then?
Great flood - proof please.
Adam and Eve get kicked out of Eden with two kids in tow - one of whom conveniently finds a wife. Where did she come from?
You can't argue truth on a basis of falsehood.
Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.
Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best
With regards to proving something.. it's always dependent, whether scientific or otherwise, upons one own willingness to be "proven to" as well as dependent upon what types of "evidence" you are willing to consider. Both of these things are completely subjective and every person (at least to my knowledge) accepts at least some premises and ideas based upon nothing more than purely non-scientific, subjective, feelings.
So.. while my I may agree that I have an inability to 'prove to you' that something did indeed happen or is.. it doesn't really make any difference with regard to whether that thing actually is or whether or not it is a logically consistent thing, and therefore possibly true.
Heh.. you're making a lot of assumptions about God considering you don't believe in him. And if you're just making assumptions about what I believe and don't believe.. then-- sobeit, but I, being I, can say you are mostly incorrect in your assumptions.
Of course.. I think they're rhetorical questions soo...
And you can't argue falsehood on the basis of ignorance.
Just making a statement.
In anycase.. this was thread about something other than the possiblevalidity of the Bible (or maybe I'm wrong)..
In anycase.. my past 10 (?) posts have been regarding my attempt at an explanation of a particular concept.. I'm not sure exactly why we're moving off to something completely different. ("Proving" that the explanation is objectively correct).
What is your point?
Whatever.
Then, again, what is your point?
Well, I suppose you would know.
In any case, you have not made any sense at all. You have been rambling incoherently.
If you are on this site because you have doubts about your beliefs and/or questions, please read some of the threads and feel free to ask questions. There are many people on this site (theist and atheist) that are happy to help you with any questions you may have but they do not dispense medication.
Heh.. That "proving" something to an individual is not much of a feat since the requirements for such a feat are completely subjective.
That you already have your answers you want to believe.. so whats the point of me answering them?
I have not argued that you have spoken some falsehood.. merely that your argumentation might not be as objectively sound as you may believe.
And you've been pouting like a spoiled child.
Now that we are done presenting subjective opinion as if it were objective fact.. we can move on.
I do.
And so they have.
Was this post non-rambling enough for your liking? You've seemed to have ceased making any sort of argument whatsover... and have, instead, resorted to personal judgements and what one might consider assertions. So be it-- I just thought I'd give my take on it so that it isn't left uncontested.
(On a sidenote: The "personal attack" I stated was not my actual opinion.. so don't be offended-- just making a point regarding my opinion on the place of such statements within the course of a conversation/debate.)
Fap fap fap. This thread is more boring than it was before.
It's not your fault, Rhad. This thread was doomed when sugarfree left.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Perhaps the idea of the trinity is difficult for some to grasp - such is not true with me. I understand the conceptualization. I also understand the preceeding process and why Christianity claims the trinity (with the exception of various sects.
Christianity was fabricated during a period of religious evolution from henotheism to monotheism. Essentially, Christianity is a henotheistic religion attempting to pretend it is monotheistic.
Fast forward a few hundred years - and the evolution to monotheism is practically accomplished with the generating of Islam.
--
Take into account Judiam before 650BC and you see a religion evolve from polytheism - to henotheism - to monotheism. Judiasm broke off and successfully made a transition to monotheism from polytheism while generating the alternative sects of Christianity and Islam in the process.
I contend.
I contend.
Shabbat Shalom. Time for the weekend rest.
Why am I incorrect in my assumptions? You must qualify this statement. I don't need to believe in god to be able to contend this point.
That's just a throwaway line buddy. I can argue that it is false because there is no decent evidence for it being true. You can say "well it's probably true because there isn't any cast-iron evidence proving it false". I don't need to prove it false - it pretty much does the job for itself.
Are we asking too many difficult questions? We can carry on in a new thread if you wish?
Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.
Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best
What moves an atheist to tears? In all honesty? Christians who have been terrorized into believing disprovable cult claims but haven't any clue otherwise. I see it as a failure to the human race and it saddens me to great depths. I'm guessing I'm not alone on that one either, hence the reason there are so many atheists willing to take the time to educate theists.
Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”