Rayclan01 Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Ok So today I was just playing around with some search engines and typed in the term "atheist evil". And to my surprise i found this sight. I now know where the xtians get all their brainwashed answers. http://www.godandscience.org Just find it interstering that they need to look elsewhere for their answers when they say all their answers come from within or from the bible directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 More bullshit than the Texas state rodeo. Welcome to the joint, Ray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 What a crackpot! I loved this little tidbit that I noticed: On one page he "answers" the question of how light could not have refracted before god created the rainbow (this has a lot of problematic ramifications, by the way, not the least of which is that eyes would have been useless before the flood). He claims that the bible does not state that god created the rainbow after the flood at all, but had done so long before, presumably with the rest of his creation by pretending that present perfect tense is actually past tense and pointing out that Genesis 9:13 says "I have set my rainbow in the sky..." and saying that this was in past tense in the Hebrew. A few paragraphs after going through these contortions to argue that the bible did not really say anything absurd about the rainbow, he takes on Leviticus 11:6: "The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you." It served to "prove" the bible above by splitting hairs and actually contorting find grammatical details, so the rabbit must really chew its cud, right? Lev 11:6 does not seem to leave any question that this is what it is claiming. No problem! Here is the place to go the opposite direction from microscopically examining each word for its significance and point out that the bible is speaking very loosely here. Clearly, he argues, what the bible really means when it says "chewing the cud" is "coprophagy," the rabbit's eating it's own poo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 What a crackpot! I loved this little tidbit that I noticed: On one page he "answers" the question of how light could not have refracted before god created the rainbow (this has a lot of problematic ramifications, by the way, not the least of which is that eyes would have been useless before the flood). He claims that the bible does not state that god created the rainbow after the flood at all, but had done so long before, presumably with the rest of his creation by pretending that present perfect tense is actually past tense and pointing out that Genesis 9:13 says "I have set my rainbow in the sky..." and saying that this was in past tense in the Hebrew. A few paragraphs after going through these contortions to argue that the bible did not really say anything absurd about the rainbow, he takes on Leviticus 11:6: "The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you." It served to "prove" the bible above by splitting hairs and actually contorting find grammatical details, so the rabbit must really chew its cud, right? Lev 11:6 does not seem to leave any question that this is what it is claiming. No problem! Here is the place to go the opposite direction from microscopically examining each word for its significance and point out that the bible is speaking very loosely here. Clearly, he argues, what the bible really means when it says "chewing the cud" is "coprophagy," the rabbit's eating it's own poo! Holy Smoke! The verses in Genesis are: 9. "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10. and with every living creature that was with you--the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you--every living creature on earth. 11. I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." 12. And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13. I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15. I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth." 17. So God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth." Clearly this is the sign of a covenant, or agreement. To use something that had existed before the flood as a sign to "remind Himself" of his agreement after the flood seems absurd. Well, the whole thing is absurd. Incidentally, the use of the past tense of set (I have set) is, I think, arbitrary. The same verb is used in Genesis 12:7 to mean "I will give" in future tense. So the passage might as well have been translated "I am setting" or "I set" present tense (but, given the verb in English, it's also past tense). In any case, it is referring to the rainbow he just set in the sky, not to the mere existence of rainbows. In Leviticus, it clearly states that animals that "You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud." Cud, according to Strong's concordance, means cud, not shit. Of the animals listed, all except the rabbit (and the coney? - a species of rock rabbit) chew cud, and none of the others eat shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 To use something that had existed before the flood as a sign to "remind Himself" of his agreement after the flood seems absurd. A thousand amens to that! It is amazing what hoops apologists jump through in order to maintain their presupposition of biblical inerrancy. If they can't solve a problem with real logic, they just invent nonsensical "logic." And to think that I used to respect apologists! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 It's interesting that they don't avoid the tough questions. They don't offer any new or satisfying answers, but at least the website encourages some deeper thought. A christian could easily start doubting just by reading through this website and being unconvinced by the answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abmin9 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 A christian could easily start doubting just by reading through this website and being unconvinced by the answers. Exactly what I was thinking! And as if the garbage isn't difficult enough to keep reading, the web design makes it all the worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayclan01 Posted March 23, 2010 Author Share Posted March 23, 2010 Ok now I am really mad. I was perusing this site again to gain more insight to the deluded mind of xtians when i clicked on the section abuot atheist and immorality. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html#3JWl4aA8atTk "Christians are far more likely than atheists to be part of groups that work hard to instill values about being good to other people, and having good relationships. The teachings of the Bible emphasize values such as honesty, love, forgiveness, sexual fidelity, patience,1 and generosity.2 In addition, all Christian denominations strongly discourage negative behaviors, such as fornication, profanity,3 gambling,4 gossiping, retaliation,5 drunkenness, and lying. Many of these values are not emphasized in social circles dominated by atheists. Do these teachings influence moral behavior? Evangelicals vs. atheistsA a random sample of 1003 adults were surveyed in May, 2008 by The Barna Group for their participation in a number of negative behaviors within the previous week. The results showed that there were vast differences in the behaviors of evangelicals compared to agnostics/atheists. Moral Behaviors of Evangelicals vs. Atheists6 Sin Evangelicals Atheists Viewing pornography 12% 50% Profanity in public 16 60 Gambling 2 ?7 Gossiping 4 34 Sex with non-spouse 3 ?7 Retaliation ?7 11 Drunkenness 0.5 33 Lying 1 ?7 Average 6 29 These results show that atheists/agnostics participate in morally questionable behaviors to a much greater degree than evangelical Christians - an average of nearly five times the frequency! The data calls into question the atheists' claim that moral choices are deterministic and the people do not have the ability to exercise free will. If human behavior were merely a combination of genes and biochemistry, then beliefs would have no effect on moral choices. Obviously, this is a failed hypothesis, since beliefs do influence behavior. Another study, published in 2008, showed that increasing belief in determinism negatively impacted moral behavior (cheating)."(posted from the above mentioned site) Someone please tell what the actual numbers of the xtians vs atheist. i am apalled that these "good" xtians would outright lie. I have known a lot of xtian (being from a southern babtist family) and I believe that most of them do the "immoral acts" more than I would even begin to think about doing them. Let address each one in turn. Pornography- I viewed way more porn as a xtian than i do now. The secrecy and the stigma around sexuality in the xtian lifstyle cause people to hide this "sinfull act" so naturally they would not asmit to it. Profanity in public- This I can say fo myself I tend to watch my language when around others, however I do not see the words "jesus christ" or goddamnit" as profane, whereas the xtians most certainly do. Gambling- I can honest say I have been to a casino once in my life and lost 60 dollars and vowed never to return to that waste of time and money. However, xtians routinely hold bingo night. or is that not gambling? Gossiping- Have you ever stood around the church after service? Those folks love nothing better than to cut each other down and spread the "I heard" rumors. Retalition- only one comment- Spanish Inquisition Drukenness- I have never been a fan of drinking much less drinking for the purpose of getting drunk. Can any southern babtist redneck say the same? Lying- Ask any faith healer or tv evangelist about lying they know way more about it than I do. As far as raising my children to be moral, we have mostly taught them not to judge others simply by a classfication of beliefs, or even social class. I tak serious offense to the entire premise that xtian are the moral high ground for any society. I contend that xtians (as a whole not individuals) are waht has been the problem with the world fo the last 1600 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abmin9 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Christians don't gossip!!! They simply share prayer requests!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayclan01 Posted March 23, 2010 Author Share Posted March 23, 2010 i forgot to mention Sex with non spouse. Can you say Jim Baker, Jarry falwell? I on the other hand am faithful to my wife Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FourDogBrewing Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 This site is a crack up, I came across it when I first started researching and looking for answers. Needless to say, I didn't find any there. I too hate the whole "if you are an atheist you can't have morals" thing. One of the things that turned me away from christianity is how I kept noticing my non-religious friends had higher morals than my self professed religious friends. Anyway, welcome to the site Rayclan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godsfavoritecolor Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 ... 12. And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13. I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15. I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth." 17. So God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth." ... Has God already gone senile at this point? He needs a rainbow to remind him of his covenant? Would you call this omniposenility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird28 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Rabbits do eat their own poo. They make two kinds of poo, one partially digested and one that is fuller digested. They eat the partially digested poo to get more nutrients. Grass is hard to digest, and that is the solution that evolved in rabbits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 FROM: General Introduction for Non-Believers: Part 1, Are Your Beliefs Consistent with Your Worldview? we become emotionally bound to our worldview, so much so that worldview changes occur rarely, if at all. Since I am asking you to consider a worldview change, I am going to ask you to dump your emotional attachment to your worldview and consider the evidence apart from your emotional attachments. He says he grew up agnostic atheist, which he defines as "one who doesn't believe in God, but doesn't claim that no god exists" (Link). (What follows all comes from that link.) Since he is now a Christian, it seems he underwent a change of worldviews. This started in the 1970s. What bothers me is that he bases his beliefs on the state of scientific knowledge back then. In the language of the Christians who visit these forums, he never was a "real atheist"™. It is my conviction that "real atheists" ™ think things through so that they know what they believe and so that they can defend their beliefs in the face of the onslaught of The Enemy. Mere lack of scientific knowledge of the origins of life--or some other gap of information--cannot undermine a real atheist's conviction that gods are unreliable and inconsistent when it comes to real knowledge and ethics. As for changing worldviews, exChristians have obviously changed their worldview every bit as much as has an ex-atheist. And if he deconverted from atheism (excuse my religious terminology here because I think it really applies for his type) back in the early 1970s as he claims, and is still alive and writing, then he must have been a teenager or early twenties at the time. That means he is now retirement age more or less. The guy chose his beliefs as a young man, which Christians are supposed to do. Besides, this is so normal that, in my opinion, it can hardly be called a major shift of worldviews given that he held to the same basic beliefs for the next forty years. He hardly faced persecution of any kind. He probably experienced major praise and acceptance from the Christian community and perhaps a few dark looks and maybe even some initial hostility from family. However, if there is no mention of persecution, there most likely was none considering how much Christians love to elaborate on anything that can be twisted to look like persecution. So what's this preaching about us exChristians needing to consider whether our beliefs are true? And loving our worldview too much to change??? Obviously, we have already changed our worldview out of hard, unrelenting conviction that we must do this despite persecution and in some cases shunning by family and friends and loved ones. Get thee behind me, thou satanic worldview changing Christian! Thou knowest not that of which thou speakest! ...oops! Maybe he is not speaking to exChristians since he isn't on these forums. Maybe he is speaking to bred and born atheists like himself but who didn't switch to religion like he did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 FROM: General Introduction for Non-Believers: Part 1, Are Your Beliefs Consistent with Your Worldview? we become emotionally bound to our worldview, so much so that worldview changes occur rarely, if at all. Since I am asking you to consider a worldview change, I am going to ask you to dump your emotional attachment to your worldview and consider the evidence apart from your emotional attachments. He says he grew up agnostic atheist, which he defines as "one who doesn't believe in God, but doesn't claim that no god exists" (Link). (What follows all comes from that link.) Since he is now a Christian, it seems he underwent a change of worldviews. This started in the 1970s. What bothers me is that he bases his beliefs on the state of scientific knowledge back then. In the language of the Christians who visit these forums, he never was a "real atheist"™. It is my conviction that "real atheists" ™ think things through so that they know what they believe and so that they can defend their beliefs in the face of the onslaught of The Enemy. Mere lack of scientific knowledge of the origins of life--or some other gap of information--cannot undermine a real atheist's conviction that gods are unreliable and inconsistent when it comes to real knowledge and ethics. <snip> ...oops! Maybe he is not speaking to exChristians since he isn't on these forums. Maybe he is speaking to bred and born atheists like himself but who didn't switch to religion like he did... One of the main motivators for my deconversion was that the world does not operate at all as my Christian worldview would suggest. Prayers are not answered, the dysfunction of the brain changed things that were supposed to be "soul" (e.g. memory, will, personality, etc.), and natural explanations were available for things that religion had previously claimed. I had seen death and understood what it entailed, and resurrection of the body was impossible. Religious people were clearly misguided and mistaken about scientific facts (although not necessarily in my religion) and religious worldviews were inconsistent and sometimes downright harmful. Blind faith is no way to understand the world. I wonder if an atheist upbringing does much to persuade people that religion is bunk. I think not. It takes critical thinking, not just disbelief, and that has made all the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevoMuso Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Rabbits do eat their own poo. They make two kinds of poo, one partially digested and one that is fuller digested. They eat the partially digested poo to get more nutrients. Grass is hard to digest, and that is the solution that evolved in rabbits. Maybe it's called "chewing the crud" What really got me going on the site was this: Although, in theory, atheists can lead moral lives, the absence of an absolute moral foundation probably leads to moral drifting over time. Atheists don't have an absolute moral foundation??? And Christians do??? Do they READ their "foundation"? I have heard this statement so many times now it actually makes me nauseous. The assumption that a person without religion is not grounded on a foundation of morality is, IMO, extremely insulting. Which foundation? The 10 commandments? I don't need a book to tell me I shouldn't steal, kill, want other peoples things, rest on Sabbath and worship God. My view is that humans would be much more able to formulate a moral code that actually works if it wasn't for religion. A moral code should be a social skill not a religious duty (said before, I know, but it fits here sooo nicely). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Rabbits do eat their own poo. They make two kinds of poo, one partially digested and one that is fuller digested. They eat the partially digested poo to get more nutrients. Grass is hard to digest, and that is the solution that evolved in rabbits. Maybe it's called "chewing the crud" So much for the fringe benefits of all that sex when you're a rabbit. Looks like there's a big downside to offset that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevoMuso Posted March 28, 2010 Share Posted March 28, 2010 ... In the language of the Christians who visit these forums, he never was a "real atheist"™. It is my conviction that "real atheists" ™ think things through so that they know what they believe and so that they can defend their beliefs in the face of the onslaught of The Enemy. Mere lack of scientific knowledge of the origins of life--or some other gap of information--cannot undermine a real atheist's conviction that gods are unreliable and inconsistent when it comes to real knowledge and ethics. I wonder if an atheist upbringing does much to persuade people that religion is bunk. I think not. It takes critical thinking, not just disbelief, and that has made all the difference. My view is that there is a difference between "implicit" atheism and "explicit" atheism - and you guys have described both types in this thread. Implicit atheists are prime targets for conversion to Christianity. But there is another kind of "atheist" that I think describes the real reason some Christians say they "were once atheistic" and it's this: some people grow up being exposed to Christianity but due to our inherently rebellious nature as humans, reject the whole idea. These people SAY they are atheists because it's a convenient way to anger and annoy Believers, but in the back of their minds they feel guilty about not wanting to "get religion". To these people "getting religion" is compared to maturing beyond the wild teenage years and becoming more responsible adults, and a "conversion" to Christianity is bound to take place. This is why I don't accept the "I was once an atheist" statement from some Christians. It is not possible, IMO, for a genuine explicit atheist to ever become a Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts