Atheists Pressure MI School District to Stop Treating the Birth of Jesus as Fact

[Earthling]

The one that you tried to claim was fulfilled by Jesus' transfiguration.

Oh, let me scroll to recall what your objection was . . . okay . . . the fall of the temple was not the prediction. Let me look that up . . . I don't even know what thread it was in. It would be quicker to look up my original draft.

Temple, temple, temple . . . I don't see anything about a temple in the short part about the transfiguration. In fact, the word temple doesn't appear throughout the entire article.

 

[Earthling]

Apparently I was wrong. I do need to explain it to you. Science tests its hypothesis for repeatable results. They makes predictions with it. They test the results. They have others test the results independently. They compare notes. They do research. They do not just make crap up in their heads and call it science. That's what religion does, mostly so.

And . . . you're a Christian. Don't question the survey, and religion just makes crap up.

And you doubted my skeptical approach to the survey that concluded Christians believe in evolution since I doubt most Christians have anything to do with Christ.

Have you ever noticed the smarter people think they are the dumber they seem to be?

Just wondering.

Which is actually the time you probably should! If I saw some building from the 1800's standing out in the middle of some field, I sure as hell would think twice about walking inside of it.

Excellent point, actually. I'll have to try and remember that should I come across such a scene. But I was thinking more along the lines of interpretation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It makes perfect sense. Science isn't out to discover what they already know. It is speculation. That's not an insult unless you mistakenly think, as you said, that science is fact. Theory and science isn't indisputable fact. It is speculation limited to current understanding and always subject to change or correction.

No. At best you do not understand the term "speculation" . Speculation may come into play very early in the game, but after it is stated as a formal idea, a scientific hypothesis. And even more.So after it is tested and confirmed. Then it begins to move into the realm of scientific theory. And when tested and confirmed countless times it becomes a scientific theory. A much higher realm than fact. Scientific theories explain facts. For example the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. Calling that speculation is both an insult and a lie.

If the bridge or building is standing for some time, as it would be in most cases, there would be no need for inspection.

No, no, no. Quite the opposite.

Friday Marks 7 Years Since I-35W Bridge Collapse

I used to drive across that bridge regularly. For almost 2000 years we use to trust the Bible implicitly. Now that we investigate it, the book collapses, just as that bridge did.

Have you read the Bible?

Reading it is not enough.

 

[metis]

IMO, any religion or denomination that rejects what well-established science has been telling us is simply bogus. I grew up (or at least tried to ) in a church that taught against the ToE but came to realize that this position is simply untenable based on the overwhelming evidence for the evolution of life.

At first, I thought all Christian denominations believed that the ToE is bogus, but when I talked with a priest at a bowling alley I found out otherwise. However, my conversion to Catholicism didn't occur until much later and was not based on the church's stand on the ToE but on my study of theology.


BTW, the Catholic Church does not insist that one must accept the ToE as a literalist interpretation is also viewed as being acceptable, and it teaches as such because the main importance is that God created all in some way, and that's viewed as being more important than a specific belief as to how exactly how God did it.

 

[Windwalker]

And . . . you're a Christian. Don't question the survey, and religion just makes crap up.

Are you suggesting that Christians should be uncritical of those who just dismiss surveys that challenge their beliefs, who do not actually have or present any reasonable reason to doubt the survey, not having even looked at the actual question asked before launching into how it "could" be a bad survey?

If you have good reason to question it, then present the facts from the actual survey, not your conspiracy theories.

And you doubted my skeptical approach to the survey that concluded Christians believe in evolution since I doubt most Christians have anything to do with Christ.

Again, you do not qualify to be a skeptic. A skeptic uses critical reason to look at all possible explanations. Your approach is that of a cynic, who dismisses something as bad because they don't like it personally (which is exactly what you do with evolution). Like neo atheists who say anything "spiritual" is "woo woo". That's not skepticism either. It's cynicism. It's what you do. Hence why I said you'll make a natural neo-atheist one day. Cynicism lacks integrity. Skepticism does not.

Have you ever noticed the smarter people think they are the dumber they seem to be?

Have you ever noticed how that really smart people don't think they are? It's usually those who feel intimidated by them who try to make them look dumb by fabricating nonsense about them. It's pretty obvious. "Them damn over-edumacated hosiers! They think they's so much smarter than the rest of us dummies! Hah! What do they think they knows that we don't?". Something along those lines.

Excellent point, actually. I'll have to try and remember that should I come across such a scene. But I was thinking more along the lines of interpretation.

Yes, it applied to interpretation as well, quite pointedly. If we have more knowledge today than scholars in the past, why then do you elevate the past while you ignore more current knowledge? Is how we thought hundreds of years ago more authoritative to you, somehow? That's your problem of inconsistencies, again.

 

[leibowde84]

If you actually want to be consistent, just abolish all public celebration of Christmas entirely.

It certainly shouldn't be celebrated in public schools. But, I say we just ditch the religious implications of Christmas and keep the family, generosity, good tidings, etc. aspect and make it a national holiday.

 

[ecco]

Celebrations around the time of the Winter Solstice predate Christianity by thousands of years.

Yes, but none of those are specifically the Christian holiday celebrating the Nativity of Christ. Falling around the same day doesn't make them the same holiday.

Tell that to the early Christians who decided to put Jesus' mythological birthdate at the winter solstice to try to win over pagans.

See, guys, you can still celebrate your winter solstice holiday, but you should know that it was really Jesus's birthday.​

 

[ecco]

Yes it could. From God's perspective. Just because someone interprets the scripture different than I do doesn't mean that they don't believe in the Bible.

The point was being made to me that most Christians believe in evolution. I doubt this, but I countered the argument with the idea that more Christians believe in the Bible than evolution. It's a general statement that switches the position to demonstrate the moot point of the original argument.

If your original argument was moot, why did you bother making it?

All my friends are doing it! If all your friends were jumping off a cliff would you do it? The argument itself is weak because the poor idiot probably would jump off a cliff if all his friends were doing it.

Yet people blindly follow their parents, relatives, and friends into religious beliefs. Even false and dangerous ones. I guess you consider them to be poor idiots too.

 

[Earthling]

If your original argument was moot, why did you bother making it?

I thought I explained that pretty well.

Yet people blindly follow their parents, relatives, and friends into religious beliefs. Even false and dangerous ones. I guess you consider them to be poor idiots too.

Of course.

 

[ecco]

Verifiable means nothing to me.

Now if it demonstrated what I know about the Bible to be false I would jump right on it. But that isn't the case. You know that and I know that.

Do you really understand what you just wrote?

Of course I do...

If someone presented evolution to me in a manner which demonstrated that my beliefs in the Bible were wrong, it would be up to me to decide which I believe, but if it were true I would renounce my beliefs and believe in evolution. I don't want to believe in a false God.

Your above comments are nonsense. You write "If someone presented evolution to me...if it were true I would renounce my beliefs".

However, you previously stated, "Verifiable means nothing to me".

So, no matter how it is presented, no matter how verifiable it is, you would disregard it.

That's not big news. Anyone who has read your posts over even just a few weeks knows that you disbelieve evolution because it conflicts with your deeply ingrained religious beliefs. In this regard, you are no different from all other Fundie science deniers.

Stop being disingenuous. Just state that you believe the bible and you will never believe evolution.

 

[ecco]

Like nonsensical failed predictions about Jesus return? If people making such predictions are wrong on multiple occasions, how ignorant must the followers be to continue believing?

A Response To The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: What The Bible Says About The End Of The World

The SAB
<snip>
as the same day as they died, though it actually had been thousands of years.

When addressing your comments to me it is a waste of time and effort to cut and paste a bunch of biblical verses or lengthy web page excerpts. I do not bother reading them.

If you have something to say, then you should say it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And just how does this speak to your claim that the number of bible believers is somehow relevant to the number of those who believe in evolution? After all, that is the thrust of your rather odd comment in post 102 that's at issue. The one where you said:

"The Bible is the truth and the truth shall set ye free! More Christians believe in the Bible than anyone believes in evolution."

.​

.

Which he's now claiming not to care about

 

[ecco]

Yes, please do. The Watchtower is by Biblical definition false prophets, are they not?

By biblical definitions, it's OK to own and beat slaves.
By biblical definitions, people shouldn't eat lobster and crab legs.
By biblical definitions, women should be removed from their home for 3/4 days every month.

Why would any rational person turn to "biblical definitions" for any reason?

Thought I was one, huh?
Pay attention!

One cult is as good and as bad as any other. You don't list your religious affiliation, so don't complain.

 

[ecco]

Put simply if Adam wasn't created and then sinned,

Do you acknowledge that your god knew aforehand that Adam would sin?

thus requiring the sacrifice of Jesus Christ then it's all pointless and false.

What sacrifice? God has His alter ego, the Holy Ghost, impregnate a young betrothed virgin. The resultant offspring does nothing much of anything for about thirty years. He then goes around preaching for a couple of years and returns to heaven. That's a sacrifice? What was sacrificed?

 

[ecco]

Have you ever noticed the smarter people think they are the dumber they seem to be?

Mirror, mirror on the wall...

 

[ecco]

Yet people blindly follow their parents, relatives, and friends into religious beliefs. Even false and dangerous ones. I guess you consider them to be poor idiots too.

Of course.

Yet, you do not see yourself in this.

 

[columbus]

Yes.... there is always "a difference" to make it ok. It is always "different" I'm always at a loss at what rights Christians have that others don't.

Is the money you give your religious club tax deductible?
Does your church pay property taxes?
Tom

 

[Earthling]

Yet, you do not see yourself in this.

I was an atheist until 27 years old.

 

[Shiranui117]

Tell that to the early Christians who decided to put Jesus' mythological birthdate at the winter solstice to try to win over pagans.

See, guys, you can still celebrate your winter solstice holiday, but you should know that it was really Jesus's birthday.​

Nobody claims that Jesus was born on December 25th, and if they do then they clearly don't know their early history of Christianity. If Christ was born in the spring or summer or fall, that doesn't make one iota of difference to us. We didn't split the Feast of the Nativity from the Feast of Theophany on January 6th and move it to the 25th to win over pagans or because we thought it was His birthday. Moreover, the 25th is not the solstice. That would be between the 20th and the 23rd. Now if you mean we moved the Feast of the Nativity to the same day as Sol Invictus (a holiday which was invented in the year 274), then you would have a point. It is certainly possible that we moved the Feast of the Nativity to the 25th so pagan converts to the faith wouldn't have the temptation to relapse into paganism. But that doesn't make Christmas a pagan holiday. That would make it a Christian replacement of one.

 

[ecco]

I was an atheist until 27 years old.

For some reason, more than a few holy rollers like to claim that they were once atheists. It never fails to amuse me.