What kind of "Christian values" do Conservatives want?

rjhenn said:
The definition of atheist is one who lacks belief. You have to believe as you do because deep down you understand that your belief system is meaningless.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Correct, but that's not what the militant atheists online are doing. They're proselytizing just like the theists they accuse as I've proved several times previously.

I agree beliefs, be it atheism or theism, are factless and purely based upon faith. There is zero evidence either way. As Cypress previously pointed out, the only truly logical position is agnosticism. Any Atheists and Theists pushing their beliefs are doing so based on faith not facts.

Sent from my rotary phone in the 1970s

Cypress said:
I find agnostics are generally not emotionally invested in mocking all religious people as SBS admits she as an atheist subscribes to.

Ignorant bible thumpers deserve derision. But I would never be such a complete jerk to suggest all religious people should be mocked.

In some respects, atheism is an emotion- based quasi religion itself.
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
My theory is this:

Agnostics are the truly principled, disinterested secular observers. And they typically do not let their emotions and ego drive them to relentlessly "debate" people of faith.

Many atheists are not disinterested observers, they are emotionally invested in their atheism in an almost quasi- religious way, and it relentlessly drives them to seek out and "debate" those they see as religious
Click to expand...
Religion is an attack on reason and many theists spend much of their time attacking anyone who doesn't believe as they do.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
rjhenn said:
As opposed to the deliberate insults about militant atheists?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, but it goes both ways. Again, the online militant atheists and "militant theists" are pushing their factless beliefs by all verbal/text means possible including insults.


Sent from a cathouse....built by cats.
 
rjhenn said:
Those "reputable scholars of antiquity" agree that they were told that Jesus existed. None of them had first hand knowledge. It's not even clear that what they said about Jesus wasn't inserted later by Christian 'scholars'.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So the existence of a historical Jesus was just all a hoax, eh?

No one alive ever met Socrates, we have nothing written by Socrates, and we only know about him because Plato reports his existence. But reasonable people agree that a man named Socrates lived in 5th century BC Athens based on the existent record.

It is only your Church of Militant Atheism, and an emotion-driven agenda that causes you to reject the scholarly consensus of expert historians, and substitute your theory of a hoax in their place.
 
Cypress said:
So the existence of a historical Jesus was just all a hoax, eh?

No one alive ever met Socrates, we have nothing written by Socrates, and we only know about him because Plato reports his existence. But reasonable people agree that a man named Socrates lived in 5th century BC Athens based on the existent record.

It is only your Church of Militant Atheism, and an emotion-driven agenda that causes you to reject the scholarly consensus of expert historians, and substitute your theory of a hoax in their place.
Click to expand...

But if someone said they thought it was more likely that Socrates never existed, that wouldn't be such a crazy point of view, right?
I still think Socrates and Jesus did exist, but it's not militant to question their existence.
 
rjhenn said:
Religion is an attack on reason and many theists spend much of their time attacking anyone who doesn't believe as they do.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Disagreed on your assumption. Obviously anyone who believes so only believes what is in front of their face. By that logic, there is no other life in the Universe except on Earth because there is zero evidence it exists.

As discussed at length previously, spiritual beliefs, specifically the realm of existence not covered by the Natural Universe, and the mental and physical Universe, all that is covered by the Natural Universe, are different things. Those who seek to overlap them by very much either don't understand the issue or are fucking morons. There for, faith and reason rarely overlap so it's silly to say atheism or theism are an "attack on reason" since they are purely faith-based beliefs.

Sent from the red bra section at Target
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Yes, but it goes both ways. Again, the online militant atheists and "militant theists" are pushing their factless beliefs by all verbal/text means possible including insults.


Sent from a cathouse....built by cats.
Click to expand...
Their "factless beliefs" are simply a lack of belief in the "factless beliefs" of the militant theists.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
So the existence of a historical Jesus was just all a hoax, eh?

No one alive ever met Socrates, we have nothing written by Socrates, and we only know about him because Plato reports his existence. But reasonable people agree that a man named Socrates lived in 5th century BC Athens based on the existent record.

It is only your Church of Militant Atheism, and an emotion-driven agenda that causes you to reject the scholarly consensus of expert historians, and substitute your theory of a hoax in their place.
Click to expand...

It's you who has the "emotion-driven agenda". You are desperate to have something to support your irrational beliefs.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
StoneByStone said:
But if someone said they thought it was more likely that Socrates never existed, that wouldn't be such a crazy point of view, right?
I still think Socrates and Jesus did exist, but it's not militant to question their existence.
Click to expand...

It would defy logic.

Using radiation to identify structures has been around for almost a century. One way it was described was as having a tent with an anvil inside. The position and shape of the anvil is suspected but unseen, therefore unknown. A machine gun is set up and shoots bullets in a logical pattern across one side of the tent then the shooter goes to the opposite side of the tent. Even though the existence and sight of the anvil are still unknown, an anvil shape is seen on the other side of the tent thus giving evidence of existence without ever actually seeing it.

The same goes for Homer, Socrates and Jesus. Their actual existence is indicated by the impact they had on others even if we understand our view of them is as limited as identifying an anvil by bullet holes in a tent.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
It would defy logic.

Using radiation to identify structures has been around for almost a century. One way it was described was as having a tent with an anvil inside. The position and shape of the anvil is suspected but unseen, therefore unknown. A machine gun is set up and shoots bullets in a logical pattern across one side of the tent then the shooter goes to the opposite side of the tent. Even though the existence and sight of the anvil are still unknown, an anvil shape is seen on the other side of the tent thus giving evidence of existence without ever actually seeing it.

The same goes for Homer, Socrates and Jesus. Their actual existence is indicated by the impact they had on others even if we understand our view of them is as limited as identifying an anvil by bullet holes in a tent.
Click to expand...

:oprah:
 
rjhenn said:
It's you who has the "emotion-driven agenda". You are desperate to have something to support your irrational beliefs.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it is silly of you to deny you are doing exactly the same.

Sent from my 1980s Motorola Brick phone
 
StoneByStone said:
But if someone said they thought it was more likely that Socrates never existed, that wouldn't be such a crazy point of view, right?
I still think Socrates and Jesus did exist, but it's not militant to question their existence.
Click to expand...
Especially given the high probability that Christians altered historical texts to support their religion. They've altered the Bible.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
StoneByStone said:
But if someone said they thought it was more likely that Socrates never existed, that wouldn't be such a crazy point of view, right?
I still think Socrates and Jesus did exist, but it's not militant to question their existence.
Click to expand...

I never said it was crazy. I said denial of expertise and scholarly consensus is a sign of someone making conclusions based on emotion at best, intellectual dishonesty at worst.

I am going to assume anyone who outright rejects the scholarly consensus on the historical Jesus is also a climate denier and anti-vaxxer.

The fact they really, really, really wish it were true that a historical Jesus never existed is the hallmark of an emotion-based fealty to the Church of Militant Atheism
 
rjhenn said:
Especially given the high probability that Christians altered historical texts to support their religion. They've altered the Bible.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mentioned before that with all the Fake News in modern times, history is probably a mess. And we already know for sure that Christians altered the writings of Flavius Josephus. This is especially important because Josephus is the go-to source for secular historical writings on Jesus.
 
StoneByStone said:
:oprah:
Click to expand...

You epitomize militant atheists. Thanks for reaffirming your entire intellectual capacity.

41oxjq.jpg
 
Cypress said:
I never said it was crazy. I said denial of expertise and scholarly consensus is a sign of someone making conclusions based on emotion at best, intellectual dishonesty at worst.

I am going to assume anyone who outright rejects the scholarly consensus on the historical Jesus is also a climate denier and anti-vaxxer.

The fact they really, really, really wish it were true that a historical Jesus never existed is the hallmark of an emotion-based fealty to the Church of Militant Atheism
Click to expand...

But if someone thought it was likely that Socrates didn't exist, would you say it was emotion-based fealty?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Disagreed on your assumption. Obviously anyone who believes so only believes what is in front of their face. By that logic, there is no other life in the Universe except on Earth because there is zero evidence it exists.

As discussed at length previously, spiritual beliefs, specifically the realm of existence not covered by the Natural Universe, and the mental and physical Universe, all that is covered by the Natural Universe, are different things. Those who seek to overlap them by very much either don't understand the issue or are fucking morons. There for, faith and reason rarely overlap so it's silly to say atheism or theism are an "attack on reason" since they are purely faith-based beliefs.

Sent from the red bra section at Target
Click to expand...

They are beliefs based on nothing but wishful thinking. It is statistically certain that there is other life in the universe. You accuse others of arguing from emotion because you can't conceive of arguing from any other basis.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top