Margot
Verified User
And over medicated
Ignorance and the Bible
- Thread starter domer76
- Start date
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
What's the false premise? Your assumption that we're all meat robots of no more value than our component parts? That nothing exists beyond the physical?
The links made the argument. Christian Nationalist is a non sequitur. It's like bombing for peace or fucking for virginity.
Then why did you claim ignorance?
I'm baaaaack.
This is a political message board. Religion and politics are entwined.
Anyone who is mocking Christianity on this board, is doing it in public. I attend a public discussion group where Christianity is routinely mocked and belittled.
Thanks for not disputing my premise that a vocal minority of militant atheists and moral relativists on the left gave Republicans the opportunity to paint the Democratic Party as an atheist organization which has utter contempt for Christianity and traditional Midwestern values.
It shouldn't be a mystery to anyone here why Democrats are now routinely losing Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, West Virginia, Ohio, when we used to frequently win those states.
Just felt like you interjected politics because you weren't getting anywhere with just complaining about atheism.
Remind me again who is mocking Christianity on this thread?
Sorry to hear that. It sounds unpleasant.
I never said that. Why would you suggest that I did?
I don’t dictate what Christians do or do not believe. That’s up to the dogma of their own sect.
You can correct me if I’m wrong, but there are at least a couple of precepts that are required.
The Trinity
The acceptance of the resurrection and that Christ died for everyone’s sins.
That the Christian god is omni-everything.
Sad that that’s the best response you have. No substance.
Based Chad
Was it me?
The false premise is that there is only one god defined - the Christian god - and his believe or be eternally damned requirement.
There’s zero evidence of the supernatural. ZERO.
A comment on that, if I may:
That is not a correct etymology of the word "atheist."
Actually, atheist came into the English language BEFORE the word theist...so it could not have. The construct "a" (without) + "theist" (a belief in a god) = without a belief in a god...is totally incorrect.
Atheist came into the English language from the Greek through the French...and derives: "a" (without) + "Theos" (a God) = without a God. "Belief" has nothing to do with the etymology. In the mid 20th century, however, debating atheists wanted to disassociate themselves from any "beliefs" at all...so that they could say that their use of "atheist" derives from a lack of belief rather than a belief. And they were successful...sorta. But any reasonable debater of an atheist will raise this error.
There was a time there was zero evidence of galaxies other than the one in which we are located. ZERO.
Now we know there are trillions of them.
Using the word "supernatural" makes no sense. If a GOD exists...IT EXISTS. It is as natural as grass or apples...if one exists. (Or several) Anything that exists...exists...whether we humans know it or not...whether we humans can detect it or not. We do not know if some things exist that we puny beings are not able to detect.
That's poor logic. Just because atheism showed up in 1583 and theism shows up in 1600's does NOT mean that the construction of the word cannot be a negation of the position of theism.
Perhaps you can show us in the OED where it says this is NOT the reason for the construction.
Based Chad
Was it me?
you people are lost.
Like who? Name some "true Biblical scholars" who are atheists.
There's a very large amount of space between believing that there is more to existence than the physical and "dogma indoctrination". I'm not a dogmatist and consider all religious texts as advisory and needing to be put in context of their times.
Modern atheists often say that “a majority of scholars…” say certain things regarding the reliability of the Bible. When we press these individuals on precisely who these scholars are, we find that they are most often atheist or progressive scholars who do not believe God exists in the first place.
A List Of Conservative And Liberal Bible Scholars
Modern atheists often say that “a majority of scholars…” say certain things regarding the reliability of the Bible. When we press these individuals on precisely who these scholars…robertcliftonrobinson.com
https://www.amazon.com/Robert Clifton Robinson/e/B00FWI6YI2/ref=la_B00FWI6YI2_pg_1?rh=n:283155,p_82:B00FWI6YI2&sort=author-pages-popularity-rank&ie=UTF8&qid=1497308090
We might wonder why a person would seek an advanced degree in Biblical studies, only to spend their life and work trying to impeach the Bible.
I would press people on what exactly they mean by "scholar".
To me, a scholar is someone with a PhD at a reputable university who does original research in their field of expertise.
I don't consider TikTok 'scholars', YouTube scholars, or Blog scholars to really be in that league.
With that definition in mind, I've never seen evidence that the majority of Religious scholars or Biblical scholars are atheists
Based Chad
Was it me?
Based Chad
Was it me?
Sam Harris is an unhinged loon.
Nothing poor about my logic. The etymological construct of "atheist" is set out in etymological dictionaries. You can look it up. It came as I said...and I was speaking of its etymological. The etymology cannot have come as a negation of theism....theism did not even exist in English until decades later.
Perhaps! But if you do your own work and look up the etymological framework, you will see it is exactly as I described.
Google "etymology dictionary."
the etymology of atheism is french based on greek "a" without and "theos" God.
Correct. That is what I said.
Which means that atheism simply means without God.
Which means that it is not a belief system qua belief system. Just as NOT playing baseball is not itself a sport.