Meta => well First all, I would be remiss, would I not, if I tried to claim that all Christians are wonderful, opnen minded, intellectual and harmonious? Secondly, that is an unrealistic standard. God does not transform us into glorious zombies for God, we are still human and we have human failings.



Meta => Exactly! The created another religion based upon it. The Moslims accept the Bible, that doesn't mean they are Christians! Not to say I'm comparing Moslims to KKK. Shall I tell you the story of the left? How the Stalinists and the Maoists squared off and killed millions of people and fought among themselves in the name of atheism? And how other atheists in capitalists nations oppossed them and supported the red scare? That's pretty unenlightened and discordent and yet i don't say that all atheists are communists or McCarthyites. Your whole line of reasoning is just based upon the genetic fallacy.



Meta => O did he say to follow the Law of Moses? It thought he said to respect those who sit in the seat of Moses. Is that the same thing? I don't think so. He was also talking to people before he dide so the new Covenat wasn't in effect yet. But at the "last supper" he instituted a "New Covenent." He never said not to plan anything, that's just distorting the facts. He said not to worry about your plans and not to chase after worldly possessions. Ha! I got that one down pat! You are just making hasey generalizations.



Meta => Right, that's socialization. You think atheists don't teach their kids from day one that capitalism is the only economic system that works? All socieites have socialization. And all socialization processes include submission to social institutions. The chruch is a social institution. It is still an impartant part of the fabrick of society, although due to radical secularization processes is less crucial that it was. But not all Christians teach there kids that everyone else is going to hell, that's just painting with a broad brush to reinforce your prejudices.



Nor can you explain what relevance this has to proving the Christian version of God.


Meta => I think that was in response to some charge that Christians are stupid and Christinaity is not true and anyone with any brains can see through it, ect ect. That it is true means its the most intelligent thing to believe, and that it at least has an intellectual defense means that it is at least as intelligent an option as others, so that seems relivant to me.

Meta => Is it? Show me in the NEW TESTAMENT where is says the 10 commandments and the law are still in effect? But you are theologically ignornat on this point. The 10 commandments are not part of the law of Moses in the sense of being included in levital and dietary laws. The moral content of the 10 commandments is still the summation of God's Moral law But the point is the moral law is witten upon the heart. We kee that through Grace because we want to please God and because (Romans 5:1) "love is poured into your heart through the Holy Spirit." Paul goes on to talk about the fruits of the spirit, which include most of the content of the moral law. So the point is, we live under grace. we do not have to meet the legalistic requirements of the law such as eating certain things, not eating certian things, worrying about what stage the moon is in to perform a certain cerimony, ect. But we do the things that God wants us to do, and we seek to do the Good because that is the influence upon our hearts. But we seek that through the heart, not in legalistic fashion.



Meta => right, in other words, They violate your ideology. Your ideology tells you that only naturlaistic things can happen so anything that vioilates that you define as "unintelligent." As for being unsubstantiated everything in history is "unsubstantiated" in an empiricial sense. As for as violations of the natural realm are concerned there is ample evidence that the materialist ideology devleoped in the enlightenment is totally wrong! From Quntum physics to the sigularity being beyond space/time, to Xray evidence of healings, to the prayer studies by Harris and Byrd, to the 600 studies on mental phenomena, there is ample evidence that the world is not mechinistic, that things happen which dont' conform to a standard perconcieved notion of cause and effect, and that the conventionalization of phsyical laws we concieve of is inadquate to describe the nature of the world.


See above.In point of fact, you have no idea as to their truth content or not. You are merely impossing a false standard based upon prejudice.[/QUOTE]

Meta => O reason is it now? OK,that's different. Than let's consider that for a moment. If you say that reason is what runs the world, than that would mean that the standard of reason has to be in the universe somewhere, otherwise what would make the universe conform to reason? So if that's the case where does it come from? How can there be this standard of reason to which all physical phenomena give asscent, and yet it's just there for no reason? and why couldn't we think of a universal standard of reason as God? But on the other hand, if reason is just in us, and it's just our ability to find patterns in a hodge podge of blind forces, than how do you know that our pattern finding abilities are equal to the task of describing everything that can happen?

This is just too long. I' was hoping to do other things to day. So I'll just let you answer that.

I think it's enough to say that your notions of things are based upon making big generalizations and not thinking critically about the real thinking tradition of Christianity. You prefur the easy targets. anyone can lambast the fundies and the KKK. Let's see you pick on Aqinas?

[/b]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Meta:
Because it's not what you believe! Ok you have taken on the burden of proof so put up or shut up!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You want to prove an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is on you. Can you prove it? No. Then your extraordinary claim is idiotic.


Meta => No that's wrong! It's hardly an "extaoridnary claim" when 2 billion people believe it. What is extraoridnary is the notion that the universe just poped out of nothing, laws of phyics intact for no reason and through a giant explosion produced a tempalte that causes everything to conform to a set of orderly laws capable of producing a life bearing universe, all for no reason with no prior source. Let's see you prove that.

But you are misguided about the natuare of proofs. All one needs to meet a prima facie burden is a rational warrent. Once having met that, which is established by any of a number of good arguments, it is the sketpics burden to show that the premia facie burden has not been met. But this is different, you are arguing that Christianity is stupid, irrational, worthless ect. that is your burden.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Me:
But no one does accept it [santa cluase] beyond the age of

6. However, 90% of people in the world are believers in some form of God. So all you are really saying is "I'm the only one who knows anything." Have you always tried to overcome feelings of inferiority through hositilty and arrogance?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Meta => Nope, sorry you missed the point. IT's not an appeal to authority. It would be an appeal to popularity but its not even that. You brought up Santa Clause. Your argument is that belief in God is analogous to belief in Santa. That opens the door for me to say "O not analogous and the reason is no one really believes in santa but they do believe in God." If I time I would show you that the differences in "gods" form one religion to another are irrelivant and trivial. Mostly they are differences in cosmogany and ritual not in the idea of a supreme being who governs the universe.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Me:
ahahahhhaha, God am I glad you weren't running the enlightenment! Even Voltiare understood more about religion that that! That is the most absurd bs I've ever heard. Your igornace is appauling! Christians invented free thinking, modern science, democracy, the nature of modern philsophy and contributed heavily to literature, the lions' share of great thinkers in the West were Christains while only a tiny handfull actually called themselves atheist. Even Olvier Cromwell allowed freedom of consciousence, The basic concept of human rights in civil society came from Christians. Grow up!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Meta => Because what I'm saying is basic common knowledge and needs no documentation. If it's so stupid than explain Collins and Toland, and the other socinian free thinkers in the late 17th century? They weren't atheists, they were Socinian Christians, which means the forrunners of unitarianism, but at that time they were among Christian camp. In fact Toland's book was called "Christianity not mysterious." As for science, all the major names were Christian until Bayle (1720s) Newton, Collins, Ray, Boyle, Gassendi, Clark, the list reads like a whose who of the Royal academy, all Christians. As for substantiating it, it's my dissertation topic. I have 147 sources that say that. Would you like the bibliography? As for creating democracy, in modern times, the reformation was forrunner of many of the democratic reforms, including Cromwell who, in the 1650s as head of the English protectorate passed laws mandating write of havious corpus and other basic gaurontees of civil rights. That is how such things entered British law, and eventually carred over to American law.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Me:
No historian I've ever worked with or talked thinks that. Put up or shut up. Put it on this board, come to my board, or do it on another board here, but I want to debate you on this. If christanity is so stupid you should have no problem winning a 1x1 debate with me. I'll even make a speicial board for it if you come debate me on my boards. What do you say?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You ought to change your user name to "Spammer4Christ".


Meta => Hey! I like that! I was thinking of Litergical Ludite, but Spammer4christ I might consider it. I have a suggested screen name for you too, "Rosemary's cute little babby." Jut kidding. No really, just a joke.

No, I am not going to come to your board. Given that your apparently a very well educated person, that such people are rare in Christianity, and that even you are quite a foolish person, I shudder to even contemplate the amount of idiocy I would be bombarded with by all your other Christian contemporaries at your board.

Meta => So I'm well educated but foolish, O that makes a lot of sense! And all you are saying is "I wont look through the telescope! NO it's a trick, those mountins can't be on the moon. I wont look!" Well on my board is a gradate stduent from Clairmont whose into process theology, one of the smarest people I know. A diest who works in a factory but is a geninus and loves modal logic. The atheist poster form sec Web, "Duskrunner" an atheist cum pantheist named "Code Mason" who posts on sec web now and than, and others, but all are very bright. O an athropology grad student from Penn State named Tiny Thinker, whose a genius and an agnostic. So it's a very bright bunch. Here's the link again.

<A HREF="http://pub18.ezboard.com/bhavetheologywillargue" TARGET=_blank>Metacrock:Have Theology,
Will Argue</A>


Given that even you cannot be reasoned with, I do not want to drive myself insane trying to get the rest of the idiots over there to think.


Meta =&gt; ahahaha, you mean I can't be brow beaten by you histerical antics.

I've tried, and it almost never works. For the most part, Christians are brainwashed individuals who just will not think, no matter what. I am not going to bend over backwards vainly trying to get them to do otherwise.


Meta =&gt; perhaps if you got some more education you would see the fallacies in your fallacy ridden thiking.

Anyway,historians have shown that Christianity is a dangerous worldview.


Meta =&gt; That is just BS! I am an historian as a matter of fact, and all the other historians I've discussed this with say "O what bull.!" Evne the atheistic ones, when I tell them about the things people on the internet say that I argue with, when I come to this line about "historians have proven that Christnaity is dangerous" even the most atheistic and humanistic ones says "tisk tisk the internet is the haven of the simple minded." that's what one of them said, another one, educated at Cambridge, said "why waste your time on such idiocy?"



Meta =&gt; In a nutshell, that's all I have time for, you just happen to be looking at countries where Christains were in charge. Look what happens when communists were in charge, or Buddhists, or Moslims, or anyone? The common denominator is humanity, humans are violent and aquisative, and that tends to bring about social and political problems. But in Western society, the Roman empire fell, civilization callapsed. The new civilization that came up after it was berift of the learning of the old. They were barbarians, they were violent and life was dangerous they had to respond to a violent situtation with more violence. As they slowly re-built learning, Chrisnaity became a political football, whoever controled the chruch controled the state, which made for a lot greedy powerful people using Christniaity to consolidate power. But over the centrueis they rebuilt civilization and Christianity did that too. It establblished abolition of slavery, basic human rights, institutions of learning, scinece, and Christians were at the forfront of all of that.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is just a big stupid fantasy. Christians were the first woman's sufferage group in america,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Meta =&gt; So what? There were atheists who supported slavery, and plenty of atheists who were against woman's sufferage. So why should the Christian slave holders be allowed to define the christian tradition and the abolitionists are just the marginalized tangent, while vice vera for atheism?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
first rights women got in writing in the Roman empire came from Christianity as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Compared to the Muslim nations which were far more kind to women during the 1,000+ year reign of Christianity over Western Europe.


Meta =&gt; O yea, making them ware veils and sowing up their you know what's that's really kind.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O really? Gee it seems that I have quite a few non-Chrisitian freinds who weren't murdered as infants, how did they miss that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meta =&gt; Hey if you think that, your understanding of history is a par with not having heard of Columbus. show me one masacure of anyone for not being Christian. Document it and show it. In the 19th century? In the 18th century? on back. The closest you will find might be the crusades, and that wasn't the issue, they didn't set out to kill anyone for not being Christain, they just wanted the Holy Land back. They were wrong, but that was their goal. Constantine forced conversions by the sword, so it is said I dont' know if that is proven. But that was in the routh century! Sorry, that is just an appauling understanding of history.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kindly document that and try to show when exactly there was ever a genocide against non-Christians speicifidally,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The 1,000+ year reign of Christianity over Western Europe, during which many many non-Christians were killed,

Meta =&gt; Firsrt of all that is not documentation. I didn't say give me your opinon I said prove it! Quote a history book! Secondly. "the 1000 year reign" is bs! First because Christanity didn't rule in Europe until about the 10th century. Secondly, you sure can't show any masacures of people for not being Christnas after the 10th century. Now the witch trilas only about 200 people died before 1450. After 1450 to about 16500 is when the mass of witch trials took place. They were not being killed for not being Christians. Now they did kicke the Jews out of England, but Cromwell let them back in, but they didn't kill them. They kicked them out of spain much earlier but they didn't kill them. Show me the exactly places and dates and quote an historian saying "this is what happened."


the spanish inquisition,


Meta =&gt; O I wasn't exepecting the Spanish inquaisition. NO actually that is backward thinking. They weren't persecuting people for not being Christians. They were persecuting their own for heresy. But that began about 1400 now why wasn't there an inquasition before that? If Christinaity is soooo evil and always leads to this sort of thing than why had it existed for 1000 years without an inquasition? Because around that time a certian kind of fanatical doctrine got going which had not existed before and which was not Christian at its core, it was actually more scientific in a certain sense, although along the lines of an alchemical model.

Now, who stopped the witch trials? atheists? No, it was Christian thinkers! In the ealry enlightenment. See the book by Issar Woolock, Enlightenment in Europe.

and the Crusades.


Meta =&gt; Rich nobels who wanted land. The early crusades were oppossed by the chruch hierarchy and there was never a uniformity to support for them.


Let us not forget the genocide against the indigenous populations of the Americas,

Meta =&gt; was not because they weren't Christians. It was become they stood in the way of Western expansion.


Africa and Australasia that happened at the hand of Christians.

Meta =&gt; Same deal, religion was not an issue.

Oh, almost forgot about the Witch trials of Salem, and the Christian KKK.


Meta =&gt; I already covered that. They were not killed for not being Christain. That is that speicial time when that doctrine arose and changed things for a time. And it was not the result of Christianity because how is it that they went for 1000 years and only about 200 people were killed before that period? Moreover pagans had witch trilas and killed witches. The Druids mission was to "kill the evil women who subvert the tribe with magic." That's in Cesar's Guallic Wars

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and while you are at it explian 50 million deaths under atheist regeme in China,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Where is your substantiation for this?


Meta =&gt; William F. Buckley jr.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and 20 mil under atheists in USSR? And don't try to hedge the issue by saying Stalin doesn't represesent atheism, I was a communist I know what I'm talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


They did not commit their atrocities because of atheism.

Meta =&gt; I could say the same thing about my guys. You chided me for the "but they weren't true christians" line, and here you are taking the same line.


If they killed all who were not atheists, most Communist nations would be a desolate wasteland with less people in them than a Joan Rivers concert.


Meta =&gt; I didn't say they killed everyone who wasn't an atheist, I said being atheists gave them a special hatred for Christians. They killed Christians and Jews. But here again you are taking the same line you chide me for taking. Moreover, if Christians killed all the non-christians why are there non-christians today? That is clelary a foolish position.


Communism itself is a Christian teaching and has been condoned and even supported by Christians (There was a Bishop someplace in Latin America who was a Communist, though I cannot recall his name at the present time).

Meta =&gt; That's ridiculous. As I told you, I was a communist, I know what i'm talking about. The CPUSA and the Fourth International (Trotskites) were both fircely pround of being athesits. They hated Christians and they definately saw themselves as fighting for atheism as well as for the workers. What you are refurring to is "liberation theology." It was not an indorcement of communism, but an alliance between natural enemies to fight a common enemy, capitalism. liberation theology never endorced communism. I was also a liberation theologian as a seminary student. I was supportive of Marxist ideology at the same time, but not Stalinism.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
totally ignoring the Christian missionaries such as Samuel Dutton Hinman who stopped slaughter of the Native Americans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh they did, did they? Is that why the vast majority of the Native Americans were slaughtered anyway?


Meta =&gt; Most native Americans died from either disease or from the slaughter of the buffalo in the 1870s by general Sherman. They were not killed for being non-Christians. No one bothered them for that. No new papwer atciles at the time suggeted that they should be killed for not being Christians. The issue of bieng "heathen" is not necessarily the same as being non-Christnias. They were non-Christinas who were seen to scalp and murder in horrible ways. That was ture, they did that, and it was also trumped up even more by the press. The real issue was that they were in the way of the reail roads and the gold rush. that's why Custer went to little big horn, because gold was discovered in the black hills.

I am wondering at this point, have you ever taken a history class?

But why is it that brave missionaires like Hinman (who also made a written langauge for the Soux and did other acadmeically important things) risked their lives for peace but they dont' get to define the tradition they almost died for, they still get lumped in as the evil Christians. But the communists who killed millions are not defining the atheist position. Look the only time in history that anyone every tried to start an atheist nation (2 times) wound up killing millions of people both times. Why doesn't that define atheism?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How would they be there if Christians hadn't have invented them? And what makes you think you can blame Chrsitanity for disease? As for science, Christians invented modern science. Every major name in the rise of Science from Capernicus to the founding of the Royal Socieity were Christians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ROTFLMAO! "Invented" modern science? Thats funny, seeing as how Christianity "coincidentally" flourished right after it lost its grip on humanity, how scientific thought "coincidentally" was much more prevelant in non-Christian countries when Christianity was ruling over Western Europe and how "coincidentally" virtually every anti-science movement, from Flat Earthers to the Tychonian Society to Biblical Creationism, is replete with Christians and Bible verses to "support" their ideas.


Meta =&gt; Do try taking a history class. The existence of little marginalized sects like flat earthers is not a major influence on anything. That doesn't wipe out the achevements of people like Newton, who was a passionte Christian. Every major scientist form the middle ages (and science did flourish in the middle ages, at monestaries like Charte and st. victor) to modern scientists like Alan Sandage. Christinas were the major contributors, every single great scientist from caperinicus to Newton was a Chrisian.

Moeover, Both Whitehead and major histoiran of science Collingwood say that without Christian assumptions of rational God creating rational world, scinece would never have gotten going in modern times and would never have surpassed the Greeks.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation! The undergrond railroad was a Christian project, the Quackers were working against slavery before the America revolution, and the first abolition group in the US was ran by Christians, who just happned to be the same methodist women led by Phebe Palmer who started the first woman's sufferage group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Meta =&gt; There are no Bible verses that are pro slavery. Paul says "slave traders are among the worst of sinners" and he says "be not a slave to any man." He says "It is for freedom you have been set free." It is foolish to say that the slave holders of the south represent Christianity better than do the abolitionists. The abolitionists died fighting for their beliefs, the southeners had an economic motive for twisting the Bible to their own ends. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movment were also motivated by the Bible.

And you are doing a huge injustice to all the Christinas who died fighting oppression, and I can show in everyone of the enstances you name that some group of Christians did die fighting that oppression. Why dont' they get to define the tradition? But when it comes to atheism you wont allow those who saw themselvs as working to free man of religious supersition, as the definers of atheist tradition? And it's for the same reason. You dont' allow the Christian fighters against oppression to define their tradition because you want to balme Christianity but you wont allow the communists to define atheism becaue that would prove you wrong.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KKK killed Christains they weren't Christians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is that why their symol is a glorified burning cross?


Meta =&gt; Yea, why is it burning?


Is that why they were so discriminatory against Catholics ("slaves" to the Pope)?

Meta =&gt; Catholics are Christians. Yes, that is why, they hate Christians. they are tolerant toward and use the Christinaity of souther protestantism because that's what they grew up with, but they hate Christ and have their own secret occult theology.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic factors led to witch trials,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As did Christian doctrine.


Meta =&gt; than why had only 200 died in the 1000 years before the witch trilas? It wasn't just Christian doctrine, it took a wrong turn with a new doctrien that had been introduced.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pagans had witch trials in england before Chrisinaity came there,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All the more reason to consider religion in general as just a dangerous plague of idiocy.


Meta =&gt; Circular reasoning. that proves it wasn't just Christian per se. Now see how biased you are? When it suits you the differences in other bliefs count against Christianity, but when it suits you all religion is alike?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and given all of Europe over 1000 year period the numbers overall are very low. Just 50,000, almost the same as Americans who died in Vietnam. vietnam was one conflict over a 15 year period (American involvement) but this is for all of Euopre over a 1000 year period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Given the much lower population, the pergentage of people skyrockets, and thus we see that, compared to the society that was being lived in, Christianity killed a whole shit load of people.

Meta =&gt; So did atheism. but in the 10th century there were 1 million people on the coast of Britony. So over that 1000 year peroid for all of Europe we are talking about a lot more than just 50.000 people. That's 50.000 out of several million.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove that they are Christians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


~shrugs~Its a well known fact among those who research hate groups. That you are too ignorant or lazy to discover it is not my fault.


Meta =&gt; O it's well known hu? Sorry that is not documentation. And not it is not well known In fact what is well known is that they have their own little version of things that is totally occult. I suggest you contact Jewish anti- Defimation league and ask them.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O BS prove that one single child is homeless because Christias didn't let that child be murdered! There are orphanages you know, and backlogs of waiting lists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Should we also discuss the women who are raped, the children born to a life of being crippled and the countries which are replete with starving people, all because Christianity preached against abortions, and against birth control in general (birth control means people are having sex, and Christianity has historically hated sex above most all things)

Meta =&gt;
ahahahahahaahahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh aha Look, first of all, you dont' document anything. Documentation means that you go get a source, a published source, peferably by an expert and you say "according to dr. so and so x number of people did this" and show where and when it is published. Just giving your ignorant opinon proves nothing. You cannot show me one example of a babby that is homeless because Christians dont' allow aborition. I don 'tknow if you have noticed by Christinas are no in contorl of america, aborition is legal here. In India that is not a Christian nation. Africa, complex facors of famine and civil war in almost every country. It is just absurd to think that you can link starving populations to anti-aborition policy. These are extremely complex issues to boild them all down to just one stupid idea "like Chrisinais are sutpid man, wow" that is childish, absurd, ignroant and totally arrogant.

Go learn something. Go to shcool take a history class!

Interesting. So faith small as a mustard seed can move mountains, but cannot do a simple thing like help Christians come up with a coherent definition of what Christianity is?
First, pretty much all Christians have invented anothing version of Christianity to suit their lifestyle. I have yet to see or hear of a single Christian that truly follows all the teachings of the NT (cut off your apendages so you won't sin; do not make intricate plans to do anything after the day you are currently in; work 6 days of the week; etc.), so your version of Christianity is just as concocted as the KKK's.
Second, atheist Communist didn't kill all those people because of Atheism. As I said; if they did, they would have killed all non-atheists. Yet they never did.
Third, Atheists do not claim to be on some divine mission to spread a perfect message to the world. They do not claim to be follow the teachings of, and under guidance by, a divine, perfect diety who wishes to spread his message to all of humanity. Yet Christians do claim this. Therefore they sure as hell ought to back it up and should not be making these big mistakes.
Your just dodging what your own holy book says:

The difference is that teaching your kids to embrace a political view is justifiable, because most political views have some intelligent part or rule of them that can be aplied to everyday life. Christianity, on the other hand, is a completely idiotic belief, one that is dangerous to society and damaging to the individual (Christianity makes a positive virtue out of feeling guilt, shame and self-hatred merely for existing), and there are no positive aspects of it that cannot be seperated from all its idiotic and negative aspects.
And you have not yet demonstrated this (I doubt you or any other Christian ever will, either).
Sure:

Interesting. Thats not what the Bible says, but its not very relevant because I was talking about a teaching of the Ten Commandments: "six days you shall labor and do all your work". You must work six days of the week. To not do so is a sin.
Ah, you have just started acting like a complete moron. I knew you would eventually. Ok, do tell how terrible my ideology is because it only accepts that which is scientifically possible. I'd like to know why, in addition to making an idiot of yourself, you also act like a complete hypocrite by rejecting every single account of the supernatural except that in the NT. Why not accept Zeus and Mount Olympus, Cyclopses and 9-Headed Hydras? Why refuse to believe that the Easter Island statues really did get where they were by getting up and walking? Hell, if somebody you knew claimed they used to have a red car, wouldn't you believe them? Well, if they said they had an intergalactic spaceship, why would you not believe them? Why not just accept every outrageous claim that every tom dick and harry comes along and tells you?

But not in a factual sense, and again; why not accept all the other supernatural accounts of other theologies and
religions?

Wow! All that evidence! Interesting that you have failed to present any of it. Would you please present evidence for:
A-People being healed by fatal diseases simply by one laying the hand on them and saying "be healed" (or some such thing) as Jesus did.
B-Evidence that people have done things like walked on water, as Jesus did.
C-Evidence that people have risen from the dead, as Jesus did.
D-A reason why nobody apparently can reproduce such evidence.
WHAT RELEVANCE DOES THIS HAVE TO PROVING CHRISTIANITY TRUE OR FALSE?
I'm sorry but you have acted like an idiot all through this thread and I for one am getting fed up with your
shenanigans. You have just now tossed out a load completely irrelevant rambling for no apparent reason. Please
describe what relevance this has to proving or dissproving Christianity, or get the fuck out of here.
Ok: I kicked Aqinas' ass and stole his lunch money.
That has no relevance at all, its just an appeal to authority.
What is extraordinary is that your so warped that you actually think this has any significant relevance to the conversation. It does not. If you even knew anything about history you would know that some of the most hardcore freethinkers were Deists (theists) who embraced arguments for theism like yours, yet bashed Christianity all the time.
Wrong. You make the extraordinary claim, your the one that is supposed to prove it, not I. If you
claim that the Easter Bunny is real, and I tell you such a belief it stupid, irrationa, worthless etc., I am justified in it (such a belief fits the dictionary definitions of those words). If you claim otherwise, you must provide proof for it. Its the same with Christianity: if you claim an invisible man in the sky sent his son down to magically heal the sick, walk on water, make prophecies and finally raise from the dead after being crucified, then you have to provide proof for it. If you don't, I go the same rout as critisizm of the Easter Bunny.
Wrong, my argument is nothing of the sort. My argument is that belief in the Christian version of God is analogous to belief not just in Santa but in other fictitious beings as well (Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc.). You have misrepresented my argument so the rest of your argument is dubious.
And these were all people who were Christian "coincidentally" at a time when the Christian religion was very popular. Do you not understand it? They were intellectuals in spite of Christianity, not because of it. Did you ever wonder why so fewer intellectuals now are Christians?
Oh and do amuse me: Tell me how:
A-Christianity, which hates science even up until this day, and has ever since science was invented, somehow "invented mainstream science".
B-How Christianity invented democracy seeing as how democracy is a foreign concept to the Bible, no Christian government has ever been much less than a theocracy, and things only got more and more democratic the less popular Christianity became.
Your actions here are a perfect demonstration of why I won't waste time at your board. You are unreasonable, irrational and foolish when it comes to Christianity. Reasoning with you is for the most part hopeless. Yet you wish for me to pull my hair out in frustration arguing with half a dozen other yous? I think I'll pass.
Ok: Communist countries suck. Muslim countries do, too, but Muslims were far more fair than
Christians back in Medieval times. Buddhist countries have yet to spend 1,000+ years slaughtering
all non-Buddhists, and in fact are very polite and passive. Most other democracies in the world are
very fair, far more than Christianity, in fact.
I've looked at it, it looks like Christianity is tied with Communism as the most dangerous philsophy
in the world.
And yet your religion states that your loving, all-powerful Christ is supposed to help people overcome
this. Yet he hasn't to any great degree, and the only thing that ever got humanity to its present state
of advancement, and that will give it any further advancement, is relying upon other humans and
ones self, to acomplish that which needs to be done, not waiting for some 2,000 year old dead guy to
come out of the clouds and save you.
And yet all these problems mysteriously became much less significant as soon as people began abandoning Christian philosophies.
But more importantly; you are ignoring the Christian theocracies that the Pilgrims created, as well as
those that came about in the early colonization of South America and South Africa.
Because atheists do not claim to be guided by some perfect being. They do not claim atheism is a divine concept that will solve all the problems of the world, or that accepting atheism automatically means being under the guidance of magical forces that will guide you down a righteous path. Christians, on the other hand, claim the exact opposite. You claim to be so damn great, you damn well better be so damn great, which means any little flaw in your philosophy means a lot more than a similar flaw in other, much less arrogant and supposedly "righteous" philosophies.
were. PAST TENSE, as in practiced more kindness to women than Christians did in medieval times.
Inquisition, salem witch trials, crusades, battle of blood river, etc.

Killing of the Indians would fall into that category.
Do you even realize how moronic that statement is? Who did they want the holy land back from? From those who were NOT Christian!

That you cannot even manage to be aware of the salem witch trials or the crusades is not my fault.
Good god your ignorant. I learned this in 9th grade history. Your a grown man with a college degree and you do not know it? Sad, so very sad....but what else would you expect in Texas?
But it had very heavy influence. If you dissagree, perhaps you could provide some evidence for all the pagan religions that had tons of converts on so many European nations?
Oh,and do tell, just why were they being killed? This should be amusing.

Oh, well, that makes it ok ~laughs~
Exacty dates and places of what, when, and where? Your being too vague.
Exactly, that "heresy" being dissagreeing with Christianity.

Charlamagne's holy roman empire performed similar acts of cruely centuries before the inquisition.
So what? Yet another group of people who were not "true" Christians? This shit is getting old. Other Christians stopping it no more justifies Christian atrocities than the U.S. government's condoning of slavery is justified because they eventually outlawed it.
And they were done by Christians out of hatred for non-Christians.
Oh, it was most definately an issue. If you do not agree, perhaps you could tell me why the more secular oriented governments of France, Germany and England left the native populations of Africa and India relatively intact, but the more Christian governments of America and Australia were so opressive. Hell, even in Africa you can see how the Dutch pioneers were exceptionally cruel...and were exceptionally Christian.
200? Wow. Before it was 50,000. Now you say its only 200. Then you critisize me for being innacurate.

Showing all the more how dangerous and fucked up religion in general is.
That settles it. You said the name of somebody. Well thats enough facts for me!
NOT. Real factual substantiation. Eyewitness descriptions, mass graves, records of killings, etc.
You have failed to comprehend the rather simple idea here: if they killed everyone who was not an atheist, why were there so many theists still around? Christians did kill as many non-Christians as they could in their atrocities, but atheists did not kill as many non-atheists as they could in their atrocities. The two are not the same. And again, atheism is not some divine, perfect, magically wonderful concept. Christianity is supposed to be, therefore it is held up to higher standards.

This is too stupid to even adress. Will somebody else cover this? I am not even going to waste my time.
Documentation, please. Please document all the times when communists refused to tollerate non-atheist philosophies. Very few communist nations have ever done this.
Since when does the slaughter of the indians only include what happened in Western North America? Look back in the history of the east and you'll see plenty of wars against them. And as I said; those nations which had less of a loyalty to Christianity were quite a lot less cruel to their native populations.
Oh yes, and thats one of the reasons why your ignorance baffles me, as some of the stuff I learned in high school history is apparently not known by you, someone who supposedly has a college degree.
Because there were nowhere near enough of them. I wonder why?

Because
A-They did not do what they did because of atheism. We have been through this quite a lot already: non-atheists were not massacred just for being such.
B-Atheism makes no claim to divine perfection or supernatural guidance in righteousness. Christianity does, therefore it must be held to higher standards.
I'm sorry, but you must just be blind. How many fucking times must I repeat it: THEY WERE SCIENTISTS IN SPITE OF CHRISTIANITY, NOT BECAUSE OF IT! And again, would you care to explain why virtually every anti-science philosophy in America is riddled with Christians, and why such a disproportionately large amount of Christians were anti-science throughout history?
Assuming they said that, and your not just making something up or taking their statements out of context, thats easily one of the stupidest statements ever. If you'd care to show any passage in the Bible that condones science, any part of Christian doctrine that invented the scientific method or any part of the general concept of blind faith in the supernatural, that has contributed significantly to science, along with an explanation for how this has happened, I'm all ears.
The NT also says for slaves to be obedient to their masters (not to run away), and there are OT passages that condone slavery (I'll dig them up later if you wish).
As were all the racist movements. You cannot have one without the other. Christianity has a negative side for nearly every positive thing it does.
Why don't the negative Christians define the tradition instead? Why only the positive ones?
Communism was neither done because of atheism nor does atheism claim to be divinely perfect like Christianity does. Do you see the difference?
What the hell else were they going to use to light it up? Light bulbs were not around then, and the burning cross is a tradition by now.
Documentation?
50,000 to 200. Amazing. Your excuse about them not being "true" Christians will not cut it, either.
there ARE differences in the beliefs and paganism was, as a whole, much more sane than Christianity. Thats simple fact. But both are idiotic and dangerous. Another simple fact.
I suggest you try to explain why racist hate groups invented their own version of Christianity (Christian IDentity), if one of the most popular ones (KKK) is not Christian. Shouldn't they be against it?
If the baby was aborted by its mother, it would not be homeless. If this country was not so discriminatory against abortion, the raped mother would have been more likely to solve the problem by getting an abortion. Christians are at the forefront of the anti-abortion movement. No more Christians, a lot less anti-abortion attitude, less raped women still having kids. Now do you understand?

But their values have very heavy influence. That much you cannot deny.
Yes, its a largely hindu nation. Religion fucked it up, because religion sucks. Famine which would not have happened had parents used birth control or aborted the kids that would end up starving to death.
That you are too much of an idiot to understand the simple equation: less unwanted children = (eventually) less fucked up adults does not speak well of you.

That quote or anything similar is found no where in the Bible. Nor does it sum up in any way what Christ had to say, nor does it sum up Christianity as a belief system. But other than that it is great.
But seriously, Christ came as a lamb. He never went around bullying people into obeying him and spouting off that he was God.
That is what the Son of God would do if the Bible were written by mere human imagination. It is not. It is devionely inspired. Think for a minute, If I wanted to come up with an evel plan to enslave mankind by writing a book about the son of God, Would he act like Jesus? A mild mannered fellow riding around on a donkey? Wouldn't a big Guy with huge pectoral muscles and cut abs shooting people with lightning bolts and flirting with all the women be more appealing to people?
Here is the sum of the Bible:
People sin. God is Holy and just. He must judge sin. But He loves us, so he came to earth to show how he wants to come down to our level and empathize with us, He doesn't like judging us. So He carried the cross that we should bear for our own sins and payed the penalty for us. Accept it or reject it is up to you, but the Christian message is not "I am God, do what I say!"

Cute Little Baby,

I think one of the more dangerous things that humans engage in is sterotyping. Its foundation is prejudice and bigotry. The atheistic bigotry you have presented towards Christianity is no less harmful or dangerous than any bigotry ever exhibited by Christians. Your heartfelt but vitriolic and sometimes misguided responses to Meta serve no purpose but to ridicule him and inflame the situation. As a fellow atheist, (I assume your an atheist), I would suggest knocking the chip off your shoulder and calming down.

Once you do this you may come to learn that Christianity is an extremely diverse religion and has always been. Attempting to blame all of Christianity because of the acts of some Christians is not logical. It is no more logical than them blaming all atheists for the acts of some atheists.

The fact is that there are a good number of peaceful, thinking, intelligent Christians in this world. All of your sterotyping won't change that. You can disagree with the philosophy (be sure you KNOW what your disagreeing with), but the vitriol that laces your speech is simply unwarranted and not worth it.

As an atheist I disagree with Meta. I don't believe the Christian God is any more real than Zeus, Allah, Brahmin or the great IPU. BUT a logical person will at least listen calmly to any evidence given for certain claims. They will critique that evidence (if they can) to determine if it holds up or if an argument is logically flawed in some way. And the logical person will do it without calling the other person an "idiot" or inserting "fuck" or "shit" in their responses. A person who does this is as much a "fundie" as any Christian ever was. They are displaying as much bigotry as any theist ever did.

Wow – I was hoping that by coming to a free-thinking board that I would free myself from the fundamentalist in-fighting of so many other discussion groups. But it seems that fundamentalism is a human characteristic that rears its ugly head regardless of a brand of faith or a lack of faith.

Let me start off by saying that I am NOT a Christian and I do have some serious problems with the institution of Christianity and the actions of some of its diverse fellowship. I believe that the men and women of Christian history are responsible for the atrocities done in the name of a Christian god, and not the religion itself. I believe that many followers of Christianity have done a pretty good job throughout the ages at suppressing free thought. This can be witnessed in so many events, none that I believe anyone here is unfamiliar with.

I also know many kind, rational, loving Christian people of varying denominations. I know quite a few hate filled, ignorant, narrow-minded Christian bigots. But I know the same to be true with those I am familiar with in Islam, Judaism, the pagan and Neo-pagan movements, Buddhism, atheism (as has been demonstrated here) and just about everywhere else human kind resides. So, religion cannot be the factor in determining just how a person will turn out. It can give us some indications as to how one might think, feel or believe. And as much as I actively participate in campaigns deemed evil by the Christian fundies, I am also joined by Christians in my battles. Unfortunately, I am not joined by as many as I would like.

So, what turns people into good or bad Christians, fundies or reformed, etc. ? I would say that it is worldly experience and perception. I perceive something to be beautiful and therefore it is beautiful (beauty is in the eye of the beholder.) Yet, another person can view the very same experience as an abomination. Why? Perception. Each of us has control over how we perceive the world. We can choose to make it ugly, or we can choose to make it something else. I have come to realize that when I search for the evil in people, I am certainly going to find it and my perception will be colored by this. I also know that the opposite is true. Both good and bad exist in everyone, and everything. Nothing is wholly good or completely evil.

When a person broadly paints a diverse group of millions (if not billions) of people, with one stroke and sees only the evil in that group without acknowledging the very real instances of goodness, that person falls into the perils of bigotry. I doubt very many of the Christian and atheist bashers will come out and say “All those damn black people are a bunch of gang banging, good for nothing, hoodlums who deserve to fry in the electric chair.” (Mind you I am the mother of a biracial child and find this kind of thought revolting) You would be attacked as a bigot and rightfully so. It is no different if you sling the epitaphs and stereotypes at any other group, whether they are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, pagan, Wiccan, Hispanic, Democrat, Republican, feminist, atheist or what not. It is no different, the label might be, but the actions and the result are the same.

Although some factions of Christianity are certainly deserving of a good tongue lashing, based strictly upon that groups actions, most Christian people are not deserving of such incrimination.

I am a strong proponent of many things, but I will use the example of my stance on women’s rights. I cannot tell you how often I have been labeled a feminazi (and I am SO NOT militant) because I staunchly support equal rights for all people, not just women. I have also been accused of being a lesbian more times then I can count, again because I support pro-choice, equal pay, equal treatment, etc. Not to mention that I support gay rights and don’t believe that any one should be discriminated against because of genetics, choice, religion, race, creed, gender or sexuality. Of course, this automatically makes me gay!! Of course those accusations don’t go away despite my long term relationship and up coming nuptials with a very real man! I am the mother of a biracial child and you can imagine the racial slurs I have suffered. I have tired of my conversations with Christians about the bible and have simply removed myself from those equations whenever possible. I am a heretic in every sense of the word, but frankly – I have gotten past the point of caring what they think. I am who I am and that will not change.

And as much as it pains me sometimes to hold my tongue and NOT stoop to the level of ignorance, prejudice and the reprehensible actions of those types of people – I will not lower myself to the name calling and stereotyping and thereby becoming what I say I despise most. Then they have won! Don’t stoop to the level of religious, racial, gender or sexuality vigilanties. If they use the Bible to justify their ignorance, well that speaks for itself.

Education is the key to dismantling the religious myths that make us all so angry. Bashing them in the same fashion they have bashed those unlike them is hardly becoming of a free thinker or a victim of that abuse. There is always going to be someone to bash you and try and take you down, but falling is a choice.

I, for one, want to be judged upon my merits and my actions, not by the preconceived notions people form about me based upon a narrow perception of certain aspects of me. I am multifaceted and not easily defined and I would say this holds true for most everyone.

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."
Albert Einstein

"It is quite proper to resist and attack a system, but to resist and attack its author is tantamount to resisting and attacking oneself, for we are all tarred with the same brush, and are children of one and the same Creator, and as such the divine powers within us are infinite. To slight a single human being, is to slight those divine powers and thus to harm not only that Being, but with Him, the whole world."
Mahatma Gandhi

Madmax,

First, your stereotyping of me does not speak well of you either: I am not an atheist. Metacrock remarked in this thread that he had "proof" for God's existence (or strong evidence of some sort). Did I debunk it? No, I merely said it did not at all prove his God. Hardly the actions of an atheist, huh? I merely defended atheism from unfair attacks against it.

Second, Christianity deserves to be discriminated against. Overall, its nothing but an ignorant, idiotic, dangerous cult that in and of itself, on its own intuition, has done little more than huge amounts of damage to Western society over the past 2,000 years. Just like the KKK has done lots of damage to the South. Just like Nazism did lots of damage to Europe. Just like Communism did lots of damage on several continents. Nobody is clamoring to defend any of those. Why is Christianity the exception?
Hey, I call em like I see em. Metacrock is overall an intelligent, reasonable person...except when it comes to Christianity. Then he becomes an idiot. Furthermore, he does not deserve much respect. Most Christians were either raised into it or threatened and bullied into it at a time when they were their weakest. These types are to be pitied, and their embracement of idiocy/Christianity is understandable. But people like Metacrock and Layman, Nomad, etc. - people who are educated, have lots of access to intellectualism, and can be free of Christian brainwashing, yet nevertheless choose to embrace Christianity anyway...such people have no claim to being worthy of a great deal of respect. They had every opportunity to embrace intelligence, but they chose idiocy (Christianity) instead. They had every opportunity to break free of it, and were presented with probably all the evidence which disproves it, but guess what? They believe it nonetheless. They are educated fools. Furthermore, they go out and preach to others, using their intellect to intimidate them into joining their ridiculous, dangerous, ignorant cult. Such people as metacrock are scum.

I am not an atheist, and I have no chip on my shoulder. Unlike you, I am free enough from society's brainwashing to be able to see how obviously full of shit all of Christianity is.

Christians claim to be exceptionally superior to everyone else via their "Connection" with God. They are always bragging about how God changes their lives, how their loving Jesus dwells within them, etc. Well then, if they are so fucking perfect they sure as shit better act like it. Any little fuck up Christianity makes should be considered much more significant than those of other theologies (or lack thereof) such as atheism, agnosticism, etc., which make no claim to perfection or supernatural guidance.

Furthermore, there are no significant atrocities (from a historic or global scale) that came about because of atheism. Metacrock's nonsense about Communist atrocities being because of atheism does not count, because he still has not explained how atheism would instigate such a thing or why they did not kill all non-atheists. Christianity, on the other hand, has many atrocities that are due solely or greatly to its teaching. The inquisition, crusades, salem witch trials and quite a lot of the genocide against the American Indians, would never have happened were it not for Christianity. Christianity kept Europe engulfed in ignorance and superstition for (roughly) a thousand years. To this day Christianity has been at the forefront of ignorance: homophobia, anti-womens rights, anti-science attitude (creationism), all are riddled with Christians using their Bible and theology to support their views. Christian doctrine itself states that all who oppose it are bad. Christians esteem a philosophy and being which consider all non-Christians as some sort of sub-human scum who deserve to be tortured forever. Christianity has contributed little other than atrocities, ignorance, prejuidice and arrogance to the human race ever since the moment of its conception. And you wish for me to ignore this?

And this means what to me? Its the usual excuse given by those who refuse to admit that Christianity is a bunch of prejuidice, dangerous bullshit: "but not all Christians are fundies, many are tollerant, bla bla bla". So what? Know this: as long as they are not speaking out against the Fundies, they are not much better than them. I have seen interviews with Klan members who claim they hate nobody and merely wish to embrace pride in their race. But how often do you see them rallying against the violent factions of the KKK? Not too often. Its the same with "tollerant" Christians: sure, they don't shove the Bible in their face. But I don't see them preaching against the Christians who do. They don't seem to be against them. They have no problem with asociating with, and considering as Christian, Fundies. They sure as hell aren't against them, they seem to be for em. They are not much better then. Until I see all these supposedly "tollerant" Christians spending as much time fighting the Fundies as the Fundies do fighting the rest of the world, I'll group them in as sympathizers, just as I would with "tollerant" KKK members or "polite" gang members.
Its usually not worth it, I agree. Metacrock has already demonstrated himself to be an idiot, as is every single Christian in the world when it comes to their religion. But its fun to debate them still.

FUCK that! Seriously, being prejuidice and intollerant of prejuidice and intollerance (such as Christianity) is not a bad thing, anymore than being prejuidice and intollerant of the KKK is a bad thing. The reason I swear is because I usually loose my cool after trying to explain the most simple, easy to understand things to Christians. Metacrock is a fool who is too blinded by his ridiculous superstition to think, in spite of the most obvious facts against his belief. I can only take so much before I get pissed, but rest assured my anger against Meta (and other Christians) ignorant bigotry is hardly unjustified.

[b[brighid,[/b]
Then your flat out wrong. The atrocities done in the name of Christianity would not have been done if Christianity did not exist, and were done mostly because of Christian doctrine, therefore: the religion was responsible for it.

There are tons more bigoted, ignorant, hateful Christians than those other religions in this country. If Christians do so little to speak out against, and have so little problems with, the Fundies, its not too difficult to conclude that they are not much better than the Fundies.
So what? Many evil things were done in the name of Christianity. Without Christianity, they would not have been done. Christianity was responsible for it. Christianity is at fault. Whats so difficult about this to understand?

Back the fuck up and cut this bullshit out. This is an insult to all those who truly were given unfair opression in life. Christianity is a way of life. Got it? Its not an ethnic, national or racial group. You are not born into it, you choose to be part of it and can leave anytime you want. Do you disslike the KKK and Nazis because of their negative actions, even if there are some "nice" KKK members and Nazis? Of course you still disslike them. Why then should Christianity be the exception? Its an arrogant, ignorant, prejuidiced philosophy just like them. It ought to be treated as such. Comparing the Christian faith, who's holy book mandates bigotry, is full of atrocities, who's philosophy has been responsible for irrepairable damage to the world, claims itself superior to all who oppose it, esteems torture and sub-human status to all who oppose it, who's members are commited to forcing their beliefs on everyone else or else not complaining about those who do...comparing this to ethnic or racial groups who suffered intense persecution merely because they existed, is not only a stupid comparison, its insulting.
Until they complain about those factions of Christianity and seperate themselves from them, they aren't a whole lot better.

Bede

One question, cute little baby. How old are you?

Just wondering.

B

brighid, thanks for your post.

I think Cute Little Baby brings up an interesting point. Though brighid, Madmax and I have been focusing on the Christians we know that we respect, CLB is pointing out the ugliness of the Christian Bible, the past atrocities of Christianity, and the intolerant and arrogant aspects of Christian theology and culture. As CLB points out, Christians such as Metacrock, Nomad, Layman, and others are quite reasonable and intelligent people, but their belief system damns the rest of us to an eternity of teeth gnashing, sulfur, fire, or whatever the latest view of hell is. It also declares us all 'fools' in no uncertain terms.

So what's going on here? Do all Christians agree and think we are ignorant fools who will spend eternity burning in hell for thinking that the evidence for evolution is good, that the evidence for souls is bad, and that the historical record doesn't provide much convincing proof that the Creator of the Universe lived among us? My guess is that most Christians just try not to think about it much. They generally ignore the Old Testament. They hope that God in his mysterious ways will lead us reasonable and intelligent atheists to belief in him somehow.

I meet with a Christian group on campus to discuss various issues and they seem genuinely amazed that there exists an intelligent friendly atheist. What have they been taught? What strange beliefs exist in the Christian culture that would lead them to be surprised that a reasonable and intelligent atheist would sit down and talk with them?

Reading through the Bible, it is no wonder that the Christian culture has a strange confused view of nonChristians. To make sense out of why nonChristians are nonChristians, they have to imagine some sort of mental or spiritual defect that prevents them from accepting the 'obvious' truth. This exists in a variety of forms, and as CLB pointed out, can go to the extremes of questioning nearly every aspect of science in order to see the universe as 6000 years old.

Most Christians at these forums would claim that their view of Christianity is a much more enlightened one. Then, as CLB asks, what are you doing to fight the destructive beliefs of the less 'enlightened' Christians? NonChristians certainly have no power over influencing unreasonable Christians. So it's up to you Christians to influence other Christians. Perhaps there is too much of tendency to see Christians as 'united' under a common goal of spreading Christianity, and the 'nonessentials' can be ignored, such as the exact manner in which Christianity is presented and the attitude that Christians have.

And now I'm wondering... Do you Christians think I am a fool for saying there is no God? Keep in mind that I was a Christian for many years (and don't tell me I wasn't really a Christian) and have delved deep into every subject that is relevant to the issue of whether or not God exists and Christianity is true. I did not lose my faith over some incident that made me mad. I simply delved in the issues of religious experience (lack of), evolution (creationists are masters of bad info.), and the evidence for Christianity (lack of anything convincing). Am I a fool for noticing that people find it easy to believe in religions that aren't true? Certainly Christians think the same. Am I fool for noticing that Christians act and think like nonChristians? Am I fool for thinking that the fossil record gives a strong indicating that humans result from evolution? When exactly did the 'spiritual blindness' take hold that led me to think it is more reasonable to not believe in Christianity than to believe in it?

Christians need to figure out exactly what they think of nonChristians and why. And when you've figured it out, please try your best to inform the less 'enlightened' Christians of what you've decided. And if you reject the Old Testament's version of God, let the world know. Have it removed from your Bible, perhaps. Let other Christians know that rejecting evolution is not necessary for being a Christian. In other words, please straighten out the crazy Christians, just as I and others try and straighten out the crazy atheists. No offense meant, Cute Little Baby.

Bede

PhysicsGuy,

Firstly, apart from expressions of regret, which even the Vatican is now doing, there's nothing very much we can do about what happened five hundred years ago. I do get annoyed by idiots who claim Christianity is some uniquely bad thing based of a false view of the past but I care about history more than most.

Second, I don't thing anyone is going to burn for eternity. I only ever hear atheists claim most Christians believe this but I'm sure there are a few Christian throw backs to the middle ages who have told them so. When atheist bring this up, it is a strawman as far as I'm concerned. When Christians bring it up I will state my point of view.

Third, I'm a neo Darwinist. If you ceased to be a Christian because you thought it was incompatible with evolution then you would be foolish, but I'm sure you have other reasons. I am sick and tired of the so called 'debate' about evolution and my website has a long essay on my views. I've never bothered with the board about it here. ID is more fun but ultimately unconvincing. That said, I don't think it matters much whether people believe evolution or not. It doesn't stop them driving safely or being good bank managers. I'd rather US education system taught people where Canada is before worrying about Darwinism.

Fourth, the atheist equivalent to creationist is the Jesus myth. In our every day lives it doesn't matter much but in academia you'd get as shorter hearing for it as you would creationism. Yep, there are exceptions but I certainly place them in the same pseudo scholarship box.

More later.