Which is more irrational?

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Which is more irrational?

I'm just interested in what other atheists think is the more irrational - the Old Testament or New? Obviously both are very irrational, but I have to go with the New - it includes a virgin giving birth, a man rising from the dead, the concept of hell, etc.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Symok
Symok's picture
Posts: 63
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
Ahh, but the OT has a man

Ahh, but the OT has a man living inside a big fish, a man being made out of dirt, a woman turning into salt... Deffinitely a tough call.


TheDude27
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Old.  Why would it take an

Old.  Why would it take an omnipotent person/thing ANY time to create anything?  Maybe dramatic effect?   6 days and he's tired? I know college students with more stamina.

Every living creature on one boat come on...

The OT is so damn crazy even theists try to back away.


Krehlic
Krehlic's picture
Posts: 240
Joined: 2006-12-29
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to have to go

I'm going to have to go with the OT, mainly because of creation story, noah's flood, giants, plagues, evil god, babel, super old people, super bears, supermen, burning bushes, bread falling from the sky, big fish that eat people and spit em out alive after seven(?) days, people turning into salt, supposedly holy men screwing their daughters, heaven is in th sky (ascend), talking snakes, flaming swords, physical angels, etc, etc, etc. 

Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
The OT. "In the

The OT.

"In the beginning..." There was no beginning.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Old testament, easily. See

Old testament, easily. See all above posts.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Old Testament.

Old Testament.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Your definition of what

Your definition of what "irrational" is leaves much ambiguous. I personally see no irrationality, of course, but I see no reason to say that the virgin birth, or hell, or the possibility of resurrection is irrational, per se. A virgin birth could happen by God's fertilization of an ovum by a miracle. There is no absolute logical contradiction. Likewise, hell is absolutely possible. No logical contradiction. Whence the irrational?

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


V1per41
V1per41's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Your

StMichael wrote:
Your definition of what "irrational" is leaves much ambiguous. I personally see no irrationality, of course, but I see no reason to say that the virgin birth, or hell, or the possibility of resurrection is irrational, per se.

How do you not see that belief in a virgin birth is irrational?  Not only is there no reason to believe in any of those things, but science has proved that they are impossible.

StMichael wrote:
A virgin birth could happen by God's fertilization of an ovum by a miracle.

Of course a god would first have to exists in order to do such a thing.

StMichael wrote:
There is no absolute logical contradiction. Likewise, hell is absolutely possible. No logical contradiction. Whence the irrational? Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

How about a square circle?  sounds like a logical contradiction to me.  Right along side an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being.

 

Back on topic: My vote is for the OT.  Noah's ark is the most irrational story in the entire book. 

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
First, there is good reason

First, there is good reason to believe that these articles of faith are true from miracles that support the one whose authority reveals them.
Second, God's existence is a matter of natural knowledge that does not need Revelation. You can read my blog post on that.
Third, no contradiction exists in the statement that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent being exists.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Diosdato
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: I'm just

MattShizzle wrote:
I'm just interested in what other atheists think is the more irrational - the Old Testament or New? Obviously both are very irrational, but I have to go with the New - it includes a virgin giving birth, a man rising from the dead, the concept of hell, etc.

Well, personally, I find the theory of biogenesis and evolution patently irrational. Considering that evolution is still an unproven theory, it takes more faith to believe that the statistical improbability of biogenesis or macroevolution occured without an intelligent designer than anything a theist believes.

To believe that you are the result of random chance tells me you have more faith than any Christian I've ever met. 


Roly1976
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I think the NT is more

I think the NT is more irrational. After all the OT is more like a combined racial history / set of laws / literary hero cycle than a simple religious text, recounting hundreds of years of half-remembered events, stories, laws and general mad shit.  It's like a combination of the Odyssey, Socrates' teaching and Hessiod, if the Greeks had been monotheistic and chased around the desert for a thousand years, losing some parts, making up others etc.

The NT on the other hand was written well into Roman times, when real civilization was properly established: concrete buildings, libraries, running water, astronomy, trade, representational art, the rule of law (albeit at the point of a Roman spear), medicine, etc was widespread across the Mediterranean and Near East.  That large numbers of people actually fell for it shows the extraordinary power of delusion that zealots / con men can tap into.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Doesn't it strike you as odd

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the entire Greek and Roman civilizations, the inventors of philosophy and culture in the West and possessor of all scientific prowess, would fall for something totally and utterly irrational? I mean, come on. The entire Roman Empire became Christian fairly speedily, considering the persecutions. It would be a far greater miracle if they became Christian without any evidence that Christianity's claims were true.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Doesn't it

StMichael wrote:
Doesn't it strike you as odd that the entire Greek and Roman civilizations, the inventors of philosophy and culture in the West and possessor of all scientific prowess, would fall for something totally and utterly irrational?

Christianity was swept to power in the Greek and Roman world by the military conquest of Constantine, not the strength of their arguments. If not for Constantine, you'd probably be trying to convince us we were fools not to believe in the god Jupiter instead of this Jesus character.

I'd say that the god of the OT was more irrational, saying and doing things that just don't make much sense for a god. At least in the NT they had figured out that if a god were to exist, sacrificing people, animals, etc. to him would be just nutty.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
V1per41 wrote: StMichael

V1per41 wrote:
StMichael wrote:
There is no absolute logical contradiction. Likewise, hell is absolutely possible. No logical contradiction. Whence the irrational? Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

How about a square circle? sounds like a logical contradiction to me. Right along side an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being.

What does a "square circle" have to do with anything? I don't see what your point is.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Diosdato I want you to do

Diosdato I want you to do something for me:

Put your hand out in front of your face - and now bitch-slap yourself as hard as you can for misrepresenting evolution and misusing the word "theory."

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


V1per41
V1per41's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote: V1per41

MrRage wrote:
V1per41 wrote:
StMichael wrote:
There is no absolute logical contradiction. Likewise, hell is absolutely possible. No logical contradiction. Whence the irrational? Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

 

How about a square circle? sounds like a logical contradiction to me. Right along side an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being.

What does a "square circle" have to do with anything? I don't see what your point is.

 StMichael said there was no such thing as an absolute logical contradiction.  I was just pointing out that a square circle is an absolute logical contradiction.  Thus negating his argument.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan


V1per41
V1per41's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
Diosdato wrote: Well,

Diosdato wrote:

Well, personally, I find the theory of biogenesis and evolution patently irrational. Considering that evolution is still an unproven theory, it takes more faith to believe that the statistical improbability of biogenesis or macroevolution occured without an intelligent designer than anything a theist believes.

To believe that you are the result of random chance tells me you have more faith than any Christian I've ever met.

Did you ever think about actually learning about the theory of evolution before comming in here and saying it's irrational?  I would really suggest that you go and learn about it from an actual scientific source rather than some creationist propoganda site.  When you do that, feel free to come back and show us your evidence for a designer. 

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I did not claim that logical

I did not claim that logical contradictions do not exist. Your statement that hell is an absolute logical contradiction, like a square circle, doesn't make any sense. Why is it? You don't explain.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


V1per41
V1per41's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
I wasn't claiming that hell

I wasn't claiming that hell was a logical contradiction, I was more claiming that the definition of your god was.

I'm assuming that your god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good.  If I'm wrong in any of these assumptions, please let me know as I don't want to be accused of making a straw-man.

If you god is all good, then it should want everyone to go to heaven correct?

According to your holy book the only way to get to heaven is through Jesus.

Your god has the power to make sure everyone knows about Jesus.

Your god created millions of people knowing they would never hear about Jesus, let along not believe in him.

Therefore your god is creating people knowing full well that they will go to hell and have no hope of ending up anywhere else.

This contradicts the assumptions I made above of your god being all-good.

These leads to 2 possible conclusions. 1) I defined your god incorrectly, in which case, by all means correct me. 2) Your god doesn't exist has his definition is a logical contradiction.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan


Roly1976
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
One of my favourite God

One of my favourite God contradictions is this:

Suicide and murder are gross sins in Christianity.

Jesus is God, and God is Jesus, and he / they are omniscient and omnipotent.

So Jesus was born knowing he would be killed, through the actions of the very people he created.

So isn't that either suicide, murder by proxy or at very least utterly unfair on Judas, Pilate et al who were pawns in this weird game!


Symok
Symok's picture
Posts: 63
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
Diosdato wrote: Well,

Diosdato wrote:

Well, personally, I find the theory of biogenesis and evolution patently irrational. Considering that evolution is still an unproven theory, it takes more faith to believe that the statistical improbability of biogenesis or macroevolution occured without an intelligent designer than anything a theist believes.

To believe that you are the result of random chance tells me you have more faith than any Christian I've ever met.

 You're either a liar or an idiot.

1) Evolution is a FACT. "Natural Selection" is a theory of how the PROCESS of evolution occurs. "Theory" DOES NOT MEAN GUESS.

2) Evolution is NOT random chance. Your whole "statistical improbability" statement is pure, concentrated bollyotz.

 I don't know why I'm bothering to tell you all this. Any xian stupid enough to put out that kind of argument is obviously not really interested in learning anything.

Someone needs to develop time travel technology so we can send people like this back to the Dark Ages. They wouldn't be able to cause any damage to the timeline, since they don't know anything about modern science anyway. 


melchisedec
melchisedec's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Doesn't it

StMichael wrote:
Doesn't it strike you as odd that the entire Greek and Roman civilizations, the inventors of philosophy and culture in the West and possessor of all scientific prowess, would fall for something totally and utterly irrational? I mean, come on. The entire Roman Empire became Christian fairly speedily, considering the persecutions. It would be a far greater miracle if they became Christian without any evidence that Christianity's claims were true. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

Thats a weak argument because there were a multitude of pagan beliefs running rampant among the Greeks and Romans. Very irrational and very prevalent. 


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
A multitude of various

A multitude of various beliefs. And these beliefs were not purely "pagan." Most of it was considered to be allegorical, if you knew much about paganism. Vast numbers of folks were Stoics and Epicureans in Rome and Greece at the time of Christ. They were philosophers, not idiots.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2830
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:  A

StMichael wrote:

 A virgin birth could happen by God's fertilization of an ovum by a miracle. There is no absolute logical contradiction.

In fact, there are several

Using 'god' as a referent in a statement commits a stolen concept fallacy.

Arguing causally for the supernatural is a second stolen concept fallacy. 

References to miracles is a special plead fallacy (I.e. I can't explain it, so I'll cop out of explaining altogether by asserting "miracle&quotEye-wink

There's probably more errors there as well....  

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Diosdato
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Symok wrote:  You're

Symok wrote:

 You're either a liar or an idiot.

THe idiot part is debatable........Let's compare ACT, SAT scores, W-2's or anything else that you would use to determine someone's level of intelligence.

Symok wrote:

1) Evolution is a FACT. "Natural Selection" is a theory of how the PROCESS of evolution occurs. "Theory" DOES NOT MEAN GUESS.

Touche, I agree that the process of evolution is constantly at work. What is not FACT is the origin of life.  Sorry for mis-wording my statement. If you believe that the origins of life are accepted as fact you are the idiot.

Symok wrote:
 

2) Evolution is NOT random chance. Your whole "statistical improbability" statement is pure, concentrated bollyotz.

Once again, you're right. Man you guys really pick a part a sentence. You're not only rationalists, you're literalists. My statement of statistical improbability was directed towards the theory of biogenesis, not evolution. I can see how my wording was errant.

Symok wrote:
 I don't know why I'm bothering to tell you all this. Any xian stupid enough to put out that kind of argument is obviously not really interested in learning anything.

Someone needs to develop time travel technology so we can send people like this back to the Dark Ages. They wouldn't be able to cause any damage to the timeline, since they don't know anything about modern science anyway. 

That wasn't very nice. The sad thing is, I was once like you. I was lost in the darkness of unbelief. As I have stated before, my beliefs are not the result of religious indoctrination, but by the providence of God when I was a freshman in college. I didn't believe in God until I researched the scientific evidence for both evolution and creation. I read The Blind Watchmaker among other books and couldn't get over the same hurdle Stanley Miller ran into. Life cannot be duplicated nor created from the materials available in the early atmosphere.  This discovery led me to first believe in an intelligent designer. This was the first step in my theist walk. The argument for which god to follow is a whole other tale which I will be more than happy to expand on if you like. 

I'm a theist who agrees that some of the most heinous and disgusting acts in history and recent times were and are done in the name of religion. I agree with you that people must be freed from the concept of fear that drives most religions. My bible says:

"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." 1 John 4:18

Furthermore, John goes on to say:

"We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen." 1 John 4:19-20

Those Christians that spread fear are wrong!! God doesn't want us to choose Him out of fear, but out of love and admiration for his Creation. I am truly sorry for the "religion" of hate that American Christianity has become. God will have a severe punishment for those "Christians" who go about doing things in Jesus' name, yet turn and kiss the devil in private. 

The problem with the indoctrination of America is that man has twisted the message of God to fit their personal desires and wishes. I go to church, teach Sunday school, work with the youth group, but I maintain a certain level of doubt when it comes to a man's modern interpretation of the bible. My personal view on the bible text is not something I try to impose on others, rather, I find it more interesting to study the facts and history surrounding biblical texts. My Sunday school teaching is more of a historical perspective than a interpretive study. My prayer life and my personal time with the bible is when God uses his Word to speak to my personal situation.

Religion is not supposed to be a outward thing as far as running around and forcing others to agree. It is my duty, to share with others what has been a true blessing to me, just as I would share a tip for a great restaurant or tv show. Those people that run around condemning others will find out the hard way that God's message is love not fear.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Just assuming it is a stolen

Just assuming it is a stolen concept is not an argument. There is no logical contradiction in speaking of the virgin birth of Christ. Also, God is quite a proper referent. He is related to us as cause to effect, hence meaningful statements about Him do exist. Further, your own statements must be false as well, committing stolen concept because you clearly are referring to God as a referent.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Symok
Symok's picture
Posts: 63
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
Diosdato wrote: Symok

Diosdato wrote:

Symok wrote:

1) Evolution is a FACT. "Natural Selection" is a theory of how the PROCESS of evolution occurs. "Theory" DOES NOT MEAN GUESS.

Touche, I agree that the process of evolution is constantly at work. What is not FACT is the origin of life. Sorry for mis-wording my statement. If you believe that the origins of life are accepted as fact you are the idiot.

I never claimed that evolution had anything to do with abiogenesis. I don't think I've ever seen an atheist make that claim, but I HAVE seen it made on NUMEROUS occasions by Xians.

Quote:
Symok wrote:

2) Evolution is NOT random chance. Your whole "statistical improbability" statement is pure, concentrated bollyotz.

Once again, you're right. Man you guys really pick a part a sentence. You're not only rationalists, you're literalists. My statement of statistical improbability was directed towards the theory of biogenesis, not evolution. I can see how my wording was errant.

Arguments relating to statistics are just as irrelevant when applied to abiogenesis.

Quote:
That wasn't very nice.

Considering your replies here, I apologize for my statements. You have demonstrated that you are more intelligent than I gave you credit for. I hope you can understand my reaction, considering the "evidence" you presented is usually presented by the ignorant who have no idea what they're talking about.

Quote:
The sad thing is, I was once like you. I was lost in the darkness of unbelief.

Well, I'm just the opposite. As a child my mom used to drag me to church every Sunday. For a while, I bought into some of it. As I grew up, though, I began moving away from it, through Deism to Agnosticism and, finally, deciding that belief in any form of gods was ridiculous.

Quote:
As I have stated before, my beliefs are not the result of religious indoctrination, but by the providence of God when I was a freshman in college. I didn't believe in God until I researched the scientific evidence for both evolution and creation.

There IS NO "scientific evidence" for creationism. If there were, the religious community would have written papers on it, and they would have been published in SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS.

Quote:
Life cannot be duplicated nor created from the materials available in the early atmosphere.

Unfortunately, I don't have the link. But I do remember reading some time ago that some scientists were able to generate some form of amino acids (If I'm remembering correctly. I admittedly may not be) in an artificial environment which simulated what is believed to be the conditions of our planet in its early years. Maybe someone else here remembers this and still has a link to it?

Quote:
I'm a theist who agrees that some of the most heinous and disgusting acts in history and recent times were and are done in the name of religion. I agree with you that people must be freed from the concept of fear that drives most religions. My bible says:

"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." 1 John 4:18

I don't think there's anyone here who will deny that there is SOME good in the Xian bible. We contest, however, that it's goodness can exist independently of it.

Quote:
Furthermore, John goes on to say:

"We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen." 1 John 4:19-20

1 John has a number of quotes about it being bad to hate your brother. And yet:

John 14:26 (KJV) wrote:
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Interesting, no?

Quote:
Those Christians that spread fear are wrong!! God doesn't want us to choose Him out of fear, but out of love and admiration for his Creation. I am truly sorry for the "religion" of hate that American Christianity has become. God will have a severe punishment for those "Christians" who go about doing things in Jesus' name, yet turn and kiss the devil in private.

(snip)

Religion is not supposed to be a outward thing as far as running around and forcing others to agree. It is my duty, to share with others what has been a true blessing to me, just as I would share a tip for a great restaurant or tv show. Those people that run around condemning others will find out the hard way that God's message is love not fear.

#4

 

Once again, I appologize for being rude in my earlier post. Unlike some Xians I have dealt with in the past, I am more than willing to admit when I've been wrong.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13154
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: I'm just

MattShizzle wrote:
I'm just interested in what other atheists think is the more irrational - the Old Testament or New? Obviously both are very irrational, but I have to go with the New - it includes a virgin giving birth, a man rising from the dead, the concept of hell, etc.

From what I understand, it would technically have to be the new. Since the new is supposed to add to, not detract from, the old. So the new is basically the old and the new put together.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: MattShizzle

Vastet wrote:
MattShizzle wrote:
I'm just interested in what other atheists think is the more irrational - the Old Testament or New? Obviously both are very irrational, but I have to go with the New - it includes a virgin giving birth, a man rising from the dead, the concept of hell, etc.

From what I understand, it would technically have to be the new. Since the new is supposed to add to, not detract from, the old. So the new is basically the old and the new put together.

Oh, Snap!


Diosdato
Theist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Symok wrote: Well, I'm

Symok wrote:

Well, I'm just the opposite. As a child my mom used to drag me to church every Sunday. For a while, I bought into some of it. As I grew up, though, I began moving away from it, through Deism to Agnosticism and, finally, deciding that belief in any form of gods was ridiculous.

I am truly trying to be respectful here when I say this as it may be a delicate matter, but I noticed you said your mom used to drag you to church.  Quickly, I want to say that I am not judging, nor accusing you of being fatherless, or anything else insulting, so please don't take it that way. I am curious why you didn't say parents or "mom and dad"?

I ask this not to say anything insulting or to accuse your parents of some sin. I ask because I am starting to see the truth in a quote by Brennan Manning : “The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, and then walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.” 

For all I know something terrible could have happened to your dad or you could have said it that way for a myriad of reasons, I just hope you do see that I am not wanting to show you any disrespect with my question.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Another thing to make the

Another thing to make the New more irrational - Revelations. This chapter was obviously written by either a psychotic or someone under the influence of halluncinatory drugs.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


V1per41
V1per41's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
Diosdato wrote:

Diosdato wrote:
...

I am starting to see the truth in a quote by Brennan Manning : “The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, and then walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.”

...

Now see, I always thought that the single greatest cause of atheism was reading the bible with an open and inquisitive mind Smiling

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan


Symok
Symok's picture
Posts: 63
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
Diosdato wrote: I am truly

Diosdato wrote:
I am truly trying to be respectful here when I say this as it may be a delicate matter, but I noticed you said your mom used to drag you to church. Quickly, I want to say that I am not judging, nor accusing you of being fatherless, or anything else insulting, so please don't take it that way. I am curious why you didn't say parents or "mom and dad"?

Its no problem at all. Quite simply, my dad didn't go to church and wouldn't have cared whether or not I went.