You forget to mention an important detail:
There was no creation [in the young earth sense] ..... you fail to mention that there are other views about the subject among theists. Blanket statement again.
Eden
EdenOne
JoinedPosts by EdenOne
-
226
You atheist really annoyed me
by confusedandalone inwhen i first came to this site.
whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.
talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.
-
-
-
226
You atheist really annoyed me
by confusedandalone inwhen i first came to this site.
whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.
talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.
-
-
EdenOne
I learned in Law that the burden of evidence is on the side of the accusation, not on the side of the defense. If science admits that the existence of God cannot be disproved, why should theists be sweating to prove atheists wrong?
If you attack ideas rather than people, then why does it often sound like you're attacking the bearer of the ideas? For example, why did you resort to an ad hominem attack on me and my website when I posted a comment on this thread regarding how some former JWs turned atheists still carry some traits from JW's?
Eden
-
226
You atheist really annoyed me
by confusedandalone inwhen i first came to this site.
whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.
talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.
-
-
EdenOne
Cofty,
Just as someone can be a Christian without attacking other people's beliefs or lack thereof, someone can be an atheist without attacking the beliefs of theists. i actually know many atheists that don't bother to try to persuade others of the reasons why they choose to not believe in God.
Then there are the atheists who actively attempt to proselytize others into thinking that God cannot exist. This is just as legitimate as a theist trying to persuade other that his belief makes more sense than other beliefs.
But then there are those atheists who actively promote the notion that theists are idiots and ignorants for believing in something that they consider to be a fabrication. They actually go out of their way to actively insult the believers.
Yes, there are different levels of activism among the atheists.
Eden
-
226
You atheist really annoyed me
by confusedandalone inwhen i first came to this site.
whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.
talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.
-
-
-
226
You atheist really annoyed me
by confusedandalone inwhen i first came to this site.
whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.
talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.
-
-
EdenOne
No, I'm not the least confused about that, Cofty. If you feel you have a constructive debate with theists, then you're a moderate atheist in my perspective. At least you debate. But you don't always do that, to be true.
Eden
-
226
You atheist really annoyed me
by confusedandalone inwhen i first came to this site.
whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.
talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.
-
-
EdenOne
Cofty
A "moderate atheist" will state that the scientific method must presume by default that reality can be explained by objective, natural causes, therefore choosing to discard supernatural causes; in this view, the existence of God cannot be proved nor disproved, and by extension, he will at least respect the views of those who are convinced of the existence of God, at least to the point of being able to establish a civilized and even fruitful discussion with theists. A "gutsy radical atheist" - dare I say atheistic fundamentalist - will say that obviously God doesn't exist, and all believers are delusional ignorants not even worthy of being considered elegible for constructive dialog or debate.
Eden
-
226
You atheist really annoyed me
by confusedandalone inwhen i first came to this site.
whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.
talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.
-
-
EdenOne
Atheists and Agnostics can provide a healthy balance of views and challenges that keep Theists in proper check.
Good point, Vanderhoven7.
If it weren't for agnosticism and atheism - and by this I mean the moderate approach, not the gutsy radical one - christian religion would be an uncontrollable tyranny this day and age.
Eden
-
226
You atheist really annoyed me
by confusedandalone inwhen i first came to this site.
whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.
talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.
-
-
EdenOne
Since you took upon yourself to be the public prossecutor of the website that I run (and btw, thank you for the free publicity ), let me assist you, your excellency, in clarifying the meager 0,1% in which I disagree with the WTS.
- I don't believe in 1914, and consequently i don't believe we've been living the "last days" since then until now
- I don't believe the Kingdom of God is merely a government type of administration; I believe it's a reality far more complex than that.
- I believe in a universal heavenly reward for all the believers
- I believe that a cleansed planet earth will be inhabited permanently by a righteous human society; This, however, doesn't mean that individual people will live forever on earth.
- I don't believe that any Christian religion can be singled out as having the sole "truth" about God and Christ
- As a consequence, I don't believe that the JW's, in particular their leadership, are "God's sole mouthpiece" on earth;
- I believe that Christianity is the true religion, rather than a specific flavor of Christianity.
- I don't believe that baptism should be considered as means to ordain a member of a specific denomination
- I don't believe that Daniel 2:44 refers to the Kingdom of God
- I believe most of Daniel's prophecies were fulfilled in the past, including those involving the "king of the north x king of the south".
- i don't believe that the "Faithful and discrete slave" is a group of religious leaders in charge of dispensing spiritual food nowadays.
- I believe that the Bible isn't incompatible with evolutionism.
And these are just a few things that I wrote about and published as of yet.
By all means, let the readers be the judge.
Eden
-
226
You atheist really annoyed me
by confusedandalone inwhen i first came to this site.
whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.
talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.
-
-
EdenOne
I think I will coin a new term for your kind of blatant false statement about different views: coftism. How about that? I expected that a disciple of Dawkins would be intellectually honest and didn't resort to that sort of argument. But hey. I'm just an ignorant theist, right?
Eden
-
226
You atheist really annoyed me
by confusedandalone inwhen i first came to this site.
whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.
talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.
-
-
EdenOne
Gotta love the 'JW-despite-atheist' attitude towards different beliefs ...
Eden