Talk to us when we have our people of authority sexually molesting our most vulnerable on the same scale as the gawd team. It will never happen, because we don't try to repress sexuality like the gawd team does. The adults have appropriate outlets so we don't generate the pressures against nature like the priesthoods around the planet. When we are as well organized and funded as the big gawd institutions (like the Catholic Church), it will be more appropriate to question us about whee ALL of our resources are being spent. My guess is that when that day comes, we will be doing a much better job with better accountability that any of the gawd team can currently demonstrate.Keep practicing your persecution meme, because in the coming years, you will be using it a lot. Religion is going to be removed from the government and from public life. Of course, you will still be free to practice your quaint delusions in the privacy of your homes and churches, but the churches might have to prove that youth are not at risk there, as they currently are, and I think that the financial accountability piece, including taxation, will need to be studied.Keep praying while we are working, because while you are praying, we are winning.
"Keep praying while we are working, because while you are praying, we are winning."Winning what exactly?
"Well, by now we know what they did next: in the guise of concern for the free thought and free choice of children they launched a campaign which seeks to convert children to atheism"That assertion is laughable. People are atheists by default, until they encounter religion/God, and then decide whether to have faith or not.Children are converted to theism, not the other way around. Claiming otherwise makes you appear ignorant.
Whateverman,You're still claiming that, "People are atheists by default" and that somehow means theists bear a greater burden of proof? That is frankly a mistaken assertion, becuase the claim "There is no God" is just as much a truth claim as "there is a God." The former assertion requires justification just as the latter does.William Lane Craig pointed out in his debate with Michael Tooley that "Kai Nielsen, who is an atheist philosopher, makes this point as follows. He says,'To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false. ... All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists. In short, to show that the proofs do not work is not enough by itself. It may still be the case that God exists.'Atheism does not simply win by default."
"the claim "There is no God" is just as much a truth claim as "there is a God.""Go and look up "Burden of proof". Then, after you've rejected it because you don't understand it, you'll have to disprove every single religion that ever existed - or ever could exist.Good luck with that."To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false"So you don't know the difference between an invalid argument and an unsound conclusion. And you're lecturing us about logic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Go and look up "Burden of proof". Then, after you've rejected it because you don't understand it, you'll have to disprove every single religion that ever existed - or ever could exist.I see you have to go off on an utterly irrelevant tangent to try to salvage your ridiculous point. It didn't work.So you don't know the difference between an invalid argument and an unsound conclusion. And you're lecturing us about logic.I don't think you know what you're talking about. And if you'll read what my comment said, you'll see that was a quote from Kai Nielsen, who is an atheist philosopher.
Rex:Although this may surprise you, your tangent about child molesting priests is utterly laughable. In fact in a recnet study done it was found that only 3% of priests were guitly of child molestation or looking at child pornography. To put this in perspective 97% have never even touched a child or seen child porn. (This study is done from Santa Clara university). In fact children are more endangered at home than in the church as almost 90% of molested children are attacked by a relative or close friend of the family. Priests only make the news because its more interesting.As for your predictions. Well they said that last century, the century before that, and before that, and before that. You get where I'm going though. Though to site an interesting statistic for you. Encylopedia Britannica World Almanac 2010 reported that the number of atheists world wide had shrunk from 2.3 percent in 2008 to 2.0. To put in perspective thats about 20 million people. Christianity on the other hand had jumped from 33.1 to 33.2. Islam to 31.4 from 31.1 so all in all I think your rant is sligthly (Okay extremely) unrealistic and belongs more in the realm of fantasy than reality.Signed "that anonymous troll" ;)
@bossmanhamThe default position is not to believe in anything, including gods. You're right that making the claim that God does not exist requires support. However, most atheists don't take that position. Instead, they take the position that there is insufficient evidence to justify belief in a god, even though he may exist. It's the same stance that I imagine you take on Bigfoot. If the evidence comes along, maybe they'll change their minds. But you're right that we may be in the situation that god exists and yet none of the arguments for his existence are valid. In that case, atheists will have a good case to make to St. Peter at the pearly gates.@troll_who_can't_find_the_name/url_profileOnly 3% of priests are kiddie fiddlers? Only? How is that an admirable record? As for your almanac statistics, all of the changes are likely within sampling error bounds. If you don't consider the sampling error, your conclusions are meaningless.
Instead, they take the position that there is insufficient evidence to justify belief in a god, even though he may exist.Then that's agnosticism, not atheism. And when presented with good arguments for God's existence, atheists typically wave their hands and move the goalposts.Agnosticism is just a neutral position of ignorance. It is making no knowledge claim at all, but simply admitting that you don't know. But if that's the case, if you weigh the arguments and evidence for theism (cosmological, teleological, ontological, argument from contingency, moral argument, evidence for the resurrection of Christ, etc.) against the arguments for atheism (which is typically the problem of evil) then it seems to me the most plausible position is Christian theism.It's the same stance that I imagine you take on BigfootYou're right, I'm agnostic on the existence of Bigfoot. If good evidence were presented to show it exists, then I would have no issue believing. If I personally experienced Bigfoot as I have God, then I would certainly believe.But you're right that we may be in the situation that god exists and yet none of the arguments for his existence are valid.Actually, I think the atheist ignores extremely good arguments in order to hold on to their skeptical ideology. There are many good arguments and evidence for God's existence, but the atheist cranks up his skeptic meter when confronted with them. Typically, it's not because of evidence for atheism or a lack of evidence for theism, but a moral issue.In that case, atheists will have a good case to make to St. Peter at the pearly gates.Sorry, that one won't work:"20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:20-22).God exists, you sinned against Him, Jesus died for that sin and will forgive you if and only if you repent of your sins and trust in Him. Otherwise you are condemned already (John 3:18).God bless.