'Touchdown Jesus' Statue Destroyed By Lightning Strike!

[The Battousai]

I don't have the time to explain all the natural tendencies of molecules like base pairs or lipids and how those explain the natural formation of objects like simple proto-cells or an early form of RNA and how your example of an iPod (just like the classic example of a Boeing 747) is essentially a straw man version of the proposed explanation for the formation of life; after all, neither of those things are capable of self-formation or -replication.

The principles that atheism are based on

Atheism by definition is just disbelief in deities; the opposite of theism. Simple as that.

--particularly evolution--

Evolution is a subject in science - one that is involved in every field of Biology - and is supported by every major discovery in Biology over the past 150 years. Even when such discoveries have changed the way scientists look at the world - Gregor Mendel's work in the 1860s, the source of genetic material (which was a source of contention in much of the early 20th century), the Human Genome Project, etc. - they have only bolstered the core ideas and hypothesis of evolution. It didn't earn the title of "Theory" overnight.

does not check out with the very common sense "science" it claims to hold dear: "Big Bangs" do not create...they destroy.

First, the Big Bang is a subject in cosmology and astrophysics; not biology or evolution.

Second, the Big Bang is not explained as a creative force - or an explosive one - but one that was simply an expansion of space-time.

There is nothing "vague" or mysterious about creation.

If so, could you explain the mechanisms behind it?

It makes sense to those who are humble enough to acknowlege that there is something more intelligent and more powerful than us behind what we have.

So...an assumption with no reason to believe it makes sense once you accept it. Enlightening.

No offense, but atheism and evolution is a religion

I'd love to hear the explanation for this.

based on vanity and haughtiness...because it teaches self-reliance...which we are not.

Are you just pulling this out of thin air? It definitely seems like it.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

To start with, the word you're looking for is, "formally."

Logical fallacies are fun. Batt is much better than I am at pointing them out, so if he'd like, he can do so. All I will say is that NOBODY suggests anything like what you mention here. The concept of these complex formations and their origins become more accessible when you consider the fact that you aren't actually (metaphorically) going from a loose jumble of parts to something as complex as an iPod in one step. Beyond that, and more importantly, you're still thinking from the mindset that they needed to be created, that we have initially set the goal of the formation of the finished iPod before this process even began, and that's why yours is a loaded question.

That's also why I can't take this post seriously enough to go into any real detail about any of this. You've already made up your mind, and your post is positively INFESTED with loaded language, which testifies to that fact.

Loaded to the gills.

Um...did YOU know that the earth varies in its distance from the sun by about 3,000,000 miles...annually? Thank you. I hadn't laughed this hard in quite a long time.

So, in theory, the planets with varying axis tilts should lose their loose surface matter. Hrm. I can't help but wonder why Mars has all that red dust on it?

Wait, gravity? What's that?

Oh, and do you have a source for this?

That's true, but then again, the moon moves about one inch away from the earth each and every year, and has been doing so for quite a loooooooooooooooooooong time. But tell me, LS, how old do you think the earth is?

The big bang wasn't an explosion, at least not as you seem to understand it. What is really meant by that term in this specific context is an extremely rapid expansion.

There isn't anything vague or mysterious about creation. It's actually very simple. So simple that it doesn't line up with a single shred of scientific evidence. The truth is that reality is more complicated and, frankly, scarier than that, LS, and if that worries you, then by all means cling to your (clearly) deeply-rooted beliefs. It's not my intention, nor that of Batt or Arya, for that matter, to take that away from you. As much of an ass as I've been in the rest of this post, I mean that last part sincerely.

Yes, you were an ass. And yet for all of the amusement it was intended to provide to the readers here...you didn't really address any of my points. You were just condescending and dismissive of them...a common reaction from just about every atheist I've engaged in discussions like this.

Fail.

The only thing that is "scary" to atheists I've met is acknowledging that someone else is infinitely more powerful and wise than we can fathom. Trust me when I say, I have had this debate with many an atheist, evolutionist, agnostic, etc. and on many a college battle ground. And there is one common denominator I've found with all them: Everything has to have a logical reason that THEY have to be able to explain....that is, explain with the less than 1% of the brain power and capacity that scientists all confirm that we are operating with as humans.

Go figure.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

If so, could you explain the mechanisms behind it?

Absolutely, especially from a purely scientific level [BLACKOUT]For example, one of biggest gripes that atheists have with faith is believing in something they cannot physically see. Yet we see the effects of a breeze--or even a powerful wind--on the leaves of a tree...and yet we can't *see* the wind itself. Yet, atheists struggle with accepting this same principle in regards to an invisible Creator[/BLACKOUT].

However, a percentage of my explanation would also involve an allowance for something called faith, which by its definition is a concept that atheists are unwilling to grasp (notice I said, "unwilling" and not "unable"). It would also entail a level of humility, which is another trait that most atheists do not possess. So I'm not exactly keen on wasting a lot of time here defining it for you guys, as much as I am of fond of ya. I am sleepy right now. No offense, trust me. But I've had these discussions before...it always ultimately devolves into a waste of time.

And...

So...an assumption with no reason to believe it makes sense once you accept it. Enlightening.

...my case in point.

I'd love to hear the explanation for this.

Would you? Behold.

re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən)
n.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

As you can see, religion does not only apply to worshipping Gods or Goddesses. That's defining the word in its most simplistic, broadest sense. As the dictionary officially (or "formally"--as Carcharodon would snarkily point out) says, religion has to do with conscientious devotion.

So, in other words, atheists are conscientiously devoted to worship of logic--be it their own personal interpretation of events or that taught by others (ergo Darwin for some, etc.). In their case, science, logic, evolution, etc. takes the place of "God" because those physical clauses are the fundamental basis for their own personal belief systems...the basis for how they explain away our existence in this universe.

And atheists are not the only ones who have expanded religion to apply to something beyond God. People today worship sex, money, themselves (me-ism) and any number of vices. Today, folks microwave whatever religion they want that suits their personal fancy...it doesn't always have to pertain to spirituality.

Atheism is a religion just like the rest of them. It just doesn't have its focus fixated on a spiritual being. But it DOES have a focus...with millions of followers...just like any other religion. Science/Logic/Evolution is the god there and those concepts dictate the belief system. Some atheists say that those who believe in Creationism have been "brainwashed". Yet, technically, that term could be easily flipped and applied to atheists also--and any number of other 'sophisticated' man-made religions.

Are you just pulling this out of thin air? It definitely seems like it.

Read my comments above.

When a person's father is dying in the hospital, that person may turn to whatever God they worship and pray for that deity's protection of that loved one. Or maybe they rely on that God for comfort and security, knowing that there is a greater force guiding their lives. Atheists literally scoff at this concept. They think it's stupid. But consider:

For the atheists here: who do you all look to when you're in deep s***? Yourselves. You look inward for the answer(s). You answer to no one else because you don't believe anyone else EXISTS out there that could shape events or protect you. Why? Because you can't invest faith in something or someone you can't see. It's not "logical" so therefore it doesn't compute.

Therefore, you are self-reliant.

That's my time. I'm sleepy and I'm going to take a shower and die. Later.

 

[Carcharodon]

Yes, you were an ass. And yet for all of the amusement it was intended to provide to the readers here...you didn't really address any of my points. You were just condescending and dismissive of them...a common reaction from just about every atheist I've engaged in discussions like this.

Fail.

You didn't make any new or original points. They're illogical trash (popular trash at that) which have been addressed countless times before, and all stem from your inability to look at the situation from outside your preconceived worldview.

I know you'll fire back with, "OMGZ THE SAMEZ CAN BE SAID OF UZ LOLOL," but please consider that I'm an agnostic atheist: while I don't necessarily believe in a higher power, I acknowledge that I can neither prove nor disprove its existence, and therefore must at least consider the possibility that it exists. I try to frame my worldview around this very basic principle, and find that it gives me some level of flexibility and balance...and it keeps me honest when I ponder these types of questions.

The only thing you served to accomplish with your post is to show that you don't know what you're talking about. Half of your points weren't even points...they weren't even remotely accurate. Beyond that, they can all be countered (and were, by the way, by -Arya-) with simple logic and the realization that we have adapted for life in this universe, not the other way around. You clearly don't even stop to consider that possibility. In that same vein, I did address the iPod scenario. You either didn't like, or didn't understand, the reasoning I gave. That's your problem. I'm not going to spend some huge effort to educate the hopelessly ignorant. I'm tired of trying to do so on this board. It gets really old pointing out the same logical fallacies over and over and over again, only to have the person espousing them NEVER understand why they don't make logical sense.

Your lack of understanding of the issues you're battling against (namely the big bang, evolution, etc.) is a barrier that can only be broken if you have the will to educate yourself. Since you clearly have neglected to do so until now, why should I expect to be able to make these things plain to you? Things that took me years to effectively understand?

In other words, I'm tired of banging my head on the brick wall (and, in fairness, I know you feel the same way).

The only thing that is "scary" to atheists I've met is acknowledging that someone else is infinitely more powerful and wise than we can fathom.

Actually, the motivator is logic, not fear. It's interesting you would say that, though, given the conclusion you've forced me to in my next post.

Trust me when I say, I have had this debate with many an atheist, evolutionist, agnostic, etc. and on many a college battle ground. And there is one common denominator I've found with all them: Everything has to have a logical reason that THEY have to be able to explain....that is, explain with the less than 1% of the brain power and capacity that scientists all confirm that we are operating with as humans.

Go figure.

First of all (and I can't believe I have to do this once again), the 1% myth is exactly that: a myth. I'm astounded that you insist upon throwing up these ridiculous little tidbits of false information. I thought for certain you'd give that up after the last post, or would at least be more cautious, but here:

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html

Secondly, I lean towards the idea that everything does have some logical/rational explanation. I don't, however, believe that we as a species will ever be able to understand it all, or to explain it all. I believe there is a very real limit to human understanding...just not in the same way you do.

 

[Carcharodon]

Absolutely, especially from a purely scientific level [BLACKOUT]For example, one of biggest gripes that atheists have with faith is believing in something they cannot physically see. Yet we see the effects of a breeze--or even a powerful wind--on the leaves of a tree...and yet we can't *see* the wind itself. Yet, atheists struggle with accepting this same principle in regards to an invisible Creator[/BLACKOUT].

There was nothing scientific about that explanation.

This argument falls apart when you consider that we can confirm the existence of wind and the mechanisms by which it is created based on quantifiable evidence.

The same most emphatically cannot be said of a creator. THAT is where the distinction lies. You really need to discard that argument from your arsenal, because anybody with two brain cells to rub together can counter it quite handily.

However, a percentage of my explanation would also involve an allowance for something called faith...

That number you're looking for is 100.

...which by its definition is a concept that atheists are unwilling to grasp (notice I said, "unwilling" and not "unable"). It would also entail a level of humility, which is another trait that most atheists do not possess. So I'm not exactly keen on wasting a lot of time here defining it for you guys, as much as I am of fond of ya. I am sleepy right now. No offense, trust me. But I've had these discussions before...it always ultimately devolves into a waste of time.

I grasp the concept of faith. I have faith in humanity. I have faith in my girlfriend. I have faith in myself. Because I don't have faith in your God, I don't grasp the concept? Cool.

For the atheists here: who do you all look to when you're in deep s***? Yourselves. You look inward for the answer(s). You answer to no one else because you don't believe anyone else EXISTS out there that could shape events or protect you. Why? Because you can't invest faith in something or someone you can't see. It's not "logical" so therefore it doesn't compute.

Therefore, you are self-reliant.

That's my time. I'm sleepy and I'm going to take a shower and die. Later.

What's wrong with that? You say it as though it's some terrible and sad state of existence, but I've gotta tell ya, I disagree. Just because you're completely dependent on faith to keep you going doesn't mean we need to be. There's nothing wrong with self-reliance. In fact, it's quite liberating, and at times (and I KNOW you'll never understand what I'm about to say)...comforting.

What I'm getting from these posts is that you're afraid to consider the atheistic worldview. You're afraid of an existence where we're not constantly protected, where death is followed by simple non-existence (the fear of non-existence, by the way, is so hopelessly ridiculous that I still can't fathom it). You're afraid of being self-reliant.

Your faith is motivated by fear. What a way to live. Then again, if it helps you sleep at night, I wouldn't dream of ripping that safety blanket away from you.

To each his own, as they say.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Carcharodon: Don't push your luck with being an ass in this debate.

 

[Marx]

I would strongly encourage everyone to take a step back and take the tone of this whole conversation down a couple of notches. There is no need to call someone's opinions 'trash', or to be condescending or insulting. We're all adults here and this subject, while explosive, is more than able to be debated intelligently and respectfully.

 

[Carcharodon]

Carcharodon: Don't push your luck with being an ass in this debate.

Says the guy making sweeping and ultimately insulting generalizations about atheists. You're such a damn hypocrite. Way to hide behind the red letters.

I would strongly encourage everyone to take a step back and take the tone of this whole conversation down a couple of notches. There is no need to call someone's opinions 'trash', or to be condescending or insulting. We're all adults here and this subject, while explosive, is more than able to be debated intelligently and respectfully.

Excuse me? There's a huge difference between calling an argument trash and calling an opinion trash. I was doing the former.

The hyper-sensitivity on this board is getting pretty suffocating. It's getting to be a far cry from the place it used to be.

I'm sorry I'm not coddling him.

 

[Marx]

Excuse me? There's a huge difference between calling an argument trash and calling an opinion trash. I was doing the former.

The hyper-sensitivity on this board is getting pretty suffocating. It's getting to be a far cry from the place it used to be.

I'm sorry I'm not coddling him.

If you're referring to the 'glory days' of the hype where you could trash anything and everything you wanted (pretty much without consequence) I'm glad those days are gone. The Hype is a much better place without that nonsense. It has nothing to do with 'hyper-sensitivity' and everything to do with respect.

As far as your tone in this argument goes, I didn't infract you did I? No I did not. I was telling everyone to take it down a couple of notches. This thread has been hijacked enough from the original topic. If people want to have a full-fledged debate on religion, it should be taken to the religion thread.

 

[Carcharodon]

If you're referring to the 'glory days' of the hype where you could trash anything and everything you wanted (pretty much without consequence) I'm glad those days are gone. The Hype is a much better place without that nonsense. It has nothing to do with 'hyper-sensitivity' and everything to do with respect.

As far as your tone in this argument goes, I didn't infract you did I? No I did not. I was telling everyone to take it down a couple of notches. This thread has been hijacked enough from the original topic. If people want to have a full-fledged debate on religion, it should be taken to the religion thread.

You mean like I suggested a page ago?

 

[Metamorpho1977]

They're not unwilling to grasp the concept. They're unwilling to grasp the possibility. Accepting that there is a creator means we at some level have to grasp our own morality as it applies to His rules. We're just too arrogant to do that.

 

[-Arya-]

They're not unwilling to grasp the concept. They're unwilling to grasp the possibility. Accepting that there is a creator means we at some level have to grasp our own morality as it applies to His rules. We're just too arrogant to do that.

Unwilling to grasp the concept of what? A creator? I've already explained the problem with an answer like this. And where in the world did you get that third sentence about morality from?

 

[Gilpesh]

They're not unwilling to grasp the concept. They're unwilling to grasp the possibility. Accepting that there is a creator means we at some level have to grasp our own morality as it applies to His rules. We're just too arrogant to do that.

Ugh. You're saying arrogance is to blame for people not believing? Seriously?


I mean, I guess it is humble to think that there is a super cosmic being that is so great that he created the entire universe for only us, who he also made in his own image, so by comparison we're all more awesome than every other form of life. And by extension that means we're all more important than every other species.

 

[The Battousai]

Glad to see you ignored some of my points

Absolutely, especially from a purely scientific level. For example, one of biggest gripes that atheists have with faith is believing in something they cannot physically see.

While sight is the more common word to use in this context - as sight is the main way we view our environment - it is not used by everyone or even a vast majority. The main reason being that sight can be useless in regards to non-visible light spectrums like UV, infrared, and microwave.

Yet we see the effects of a breeze--or even a powerful wind--on the leaves of a tree...and yet we can't *see* the wind itself.

Yes - that's called an observation. Without any knowledge of wind or what it's composed of we can take the effect (trees moving, leaves rustling, chimes ringing, etc.) and make hypotheses about what may be causing it. After this, these ideas are tested. If none of the hypotheses pan out, then new hypotheses are drawn up; ones that may even be less likely to fail if the previous tests garnered pertinent information as a result of the failures. a successful hypothesis leads to a conclusion that can be used to further the investigation in regard to the phenomena, and over time the whole thing can be understood.

Hey, look - I just described part of the scientific process t:

My main point here is that as long as you recognize a phenomena and can test it, observe it, measure it, etc., then it can be shown to exist. This is not the case with your God or any other.

Yet, atheists struggle with accepting this same principle in regards to an invisible Creator.

See above.

However, a percentage of my explanation would also involve an allowance for something called faith, which by its definition is a concept that atheists are unwilling to grasp (notice I said, "unwilling" and not "unable"). It would also entail a level of humility, which is another trait that most atheists do not possess.

Wow, that's phenomenally arrogant.

I have faith in my friends and family, because I love them and have no reason to not have faith in them.

I have immense humility whenever I think of how unimportant and insignificant this little blue speck of dust we call Earth is compared to the rest of the universe; that our ancestry actually led to the emergence of Homo sapiens; that I was born human and capable of having conversations like this one.

Do you have any more bold-faced assertions to make about me and other atheists?

So I'm not exactly keen on wasting a lot of time here defining it for you guys, as much as I am of fond of ya. I am sleepy right now. No offense, trust me. But I've had these discussions before...it always ultimately devolves into a waste of time.

I wonder why...

And...

...my case in point.

I'm utterly amazed by your ability to look up an online dictionary, search for religion, look through the several definitions, and then pick the one that you want to make your point (probably one of the last ones), and then post it. Bravo.

Here - I can do that, too (except I'll post all the definitions as well as the source):

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Do I get a cookie?

As you can see, religion does not only apply to worshipping Gods or Goddesses.

Well, yeah - Buddhists are a prime example. What's your point?

That's defining the word in its most simplistic, broadest sense.

As opposed to the one that conforms to your preconceived notions, of course.

As the dictionary officially (or "formally"--as Carcharodon would snarkily point out) says, religion has to do with conscientious devotion.

And you haven't been acting snarky? Don't try to take the high ground there, LS.

So, in other words, atheists are conscientiously devoted to worship of logic--

Okay - are you being serious? Because that last bit is hilarious

There are plenty of atheists who aren't logical - in fact, everyone has lapses now and again, myself included - so I don't know where you're getting this notion from. Maybe it's because logical argumentation is a way to marginalize the existence of God, or maybe because you don't recognize fallacies in your own arguments. I honestly don't know.

be it their own personal interpretation of events or that taught by others (ergo Darwin for some, etc.).

Darwin was a logician? News to me

Logic is used by people because it's useful - it's how people form good arguments or make sense of otherwise strange or hard-to-understand concepts. One of the reasons atheists use it is because apologists and others tout logical arguments to attempt to support God's existence. There are logical problems with these arguments that have been addressed countless times, yet are still being used. Many people find it important to continue countering these invalid arguments. Simple as that.

In their case, science, logic, evolution, etc. takes the place of "God" because those physical clauses are the fundamental basis for their own personal belief systems...the basis for how they explain away our existence in this universe.

Wrong.

There are plenty of theists who embrace all of those things PLUS God. To say that I need these things to take the place of something for which there is no reason to believe is preposterous.

And atheists are not the only ones who have expanded religion to apply to something beyond God. People today worship sex, money, themselves (me-ism) and any number of vices. Today, folks microwave whatever religion they want that suits their personal fancy...it doesn't always have to pertain to spirituality.

That's a rather generalized version of "worship". No wonder you used it in regard to logic; you have no idea what you're talking about.

Atheism is a religion just like the rest of them. It just doesn't have its focus fixated on a spiritual being. But it DOES have a focus...with millions of followers...just like any other religion. Science/Logic/Evolution is the god there and those concepts dictate the belief system.

I'd ask you to define "belief system", but I know you're just going to do the same thing you did with "religion"...

Some atheists say that those who believe in Creationism have been "brainwashed".

Indoctrination will do that to ya.

Yet, technically, that term could be easily flipped and applied to atheists also--and any number of other 'sophisticated' man-made religions.

They all have the trademarks of being man-made. I'm not picky about that.

When a person's father is dying in the hospital, that person may turn to whatever God they worship and pray for that deity's protection of that loved one. Or maybe they rely on that God for comfort and security, knowing that there is a greater force guiding their lives. Atheists literally scoff at this concept. They think it's stupid.

I don't scoff at people feeling better, but I do scoff at the notion of "knowing" there's something there. There's a rather noticeable difference there.

But consider:

For the atheists here: who do you all look to when you're in deep s***?

Either someone who can actually help (i.e. real people), knowledge I've gained over the years, or read if the situation allows it. There isn't anything else I could do that would yield results.

Yourselves. You look inward for the answer(s). You answer to no one else because you don't believe anyone else EXISTS out there that could shape events or protect you. Why? Because you can't invest faith in something or someone you can't confirm the existence of (fixed). It's not "logical" so therefore it doesn't compute.

Therefore, you are self-reliant.

That's my time. I'm sleepy and I'm going to take a shower and die. Later.

...and that's a bad thing? Isn't it a virtue to be an independant person? I'd rather live happily than in fear of something I have no reason to believe in.

 

[Schlosser85]

However, a percentage of my explanation would also involve an allowance for something called faith, which by its definition is a concept that atheists are unwilling to grasp (notice I said, "unwilling" and not "unable"). It would also entail a level of humility, which is another trait that most atheists do not possess.

It's quite an arrogant assertion that if one is not religious, then one does not have "faith". One can have faith in anything. One's own abilities. One's friends and loved ones. The basic decency of people. Nature's resilience. Logic.

And as for humility....I think saying someone is arrogant simply because they do not believe in a deity is colossally arrogant and ignorant.

I haven't met too many Christians who know what "humility" truly means. Then again, I haven't met too many Christians who know what "Christian" truly means either.

Don't get me wrong....that only makes me feel the ones who do should be all the more appreciated.

 

[Alex The Great]

What the flying **** happened to this thread?!?!?


Also, who's the ******* who ruined the thread?

 

[Marx]

What the flying **** happened to this thread?!?!?


Also, who's the ******* who ruined the thread?

I'm still trying to figure that out Alex...

 

[Spider-Who?]

Hey, I have an idea. Let's shut up about religion.

Number one, its a pointless argument to have; no one is going to agree with the other. The only use it serves is making everyone feel good about their abilities to hit up Wikipedia.

Two, wrong freakin thread. You go here now:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=317586

And three, both sides' participants are so full of themselves and get such a hard on listening to themselves call the other "illogical" and trashing the other's arguments (without properly addressing any of the true points) that they fail to see the same issues in their own. Its funny, I'll give you all that, but sad at the same time.


Touchdown Jesus. Lightning. Fire. Ahhhh.

 

[-Arya-]

And three, both sides' participants are so full of themselves and get such a hard on listening to themselves call the other "illogical" and trashing the other's arguments (without properly addressing any of the true points) that they fail to see the same issues in their own. Its funny, I'll give you all that, but sad at the same time.

I'll be happy to move to the actual topic of this thread, but please spare me this ridiculous form of condemnation.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Condemnation? No, just an observation.

back on topic, some of the statements from this article bug the crap at me:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/...a-sign-from-God-Solid-Rock-Church-leader-says

“Now we get to build a whole brand-new one, paid-for,” Bishop said. “We are blessed.”

“I think he (Jesus) couldn’t have gotten this much advertising if we had paid a billion dollars,” she said Tuesday.

 

[The Battousai]

And three, both sides' participants are so full of themselves and get such a hard on listening to themselves call the other "illogical" and trashing the other's arguments

I wonder who else falls into that category

Jokes aside, this isn't about having a **** fight - this is about one person making baseless assumptions and accusations as well as blatantly false statements about atheists. when I see someone making a lot of ridiculous comments like LS was (and they're not joking), then I'm going to say something about it.

 

[Marx]

Condemnation? No, just an observation.

back on topic, some of the statements from this article bug the crap at me:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/...a-sign-from-God-Solid-Rock-Church-leader-says

“Now we get to build a whole brand-new one, paid-for,” Bishop said. “We are blessed.”

“I think he (Jesus) couldn’t have gotten this much advertising if we had paid a billion dollars,” she said Tuesday.

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what the right word is to use...but their comments are are little disheartening.

 

[Metamorpho1977]

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what the right word is to use...but their comments are are little disheartening.

I go to a big church, not sure if you would classify it as a megachurch, our membership is in excess of 5000. But churches like that make a lot of the genuine faithful followers look bad.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I wonder who else falls into that category

listening to myself, hardly. looking in a mirror? absolutely.

Jokes aside, this isn't about having a **** fight - this is about one person making baseless assumptions and accusations as well as blatantly false statements about atheists. when I see someone making a lot of ridiculous comments like LS was (and they're not joking), then I'm going to say something about it.

Right, thats how it started, but I see a heck of a lot of pots calling the kettle black in that statement, and its such a waste of potential genuine discussion on both sides.

 

[Marx]

I go to a big church, not sure if you would classify it as a megachurch, our membership is in excess of 5000. But churches like that make a lot of the genuine faithful followers look bad.

Bigger churches just leave a very bad taste in my mouth. More often than not, they are only out to glorify themselves, as opposed to who they should be glorifying. I am aware that some do support alot of charities and do alot of charitable work, but alot think inward and build massive complexes with their money. It also makes me sick to see the 'leaders' of these churches living in such ridiculous luxury.

Keep in mind, I do not fault all members of churches like that.