Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast
Results 73 to 81 of 102

Thread: In defense of atheist billboards

  1. #73
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,935

    Default Re: In defense of atheist billboards

    You posted data from a message board, really. What a comic book didnt want any of that, was mad magazine unavailable for comment.

  2. #74

    Default Re: In defense of atheist billboards

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    You posted data from a message board, really. What a comic book didnt want any of that, was mad magazine unavailable for comment.

    Poor UGLY, incapable of arguing against the facts so he goes for ad-hominem attacks against the messenger. Trust me UGLY all the facts are on my side, only a small percentage of Christian in the US believe in the silliness of Biblical innerancy and world-wide it is much much much smaller. Read em and weep!

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/One...ally-True.aspx

    Only about one-third of Americans today believe the Bible is absolutely accurate and that it should be taken literally word for word. The rest either feel that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but not literally so, or that it is a book of ancient fables, legends, and history as recorded by man.

    Americans' views on the Bible have not changed materially over the past 16 years. Gallup has asked this question about personal views of the Bible nine times since 1991. The percentage saying the Bible is the actual, literal word of God has remained in a relatively narrow range between 27% and 35% across this time period, with the average being 31%.
    Last edited by coachsparky; 12-17-2010 at 10:14 AM.

  3. #75
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,935

    Default Re: In defense of atheist billboards

    So roughly 80% believe that the bible is the inspired word of God while 30% of those believe the bible to be literal. The other 50 some % believe the bible to be true, or else they would not believe it to be the word of God. I think it is fine to believe that the bible might mean different things, you just happen question the very beliefs that offer salvation .

    I dont take everything bible literally, example I dont think the earth is young nor do I believe people lived to be 500 years old. I think there is a plausible explanation for that, that is not contradictory to the bible.

  4. #76

    Default Re: In defense of atheist billboards

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    So roughly 80% believe that the bible is the inspired word of God while 30% of those believe the bible to be literal. The other 50 some % believe the bible to be true, or else they would not believe it to be the word of God. I think it is fine to believe that the bible might mean different things, you just happen question the very beliefs that offer salvation .

    I dont take everything bible literally, example I dont think the earth is young nor do I believe people lived to be 500 years old. I think there is a plausible explanation for that, that is not contradictory to the bible.
    I do not understand what you are arguing about then. If you realize that Adam and Eve is a myth why do you have a problem with the FACT that the Christmas story, the virgin birth and all of that is undeniably a myth as well. Either parts of it are mythology or all of it is literally true. You cannot have it both ways. My lord are you hypocritical or what!

  5. #77

    Default Re: In defense of atheist billboards

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    So roughly 80% believe that the bible is the inspired word of God while 30% of those believe the bible to be literal. The other 50 some % believe the bible to be true, or else they would not believe it to be the word of God. I think it is fine to believe that the bible might mean different things, you just happen question the very beliefs that offer salvation .

    I dont take everything bible literally, example I dont think the earth is young nor do I believe people lived to be 500 years old. I think there is a plausible explanation for that, that is not contradictory to the bible.
    Biblical Inspiration and Inerrancy means different things to different people; that makes polls about it pretty useless. For example, in one Bible story Jesus calls a mustard seed "the smallest seed of all" (which it isn't). It is quite possible to believe that Jesus was inaccurate (ie smaller seeds exist) but still believe in the virgin birth, Jesus' miracles, a literal ressurection from the dead, etc.

    Furthermore, the Bible contains (what it claims to be) historical records (such as the Gospels, accounts of the life of David, ect), books of theology, poetry, and a whole bunch of others stuff. Young-Earth creationists believe the beginning of Genesis to be a historical account, while other Christians consider it poetry. The book of Job has people arguing theology for the first two thirds of the book, and in the last third God Himself tells them they are both wrong! Clearly, the first two thirds of Job are not meant to be taken as literal truth.

    My point: Biblical inerrancy is a slippery concept, not easily reduced to a poll or an either/or question.

  6. #78
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default Re: In defense of atheist billboards

    Quote Originally Posted by coachsparky View Post
    My lord are you hypocritical or what!
    Accidental or intentional irony?
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  7. #79

    Default Re: In defense of atheist billboards

    Quote Originally Posted by arm-spin View Post
    Biblical Inspiration and Inerrancy means different things to different people; that makes polls about it pretty useless. For example, in one Bible story Jesus calls a mustard seed "the smallest seed of all" (which it isn't). It is quite possible to believe that Jesus was inaccurate (ie smaller seeds exist) but still believe in the virgin birth, Jesus' miracles, a literal ressurection from the dead, etc.

    Furthermore, the Bible contains (what it claims to be) historical records (such as the Gospels, accounts of the life of David, ect), books of theology, poetry, and a whole bunch of others stuff. Young-Earth creationists believe the beginning of Genesis to be a historical account, while other Christians consider it poetry. The book of Job has people arguing theology for the first two thirds of the book, and in the last third God Himself tells them they are both wrong! Clearly, the first two thirds of Job are not meant to be taken as literal truth.

    My point: Biblical inerrancy is a slippery concept, not easily reduced to a poll or an either/or question.
    I agree with all your points armspin. However, I will comment on your first paragraph, while it is perfectly reasonable to believe in the mistakes like the mustard seeds issue and to still accept the myths of the virgin birth and the literal ressurection of the physical body, it is not reasonable if you take scientific and scientific evidence as meaning anything in this world to accept either of those things. That does not take away from the poetry and beauty of those stories, nor the value of Jesus' life for all, it just recognized that something in that stories violate the very laws of Nature's God.

  8. #80

    Default Re: In defense of atheist billboards

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    Accidental or intentional irony?
    I would have capitalized the L if I meant it to be intentional irony spider.

  9. #81

    Default Re: In defense of atheist billboards

    http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...chapter_3.html


    In the absence of any recorded statements from Washington himself concerning his religious belief, the most conclusive evidence that can be presented is the admissions of his clerical acquaintances. Among these there has been preserved the testimony of his pastors, Bishop White and Dr. Abercromble.
    In a letter to Rev. B.C.C. Parker of Massachusetts, dated Nov. 28, 1832, in answer to some inquiries respecting Washington's religion, Bishop White says:
    <CITE>"His behavior [in church] was always serious and attentive, but as your letter seems to intend an inquiry on the point of kneeling during the service, I owe it to the truth to declare that I never saw him in the said attitude. ... Although I was often in company with this great man, and had the honor of dining often at his table, I never heard anything from him which could manifest his opinions on the subject of religion. ... Within a few days of his leaving the presidential chair, our vestry waited on him with an address prepared and delivered by me. In his answer he was pleased to express himself gratified by what he had heard from our pulpit; but there was nothing that committed him relatively to religious theory" ("Memoir of Bishop White," pp. 189-191; Sparks' "Life of Washington," Vol. ii., p. 359).
    </CITE>The Rev. Parker, to whom Bishop White's letter is addressed, was, it seems, anxious to obtain some evidence that Washington was a believer in Christianity, and, not satisfied with the bishop's answer, begged him, it would appear, to tax his mind for some fact that would tend to show that Washington was a believer. In a letter dated Dec. 21, 1832, the bishop writes as follows:
    <CITE>"I do not believe that any degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in the Christian revelation further than as may be hoped from his constant attendance upon Christian worship, in connection with the general reserve of his character" ("Memoir of Bishop White," p. 193).
    </CITE>Bishop White's testimony does not afford positive proof of Washington's unbelief, but it certainly furnishes strong presumptive evidence of its truth. It is hardly possible to suppose that he could have been a believer and have let his most intimate Christian associates remain in total ignorance of the fact. Bishop White indulges a faint hope that he may have been, but this hope is simply based on his "constant attendance" at church, and when we consider how large a proportion of those who attend church are unbelievers, that many of our most radical Freethinkers are regular church-goers, there are very small grounds, I think, upon which to indulge even a hope. But even this "constant attendance" on the part of Washington cannot be accepted without some qualification; for, while it is true that he often attended church, he was by no means a constant attendant. Not only did he uniformly absent himself on communion days, but the entries in his diary show that he remained away for several Sundays in succession, spending his time at home reading and writing, riding out into the country, or in visiting his friends.
    But if Bishop White cherished a faint hope that Washington had some faith in the religion of Christ, Dr. Abercrombie did not. Long after Washington's death, in reply to Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him as to his illustrious auditor's religious views, Dr. Abercrombie's brief but emphatic answer was:
    <CITE>"Sir, Washington was a Deist."
    </CITE>Washington rarely attended, as we have seen, any church but the Episcopal, hence, if any denomination of Christians could claim him as an adherent, it was this one. Yet here we have two of its most distinguished representatives, pastors of the churches which he attended, the one not knowing what his belief was, the other disclaiming him and asserting that he was a Deist.
    The Rev. Dr. Wilson, who was almost a contemporary of our earlier statesmen and presidents, and who thoroughly investigated the subject of their religious beliefs, in his sermon already mentioned affirmed that the founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected -- George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson -- not one had professed a belief in Christianity. From this sermon I quote the following:
    <CITE>"When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and, after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it. ... There is not only in the theory of our government no recognition of God's laws and sovereignty, but its practical operation, its administration, has been conformable to its theory. Those who have been called to administer the government have not been men making any public profession of Christianity. ... Washington was a man of valor and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man; but he was not a professing Christian." </CITE>

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •