Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Atheist Numbers Increase in the US

Pretty evident these high iq typrs cant correlate the degree of misery and helplessnes and loss of prosperity in our sorry current state with the decline in parcipitation in our christion faith.


…13"If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, 14and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 15"Now My eyes will be open and My ears attentive to the prayer offered in this place.…

But, our wise will testify, all we need is another Ronald Reagan or a decent sucker to rule after the currant pagan.

We, a Christain nation, have been sent a pestilance and it is in our WH.

Eye..,

You got me laughing. Your post is the only one in this whole thread that I agee with. We indeed have a pestilence in the White House. 😂😂😂

O

An Marxist Muslim who claims to be a Christian??

That pestilence?

So you aren't going to answer the question?
I'm not pissed, I'm stunned by your stupidity.

You apparently don't believe all men are created equal for starters, or at least obviously that men are not endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights, so tell me what other ideas or beliefs you choose to select? I have no idea, so tell me.

I'm not saying YOU personally have a lack of respect for anything, but for you to not believe in a higher power but to claim a belief in our foundation government out of thin air doesn't make any sense.

It's the only thing stupid here....you obviously would be stunned, but I think you'll have no problem explaining things away to suit your individual needs in the face of the basic tenants from which your rights come from.

Is there anything quite so entertaining as watching a christian try to corner an atheist on the Campfire?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Atheists and Agnostics rank high in wealth, while Christians are some of the poorest people around......(we all know, of course, that all Christians would be rich were it not for the Muslim Communist in the White House).



I seem to remember George Bush (who was not a Muslim) starting a war based on lies that cause a worldwide economic catastrophe.

I guess we've forgotten that one.

You can't corner an atheist.

They don't have any rules or a rulebook, and they don't wear anything on their sleeves now do they?

You are right, you can't corner an atheist to save your life. But you are fun to watch. But then so is a dog chasing his tail.

The actual order of wealth according to religion is:

Atheist
Jews
Christians
Hindus and Buddhist
Muslims
Folk religions.

Personally, I'd like to see where Marxist would fall if we were able to break them our from the rest of Atheist. I imagine someplace between Muslims and Hindus.

GB,

Thanks for the debate.

Last night I listened to part of the Hitchens, Lennox video you posted. I'd forgotten just how good a speaker Lennox is. Of course that doesn't hide the fallacies in his logic, but he's a pleasant listen. Considering this debate was in the deep south I had to wonder if you were in the audience that day?

If you enjoy this type of banter, and I suspect you do, don't let the debate tire you out. You can always take a break and hit us with some new idea's later. Last night I escaped to load 4 boxes of ammo, and this afternoon, with a little luck, I'll get to use them for a little stress relief.

Have a good weekend.

Go a little further, check out The Bill of Rights and get back to us. Look on the back of the humble penny. Look at the many structures in D.C. and what is inscribed upon them. There's more but on this matter, you'll skate, deflect and offer up some other bs.

But,,I do enjoy your posts and admire your stand for what you don't believe.

Mojo - you are being blind to the core issue, and nasty at that. My post had nothing to do with any of my beliefs except the one stated. I used a simple term but applied no definition of anything, and did not rely on one. I never introduced religion or God to the posts - AS and you did. You both keep pushing for me to "define" something I say does not exist, apparently because you want a target. I simply used the well-known term "atheist". There is nothing semantic about that, unless you want to play with definitions. I do not, and will not engage your silly evasive game. There is nothing cowardly in holding to one's position and holding another's feet to the fire.

It's an open field. You can provide your own definition of atheist and go from there to provide proof that such a thing exists. How does it feel to be on the horns of a dilemma?

Well, guys, I may be new to this segment of the forum here, and maybe that's where I need to stay.

All this sniping and arguing pointlessly reminds me of the scientific community. Many are about half-educated, and listen ONLY to what their profs told them about the efficacy of their chosen profession. Consequently, they become, by default mostly, scientismists. Scientism refers to those who believe science is the ONLY way to see "Truth."

Other, more broad minced and balanced scientists have no problem considering, weighing and making use of info from a broader spectrum of our earthly experience.

Strict science, at its very beginning, flatly stated that they would not devote their attention to ANY that were not explainable in a strict physical sense, simply because it could not be observed or quantified.

Other scientists are more comfortable and open to a broader spectrum of human experience and sources of its knowledge. The entire field of psychology, sociology, anthropology and all the so-called "humanities" stem from this broader view of the word "science."

However, when it comes to the matter of the emotional subject of religion, many "scientists" and pretenders to the title seem to have a rather grandiose regard for their own thoughts and prejudices. I say this because the very thing that makes their pursuits possible, the process of observation-analysis-conclusion, and the ONLY thing that might give them any real credibility, is THEN denied as being a legitimate basis for consideration of the bases for their religion.

It's been said of conservatives that we "eat our own," arguing amongst ourselves, usually quite pridefully and pig-headedly, while the liberals band together to advance THEIR agenda quite effectively.

Are we Christians to follow suit in this inanity???


Here's the situation as I see it. Some here see the Bible as the strict and literal "Word of God." Some see it as more generalized "suggestions" that are subject to our own evaluation and oversight control. Still others see it as a "fairy tale" that has no element of Truth in it. And amidst all this is the simple and very observable fact that nobody wants to give an inch in any of it, and the more they're confronted with a counter-argument, the more fastly and radically they hold to their first impressions and impulses. Rationality really takes a hit, if not a total knockout, and it's just fun and games while the "party" lasts, which is too long, but actually never very long at all. Nobody "wins." Nobody "loses." At least not in their own minds. And nothing changes, but the echoes of the parlay continue to echo through the years, only to be repeated again and again ad infinitum.

The ONLY time a person CAN be converted from disbelief to belief is when they are down and out, and humbled ENOUGH, if even then, to admit their own frailties and errors of the past. ONLY then are they really open to conversion, and if they're not open to it, even God won't interfere. He left THAT decision entirely and completely up to them. Can we do more than God????? I think NOT!

So all this trying to "win" this argument is in itself a bit inane. It's pointless, and promises any of us nothing whatever to gain. It's just instinctive of us to argue these points, but that was when folks actually LISTENED to each other, and fairly considered what the other party actually said. It's not like that now, and that, too, is part of the reason this nation is going increasingly faster downhill.

Truly, we'll ALL merit the final outcome, when it gets here!

That's my take on all of this, and I'm pretty much out'a here. There HAS to be more productive ground! I may not be very bright sometimes, but really, I'm not THAT foolish that I'd argue with those who can't or won't understand or even listen accurately to what is said, or continue to re-evaluate their own ideas lest they fall into haughtiness. If there's nothing to be gained, then why continue in that manner, and why not seek more productive and edifying material elsewhere???

Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.

Acts of divine creation and intervention are by definition exceptions to generally accepted rules and principle as known by humankind. Because you asked and I stated that we're discussing God as defined by the Bible justifies the exception and renders your citing of special pleading erroneous. In fact, you're using special pleading as a rhetorical dodge to avoid the logical conclusion that there can be no logical proof against the existence of Almighty God.

You can't lump Christians all together and be accurate.

There are huge differences between, for example, higher end Presbyterians (who are mostly rich) and the more backward fundamentalist Baptists and other evangelicals (who are generally dirt poor).

laffin'

Categorizing 'Christians' according to their worldly wealth.

laffin' some more

But he doesn't mind "special pleading" when it comes from his favorite atheist physicist and involves "special" quantum fields.

DWG,

It would be interesting to parse Christians, and for the matter Muslims, by their level of fundamentalism and see how the fell out. Of course, that would require a more complex data set, and a lot of work creating it.

Not at all. As an example lets us Barry's Cosomological argument. The argument basically goes humans intelligence (and the earth, the universe, pretty much everything else) is so complex, that is must have been designed by an intelligent creator.

So, human intelligence is so complex it requires a creator. But consider how complex such an intelligence would be. It would be MORE complex then our level of intelligence, which by the same reasoning would also require an creator. To suggest the Theist departure from this reasoning is somehow justified because a bronze age book says so is absurd.

Of course special pleading is just one of the fallacies commuted with this reasoning. The idea that we are too complex to have evolved is just a case of Personal incredulity.