And religions aren't the only thing you can convert people to.



I'm an atheist, but I hate the CONVERSION WAR shit.  Everyone leave everyone the fuck alone--that goes for atheists AND christians.

Quoted for the motherfucking truth. I agree with this sentiment 110%. Let well enough alone and let people believe as they damn well please.

Man, you guys keep getting the wrong idea about this whole thing.  I'm not trying to convert anyone.  I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.  I don't care what people believe, and I don't feel like I have some sort of responsibility to ENLIGHTEN.

Overall, as I stated earlier, this is just a debate to prove that two people from completely different backgrounds can discuss a sensitive topic without wanting to kill one another.  There are quite a few people here on GW who could benefit from that idea.  I'm also hoping to get more ridiculous responses from uber-Christians who want to save my soul or see my burn in hell or whatever.  It is NOT the typical "ARG I'M CHRISTIAN" versus "LOL FUCK UR GOD" shit.

atheistw.net

But it will turn out like that.  They always turn out like that.  Two people with radically different views can not get anywhere in an argument without it becoming a shit fest.  This is fact and I base this on absolutely no research.

Nah, they don't always turn out like that (but they can easily get there--I can base that on field research).  In fact, if you want a legitimate discussion (debate implies there's going to be a winner) about Christianity, I'm willing to put out...
I'm not one of those run-of-the-mill, die-hard, born-again, all-you-have-to-do-is-say-"Jesus, save me"-and-you're-in-type Christians--I'm actually a smart one who knows what the Scriptures actually say. 
But, The Mike, if you bring a topic like that to forums like this one you're going to get stupid comments from the under-educated peanut gallery composed from the mindset of Atheism for Show: many of these self-proclaimed atheists are probably the teenaged sons of good Christian people who are trying to rebel against God and Man just to prove that they can--they'll snarl all through the sermon and everything.  Spouting websites that claim to single-handedly prove the Bible wrong is tripe--as much tripe as the born-again Christians who say that God personally wrote the Bible with His own ethereal, three-in-one/one-in-three hand and has ensured it to be an utterly flawless book that contains every word God has ever uttered or will utter, so we'd better memorize 7-10 passages way out of context and build a church on it. 

That said, if the masses want some good natured discussion, I'm down.

Nah, they don't always turn out like that (but they can easily get there--I can base that on field research).  In fact, if you want a legitimate discussion (debate implies there's going to be a winner) about Christianity, I'm willing to put out...
I'm not one of those run-of-the-mill, die-hard, born-again, all-you-have-to-do-is-say-"Jesus, save me"-and-you're-in-type Christians--I'm actually a smart one who knows what the Scriptures actually say. 
But, The Mike, if you bring a topic like that to forums like this one you're going to get stupid comments from the under-educated peanut gallery composed from the mindset of Atheism for Show: many of these self-proclaimed atheists are probably the teenaged sons of good Christian people who are trying to rebel against God and Man just to prove that they can--they'll snarl all through the sermon and everything.  Spouting websites that claim to single-handedly prove the Bible wrong is tripe--as much tripe as the born-again Christians who say that God personally wrote the Bible with His own ethereal, three-in-one/one-in-three hand and has ensured it to be an utterly flawless book that contains every word God has ever uttered or will utter, so we'd better memorize 7-10 passages way out of context and build a church on it. 

That said, if the masses want some good natured discussion, I'm down.

Why don't you read that website before you tear it down, and then try to explain how the bible has multiple stories that can be traced back to religions that are 1000+ years older than christianity. I don't know how you can say "I'm not one of those run-of-the-mill, die-hard, born-again, all-you-have-to-do-is-say-"Jesus, save me"-and-you're-in-type Christians--I'm actually a smart one who knows what the Scriptures actually say." and then go on lumping me and others into the "ARG ANGSTY CHILD" category in one fell swoop. I grew up in the church and I also know what the scriptures say. And THAT is why I choose to not believe. Climbtree said the site was ridiculous but I didn't bother asking why because I assumed that was just his opinion. But if you actually read the site they list and cite all their reference and source material. Unless you actually review the site (and refute every single one of those sources), you shouldn't just assume it is "tripe".

Why don't you read that website before you tear it down, and then try to explain how the bible has multiple stories that can be traced back to religions that are 1000+ years older than christianity. I don't know how you can say "I'm not one of those run-of-the-mill, die-hard, born-again, all-you-have-to-do-is-say-"Jesus, save me"-and-you're-in-type Christians--I'm actually a smart one who knows what the Scriptures actually say." and then go on lumping me and others into the "ARG ANGSTY CHILD" category in one fell swoop. I grew up in the church and I also know what the scriptures say. And THAT is why I choose to not believe. Climbtree said the site was ridiculous but I didn't bother asking why because I assumed that was just his opinion. But if you actually read the site they list and cite all their reference and source material. Unless you actually review the site (and refute every single one of those sources), you shouldn't just assume it is "tripe".

You seem think that I think exactly like the die-hards I already separated myself from.  I don't.  I didn't assume it was tripe.  It is tripe.
I never named names on who the "ARG ANGSTY CHILD[ren]" were.  I don't know who they are.  I never said you were one of them.  (And I really don't know how that ties into me not considering myself a die-hard born-again--unless the paragraph separation and the rest of the ANGSTY CHILD sentence was lost on you.)  In fact, I said "most" of them "probably" are making for a pretty vague generalization that wouldn't necessarily include you.  More on the word "most" a little later...
My (very short) explanation on "how the bible has multiple stories that can be traced back to religions that are 1000+ years older than christianity":  The Christian Bible as we have it today came from councils, many of which occurred several hundred years after the latest of the events recorded (one example).  That doesn't mean the account in Genesis was written then, it was assembled as part of the Canon (and rest assured that any book not in adherence to the council's voted-on beliefs were not included) at that point; It was written well before.  It has been translated into many languages and into even more languages from the multiple translations.  I personally own four English translations (among others) that have very different wording.  Obviously, the Bible did not escape 100% flawless and intact--I won't claim otherwise--but that doesn't mean there is no truth in it whatsoever.  Verbal and logical contradictions are rife throughout the book.  But, I don't rest my belief on the teachings therein on the hard-headed idea that it is a flawless book.

Your site says "Most scholars agree that Genesis was only written three or four centuries BC" and offers absolutely no citation.  "Most" is a great giveaway that you're reading speculation instead of fact.  What scholars are these?  Why should I believe them?  How did they determine this hundred year window portraying 6000 year old events?
Other phrases that aren't cited and indicate similar sentiments:

"Outside of the bible, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that mankind wasn’t put on the planet by God, but gradually evolved from a now extinct ape forebear over the last 5 million years.  The evidence for this is massive."  (No citation)

  This point is still argued by scientists.  The so-called "missing link" has never been found: it's "missing".  It's a hypothetical animal at this point.  This is not the fact it purports itself to be. 

"The Tower of Babel did exist! But it wasn't demolished by God - but by Alexander the Great."

  Can you show me in the nine verses about the tower at Babel that God demolished the tower?  This assertion by the author(s) of your site preys on misinformation and incorrect verbal tradition of the tower.  The top of that page does say "In the city of Babel, a ‘Tower of Babel’ was built. It was meant to reach out to the heavens. But God punished the vanity of the people of Babel by tearing down the tower. Then He punished the people some more, by giving them different languages so that they couldn’t understand each other and spread them across the globe. (Genesis 11:1-9)" offering a "synopsis" of the passages.  But they've added concepts to the synopsis that aren't in the verses cited.  The author(s) are intentionally misleading (read: flat-out lying to) people to plant false ideas and banking on the notion that most people will not verify a source that's offered.

And that's just a few instances from just a few pages of your "Give them this link and walk away victorius [sic]" site.  It's not well researched, it's misrepresentative, and attempts to make half-truths look like full truths.  And it certainly does not "cite all their reference and source material" like you claim it did.  Have you read the citations?  Have you researched the scriptural passages they reference to check the context and applicability? 
I flipped through a few of the citations they do offer, and wasn't particularly impressed by their use.  But if you think I'm going to point-by-point argue every point made in every reference, you're mistaken.  I've done enough reading of the site and have seen sufficient lies and foolishness that I don't need to bother.

Additionally, how can I take seriously any site that advertises it's own Christianity-mocking comics?  Really...?  Is it even trying to be scholarly?  I chuckled at a couple of them, but this doesn't make the site any more reputable than a Bible-bashing website on Geocities complete with animated .gifs every two lines.

If the site claims that showing contradictions or logical untruths will prove the Bible isn't accurate, it just fell prey to its own contradictions and untruths.

Don't expect me to comment any further on that site (or any similar).  But, if you have any of your own points that aren't based on poorly researched concepts, I'd love to hear them.


This post edited slightly for formatting so dangerousned can read it... but the inline quotes are staying as they are.

You seem think that I think exactly like the die-hards I already separated myself from.  I don't.  I didn't assume it was tripe.  It is tripe.
I never named names on who the "ARG ANGSTY CHILD[ren]" were.  I don't know who they are.  I never said you were one of them.  (And I really don't know how that ties into me not considering myself a die-hard born-again--unless the paragraph separation and the rest of the ANGSTY CHILD sentence was lost on you.)  In fact, I said "most" of them "probably" are making for a pretty vague generalization that wouldn't necessarily include you.  More on the word "most" a little later...

You do and your two posts are proof enough. You didn't have to name names, it was OBVIOUS your comment was directed at me maybe I DUNNO because you specifically mentioned "Spouting websites that claim to single-handedly prove the Bible wrong is tripe" which is exactly what I did (and which is exactly what that site does BTW).

My (very short) explanation on "how the bible has multiple stories that can be traced back to religion\s that are 1000+ years older than christianity":  The Christian Bible as we have it today came from councils, many of which occurred several hundred years after the latest of the events recorded (one example).  That doesn't mean the account in Genesis was written then, it was assembled as part of the Canon (and rest assured that any book not in adherence to the council's voted-on beliefs were not included) at that point; It was written well before.  It has been translated into many languages and into even more languages from the multiple translations.  I personally own four English translations (among others) that have very different wording.  Obviously, the Bible did not escape 100% flawless and intact--I won't claim otherwise--but that doesn't mean there is no truth in it whatsoever.  Verbal and logical contradictions are rife throughout the book.  But, I don't rest my belief on the teachings therein on the hard-headed idea that it is a flawless book.

Ok? Most people know that the bible has been written many times by many different people with many different interpretations and omissions. What does that have to do with the stories in the bible existing a 1000+ years before the bible was written? Are you saying that God gave those stories to different religions to write about before he gave them to the christian people to write?

You site says "Most scholars agree that Genesis was only written three or four centuries BC" and offers absolutely no citation.  "Most" is a great giveaway that you're reading speculation instead of fact.  What scholars are these?  Why should I believe them?  How did they determine this hundred year window portraying 6000 year old events?
Other phrases that aren't cited and indicate similar sentiments:

Here's one. Here's two. Here's three.




Three sites that are all within 500 years of each other, the oldest saying 1500 BC. Ok, so they were off by about 1000 years. BUT WAIT. That doesn't matter! Why? Because their POINT of saying that was to show that three different stories/books were all written before the bible. The oldest of of those being written in 1700 BC, still 200 hundred years older!

"Outside of the bible, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that mankind wasn’t put on the planet by God, but gradually evolved from a now extinct ape forebear over the last 5 million years.  The evidence for this is massive."  (No citation)  This point is still argued by scientists.  The so-called "missing link" has never been found: it's "missing".  It's a hypothetical animal at this point.  This is not the fact it purports itself to be. 

I believe "this" point is still argued by religion and religious scientists. The EVIDENCE, which is the word they used, IS in fact overwhelming for evolution. The evidence for CREATION is non-existant!

"The Tower of Babel did exist! But it wasn't demolished by God - but by Alexander the Great."  Can you show me in the nine verses about the tower at Babel that God demolished the tower?  This assertion by the author(s) of your site preys on misinformation and incorrect verbal tradition of the tower.  The top of that page does say "In the city of Babel, a ‘Tower of Babel’ was built. It was meant to reach out to the heavens. But God punished the vanity of the people of Babel by tearing down the tower. Then He punished the people some more, by giving them different languages so that they couldn’t understand each other and spread them across the globe. (Genesis 11:1-9)" offering a "synopsis" of the passages.  But they've added concepts to the synopsis that aren't in the verses cited.  The author(s) are intentionally misleading (read: flat-out lying to) people to plant false ideas and banking on the notion that most people will not verify a source that's offered.

Maybe I will e-mail them telling them to clarify their source. But here. Whether you are refuting our ascertaining something, it would be a wise move to do some looking up yourself.

And that's just a few instances from just a few pages of your "Give them this link and walk away victorius [sic]" site.  It's not well researched, it's misrepresentative, and attempts to make half-truths look like full truths.  And it certainly does not "cite all their reference and source material" like you claim it did.  Have you read the citations?  Have you researched the scriptural passages they reference to check the context and applicability? I flipped through a few of the citations they do offer, and wasn't particularly impressed by their use.  

What I think you did is skim through until you found what you thought exactly suited your purpose, didn't research it at all, and slammed it down as an "AHA WHAT NOW?" Now, "It's not well... ...full truths." If you say that based on your above examples, then that's wrong. Just because someone doesn't spoon-feed every bit of info does not make it any of what you said. They DO cite and source their materials on, what I believe to be, the parts that are important and not necessarily common knowledge. Yes I read the citations, they are one sentence long, why would I not read one more sentence about where they got their material after reading the whole page of the issue? Yes I know most of those passages (grew up in the church remember) and the ones that I actually thought sounded wrong I looked up. I never saw/found a DIRECT quote from the bible on that site that they had quoted incorrectly. Please feel free to look for the few that might be there. I did NOT look up every verse they shared.

But if you think I'm going to point-by-point argue every point made in every reference, you're mistaken.  I've done enough reading of the site and have seen sufficient lies and foolishness that I don't need to bother.
Additionally, how can I take seriously any site that advertises it's own Christianity-mocking comics?  Really...?  Is it even trying to be scholarly?  I chuckled at a couple of them, but this doesn't make the site any more reputable than a Bible-bashing website on Geocities complete with animated .gifs every two lines.

If the site claims that showing contradictions or logical untruths will prove the Bible isn't accurate, it just fell prey to its own contradictions and untruths.

Don't expect me to comment any further on that site (or any similar).  But, if you have any of your own points that aren't based on poorly researched concepts, I'd love to hear them.

Good job on falling back into the "run-of-the-mill, die-hard, born-again, all-you-have-to-do-is-say-"Jesus, save me"-and-you're-in-type Christians" state of mind by refusing to to discuss something after you put down what you believe to be the end all of a conversation.

DA and Steele, unstoppable team that will tear itself apart from within. but.. can they put aside their difference to win? Sorry, I never did understand the targ business. I tried though