Atheist arguments again Christianity

[NotAllThere]

So what you're saying is that you're not prepared to provide an argument from evidence, deflecting and telling folk to do their own research (patronisingly assuming none of us have already done so).

I'm more than happy to explain in person. I don't see any point in doing so in a forum where insulting banter is the order of the day. Patronising is what I do, sonny.

[Mordac]

It's free insurance. If there is a God then OK Paradise or Hell will be the outcome. If there is no God, then the big red button on the side (IBM PC) is switched off and the hard disk smashed up; he wont know.

Of course one would have to select the correct God - it would be a shame to put in a lifetimes work for the wrong team...

[Whorty]

Hmmmm, interesting .....

I doubt it. Just look for more brickbats to beat up the stupid believer. If you were interested, you could study the historicity of Christianity from mainstream historical secular sources. I'm not saying that's my route, but I know it is a route for some people.

You tell us you was once an atheist but found evidence for your belief but when asked what that evidence was you refuse to provide it. It's almost like you have blind faith and can't provide any real evidence because, let's get honest here, there is no evidence that any god has ever existed.

And I don't need to read biased religious books to know that god does not exist in any flavour, no more than I need to read a book to know Santa does not exist and is purely a story for the kids.

What term would you prefer? Non believer, infidel. Godless heretic?

Why should there be any term for someone who does not believe that a character in a story is not real? As I said previously, we don't have a term for someone who doesn't believe in Santa, so why do we need a term for someone who does not believe in the equally nonexistent god? Oh, hold on, we do have a term for people who don't believe in Santa, they're adults.

I'm always fascinated how being a Christian provokes such venom and apparent hatred in (thankfully) a few people who probably consider themselves to be good and tolerant and friendly.

I'm equally fascinated why you felt the need to dog-whistle a religious thread; was it so you could show indignation and play the victim?

I don't see much if any venom towards you or any other believers on here, and certainly no hatred. I'm not the one who suggests we should be tagged as infidels or godless heretics mate.

And let's not forget, over the millennia it's not those who don't believe in a god that have been more prevalent at slaughtering the masses; this has almost exclusively* fallen to the god followers of various flavours. Believers have been quite 'good' at burning at the stake, butchering millions and genocide.

* Mao is an obvious exception but he was an amateur compared to the believers over the centuries

[NotAllThere]

You tell us you was once an atheist but found evidence for your belief but when asked what that evidence was you refuse to provide it.

If that's you're take home from what I said, then fine. I think it's the wrong conclusion to draw, but I'm not seeking to convince you of anything. Except perhaps to chill a little.[QUOTE]

And I don't need to read biased religious books to know that god does not exist in any flavour,

Which is why I specifically said "You could study the historicity of Christianity from mainstream historical secular sources.".

was it so you could show indignation and play the victim?

I don't feel any indignation and certainly don't feel I'm any kind of victim.

I'm not the one who suggests we should be tagged as infidels or godless heretics mate.

Oh dear. You thought I was being serious. My apologies. I just wondered what term you would prefer. Perhaps "non-religious" is accurate. Or "humourless nurk"? Do you have a preferred pronoun as well?

[Whorty]

If that's you're take home from what I said, then fine. I think it's the wrong conclusion to draw, but I'm not seeking to convince you of anything. Except perhaps to chill a little.
Which is why I specifically said "You could study the historicity of Christianity from mainstream historical secular sources.".
I don't feel any indignation and certainly don't feel I'm any kind of victim.
Oh dear. You thought I was being serious. My apologies. I just wondered what term you would prefer. Perhaps "non-religious" is accurate. Or "humourless nurk"? Do you have a preferred pronoun as well?

Again, interesting ... and you think I should chill Feel free to refer to me as a homourless nurk if this makes you feel righteous - I suppose it's better than nailing me to a stake and burning me alive

If you're going to get upset by adults discussing why god does not exist then maybe don't start a thread about religion in General. It's just an idea ... you can have it for free

[NotAllThere]

[QUOTE=Whorty;2835333]

If that's you're take home from what I said, then fine. I think it's the wrong conclusion to draw, but I'm not seeking to convince you of anything. Except perhaps to chill a little.

Again, interesting ... and you think I should chill Feel free to refer to me as a homourless nurk if this makes you feel righteous - I suppose it's better than nailing me to a stake and burning me alive

If you're going to get upset by adults discussing why god does not exist then maybe don't start a thread about religion in General. It's just an idea ... you can have it for free

I'm sorry. Again. You seemed to be upset with me using terms like godless heretic, which were not meant to be taken seriously - you seem to have missed that it was intended as humour, hence the epithet "humourless". "Humourless nurk" comes from an episode of Porridge. Bit obscure, but nah.

I'm sure I'm less holier than thou. Glad to know you're chilled. Not quite sure why you think I'm upset. Maybe for the same reason I thought you were, and you claim not to be. It's hard to read emotional context through text.

[Whorty]

I'm sorry. Again. You seemed to be upset with me using terms like godless heretic, which were not meant to be taken seriously - you seem to have missed that it was intended as humour, hence the epithet "humourless". "Humourless nurk" comes from an episode of Porridge. Bit obscure, but nah.

I'm sure I'm less holier than thou. Glad to know you're chilled. Not quite sure why you think I'm upset. Maybe for the same reason I thought you were, and you claim not to be. It's hard to read emotional context through text.

Let's call it a score draw, a dull game where the crowd left before the final whistle as nothing exciting was going on.

[Eirikur]

I'm interested to hear what evidence turned you from atheist to believer. Short of god speaking to you, and proving his existence, the evidence is surely just your own blind belief based on something happening in your life?

As for the tag 'atheist', I find it offensive to be called this just because I don't believe that gods exist. I also don't believe in santa existing but I don't see anyone being tagged with a moniker for this.

Something happened in his life which made him believe there is a supernatural being. What I wonder is why he choose this particular god to follow and not Ra, Zeus or Thor. Ancient religions must have been closer to creation so must be truer than the later religions

[NotAllThere]

blablah blah

True dat, bro.

[Eirikur]

True dat, bro.

I'm not your bro