Noah's flood real

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 56)

Showing posts 1,101 - 1,120 of4,522
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1178
Nov 20, 2012
 
So your argument is there are non believing theists?

Uh wow just wow. Just when we thought you couldn't get dumber.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Big difference between non-believers and atheist. Just accept it because it is a fact no matter how much you wail and scream.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1179
Nov 20, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>So your argument is there are non believing theists?

Uh wow just wow. Just when we thought you couldn't get dumber.
You get dumber by the day.
Amused

Buzzards Bay, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1180
Nov 20, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Big difference between non-believers and atheist. Just accept it because it is a fact no matter how much you wail and scream.
If your dictionary does not define the two terms as synonyms, you should bring it back and demand a full refund.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1181
Nov 20, 2012
 
I know right? But we are used to these Christhole idiots making up their own definitions.

Rather pathetic.
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
If your dictionary does not define the two terms as synonyms, you should bring it back and demand a full refund.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1183
Nov 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>So your argument is there are non believing theists?

Uh wow just wow. Just when we thought you couldn't get dumber.
"If you don’t believe in any gods, you are an atheist, right? This definition seems pretty basic, not the kind of material that requires an advanced degree in theology to understand.

But apparently it isn't accurate. In fact, as I circulate in the secular movement on a daily basis, I frequently meet nonbelievers who are unwilling to identify as atheists.

Of course, there are other words that might describe those who don't believe in deities — agnostic, humanist, skeptic, etc.— and quite a few nonbelievers prefer one of those terms as their primary means of religious identification, but many reject outright the atheist identity even as a secondary or incidental label. "Don't call me an atheist!" one such nonbeliever recently told me. "I refuse to identify according to what I reject. I don't believe in astrology or unicorns, but I don't label myself according to that – so why should I identify according to my rejection of god-belief?"

This is an interesting argument, perhaps even somewhat persuasive, but it deserves some scrutiny.

For starters, most of us would probably agree that each person should be free to identify as he or she sees fit, so those nonbelievers who are uncomfortable with the atheist label shouldn't feel obliged to use it. But when we scratch beneath the surface, we sometimes find that the stated reason for avoiding the atheist label – such as the claim of not wanting to identify according to what one doesn’t believe – is a bit disingenuous.

After all, since there are no specific, common words in the English language for one who rejects astrology or unicorns, it would be rather difficult to identify as such a person. But if there were such a word (say, an “anti-astrologist”), it seems doubtful that those who fit the definition would vigorously avoid it. I couldn't imagine astrological skeptics saying,“Don’t call me an anti-astrologist! I refuse to label myself according to what I don’t believe!”

In fact, standing up against certain ideas is common in our politics and culture, both historically and in modern times, as we see with terms like anti-imperialist, anti-bullying, anti-defamation, anti-war, anti-racist, and anti-federalist. It hardly seems a matter of noble principle that one should refuse to identify as rejecting a concept, particularly a central philosophical question such as theism.

Thus, if most "non-atheist nonbelievers" were honest (and, by the way, many are) they would concede that their avoidance of the word has little to do with a principled refusal to stand up against a concept; rather, they avoid the atheist label because it carries with it a powerful stigma. Even to many nonbelievers,“atheist” is still a word that is not uttered in mixed company. In fact, some surveys show that, despite the growth of secularity in America in recent years, atheists are nevertheless the most distrusted minority.

We should bear in mind that use of the atheist identity does not necessarily preclude the use of other terms. Personally, I strongly prefer the word “humanist,” but I nevertheless will use “atheist” if a situation calls for it. This might be in response to a direct question – Are you an atheist?– or in circumstances that simply do not allow for an explanation of humanism.

Importantly, although it is unfortunate that many feel it necessary to avoid the atheist label, we shouldn't be critical of them. Everyone's personal and family situation is unique, and it wouldn't be fair to judge those who are reluctant to openly identify as atheist. Ultimately the decision is up to the individual, and nobody should be berated for hesitating."

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1184
Nov 20, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup too bad.
2.3% LMAO!
You numbers are wrong, wrong, wrong, but even if they were right, it is still ........

Not too bad, not at all.

Not for us anyway. It is very sad for those poor children, who are born to theist parents.

What do you think the theist should do with their baby atheist? Give the child a choice? Ha, never! That would defeat the Ju-Ju man/priest/witch doctor/shaman/spell casters entire agenda. And the theist parents know it. That is why the atheist babies, of theist parents are slated for indoctrination before they are ever conceived.

The priest need money, and your child will provide for them when you no longer can.

Meanwhile our numbers grow and grow, and still the god never answers and mountains never move, and the Ju-Ju man screams on "Show me the money, show me the money, show me the money!"

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1185
Nov 21, 2012
 
Yawn long story short you are bleating that some non believers don't use the term atheist because of the stigma that bigots like you attach to the word. ZzzzzzzzZzzzzz

An atheist is a non believer one without theism and non believers people without theism are the fastest growing group of people in America like it or not.

Would a rose by any other name smell less sweet?
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"If you don’t believe in any gods, you are an atheist, right? This definition seems pretty basic, not the kind of material that requires an advanced degree in theology to understand.
But apparently it isn't accurate. In fact, as I circulate in the secular movement on a daily basis, I frequently meet nonbelievers who are unwilling to identify as atheists.
Of course, there are other words that might describe those who don't believe in deities — agnostic, humanist, skeptic, etc.— and quite a few nonbelievers prefer one of those terms as their primary means of religious identification, but many reject outright the atheist identity even as a secondary or incidental label. "Don't call me an atheist!" one such nonbeliever recently told me. "I refuse to identify according to what I reject. I don't believe in astrology or unicorns, but I don't label myself according to that – so why should I identify according to my rejection of god-belief?"
This is an interesting argument, perhaps even somewhat persuasive, but it deserves some scrutiny.
For starters, most of us would probably agree that each person should be free to identify as he or she sees fit, so those nonbelievers who are uncomfortable with the atheist label shouldn't feel obliged to use it.
In fact, standing up against certain ideas is common in our politics and culture, both historically and in modern times, as we see with terms like anti-imperialist, anti-bullying, anti-defamation, anti-war, anti-racist, and anti-federalist. It hardly seems a matter of noble principle that one should refuse to identify as rejecting a concept, particularly a central philosophical question such as theism.
Thus, if most "non-atheist nonbelievers" were honest (and, by the way, many are) they would concede that their avoidance of the word has little to do with a principled refusal to stand up against a concept; rather, they avoid the atheist label because it carries with it a powerful stigma. Even to many nonbelievers,“atheist” is still a word that is not uttered in mixed company. In fact, some surveys show that, despite the growth of secularity in America in recent years, atheists are nevertheless the most distrusted minority.
We should bear in mind that use of the atheist identity does not necessarily preclude the use of other terms. Personally, I strongly prefer the word “humanist,” but I nevertheless will use “atheist” if a situation calls for it. This might be in response to a direct question – Are you an atheist?– or in circumstances that simply do not allow for an explanation of humanism.
Importantly, although it is unfortunate that many feel it necessary to avoid the atheist label, we shouldn't be critical of them. Everyone's personal and family situation is unique, and it wouldn't be fair to judge those who are reluctant to openly identify as atheist. Ultimately the decision is up to the individual, and nobody should be berated for hesitating."
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1186
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

he whole earth was covered with the Flood waters, and the world that then existed was destroyed by the very waters out of which the earth had originally emerged at God's command (Genesis 1:9; 2 Peter 3:5,6). But where did those waters go after the flood?

There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the flood waters with the present-day seas (Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8-11 note “waves”). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they were in Noah's day? Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9)[1]. They are the same waters!

Isaiah gives this same statement that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth (Isaiah 54:9). Clearly, what the Bible is telling us is that God acted to alter the earth's topography. New continental landmasses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basin were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents.

That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth's surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth's surface to a depth of 1.7 miles (2.7 kilometers). We need to remember that nearly 70 percent of the earth's surface is still covered by water. Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah's Flood are in today's ocean basins.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-flo...
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1187
Nov 21, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>Fastest growing group in America is non believers. Obviously we threaten you otherwise you wouldn't waste so much time and effort on here :)
I'm on here for entertainment only.
Threaten me? You!? Are you kidding me? LOL

No Shit? LOL

CSLMFAO!!!!!!!

Why that's like an ant vs an alligator !

You're the ant! LMAO

Threatened LOL
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1188
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Amused wrote:
<quoted text>If your dictionary does not define the two terms as synonyms, you should bring it back and demand a full refund.
In the real world that's where I live!

Atheist and Agnostics are two different words meaning two different things!

You Atheist are so afraid of the title you have claimed that you want or need to try and lump all nonbelievers in with you.
Why? So your numbers look better.
We've seen that all over these boards when the true Atheist number of 2.3% is brought out. Again you feel the need to include all nonbelievers such as new borns, so you can try and claim that we all were once Atheist so see we're not all that bad. And you feel the need to try and pull in the agnostics because they have an open mind and have not made a decision yet.

Atheist have made their decision unlike all the rest. Atheist believe no God or Gods exist. You're all by yourselves here.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1189
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>You numbers are wrong, wrong, wrong, but even if they were right, it is still ........

Not too bad, not at all.

Not for us anyway. It is very sad for those poor children, who are born to theist parents.

What do you think the theist should do with their baby atheist? Give the child a choice? Ha, never! That would defeat the Ju-Ju man/priest/witch doctor/shaman/spell casters entire agenda. And the theist parents know it. That is why the atheist babies, of theist parents are slated for indoctrination before they are ever conceived.

The priest need money, and your child will provide for them when you no longer can.

Meanwhile our numbers grow and grow, and still the god never answers and mountains never move, and the Ju-Ju man screams on "Show me the money, show me the money, show me the money!"
2.3%

Not my numbers! LOL

A survey published in the 2005 Encyclopedia Britannica stated that 2.3% of the world's population consists of individuals who profess "atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious." In regards to the 2.3% figure just mentioned, the 2005 survey cited by Encyclopedia Britannica survey did not include Buddhist in regards to the 2.3% figure and Buddhism can be theistic or atheistic."

Wikipedia:

"Another survey attributed to Britannica shows the population of atheists at around 2.4% of the world's population.[citation needed] It is difficult to determine whether atheism is growing or not"

Wikipedia :

"2005 poll by AP/Ipsos surveyed ten countries. Of the developed nations, people in the United States were most sure of the existence of God or a higher power (2% atheist, 4% agnostic)"

Wikipedia :

"According to one estimate, atheists make up about 2.3% of the world's population"

"In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the atheist population in the United States was 1.6% of the American population."

"Global atheism is shrinking and demographic changes in the United States and the world are expected to shrink the influence of American secularism.
In 2012, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary reported that globally every day there are 800 less atheists per day, 1,100 less non-religious (agnostic) people per day and 83,000 more people professing to be Christians per day.
In 2011, the American Spectator declared concerning research published in the International Bulletin of

Missionary Research:
The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where charismatic Christianity is exploding."

Boy this sure must sting! You all just hate the facts shown to all. The curtain has been lifted and we now see the little man pulling the strings.

Atheist have no power in numbers.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1190
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>Yawn long story short you are bleating that some non believers don't use the term atheist because of the stigma that bigots like you attach to the word. ZzzzzzzzZzzzzz

An atheist is a non believer one without theism and non believers people without theism are the fastest growing group of people in America like it or not.

Would a rose by any other name smell less sweet?
Afraid of standing by the title atheist?

Can't handle the low numbers of atheist?

Feel the need to try and included more into your clan?

Atheist have made the choice to believe there is no God.

You are not a lump of plasma that does not know there are two trains of thoughts on the subject. You reject one line for the other. You have acted! You have made the choice TO BELIEVE that there is no God. You are an Atheist by definition. The rest are not.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1191
Nov 21, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Afraid of standing by the title atheist?
Can't handle the low numbers of atheist?
Feel the need to try and included more into your clan?
Atheist have made the choice to believe there is no God.
You are not a lump of plasma that does not know there are two trains of thoughts on the subject. You reject one line for the other. You have acted! You have made the choice TO BELIEVE that there is no God. You are an Atheist by definition. The rest are not.
Are you saying the default position of humans is to believe in your god and one has to make a conscious choice to not believe?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1192
Nov 21, 2012
 
Nope not buying it, you idiots spend far to much time on here and put way to much effort into it all the while getting factually crushed and humiliated.

If we were such a minority fading away there would be no reason for such an effort.

Checkmate.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm on here for entertainment only.
Threaten me? You!? Are you kidding me? LOL
No Shit? LOL
CSLMFAO!!!!!!!
Why that's like an ant vs an alligator !
You're the ant! LMAO
Threatened LOL

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1193
Nov 21, 2012
 
I think you are giving the spambot troll way to much credit. This mouth breather is simply here making a jackass out of himself because non believers are growing at an all time rate meanwhile churches are closing at alarming rate.

This is a time of crisis for them and they now it.
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying the default position of humans is to believe in your god and one has to make a conscious choice to not believe?
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1194
Nov 21, 2012
 
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>Are you saying the default position of humans is to believe in your god and one has to make a conscious choice to not believe?
Do you really have a hard time understanding this?

A new born has no knowledge of God the existence or nonexistent therefore the new born is classified as Agnostic

Once in formed and capable of understanding then if one believes there is no God then they are an Atheist.
They have acted.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1195
Nov 21, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
2.3%
Not my numbers! LOL
Secular/nonreligious/atheist/a gnostic: 1.1 BILLION
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adheren...
KJV wrote:
The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where charismatic Christianity is exploding."
Boy this sure must sting!
Yes, you must be proud that theism is growing primarily among uneducated people in 3rd world nations and dying in the 1st world.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1196
Nov 21, 2012
 
Very well said. At least the faithful will find followers in sht holes for a while longer. Sadly this is all they have left to hang their hat on.
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Secular/nonreligious/atheist/a gnostic: 1.1 BILLION
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adheren...
<quoted text>
Yes, you must be proud that theism is growing primarily among uneducated people in 3rd world nations and dying in the 1st world.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1197
Nov 21, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really have a hard time understanding this?
A new born has no knowledge of God the existence or nonexistent therefore the new born is classified as Agnostic
Once in formed and capable of understanding then if one believes there is no God then they are an Atheist.
They have acted.
So, in the same way that one doesn't believe in Santa Clause or
the tooth fairy
unicorns
leprechauns
the easter bunny

makes total sense....

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1198
Nov 21, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
I had a look at this nonsense site.

Read this...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/...

It says that when the Bible says a day it means a day and nothing else.

The same is true when the Bible gives a ratio of 3 for Pi.

It means 3 and nothing else.

That leaves you with a big problem.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1,101 - 1,120 of4,522
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••