Christians showing love at Gay Pride

[Hobbs]

Rebel, you're still not reading. I never said one was more intolerant than the other.

[Ghel]

Oh, so just because I believe something that's not athiesm, I'm wrong?

What? I was referring to the discussion of whether a lack of belief in a god can lead to violent actions. I wasn't referring to your beliefs at all.

Personally, I don't care whether someone's saved or not. So your soul being forfeit makes no-nevermind to me.

Then why are you even participating in this discussion?

[Hobbs]

What? I was referring to the discussion of whether a lack of belief in a god can lead to violent actions. I wasn't referring to your beliefs at all.

sure

Then why are you even participating in this discussion?

Because this wasn't the topic of discussion, as you tried to retrack to avoid discussion. Point of fact, why are you participating in this conversation?

[HYHYBT]

And yes, it would have to be repeatable.

All right. You're saying that, to prove a miracle exists, it would have to be repeatable. You also acknowledged earlier that if it were repeatable then it wouldn't be a miracle. How is that NOT circular reasoning?

As for intolerance, that has nothing to do with religion or lack of it. The excuses people use to support their intolerance often are.

[smileyeagle1021]

2. Atheism, by itself, does not lead to ANYTHING. Atheism is a view on a single point, the belief in the existence of a god .

Okay, perhaps I should rephrase that to be that the process by which someone shifts their view to Atheism could also bring about intolerant views (which would also be accurate for converting to any religion).

Hobbs, even if what you're saying is true (which it's not), this says nothing about the existence of a god. Let's bring this back to the core of the discussion.

Technically the core of the thread was originally about Christians preaching love and acceptance at Pride Festivals

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Yeah, to get back to the core would be a shift of four or five topics, I don't think that's gonna happen :P

[smileyeagle1021]

No, but when have I passed up the oppurtunity to be a sarcastic ass

[Kaylyn]

Boy, I know how to make a topic, don't I? :P

[Ghel]

I think what started all the side-topics was that I said I felt the church in the article was using deception to try to bring gays into their church. It has to be deception, because they haven't given sufficient evidence to convince any rational person that their god exists. No church has.

All the other side topics split off from there, but they're really moot. What a theist or an atheist does says nothing about whether their claims are true. Miracles, if they existed, wouldn't necessarily be evidence of the Christian God.

I'm still waiting for evidence. Or a reasoned argument. Nothing I've seen, particularly on this thread, has convinced me that a god exists.

[Hobbs]

I think what started all the side-topics was that I said I felt the church in the article was using deception to try to bring gays into their church. It has to be deception, because they haven't given sufficient evidence to convince any rational person that their god exists. No church has.

That's just your own biased opinion. The church members aren't decieving
anyone by saying they accept homosexuals and don't feel that their beliefs conflict with that statement. You're being deceptive in thinking that thiests always have to have a hidden agenda.

All the other side topics split off from there, but they're really moot. What a theist or an atheist does says nothing about whether their claims are true. Miracles, if they existed, wouldn't necessarily be evidence of the Christian God.

Actually, if I may go back to my topic of intolerance. Just as it's been shown by your own attacks that athiests are intolerant, I think it's showing a lot for this one church to express their tolerance. Even if some members still believe that can "cure" homosexuality, that doesn't negate the message that, as Christians, they are accepting of something that a small minority sees as a "sin."

I'm still waiting for evidence. Or a reasoned argument. Nothing I've seen, particularly on this thread, has convinced me that a god exists.

I told you, I'm not going to evangelize you. Go somewhere else if you want that. I don't give a flying fuck if you believe in God or not. Just leave me alone and let me believe what I want-without bringing my intelligence or morality into question-if you can help it.

[Boozy]

Just leave me alone and let me believe what I want-without bringing my intelligence or morality into question-if you can help it.

Hobbs, this is a forum for debate.

If you want to voice your religious views without anyone questioning you, you're in the wrong place.

[Hobbs]

So true. Well, I may not be a smart person (according to some) because of my beliefs, so I'll draw on someone I think is smarter than me to debate this topic:

An Athiest Defends Religion: Why Humanity is Better off with Religion than Without It

[KnitShoni]

Hobbs, this is a forum for debate.

If you want to voice your religious views without anyone questioning you, you're in the wrong place.

Is it not possible to debate religious views without calling believers irrational and unintelligent? I think that's more what he was getting at. Although, calling atheists terrorists doesn't help his case.

[Arcade Man D]

I think what started all the side-topics was that I said I felt the church in the article was using deception to try to bring gays into their church. It has to be deception, because they haven't given sufficient evidence to convince any rational person that their god exists. No church has.

The thing is, this right here is why we won't be able to convince you.

You're coming to this from the point of view "I see no reason to believe in the supernatural unless you can provide me with proof", whereas Hobbs and I are of the point of view "I see no reason not to believe unless you can provide me with proof against".

[HYHYBT]

It has to be deception, because they haven't given sufficient evidence to convince any rational person that their god exists.

While I agree, both from initial suspicion and from what I've since read elsewhere, that the original story was about a deception, neither holding nor expressing an honestly held view is deceptive, regardless of whether you can prove yourself right or not.

Hobbs: that book is an interesting idea, but I don't think it's logically possible to hold a belief because doing so is good for you or whatever rather than because you, well, BELIEVE it. It's the same reason Pascal's Wager, while true enough on a certain level, doesn't work.

Is it not possible to debate religious views without calling believers irrational and unintelligent?

Hear, hear!!!