Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

You aren't the first one to point this out, and YES, I know exactly what you mean.

But I just love that quote

Blech, would you belive my luck? They city built a church next door to my house. Literally. Right next door. I get someone trying to convert every other day. I'm about ready to call the man on them.

Ahem, maybe off topic by now, but I have to wonder.

Ok, Baptisim is somthing or another that makes it so that you as a human are forgiven of the "Original sin" (stealing apples or somthing) so you won't go to hell right? Well, I was baptised, but I'm not christen, and people are all telling me I have to be to avoid hell. Whats with that?

_________________

The answer, Jon, is in Mark 16:16. Those who believe and are baptized, versus those who do not believe. The key is whether or not you trust in the Triune God in whose name you were baptized. If you are baptized, yet do not believe, then you fall into that second category, not the first. What Jesus is saying there is, essentially, that faith and obedience (or, better still, following him) will lead to life, whereas unbelief always cuts us off from God and leads to destruction.

_________________

But you don't have any proof God, Heaven, or Hell exist, so you're just bugging people based on something that might or might not happen.

How do you know that your religion is right and every other religion is wrong?

If there is a God, how do you know that he doesn't send Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus/etc. to Hell and athiests to Heaven? For all you know, he could send people who don't wear matching socks to Hell and everyone else to Heaven!

The only evidence you have is a book written by people who died around 2000 years ago, which has been copied and transcribed thousands of times so that there are thousands of versions existing today, and the vast majority of it has been disproved by science as being literal truth.

So, considering all that, what justification could you possibly have for trying to go around forcing your religion on other people?

By the same token, what justification could athiests possibly have for forcing their religious beliefs on people? What right do atheists have to bully others and discriminate because they hold a certain position about the supernatural and divine?

As I said before, science itself is not athiest in nature, and in fact casts doubt on the atheist's position as much as it does any other religious belief. Just because current scientific facts appear to disagree with accounts from, say, the Bible, does not automatically mean that athiesm is logical and "the natural choice." It's very much the other way around.

Furthermore, as I stated beforehand, two thirds of the world's scientists themselves are have non-atheistic religious beliefs of some kind.

I suggest you read my past replies to this topic, because while I've already gone into re-capping what I said beforehand, I'd really rather not do so.

Even if it seemed that the people it was meant to address didn't listen to it at all (that is to say, those atheists who believe science is proving them right).

_________________

I would add to that, Trog-Dork, that you obviously have done very little study of biblical text criticism. If you had, you'd know that we actually do have copies of the ancient manuscripts (I actually posted some pics of some on another thread), and what's more, that what we have today is plenty accurate enough. That despite being transcribed thousands and thousands of times, as you put it, the meaning has actually changed very little. As for the art of biblical translation, that's why the seminary I attended trained us to read Masoritic Hebrew and Koine Greek, so we don't have to rely on translations at all, but can work with the original texts.

And what "vast majority" are you talking about that has "been disproved by science"? Maybe there are things that science cannot explain, such as how the Red Sea can be parted, or the walls of Jericho destroyed, or the Lord Jesus Christ can be raised from the dead, but science is ill-equipped to prove or disprove much when it comes to the realm of God. Logic dictates that the Creator has the right to override the normal operations of the created order at will, and this is what we Christians call "miracle." Science can only address the normal patterns of the created order; it cannot dictate what a Creator God might or might not be able to do with that created order.

_________________

The things wirtten about in the bible are not facts. They are stories and legends written down to help spread the word of god. Many people belive they are true, and many beieve they are not true, but that's beside the point.

Science and religion aren't intended to cover the same thing. Science is the study of nature, the question, how does this happen? Religion is the study and speculation of thing(s) greater than nature, why does this happen? Science has no business nosing around in the affairs of religion, and religion has no business nosing about in the ways of science.

In the end, there will never be any scientific proof of any religion, because that's simply the nature of science.

You can't use science to argue or refute a religious argument. You can say you belive that some divinity exists, because of the miracles in the world, and other historical evidence, specifically involving jesus christ, but if you're simply asking the question "Is there a god?" the only way to know is through personal belief.

_________________

Can you prove they are not facts but mere stories? As I've stated several times on this thread and others, these documents present themselves as histories--not epic poems, not legends or myths, but histories. Considering that the bulk of manuscript and archaeological evidence supports their truth, I find it hard to believe that you expect me to just simply accept your word that they are mere legends. That is an unreasonable expectation on your part.

And as for whether mere legends can testify to a real God, I will refer you to St. Paul, who states very clearly that if Jesus Christ is not truly raised from the dead (i.e., if the resurrection is not a historical fact, and is no more than a legend), then faith itself is worthless, and we are just wasting our time.

So, no, the Bible is not a mere collection of myths and legends. It is a collection of historical documents intended to be read as a history of God's interaction with his people, and until you can give me compelling evidence to the contrary, I can, will, and must continue to proclaim it as historical fact.

_________________

What I'm saying is, the bible is not scientific fact, because it deals with religion. MAny of the events depicted in the bible may have happened, but the main message of is is that these happened because of god. The events themselves can be argued as scientific, because they can be proven or disproven, but the message simply cannot.

_________________

Since when do athiests ever force their beliefs on people? Do you see athiests going up to religious people all the time trying to deconvert them?

Science and atheism are completely different, atheism is simply the belief that there is/are no god/gods, and science is a tool for helping to better understand the world around us. Science deals in objectivity, facts. Would you say someone was 'forcing their belief on you' if they were trying to convince you that 2 + 2 = 4 or that the Earth revolves around the sun?

A lot of the Bible was left out and is not included in most modern versions, look up the council of Nycea for example.

As for parts of it being disproved by science, did you know that the Bible states that the Earth rests on 4 pillars and does not move, that the Earth was created before the sun, that the Earth is flat (it doesn't state that directly but it is clearly implied in several passages), that the value of pi is 3, that hailstones are stored in warehouses in case of war, etc. There's a bunch of that stuff all over the Bible, which is obviously untrue.

1. What do you mean, they are presented as histories? They certainly read like myths to me. Are we supposed to take stories with talking snakes and donkeys seriously?

2. You say that the bulk of 'manuscript and archaeological evidence' supports their truth, what is the source for that? What 'manuscript' are you referring to? And what specific archaeological evidence supports the Bible? Even if there is some that supports some parts of the Bible, that hardly means it's all true. For example, we found the ruins of Troy, but that doesn't mean that all the supernatural events in the Odyssey really happened.

3. Even if actual evidence and history contradicts it?

I'm no expert of Biblical criticism, but I'll try... ^^;;

I've heard that the Hebrew used can change the context of many things, and that English doesn't have really good equivalents. So when the English translation says the earth is "immovable" it probably doesn't mean it sits completely still, it's probably that there isn't a really good English equivalent for that Hebrew word...I mean like, Greek has a BUNCH of different words for "love," but English has only one.

Maybe someone who knows Hebrew can say something about that?

Also, if you are to assume a literal six day Creation for the universe, what would it matter if the Earth were made before the sun? The Earth would've only been without the sun for a mere 24 hours.

As for the value of pi being exactly 3, I can't find any verses stating that. Can you please give a verse that supports your claim, so that people don't assume you're making stuff up?

The hailstones comment, that was made in Job...he wasn't talking about A war, He was talking about THE war. And it mentions flaming hailstones. Now, could flaming hailstones be made the conventional way hail is made? Obviously not, so it's possible that there could be "warehouses" for this special hail reserved for the Apocalypse. We don't know, the Apocalypse hasn't happened yet.


Why not? Scientists thought the platypus was a hoax when they first saw it. If you heard a story back in the 1500s about a mammal with a duck beak that laid eggs and was poisonous, it's likely you would've rejected it as a fabrication, a fairy tale. But we know that the platypus is real. So who's to say that talking snakes and donkeys aren't possible as well?


And this is the problem with history, you can't really conclusively "prove" anything. This is where faith comes in. For example, what about Julius Caesar? Have you personally seen him? There are statues of him, but did he really exist? You don't know for sure. You weren't around then. But, you accept, on the faith of historical researchers, that Caesar was a real person. So it is with us. The civilizations and people in the Bible did exist, lending truth to its words.


Again, such as...? Be specific.

Well, all I have to say is, this issue has been going on for thousands of years. I highly doubt it's going to be resolved on an internet forum.

_________________
DISCLAIMER: The preceding post was the opinions of Nate, and should be taken as his two cents. Actual exchange rate may vary by location, see stores for details, void where prohibited under penalty of torture.

It's not like I can easily give up...the feelings...of needing her. - Sohma Hatsuharu

1. I've seen this tactic before, arbitrary hair - splitting in order to try to justify Biblical claims. Since you yourself admit that you aren't sure of the translation, then you're just trying to confuse the matter.

2. That's just it. A literal, 6 - day creation of the universe has been disproved by science and goes against the laws of physics. How could the light from stars billions of light - years away reach us then? Why have so many varied methods of scientific dating put the age of the Earth at around 4.5 billion years? Why is the universe filled with background radiation all emerging from one single point, the Big Bang? I could go on.

3. Now you're making stuff up. The exact passage is: Job 38:22-23: "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle?"

I see nothing about flaming hailstones or Armageddon here.

4. Pi in the Bible: Kings 7:23. Not directly stated, but the measurements are given.

5. There's a big difference between a taxonomically odd animal and animals that are already known to science, and have been examined, disected, have had their anatomy charts in biology textbooks for centuries, suddenly developing vocal cords and speaking with intelligent purpose! Surely you understand that?

6. We have multiple historical records of Julius Caesar, written by his contemporaries around the time that he lived (as opposed to Jesus and Moses, whose chronicles date to several centuries after they supposedly lived). We have written letters by Caesar, records of his military conquests, statues of him made while he was alive, and references to him all over the governments of Rome and the neighboring nations. Of course, it could all be one big hoax, but that's just being a little too paranoid, and you have to invoke Occam's Razor for situations like this.

7. I already gave you plenty of examples. But I recommend you check out this site: http://www.creationtheory.org

If they read like “myth” to you, it’s only because you have done no serious reading of them. For example, St. Luke in the very first chapter of his Gospel states up front that he is writing an orderly history based on his own historical research. C. S. Lewis once made a similar response as yours in his discussions with J. R. R. Tolkien, that he believed the Bible to be merely myth, but Tolkien challenged him on it, that he ought to more closely examine the literary genre of the texts. For example, compare the Gospel of St. Luke (or for that matter, any of the Four Gospels) with, say, Homer’s Iliad or the Eddas of Scandinavian legend.

In other words, if you cannot tell that the Scriptural documents are history and not myth, then you can’t possibly have studied too much history or too much myth.

And if God can raise the dead, as I am convinced Jesus was raised, then why shouldn't I believe that a snake could talk? or a donkey?
(actually, if you half-way knew the Scriptures at all, you'd know that the snake is a direct reference to Satan, and not an ordinary snake, but oh well!).



I’m talking about Greek manuscripts dating all the way back to the early second century. I’m talking about Old Testament manuscripts dating back to the 2nd century b.c. (including a complete scroll of the Book of Isaiah found in the Qumran caves). There is a whole discipline called “textual criticism” which deals with this very issue, studying the various manuscripts discovered in archaeological digs and such. If you wish to discuss this further, all I can suggest is that you read up on it.



What “evidence” or “history” are you saying contradict it? That’s where your argumentation is very shaky. You expect us to simply take your word for it. Well as both a history scholar and a biblical scholar, I challenge you to offer this so-called “historical evidence” for my examination. Otherwise, please do not try to make such unsupportable claims with me. Put your cards on the table and don’t try to bluff me.



Only if you assume that the “laws of physics” are a constant. Even scientists who support the Big Bang will contradict that.



Yes, and we have the writings of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. John, St. Luke, St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, and St. Jude, all men who knew Jesus personally and wrote about him based on their own experience (except for St. Luke—according to him, he actually did historical research in order to produce his account, which I would presume included interviews with these other Apostles as well as other important people in Jesus’ life). What’s more, we also know from history that every single one of these men (except St. John—he was only imprisoned) suffered horrible torture and death because they refused to recant their writings. Now, if it was a hoax, I do not believe these men would have risked death, much less willingly endured it, for what they proclaimed.

The problem is that you cannot “prove” anything historical scientifically. However, with historical evidence, such as papyri manuscripts, you can follow evidence. Further, you can collaborate historical events recorded in other histories to see if events recorded in Scripture are historically accurate. My Greek professor in college once told me about a historian who never took Acts seriously because he considered it a religious document rather than a historical one. Then one day, he actually read it, and after doing so, became convinced it was historically accurate. Why? Because all the events recorded in it could be collaborated by external sources.



What the crap does pi have anything to do with it? If you’ve ever worked around craftsmen (I have—my dad was a carpenter), then you’d recognize that this was an estimated measurement.

_________________

1. So let me get this straight: You're saying that they are not myth because the writer says they are not? Wow, that's brilliant.

2. Provide evidence that God actually did raise the dead (I mean evidence, not Bible quotes)

3. Don't just cite obscure references and tell me to 'read up on it'. That's intellectual laziness. Show me these manuscripts and the research done on them.

4. Actual history? If you want to take creation stories as history, then there are plenty that tell it differently than Genesis. The Egyptians and Sumerians had written records before the flood supposedly happened, and make no mention of such an even in their actual history (although there are mythological references, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, but we can tell those are myth since their civilizations survived throughout the supposed time of the flood).

5. So you should just randomly assume that the laws of physics are changing, even though there is absolutely no evidence to support this? Try reading this article: http://www.creationtheory.org/Database/Article18

6. Right, except all of that can't be independently verified outside of the Bible, and most historians agree that they were written several hundred years after Jesus supposedly lived. If you have these external sources, please produce them.

7. It clearly states the ratio as 1:3, yet even for that task, that would be an insufficient estimate to fully encompass the circle. Besides, if you have no trouble proclaiming that this part of the Bible is not literal, then why not accept Genesis as allegory?

1 thing, dork, dont try to go against what diddymus says, he knows this stuff more than you, and he will always win theese kind of arguments.
second, if you read on in the terms of science, when the earth was first formed, it wasnt turning as fast as it is today, it was going much slower turning around to make a day, wich would have meant that an average day in primordial earth is/could be about 2,000 years longer than what it is today. so in 6 days, lets just say that its 3,500 years as a primordial day, 3,500 x 6= 21,000 years, so 21,000 years could have either been 1 day, or all 6 days. you decide





666 is my post count!!!!argghghghghh!

_________________

Actually, yes, Mr. Sincewhenalot. I have seen atheists 'evangelize.' A lot.

I have heard of atheists who harass religious people and vandalize their stuff (for example, some atheists vandalized a car and removed the ithycus that was on it). I have seen them (and have been subject to) insults for being religious.

I have had the displeasure of running into several atheists who say "Don't you think you should be honest and candid with yourself and accept that your religion is a silly myth?"

I have seen images of atheists protesting at Vatican city with signs saying "THERE IS NO GOD" in Italian.

I like how atheists think they're somehow above "the evils of religion" when they're just like any other. They have their extremists, their fanatics, their own set of people who love to use their religious position to discriminate.

Many of these athiests believe that science has proven there is no God. How about you tell THEM your snarky little spiel on science and athiesm being completely different? Because you haven't been telling me anything I didn't already know.

_________________

This was a measurement that has since been proven inaccurate. There's nothing about God you can tangibly measure.

_________________

Thank you. I appreciate the compliment. But yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.


The Bible is plenty evidence enough. Just because you’re too hard-headed to accept it does not invalidate it.




Supposedly. Since there does not appear to be an actual verifiable date for the flood, that pretty much shoots down your dating system.


You might want to study up on actual Big Bang theoretical physics then. In order for the Big Bang to even happen, there had to have been a point in time when the physical laws as we know them now did not exist. According to the theories I’ve read, there was a time in the beginning when matter did in fact travel faster than the speed of light, and light itself traveled at near infinite speed. And this isn’t “creation science;” this is part of an actual explanation given by proponents of the Big Bang theory. However, whenever you start talking to me about physical laws not being constant, as these scientists do, then the word “miracle” comes to my mind.


The problem with that “several hundred years later” theory is that we have actual papyri that date back to the second century. Now who’s being intellectually lazy? Or didn't you at least bother to read what I posted before about that?


E-s-t-i-m-a-t-e. Here’s a freaking definition in case you don’t know what that means:


You know what really cracks me up about you village atheist types? You always come on our forum and start trying to talk like you know everything. You don't even know me. You don't even take the time to find out who I am or what makes me tick. All you do is come on our forum and try to prove how much you know, which, as it always ends up in my estimation, isn't worth very much. I have only met one atheist on this forum who actually acted like he cared about people, and he hasn't been on here in months. The rest of you, in my opinion, are just trolls looking for an argument. Why should I give more credence to your arguments than I ever gave to Dr. Zaius? Or Fossilized Apostle? Or even King Nintendoid (who may or may not be still around). But I will pose the exact same question to you that I posed to them: why should I give a crap what you have to say, when you obviously don't care about me or what I have to say?

Here's a hint: change your freaking attitude or go someplace else.

_________________

Didymus- out of simple curiosity, was Upsilon the one who cared about people?

And just so you know, atheists, Didymus is a devout Lutheran pastor. He knows what he is talking about more than anyone else on this forum.

_________________

Yeah. I didn't make my banner out of arrogance. It was a sketch made by Danbo as a joke. I put it there out of respect for him.

To answer your question, TEF, not really. Upsilon, in my observation, was simply better at being a cordial debater. That is until near the end, then he tended to resort to mockery rather than logic. Don't get me wrong, I liked Upsilon, and would have continued my discussions with him, if I hadn't started getting the distinct impression I was wasting my time. No, the one atheist I thought really cared about people was Dysthymia7. Very humble guy. But he disappeared a long time ago. Wonder whatever happened to him?

Edit: Apparently D-7 is still around. He just doesn't post much anymore.

_________________

woah..... didymus exploded right there in the end, and i guess he prety much explained what ive been trying to say all along: "Dont come on this forum and prance around telling everyone here there religion is wrong, or for that matter that every religion is wrong. see, we tolerate atheist, but athiest who dont try to put us down for putting faith into god, its athiest like you who act like they know it all that we dont like. i advise you this, dork, when your trying say that you science is more than faith straight on to a lutheran pastor, your gonna get the crap beat out of you. ohh, and BTW didymus, jsut so you know i think your the most respected person on this wiki, and you give out as much respect back, even to Dork Athiests like this guy.

_________________

Athiests are Athiests, Christians are Christians, and never the twain shall meet.

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

I turn my back for two seconds and Didy finds a new atheist to pester?



If I was an advocate of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I too could win any argument about that simply because I would know much more about it then others. It is possible to know VERY MUCH about something that might not be true. I would like to state, as an opinion, not as an argument, that Didymus should not even participate in such debates because it's his JOB to defend his religion and convert people. The rest of us do this because we have free time on our hands, are bored and see stuff we don't agree on.

The arguments resume here.



......*bangs head on table*. By the same logic Gene Ray would be right about the Time Cube simply because he says that he's right and that it's the only, undeniable truth A BILLION TIMES.



ANd hard-headed christians do not exist, I presume?



I have seen documents dated over 4000 years ago speaking of many, many gods and religion which are completely different from yours. I suppose due to your 'proven by age' theory, it would all be true.



Yes, I am still here.

Branding people you disagree with as trolls is a very nice tactic. Also, don't YOU talk like you know everything? Also, Didy, to have a debate with someone, you don't necessarily have to dive into their mind and get a fair understanding of how they think before you can start said debate.

You're an adult. You are 19 years older then me, and you are telling someone to get lost simply because you have failed to convert him. If you wish to post on this forum, do some for fun, not for your personal agenda. You can tell us time and time again that the bible IS a valid source, but we will NEVER believe you. Not even if you claim authority over the subject by being able to quote the bible from heart. I give you this: I have SOME patience with religious people, because I find that if you spend time talking to them, they turn out to be very nice people. THey cross the line with me when they either:

A. Dismiss everything you say as false, and attempting to prove this through sources that no neutral party would deem usable in ANY debate.
B. Say that they know everything. If you did know everything there is to know about christianity (not just your little denomination), you would figure out by yourself that something is fundementally wrong with the religion. Also, you know NOTHING about christianity in other countries. Knowing this would turn your faith upside down, inside out and then twice more. The status religion is given in the US does NOT reflect how others look at it. If I lived in the US, I would probably be a christian, purely because a lot of things would have been kept secret from me.
C. If they say I am going to hell. I believe only one person here has said it and although Didy did not disagree, he did mark it as a post unfit for the R&P forum. At least on this part he hasn't ticked me off yet.

As for "don't come here saying religion is wrong"..... then why is the R&P forum here in the first place? If I can't say I feel all religions are myths without being mauled, this forum has no purpose. Best to close it then. A religion forum where atheists cannot participate is just as productive as talking to a wall, as all who are present there would agree on religion being an undeniable fact (just as an atheist forum where all christians coming on to argue are instantly banned is).

I strongly recommend Didymus comes down to earth. Your age and experience gained from giving I don't know how many sermons do not grant you immunity. It would be like me saying "I READ ORIGIN OF SPECIES TWELVE TIMES! I KNOW MORE THEN YOU! RAWR!11!1!11!!".

I encourage Trog-Dork to continue posting. He pulled good points, like Upsilon before him (I am not familiar with Dr. Zaius' posts, or those of the other dude).

I give Didy one post to respond to this one, and after that, the thread must continue, or it has been derailed so far (by his own hands, by the way) that locking is the only option left to us.

That’s like saying that a medical doctor shouldn’t enter into a discussion about medicine because it’s his job. Yes, it is in fact my job, in a sense. But only in so far as it is the responsibility of every Christian to make disciples. I refer you Jesus’ words before he left earth, “Go therefore and make disciples of all peoples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). It’s my job, and that’s PRECISELY WHY I should be here in this debate.


You miss the whole point of what I was trying to say there, KN. The reason I claim that the scriptural documents are historical is precisely because those who wrote them intended for them to be read as historical. Tolkien did not intend for LOTR to be read as historical, Rowlings did not intend for Harry Potter to be read as historical, but St. Paul, St. Luke, and the others did in fact intend for their writings to be read as historical. Now, if you want to contend that they were lying, or that they misreported the facts, then you have yet another challenge on your hands: to prove that they were wrong. Otherwise, as historical records, they are to be understood as historical fact. This isn’t an arbitrary claim regarding something someone made up; it is a record of events that all these men witnessed.


Of course they do. But I was speaking specifically to TD on this one, but to you as well, if it applies. A flat refusal to accept the historicity of the biblical documents without a thorough examination of evidence is what constitutes this hard-headedness.


I did not present a “proven by age” theory. I refuted TD’s argument that the documents themselves are not old enough to be an accurate witness of the events of the first century--in his exact words, that they were only written several hundred years later. The existence of manuscripts dating back to the early second century disproves that theory.

But remember how I was discussing earlier the whole thing about literary genre? The myths of the ancient world tend to be in the form of epic poetry, like Gilgamesh, the Eddas, etc. And historical documents are typically written in prose, which is what we have for the most part in Scripture. I have no doubt that the ancient pagans wrote about their gods, too. But how many of them will claim that over 500 witnesses saw their god rise from the dead, and claim to have been one of them?


I’m talking about your attitude when you came on this forum, KN. When you came here, you basically called all Christians idiots. And I basically told you the same thing I’m telling TD now. If you don’t want to approach the subject with mutual respect (which I perceive you do not), then you are not welcome here. Now I disagree with IanTheGecko, What’s Her Face, Trev-Mun, Dead Gay Son, Dark Grapefruit, InterruptorJones, ModestlyHotGirl, and even my good friend StrongCanada. But I can disagree with them in a such a way that doesn’t insult or alienate them. Why? Because when I approach them, my attitude is one of mutual respect. I contend, KN, that when you started posting here, you threw mutual respect out the window, and that’s why I don’t want to be bothered with you. The same with TD. In his response to me, he adopted a tone of mockery, and while it may not have been the most noble thing for me to do, I responded in kind.

The simple fact remains: we’ve seen your type on this forum before, and you actually disrupt the good will that most of us on this forum have. So there you have it: watch your freaking attitude.

_________________

(Good, he responded. Expect replies to this post in your inbox, so we can keep this thread rolling).

What i find interesting is how Seamuzs noted that a friend of his travelled to the Netherlands to convert people. ....WHAT possesses people to travel halfway across the world to convert people when there are christians there to do the job for them?

It's the Great Commission. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." We Christians become missionaries out of a desire to please God and follow his commands.

I do want to make one point of clarification, because upon later reflection, I feel I came across too harsh on atheists in general. I've actually met many nice atheists on this forum, but only a very few stand out in my mind. So I do want it clear that I do not lump all atheists in the same category, and I'm sorry if I came across that way.

_________________

You know what really cracks me up about KN's re-entrance into this thread?

He claims Didymus "found" a new athiest "to pester." When actually, it was pretty much the other way around, the athiest jumping into this thread with ... well, the freaking attitude Didymus mentioned.

Oh KN, you so crazy ... but I guess I can't expect much from someone who applauds spraying mace in the face of anyone religious, and call that treatment a great development in his country. Or implies that Americans are ignorant and muddled because a majority are religious ("If I lived in the US, I would probably be a christian, purely because a lot of things would have been kept secret from me. ")

News flash, buddy:

JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE ATHIEST DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE SMARTER OR MORE ENLIGHTNED THAN A RELIGIOUS PERSON.

It's sad how KN chooses to delude himself into thinking that. I mean, Einstein was not atheist, he was a Deist. Many people uphold him as the definitive supergenius. And as I said before, scientists, who surely have above average IQs, are not wholly atheist--60% are religious or believe in a God.

I guess I can't expect KN to wake up from his delusion, given there's a WHOLE FREAKIN' MOVEMENT of atheists dedicated to perpetuating this false notion ... urgh.

But then, KN has made no secret that he has something against religion OR Americans, and seems to enjoy hitting two birds with one stone as often as he can.

That, and KN seems to not care that science, NOR Darwin in particular, (who was agnostic, not even atheist) are NOT the icons of athiesm and anti-religion he's been making them out to be through his use of each, including Darwin's works, as atheist substitutes for scripture and clergy. He seems to have totally ignored the sample argument earlier in this thread, based on pure scientific fact, that puts doubt on the atheist's position, just so he can pretend scientists and Darwin himself are the G.I. Joes of atheism.

_________________