this line got me thinking... i am personally disturbed at how many children are indoctrinated to believe the way their parents thought. no doubt, most people get their religious beliefs from their parents. how does a young person stand up and say: 'No, i don't like this. i don't believe this. this doesn't make sense.' (??) it could be that so many athiests have disdain towards the religious because they have been expected to 'believe' in their own communities while growing up - yet nobody ever stopped to ask them - or listen to them.
That seems like a gross exageration to me... 24/7 really? I know that science is full of theory that they attempt to measure and quantify yet they still feel comfortable with their theory as they attempt to measure and quantify it. Why can't faith be treated as such a "theory" which may, in fact, have some personal experience behind it that is just not measurable at this point in time? My argument was for the middle ground not the caricatures at either extreme. First off, I never said anything about "excessive" mocking I don't believe. Second, you are limiting the religious perspective to "creationists" for which I assume you have the least-flattering definition imaginable. But see I think there are those who embrace both. I don't oppose science any more than I oppose religiosity when either make excessive or dogmatic claims... but that is just my opinion! I'm not one of those fundamental Christians who goes around touting the inerrancy of the Bible. Great Christian men and women got along without any Bible. In fact, some of them contributed to it. I revere the Bible for its wisdom but I think that there is a valid Christian experience beside it. If the unwritten Christian faith was good enough for the apostles and then for Paul, it is good enough for us. I know that is radical. :grin: ... but it makes sense.
That wasn't my point. I was drawing the connection that asking what someone "personally gains" from a belief is very much a loaded question. He avoided answering that same question about one of his beliefs at all costs. Point proven. And that IS relevant to this thread. EDIT: To make my point even clearer: don't ask questions of someone else that you yourself are not prepared to answer in turn.
Please. If you honesty believe that the mass public demonstrations of Christianity died with Reaganomincs, you're either being intentionally obtuse or just plain contrary. I mean, where on earth could I find a recent example of billboard-Christianity in modern sports? Hmm... Face it: billboard-Christianity is still around. It's still prevalent. And it's still out in far, FAR greater numbers than the atheist message. If you deny that, you're just lying. Oh, so now the only Christian who count are those outside the Bible belt? Sorry, you don't get off that easy. There are far more people carrying placards for "Jesus" then there are for atheism. A small sampling from all over the country from the recent astroturf movement, the ol' Tea Baggers:
not at all costs. and just like the last time we had this go round, I had to spell it out in the simplest context for you to understand. I.will.not.debate.with.you. and you specifically. Because you 1. put words in my mouth that I never said. 2. draw ridiculous parallels. 3. attack me with personal insults. I'll still send you that autograph if you want it.
So you give me Tim Tebow as an example of "mass" demonstrations? When, precisely did ONE GUY start to constitute a "mass" demonstration? It seems that you are the one being intentionally obtuse. Great...the Tea Baggers. How many times have I seen a sign from a Tea Bagger? NEVER. Why? I do not frequent their gatherings. It is a far cry from a group standing on the street corner with the express intention to rally people to Christianity. It is well known ahead of time where it will be held and when. If you do not care for their message, don't go to their gatherings. You want to see mass demonstration? Drive down 59 every so often during afternoon rush and look at the gathering of people on the street bridges. If the Tea Baggers did that, they would be run out of town on a freaking rail. I suspect that you know this already although you will deny it as though your very life depended on it.
You made a flippant comment about my example of Christian demonstrations at sporting events being dated, so I gave you a more recent example. Sorry, I don't have pictures of every single Christian with a bumper sticker, t-shirt, keychain, sticker, purse, etc. with Jesus/God plastered all over it. If you want examples, open your eyes. They are everywhere (especially in this state). You want a more specific example? How 'bout those insipid WWJD bracelets? As usual, you're intentionally missing the point: it's not about whether or not I "care for the message". My whole point was: WHICH MESSAGE IS MORE PREVALENT, CHRISTIAN OR ATHEIST? And you've yet to show anything to disprove my statement that the billboard-Christian message is far more prevalent than the atheist message. Oh, and people holding up "Honk your horn if you want to end the war" or "honk your horn is you want Bush prosecuted" signs does not constitute an atheist demonstration.
No...that is actually a very good example of a mass demonstration that is public such that it cannot be avoided reasonably. It also involves more than one college QB.
1. First you responded to someone else with an insult. 2. I responded with a simple analogy. It was not an insult. 3. You responded by mocking my analogy with a rolleyes smiley. You offered no actual debate. 4. I responded with good-faith debate again, even though you had already insulted me. You threw the first punch, buddy. You dish it out, but you can't take it. The only reason you won't debate with me is because you're coward. And I only want your autograph if you're actually Pope Benedict, remember?
So that constitutes an in your face public demonstration? Really? How about the cross on my father's chain? Does that count? Give me a freaking break. No...the point of yours that I responded to was one of public demonstration. Please be not mistaken about that. If you think that a bracelet constitutes as a billboard then I would assume that every molehill is the Alps to you as well. Oh...and I never said that it was. I just pointed it out because that is a public demonstration (you seem to be confused on what a real public demonstration is)...and it is annoying in traffic.
Yes, it does. It's advertising your faith. It may be subtle, but it's there. Atheists get to see that every day, all over the place. I can imagine it would become a bit grating after a while. The discussion we were having involved which message was more prevalent. Go back and read the thread. Yes, bracelets and billboards are equivalent. One may be more pushy and in-your-face than the other, but they are both are public demonstrations of your faith. Which has nothing to do with what we were discussing. Get back on topic or go away.
that 'response to someone else' isn't even close to an insult. This is why I won't debate you. buddy.
More likely you won't debate him because you don't have any rational arguments to support your anti-gay bigotry. If you did, you wouldn't dodge whenever it came up.
It's belittling, and you know it. And if you'd look to your first response to me, that is an insult by any standard. Either way, you had the first insult. If you're so uninterested in debating me, I find it very interesting that you keep responding. It seems you're attempting to save face... because you know if you try arguing with me logically, it'll look even worse for you. Attack the man, not the logic... that's apparently your favorite card. Make a real argument about the issues like a man, or stop whining responses back at me after you've already said you aren't talking to me. If you choose the former option, you'll note that there won't be any questions relevant to the issue at hand that I'm afraid of answering.
In that case, likewise, the absence of same would constitute a message of non faith. Therefore, it appears that, as subtle as it is, they are roughly equivalent. To split hairs in such a manner is silly and grating. I just showed you how asinine it can become if you follow your statement to its logical conclusion. I responded to a very narrow portion of what you were saying. Go back and read my response. If you honestly believe that a billboard and a bracelet are the same thing, then there is really little hope of debating with you in any rational manner. You want to make totally asinine statements and then become the topic police? Get a grip.
What is the atheist message? I get your point. I think what you are missing is that there is no central entity which is orchestrating these "messages" on behalf of Christians. There are literaly thousands of such organizations independently generating this kind of activity and getting this kind of exposure. It's not a "conspiracy."
don't flatter yourself dude. there are 3-4 threads where I have openly stated my opinions on the topics you wish to debate. Anybody can look at them at time. I'm not trying to hide anything. I never siad I wouldn't talk to you or that I wouldn't respond to you. Again, see the reasons why I said I wouldn't debate you. (putting words in my mouth I never said).
You must live a miserable life it people's choice in jewelry is the equivalent of a "grating" "billboard." I pity you.
And you must not pay much attention: I wasn't saying that it bothers me. I'm not an atheist. I'm saying that, to an atheist, it may be annoying. This whole discussion began, in quite a civil manner, when rhino17 stated that there are more atheists voicing their beliefs than Christians (see http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5150933&postcount=384 ). This led to a discussion of the dissemination of the Christian message vs. the atheist message, until Refman came into the discussion with flippant comments aimed at turning a reasoned debate into an argument ( see http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5152031&postcount=414 ). Christians wear their beliefs quite literally on their sleeves, and then question when people point out that the Christian message is everywhere. If it is indeed just a piece of jewelry, why not wear a Star of David? Or an ankh? Or a depiction of Buddha? Wearing a crucifix is a religous statement, plain and simple. Just like wearing a WWJD? bracelet. Just like wearing a "God Loves You" t-shirt. Just like taking out a billboard telling people to got to church more. It is advertising your faith to the world. To call it anything other than that is disingenuous.
