How To Outlaw Christianity (Steps 2&3) (Chuck Norris On Atheism Militant Rising In US Alert)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 05/21/2007 | Chuck Norris

[MEGoody]

Thus the Christian takes the step of faith to proclaim that Thor, or any of countless gods, does not exist. Does that make the Christian a Norseman?

Uh, since the Christian states he/she does not believe in Thor, I would say that would be evidence that he/she is NOT a Norseman. Perhaps that is what you meant to state.

At any rate, yes, no matter what position on takes as regards to God, it is a step of faith. Some positions have more evidence than others, but it is a step of faith none-the-less.

[MEGoody]

The religious can rest in the belief that even if they don't know something, their deity knows everything.

So does that mean atheists and agnostics can't rest because they don't know everything? If they can rest, what is it they rest in the belief of?

[antiRepublicrat]

So does that mean atheists and agnostics can't rest because they don't know everything?

"Rest," as in to be at ease, in peace. Some people need to know everything, or know that it is at least known by someone, others don't have that need.

[antiRepublicrat]

Uh, since the Christian states he/she does not believe in Thor, I would say that would be evidence that he/she is NOT a Norseman. Perhaps that is what you meant to state.

Under these criteria, it takes just as much faith for a Christian not to believe in Thor as it does for an atheist not to believe in God.

At any rate, yes, no matter what position on takes as regards to God, it is a step of faith.

Not really. An outlook is to say that it doesn't exist unless the existence is shown sufficiently. Almost any adult will state that Santa Claus as a person doesn't exist because of lack of proof and simple logical analysis of the claims. Same thing with some atheists.

[MEGoody]

Under these criteria, it takes just as much faith for a Christian not to believe in Thor as it does for an atheist not to believe in God.

Okay - not sure why you feel compelled to reiterate what I've already said.

Almost any adult will state that Santa Claus as a person doesn't exist because of lack of proof and simple logical analysis of the claims. Same thing with some atheists.

Actually, there is proof both ways, but neither side will admit that what the other presents is real proof. So. . .it's a step of faith either way.

[MEGoody]

I see, so they rest in simply knowing they don't know everything.

Whatever floats one's boat. . .

[antiRepublicrat]

Just accepting without being troubled by it. I don’t know what I’m going to eat for dinner tomorrow either, and I’m not worried about that.

[antiRepublicrat]

Okay - not sure why you feel compelled to reiterate what I've already said.

If you ascribe faith relating to God to the atheist who denies him, then you should also ascribe faith relating to Thor to the Christian who denies him. But most Christians would probably take offense at being told they have faith relating to another religion.

Actually, there is proof both ways

There is? Last I checked, there have never been any anonymous presents under the tree for my kids. I know where each one came from, and it wasn't Santa. Are you seriously telling me you still believe in Santa?

[MEGoody]

If you ascribe faith relating to God to the atheist who denies him, then you should also ascribe faith relating to Thor to the Christian who denies him.

I already did. Perhaps I wasn't clear in doing so. No matter what position one takes on God, it is a step of faith.

There is? Last I checked, there have never been any anonymous presents under the tree for my kids.

LOL Okay - let me clarify again. There is proof on both sides of the question of whether God exists or not, but neither side will accept the other's proof as proof.

[ndt]

"I'm not sure how to classify Isaac Newton..."

Any way you like because, religions dogma played no part in his Newtons theories.

"How about Gregor Mendel?"

Wrong again, God and religion play no part in Mendelian genetics.

"How about Kepler?"

Please show me where in the laws of planetary motion God or religion play any part.

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that a science done by a religious person is science based on religion. In fact, all three of the people you mention notably failed to use religion in any of their successful theories. When the rubber hit the road, they ignored God, and did science.

[ndt]

"Copernicus..."

I missed your Copernicus post, but ditto for him. A religious scientist does not equal science based on religion.

Do you also think math is based on Islam?

[syriacus]

I found plenty of scientists who were also religious, which was what I was talking about in the post you replied to.

You brought up the "science based on religion" argument, not I.

[syriacus]

Do you also think math is based on Islam?

What a funny question to ask out of the blue like that.

[syriacus]

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that a science done by a religious person is science based on religion

You inferred that, incorrectly.

[ovrtaxt]

Since when are your eyes the sole source of your ability to experience the reality of something? You’re basing the nonexistence of God on the fact that He’s invisible?

weak.

[syriacus]

Some people need to know everything, or know that it is at least known by someone, others don't have that need.

Do our needs determine reality?

[antiRepublicrat]

No matter what position one takes on God, it is a step of faith.

How about the general skeptical worldview that you don't accept anything as existing absent convincing evidence or proof? It applies to God, Thor and Santa. The greater the claim, or the greater the consequences of the claim, the higher the standard of required proof. I might easily believe a friend who said he caught a fish "THIS BIG," but I'm going to demand proof if I had $500 riding on it.

There is proof on both sides of the question of whether God exists or not, but neither side will accept the other's proof as proof.

I've never understood the concept of proof that a deity does not exist. The adherents merely need to ascribe to the deity attributes that cannot be known and omnipotency, and the existence will fall outside the bounds of any possible disproof.

but neither side will accept the other's proof as proof.

But generally in any debate it is the responsibility of the person claiming the existence of something to supply proof. Absent proof, the point dies on its own.

However, you're kind of missing the point if you'll only accept God based on proof.

[ndt]

"You brought up the "science based on religion" argument, not I."

You were asked pointedly "why would we consider the opinions of religious people who have no special expertise in things scientific?" to which you replied

"Yes. We need to listen to people with expertise in both fields"

Not only does this not answer the question that was posed to you, but you go on to state that those doing science need to listen to religious folk. Hence my claim that religious dogma has never led to a scientific discovery.

So to reiterate the original question that you never answered, why should science take religious dogma in to account?

"[re: math and Islam] What a funny question to ask out of the blue like that."

It's not at all out of the blue. The Islamic world was the cradle of mathematics and many early mathematicians were Islamic. Your suggesting that scientists need to listen to religious people is like saying that modern mathematicians should consult with an Imam before publishing a new formula.

[syriacus]

I have to thank you for motivating me to compile a list of renowned scientists who were religious. What amazing men!!

I’ve bookmarked this thread so I can refer to these religious scientists in the future.

Thank you again.

[ndt]

You're welcome. You are still dodging the question though.

Why should science take religious dogma in to account?