You may be a "fundy atheist if" and more...

chickengirl

Here are a few interesting sites: Wink

You may be a fundamentalist atheist if....

(An amusing little list in the tradition of Jeff Foxworthy's "You Just Might be a Redneck if..." was sent to us by a reader and we have expanded it since. See how many of these you can apply to people you know!)

*You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.

*You descended from apes.(Think about it.)
*You think that humans are products of chance but when it comes to human reason we can believe in logic! (Think about it !)
*You think you arrived at your position because you are a free-thinker who rationally weighed the evidence, and then freely chose atheism over theism. YET, you also believe that your thinking and actions are nothing more than the FIXED reactions of the atoms in your brain that are governed by the Laws of Chemistry and Physics.
*You love to castigate Christians for being "anti-science" if they deny evolution from goo to you via the zoo, and to preach that they should adapt their thinking to the "science" of our day. But you also castigate the Church of 400 years ago for being anti-science, when it DID adapt its thinking to the science of ITS day, i.e. Ptolemaic cosmology, then joined with the Aristotelian scientists of the universities in rejecting Galileo!
*You have recently stuck a Darwin fish on your car in the hopes the people with the Jesus fish on theirs will be offended.
*Concerning the origins of life, you feel that though the chances of life forming without an intelligent creator are small it DID indeed happen that way. And yet you don't believe me when a rock, coming from my direction, hits you in the back of the head and I tell you, "I didn't throw it. There was a sudden shift in the earth's gravitational pull and the rock levitated into your head...Sure the chances are small but it DID happen that way."
*When you're shown that your view of origins is silly, you can only respond, "Well...at least it's better than believing in some invisible SKY DADDY!"
*You are a person who absolutely believes that life came from nonlife, yet absolutely deny the possibility of anyone rising from the dead.
*You contend that no war in history has ever been created by non-belief. Yet, when you are told that 176 million people lost their lives in wars during the last century, created by non-believers like Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Hitler, to name only a few, you reply that those wars fought were fought in the name of ideology and not atheism as atheists dont fly planes into buildings or start wars.
*When you use a historical point to prove Christianity is false (i.e., pagan parallel to Christianity), history is objective truth. When a Christian uses real historical scholarship to prove you false, history was written by subjective men and therefore cannot be trusted.
*You think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes.
*You're convinced, despite evidence to the contrary, that Christianity was responsible for the Jewish holocaust because, dang it, that just SEEMS like something Christians would do.
*You assert that the crimes and failings of some Christians (acting inconsistently with the teachings of Christ at that!) disproves the whole edifice of Christianity but that the crimes and failings of some atheists (acting consistently with the fact that atheism can provide no basis for objective morality!) should on no account be held against the philosophy of atheism.
*You are disgusted with Doctor Paul Vitzs book Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism because an educated person with a degree has linked atheism as a psychological condition. Yet, you have no remorse when you tell believers that they are a product of brainwashing, psycho conditioning and wishful thinking.
*You think God was cruel for killing all of those innocent babies in the flood, and that Christians are cruel for opposing a woman's right to abort her baby.
*You decry Christian missionaries for denying cultural relativism; denouncing their efforts to reform cannibalism, slavery and fear of animist spirits as judgmental intolerance. But your attacks on the Bible merely comprise anguished cries of "how barbaric" rather than reasoned arguments; and ignore all considerations of ritual cleanness, the evils of the Canaanites and the fact that ancient society was always one step from anarchy.
*You think religious tolerence does not applies to Christians.
*You really "believe" that many human beings actually believe things they know aren't true.
*You believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist, yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded".
Oh there's lots more: Smile

http://www.tektonics.org/fundyath.html

Learning to think spiritually isn't about accepting the supernatural. I am referring to that part of the human intellect that allows the mind to understand things that are not readily made obvious or explicitly stated. It is the same skill involved in interpreting poetry or in detecting the nuances that are present in higher literature. Most people already have this ability; they just need to learn how to apply it when it comes to the issue of God.

If you are an atheist who is interested in seeing if he can tune into God, I recommend that you first read "The Tao of Pooh" by Benjamin Hoff. It's short, sweet and easy to understand. Atheistic in its philosophy, this book will put you on the path to understanding truth in paradox. A paradox is that which appears to contradict, but upon closer examination, really does not. "The Tao of Pooh" removed much of my arrogance and knocked the owl right out of me, effectively diminishing two barriers that had allowed me to shut God out of my perception. Read more:

http://www.ex-atheist.com/Learning%20To...ually.html

Exerpts from G.Z. Jordan's testimony:
I did not like Christians, and I would have nothing to do with someone once I learned of their Christianity. Then in 1992 I met a man named Jim. I learned of his Christianity, but I liked him anyway. I respected his honesty, intelligence, and good character. We became friends despite our disparate theistic positions. He made an example of not condemning, but trusting his light to shine onto me. That shocked me because I had grown accustomed to "religious fanatics" attempting to force other people to conform to their religiosity or spewing forth condemnation on dissenters. Jim accepted me as a friend and left the rest of the work to the "Holy Spirit." His attitude and obedience to the Lord opened the door for someone else who would show me just who Jesus Christ really was, is, and will always be.

1. Unconstitutionally, Secular Humanism is Americas governmentally established religion despite the "wall of separation" value secularists espouse. I devoted years of support to organizations that professed to be protecting that wall, while in practice were actually forcing a non-theistic religion onto the public.

2. Humanists control mainstream media, politicians, and the entertainment industry.

3. Religiosity was a factor in Americas history. That history has been re-written or omitted in some public [government-run] schools. For example, some public school texts omit George Washingtons religious references from his Farewell Address.

4. Currently, American governmental entities have grown totalitarian and coercive, whereas Jesus still seeks voluntary hearts.

5. Jesus endured attacks from His corporeal visit through today yet survives. Christianity flourished against all odds.

6. Jesus teachings do not support the Christian atrocities I have condemned throughout my atheism. Jesus should not be charged for those atrocities. Further, atheistic regimes have committed equally and worse atrocious acts in the name of "the people." Both atrocious histories merely demonstrate just how much Christs teachings are needed.

7. I reject the idea the apostles allowed themselves to be persecuted over something they knew to be false. I also reject that the apostles and the 500 witnesses to His ascension into Heaven experienced joint hallucinations. Science has yet to prove such hallucinations are possible. The apostles had everything to lose by practicing their faith and nothing to gain. Cultists are convinced of a future happening; W.W.II Japanese kamikaze pilots (similar to other religious and political martyrs) were youth indoctrinated from birth regarding the Empire/God unity concept. The disciples were neither cultists nor kamikaze styled religious fanatics, for they were steadfast over something they personally witnessed.

8. If Jesus and His apostles (authors of the New Testament) existed and were truthful, His absent body is beyond secular explanation if kept in harmony with secular explanations for His followers visions. If Jesus and His disciples did not exist, who wrote the New Testament and why? I reject that some loonies wrote it, then ignoramuses followed their insanity for 2000 years. There had been other virgin births and saviors in actual religions that died. Why would a fantasy version live on? Why would lives be changed by it?

9. Bible prophecies have come to pass against enormous odds.

10. Women are not the subjugated male-inferiors that non-Christians perceive the Bible teaches. Husbands are to sacrifice themselves for their wives as Christ did for the church (Ephesians 5:25).

With those 10 points in mind, I further determined that, even if Jesus had been a mere man, I could support His teachings with vigor and zeal, if the supernatural aspects were applied figuratively. Later, I questioned whether I was correcting the teacher by omitting the supernatural of which He spoke. Still fighting it, I owned up that following is following, whereas tailoring is tailoring. Deep down inside I knew He actually deserved to be accepted and followed by His standard, not mine. I questioned that millions of people have accepted Him via a sinners prayer of admitting guilt and repenting. Was I the insightful sage who knew what millions of others did not? I thought not.

What I want Christians to know is that your walk, your example of living the faith, or swaying, is crucial to the salvation of others. If you live in hypocrisy and duplicity, a lost person will see our Lord Jesus Christ as phony, impotent, and useless. He shed His blood on a cross that all may have eternal life. How will you serve Him -- by making a poor example?

Albert Einsteins words, "We should take care not to make the intellect our God; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality."
More from G. Zeinelde Jordan:

http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/d...2birth.htm

General Tests for Historicity

Historiography is a branch of study which focuses on the logical, conceptual, and epistemological aspects of what historians do. Critical historiography studies, among other things, the different tests which should be applied to a document to determine whether or not it is historically reliable. [4] When many of these tests are applied to the New Testament documents, they show themselves to be as reliable as, or superior to, most other ancient documents.

For example, apologists have often appealed to three general tests for historicity: the bibliographical test, the internal test, and the external test. The internal test asks whether the document itself claims to be actual history written by eyewitnesses. More will be said about eyewitness testimony later. The external test asks whether material external to the document (in this case, archaeology or the writings of the early church fathers) confirms the reliability of the document. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to delve into the external test. But it should be pointed out that the New Testament has been remarkably confirmed time and again by external evidence. This is not to say there are no problems; but to the unbiased observer, little doubt can be cast on the statement that archaeology has confirmed the historical reliability of the New Testament. [5]

The bibliographical test seeks to determine how many manuscript copies we have of the document and how far removed they are in time from the originals (see table 1).

Table 1
Author, When Written, Earliest Copy Time Span, and No. of Copies
Caesar 100-44 900 A.D. 1,000 yrs. 10
Livy 59 B.C.-A.D. 20
Plato (Tetralogies) 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs. 7
Tacitus (Annals) 100 A.D. 1,100 A.D. 1,000 yrs. 20
also minor works 100 A.D. 1,000 A.D. 900 yrs. 1
Puny the Younger
(History) 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D.. 750 yrs. 7
Thucydides
(History) 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs. 8
Suetonius
(De Vita Caesarum) 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs. 8
Herodotus
(History) 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs. 8
Horace 900 yrs.
Sophocles 430-406 B.C. 1,000 A.D. 1,400 yrs. 100
Lucretius Died 55 or 53 B.C . 1,100 yrs. 2
Catullus 54 B.C. 1,550 A.D. 1,600 yrs. 3
Euripedes 480-406 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,500 yrs. 9
Demosthenes 383-322 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,300 yrs. 200*
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,400 yrs. 5**
Aristophanes 450-385 B .C. 900 A. D. 1,200 yrs. 10
*All from one copy. **Of any one work.
From Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, rev ed. (San Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life,1979), p. 42.

(I couldn't get the above chart to cut and paste properly, but if you click on the link at the end of this section, you will go right to it ) Rolling Eyes

A brief perusal of the table indicates that for a representative sample of ancient historical works, we possess only a handful of manuscripts which are, on the average, one thousand years removed from their originals.

In contrast to this, the New Testament documents have a staggering quantity of manuscript attestation. [6] Approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts, containing all or part of the New Testament, exist. There are 8,000 manuscript copies of the Vulgate (a Latin translation of the Bible done by Jerome from 382-405) and more than 350 copies of Syriac (Christian Aramaic) versions of the New Testament (these originated from 150-250; most of the copies are from the 400x). Besides this, virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325).

The dates of the manuscript copies range from early in the second century to the time of the Reformation. Many of the manuscripts are early-for example, the John Rylands manuscript (about 120; it was found in Egypt and contains a few verses from the Gospel of John), the Chester Beatty Papyri (200; it contains major portions of the New Testament), Codex Sinaiticus (350; it contains virtually all of the New Testament), and Codex Vaticanus (325-50; it contains almost the entire Bible).
Read More:

http://www.apologetics.org/books/historicity.html

Also check out this site...
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/index.html


	Home ˇ Topics ˇ Submit News ˇ Top 10 This entire site, Cops Themes, and Computer Cops are Š 2002 - 2004 Computer Cops, LLC. All rights reserved. You can syndicate our news using the file RSS 0.91, ultramode.txt, or RSS 1.0. Acceptable Use Policy. Use signifies your agreement. Engine Copyright Š 2002 by PHP-Nuke, GNU/GPL Licensed. ICRA Member. Paul Laudanski, Member of Computer Cops, LLC Server Load: 778 pages served in previous 5 minutes. Page Rendered: 0.437 seconds.