Alright, so a couple of days ago I was talking to a friend of mine in class. And we began to talk about religion. Now I'm far from the kind of person that likes to showcase my views on things, But I told him I was an Atheist. He Actually didn't believe me at first, and said that people have to take a oath to become an atheist. We literally argued about this for 5 whole minutes before I finally said lets go to an computer and get google the definition. after I showed him what atheism actually is, He still retained doubt. I just said forget it, and ended the conversation on it there.
What I'm asking is how long will people remain that ignorant on atheism. It's not like he's dumb when it comes to other topics. He says He's a christian and he never even read the bible. And when I told him and another friend I read it They Laughed. Oh yeah and I forgot to mention one of the guys laughing has a tattoo that says "blessed" on his chest. And he never read the bible. That's just stupid to me, But I kinda want to know what other people think about this.
@Colt Browning Smith/Wesson - RE: "it is a historical fact that someone named Jesus Christ did live, was crucified, was said to have healing powers, and the earth did quake at his death."
And dead people rose up out of their graves and as rotting corpses, walked the streets of Jerusalem dripping a trail of worms, right? No, there is no evidence whatever that an historical Yeshua (his real name - "Jesus" is the Greek translation of the Hebrew) ever lived.
Imagine yourself in court, attempting to prove Yeshua was historical - of course all of the witnesses are long since dead and can't testify, but imagine that I, as attorney for the opposition, was being my usual magnanimous self and decided to take their words as truth under the "dying declaration" premise.
So you trot out the Gospels of "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke," and "John" as testimony. Four people testify that Yeshua lived, performed miracles, was crucified, and arose from the dead! Wow, heavy stuff, four witnesses, how ever can I overcome that?
So I point out that, granted, "Matthew" was in fact the Greek translation of the New Testament name of Levi, the tax collector, mentioned in the NT, and that John, along with his brother James, both sons of Zebedee the fisherman, were also featured in the NT. But Luke and Mark were NOT disciples, were never mentioned ANYwhere as having been there, and so, are excluded from testimony - two of the only four witnesses you thought you had, are gone.
It is known by biblical scholars that "Mark," whoever that was, copied much of his material from an unknown, unnamed source, that has come to be known as "Q" - and no, not James Bond's gadget guy - and yet "Matthew's" gospel is almost word for word, the gospel of "Mark," in fact he often DOES use the exact same word or phrase - if the "Matthew" who wrote that Gospel were really there, he would have had his own story to tell, not a clone of Mark's, whom we've proven wasn't even there! So Matthew's testimony is discredited as well.
Then we come to John, the son of Zebedee. "Matthew," "Mark," and "Luke" all tell of how Yeshuah was strolling along the beach of the Sea of Galilee, when he independently encountered Peter and brother Andrew and John and brother James, and promised to make them "fishers of men" - "John," who according to the NT, was one of those four, in his Gospel, said, "No, it didn't happen that way at all! James and I were following John the Baptist, when I saw Yeshua walking on the other side of the Jordan, and waded over to talk to him. He invited me to spend the night with him at the home of a friend, so I did, and the next day, I went back and introduced him to my brother, James, and we began following Yeshua."
Now THAT story sounds far more credible (no great sound byte like, "fishers of men," but more sincere), and I would grant you that you have finally found the one and only witness who could actually tell us that Yeshua was indeed a genuine, historical person - except for one minor detail.
The Gospels of "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke" and "John" were written entirely anonymously, and it was only forty to fifty years later that names were ever assigned to the writers, names that were only assumed to be accurate. We have no idea who wrote those Gospels, how honest they were, or whether they were even there, or only concocting stories.
So sorry, Colt Browning Luger Remington Smith/Wesson, there is no historical evidence that your Yeshua ever existed. In fact, a number of others throughout history have also been said to have been born of a virgin, performed miracles, and been executed on a cross or a tree. The great mathematician, Pythagoras, was said to have been born of a virgin, performed miracles, and ascended to heaven 300 years before Yehshua was ever issued an Ascension ticket.
So I must say to you, "don’t make such bold statements with so many holes in them its as though you do know nothing of Christianity."
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" - Treaty of Tripoli 1796, signed by John Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate.
Everyone "knowing something" does not make it true. Everyone "knew" the earth was flat at one time, just as the "knew" that the whole universe revolved around the earth. It doesn't matter whether something is said by a world renowned scientist or not. It has to be testable and reproducible. World renowned scientist can be wrong, and a fool may come out with something that turns out to be correct; in many ways that doesn't matter because the scientific method will find that out, as it has done many times. Using the bible to argue for the existence of god is a circular argument.
KaraC, there's more in Herbert Storing's "What the Anti-Federalists Were For" (Univ. Chicago 1981) and probably in "The Anti-Federalist Papers" (which I'm now reading).
Storing (p 47) said the Federalists answered anti-Federalist claims for religion with "little democracies can no more be ruled by prayer than large ones. Men act mainly from passion and interest."
Oh yeah.............that whole "true Christian" thing. Trouble is, there is no consensus on just what that is! In fact, your so called holy book has spawned no less that 38 THOUSAND different flavors of christians many (if not most) of whom claim to be the only "true" christians. Please point out to me EXACTLY where in our constitution you find christian principles on which our country was founded.
"Basically you are stating your smarter than 98.6% of all Americans."
Well I can at least agree with one of your assumptions. I would suggest a course on critical thinking or at least avoid using fallacious arguments, before posting though. I gather the concept is new to you. You know the ones that get ignored by scientific peer review and are also consequently dismissed as a waste of time in legal court? Yes those are fallacious arguments.
Christians are cowardly people who are afraid of death and of a cold and merciless universe.
Cold, but with a few billion billion places that radiate much heat.
The Universe is neither friendly nor malignent, just indifferent.
Wow, you have some exceptionally clueless friends. An atheist oath? That's a new one! Some time you could mention to your friend with the tats that they are forbidden in the bible, right alongside homosexuality. Somewhere in Leviticus if I recall.
As for your question, there are plenty of people who understand atheism, but if you're wanting everyone to understand it, I think that'll happen right around never. As you observed, some people are just too lazy to think about it.
I have to agree with Artor plenty of people understand but getting everyone too will never happen.
on a sarcastic note I can't believe I missed the oath. Think I can find someone to give it to me so I can be a true atheist.
OK, Raise your glass of scotch and repeat after me:
"Ah fuck it, I'll think for myself"