actually? i honesty don't agree with the title here XD
too honest to be christian? please! i seen Christians that are too honest with heir opinions, coming to me saying: "you know? i love you people and all but after you die, you're going to hell" they show no sugarcoating when telling someone they will soon enough end up on a place of burning fire, smoke and blaze where one will feel plain, torment and anguish forever and ever till the end of time for eternity.... and also saying they love us XD honesty isn't always about facts but rather, speaking their mind no matter if they are wrong
It depends on what you mean by honest. What I meant was that his personal honesty wouldn't allow him to continue believing something if he had good grounds not too. Many Christians have conflicting beliefs, and yet they accept them anyway. From what little I know of Abe, I don't believe he would have done that.
And yet, he is often reported as having become a Christian at some point in his life, and he has also been quoted speaking quite favorable of the Bible, Christianity, God and religion in general (I won't spam up your post with them, any minor amount of research will produce them). Way to take one quote and deliver it out of context and then apply your own misguided interpretation.
Well there is the difference between me and you. You finish up at the "minor research" and I look deeper. Yes he did, but Abe was a believer in a god, not necessarily a believer in Christianity, or the god that YOU believe in.
Seriously, the best you can do is "he is often reported as becoming a Christian at some point"? It doesn't occur to you that in order for you to believe a claim you need actual evidence? People also claim that Einstein was a Christian. Hell they were doing it while he was alive, and yet it was completely false.
Unless you have something other than unsupported and unsubstantiated claims then I am afraid you are going to have to try harder.
What makes you think I stop at "minor research"? What I said was that if anyone who held this opinion bothered to do a minor amount of research, they would find his sentiments on the subject were considerably more complex. I didn't provide "actual evidence" because I don't need to, it's there for the world to discover on their own. (I mean, I could demand actual evidence about your Einstein claims too, but I don't.)
Honestly, you don't even know which god (or God) I believe in. You are expectedly (but still disappointingly) angry and irrational. That's a great way to further your cause. And I don't need to "try harder", because your position and point are flimsy at best.
Lmao, you think I'm angry? Hilarious. No, I'm more amused than angry.
Further, I at no point ever said that his feelings on the subject were not complex. If you had read my previous note properly you would have noticed that I didn't ask for evidence, in fact the emphasis was that you should look for more real evidence for yourself...
And I would be completely astonished if you didn't call yourself a Christian of some description. I could be wrong, and I agree that I am coming to conclusions on little evidence. It is however fairly consistent evidence, you are not the first person to try a similar argument, and all previous experience indicates that you are highly likely to be a Christian when you do such.
As for my point being "flimsy at best", rather than using Argumentum ad Hominem why don't you try actually addressing my point?
To make it easy for you I'll even give it to you in simple terms, You have so far made nothing more than unsubstantiated claims about the veracity of this image. You are in effect declaring that it is false and ignoring your burden of proof.
As for evidence of Einstein I'll give you this, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Just to make your intense research a little easier for you I'll even give you the origin of the quote - Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman
He was a jew. so he lied. people here can google that he support israel. thus he was not only religious but a horrible monster.
like the 160 countries vs america and israel in the UN vote, it does indeed show he was immoral. so it does explain why he was promoted by the jew lobby. because he was a jew himself. You shouldnt support such a hypocrit. its like beliving the holocaust. there is no evidence for that of course, more likely a typhus event
Your statement here can reek of hypocrisy "Seriously, the best you can do is "he is often reported as becoming a Christian at some point"?"
as one would just say your own line :"As for my point being "flimsy at best", rather than using Argumentum ad Hominem why don't you try actually addressing my point? " would fit rather well here. thus its just like your other line:Unless you have something other than unsupported and unsubstantiated claims then I am afraid you are going to have to try harder. A debate is not to try to convience the other person, its to convince others.
That said since White atheists have indeed done no harm, as the revolt against the communistic atrocities was mainly a pogrom against the jews, for being anti-non semitic.
Yes yes, you're "amused", sure, whatever you say. Just a few thoughts:
"God does not play dice with the universe."
"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations."
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." (emphasis added)
"When the solution is simple, God is answering."
"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."
"God bless the Methodist Church -- bless all the churches -- and blessed be God, Who, in this our great trial, giveth us the churches."
"Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty."
"In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it."
"The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion."
"That I am not a member of any Christian church is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular....I do not think I could myself be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, or scoffer at, religion."
"I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how a man could look up into the heavens and say there is no God."
I could go on, but I don't think it's necessary, it's all there for the world to find. I think I've made my point.
Please read again the quote I gave you on Einstein, also it might be a good idea to look up "Spinoza's god".
For context: “I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind..."
To Rabbi Herbert Goldstein (1929). Its also worth noting that I did NOT say that he was an atheist, I DID say that he did not believe in a personal god.
So who exactly failed in their research here?
Further, (again) I never denied that Abraham Lincoln had complex thoughts on the subject, I said, (and I quote) "Abe was to honest to be a Christian." And no matter how much you would like to twist it otherwise, he was not a Christian.
Now as to your "excellent research" the following quotes you submitted are FALSELY attributed to Abraham:
"The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion." What complete gibberish, I mean really?
"In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it." This quote is so openly ridiculous it is hilarious, Really? Where is your fantastic research on this? There is absolutely no evidence that he ever said this, and from a man that openly questioned the truth of the bible, and questioned the legitimacy of Jesus Christ's birth it takes a little to believe.
On this point I will leave you with a quote from Lincoln's partner, Mr. Herndon.
"I am aware of the fraud committed on Mr. Lincoln in reporting some insane remarks supposed to have been made by him, in 1864, on the presentation of a Bible to him by the colored people of Baltimore. No sane man ever uttered such folly, and no sane man will ever believe it. In that speech Mr. Lincoln is made to say: 'But for this book we could not know right from wrong.' Does any human being believe that Lincoln ever uttered this? What did the whole race of man do to know right from wrong during the countless years that passed before this book was given to the world? How did the struggling race of man build up its grand civilizations in the world before this book was given to mankind? What do the millions of people now living, who never heard of this book, do to know how to distinguish right from wrong? Was Lincoln a fool, an ass, a hypocrite, or a combination of them all? or is this speech -- this supposed -- this fraudulent speech -- a lie?"
I would also like to note that he was very careful NOT to state that he was a Christian, and he was a politician at a time when not believing very specifically in Christianity of some description or another was a major political drawback.
The truth is there for you to see. The quotes are well-documented (I have found them quoted verbatim from several sources), whether or not you accept them. Also, "Really?" and "Seriously?" and spurious, unfounded claims that they are falsely attributed to him don't count as rebuttals, and neither does a barely relevant quote from someone else. I mean, come on now, hearsay? Atheists are so embarrassingly predictable, and equally irrational in their arguments.
"..a fool, an ass, a hypocrite, or a combination of them all?"... Interesting choice of quote.
And by the way, the Einstein quotes were merely for your own reference, since you're the one who brought him up for some reason in the first place.
So where is the documentation? Which sources are you using? Come on, surely you know better than to just say "I have found evidence" without backing it up.
Just because a quote is common does not mean that it is correct, Every quote I gave you, I also gave an ORIGINAL source for. Yours are not only lacking, they are also non existent.
Further, the quote I gave you is directly related to quote you gave me, in fact it is ABOUT the quote you gave me, it was in fact drawing attention to the fact that you have NO documentation or EVIDENCE for your own quote. This means that before you can dismiss me or call my claims "unfounded", you also have to provide at least a little bit counter evidence for that claim. Good luck with that by the way.
If you were able to do anything other than "minor research" you would already know about this kind of stuff. As for calling me irrational, again this is hilarious. Not only is every point that I provide directly related to the subject at hand, it is also given with original sources. Perhaps you might learn to do a bit more than "minor research" before you get into an argument that you obviously are incapable of continuing next time.