Author Topic: Atheists Least Trusted  (Read 6469 times)

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
Atheists Least Trusted
« Reply #255 on: March 31, 2006, 08:36:55 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2

To state you are an athiest is to make a statement of faith.  

lazs


That's false.

I am an atheist specifically because the idea of a God or a supreme being or beings has not been proven to my satisfaction. My beliefs are based on science, on facts, not faith.
Faith is believing in something not "proven"
I think it rather pointless to tell others what they believe or not believe. No one here has that clairvoyant ability.

Even though I see that "God" cannot possibly exist, I am in no way going to try to convert those that have their religious faith.

People just won't willingly do things against their will.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Atheists Least Trusted
« Reply #256 on: March 31, 2006, 11:14:29 PM »
But you do take the leap of faith that your consciousness isn't an illusion.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
Atheists Least Trusted
« Reply #257 on: March 31, 2006, 11:33:27 PM »
How so?
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline Booz

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
Atheists Least Trusted
« Reply #258 on: April 01, 2006, 12:20:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by moot
But you do take the leap of faith that your consciousness isn't an illusion.


 or you can hang your god on nothing but solipsism, either way, reality is still there

Offline ChickenHawk

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1010
Atheists Least Trusted
« Reply #259 on: April 01, 2006, 12:31:43 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Shuckins
The Samaritans are not non-believers.  They are a small religious sect that claims kinship with the Israelites, a kinship that the Jews steadfastly deny.

The schism between the two goes back to the time of the Assyrian Captivity, when numerous ethnic groups were moved about the Middle East.  The Jews claim the Samaritans were originally an ethnic group called the Kuties who were assimilated into the Assyrian culture.  This claim, the Samaritans say, is only partly true.

They believe there is only one God...that there has been only one prophet, Moses...and only one Holy Book, the Pentateuch or Torah.


True, to a point.  The history of the Samaritans is a long and very interesting one.  While it's clear that they followed the books of Moses and looked for the Messiah, it's also clear that they incorporated other idol worshiping religions into their own and did not follow everything the Jews did.  It's also clear that there was a clear animosity between the two groups.  It was because of this animosity that Jesus used a Samaritan in his story.

While an argument can be made that they were believers in the One True God, one could also argue that they were not following the correct path.

Regardless, there are plenty of other chapters in the Bible that tell of non believers doing good things that were good in the sight of God.  The woman who helped the spies at Jericho, Queen Esther's husband saving the Hebrew race, the king who worried about Daniel while in the lions den and brought justice to those who put him there, and the Babylonian headmaster who let Daniel and his friends eat only kosher foods instead of the unclean food at the kings table.  These are just a few off the top of my head.  I know there are many more.  I can't believe that none of them mattered to God.
Do not attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence, fear, ignorance or stupidity, because there are millions more garden variety idiots walking around in the world than there are blackhearted Machiavellis.

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pt.2
« Reply #260 on: April 01, 2006, 01:18:23 AM »
Hi Crow,

Finally got everything done for Sunday (well the Sunday School on Exodus could probably use another hour of work, but ...) so as promised I'm getting around to your final question.

Quote
Originally posted by crowMAW
But I have to ask you Andy, and this may seem a little harsh:  having listened to your sermon "He Who is Not With Christ is Against Him"...it seems the intent is to instill fear of and inequity against those who have done you no wrong.  You seem to be feeding distrust, which will undoubtedly lead to contempt or worse...hate. I think I understand your motives given the demographics of your congregation.  But is this consistent with Paul?


The title of that sermon is actually taken from the words of Jesus which appear in both Luke 11:23 where I was preaching from and Matthew 12:30 - "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters." (that's the literal meaning in the Greek as well)

Christ throughout his ministry never opened the option that one could serve Him and some other master (Luke 16:13), that salvation was available through many paths (John 14:6), or that it was acceptable to be lukewarm about Him (Rev. 3:15-16). In fact He said explicitly that choosing to follow Him would divide families (Matt. 10:34-36) and inevitably lead to persecution and tribulation in this world. He even said explicitly that the more his followers loved him and denied the world, the more they would suffer persecution, and that they would be persecuted precisely because the men of the world hate Him, and to hate Him was to hate God. (John 15:18-23)

Now before you react to all of that, consider this. All of these things incense and anger people who are not following Christ, they once incensed me for instance, but keep in mind that when Jesus said these things for the first time, they made men extremely angry. In fact, we sometimes conveniently forget that Jesus made men so angry by what he said, that they ended up killing Him by the worst method they could think of, so when he taught his disciples regarding the world "it hated Me before it hated you" that was proven literally true.

Had Jesus merely wandered about telling people encouraging things that didn't ruffle their feathers, he wouldn't have been crucified. But as a general rule all of the prophets who preceded Jesus and all of the Apostles who followed Him made men very angry, and most of them ended up paying for their testimony with their lives. In fact, throughout the bible, a sure way of distinguishing false prophets is that they told men smooth things they told them "You're Just GREAT the way you are and you're definitely going to heaven" and tickled itching ears. That's what people instinctively want to hear, men are by nature: "rebellious people, Lying children, Children who will not hear the law of the LORD; Who say to the seers, "Do not see," And to the prophets, "Do not prophesy to us right things; Speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceits. Get out of the way, Turn aside from the path, Cause the Holy One of Israel To cease from before us." (Isaiah 30:9-11)

We don't want to hear the truth about ourselves, we certainly don't want to hear we are "liars" or "idolotrous" or "sinful" and yet the first sign of that heart change that I've been talking about involves confessing ourselves to be sinners and unworthy of salvation: "And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!'" (Luke 18:13)  

You see that's the message of the gospel, not that God came in the flesh to make perfect people feel better about themselves and then die for no good reason whatsoever, but that God so loved the world that he came in the flesh to seek and to save the lost by laying down His life as an atonement for their sin. As Christ put it: "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." (Luke 5:31-32)

So if you consider yourself "well", of course you will feel no need of Him and regard His comments about being "lost" as offensive. But in preaching the gospel as Christ and the Apostles did, one strives to first bring men to an awareness of their true condition (conviction) and then show them that there is one sure remedy for it (faith). In the sermon you referenced, I certainly wasn't aiming at those outside the church, but rather was aiming at convicting those before me of their need of Christ using his own words. You see the objective of the gospel is not to hate men and keep them out of the kingdom, but to invite all men everywhere in.

- SEAGOON
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline Rolex

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Atheists Least Trusted
« Reply #261 on: April 01, 2006, 01:34:45 AM »
@ lazs: Been busy being a capitalist.

You definitely have me pegged wrong if you think I'm a big-government liberal.

I believe in this:

- The US Declaration of Independence and the Constitution continue to be the most magnificent documents that concisely illuminate ideals and a system of government that any society could flourish under.

- The framers of them were wise, but not omnicient men, who understood their unique opportunity to mold something truly special in a land of extraordinary natural resources. They were a product of their optimistic time after great sacrifice.

- Their personal sacrifices and the risks they undertook for the betterment of their neighbors and children seems forgotten in this generation of selfishness.

- Their common sense to emphatically emphasize the separation of church and state should not be undermined by anyone attempting to twist and pry their religious beliefs into real or quasai legal validation by any government, local or national. My own interpretation is that you are free to practice your religion, period.

- Government is like any organization - decisions should be at the lowest level, starting with your neighborhood, and no overlapping as it moves up the ladder. And we don't need to feel like we've broken ten laws before our second cup of coffee every morning.

- I don't believe in career legislators. I believe in 1-2-3 limits: one for senators, two terms for presidents, three terms for representatives. It's a privilege to give something back to your country, not a career with retirement benefits.

- 51% of the population should not be able to enslave 49% of the population.

- The national government needs an efficient treasury, a mature State department, an efficient and strong military and oversight to maintain open and free commerce, both intra and international. Cabinet members should have just barely sufficient staff to perform oversight of their areas of responsibility, but should be reduced to:

State
Treasury
Defense
Commerce
Transportation
Interior
Attorney General (with a small, small staff since we don't need a federal statute for everything. That's why state and local governments exist.)

We don't need 15 cabinet members. Everything not covered (Education, Health and Social Services, Labor, Housing and Urban Develeopment et al. should be pushed down to state level or eliminated. The more people there are in federal government, the more scoundrels there are to be wary of who simply want to get in everyone's business to build an empire of bureaucrats.

- I believe in limited federal taxes to support the limited functions of federal government. States should be administering any health, education and/or social programs themselves, as appropriate for their own state. And the states collect the taxes to do it. It's alot easier to see the fruits of your taxes and hold people accountable than sending most of your money off to Washington DC to have the 'foreigners' there spend it for you.

So there you go. I consider myself to be a person of common sense, but you may see it differently. The dynamics of a society changes as it get bigger. Common sense and efficiency stays relatively stable at smaller local levels.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2006, 01:36:50 AM by Rolex »

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
Atheists Least Trusted
« Reply #262 on: April 01, 2006, 01:50:41 AM »
Howdy MT,

Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Claiming or teaching that good works only count when done in God's name strikes me as the best example of the worst of religion. Basically it teaches that it doesn't matter that you do good works, unless you do good works while thinking about my God. This basically closes the last loophole against conversion ie. "I don't need religion, I am already a good person."

In essence, if Mother Theresa had led the exact same life doing her work for the "good of mankind" instead of for the glory of God, she is not doing good. LOL.. funny in a sad sorta way don't you think?
 
I hope this isn't a rehash of a prior point.


As I said before,  if there was no God, and the Christian worldview was false, then I would not only be forced to concede your point, I'd have to go even further and say the conversation was pointless in that concepts of good and evil were entirely subjective and ultimately meaningless. In the end, devoting oneself to eating, drinking, and being merry or being a missionary doctor would be absolutely equal, and what would any of it matter when the Sun was darkened and everyone who ever lived on the planet earth had been gone for eons? What would it matter to the atoms whether you had been Joe Stalin or Billy Graham - a hedonist or a philanthropist? Certainly it would long since have ceased mattering to you after you winked out of existence forever.

Shaw's point, and the Apostle Paul's before Him, is only true if there really is a God and our calling really is "whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31).

But if you would humor me, lets consider that there really is such a thing  as "objective truth" and that some things really are good and some really are evil. Surely you would concede that what determines whether a "work" is good or evil is not really the work itself, but the motive behind it? Let us say there are two men, both of them volunteer time helping impoverished children to read. Now we could say, "same work, both are equally good" but what if one of them is doing it because his unerlying motive is to get children to trust him so he can molest them?

What if we aren't as extreme as that, what if we have two men, one man holds open a door because he wants to help a lady carrying bags, and the other man wants to help the lady carrying bags and look down her shirt as she passes? What if we consider a third man who also wants to be thought of as "a nice guy" by observers? It would seem like motive was important in determining whether a good work was formally and not just materially good after all.

Jesus, of course pointed out that the desire to be seen and praised by others nullified the formal value of a good work, and that the only person we should be desiring to please by our actions wasn't others, or even ourselves, but God: "But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly." (Matt. 6:3-4)

- SEAGOON
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Atheists Least Trusted
« Reply #263 on: April 01, 2006, 04:45:32 AM »
SaburoS, that's the point, how do you demonstrate it?  I don't think you can.

Booz, I'm not sure what you mean, but that decision is precursor to any further thought.  
How do you make it otherwise than as a leap of faith?
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline deSelys

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2512
Atheists Least Trusted
« Reply #264 on: April 01, 2006, 05:25:15 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Seagoon

...

What if we aren't as extreme as that, what if we have two men, one man holds open a door because he wants to help a lady carrying bags, and the other man wants to help the lady carrying bags and look down her shirt as she passes? What if we consider a third man who also wants to be thought of as "a nice guy" by observers? It would seem like motive was important in determining whether a good work was formally and not just materially good after all.

...
- SEAGOON


Well, then christians do all their good deeds because they know that the Big Observer in the sky is keeping the score, and not just to be good.
The promised free pass to "Heaven Resort" removes all gratuity to christians actions.
Current ID: Romanov

It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye... then it's just a game to find the eye

'I AM DID NOTHING WRONG' - Famous last forum words by legoman

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Atheists Least Trusted
« Reply #265 on: April 01, 2006, 07:20:26 AM »
And SaburoS, look at it this way:

(Using 'God' in the general sense)
You are saying that the proposition God has been proven existant is false, i.o.w. that the proposition God hasn't been proven existant is true.
That does not equate to the proposition God has been proven inexistant being true.

Do you admit that God, or any supernaturality can be proven, as either existant or not ?

edit-
You do admit God as not possibly existant.. How is that a rational decision?
« Last Edit: April 01, 2006, 07:22:55 AM by moot »
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Atheists Least Trusted
« Reply #266 on: April 01, 2006, 09:12:32 AM »
rolex.. I see nothing wrong with government as you have laid out except that I would have all moneys collected as taxes go to enterprise funds with public accounting to make sure that the money collected for say... roads... went to roads.

As for the seperation of church and state...  I believe in that also.   I feel that the founders meant that the state could not establish any one religion...  I think that they were thinking of the church of england and a few others at the time...  I do not think that they meant that the state should be godless or that the word god should be struck from all public documents.    That should be up to the people.... within the limits of the constitituion that is..

Your cabinet does not include education I see.  You seem to want only a governemnt run school system with no choice.  Is that correct? and if so..  how would you oversee it?

What you seem to believe in is a slight rollback of government powers and bulk.   I am fine with that for a beggining.  anything would help.

I am also not so sure that the founders were into sacrafice for the betterment of their neighbors and children unless you call leting then live free from government oppression "betterment"... I know I do.

so... I would ask... do you believe that the constituion and amendments should be followed as originaly intended or do you believe that they should be interpreted by todays standards?  

I believe that the only "living document" part about the constitution is that it has a process for amendment.  

I do not believe that the majority of the people wanting to use the word god in official documents violates the constitution...  I believe forcing people to say it does.

we agree that democracy without a strict limit based on juman rights is as bad a form of government as any of the worst.

lazs

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Atheists Least Trusted
« Reply #267 on: April 01, 2006, 09:16:05 AM »
subaru.... you say that there is no possibility of a god?

preach on brother!

lazs

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Atheists Least Trusted
« Reply #268 on: April 01, 2006, 09:20:05 AM »
:D
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Atheists Least Trusted
« Reply #269 on: April 01, 2006, 12:01:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Seagoon
Howdy MT,



As I said before,  if there was no God, and the Christian worldview was false, then I would not only be forced to concede your point, I'd have to go even further and say the conversation was pointless in that concepts of good and evil were entirely subjective and ultimately meaningless. In the end, devoting oneself to eating, drinking, and being merry or being a missionary doctor would be absolutely equal, and what would any of it matter when the Sun was darkened and everyone who ever lived on the planet earth had been gone for eons? What would it matter to the atoms whether you had been Joe Stalin or Billy Graham - a hedonist or a philanthropist? Certainly it would long since have ceased mattering to you after you winked out of existence forever.


- SEAGOON


So you are basically saying that all morality is defined by religion? This is possibly the least thoughtful post I've ever read from you.