Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: crowMAW on March 25, 2006, 09:03:39 AM
-
A recent study shows that atheists are considered less trustworthy by Americans than Muslims. :huh
Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority (http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find)
While I don't consider myself a true atheist--I don't say there is no god, I say there is no earthly way to know if there is or isn't a god or gods. I would bet that most thiests would consider that agnostics like me are about the same as atheists...so this survey impacts me.
Here's the question for Fundys...why? What are you being told about atheists that would lead to that level of distrust? Seagoon...what are you teaching your "flock" about us? I understand that by Christian dogma, I'm not going to Heaven...that is my problem, but why does that effect you and why should you care about a choice that only effects me? Is the mere existence of a person who rejects your teachings that threatening to your own beliefs (in which case I have to question the strength of your convictions)?
The article says that theists think that atheists lack morals. Bullhockey! Seems that most criminals have strong beliefs in a god and evidently that didn't have much of an impact on their moral compass. And the atheists/agnostics I know seem more concerned about the rights of man than most theists I know...particularly we seem to have greater respect for life than theists since we know this is the only life we've got...and there ain't no more.
So what gives??
-
I am not an athiest or a religious man but...
I don't trust athiests either... they are either incapable of logic or they have an agenda that they will not admit or both.
I feel that most athiests wear it like a badge of, to me, stupidity and liberalism...
There are exceptions of course but that has been my experiance.
Personaly... I feel that there is a god but doubt that any of the current religions on the planet have a hot line to him... I am content to wait and see.
lazs
-
I've known flakes of both varieties. Never noticed the distinction between trustworthy or not to be based on someone's religious beliefs. To put this in the perspective of the thread... I'm agnostic or athiest - not exactly sure which.
-
SOB... I was projecting... I have a distrust of lefties and find that they are by and large.... dishonest. Their credo "the end justifies the means" is how they live...
I have found that most proclaimed and vocal athiests are lefties. It is pretty hard to seperate em.
I also find the basic premise of atheism to be dishonest... Perhaps that is why it dovetails in so nicely with lefty views.
lazs
-
Maybe you can clear this up for me... Athiest = There is no god. Agnostic = As far as I know, there is no god. Yeah? Not a trick question, just never been really clear on this one.
I dunno that they're representative of all athiests, but there's a hillariously pathetic show on public access (it's on my local public access channel, but I think it's produced somewhere in the midwest) that's all about Athieism (sp?) and how they get a bad rap and the bad things that thiests do. The leaps of logic they make are so blatantly stupid that it's pretty funny. But it may just be me...I've always been a sucker for stupid public access shows.
-
LOL lazs...
Atheist - dishonest
Agnostic - wishy washy
Theist - (see atheist)
-
sob...yep.. that is the way I see it..
MT...no... athiest and thiest both use faith for their belief.... the theist admits this and the athiest denies that is what he is doing... hence... stupid or dishonest but probly both.
One proclaims his faith to the world and admits that it is faith... the other denies all god because faith is not enough yet.... bases his belief on... faith and.... is dumb enough to loudly proclaim that he is doing it...
There are shades of agnostic I would imagine... some may change back and forth... and agnostic may at times feel that there is no god but he is not dishonest of dumb enough to say that he is an athiest. That may indeed make him wishy washy... much the same as scientists are wishy washy.
I just like people to be up front with... if not me... themselves.
lazs
-
Trusworthiness is a measure of how well you're able to discern someone's motives/personality/etc.
"I don't trust x" says more about the speaker than the subject.
-
SOB, lazs, it seems to me you misunderstand what "agnostic" means. Rather than "Agnostic = As far as I know, there is no god.", its more accurate to say "Agnostic = There is no way to know whether or not there is a god.".
Its a fine distinction but very significant to the conclusion you seem to draw regarding how definite a conclusion an agnostic makes regarding the existence of a deity. I personally feel its the most exactly honest profession that can be made, even though like lazs I do suspect there is more to our existence than we know and am content to wait until I'm able to be more enlightened rather than speculate now.
culero
-
Maybe so lazs, but both base their "faith" on a similar amount of evidence.
-
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
And ATHEISTS are the ones with the problem?
I live well and do good because I think it's the right thing to do. My religious friends live well and do good because they have the spectre of eternal damnation over their heads.
Who do you admire more? The person who volunteers to pick up garbage on the side of the road? Or the guys in the orange suits with a sheriff standing there with a shotgun?
-
A lot of supposedly aetheists, especialy on this board, seem frightened and threatened by the mere mention of God or Christianity to the point of attacking those that do beleive.
If you don`t truly believe, that would mean that you beleive that God does not exist and is imaginary.
Why would one feel the need to defend themself from something that does not exist? Why would something imaginary scare them so much?
Dishonesty? Yep, most liars I would assume to be dishonest.
-
I distrust athiests, Muslims anyone from the left and anyone from the right
And to a slightly lesser extent anyone else who doesnt view me as the rightful world emporer:cool:
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
A lot of supposedly aetheists, especialy on this board, seem frightened and threatened by the mere mention of God or Christianity to the point of attacking those that do beleive.
If you don`t truly believe, that would mean that you beleive that God does not exist and is imaginary.
Why would one feel the need to defend themself from something that does not exist? Why would something imaginary scare them so much?
Dishonesty? Yep, most liars I would assume to be dishonest.
Quack quack quack quack. If I say nothing when Lazs calls atheists dishonest, then I'm a coward. If I object when he says that, then I'm defensive?
Cognitive dissonance. There's your diagnosis, I suggest you actually _read_ plenty of bible to cure it.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Quack quack quack quack. If I say nothing when Lazs calls atheists dishonest, then I'm a coward. If I object when he says that, then I'm defensive?
Cognitive dissonance. There's your diagnosis, I suggest you actually _read_ plenty of bible to cure it.
:D Go back and read what I said Chair.
I didn`t say anything about arguing a point when it is brought up.
What I am speaking of here is , unwarranted, flat out attacks that come from left field for no reason.
Sure, if you believe.............or disbeleive in something strong enough, you are going to argue your point if brought up or you are confronted with it.
An example
Cognitive dissonance. There's your diagnosis, I suggest you actually _read_ plenty of bible to cure it.
I think that pretty well sums it up. ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I feel that most athiests wear it like a badge of, to me, stupidity and liberalism...
lazs
"Liberalism is an ideology, philosophy, political tradition, and current of political thought, which holds liberty as the primary political value. Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government and religion (and sometimes corporations), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a system of government that is transparent. This form of government favors liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law, and an equal opportunity to succeed"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Yep, if atheism=liberalism, count me as an atheist.
-
Just because I don’t belief in magic (aka: God) does not hindrances my morals.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
A recent study shows that atheists are considered less trustworthy by Americans than Muslims. :huh
Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority (http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find)
While I don't consider myself a true atheist--I don't say there is no god, I say there is no earthly way to know if there is or isn't a god or gods. I would bet that most thiests would consider that agnostics like me are about the same as atheists...so this survey impacts me.
Here's the question for Fundys...why? What are you being told about atheists that would lead to that level of distrust? Seagoon...what are you teaching your "flock" about us? I understand that by Christian dogma, I'm not going to Heaven...that is my problem, but why does that effect you and why should you care about a choice that only effects me? Is the mere existence of a person who rejects your teachings that threatening to your own beliefs (in which case I have to question the strength of your convictions)?
The article says that theists think that atheists lack morals. Bullhockey! Seems that most criminals have strong beliefs in a god and evidently that didn't have much of an impact on their moral compass. And the atheists/agnostics I know seem more concerned about the rights of man than most theists I know...particularly we seem to have greater respect for life than theists since we know this is the only life we've got...and there ain't no more.
So what gives??
Luke 11:23
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
A lot of supposedly aetheists, especialy on this board, seem frightened and threatened by the mere mention of God or Christianity to the point of attacking those that do beleive.
It is usually not because of the concept of god or religion, but because of the people who are behind it. We have seen this week what fundamentalists are capable of when some poor fellow is condemned to death for not believing in the majority's religion. And it doesn't matter if the fundy is Muslim, Christian or Jew, they are all capable of terrible atrocities in the name of their religion.
And if you don't think it can happen here and that Christians aren't like that...well, from what I see, Christians take every opportunity to use government to proselytize and to limit liberty to meet their moral restrictions.
It isn't the possibility that a god exists that frightens me...it is the people who pretend to know what a god wants and will justify any action, no matter how terrible, if they think it is the will of a god to do it. My definition of dishonesty: thinking that you know what a god wants, whether by writing it in a book and saying a god told you what to write; or those who read that book and believe that they have learned what a god wants. Not only dishonesty, but arrogance too.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
And ATHEISTS are the ones with the problem?
I live well and do good because I think it's the right thing to do. My religious friends live well and do good because they have the spectre of eternal damnation over their heads.
Who do you admire more? The person who volunteers to pick up garbage on the side of the road? Or the guys in the orange suits with a sheriff standing there with a shotgun?
You are the man! All ye listen for the truth shall set you free!
-
Why is it 50% cheaper to fly into Jacksonville than Savanah?
-
The ones that don't trust atheists are the ones that trust a higher source to correct their F16 from diving into the ground at 800MPH.
-
American Atheist interviewed Douglas Adams once, good quick read:
http://www.americanatheist.org/win98-99/T2/silverman.html
Excerpt:I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.
-
Anything from that guy is a bit hard to swallow.
He wrote a five volume trilogy
-
Originally posted by culero
SOB, lazs, it seems to me you misunderstand what "agnostic" means. Rather than "Agnostic = As far as I know, there is no god.", its more accurate to say "Agnostic = There is no way to know whether or not there is a god.".
Its a fine distinction but very significant to the conclusion you seem to draw regarding how definite a conclusion an agnostic makes regarding the existence of a deity. I personally feel its the most exactly honest profession that can be made, even though like lazs I do suspect there is more to our existence than we know and am content to wait until I'm able to be more enlightened rather than speculate now.
culero
Well, I guess I'm without a label then. 'Cause as far as I know, there is no god. There certainly could be...stranger things have happened (like that time that Taco Bell actually got my drive-thru order correct), and it's hard to be certain there's no way of knowing something you've seen no proof of so far. At this point though, it seems unlikely.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am not an athiest or a religious man but...
I don't trust athiests either... they are either incapable of logic or they have an agenda that they will not admit or both.
I feel that most athiests wear it like a badge of, to me, stupidity and liberalism...
There are exceptions of course but that has been my experiance.
Personaly... I feel that there is a god but doubt that any of the current religions on the planet have a hot line to him... I am content to wait and see.
lazs
Word.
-
Originally posted by SOB
stranger things have happened (like that time that Taco Bell actually got my drive-thru order correct),
You only need two more miracles and you can be beatified.
-
Frankly, SOB; yer an agnostic if yer waiting for proof. Which to my limited mental capabilities makes a whole lot more sense than taking anything any organization has to say about anything "on faith".
-
And if theres a God then at least one of the religions has a chance of being right about God existance and teachings.
And if theres no God then the agnostics, athiests, and people that don't care are right.
None of us will ever know till we die.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You only need two more miracles and you can be beatified.
Sweet, I certainly deserve it!
Hang, sounds OK to me. SOB the Agnosticator!
-
Hello Crow,
I'll answer your specific questions on Monday, regarding "what I teach my flock about atheists" if this thread is still going, because I want to be entirely accurate. But just a couple of disjointed thoughts in the meantime.
Have you noticed, reading over this and other threads, the uniformly low opinion of evangelical Christians expressed by atheists online here? The willingness to stereotype, condemn, belittle, and attack evangelicals and at the same time to claim a moral high-ground, to insist that they are "good people" (based on what arbitrary standard, I wonder?) indeed, to insist that they are far better, far smarter and probably even better looking (and more humble of course) than those awful evangelicals?
Yet with all that you are incensed by the possibility that Christians might not trust Atheists? [You assumed, incidently, that the majority of the respondents were fundamentalist Christians, which is highly unlikely.] Why would you care what such an obvious bunch of hateful "mo-rons" like us think anyway?
I've been posting here for what now? Two years, maybe longer? My life is an open book, Maverick has even met me, my family, and our congregation so you can get a independent confirmation that I'm not just an internet persona, but what exactly do you find so contemptible about me and others like me?
You know Crow, when I was a pagan, my word was worthless, I thought I was God, and my morals consisted of doing whatever I thought was right in my own eyes at the time. I felt free to hate and defame whomever I wanted and my charitable contributions to others where either self-serving or non-existent. People would have been foolish to trust me, because I didn't think there was anything greater than me in the universe, and that ultimately whatever I decided to do was "good."
Today, I live, think, feel, and act in manner about as profoundly different from my prior way of life as it is possible to get, and all that not because of any campaign of rigorous self-improvement, and certainly not because of a craven fear of damnation, but because of the kind of heart surgery that only God can effect.
If you want to believe that the "me" of two decades ago was a substantial improvement over the "me" of today, that's your right I suppose, but the truth is that would be a lie.
[Sorry to interrupt the bashing session. Please feel free to continue the display of obvious moral and intellectual superiority.]
- SEAGOON
-
You know Crow, when I was a pagan, my word was worthless, I thought I was God, and my morals consisted of doing whatever I thought was right in my own eyes at the time. I felt free to hate and defame whomever I wanted and my charitable contributions to others where either self-serving or non-existent. People would have been foolish to trust me, because I didn't think there was anything greater than me in the universe, and that ultimately whatever I decided to do was "good."
... quick question for yah Seagoon.
If a man is a 'pagan' his word is no good? he is not charitable? his motives are suspect as self-serving?
-
Righto, your actions and motivations mean nothing. The only thing that matters is whether you pray/go to church/label yourself religious.
Religion allows good people to do evil things, mostly because of what Seagoon just said. You don't have to actually BE good, you just need to be Christian. Anytime you do bad stuff, you either ask for forgiveness, or figure out a way that it was actually gods will.
-
Also, notice how silent Seagoon is whenever people trash atheists here. When someone calls Atheists illogical and moronic, he's quiet. But when someone dares to suggest that theists are a bit silly, suddenly it's 'bashing'.
For shame.
-
yer scarin the crap outta me.
has this become the United Secular States of America? where, unless you are a christian (how many flavors of them are there, anyway?), jew, moslem or a member of an accredited recognized religion (is scientology a religion?) you cannot possibly be a person of integrity?
USSA Uber Alles!
..... but I think I'll wait on Seagoons take on this credibility issue for non-believers.
-
So lazs, seagoon, what are your views on this guy and the teachings he follows:
(http://www.meaus.com/dalailama11.GIF)
-
Seagoon: Will the Dalai Lama burn in hell?
How about Ghandi?
Are there any non-christians that won't burn in hell?
-
cripes, I'm stuck on the terminology..
is he a 'pagan'?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Are there any non-christians that won't burn in hell?
Hell? He's been to New York.. ain't that hell?
...all kidding aside.. lets move forward CAREFULLY in this thread.. no angst, no animosity, no anger, no hate.
let's all be gentlemen about this, mmmkay?
-
Its normal for stupid people to distrust smart people.
-
you know why I dont like atheists, they always whine about christians trying to convert them and such. I have never had a morman, jehovas witness or the like come to my door. But I have spoke with a bunch of atheists and they all tried to make me become one too.
Funny thing is I got in a fight in school once with a loud mouthed atheist over something else, but after I knocked him down and kicked him in the gut twice, he moaned "oh,god":huh so I kicked him twice more.
-
It doesn't take a genius to post an insult.
Fair or not, the fact remains, if one believes the University of Minneapolis study that was posted at the start of this thread, that the great majority of Americans do not trust atheists.
True or not, that attitude is fostered by the belief that the doctrine of atheism threatens to cut mankind loose from its moral anchor. I would also venture to guess that atheism is seen as being the philosophical partner of the doctrine of moral relativism, which many Americans hold in contempt.
Sure, pastors across this country preach against atheism from their pulpits...but they shouldn't be held solely responsible for fostering this attitude among the nation's populace. There are other factors at play as well.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
You know Crow, when I was a pagan, my word was worthless, I thought I was God, and my morals consisted of doing whatever I thought was right in my own eyes at the time. I felt free to hate and defame whomever I wanted and my charitable contributions to others where either self-serving or non-existent. People would have been foolish to trust me, because I didn't think there was anything greater than me in the universe, and that ultimately whatever I decided to do was "good."
Today, I live, think, feel, and act in manner about as profoundly different from my prior way of life as it is possible to get, and all that not because of any campaign of rigorous self-improvement, and certainly not because of a craven fear of damnation, but because of the kind of heart surgery that only God can effect.
If you want to believe that the "me" of two decades ago was a substantial improvement over the "me" of today, that's your right I suppose, but the truth is that would be a lie.
You're a clear example of the good religion can do. From a worthless terd to a decent human being. For your sake and the sake of those around you, that's definitely a good thing.
Is it your opinion that anyone who has not found religion is a worthless terd, as you were?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Its normal for stupid people to distrust smart people.
Its also normal for smart people to take advatage of the stupid.
thats how n00bs are pwnd
BOOM!
Headshot!
-
What I will never manage to grasp is the utter disdain that so many athiests have for Christians--ever see those car emblems with the Darwin sign inside the fish? WHAT possible threat could these peeps see from Christians that they feel they must insult their belief system? Christians are made fun of in the press, in movies, tv shows... if they are such utter idiots for having such an outdated, obsolete belief system, why are they important enough worry about, and what the F does it matter what they think?
-
You guys are reinforcing the negative image many people have of atheists with every sarcastic, chip-on-your-shoulder, narcicistic post you make.
Seagoon has never been anything but gracious and willing to exchange views in a respectful manner with anyone of a mind to do the same.
The same cannot be said of the people who cruise these boards thumbing their noses at those who are religious.
The death of civility and manners is but one casualty of moral relativism.
-
its better than immoral relativism
-
Originally posted by bj229r
What I will never manage to grasp is the utter disdain that so many athiests have for Christians--ever see those car emblems with the Darwin sign inside the fish? WHAT possible threat could these peeps see from Christians that they feel they must insult their belief system? Christians are made fun of in the press, in movies, tv shows... if they are such utter idiots for having such an outdated, obsolete belief system, why are they important enough worry about, and what the F does it matter what they think?
Lots. I work with predominantly catholics. I have to be careful what I say in my opinions and even words. Even saying "oh god" has had me accused of 'blasphamous language' (that and the occassional jc). They have many catholic icons around their desks, when I displayed some buddhist material that was also frowned upon.
Christians (in NZ) are hard at work trying to push laws upon me and other kiwi's in line with their biblical beliefs, and against some of my common sense beliefs. These include some very discrimintory laws.
I also have a broad base of relatives who've been fleeced by christian churchs out of a good deal of money on both sides of the family. I don't care whether you argue if they're christians or not, thats justs pedantics. Around the corner from my home is a neighbourhood thats primarily polynesian. The churchs there literally tax their 'flock', if you don't pay you're publicly shamed... and this is an area with high poverty levels. Its disgraceful.
Not all, but most christians are to atheists what muslims are to christians. I see double standards, hypocracy, and trying to force beliefs onto others. There are exceptions, and those people I would say would've been good people had they been christian or not.
-
What's wrong with showing a little respect for the feelings and beliefs of others? Would you deliberately use the "n" word around blacks? What about using words such as wop or dago or chink?
Unless you are a complete putz of course you wouldn't.
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. It's a character issue. What we say and do around others reflects our inner character. Why should a person of an upright character feel put upon because they have to show restraint around others?
By the way, if you don't like the types of laws being pushed by Christian groups then organize your own group and oppose them in the legislative system. That way, they can push for laws reflecting their views of morality, and your group can push for laws reflecting your views of morality.
There's nothing wrong with either group doing that. All laws are legislated morality anyway.
-
Two way street.
To be dealt with summarily, dismissed as irelevant because of irreverence is prejudice.. plain and simple. The answer is not in doing the same.. pre-judging a mans worth based on his state of godliness is no way to advance any agenda.
Again.. there's something missing from Seagoons logic train, and I'm really unwilling to accept what he said at face value till I hear out what on earth (or elsewhere) he's actually talking about.
-
"Athiest = There is no god. Agnostic = As far as I know, there is no god. Yeah? Not a trick question, just never been really clear on this one."
Agnostics, Atheists, and Deists are all similar in the sense that they don't believe in any of the major religions. The long description can get complicated (there are different definitions depending on who you ask), but here's a quick list.
Atheist = disbelieves in the possibility of any sort of god.
Agnostic = Can't confirm or deny the existance of god, but is convinced that such a power/being, if it exists, has no effect on daily life.
Deist = Believes god exists, but has no effect on daily life
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
... quick question for yah Seagoon.
If a man is a 'pagan' his word is no good? he is not charitable? his motives are suspect as self-serving?
Well, at risk of seeming that I feel I may speak for Seagoon (I don't, he's obviously capable of doing so on his own) I would like to point out he never said any such thing.
As I see it, he said that he's experienced an improvement in his outlook on life and a resultant improvement in his trustworthiness since he changed from being a pagan to being a Christian. It doesn't necessarily derive that all pagans are in his opinion not trustworthy.
I have as little respect as anyone here for religious bigots. However, although some who profess Christianity fall into that category, many don't. I know folks personally who've experienced the same sort of improvement that Seagoon describes as they also decided to be Christians.
I'm about as pagan as you can be, yet I feel my personal morals are as good as anyone's. I don't see any conflict here.
culero
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Lots. I work with predominantly catholics. I have to be careful what I say in my opinions and even words. Even saying "oh god" has had me accused of 'blasphamous language' (that and the occassional jc). They have many catholic icons around their desks, when I displayed some buddhist material that was also frowned upon.
your point being? I am Catholic and I swear like a drunken stevedore. Plus I have a statue of Winnie the Pooh hitting Budda with a stick
I also have a broad base of relatives who've been fleeced by christian churchs out of a good deal of money on both sides of the family. I don't care whether you argue if they're christians or not, thats justs pedantics. Around the corner from my home is a neighbourhood thats primarily polynesian. The churchs there literally tax their 'flock', if you don't pay you're publicly shamed... and this is an area with high poverty levels. Its disgraceful.Sorry but the words of PT Barnum come into play here now as well, it could just as well have been Nigerians looking for help to claim a dead relatives estate
. I see double standards, hypocracy, and trying to force beliefs onto others. There are exceptions, and those people I would say would've been good people had they been atheists or not.edited
-
I'm a little late in this discussion but Chairboy you hit the butt of the nail with that top ten list. :aok
-
I only speak for myself in the following response to:
"Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian"
10. The folks I know that consider the Bible trustworthy do not deny the existence of "gods" but realize that those entities are subservient to an Eternal Omnipotent Creator. I personally don't feel outraged when someone denies the existence of God, seeing I once denied His existence myself.
9. I don't feel insulted or "dehumanized" since I once also believed that evolution was an adequate explanation for the diversity of life. But on further investigation I see many "just-so" stories that don't provide a convincing answer. After encountering the Eternal I was willing to reevaluate my views of human origins. BTW, the Bible doesn't claim dirt is the sole source of being for humans, rather, it was an instrument used by the Creator.
8. I obviously don't know the people you do, but I don't laugh at polytheists, nor do I laugh at anyone with alternative views of reality. When one comes to the conclusion that there is an Eternal Omnipotent Creator, and that the said Creator is also the Eternal Communicator, then there is no difficulty with the concept of the "Word" or "Expression" of God being the fullness of God.
7. My face doesn't turn purple by atrocities in the name of Allah, even though I currently live in a region where such events are pretty common. Nor am I passé about any event of Scripture that tells of destruction of human life. On the other hand, I once served in the USMC, and I understand that during war loss of life is not only likely, it is part of the goal of war in the short run, as regretful as that may be, so that in the long run people may live in peace. At least that is the typical goal. You'd have to reread Exodus and Judges to see the connection.
6. I don't laugh at Hindu beliefs, or at Greek claims of interaction with the gods. When a former skeptic like me does experience God's presence in a powerful, unforgettable way, and on more than one occasion, then there is an awareness of exactly what Scripture intends when it says the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary.
5. Dates of earth history. When I was a kid, dinosaurs were cold-blooded, tail-dragging, terrible lizards, and life arose on earth 1.2 billion years ago. These days dinosaurs have a different metabolism and posture, and life now goes back at least 200 percent farther to 3.7 billion years ago. My how evolution has evolved in only a few decades! Should anyone trust "science" as a "final" answer to questions about life?
4. The folks I know that consider the Scripture trustworthy grieve that few people seek to know the Eternal. Actually there are only about a half-dozen major worldviews promoted by humanity: atheism, deism, theism, animism, pantheism, panentheism and possibly another one or two. It would probably take less time to fairly evaluate these views than it would to fairly evaluate the performance of the 70 planes offered by AH. It is not a matter of God sending people to hell. It is a matter of people making a choice to ignore God's offer for eternal fellowship with him. If a person continually resists or willfully ignores God's offer, then what should God do? Force such a person to have eternal fellowship? The final state of such people who refuse, btw, is also described as being in "outer darkness" and not just fire. It is an axiom of Scripture that people in all stages of life, from all backgrounds, will be fairly judged by the Eternal, who knows the true intents of everyone's hearts. The alternative view that everyone dissolves into endless oblivion has its problems. Hitler, Stalin and Mao receive no punishment but share the identical fate as their multiplied millions of victims. That's tough for me to accept.
3. On the one hand, actually there is plenty of evidence in science, history, geology, biology, and physics to persuade me of the claims of Scripture, because of my worldview. On the other hand, although there is no short supply charismaniacs, that of itself does not prove that all such spiritual experiences such as tongues are invalid. Discernment is crucial, just as is also demanded in Scripture.
2. Prayer for me is not solely, or even most importantly, asking for things I want. For me prayer is a time of communion with the Eternal, to conform my desires to his. I certainly do ask for God's hand to work in my life. Several times answers were not only forthcoming, but immediate. Not every prayer I've prayed has received the answer I was looking for. But I do not look at God as turning away from me. Rather, I need to make sure my requests are fully attuned to what God desires. Prayer is partnership with the Eternal, not the power of positive thinking, nor begging a celestial Santa for gifts.
1. Well, as I said, I don't know the people you know. But I'd say the folks I associate with who consider the Scriptures trustworthy know quite a bit more about them than folks who don't study them.
Regarding the lack of credibility of atheists by "Americans" (if you actually read the report at the link) I'd say such outspoken atheists as the late Madelyn Murray O'Hare and Richard Dawkins do not help the cause of atheism. I was once an atheist myself, though not militant, and certainly not hostile towards Christians or other religions. I suffered no personal credibility problems.
Best regards,
Cement
-
Least trusted to/for/___?
Maybe atheists just tend to know better than pretend anyone is out for anything else than themselves, moral posturing or not.
Pigeonholing is great when you're not willing to distinguish people on a case-by-case basis, even if they are mindless herd drones.
Several times answers were not only forthcoming, but immediate
No offence, but that's happened to me while I just twiddled my thumbs.
Your #4 has some supersized anthropomorphism.
Your #5 discredits science's credibility for being a perpetually sharpening theoretical system?
Science and Religion don't overlap, there's no conflict unless you believe in magic being part of concrete reality, i.e. the partial or total absence of consistent causality.
Arguing anything is contrary to magical reality.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Agnostics, Atheists, and Deists are all similar in the sense that they don't believe in any of the major religions.
Wrong. One of the largest religions in the world is technically agnostic... maybe atheistic even.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
What's wrong with showing a little respect for the feelings and beliefs of others? Would you deliberately use the "n" word around blacks? What about using words such as wop or dago or chink?
Yet they do have bigoted views of the world. They make it quite clear on their views, but I'm a little more thick skinned than them and not as petty. As demonstrated here its fairly common for many christians to assume if you're not in their special club your either immoral, bad, and going to hell (which is kinda funny trying tell an athiest his going to hell). Plus they're hypocritical, they'll complain about an athiest saying 'blaspheming' but if one of the 'flock' does it... well it was just a slip up aye ;)
-
"Wrong. One of the largest religions in the world is technically agnostic... maybe atheistic even"
Are you referring to Buddhism? I didn't mention it since it's virtually a non-factor within the USA, and some people don't even define it as a religion at all. There are other exceptions to what I said as well, but my goal was to try to keep my post short rather than write a book on the subject.
J_A_B
-
On the other hand, I once served in the USMC, and I understand that during war loss of life is not only likely, it is part of the goal of war in the short run, as regretful as that may be, so that in the long run people may live in peace.
What happened to allmightyness? Why do things _need_ to be done in certain ways? God is not tied to the realities of the human world. The believers should stop at these first simple things before pondering about creationism or whatever.
-
Originally posted by Timofei
"Liberalism is an ideology, philosophy, political tradition, and current of political thought, which holds liberty as the primary political value. Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government and religion (and sometimes corporations), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a system of government that is transparent. This form of government favors liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law, and an equal opportunity to succeed"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Yep, if atheism=liberalism, count me as an atheist.
While Wiki may say that is the meaning IMHO that has very sadly changed.
Sorry..............
Todays Liberal is far closer to communism then what the original liberal believed. The party or meaning of the word liberal was pretty much taken over in the 50s and 60s by NON-liberals that talked the talk but DON'T walk the walk IMHO.
You want real liberals perhaps you should look at the Liberaterioans (hmm for some reason the correct spelling always escapes me)
NO i'm not a conservative. NO i'm not a republican, or a democrate.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
What I will never manage to grasp is the utter disdain that so many athiests have for Christians--ever see those car emblems with the Darwin sign inside the fish? WHAT possible threat could these peeps see from Christians that they feel they must insult their belief system?
Some Christians are trying to get laws passed that would take away freedom from the athiests and/or agnostics, and also try to make science classes teach Christian beliefs instead of what science has demostrated to be the most accurate explanation for the origin of species. Of course there's a threat, not only a theat but a threat that in some cases is being realised.
-
Seagoon...as usual a very thoughtful reply. Please allow me to come back to it after if have a bit of breakfast.
Originally posted by bj229r
What I will never manage to grasp is the utter disdain that so many athiests have for Christians--ever see those car emblems with the Darwin sign inside the fish? WHAT possible threat could these peeps see from Christians that they feel they must insult their belief system? Christians are made fun of in the press, in movies, tv shows... if they are such utter idiots for having such an outdated, obsolete belief system, why are they important enough worry about, and what the F does it matter what they think?
I can give you some history on that. A lot of the behaviors atheists exibit towards theists are reactionary. Theists pass an unconstitutional law...non-theists sue; etc.
Christians began placing fish on their cars as a means to identify themselves while driving (kinda like wearing a cross as jewlery). Non-theists got the idea..."hey, lets take the fish and stick legs on it and put "DARWIN" in it so we can identify each other as non-theists." Well, the Christian--slightly irritated by this hijack of their symbol--retaliated with the fish with "TRUTH" in it. So non-theists fired back with the Darwin fish eating the "TRUTH" fish. Now I see Christians with "TRUTH" fish eating "DARWIN" fish. But that seems to be the end of that.
Now what I find interesting is how threatened Christians seem to be by the Darwin fish. I don't have one on my car...I have a nice car and I don't want it to be vandalized. That's right...vandalized. My ex had a beater when started dating and stuck a Darwin fish on it. She had that thing ripped off the car several times (and usually just left on the ground). Once she had it taken off, broken in pieces and her rear window bashed in...where were those Christians' moral compass'?
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Now what I find interesting is how threatened Christians seem to be by the Darwin fish. I don't have one on my car...I have a nice car and I don't want it to be vandalized. That's right...vandalized. My ex had a beater when started dating and stuck a Darwin fish on it. She had that thing ripped off the car several times (and usually just left on the ground). Once she had it taken off, broken in pieces and her rear window bashed in...where were those Christians' moral compass'?
So....Am I assuming correctly that you tracked the vandal down and he/she confessed immediatley.........to being a Christain?
I`ve had a lot of stuff vandalized and really never gave a thought to whether the vandal was Christian, aetheist or whatever. One in particular didn`t have a chance to confess anything. He was too busy eating a baseball bat. :)
-
chairboy... your top ten list is pretty dumb..
first of all... we are not talking about fundamenatalist christians... and, even if we were... it would be fair to say that a religion that slaughters people today is "fundamentaly" different than one that killed people a thousand years ago when... killing people was all the rage for any offence.
I am not a christian or a religious person in any way... I think chair and others let their anger at christians and their liberal agenda get in the way of thinking...
athiests are simply dishonest and stupid... to compare rocks on the moon with something so far beyond our comprehension as the beggining of all things.... that is again..... dishonest and stupid.
So chair... why do you do good deeds? you have no fear of eternal life or the scorn of a god? perhaps you do them to gain an advantage? If you tell people and show people what a great guy you are then you will gain something....some advantage?
I have allways felt the best about myself when I did something good that no one knew about.
again... chair... I don't care about fundamental christians or the murderous barbaric muslims.
I believe that there had to have been a supreme being but have no idea of what he is. I base the way I live on no religions rules... If I follow the rules it is because I feel they are the correct way. I say that there is a god but I can't prove it... I base it soley on faith and admit as much.
I claim no science and ask no one to believe with me. I don't get angry with athiests because of their belief any more than I get angry at the murderous muslims because of their belief..
I am mad at athiests because they are dishonest and stupid liberals not because they have faith in their religion.... I get mad at the muslims because it is a religion of killing not because they believe in some kind of god.
The preaching that religious types do at me is annoying but not dishonest... the preaching you athiests do at me is dishonest and insults my inteligence.
lazs
-
1. Calling me liberal is rich. I'm as liberal as you are pretty and dainty. Nice ad hominem, though.
2. You still haven't explained (or my tiny atheist brain hasn't understood) why atheists are dishonest. I simply don't believe that there's a god, what's dishonest about that?
-
I'm an Athiest, and I don't trust or like any of you.
But that's okay.
RTR
-
chair... it is fine for you to not believe that there is a god. It is dishonest to say that such a belief is anything but a religion in itself. It is stupid to dismiss the possibility of a god with what is all around you and the total absence of any other explanation... it is probly normal to claim to not know what form god takes.
It does seem that you have a dishonest hatred for christianity tho.... dishonest in that you will talk about what the people in it did a thousand years ago (even tho kings and local politicians did exactly the same and all people back then lived with death as the normal sentance for any crime real or imagined religion or not).
I can't think that you are stupid.... so.... You must be dishonest. That is fine... your dishonety doesn't harm me.... but.... it is insulting. You "preach" your religion of athiesm at me/us all the time on this board and it is simply insulting. I can't believe that you would think I/we wouldn't see right through it. sooooo.... it becomes insulting.
Now... if you see some religions as a personal threat.... I could understand that.... any religion that says "you are with us or we kill you" for instance.... is one that I see as a personal threat... most of em were like that in ancient times.... one still is.
Another example is not being mormon in salt lake city... that is a threat but... not to me... I don't want to live there and can't see the mormons every getting enough power to have any real control over me..... If that were to happen.... hell.... I would join ya and we could fight em.
I like my religions like I like my governments.... weak and broke.
A weak and broke government/religion is your friend... a powerful and well funded government/religion is your enemy.
lazs
lazs
-
Based on your last few sentences, we agree totally (weak government/religion) but the rest of your post is some sort of weird screed about me being dishonest and 'hating christians'. Can you make up your mind? I don't hate christians, but I'm not going to bow down before them and imbue their superstitions with some sort of mystical respect. The moon argument is pretty straightforward in this regard, even if you claim not to understand it. Just because someone else might believe that the moon is made of cheese doesn't mean that I must respect their viewpoint as being equally as plausible as my own.
Atheism isn't a 'religion' in the sense that I assertively believe in the non-existance of gods. It's just me not happening to believe that god(s) exist. There's a distinction there. It's subtle, but it's there. If you don't believe in Santa Claus, does that mean you're part of an anti-santa religion?
BTW, people should not fear the government, the government should fear the people. You might find V for Vendetta interesting.
-
chair... the moon arguement is silly. It takes easily understandable science and trys to point toward ancient religious superstition thereby, supossedly tainting the belief that things that science can never understand are in the same vein.
No science ever can explain how it all started...
What religions are making you bow down before them?
Maybe that is the crux here... Tell me who these evil and all powerful religious people are and I will join you in your fight (so long as I don't have to join your religion of athiesm).
Believing the moon is made of cheese is harmless enough.... I have friends who have seen spacecraft and aliens... maybe they have... who cares? I know people who think that man is destroying the planet with global warming that will destroy the planet in ten years yet they travel around looking at "historical things" on airliners....
There is enough doom and gloom to go around ever since I was born.... certainly enough that I don't have time to worry about a few christians or alien worshipers.
lazs
-
Lazs, everytime a law based on religion is passed, you are affected, whether you know it or not. Most obscenity laws, for instance. How about laws regarding consensual sex between adults? There are states in the union where oral sex is outlawd under sodomy statutes.
When your tax dollars go to religion, there's another place where the theists are taking choice away from you. When our children can't be taught the scientific theory of evolution (you give lip service to science in your last post, what do you tihnk of the evolution debate in the schools?), that hurts all of us. When our kids cannot be taught that the universe is billions of years old because christians think that's "insensitive" to their religion, you're affected. Next time you go under the knife for surgery, do you want it to be by someone who believes that their actions are unimportant and that "god's will will prevail", or do you want a doctor who will fight any complication so that you come out alive on the other end of the operation?
Basically, I'm saying that if you think that you're unaffected by the legislation that theists pass every week, you're not thinking things through.
To come back to the original post, the idea that someone would be untrusted specifically because they're atheist is just another step in the long road towards establishing a theocracy. First, discredit anyone who might disagree, then you're on the home stretch.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
I understand that by Christian dogma, I'm not going to Heaven...that is my problem
What other people think is none of your business so this is not 'your' problem.
Yes this is a widely accepted view, but just because 'they' say so doesnt mean it holds any weight of truth.
I have a question for Christians. Who holds the authority? The church? The bible? (Keep in mind this book has been translated and re-written hundreds of times over the last 2000 years. Ever played the game telephone? Thats the Bible IMO) Do YOU hold authority over non-christians? Give me a reason why you think this as well so I can laugh at it.
Nobody knows anything more than anyone else does. THAT is the only truth when it comes to anything of the religious nature.
-
facinating debate... first of all.... obcenity laws that are not for the sole purpose of protecting children are silly. Just as "hate speech" laws from the left are silly.
I believe that any theory out there should be taught in school and that they should all be taught with the stipulation that they are all simply a theory including evolution and creativism.
Let's face it... kids graduating from high school will have much less use for long hours spent on debating the various creation theories than they will for some time spent learning algebra or chemnistry.
If they want to get into genetics or philosophy in college... that is the time.
I much more fear the dumbing down of all children because of public schools meddling agendas than I do some kid getting a good education with a little religion (that he can ignore later) thrown in. Lack of vouchers is more dangerous than religion.
I would not be operated on by someone who you describe... I would not have them do anything but make change for me at a 7/11 I believe we have safeguards that keep them from killing me on the table.
I see nothing that is a threat to me from christians at this point... I would ask you to research how many people had their homes broke into and were arested for sex crimes that religious people impossed on us. Public lewdity is much different I think you would agree?
The original post is that I don't trust athiests.... How can I? their basic religion is dishonest. Right back where we started.
lazs
-
You still haven't explained why atheism is less honest than christianity.
-
christans admit their faith.... athiests do not. both beliefs are based on faith...
can you guess which one of the above is being honest and which is not?
lazs
-
Lazs: Answer the Santa Claus question please. Am I dishonest for not believing in Santa Claus? If the answer is no, then please apply that to me not believing in god.
There is no dichotomy.
-
ok... it is simple.... santa claus is, you must admit, a very much simpler character. He did not create the universe as we know it... he came about in much more modern times and has origins we can trace.
He is not a very good example but... say some character were discovered that did a lot (not all) of the things santa does.... would that make you wrong for not believing in him?
No.... but it would make you wrong for saying it was impossible.
What of aliens? bigfoot? well... maybe aliens is a better example...
every culture has had a god... a supreme being.. not many have had a santa.
prayer has caused postitive results in healing... many have felt close to god in times of duress or near death. It is a universal belief.
back to aliens... most cultures have a belief in aliens from way back....
What proof do we have? NONE.
Do you believe aliens are possible and if not..... why not? If you do.... what proof do you have?
lazs
-
Find me an equivalent of Drakes Equation for the existance of god and we'll talk.
Why do you keep bringing aliens and bigfoot into the discussion anyhow?
I just don't believe there's a god, and I don't see why my lack of belief is somehow dishonest while a believe in superstition gets a free pass in your book.
-
Ladies and Gentlemen, the driving force behind Catholicism, wow, Cardinal Glick!
Cardinal Glick: Thank you, thank you, thank you. Now we all know how the majority and the media in this country view the Catholic church. They think of us as a passe, archaic institution. People find the Bible obtuse... even hokey. Now in an effort to disprove all that the church has appointed this year as a time of renewal... both of faith and of style. For example, the crucifix. While it has been a time honored symbol of our faith, Holy Mother Church has decided to retire this highly recognizable, yet wholly depressing image of our Lord crucified. Christ didn't come to Earth to give us the willies... He came to help us out. He was a booster. And it is with that take on our Lord in mind that we've come up with a new, more inspiring sigil. So it is with great pleasure that I present you with the first of many revamps the "Catholicism WOW. " campaign will unveil over the next year. I give you... The Buddy Christ. Now that's not the sanctioned term we're using for the symbol, just something we've been kicking around the office, but look at it. Doesn't it... pop? Buddy Christ...
(http://quinnell.us/entertainment/movies/kevinsmith/dogma/images/buddychrist.jpg)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Do you believe aliens are possible and if not..... why not? If you do.... what proof do you have?
lazs
I hate to jump in like this, but lazs, are you aware that we have discovered close to 200 planets orbiting other stars in our near proximity? did you know that there are aprox. 400 BILLION stars in our galaxy alone, half of which we cannot see. Did you know that there is an estimated 400 billion galaxys in the known universe? Did you know what one light year is about 12 trillion miles, and the closest star to us other than our own Sun is about 4 light years away? The farthest galaxy we can see is about 14 billion light years away from our own. Are you so dense to claim we are the only life in the universe? I realize this is a matter of faith at this point, but weigh the facts..
-
ok.... chair... why do I bring aliens and bigfoot into the conversation? you ask me this after bringing santa into it?
I have no problem with you saying that you don't believe there is a god.... I have a problem with you saying that it is not possible and that you know that because.... because.... of faith.
neither of us gets a "free pass" the only one who gets a "free pass" is the agnostic.
The agnostic just plain doesn't know... he realizes that he has no personal faith to draw on so takes a "wait and see" position.
The theist knows there is no proof for god but sees everything around him as proof. When cornered he says that yes, he has no proof but that is just what he believes.
The athiest says... That there is no god. he says so based on faith but.... he claims that in everything else in life.... he is a scientist and agnostic.... simpy not taking a stance till more proof is in.
If a man were an athiest but admited that there were no science or logic involved in his belief and that it was soley faith based..then.....
I suppose that rare form of athiest would not be "dishonest". But.... he would have to admit that his athiesm was in fact... a religion.
lazs
-
xnov... thank you for proving my point... we have no proof that their are aliens but it seem impossible that there aren't.
you admit that your belief in aliens is based soley on faith tho. Perhaps some of the people who claim to have seen them.... really have?
To claim that they are impossible because we have no proof takes a kind of faith too don't you suppose?
lazs
-
So you're going to stick with your earlier statement to the effect of "I'm not sure there's no Santa Claus"?
I guess that does more for my argument than anything I could say.
-
I ran over my dogma with my karma.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
xnov... thank you for proving my point... we have no proof that their are aliens but it seem impossible that there aren't.
you admit that your belief in aliens is based soley on faith tho. Perhaps some of the people who claim to have seen them.... really have?
To claim that they are impossible because we have no proof takes a kind of faith too don't you suppose?
lazs
Yes but its faith based on conditional evidence, religion has no such evidence and takes blind faith..
-
"conditional evidence"? how so? there are countless planets so some of em HAVE to have life on em? LOL.... that is like saying that there is a limiteless univese that is beyond our comprehension so there had to have been a supreme being.
I am agnostic on aliens but lean toward there existing..
Soo.... we can clear this all up pretty simply.... you athiests....
Do you say that.... You believe that there is no god but that you do not say that it is impossible for there to be one?
lazs
-
Since the humor tack seems to have fallen flat, allow me to interject a lil clear vison into the core debate.. 'can atheists be trusted'.
Fact is I distrust religionists. The reason why is that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.
That's an established historical fact, repeated down through history.
Now, if 'atheists' control the political landscape, they drive underground religionists, persecute the church and it's agents and attempt to obtain exactly the opposite stance. Also not good.
Agnosticisim has a balance... it's safe to stay on the fence, they neither condem nor condone religionists. They just prefer they conduct their rituals in such a way as to not deny any free thinkers rights of passage across their patch of moral morasses... respect for all; and judgement of worth based on actions regardless of religious prefrences is logical.
In a direct 'atheism vs religionist' confrontation, the agnosticist will be forced to side with the atheist, right up to the point where the atheiest demands the exclusion of the religionist from society... then he's got a new adversary; and a new ally.
Proof.. or get the hell outta the drivers seat.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
"conditional evidence"? how so? there are countless planets so some of em HAVE to have life on em? LOL.... that is like saying that there is a limiteless univese that is beyond our comprehension so there had to have been a supreme being.
I am agnostic on aliens but lean toward there existing..
Soo.... we can clear this all up pretty simply.... you athiests....
Do you say that.... You believe that there is no god but that you do not say that it is impossible for there to be one?
lazs
1. Life exists in the universe, it exists here.
2. Therefore, given the correct conditions, life can exist.
3. If the odds for correct conditions existing is 6.28 x 10e45 to one, there are enough stars in the universe for those conditions to be common. multiply the odds by several billion, and there are still enough stars.
4. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that life exists (or has existed)elsewhere.
You cannot make the same reasonable argument for the existance of a diety.
-
I'm not an athiest, im not agnostic in the full sense of the word, I do not claim myself to any one specific religion. I do however believe in some form of a supreme power for the sole fact that the universe exists and is perceived by my consciousness. Not because a religion says one exists.
-
"So you're going to stick with your earlier statement to the effect of 'I'm not sure there's no Santa Claus'?"
Didn't I see that guy at the shopping mall a few months ago?
At any rate, St. Nicholas was certainly a real person, who formed the basis for what became a popular children's myth. Jesus Christ was also certainly a real person, who formed the basis for....hmm, are we seeing a trend here?
The thing about religion is anyone can make one up. Heck, my sister started her own religion (seriously!). I could make up something like, say, aliens flew to this planet in rocket-powered DC-8's and placed their souls into human bodies and sure enough, some people somewhere (preferably people with lots of cash) would believe it.
In response to Holden's logic: While lack of observation does nothing to prove the existance of something, it doesn't disprove it either. Those wierd fangly fishes lived in the Challenger deep way before we were aware of the possibility of their existance.
J_A_B
-
^^^ Chef... is that you? Tell Tom to stay in the frikken closet!
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
In response to Holden's logic: While lack of observation does nothing to prove the existance of something, it doesn't disprove it either. Those wierd fangly fishes lived in the Challenger deep way before we were aware of the possibility of their existance.
Which is why it is illogical to believe in the nonexistance of something.
However according to some interpretations of quantum theory, it might not exist until we measure it and cause the collapse of the wave function.
-
My guess is that there are aliens... I am not gonna say it is impossible. I freely admit that it is possible.
santa? oops.... that one existed... good thing I didn't really care eh?
Hang... I agree with you on the first.... I left home so that my mommy couldn't tell me what to do and have the authority to back it up.... that is why I don't vote for democrats.... took 17 years to get out of the house sure don't want to vote my mommy into a position of autority over me...
religion? yep.... not a fan of religion in that respect... don't want them to tell me what to do either. So long as they are weak tho.... they are a positive (overall) influence on the human condition.
so far as god? that is different... it is based on a personal belief... no agnostic need fear my belief since no strings are attached.... Like you said tho... The athiests are not my friends either.... their religion has just as much or more potential for harm (look at commies)
Soo.... no one needs fear the agnostic or the theist who has a personal religion.... the only ones to fear are those who would tell others what they are allowed to believe.
I can't imagine science ever explaining the begining of all things. In this respect... a creator seems as sensible as anything. it is only when we claim that we can explain this creator that we get into trouble.
lazs
-
I can't imagine science ever explaining the begining of all things. In this respect... a creator seems as sensible as anything. it is only when we claim that we can explain this creator that we get into trouble.
And.. we're off the hook on this one. Proof is not likely to be forthcoming any time soon. Any pretense by any group of 'knowing' is just laughable delusion; harmless in itself.. dangerous when an army stands behind the concept.
-
I like this:
As an atheist you have a number of rights and responsibilities. These include (but are not limited to):
1. Have no gods.
2. Don't worship stuff.
3. Be polite.
4. Take a day off once in a while.
5. Be nice to folks.
6. Don't kill people.
7. Don't fool around on your significant other.
8. Don't steal stuff.
9. Don't lie about stuff.
10. Don't be greedy.
Remember, theists will condemn you for living by this code because you are doing it of your own free will instead of because you're afraid that if you don't a supreme being will set you on fire.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I can't imagine science ever explaining the begining of all things.
lazs
I see that as a failure of imagination not of science.
-
Does science have to prove everything right now lazs? Isn't it enough to know that like many things, there are logical explanations for events, not explanations wound up in magic and mysticism?
Heres a wee google project for you lazs... find the creation myth in Buddhism (ie what did Buddha teach with regard to the creation of the universe and his teachings).
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Lazs, everytime a law based on religion is passed, you are affected, whether you know it or not. Most obscenity laws, for instance. How about laws regarding consensual sex between adults? There are states in the union where oral sex is outlawd under sodomy statutes.
When your tax dollars go to religion, there's another place where the theists are taking choice away from you. When our children can't be taught the scientific theory of evolution (you give lip service to science in your last post, what do you tihnk of the evolution debate in the schools?), that hurts all of us. When our kids cannot be taught that the universe is billions of years old because christians think that's "insensitive" to their religion, you're affected. Next time you go under the knife for surgery, do you want it to be by someone who believes that their actions are unimportant and that "god's will will prevail", or do you want a doctor who will fight any complication so that you come out alive on the other end of the operation?
Basically, I'm saying that if you think that you're unaffected by the legislation that theists pass every week, you're not thinking things through.
To come back to the original post, the idea that someone would be untrusted specifically because they're atheist is just another step in the long road towards establishing a theocracy. First, discredit anyone who might disagree, then you're on the home stretch.
Hmmm..........
I find I really have a problem with this part.........
Next time you go under the knife for surgery, do you want it to be by someone who believes that their actions are unimportant and that "god's will will prevail", or do you want a doctor who will fight any complication so that you come out alive on the other end of the operation?
...........this to me says there is a hugh misunderstanding going on and I don't think it's me that misunderstands.
And this part, for me anyway, say moral relativism................
To come back to the original post, the idea that someone would be untrusted specifically because they're atheist is just another step in the long road towards establishing a theocracy.
............ not so much that I trust people or don't trust people. Generaly I find I don't. Problem is, at least for me, far too many have a VERY flexible set of morals now days. Leaves one wondering just what is alright and what is wrong, what is an insult and what is a compliment, what they want because the feel a certain way on a certain day? Will that change because they eat something the night before that doesn't agree with em this morning? The U.S. is not nor, at least to my knowledge, has it ever been a theocracy.
Many of the so called blue laws were created at a time in history when people had a different understanding of health and welfare and noticed that they had NO CURES!. (A.I.D.S. Syph, Gon, chlamydia, herpies, etc. etc. etc. ) Hmmm ya know maybe the ideas they had weren't quite so STUPID? I mean really! Look at the GROWTH of infection and the NEW STD's that have ARRIVED since the sexual revolution????
Want a more explained, detailed, example? It at least for me is an entirely different subject and will take allot of space.
Anything to win????????
And this................
Basically, I'm saying that if you think that you're unaffected by the legislation that theists pass every week, you're not thinking things through.
........... like any of us aren't affected by any legislation passed by theist or atheist?????
I can't say I know for sure, but I think laz is trying to say something along the line of the above replys.
-
Originally posted by xNOVAx
What other people think is none of your business so this is not 'your' problem.
Yes this is a widely accepted view, but just because 'they' say so doesnt mean it holds any weight of truth.
I have a question for Christians. Who holds the authority? The church? The bible? (Keep in mind this book has been translated and re-written hundreds of times over the last 2000 years. Ever played the game telephone? Thats the Bible IMO) Do YOU hold authority over non-christians? Give me a reason why you think this as well so I can laugh at it.
Nobody knows anything more than anyone else does. THAT is the only truth when it comes to anything of the religious nature.
Dead Sea Scrolls...................
-
Originally posted by wrag
Dead Sea Scrolls...................
Written by men and misinterpreted/translated to suit their specific ideology be it judiac or christian dogmas. not to mention the cool calendar.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Dead Sea Scrolls...................
This is exactly what im talking about.. Who are these people that write these things, and in all honesty, who should really give a #*%$??? I could write some random BS down, religious in nature, and call it truth, but who's going to believe me? Nobody. So these scrolls were found.. Who cares? Not me. Why? Because whoever the author of these scrolls is doesnt know any more than anyone else. End of story.
-
I haven't met anyone yet who became religious so they could learn magic and superstition. Our Bible teacher in 7th grade told us a story about missionaries she knew who were in Africa (she herself had been a missionary in Brazil.) Her friends in Africa had seen a head come floating in their hut, circle around and go out the door. The witch doctor had done this to get them to leave, and they did leave the next day.
This story was facinating to me because it seems so unbelievable. However, they took it very seriously and believe magic and sorcery is real.
About these ghost hunter shows on TV. Does anyone think those guys are scientists, or are they just making an entertaining tv show? Why is there a ghost-cam in the engine room of the USS Lexington? Tourist gimmick or serious business? I don't believe in ghosts. If I saw one I would. What about SETI and the big array? Waste of time or serious business?
I think there are many possible things out there. I'm not a scientist. Scientists are practical and not usually prone to overactive imaginations. They seek proof through repeatable experimentation and predicted results. On the other hand, to me, where science is concerned, it is biased to not reasonably consider any and all possible answers. Even logic says, sometimes the answer may be the least logical one, or the least likely. Also, logic can be fallable. There is also the possibility the answer is unprovable and may be out of the realm of science.
The world is an imperfect place and full of trouble. Men are imperfect, but also have spiritual needs. Religion serves these needs for some. For some it may be hard work and achieving a sense of accomplishment, but there is a need for something outside yourself. This is why friends are important. No one wants to be an island.
Les
-
Originally posted by dread-
Written by men and misinterpreted/translated to suit their specific ideology be it judiac or christian dogmas. not to mention the cool calendar.
compared the very old scrolls with current bible ................. same same...... no change.
Any misinterpretation or translation to suite... by who? ideology? Seems pretty much the same judaic or christian to a certain point. Seems to change/diverge only with the advent of the one known to christians as the Christ.
Use a Strongs Concordance. It contains the original greek and or aramaic words and meaning of those words contained with the bible.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so far as god? that is different... it is based on a personal belief... no agnostic need fear my belief since no strings are attached.... Like you said tho... The athiests are not my friends either.... their religion has just as much or more potential for harm (look at commies)
lazs
Atheists exist for almost 2 thousands years (the first were ancient Greeks) but commies are guilty :)
Ok, ok, it is just retort.
Talking seriously, I definitly consider myself is agnostic. From the Soviet kindergarten till post-university I was told that there is no answer on the Main question of philosophy: "what is primary - spirit or materia?" Christianity, atheism, ancient gods... its all are religions. Do you believe that only pure physics created this world (something like "ok, so happened") or somebody or something made some efforts to do that (something like "if I would do that it will be nice. And if I'll make them different, say man and woman, it will be even more funny!")
I don't know answer on this question, and even being in the USSR I didn't pretend to know the answer.
-
Thank GOD the Japanesse eat raw fish....
the thought of eating raw chicken makes wanna gag.
:huh
Mac
-
It can't be any tougher than raw squirrel.:D
Les
-
Originally posted by wrag
compared the very old scrolls with current bible ................. same same...... no change.
Any misinterpretation or translation to suite... by who? ideology? Seems pretty much the same judaic or christian to a certain point. Seems to change/diverge only with the advent of the one known to christians as the Christ.
Use a Strongs Concordance. It contains the original greek and or aramaic words and meaning of those words contained with the bible.
Scrolls were written in hebrew and aramaic, and depending on which school of thought you were trained under even an unbiased translation differs from the existing de Vaux/Oxford version. many characters were lost due to deterioration of the scroll and a best logical quess was used to fill in the blanks. "Most of the manuscripts found are heavily damaged fragments of scrolls, some very tentatively pieced together. Often the preserved scraps give only glimpses of what existed in the original text." In a nutshell, the scrolls mean different things to different people. from a judiac viewpoint they display the change in hebrew writing styles in a Guesstimate time from of 400 years 300ebc to 100ebc, from a christian viewpoint they depict a new messiah or proclaim apocolytic events, from a religiously unbiased stance they show a cultural transformation....and this is from what remains of the scrolls, few of them are more than 75% complete.
as it sits the scrolls are nothing more than a wonderful record from several view points of a time period 2 mellinia ago. Nothing important really if it weren't for the secrecy surrounding the distribution of the scrolls themselves I don't think people would give them much more thought than we do to the rosetta stones.
-
"Without religion, good men will still do good things, and bad men will still do bad things. To get good men to do bad things requires religion."
-
Who said that zOrch?
Les
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
I'll answer your specific questions on Monday
I'll look forward to it.
Originally posted by Seagoon
Have you noticed, reading over this and other threads, the uniformly low opinion of evangelical Christians expressed by atheists online here?
Yes, it is about the same opinion that Christians on this board have towards Islam. And actually, I have about the same opinion of Islam as I do Christianity. To me it is a simple difference between theism and non-theism. So hopefully it will make you feel some better that I don't single out Christians alone. However, in the US the Christians have the power. You are the majority group, and we all must bow to your power so long as it is deemed Constitutional by the SCOTUS. And what I have seen so far of the ruling evangelicals in office does not give me hope that they are good stewards of the power that has been entrusted to them.
On a personal level, I've experienced a number of incidences that have only solidified my contempt of religion, specifically driven by evangelical Christians. I only have but to watch the news to reaffirm my distaste for fundamentalist Islam and Judaism as well.
So that opinion has been earned based on the behavior fundys have demonstrated. And unfortunately one of the most egregious behaviors is one that I do not believe evangelicals can change as it is the root of evangelical Christianity...the requirement to convert...usually done with all the finesse of a holy used car salesman. Worse, evangelicals who are fortunate enough to be elected to office believe that God selected them to win thus endowing them with a manifest destiny and that they are instruments of God sent to legislate their interpretation of Biblical morals. So, if they can't make a believer out of ya, they'll make you behave in a manner that is consistent with a believer anyway...for your own good....and cuz it is the right thing to do by God.
Evangelicals give reason not to be trusted to be good stewards of our rights and liberties. They are organized having regular weekly meetings with local leaders where chosen info and thought leadership can be disseminated relating to their agenda. Organization gives them political power to act on that agenda. Unfortunately, successful implementation of that agenda weakens liberty and freedom.
Originally posted by Seagoon
Yet with all that you are incensed by the possibility that Christians might not trust Atheists? [You assumed, incidently, that the majority of the respondents were fundamentalist Christians, which is highly unlikely.] Why would you care what such an obvious bunch of hateful "mo-rons" like us think anyway?
I'm not as much incensed as I am surprised. Non-theists are in no way a threat to this country's way of life...unlike fundy Islam for example. Non-theists are not organized...there is no church-like structure; there are no pastor-like leaders. We have no agenda to spread our views on religion and deconvert Christians. We don't go knocking on doors asking residents if they have a personal relationship with God and then ask why if they answer yes.
Our primary goal is simply to be let alone by theists...but especially to not have government perverted so that fundys can use it as a vehicle to proselytize to us.
My only reason for caring is that fundies are in power. And if they view non-theists as the "commie" of the new century, then I am literally afraid. If non-theists are the least trusted then they become the scapegoat for all this country's problems. Moral decay ---> it's those damn amoral atheists; sensitivity to diversity by Christmas retailers ---> it's those damn anti-Christmas atheists; etc. I don't want to see McCarthistic atheist hunts where being non-theist is considered dirty. And it appears that theists in this country already view us as dirty...so much so that the majority do not even want their children to marry an non-theist! That type of mentality leads to discrimination and bigotry, which theists will justify or turn a blind eye even though they would think it is wrong were it a racial ethnic group rather than atheists.
Originally posted by Seagoon
but what exactly do you find so contemptible about me and others like me?
I'm sure you are a wonderful person...and one day I'd love to take a road trip through your area and drop in on one of your Sunday services. I would only hope that I would not find that sermon fostering hate and fear of any group, be they atheist or Muslim or Buddhist or pagan.
You may be surprised to learn that most Sunday mornings I end up eating breakfast in front of the tube watching Joel Osteen. I would hope that your sermons are more like the recent sermons I've seen from him...being kind; being true to yourself; being merciful. Positives rather than negatives.
I flip around to other Sunday tv sermons and see so much hate and so much is political in nature thinly veiled in Bible-speak...and some not so thinly veiled but overt "Adult Bible school" that is nothing but politics.
Originally posted by Seagoon
Today, I live, think, feel, and act in manner about as profoundly different from my prior way of life as it is possible to get, and all that not because of any campaign of rigorous self-improvement, and certainly not because of a craven fear of damnation, but because of the kind of heart surgery that only God can effect.
I'm glad you found a way for you to become self actualized and that it works for you. Understand that out of 300million Americans, not all will find "salvation" from the detestable behaviors they exhibit through religion. Some will find another way and another heart surgeon. And I hope that is OK with you and that you understand that their way is no less important than your way...it is just different.
-
z0rch: "Without religion, good men will still do good things, and bad men will still do bad things. To get good men to do bad things requires religion."
Leslie: Who said that zOrch?
L Ron Hubbard
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
So....Am I assuming correctly that you tracked the vandal down and he/she confessed immediatley.........to being a Christain?
Please...let's not be obtuse. Why would someone randomly choose to remove a Darwin fish from a car--not steal it mind you--but remove it and just leave it on the ground at the back of your car. Why would anyone other than an offended Christian care enough to bother to do that?
-
CrowMaw, thank you for your well expressed and well put together post. You've expressed clearly and without ire how I feel, and I hope that others will take the time to read it.
-
Originally posted by z0rch
L Ron Hubbard
Not quite.
Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg said, " with or without religion,
good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for
good people to do evil; - that takes religion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg
-
I've always lived by one simple mantra:
"I'll not chastise your religion if you'll not chastise mine."
If I have to be something, I'll be agnostic. I don't want to be converted, I don't want to hear whaterver babble other religions tell me, I don't want to be "saved" by any other religion, I just want to live my life. Basically, leave me alone and don't bother me with religious rhetoric. I have nothing against any other religion, nor do i harbor animosity towards those of said religions. All in all, I don't care. Leave me alone, and I'll return the favor.
I don't think that "not having a religion" is a bad thing just as much as I don't believe having a religion is a bad thing. People are free to make whatever choice they want, be it in some almighty omnipotent being or not. That's the beauty of living where we do. My opinion on religion is my own, and I don't think that everyone I meet should share it. I just want to live my life and be done with it.
:)
-
I look forward to Seagoon's answer too.
I remember having read in one of his sermons that atheists and all other religions are wrong (he had explicitly named buddhists) and will be deprived heaven. Regardless of their actions or motivations. How open and understanding is that?
Unfortunately that sermon has disappeared from his website.
Now, as he is a good pastor, and as he may not lie, I ask him to post the text of this sermon here.
OTOH, there are very few true christians in the US. Because true christians wouldn't have been upset with 9/11. After all, it's god's will...who, btw, also teached 'love thy enemy', 'give the other cheek', 'forgive',... I've never heard Seagoon say much about this on this board.
-
You should enlighten us deSelys. Tell us your opinion.
Les
-
Isn't it obvious enough?
Ok, my opinion is: it's not what you're believing into, or which rituals you are following, that decide if you're a good man or not. It's what you do and how you treat others.
I believe that there is no afterlife nor some 'reward' after you die. The only way to 'live' beyond your passing is through your children and in the memories others will have of you and your actions.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Isn't it obvious enough?
Ok, my opinion is: it's not what you're believing into, or which rituals you are following, that decide if you're a good man or not. It's what you do and how you treat others.
I believe that there is no afterlife nor some 'reward' after you die. The only way to 'live' beyond your passing is through your children and in the memories others will have of you and your actions.
I agree with what you say, but I have also seen in my life through real phenomenon(ghosts) that there is more to existence then what we see.
-
Oh, there is certainly much more in life than what we see. I.e, I don't reject ghosts but I've never met one. I'm a ghost-agnostic, if you prefer.
However, I don't share the heaven-nice place with 40 virgins-valhalla-you name it belief. The 'do what we say and you'll be rewarded in the afterlife' technique has been overused by all religions(= the men behind them) to control the masses. With a terrifying success I must admit.
-
lazs I note you've avoided all my questions regarding buddhists.
-
vulcan... what are your questions regarding buddhists and why would I care what they believe?
chair... so you think crow gets right to it and explains it all well? Certainly better than your hodge podge 10 commandments but...
What did he say really? he said that he feared that christians would take over so that is why he is an athiest? or... he is an athiest because.... because what?
he does say that muslims are just like modern christians... implying of course that they would all strap bombs on to get to god and the virgins given a chance... and what does any of that have to do with your belief in any case?
Athiesm isn't about weather you believe in one form of organized religion or politics anyway. Athiesm is a belief based on faith that there is no god.
Some here believe that, eventually... science will explain everything... even how it created itself (scientificaly of course) I believe that at some point we will find that science was created just like everything else. I have no proof and don't ask for any followers or even for anyone to agree.
I am beginning to think that most of you calling yourself athiests don't even know what one is.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Timofei
"Liberalism is an ideology, philosophy, political tradition, and current of political thought, which holds liberty as the primary political value. Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government and religion (and sometimes corporations), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a system of government that is transparent. This form of government favors liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law, and an equal opportunity to succeed"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Yep, if atheism=liberalism, count me as an atheist.
Political tradition ? ...
Rule of Law ?...
Liberal form of government favors liberal democracy with open and fair elections,
where all citzens have equal rights by law, and equal opportunity to
suceed ...... ?
That's BS...
Liberalism, is a an uninformed stinky fart, that's screwing The USA blind!, blowing what ever way is politicaly trendy, to a socialist .
Need a prime example of Liberalism ......?
Just look the Liberal Democrats in the Senate that support the 500,000+ illegal's that marched in Los Angeles last Saturday,
Demanding they be given a free pass , free hospitals, housing, schools, drivers licences, amenesty, welfare, workers Comp Insurance, the same rights as US citizens ..... without doing squat, just because they broke that law and crossed our US borders with out getting caught and deported ....
I do not trust Liberals ......with good well documented reason !
-
Yeah, you can only trust bible-thumpering conservatives, like Chimpy McFlightsuit;
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
Good thing he's not wishy-washy.
-
CHECKERS:
Just look the Liberal Democrats in the Senate that support the 500,000+ illegal's that marched in Los Angeles last Saturday,
Demanding they be given a free pass , free hospitals, housing, schools, drivers licences, amenesty, welfare, workers Comp Insurance, the same rights as US citizens ....
How dare those godless flaming liberals demand that we do something that sounds so.... Christian.
Pass the Zyklon-B.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Please...let's not be obtuse. Why would someone randomly choose to remove a Darwin fish from a car--not steal it mind you--but remove it and just leave it on the ground at the back of your car. Why would anyone other than an offended Christian care enough to bother to do that?
OK, let`s not be . You first. :)
Why do vandals snap off mirrors, rip off chrome, break off antennas and leave them laying on the ground? Are they offended by reflections, shiny articles and music?
Jumping to conclusions to fit your agenda.
-
Originally posted by texace
If I have to be something, I'll be agnostic. I don't want to be converted, I don't want to hear whaterver babble other religions tell me, I don't want to be "saved" by any other religion, I just want to live my life. Basically, leave me alone and don't bother me with religious rhetoric. I have nothing against any other religion, nor do i harbor animosity towards those of said religions. All in all, I don't care. Leave me alone, and I'll return the favor.
Well said Tex...
Unfortunately, Christians believe they have been tasked by Jesus to spread the good news.
-
crow... you seem to be very upset with christians... that is fine. Anyone who might be responsible for taking a walking fish thingie off a car is capable of allmost anything... like...
How did you say it? like.... they are just like muslims! They would be stoning people and suicide bombing if you and people like you were not every vigilant and had the courage to put little magnetic walking fish thingies on your cars....
So...crowmaw is an agnostic? or am I not reading this correctly?
I had a mirror ripped off once and smashed... obviously a vampire did it since it was at night and.... who else hates mirrors I ask you?
The ranks of the athiests seem to be thinning... so far... only chairboy has the courage to espouse his faith in athiesm it seems.
lazs
-
If God had wanted athiests to continue debating this, he'd have trimmed 30 points off their IQ's.
http://forever.broked.net/~jason/images/2004election_by_iq.png
-
ok...so zorch has it...
athiests are athiests because they hate the evil boooosh and republicans.... chair feels athiests are christian haters and crow feels that we better all get on the athiest bandwagon before all our magnetic placards are gone.
I think that my IQ is not the one to worry about here... I think that zorch may be on to something tho.... if he is in danger of losing 30 points it would put him in the drooling stage of things. Best to not take a chance.
lazs
-
lazs2:
athiests are athiests because they hate the evil boooosh
I like your pronunciation of "Bush". Much like the BBC's, It rhymes with "sweetheart".
-
oh oh.... better check that IQ... since you didn't think of it... you might have had a recent drop in IQ... have you voted republican lately?
No? maybe it is a temprorary loss.... you can probly get smart again by simply going to a lot more far left corners of the internet and....
Talking only to like minded people.
lazs
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Well said Tex...
Unfortunately, Christians believe they have been tasked by Jesus to spread the good news.
And you want to deny their freedom of speech?:eek: How about NOT LISTENING?! There. Now both parties are happy. :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
What did he say really? he said that he feared that christians would take over so that is why he is an athiest? or... he is an athiest because.... because what?
I don't believe I gave any reasons for why I am non-theist. Note I use non-theist rather than atheist. I'm not a true atheist, rather an agnostic. But I'm not sure you make a distiction.
Originally posted by lazs2
he does say that muslims are just like modern christians... implying of course that they would all strap bombs on to get to god and the virgins given a chance... and what does any of that have to do with your belief in any case?
Jonestown; Waco; Oklahoma City; Laramie, Wy; Eric Rudolf; Paul Hill...right...modern Christians are so much less violent.
Originally posted by lazs2
Athiesm isn't about weather you believe in one form of organized religion or politics anyway. Athiesm is a belief based on faith that there is no god.
Which is why I call myself agnostic. I say there is no earthly way you can know if a god or gods exist. I do not have faith one way or the other.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
And you want to deny their freedom of speech?:eek: How about NOT LISTENING?! There. Now both parties are happy. :)
Trust me...I don't. There used to be a billboard on my route to work that continuously had some catchy religious phrase like "GOT JESUS?" I drove right on by...never bothered me because I know that if I had the funds and the desire I could put up a billboard saying "ATHIESM=TRUTH".
What I do want to deny is using government as a vehicle to proselytize...that is the one place where I can expect complete nuetrality.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Trust me...I don't. There used to be a billboard on my route to work that continuously had some catchy religious phrase like "GOT JESUS?" I drove right on by...never bothered me because I know that if I had the funds and the desire I could put up a billboard saying "ATHIESM=TRUTH".
What I do want to deny is using government as a vehicle to proselytize...that is the one place where I can expect complete nuetrality.
So why do you believe it is unfortunate that Christians spread the word? It doesn't bother me, and though I am somewhat agnostic, I also believe there is a higher being, just not what the Christian Bible believes.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
OK, let`s not be . You first. :)
Why do vandals snap off mirrors, rip off chrome, break off antennas and leave them laying on the ground? Are they offended by reflections, shiny articles and music?
Jumping to conclusions to fit your agenda.
Oh goodie...a strawman.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So why is it that believe it is unfortunate that Christians spread the word?
Got no problem with them trying so long as it doesn't include assault, tresspassing/solicitation, or using government as their pulpit.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Got no problem with them trying so long as it doesn't include assault, tresspassing/solicitation, or using government as their pulpit.
Well I agree with youl. However, I say leave the "Grandfathered" stuff alone. The Atheists are the one using the Government as their "pulpit" now trying to remove stuff like statues, and "God" in our current Gov't verbage thats been there for decades. Waste of taxpayers money, and they're no better than Christians doing the same.
-
Originally posted by z0rch
Yeah, you can only trust bible-thumpering conservatives, like Chimpy McFlightsuit;
Holycrap, MG found the AH BBS.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
I remember having read in one of his sermons that atheists and all other religions are wrong (he had explicitly named buddhists) and will be deprived heaven. Regardless of their actions or motivations. How open and understanding is that?
Andy...please say it ain't so. :(
I just listened to your sermon: He Who is Not With Christ is Against Him (Luke 11:14-23). :(
Help me understand, Andy...your flock is already converted...why use hate and fear like that? What is the point? Where is the compassion?
Let me tell you a story of a Christian that I admire...and I don't even know his name. I used to drive tempramental little British cars. And one day 20 years ago I was out on the interstate and came across a beat up '68 MGB with out of state plates on the side of the road in distress. I pulled over to see if I could assist the driver. The thermostat gasket had let go and the driver had no spares. My Triumph's trunk looked like a TR spare parts store...but I had no generic gasket material and my TR gaskets were no where close. But with the tools I had we started to remove the thermostat housing figuring we could go to a store and buy what we lacked. About that time a rusty old Toyota pickup pulled over and a weathered fellow ambled back, opened his bed gate & topper to reveal he was a roving car repairman. He had gasket material and together we got busy getting this fellow running again. The MG driver was so angry at his car and himself for being unprepared that he let out a "G** damn car". The repairman quietly but firmly said, "God loves you. He put me in your path today to help you." I recall quietly laughing and shaking my head at the circumstance of an evangelical and an agnostic both stopping to help the same fellow. I kept quiet out of respect as the repairman began to witness. His transition was so smooth that 20 min later when we were done the MG driver hugged the repairman as he was given a weathered Bible (I wouldn't be surprised if it was the repairman's personal copy). It was compassion--not fear-- that won that MG driver over.
One other question Andy...in your sermon you rattled off a list of religions that you perceive as in league with Beelzebub. I don't recall hearing Judaism in that list. They are no more for Christ than Muslims are for Christ. Can you help me understand why you left them out but specifically mentioned Islam...was it a simple oversight?
-
I was brought up in a religion that assured me I was better than other people: I was saved, 'they' were damned. The Hymms and sermons were loaded with arrogance and self congragulations on how cozy we were with the Almighty and the Hell that everyone else would catch come Judgement Day. Are all religions prejudicial?
In 'private practice' a religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion.. any religion.. is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason... but one cannot have both. Move that religion from 'private practice' into the arena of politics and government and this 'source of happiness' becomes an evil most profound.
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. Islam is doing so now.. the Catholics, the English Protestants.. Europe just a few centuries ago, Coatia, Serbia now.. how many historical examples of the horrific endgame of church control of government and influence in poltics need to be trotted out before we get the point...
Religionists with political power and influence are hideously dangerous critters... they use the mask of godliness to hoodwink the masses to a hysterical hatred.. and the aftermath is always blood.
I do not condone an American Theocracy. Keep the churches outta government. Yes, Islam needs to be crushed. But not by a holy christian army. By an angry American army that rejects ANY theology as it's cause celebre.. we must do this for Mankind, to break the grip of religionists on the hearts and minds of people subverted by holy prejudice bent on making their God the 'supreme deitey'. We HAVE to fight for the rights of MAN.. not GOD.
-
Yeah! What he said! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Elegantly said, Hangtime
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Oh goodie...a strawman.
Yea, never let common sense and reasoning get in the way of your agenda. Clutters things up for ya.
Evil Christians ripping off legged fish thingies. Sheeesh. Vandals , the hole lot of em.
Waco; Oklahoma City; Christians are so much less violent.
What exactly does the ATF and other government agencies murdering innocnet people and a wacko with fertilizer have to do with Christians being violent? :(
-
No matter what belief you have in a supreme being, God, religion or lack of that you have, sometime between the last breath you take and the full decomposition of your body you are likely to get that situation clarified. ;)
-
I'm in this life doing the best I can.
I'll deal with the next life (if any) when I get there.
And, if your motivation for adopting religion in this life is beautification in the next then I submit you'll be a coward in the next one too.
-
"Are all religions prejudicial?"
I was raised Catholic (my family has been closely tied to the Catholic church for a thousand years or more, even my surname is deeply religious), and I every Priest I ever talked to said the same thing--God judges people according to each individual's own traits. A person isn't damned simply because he worships Islam or some such religion, or no religion at all, and even criminals and atheists may achieve salvation. Many parts of the Bible aren't viewed as literal truth. In any case, God judges people, it's not up to us, so it isn't our place to try to say who is and isn't saved.
Now, I'm sure some Catholic priest/cardinal/whatever somewhere has said something extremist at some point or another; as large as the Catholic church is and as long as its history runs that's virtually inevitable. Not all clergy agree with each other on every issue, and there's a lot of debate within the church. My point is not ALL clergy subscribe to the notion of "if you're not with us, you're damned".
Fire-and-brimstone "YOU ARE DAMNED!" Protestant faiths were usually regarded as phony (their mass isn't considered "real"), bigoted, and an embarassment to christianity.
As for myself, I'm not religious in any active sense of the word and really never have been, but if I was going to change my mind about it I'd still view the Catholic church as the "real" christian religion, along with the Eastern Orthodox church.
J_A_B
-
I think Lazs has it right, atheism is as much a leap of faith as theism, and both are different only by virtue of being inverted images.
It's irresponsible to allow one's faith to affect anything but oneself.
Why admit something you cannot prove?
Maybe atheists (or the generic atheist) are less trusted because without the light of faith's promise at the end of the tunnel, man is up against the vast and untamed unpredictability of the universe, and the atheist being at home with this makes him a sort of allegory of bad news..
...
Creo quia absurdum
Adios reason!
-
ok... so crow is an agnostic... that really only leaves chair as the preacher for the athiest religion.
but still crow... no matter how much you hate the guys who use the fish as a symbol.... you can't equate sentancing someone to death for converting to christianity from islam to.....
To maybe... I say maybe... peeling off a walking fish symbol from a freind of a friends cousins car and (gasp) placing it on the...... the ground!
lazs
-
Originally posted by z0rch
Yeah, you can only trust bible-thumpering conservatives, like Chimpy McFlightsuit;
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
Good thing he's not wishy-washy.
Well here is some more wishy-washy for ya .....to distort .....zOrch....
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of KJanuary. That's just one American city,
about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.
When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:
FDR led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost.......
an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953 , 55,000 lives were lost......
an average of 18,500 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Viet Nam war in 1962. Viet Nam never attacked us.
Johnson turned Viet Nam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, over 58,000 lives were lost....
an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent,
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and
did nothing. ...
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the three years since terrists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed
the Teliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea
without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300.000 of his own people.
The Librial Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.
But.....
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidan
compound. That was a 51 day operation.
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons less time than it took
Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records....
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Marine Division to destroy the Medina Republican Guard,
than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida !
Liberals suck ! :t
ps if you have a tv ....
click on C-Span , you can watch you heros in action ,
giving away citizenship & our borders to Mexico .....
-
Originally posted by lazs2
vulcan... what are your questions regarding buddhists and why would I care what they believe?
Do you label them dishonest as well? Do you distrust the Dalai Lama?
-
I'm as much a preacher for the atheist religion as you are a preacher of the anti-Santa religion. I don't think God exists, and you don't think Santa exists.
Where do I send my tax exempt documentation to, then? Would you support that, Lazs?
-
vulcan.... I don't know the dali lama so niether trust nor distrust him. Telll you what....tell me something he said an I will tell ya what I think about it.. for the most part.... I couldn't care less about the guy.
chair... what about santa? I am agnostic (or was) about santa but now someone told me that he was a real man so I guess I am a santa believer now.... so what if anything does that have to do with you having faith in your religion?
lazs
-
Ya know, it doesn't really matter how many times you call atheism a religion, it's still not going to make it so.
A-theism. Lack of belief in god. By your logic, EVERYTHING you don't believe in equals a religious belief. Don't believe in flying elephants that play harp? Religious belief. Don't believe in candle holders that dance around, imbued with the spirit of some french guy? Religious belief.
Every _single_ thing you don't believe in is now a religious belief. Great. So now, what has this done for the basis of your other religious beliefs? How holy and significant are they in the face of the almost infinite number of religious beliefs you have about all the things that don't exist?
-
any soley faith based belief is by defenition a religion.
I have no idea why you keep bringing in all sorts of pink elephants or whatever into the thing.
If you leave no room for fact or doubt because of your faith then you are a practitioner of religion.
your religion happens to be that there is no god.... you are welcome to it but... don't put yourself in the same category as the agnostics here on this board..
You also can't put yourself in the same category as those who believe in god because..... well.... they are being honest about it being soley a faith based religion....
Sooo.... why would I trust an athiest who won't even admit the possibilty that he is wrong or that his belief is faith based?
As you see... only the athiest comes off as being well..... evasive or stupid at the least and totaly dishonest at most.
lazs
-
Well, thanks for the personal attack. You're entitled to your opinion, and I hope you'll agree that I'm entitled to mine.
Best regards,
cb
-
Can you be a Christian Agnostic????? Is that possible?!?!?!?!?!
If so then that is probably what category I fall under. I have faith that there is a God who began this existence we live in BUT I also examine and listen to each side before making my own opinion about my faith. I don't push Christianity on others nor do I wear it on my sleeve like a badge of honor but I will defend MY position on the matter unless proven otherwise.
I believe that there is a higher power responsible for all of this but I honestly don't take the word of the Bible in a literal sense simply because (the Old Testament) it is a historical record more than anything. Maybe that is why I attend a Methodist Church...we don't hide our alcohol in a cabinet with sealed doors and we openly talk about the issues of the day no matter how controversial.
Call me a fence rider but at least I learned a long time ago to not argue about religion with people; it will get you nowhere fast and ultimately ends up with loosing a person who could be a friend regardless of their standing on how you live your life.
-
You two aren't talking about the same thing.
Chairboy seems to use the definition of atheism as only the absence of belief in god, while Lazs seems to see it as belief in the absence of god.
Lazs might want you to just admit you're either religious if you conform to the latter, or dishonest if you do so without admitting to it being a leap of faith or conforming to the former while arguing for Atheism as defined in a dictionary.
Reschke, I don't think that's possible, considering they're mutually exclusive.
"ultimately ends up with loosing a person who could be a friend"
i.e. they can't cope with realizing they don't have the spine to survive reasserting their opinion of the moment?:lol
-
My favorite response to people who question my stance is this selection of verses from the Gospel of John but specifically verse 29 of the following.
John 20:24-29 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan
Jesus Appears to Thomas
24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
-
Is that for me?
-
You know its funny how that works because you posted just a moment ahead of me and my next post was just to clarify my position. I had no idea you even edited your post to include me until just now. So before you wrote your last post...no it wasn't for you; but I guess now it does apply.
-
Well I was only arguing the semantics of your title of Christian (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=13403&dict=CALD) agnostic (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=1676&dict=CALD) ; it's self-contradictory.
-
I know it can but I feel thats the only way to express myself because of the faith and belief that I have. I even asked a very good and long time friend of mine who is a preacher about it and that was the only reasonable explanation we could come up with. I don't think that definition accurately describes the origin of the term or what it truly means but then it kind of gets drawn out in semantics with no real end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion. The word agnostic comes from the Greek a (without) and gnosis (knowledge). Agnosticism, focusing on what can be known, is an epistemological position (dealing with the nature and limits of human knowledge); while atheism and theism are ontological positions (a branch of metaphysics that deals with what types of entities exist). Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism.
Yes I know Wikipedia isn't the best but it explains it a little better than I can without going really deep.
-
If all the world leaders were Athiest's..it would be a better place.
Just look at what the religious fundmentalists have done over the last several hundred years...and now the Islamic movement that is just coming to surface...?
What next??
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
If all the world leaders were Athiest's..it would be a better place.
Like Stalin and Mao?
-
see below
-
I don't think world history would be all that much different if the leaders were all atheists. I don't think many wars are fought over religion. I think religion simply provides an easy way to mask the leaders' greedy, REAL motives for going to war. If they didn't have that easy mask, they'd just think up some other lame justification (maybe WMD's?).
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Like Stalin and Mao?
Yeah..They were big inovators in separating State from freedom of thought.
-
Originally posted by moot
It couldn't work without a majority of the population being a lot wiser and more knowledgeable.
Exactly.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
vulcan.... I don't know the dali lama so niether trust nor distrust him. Telll you what....tell me something he said an I will tell ya what I think about it.. for the most part.... I couldn't care less about the guy.
He's a Buddhist, and thus an atheist (unless he also follows other religious beliefs). Now you say atheists are dishonest and untrustworthy. So I want to hear you explain why you think this applies to the Dalai Lama and 376 million other buddhists.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Yeah..They were big inovators in separating State from freedom of thought.
I can only comment on what you post, not what you where thinking when you posted. ;)
-
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida !
Wow! They finally counted all of the votes in Florida! That's great news!
When will President Gore be sworn in?
Or doesn't the guy with the most votes win anymore?
Is that another chunk of the constitution trampled by the chimp and his boys?
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.
Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys,
it's worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore."
-George Carlin
-
Originally posted by z0rch
Wow! They finally counted all of the votes in Florida! That's great news!
When will President Gore be sworn in?
Or doesn't the guy with the most votes win anymore?
Is that another chunk of the constitution trampled by the chimp and his boys?
Thrawn is right. He's baaaaaaaaaaaaack!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Thrawn is right. He's baaaaaaaaaaaaack!
yeah..the Republicans won that battle...If only they knew how to win a war?
-
Originally posted by moot:
It couldn't work without a majority of the population being a lot wiser and more knowledgeable.
Amen.
http://www.armorfirewall.com/zorch/2004election_by_iq.png
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
yeah..the Republicans won that battle...If only they knew how to win a war?
I think Rip was referring to my comment regarding the identity of z0rch. MG is an...let's say "well known" member of the AGW bbs community that is given to inventing colourful names for Bush.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
If all the world leaders were Athiest's..it would be a better place.
Just look at what the religious fundmentalists have done over the last several hundred years...and now the Islamic movement that is just coming to surface...?
What next??
Really? Wasn't Hitler an athiest? How about Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot..........
-
Are you kidding? :lol
-
Originally posted by bj229r
What I will never manage to grasp is the utter disdain that so many athiests have for Christians--ever see those car emblems with the Darwin sign inside the fish? WHAT possible threat could these peeps see from Christians that they feel they must insult their belief system?
I saw this today and wanted to get your thoughts:
(http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/7266/mvc365s2xg.jpg)
In response the person who snapped the pic wrote to the church the following:
Greetings!
Today I was driving by your church when I noticed your sign. I must say that I found myself disappointed in the message conveyed by the sign: "April 1st National Athiests Day"
It is my understanding that Christians are supposed to show the love of Christ to all. I also notice that your church is family oriented. I myself do not teach those in my family to ridicule minority groups and I am sure you discourage such a thing as well. Thusly, I think it speaks badly of your organization to do so - especially in public.
While I staunchly defend your right to say as you please in our great country, I can't help but think that if your mission is to bring non-believers to Christ, that such a sign is antagonistic and only serves to alienate those you wish to reach with your message.
There are many atheists who are upstanding members of our society and respect your religion as well as your right to worship as you see fit. Surely the religious community can show them the same courtesy, even if they do not agree with their beliefs or lack of them.
P.S. You misspelled atheist on the sign.
Thank you for taking the time to read this email.
The response back from the church:
We have called no man a fool. God has. It is foolish not to believe in
the one who has created you my dear friend.
As Psalm 14:4 says, "Have all the workers of iniquity no knowlege?"
Psalm 14:1-4
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt,
they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. 2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge?
Are these good Christians or Philistines?
-
They're good Christians and they love you...but you're going to burn in hell.
-
Ice water, anybody? $2.00 a glass... Surplus Body Armor, discarded by American Marines; $50.00 a plate; guaranteed proof against demon horns...Ice water, $2.00 a cool frosty glass... global warming is responsible for the recent increase in the average temperature here in hell, get a cool blast from the past; just $2.00 a glass folks. $3.00 without feces, $4.00 for no bugs. Step right up....
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
I saw this today and wanted to get your thoughts:
In response the person who snapped the pic wrote to the church the following:
The response back from the church:
Are these good Christians or Philistines?
Yeah, well, I have alittle photoshop for you too, Crow. ;)
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/135844280.jpg)
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/135847162.jpg)
-
Originally posted by wrag
Really? Wasn't Hitler an athiest?
Actually, Hitler was a Christian. Not all christians are bad following his example, just as not all Atheists are bad following Stalin's example.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Actually, Hitler was a Christian. Not all christians are bad following his example, just as not all Atheists are bad following Stalin's example.
BZZZZZ Wrong answer. He referenced Christianity but he was not a Christian. Thanks for playing "Spent too much time on MoveOn.Org"!
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html
Let's put it this way, when in Rome, dress like the romans. "so many Germans were religious believers that Hitler, if not religious himself, at least had to pretend to be a believer in order to gain support."
-
... he claimed to be a Christian ...
-
This whole thread is why I wonder about how positive an influence religion may or may not be.
I see lots more anger than 'love thy neighbor'.
-
Goomba, though I'm not a religous person by definition, Christianity has saved more lives than killed. Spend some time like my brother has in N.O. and ask him who's doing most of the clean up work down there. I'll give you a clue, they're not atheists.
-
Hitler wasn't christian? My mistake. Moveon? What's that?
-
Wow, 20 seconds of Google seems to suggest that you're not entirely correct. Your thoughts on the following are appreciated:
We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933
[This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism.]
He wrote "We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest."
He also wrote: "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922"
"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 Octover 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]"
"We are determined, as leaders of the nation, to fulfill as a national government the task which has been given to us, swearing fidelity only to God, our conscience, and our Volk.... This the national government will regard its first and foremost duty to restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our Volk. It will preserve and defend the foundations upon which the power of our nation rests. It will take Christianity, as the basis of our collective morality, and the family as the nucleus of our Volk and state, under its firm protection....May God Almighty take our work into his grace, give true form to our will, bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our Volk.
-Adolf Hitler, on 1 Feb. 1933, addressing the German nation as Chancellor for the first time, Volkischer Beobachter, 5 Aug. 1935, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]"
"Except the Lord built the house they labour in vain.... The truth of that text was proved if one looks at the house of which the foundations were laid in 1918 and which since then has been in building.... The world will not help, the people must help itself. Its own strength is the source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use; that in it and through it we may wage the battle of our life.... The others in the past years have not had the blessing of the Almighty-- of Him Who in the last resort, whatever man may do, holds in His hands the final decision. Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us.... We are all proud that through God's powerful aid we have become once more true Germans.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in March 1933
[Note, "Except the Lord built the house, they labour in vain" comes from Psalms 127:1]"
From http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
I guess history disagrees with the assertion that he didn't identify himself as Christian. Seems like he felt he was doing god's work, pretty twisted.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yeah, well, I have alittle photoshop for you too, Crow. ;)
LOL...good one.
Wish it were photoshop though. The church is in Hanover Park, IL...anyone that doubts it can call em up:
http://www.godcentered.info/about.html
630.289.4110
-
(http://www.thetrog.com/nac/images/nazi_hitler_church2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Christianity has saved more lives than killed.
Thats a bold statement there rip, most deaths attributed to various religions happen on a near genocidal level.
-
Chairboy, In hitler's case as well as numerous others who committed other similar if smaller deeds, I believe actions count far more than words. Words to liars and hypocrits are tools of persuasion not declarations of true intent.
Like a line from a John Wayne movie, "Sorry don't get it done Dude".
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
BZZZZZ Wrong answer. He referenced Christianity but he was not a Christian. Thanks for playing "Spent too much time on MoveOn.Org"!
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html
Let's put it this way, when in Rome, dress like the romans. "so many Germans were religious believers that Hitler, if not religious himself, at least had to pretend to be a believer in order to gain support."
LOL.. did you even read your link?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Chairboy, In hitler's case as well as numerous others who committed other similar if smaller deeds, I believe actions count far more than words. Words to liars and hypocrits are tools of persuasion not declarations of true intent.
Like a line from a John Wayne movie, "Sorry don't get it done Dude".
Mav, so you're saying that nobody christian can do evil, because anyone who does evil is automatically not a christian? Sounds pretty convenient.
-
Hello Crow,
Originally posted by crowMAW
Here's the question for Fundys...why? What are you being told about atheists that would lead to that level of distrust? Seagoon...what are you teaching your "flock" about us? I understand that by Christian dogma, I'm not going to Heaven...that is my problem, but why does that effect you and why should you care about a choice that only effects me? Is the mere existence of a person who rejects your teachings that threatening to your own beliefs (in which case I have to question the strength of your convictions)?
Looking at the thread so far, it looks like I have several questions to answer. I'll try to get to all of them, but I'll confess to being dog-tired and this is going to be an awful week for me. So please forgive me in advance if I don't get to them all.
Let me answer this question of yours in a two-parter. First, let me tell you who "my flock" are, if only that I might eliminate some of the crasser stereotypes in advance.
Our congregation is a church plant that has only been around since 2002, we are not an old and established church. We have grown from a "core" of about eleven people to a little under a hundred since then. The majority of the members of our church are first generation Christians, that is converts from various forms of nominal [i.e. "in name only"] Christianity, Agnosticism, or Atheism, very few of them were raised in Christian families or were regular churchgoers prior to converting. Many of them were "bad boys/girls" hard cases and so on, some had run-ins with the law, served time, got busted ranks and so on. As is to be expected for this town, 95% of them have either a current or former affiliation with the military. The median age is about 33 with the majority of members being in their 20s and 30s. We tend to have more families than singles, although the single population is the most rapidly growing portion.
Educationally speaking, most of our members have a college degree, and several have post-graduate degrees. Both of my elders, for instance, are post-grads.
Almost all of the members of our church are in occupations where the vast majority of people they meet with and work with on a day by day basis are not fundamentalist Christians. In fact, for many of them, they are they only evangelicals in their unit/workplace.
As for me, I'm 36, I have 2 masters degrees, and I was a pagan/agnostic for 23 years. All of this is to say that as I answer your question (next post) please keep in mind:
1) We are not the stereotypical "blue-haired old lady" Fundamentalist Church, filled with Christians "of old" who live and work in an evangelical ghetto, and are "poor [except hopefully in spirit], uneducated, and easily led" to quote the famous Washington Post article. Being evangleical and not being part of that stereotype is more common than you'd think.
2) The majority of members have more than a passing acquaintance with atheism, they either were atheists themselves or they work closely with them every day. Therefore, I am not in a position were I am free to teach things about atheists that do not comport with their own life experience.
Also, let me make clear that unlike Joel Osteen, I don't teach things merely because I think they will make people happy, positive and well adjusted where they are. I have no desire to tickle itching ears, my desire is to preach only the truth that it might result in redeemed lives. I know that different approaches to preaching would be more popular in a worldy sense and draw a larger crowd, but I'm striving as a pastor to be true to the great commission of Matt. 28:18-20 and as an ambassador of Christ to teach only the things that he has given in His word. I try to teach and preach directly from the Bible and as a result, it has a tendency to "comfort the downcast and cast down the comfortable." My experience has been that those who think they are a pretty great people without Christ either end up having their opinion changed or leaving. So while I know that what I'm about to say is going to be mightily unpopular, that experience is neither unexpected nor unusual for me.
- SEAGOON
-
Hello again Crow,
Originally posted by crowMAW
Here's the question for Fundys...why? What are you being told about atheists that would lead to that level of distrust? Seagoon...what are you teaching your "flock" about us?
Regarding what I teach "my flock" regarding Atheism... Unfortunately, in order to teach what I teach about Atheism, I'm going to have to touch on what I teach about Christian Theism in order to do that, because I necessarily believe that Atheism is derivative and Theism original.
First please understand that I believe the worldview taught in the Bible, not some other supposedly "neutral" worldview.
Therefore, a few underlying but very important features of that worldview include the idea that the Universe and everything in it is not self-created, eternal, or illusory, rather everything was created by God who alone has essential being. While he freely interacts with His creation, and not only created but preserves it, He is infinitely greater than all of it.
I teach that man was created in the image of God, that man was created upright in knowledge and righteousness, yet mutable, that is capable of change. Man was also created in communion with his Creator and with a knowledge of God's laws in His heart, however by disobeying that law Man fell from that estate in which he was created, and became subject to physical death and spiritually deadened and inclined towards sin Eph. 2:1-3, Eccles. 7:29, etc. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%202:1-3;&version=50;). In other words after the Fall of man, the natural "in-born" inclination of man was towards rebellion against his Creator.
Part of that inclination is manifested in idolatry, in the setting up of many false gods and ways of worshipping them. Men's hearts are, as Calvin put it, idol factories.
Now those gods can either be actual alternate deities or simply parts of the creation. Man can make an idol out of money, leisure, sex, power, and so on. An idol, properly understood, is simply that which has a capitivating control over his heart, and which occupies the place that only the true God should have. Therefore an idol can even be something "good" like work or family or nation. One of the most popular and abiding idols, of course, is self, the belief that one is the highest and greatest part of the creation and that nothing and no one rules over you or has a right to one's obedience and worship. In fact, it is more common to find that worshippers of self either consciously or sub-consciously believe that everyone else exists to please and worship them.
The bible tells us that there is ultimately no such thing as an Atheist, rather that men actively deny the God they know exists (see Romans 1:18-32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:18-32;&version=50;) for perhaps the best and most concise summary of this situation)
To remain in this position is ultimately to reap a bitter harvest. The temporal results of idolatry are sin and misery, and the eternal result is death. If we continue in our fallen condition, all we can look forward to is final judgment, and based on our having been and remained enemies and rebels against our creator, punishment.
God did not, however, desire that man should remain in this sorry estate, but sent His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ to redeem men, this redemption involved making atonement for their sins (i.e. suffering the just judgment of God in their place) and establishing their righteousness by keeping the commandments of God in their place. Only the true God could provide the sacrifice of infinite value necessary to atone for sin and live a sinless life, and only a true man could suffer in their place and keep the law on their behalf. Therefore salvation required that God become incarnate. That is why God the Son, the Second Person of the Godhead, was born in Bethlehem so many years ago.
All of this work of redemption was revealed in God's revelation to man, both before and after the birth of Christ (see Isaiah 53 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=is%2053;&version=50;) for instance for just one of many Old Testament prophecies of the person and work of Christ)
If we have been redeemed, our eternal state is certain, because Christ has paid for our sins and established our righteousness, we will become inheritors of heaven instead of hell.
What fallen men need, therefore is union with Christ and this comes through faith in Him. In order to believe though, we must first have a new heart, a living heart given to us via the work of the Holy Spirit. This is called regeneration. People in their original and fallen state are described as "unregenerate."
Therefore, whatever mode of idolatry we prefer, in our unregenerate state, we will tend towards evil. Admittedly we won't be as evil as we can be, as God in His common grace restrains our sinfulness.
So do I expect unregenerate men to lie, to cheat, to steal, to break all of God's commandments? Yes, because that is the inclination of his heart. Do I expect regenerate men to be sinless this side of glory? No, I expect that believers in Christ will struggle with sin, but that they will struggle rather than constantly capitulating or being tempted as the worldling is "to call evil good" to overturn God's commandments and erect laws (either in the society or in his own heart) that nullify what God says is good.
Finally, Christians do not obey God's commandments out of fear of punishment, in fact if that is the only reason we obey it indicates that we surely don't have a new heart in the first place. We obey out of love of God, and a desire to keep his commandments, not out of fear of his punishments. We know that Christ has suffered in our place, and for those who who are united to Him: "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1)
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Mav, so you're saying that nobody christian can do evil, because anyone who does evil is automatically not a christian? Sounds pretty convenient.
If Hitler was a Christian then I'm a Martian.
Try reading his post again, this time with your blinkers off.
Just saying your something doesn't make it so.
Excel
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
....
To remain in this position is ultimately to reap a bitter harvest. The temporal results of idolatry are sin and misery, and the eternal result is death. If we continue in our fallen condition, all we can look forward to is final judgment, and based on our having been and remained enemies and rebels against our creator, punishment.
....
Finally, Christians do not obey God's commandments out of fear of punishment
....
- SEAGOON
Of course, christians don't obey out of fear. Is this the free will we're supposed to be granted? Talk about a choice :rofl
Originally posted by Seagoon
....
Therefore, whatever mode of idolatry we prefer, in our unregenerate state, we will tend towards evil. Admittedly we won't be as evil as we can be, as God in His common grace restrains our sinfulness.
....
So do I expect unregenerate men to lie, to cheat, to steal, to break all of God's commandments? Yes, because that is the inclination of his heart.
- SEAGOON
As you don't put gloves to judge other men solely about their beliefs (or lack thereof), here is, put bluntly, what I think of you:
According to you, you had issues in life. Since you have found religion, you claim to be a much better man. If the path that you're following now comforts you about the value of your actions and words, you're intolerant and quick to judge others. Despite all the false modesty dripping from your posts, it's also obvious that you feel superior to anyone not agreeing with you and that you're generally pretty proud about yourself. I'm no shrink but I have the feeling that the issues that you had before are not resolved but, probably unaware to you (by discussing your own motives, you would feel like losing your faith), transformed to better suit your new way of life. I'm curious to know from which mental disorders you're suffering.
I was wondering how you could afford to spend hours a day on this BBS trying to convince other people that all moslems are utterly evil while, AFAIK, any other pastor claims that he could do with 2 extra hours a day to help all the people in need around him. However, by describing your community, you made me understand that it is much closer to a sect where aggressive recuiting and mental restraint matter more than being a support to the people.
You sir, are not the good man that you think you are.
-
The temporal results of idolatry are sin and misery, and the eternal result is death. If we continue in our fallen condition, all we can look forward to is final judgment, and based on our having been and remained enemies and rebels against our creator, punishment.
What fallen men need, therefore is union with Christ and this comes through faith in Him. In order to believe though, we must first have a new heart, a living heart given to us via the work of the Holy Spirit.
Finally, Christians do not obey God's commandments out of fear of punishment, in fact if that is the only reason we obey it indicates that we surely don't have a new heart in the first place. We obey out of love of God, and a desire to keep his commandments, not out of fear of his punishments.
Where have I heard this before .......
The closed door threat - "If you don't get this job done you'll be looking for a new one"
The meeting room - "You all need to work as a team to get this job done"
The public presentation - "My staff do what they do through love of their job and teamwork"
:rolleyes:
Now to Laz's reasoning and Moot's interpretation ...
Chairboy seems to use the definition of atheism as only the absence of belief in god, while Lazs seems to see it as belief in the absence of god.
Lazs might want you to just admit you're either religious if you conform to the latter, or dishonest if you do so without admitting to it being a leap of faith or conforming to the former while arguing for Atheism as defined in a dictionary.
It seems to me that all depends on your definition of "God".
I consider myself an atheist in the respect of an organised or taught religion - i.e. I do not believe there is a God as defined in the text of any human religion practicing today - a single entity with paranormal and unseen powers overseeing our personal destiny.
Do I accept that there have been, and continue to be forces and processes, so far unknown and currently totally beyond our comprehension - absolutely. But then are you going to simply label anything we don't understand as "GOD". And that because I believe in the unknown I therefore believe in a God and am therefore agnostic - that is an absurd chain of thought.
Laz sems to consider that any personal belief in forces which cannot be comprehended by todays knowedge is born of a GOD of some type, and that faith in that is personal, and that the unwillingness to label these unknowns as being attributable to a God is stupid.
To me it is more stupid to only accept these forces as those of a God and not leave your mind open to any possibilities. To simply then label others who chose to think differently as "stupid" is plain bigotry.
To then extend the arguement to say "you have a belief in the non-existance of a God and therefore that is a religion and therefore to not accept that you hold a religious belief is dishonest" is equally absurd. The non-belief in a God does not drive my decision making in my life. In fact it has no day to day bearing on my life - it is not a consideration. I do not base my moral descisions on things not being in the Bible or Quran. I have rejected the presented options and definitions - surely that open rejection is more honest than the Sunday church going professional classes who screw their employees on Monday. It's interesting that Seagoon highlights that his biggest increase in congregation is professional singles when it is a well known fact that Sunday church is one of the best place to meet people ..... I would be interested to know how many of those people pair up and are gone in a few years time.
To move on then to the core point - that atheists can't be trusted - are inherently dishonest . This seems to be based on the assertion that because we haven't the guidance of religious dogma we are incapable of thinking in anything other than a self serving way. "I think, therefore I think only about myself" ...... this has no logic. Compassion, love, social belonging are all feelings natural to normal human beings. They are not things belonging solely to the domain of Christian religion.
As a last point, I though it was interesting that someone in this thread defended the reaction of a poster's work-mates to his using God and Christ in explitive phrases - demanding respect for his work-mates religious senstivities - and yet I would imagine that same someone had a different view to the Muslim reaction to the Prophet cartoons.
The assertion in Seagoon's text is plain - you fall outside the truth and you are not to be considered an equal person - you are untrustworthy and worthless - or to repeat the church's answer to the letter ...
Psalm 14:1-4
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt,
they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. 2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge?
Intolerance and division ............ religion
-
Originally posted by Excel1
If Hitler was a Christian then I'm a Martian.
Try reading his post again, this time with your blinkers off.
Excel, YOU read his words:
"I believe actions count far more than words."
After saying that, is there ANY possible way that someone who did what Hitler did could EVER meet his criteria of a christian? He just said that anyone who does bad stuff is no christian, by sheer virtue of their actions.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ok...so zorch has it...
athiests are athiests because they hate the evil boooosh and republicans.... chair feels athiests are christian haters and crow feels that we better all get on the athiest bandwagon before all our magnetic placards are gone.
I think that my IQ is not the one to worry about here... I think that zorch may be on to something tho.... if he is in danger of losing 30 points it would put him in the drooling stage of things. Best to not take a chance.
lazs
You need to think again.
-
Chairboy,
I have no problem understanding what Maverick said.
"I believe actions count far more than words."
^ Talk is cheap. Professing faith in Christianity while trashing Christian/human values does not make a man a Christian. Hitler would not be the only sicko to use religion for his own ends.
"After saying that, is there ANY possible way that someone who did what Hitler did could EVER meet his criteria of a christian? "
I can't answer for Maverick, but by the tone of his post I would think not.
" He just said that anyone who does bad stuff is no christian, by sheer virtue of their actions"
He didn't say that. And if it were true there would be very few Christians in the world, normal human frailties and all. No one is perfect.
Excel
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
LOL.. did you even read your link?
Why, yes I did. Did you? Or just skim it?
Quote:
Historian Paul Johnson wrote that Hitler hated Christianity \with a passion, adding that shortly after assuming power in 1933, Hitler told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended "to stamp out Christianity root and branch."
As Hitler grew in power, he made other anti-Christian statements. For example, he was quoted in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, by Allan Bullock, as saying: "I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews
As you continue to read the article, it is VERY CLEAR that he then went on to USE Christianity as a tool when he figured out that powerful people in Germany were religious.
Thus my comment, "When in Rome..."
(http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/icon22.gif)
-
The evill in Hitler's character did not sprout from seeds sown in Sunday school.
The sources for all the ghastly things that he did can be found in ethnic biases and racial dogmas reinforced by junk anthropological publications and radical political theories so prevalent in Germany during the early part of the 20th century.
The fact remains that the greatest mass-murderers in history all had an utter disdain for religion of all types.
American atheists did not coin the phrase "Religion is the opiate of the masses." One of those mass murderers was the first to use it. Yet I've seen atheists on these boards repeat it in one of their periodic rants against Christianity.
-
vulcan....
"While Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas; indeed, many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe power for creation, salvation or judgment to them. Like humans, they are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events, and so some Buddhist schools associate with them via ritual. All supernatural beings, as living entities, are a part of the six-part reincarnation cycle."
Is that your defenition of athiest? Did you know that many buddhists were also christians and muslims? I am failing to see how they would fall into the dishonest category as I have laid out.
Also... one can be dishonest in one thing and be a generaly honest person. I think crow and chair fall into that category. I believe that their fear or hate is so strong that it overrides their normal honesty in this case. Religion is a powerfull subject for some... I think anyone reading these pages would agree that it is much more powerful for chair and crow than for me say.... as a subject.
crow is apopleptic because.... not only was his frinds friends uncles boyfriends car vandalized by removing the walking fish magnetic sign and (gasp) placed on the GROUND by torch bearing christians who mangaged to not get caught (or just the "this is old humor police) but....
now.... christians are putting signs in front of their church.....(wait for it) ...
WELCOMING ATHIESTS! probly a plot to get them in their and eat their babies (well... if they hadn't aborted their babies but... yu get the point) or worse..... talk to em!
lazs
-
It's interesting that this group of guys never had much need for religion either. They didn't feel the need to protect the nation against atheists, but rather from religion in general and Christianity in particular.
George Washington
George Madison
Alexander Hamilton
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
Tom Paine
Benjamin Franklin
The fact that the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution is not an accident. Even when mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, it is as "...the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," not God of men in specific. And the use of the word "Creator" is used in the famous passage to keep the 'God' people out of it.
Washington, Franklin, Madison and Jefferson were not Christian. They considered the divinity of Jesus Christ to be foolish, supernatural nonsense. They had little interest in religion, but had great interest in preventing religion from gaining influence in the new nation.
Paine was pretty much an atheist. Washington never used the word "God" in any speech, but used phrases like "Great Author" to sideline the organized "God" people.
Here are a few samples:
George Madison - "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
On Christianity: "What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
Thomas Jefferson - "...the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time."
Benjamin Franklin - "A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country with his religion and then destroy them under color of law"
-
Originally posted by Rolex
It's interesting that this group of guys never had much need for religion either. They didn't feel the need to protect the nation against atheists, but rather from religion in general and Christianity in particular.
The desire of America’s forefathers was to establish a country in which the separation of church and state, and the freedom to practice one’s faith without fear of persecution, was guaranteed. That guarantee was written in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”
Regardless of what their personal beliefs were, they garanteed that we can practice what we choose.
-
Make no doubt, Religion has done great good in this world.
... and the wars fostered by religious intolerance have done great evil.
I would keep the good works done by man in His name... and I praise them as a boon to humanitarian goals. But I detest the pious hate speach and violence that religious frevor foists upon man as 'Gods Will'.
-
Seagoon...thanks for taking the time to respond. I can certainly relate to busy weeks. But this week I'm enjoying a nice quiet vacation.
Originally posted by Seagoon
So do I expect unregenerate men to lie, to cheat, to steal, to break all of God's commandments? Yes, because that is the inclination of his heart. Do I expect regenerate men to be sinless this side of glory? No, I expect that believers in Christ will struggle with sin,
I would take your meaning of "untrustworthy" to be someone who may lie, cheat, steal or break all of God's commandments...is that about right?
If that is the case, I really don't see how Christians are anymore trustworthy than non-theists since you clearly state that Christians will sin. They are just as likely to lie, cheat, steal or break God's commandmants as the non-theist.
Originally posted by Seagoon
but that they will struggle rather than constantly capitulating or being tempted as the worldling is "to call evil good"
The symantic difference is lost on me. Perhaps you can explain further. If a Christian sins while in his struggle, it is OK...forgiven by the party who was wronged by the Christian. But a non-Christian violates a commandment, then they are evil-doers. I'm sorry, I don't see where the wrong is any less, and therefore don't understand how one would be considered more trustworthy than the other.
If your car is stolen, are you more or less wronged if the thief were Christian or non-Christian? Is the thief anymore trustworthy because he is a Christian? Abeit, a Christian struggling with sin, but still a Christian.
You say that it is the inclination of the non-theist's heart to break God's commandments...but does that mean he will (save but one)? Can a non-theist choose not to lie, cheat, and steal? Do you believe that a non-Christian can be righteous in every way other than a lack of faith in God? According to Psalm 14:1-4 maybe not. And that is one point where I reject Christianity as an acceptable worldview. I determine trustworthiness based on one's actions regardless of their religion.
Originally posted by Seagoon
to overturn God's commandments and erect laws (either in the society or in his own heart) that nullify what God says is good.
And what should happen to a society that does not accept all of what God says is good? Our society values the freedom to worship any god or gods, or no gods at all. So much so that it is codified in our founding documents. However, #1 among God's commandments is to believe in only Him. In order not to nullify what God says is good are you suggesting a shift to a theocracy for our nation?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
The desire of America’s forefathers was to establish a country in which the separation of church and state, and the freedom to practice one’s faith without fear of persecution, was guaranteed. That guarantee was written in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”
Regardless of what their personal beliefs were, they garanteed that we can practice what we choose.
:aok :aok
-
Chairboy,
I really didn't think my post was vague os obscure. Excel1 pretty much has it nailed.
Like I said, words to a liar or hypocrite are mere tools to gain what they want and have no real meaning or trust behind them.
Let me try a few examples and see it this clarifies it for you.
If you have a person who says they are your friend and will back you up when you are looking through an abandoned building who then stabs you in the back with a knife (for real, not metaphorically) when you turn your back on him, was he in fact a friend even though he said he was?
If you have a person who claims to be a doctor of medicine, has documents hanging on the wall that seem to confirm it and says the only way to cure your hangnail on your foot is to remove your left hand, do you still think he's a doctor??
If you deal with a person who says they are a banker, barrister or lawyer will provide you with a vast reward if you cash a check for them and send them 20% of the total amount before the check clears are you going to believe them??
In each one of these examples I listed, the person CLAIMED to be one thing but acted diametrically opposed to their stated position. Does that mean that anyone who claims to be a friend is an enemy, who claims to be a doctor is a quack, who claims to be a banker, etc. is a scam artist, or are their ACTIONS more important than their words that they used to get their way? You can't really be that freaking dense guy.
hitler could have claimed to be a new Jewish messiah leading the Jews to the promissed land via crematoriums but that doesn't mean he believes in the Jewish faith and the examples of Moses et al any more than jeffrey dahmer was a great baby sitter.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
......any more than jeffrey dahmer was a great baby sitter.
ROFL..
gawd, now that paints a heluva mental picture. Nothin like drivin tacks with nukes. ;)
:aok
-
Perhaps a little history of the church in Germany during the reign of national socialism might help in the Hitler discussion.
Hitler was not a Christian, philosophically, like most Nazis of the period he was a Nietzschian. For those of you not familiar with the 19th century German philosopher, here is a brief synopsis of his life and thought regarding Christianity written by Simon Kistemaker:
"Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, born in 1844, belonged to a family of preachers. His father was a minister of the gospel and so were numerous ancestors of his mother. Studying theology, he developed a deep aversion to the Christian faith. He portrayed Jesus as a weakling who shamefully died on a cross in utter failure. Nietzsche despised not only Jesus but also all who believe Christ’s gospel. According to Nietzsche, Christians favor suffering, scorn riches and learning, and prefer the weak to the strong. For him, God was dead and Jesus a fool.
Hitler and the Nazis therefore saw Christianity as a weak and foolish religion that stood in the way of the strong dominating the weak. But Hitler realized that most Germans (though overwhelmingly theologically liberal - i.e. anti-supernaturalists) still had an attachment to the church. Therefore the Nazis made concerted efforts were made to co-opt and "Nazify" the churches in Germany and work towards the day when National Socialism and Aryanism would replace all other ideologies. In the "Nazi" church, nationalism and Aryanism became the central creeds, and Christ was in effect replaced by Hitler. An example of this would be the famous quote from Nazi church leader, Pastor Julius Leutheuser: "Christ has come to us through Adolf Hitler... We know today the Saviour has come... We have only one task, be German, not be Christian."
Eerdman's Handbook of Church History gives a good synopsis of this period and makes clear that Hitler cyncically first used the church for his own ends, and then worked to eliminate it entirely - I'll split this into two parts, the Nazi co-opting of the mainline churches and then the reaction against Nazification from religious conservatives:
The plight of Christians under the Nazi regime was also precarious. Born and reared a Catholic, Hitler abandoned whatever Christian principles he had in favour of the secular philosophies of the day. But he never formally cut his ties with the church, nor was he excommunicated. National Socialism itself was a new faith which appealed to the millions of Germans who longed for national regeneration. Hitler's hatred for the church was primarily political; he envied the power Catholicism had over its adherents, and despised Protestantism for its lack of unity and of authority. However, he courted both Protestant and Catholic support during his rise to power by emphasizing the nationalist aspects of his programme, and by claiming to support the church's position in the state.
...
Hitler's policy toward the churches after January 1933 was purely pragmatic. He realized the power they possessed, and did not want to initiate another Kultur-kampf. But he assumed that, in time, the outdated Christian faith would die out. The Catholic bishops endorsed the new regime. The Catholic Centre Party voted for the measure which allowed Hitler to rule by decree, and the Centre and Catholic trade unions 'voluntarily' dissolved themselves.
In return the Fuhrer agreed to a concordat with the Vatican... The concordat greatly increased the prestige of Hitler's regime. By it the church sanctioned the liquidation of the religious (confessional) political parties, and the barring of the clergy from politics. It formed a milestone in the consolidation of the totalitarian state. Many churchmen feared that open conflict with the regime might jeopardize those privileges still protected by the agreement. The Nazis violated the concordat almost from the very beginning; it gave no protection against attacks, and at the same time it undermined the developing Catholic resistance.
A movement swept the Protestant church in 1933 calling for 're-unification and 'nationalization' of the twenty-eight provincial churches (Landeskirchern) with a single "Reich-Bishop" at its head. This seemed in line with Hitler's policy of bringing all groups under the total control of the Fuhrer and the state. The "German Christians" secured the election of Ludwig Muller, a fervent Nazi. They also restructured the church along Nazi lines, by introducing the Fuhrer principle into church government and adopting the 'Aryan paragraph' which provided for dismissal of all people of Jewish origin from church staffs.
[Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity pp. 576-577]
-
Hitler, however, took little notice of these steps, and rejected the 'German Christians' idea of a National Socialist state church. He felt that the church's sole function was to cater for benighted [benighted: intellectually unenlightened] people who still had religious needs. Any church, even a Nazified one, threatened to divide loyalties; he would tolerate no such limitations to his power.
Hitler listened increasingly to anti-Christian Nazis who called for the elimination of both the 'German Christians' and their opponents in the church. After 1934 Nazi support for the 'German Christians' waned, although many continued to occupy church posts. They became even more extreme in their claims that the Nazi movement represented the true fulfilment of Christianity, but they found that Nazi favour could be gained only by a wholehearted commitment to its racial ideas and the exaltation of the Fuhrer. With the creation of the Ministry of Church Affairs in 1935, under Hanns Kerrl, they and the Reich-bishop were put on one side.
The increasing encroachment of the Nazi state on religious matters alarmed many Protestants and Catholics, and what followed was the well-known Kirchen-kampf (church-struggle). In September 1933 Dr Martin Niemoller formed a Pastor's Emergency League to combat 'German Christian' ideas. In the following year his group repudiated Muller and set up an alternative church government structure known as the Confessing Church. Its theological basis was spelled out in the Barmen Declaration of May 1934. ... the Declaration called the German church back to the central truths of Christianity and rejected the totalitarian claims of the state in religious and political matters.
...
Harassed by the Gestapo and repudiated by most Protestant leaders, the Confessing Church led a perilous existence. Its very presence was an embarrassment to the Nazis and its witness to Christ's Lordship over the world implicitly challenged Hitler's totalitarianism."
[Eerdamn's Handbook to the History of Christianity p.578
Several members of the Confessing Church movement ended up in concentration camps, and a few like Bohoeffer were active in the anti-Hitler resistance.
It's important to note that the resistance to the claims of Hitler and the Nazis on the allegiance of Christians came from the sectors of the church that actually believed the bible and considered the claims of Christ to be paramount. In other words it was by-and-large the evangelicals who resisted. A fact that is born out by the fact that the signers of the Barmen Declaration Available online here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/barmen.htm) self-consciously identified themselves as evangelicals. The churches that were most easily co-opted and controlled by the Nazis were those which had dismissed the truth claims of the bible and thought Christianity was just another source of morals and national pride.
Hitler believed that he was the savior of the German people, and dismissed all other claimants to that title including of course, Jesus.
- SEAGOON
-
rolex... I believe that the founders believed as I do... that a strong central government or a strong religion in cahoots with the government were bad things.
I am not sure that you would have much use for how the founders felt about strong central government so it seems odd that you would even care how they felt about anything else.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Washington, Franklin, Madison and Jefferson were not Christian. They considered the divinity of Jesus Christ to be foolish, supernatural nonsense.
A letter to Benjamin Rush from Thomas Jefferson:
In some of the delightful conversations with you in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you that one day or other I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
vulcan....
"While Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas; indeed, many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe power for creation, salvation or judgment to them. Like humans, they are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events, and so some Buddhist schools associate with them via ritual. All supernatural beings, as living entities, are a part of the six-part reincarnation cycle."
Is that your defenition of athiest? Did you know that many buddhists were also christians and muslims? I am failing to see how they would fall into the dishonest category as I have laid out.
Incorrect, both Islam and Christianity exclude Buddhism as part of their belief. You're only reading what you want to see from that paragraph lazs, read it again and tell me who buddhists think created the world.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
WELCOMING ATHIESTS! probly a plot to get them in their and eat their babies (well... if they hadn't aborted their babies but... yu get the point) or worse..... talk to em!
lazs
Hey lazs..I heard you were planning on opening an icecream stand..Is that true?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
rolex...
I am not sure that you would have much use for how the founders felt about strong central government so it seems odd that you would even care how they felt about anything else.
lazs
I don't understand this. Are you insinuating something or being snide? Can you please just say it with words that allow the reader to understand your meaning since we no other clues from facial expressions or tone of voice.
Here is some more quotes from Jefferson. Complicated fellows, those founding fathers. Politics required they say things to appease the people under the spell of religion, the same people they were trying to free from its spell.
"The metaphysical abstractions of Athanasius, and the maniacal ravings of Calvin, tinctured plentifully with the foggy dreams of Plato, have so loaded [Christianity] with absurdities and incomprehensibilities..."
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
The Revelation of St. John he dismissed as "the ravings of a maniac."
He even edited the New Testament, deleting all passages of supernatural, wizardry and evangelists. The University of Virginia was the first school without any religious affiliation and theology was not taught.
-
Maybe, but Patrick Ewing pwnd Ralph Sampson.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Excel, YOU read his words:
"I believe actions count far more than words."
After saying that, is there ANY possible way that someone who did what Hitler did could EVER meet his criteria of a christian? He just said that anyone who does bad stuff is no christian, by sheer virtue of their actions.
HEY!
come on guys, look closely at the wording and the technique used!
Attack?
How?
Do everything possible to twist the words, any words, toward the object you wish to demonized!
YO Chairboy You wanted me to give an example of an attack? LOL
-
What's the attack?
-
After saying that, is there ANY possible way that someone who did what Hitler did could EVER meet his criteria of a christian?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=spanish+popes&btnG=Google+Search
-
Hi Crow,
Since I had to get up for a crying child, I figured I might as well seize the moment and answer your questions. I sense part of the problem we are going to have in discussing some of these points stems from the fact that I presuppose a supernatural worldview, whereas you don't. This means that when I speak of the work of the Holy Spirit in changing the heart, you translate it (or "demythologize" if you prefer) into something along the lines of "attempted behavior modification due to a changed outlook or belief system."
Originally posted by crowMAW
Seagoon...thanks for taking the time to respond. I can certainly relate to busy weeks. But this week I'm enjoying a nice quiet vacation.
I would take your meaning of "untrustworthy" to be someone who may lie, cheat, steal or break all of God's commandments...is that about right?
If that is the case, I really don't see how Christians are anymore trustworthy than non-theists since you clearly state that Christians will sin. They are just as likely to lie, cheat, steal or break God's commandmants as the non-theist.
[/b]
No Crow I was not saying that a true Christian will be just as likely to sin as a non-Christian. As I stated in the post you replied to, the Bible teaches that when they are regenerated Christians are given a new heart and a desire to obey God's commands:
"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them." (Ezek. 36:26-27)
The Christian does not become "instantly holy" overnight, rather there is a process by which he is gradually sanctified, that is conformed by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit to the image of Christ. Put simply, a true Christian will be gradually growing more Christlike every day. He will hate sin, and love righteousness more and more. When he does sin, his conscience will be salamandered and his desire will be to repentent and turn away from it.
This we are told in scripture is a marked difference with the unregenerate person who does not desire to turn away from sin, but is spoken of as a "slave to sin" (Romans 6:6 - in fact in the biblical paradigm established by the Apostle Paul in his epistles there are only two categories, "slaves of sin" or "slaves of Christ"): "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be." (Romans 8:7)
So if a professing Christian continues to sin in an unrepentant fashion, it is a likely indicator that they are not truly converted.
The symantic difference is lost on me. Perhaps you can explain further. If a Christian sins while in his struggle, it is OK...forgiven by the party who was wronged by the Christian. But a non-Christian violates a commandment, then they are evil-doers. I'm sorry, I don't see where the wrong is any less, and therefore don't understand how one would be considered more trustworthy than the other.
No sin is sin, and ultimately all sins are transgressions of God's commandments. All sin, regardless of who does it, is wrong and evil. The Christian who sins against another - lets say by lying - should seek the forgiveness of the person he lied to, acknowledging that it was wrong. He should also seek God's forgiveness, repent, and "lie no more." The real difference is that the Christian has assurance that his sins are forgiven because they have been paid for by Christ's once for all sacrifice. "As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us." (Psalm 103:12) So in the end the real question is, who will pay for your transgressions - you or Christ?
You say that it is the inclination of the non-theist's heart to break God's commandments...but does that mean he will (save but one)? Can a non-theist choose not to lie, cheat, and steal? Do you believe that a non-Christian can be righteous in every way other than a lack of faith in God?
You see here you implicitly take the view that all men are born tabula rasa neither inclined to sin or righteousness, and that they choose to sin or do good. Ultimately of course, without an objective standard, there is no good or evil, merely what people or societies call good and evil.
Christ however, stated that the root of sin is the heart: Luke 6:44 "For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush. 45 "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." So unless the heart is made good, that is regenerated, it will continue to bring forth bad fruit.
Will unregenerate people always sin in their actions? No. But according to scripture, that's their inclination and that's why kids don't need to be taught to lie or hurt one another, and why we carry keys in our pockets.
And what should happen to a society that does not accept all of what God says is good? Our society values the freedom to worship any god or gods, or no gods at all. So much so that it is codified in our founding documents. However, #1 among God's commandments is to believe in only Him. In order not to nullify what God says is good are you suggesting a shift to a theocracy for our nation?
No Crow, as I've stated time and again on this board, I do believe all men should worship God, but I don't believe we are going to create a Christian society by demanding everyone be Christian via legislation, or that this is a covenanted nation like the ancient nation of Israel. THE kingdom, and this particular kingdom are different realms.
As I've stated before, my belief is summed up well in the teaching of the Confession of faith I subscribed to, which as it concerns the civil magistrate and the spirituality of the church was modified shortly after the Revolution by some of the Christians who were highly influential in framing the foundational principles of this nation:
"III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance." (Westminster Confession of Faith, 23.3)
and as the Book of Church Order of my denomination puts it:
"The power of the Church is exclusively spiritual; that of the State includes the exercise of force. The constitution of the Church derives from divine revelation; the constitution of the State must be determined by human reason and the course of providential events. The Church has no right to construct or modify a government for the State, and the State has no right to frame a creed or polity for the Church. They are as planets moving in concentric orbits: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21)." (BCO 3-4)
As far as the way I treat believers and unbelievers of whatever stripe, I try to follow Paul's commands as perfectly as I am able:
"Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion. Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:9-21)
Thanks as always for being entirely civil,
SEAGOON
-
sirloin... What I read is that buddhists can also be christians... you say that they are not true buddhists... fine... they dissagree.
Buddhists may not believe in a god of creation but they do acknoledge a god. They have "beliefs" that are based only on faith....
Unlike athiests... they admit this. Why would I not trust them? They admit that they have only faith to go on.
Rolex... the founders were just men.... complex and very bright men but men none the less... I think that I can identify with Jeffersons phiolosophy on religion.... he believes in god but finds that some of the things that organized religion (some of the time) does/did was/is abhorent.
I am sorry that I was vague but.... I have you pegged for a socialist big government kind of guy... that being the case.... I would think that anything that Jefferson or the majority of the founders said would be meaningless to you.
Perhaps I am wrong. Would you rather that we go back to the limited government that they envisioned and tryied to create? I know I would.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
What's the attack?
Taking the words by another and placing th comment of your own is ????
perhaps how you see it. Thing is you never asked him what he meant. You took off with it, aiming it at christians.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sirloin... What I read is that buddhists can also be christians... you say that they are not true buddhists... fine... they dissagree.
Buddhists may not believe in a god of creation but they do acknoledge a god. They have "beliefs" that are based only on faith....
Unlike athiests... they admit this. Why would I not trust them? They admit that they have only faith to go on.
Rolex
Lazs...where did i say anything about buddhists?
And i have to agree with you....any belief based soley on "Faith" is irrational imho.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Taking the words by another and placing th comment of your own is ????
perhaps how you see it. Thing is you never asked him what he meant. You took off with it, aiming it at christians.
Wait, quoting someone is attacking them? Please explain, I'm not sure I follow. Do you feel that _this_ post is attacking you?
I await your reply.
-
sorry sirloin... meant vulcan. He seems hung up on buddhists for some reason.
Sparks... yes, I do define god as a power greater than ourselves. To say that no such power could exist is either stupid (drawing a conclussion without evidence) or.... dishonest if you do not admit that, lacking evidnece that you are simply acting on faith.
Why even bother to claim to be an athiest? there would be no point if you had wiggle room... to want wiggle room is to admit to being agnostic. To impericaly state that you are an athiest is a statement of faith..... often signaling an agenda...
This can be as harmless as wanting your personal religion of athiesm and statement of faith to be known to as dishonest as pretending that don't really care and that being an athiest is "really just like a ..... agnostic on the doubting side of things"
To state you are an athiest is to make a statement of faith.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Wait, quoting someone is attacking them? Please explain, I'm not sure I follow. Do you feel that _this_ post is attacking you?
I await your reply.
quote:Originally posted by Excel1
If Hitler was a Christian then I'm a Martian.
Try reading his post again, this time with your blinkers off.
Excel, YOU read his words:
"I believe actions count far more than words."
After saying that, is there ANY possible way that someone who did what Hitler did could EVER meet his criteria of a christian? He just said that anyone who does bad stuff is no christian, by sheer virtue of their actions.
__________________
http://hallert.net/ - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Please note you did more then quoting here?
You added in your own reponse.
I don't consider you stupid therefore I must wonder are you being............
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Since I had to get up for a crying child, I figured I might as well seize the moment and answer your questions.
Glad you were able to find a moment to reply. I hope you were able to settle the young one's troubles.
I don't have many opportunities to discuss apologetics these days, so I am enjoying our discourse. Plus, I think it is valuable to understand all points of view on a subject.
Originally posted by Seagoon
I sense part of the problem we are going to have in discussing some of these points stems from the fact that I presuppose a supernatural worldview, whereas you don't. This means that when I speak of the work of the Holy Spirit in changing the heart, you translate it (or "demythologize" if you prefer) into something along the lines of "attempted behavior modification due to a changed outlook or belief system."
LOL...that is exactly correct. Very intuitive. I'll probably do a little demythologizing later in this post.
BTW...please forgive that I am going to snip some of your post. It is for brevity only and know that I am taking all of what you wrote in whole.
Also, I want to try to stay on the topic of why non-theists are untrustworthy. I apologize for taking us off track on the subject of a US theocracy, but I will say that I appreciate your denomination's Book of Church Order...it seems a very clear separation of authority between church and state that I respect.
Originally posted by Seagoon
No Crow I was not saying that a true Christian will be just as likely to sin as a non-Christian...The Christian does not become "instantly holy" overnight, rather there is a process by which he is gradually sanctified, that is conformed by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit to the image of Christ.
I would put it to you that the rate of becoming sanctified is not the same for all. As such, again I would say that the struggling Christian is no more trustworthy than a non-Christian. It is possible that those who are progressing more slowly may be less trustworthy than a non-Christian. And since sin is sin, the fact that the Christian may be repentant does not reduce the wrong committed even if it may satisfy his god.
Also you say that a professing Christian may not be a true Christian. Unfortunately, I cannot find an indicator that allows me to tell the difference between the two. In fact, if I postulate the behavior of a true Christian based on some of what you have written, I would say that a tiny percent of professing Christians are true Christians...I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are far fewer true Christians than atheists in this country.
Another problem with identifying true Christians: who determines those characteristics that identify one? If one says the Bible, then you have the issue of interpretation. There are some Christian sects that say that Catholics are not true Christians because of their particular dogma.
Segue into the Hitler discussion. It is clear that Hitler publicly professed to be a Christian. However, I certainly agree that his behavior would lead one to conclude otherwise. It seems to be a recurring problem in many politicians today. They profess to be regenerated Christians, however their unrepentant sinful behavior certainly seems un-Christian even with the meager knowledge of Christ's teachings that I have. And I suppose it makes the sin all the worse since they are obviously lying about being true Christians. Personally, I would rather trust an atheist, who was righteous in every way other than an allegiance to a god, over a professed Christian who may feel forgiven for sins not yet committed.
Originally posted by Seagoon
This we are told in scripture is a marked difference with the unregenerate person who does not desire to turn away from sin...
You see here you implicitly take the view that all men are born tabula rasa neither inclined to sin or righteousness, and that they choose to sin or do good. Ultimately of course, without an objective standard, there is no good or evil, merely what people or societies call good and evil.
Christ however, stated that the root of sin is the heart...Luke 6:45 "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks."[/i] So unless the heart is made good, that is regenerated, it will continue to bring forth bad fruit.
Will unregenerate people always sin in their actions? No. But according to scripture, that's their inclination and that's why kids don't need to be taught to lie or hurt one another, and why we carry keys in our pockets.
I do agree that society sets the norms and determines right and wrong. But I'm not sure I agree that the desire to do right is the solely reserved for regenerates. You say that children instinctually lie...but do you also see in children instinctual guilt over inappropriate behavior. Even if the child has not yet been taught that a behavior is inappropriate, the emotion frequently felt after being caught and instructed on a newly discovered unacceptable behavior is shame and guilt. If we did not have an instinctual desire to do right, then that feeling of shame or guilt would not be experienced when new unacceptable behaviors are discovered. I would say that humans as a social animal have an instinct to conform to societal norms as an evolutionary survival tactic. (was that sufficiently demythologized ;) ) I even see this behavior in my dogs, who also evolved towards social groups as successful survival tactic.
I'm also not sure that I see in the reference from Luke that good is only reserved for the regenerate. For example my story on the stranded motorist...both and evangelist and I stopped to help even though we could have driven past as hundreds of other motorists (some of whom probably were professed Christians). We both worked together, evangelist with agnostic, to perform good works. Was my action to render aid any less of a good work than that of the evangelist?
Originally posted by Seagoon
As far as the way I treat believers and unbelievers of whatever stripe, I try to follow Paul's commands as perfectly as I am able:
"Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion. Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:9-21)
Excellent words to live by...I wish there were more true Christians that followed that. I would probably have far fewer issues and be less afraid of true Christians than of those who identify themselves as Christian. If only there were a way for the rest of us to identify them...since all Christians seem to say they are true Christians.
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?
-
Originally posted by wrag
Please note you did more then quoting here?
You added in your own reponse.
I don't consider you stupid therefore I must wonder are you being............
Look, I'm not trying to be cute here, but I seriously don't understand what you're saying. I quoted Excel, responded him him, and also responded to a quote by Maverick. Are you suggesting that I misrepresented one of them?
-
A friend of mine sent me this so I thought I'd put it here. It kinda fits. :D
One day God was looking down at earth and saw all of the rascally behavior that was going on. So he called one of his angels and sent the angel to earth for a time.
When he returned, he told God, "Yes, it is bad on Earth; 95% are misbehaving and only 5% are not."
God thought for a moment and said, "Maybe I had better send down a second angel to get another opinion." So God called another angel and sent him to earth for a time, too.
When the angel returned he went to God and said, "Yes, it's true. The earth is in decline; 95% are misbehaving, but 5% are being good."
God was not pleased, so he decided to email the 5% who were good,
because He wanted to encourage them, give them a little something to
help them keep going.
Do you know what the email said?
No?
Okay, just wondering. I didn't get one either!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Look, I'm not trying to be cute here, but I seriously don't understand what you're saying. I quoted Excel, responded him him, and also responded to a quote by Maverick. Are you suggesting that I misrepresented one of them?
Chairboy, you never responded to my clarification of my earlier post. Was the second post satisfactory in what I was trying to convey?
-
Even though I enjoyed your posts, you are not me. For some reason, dread-, you put my email as yours. I am Dread. I changed the password so that I can post in hopes that you see this. I will try and see if I can remove this entity so that you can subscribe to this bulletin board and this time use your email address.
Oh and by the way, I am an atheist and did I ever get spooked when my unknown emails sent me to this bulletin board. How strange is that? You think God sent me here? Wow, better go back to church and get brain dead again. God must have missed me and sent this email mess up as a way to get me back.
I didn't read all the posts, but Hitler was a christian. In my minds eye the perfect example of them. I laugh everytime my wife comes home and complains about a backstabbing self-righteous person who once again forces themselves to be first, or the only correct person in the room, and yet claims to call themselves a christian. I always say right back "But dear, they ARE the perfect christian".:aok
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Look, I'm not trying to be cute here, but I seriously don't understand what you're saying. I quoted Excel, responded him him, and also responded to a quote by Maverick. Are you suggesting that I misrepresented one of them?
After giving the matter what I consider due consideration. I'm done here.
I have repeatedly expressed my opinion of your techniques. How you address an issue. The methods you use.
From my point of view all you will do, and have done, is duck the issue accept when you seem to feel you can twist what is said to what you consider an advantage. IMHO it's not worth the time to attempt communication with anyone that uses such techniques.
I really don't care if you believe there is or is not a supreme or higher being.
After all, if there is, then in time you will know. If there is not, then there is no problem. Either way that isn't any of my business.
-
I am surprised that this thread has not been locked.
-
Actually Shuckins, if we clear out the chaff from the peanut gallery and follow the order of progression between the two main proponents (Seagoon and Crow) there's excellent reasond debate without viscious animosity. Enjoyed this thread immensely.
-
Hello again Crow,
I'll split this into two replies so it isn't unreadably long...
Originally posted by crowMAW
LOL...that is exactly correct. Very intuitive. I'll probably do a little demythologizing later in this post.
It's ok, I used to do the same thing myself to a certain extent, please understand of course that it works in the other direction on my side.
BTW...please forgive that I am going to snip some of your post. It is for brevity only and know that I am taking all of what you wrote in whole.
No prob, I'm doing the same thing in this post.
I would put it to you that the rate of becoming sanctified is not the same for all. As such, again I would say that the struggling Christian is no more trustworthy than a non-Christian. It is possible that those who are progressing more slowly may be less trustworthy than a non-Christian. And since sin is sin, the fact that the Christian may be repentant does not reduce the wrong committed even if it may satisfy his god.
Crow, that doesn't follow. If a someone really is a Christian, then they have accepted that there is a God and that He is not silent, and that they are now His children and desire to obey His will out of love and reverence for Him. They also know that part of His revealed will is that they not lie or go back on their promises and oaths. They also know that they can't "fool him" and do it without Him knowing (ironically one of things that Sartre's objected to most about Christianity was this "lack of privacy") for He knows all things. They also should have figured out that pragmatism counts for nothing, for instance Psalm 15:4 notes that a believer should be someone who "swears to his own hurt and does not change" In other words, if I promise to pay you, but later learn that I can't do so without being financially hurt by doing so, I should still pay. So convenience isn't a factor. Even if he "struggles" with the sin of lying - and please note there is a difference between struggling and readily capitulating - those factors must have a tremendous influence on him. For instance, think about the ways that those factors should influence the degree of importance we place on our wedding vows.
On the other hand, the Atheist declares there is no God, that all the values we have are positively, rather than objectively derived, that we must be pragmatic or even utilitarian when making decisions, that some things can be done without anyone in the universe other than ourselves and the person we do them with knowing, and that there is no final accounting. I don't believe I have to walk you through the ways that those concepts all tend to make one more rather than less likely to not keep a promise or the aforementioned wedding vow.
I see the outworking of that in our town all the time. Here in Fayetteville between 24-26% of the population are "churchgoing Christians" the rest are a mix of other religions, but the largest growth area we have are nominals (people who identify themselves with a religion but do not practice it), atheists, and agnostics, particularly amongst young enlisted soldiers and their families. The soldiers and particularly the SF guys in our congregation have a real problem in that when their units go "downrange" infidelity amongst the men is the norm rather than the exception. There is tremendous pressure even on the Christians to "lighten up and party with guys" and in some units it's even considered bad for cohesion and esprit not to go along.
Meanwhile at home, the wives of young soldiers often follow the same policy themselves. In fact it's so bad and prevalent that the rule overseen by the sergeants is that when you return home from a TDY or deployment you MUST CALL HOME FIRST before returning to your house. They are quite open in admitting that is so that you will not surprise your wife with another man or clear evidence of his presence and end up doing something to embarass the military or end your career.
Now the guys in my congregation are subject to temptation, but they do know that going along with the "guys" and being unfaithful to your wife is a grave sin, even when they aren't getting along, and there is pressure to do so, and its been a long time since they've been home.
On the home front, the wives know the same thing, and both parties know we will help them and hold them accountable. To date, we've not suffered the way most of this town does. I'm not saying we've never had to deal with a violation of the 7th commandment, but I'm more than willing to say we are far less likely to have the problem and that our divorce rate is still 0% by the grace of God. Now you may be saying "big deal" but I'm talking about a community where the majority of guys are gone for between 6 to 9 month a year and the stress on marriages is phenomenal. The majority of military marriages here fail in the first 7 years. And no, it's not because we've finally stumbled on the right Kool-Aid recipe.
Same vows, but there is one area where worldview makes a tremendous difference in whether you can be trusted to keep them...
- SEAGOON
-
So, we're back to the "guys wearing orange picking up trash alongside the road while the sheriff stands there with his shotgun (but they're doing it to earn TV privileges, not because they're being threatened)" versus "some guy just picking up trash because he feels like helping out".
Somehow, the christians (the fellows in orange) are morally superior to the person who volunteers?
I guess I still don't follow, sounds pretty fishy.
-
Hi Crow,
I'll try to get to the other major questions/propositions in your post tonight, but I can already feel I'm getting too tired to go on, so forgive me if I have to bag it till tomorrow at some point.
Originally posted by crowMAW
Also you say that a professing Christian may not be a true Christian. Unfortunately, I cannot find an indicator that allows me to tell the difference between the two. In fact, if I postulate the behavior of a true Christian based on some of what you have written, I would say that a tiny percent of professing Christians are true Christians...I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are far fewer true Christians than atheists in this country.
Another problem with identifying true Christians: who determines those characteristics that identify one? If one says the Bible, then you have the issue of interpretation. There are some Christian sects that say that Catholics are not true Christians because of their particular dogma.
No one other than God has the capacity to tell who is and who isn't a real Christian unerringly, but this doesn't mean that we don't have any clues that will help us in that process.
The fact that there are going to be "false professions" in the Christian community is both biblically and experientially verifiable.
For instance, in his preaching Christ said that it was by their fruits we would be able to distinguish between false prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing, and true Christians and ministers and that in the final judgment many would come who had called Jesus Lord, and even ministered in His name, and yet that He would declare to them "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" He also told us that even the world would be able to distinguish Christians because they loved one another (John 13:36) Paul warned soberly that in Acts 20 wolves would come in to ravage the church from amongst the Ephesian elders, and that they would be distinguished by their preaching of false doctrines that created schism, and that did not accord with the scriptures and which encouraged sinful behavior rather than restraining it.
Space forbids me from listing all the clues that one may discern that the Bible lists as qualities that mark out a false Christian, and certainly all will not be present in every false professor. Amongst them however are, that his teaching is not in accord with the Gospel of Christ Crucified for Sinners, that He doesn't preach that Christ came in the flesh and rose again from the dead, that he loves the world more than Christ, that he loves money, that his teaching encourages licentiousness and immorality, that his profession of faith produces no fruit of good works, that his religion is entirely external and formalistic rather than being of the heart, that his religion is based on a birthright rather than rebirth (being born again). That he is trusting for his salvation in His own works rather than the completed work of Christ.
Examples of false Christians also abound, Judas, Demas, Ananias and Sapphira, Simon Magus, and so on. In the Old Testament we have even more examples of people who were externally in the Covenant Community but whose hearts remained stoney and unchanged. As the apostle John pointed out regarding apostates: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." (1 John 2:19)
Segue into the Hitler discussion. It is clear that Hitler publicly professed to be a Christian. However, I certainly agree that his behavior would lead one to conclude otherwise. It seems to be a recurring problem in many politicians today. They profess to be regenerated Christians, however their unrepentant sinful behavior certainly seems un-Christian even with the meager knowledge of Christ's teachings that I have. And I suppose it makes the sin all the worse since they are obviously lying about being true Christians.
If I can make a comment about the German situation that might help in connecting to what I wrote above.
During the 19th century, the majority of German theologians and philosophers turned against the concept of supernaturalism. For instance, many followed Hegel in denying the possibility of objective revelation and saying that it was via the intellect of man that we find God, and rather than being fixed and unchanging our truth is developing. In the theological schools, the higher critical method took over and the Bible came to be treated as a book of human insights that had many authors and was redacted many times. The Old Testament came to be treated as inferior both ethically, linguistically, and in terms of reliability and this in turn worked hand in hand with rising anti-semitism.
The long term effect of this was that by the beginning of the 20th century the majority of the German church was effectively anti-supernatural and their theology was dominated by rationalism and materialism. They viewed Christianity primarily as a unifying ethical system and the majority taught that heaven was a place we entered by being good. As nationalism increased, Christianity was seen as an aid to fusing the German identity and so served the needs of the culture and the state.
On the other hand, many, particularly after the First World War, embraced philosophies like Nihilism (which was the dominant philosophy in the Nazi party) that advocated that not only was God unknowable, he didn't even exist, and that Christian ethics didn't work and only "shackled" the strong. So amongst the zealous Nazis, you had a fair division between those who were professing Christians, but whose Christianity was essentially a rationalistic anti-supernatural ethical system subject to further development, and those who viewed Christianity as weak, outmoded and only of value as it provided them with "useful idiots." Hitler by his conversation clearly fell into the latter camp. No reasonable definition of Christian, other than one in which a cynical declaration is considered valid can be applied to him. There was only one god in Hitler's universe, and he saw him whenever he combed his hair or brushed his teeth. This emphasis on Hitler as God clearly overwhelmed both camps in the party. He was as clear an example of the small "a" anti-Christ as one is likely to get.
You say that children instinctually lie...but do you also see in children instinctual guilt over inappropriate behavior. Even if the child has not yet been taught that a behavior is inappropriate, the emotion frequently felt after being caught and instructed on a newly discovered unacceptable behavior is shame and guilt.
Yes I sometimes do see the effects of conscience in a young child, and this view actually militates against the idea of man born as a blank slate. This is because the image of God in fallen man is not entirely obscured. Even the unregenerate is not without a conscience. Christian theology teaches that in the unregenerate, that conscience will be a factor to the degree in which God exercises what is known as common grace.
We both worked together, evangelist with agnostic, to perform good works. Was my action to render aid any less of a good work than that of the evangelist?
The answer to that question depends on the true nature of reality, if there is no God, then your works were equal in their value, and equal in only having reference to the interested party. In fact, by that criteria their value could only be subjective, and determined by how well they served your ends.
But if the biblical worldview represents the true nature of reality, then let me quote a Scottish theologian by the name of Robert Shaw:
"An action may be materially, and yet not formally, good. Prayer, reading and hearing the Word of God, distributing to the poor, are actions materially good; but unless these actions are done by persons who are "accepted in the Beloved," and "created anew in Christ Jesus"–unless they flow from a right principle, are performed in a right manner, and directed to a right end, they are not formally good. Now, unregenerate men may do many things that are good, for the matter of them, because they are things which God commands, and of good use to themselves and others; but, as performed by them, they are destitute of everything that can render an action "good and acceptable in the sight of God." Explicit is the declaration of the Apostle Paul: "They that are in the flesh cannot please God."–Rom. viii. 8.
In other words, if there is a God and my chief end is supposed to be to glorify and enjoy him, then it matters little whether my motives for doing good works are the praise of others, feeling good about myself, or fear. Ultimately, I will have missed the mark that alone can give my works formal value.
Don't think the Pharisees never did something nice for others, they did, but as Christ pointed out their motives were what made those works of no ultimate value.
Anyway, your last question was possibly the most important, but I've expended all of my reserves of strength already. Let me answer it tomorrow.
Pax,
SEAGOON
-
Since this thread is still alive kicking I have a few moments for further comments to CB and moot that relate all the way back to page one and two.
CB's number 2 of ten signs of fundamentalists
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
My response is that prayer is not meant to be taken merely as a request to obtain things I want. Rather, prayer is communication and communion with the Creator and Redeemer. My response drew this comment from moot.
Hacksaw
Several times answers [to prayers] were not only forthcoming, but immediate
moot
No offence, but that's happened to me while I just twiddled my thumbs.
So I thought it good to relate two of a number of examples in my life of communication with God that received forthcoming responses, one of them instantaneous.
For background, a bit about myself: I'd contemplated the meaning of my life since late high school and during studies at the university. Being a naturalist, my deliberations did not provide optimistic answers for me. After a few semesters of electrical engineering at university I joined the USMC. I scored well on the entrance exams and at one point in bootcamp I was ordered, together with a half-dozen other recruits from my series, to report to a briefing about possible voluntary transfer to the NSA, known in those days as No Such Agency. One guy from my platoon accepted the offer. I declined and never regretted it. I was honorman of my series of four platoons = 250+ recruits. After that I was assigned to avionics training for a year, eight hours a day, five days a week, and was high score in several classes. During that time I left atheism. My experience in the USMC left me much less antagonistic to the idea of a Creator of the universe. Soon after this I was assigned to my squadron, VMFA 112, as a radar technician for the Sparrow/guided-missile fire-control system of the F-4. After about a year as a Theist seeking the Creator I became convinced that to be fair and honest I would have to buy a Bible and read it and evaluate it for myself. Even at that time my thoughts about the Bible were heavily influenced by the attitudes I had imbibed from Scientific American, Psychology Today, Science News, and other such magazines that my dad subscribed to when I was growing up, i.e. that the Bible was a collection of ancient fireside myths, not taken seriously by any intelligent, modern man. So I had to overcome quite a bit of inner resistance to actually go buy a Bible. But eventually I did and I read it and found it to be quite different from what I would have guessed. After reading through the entire Bible once and the New Testament 2 or 3 times I became a disciple of Christ.
So, here is the first example of an instantly answered prayer, though not exactly in the way I anticipated.
I was off-duty in civvies, at home in my off-base apartment, sitting in the living room by the window one morning reading the Bible. I was reading a gospel at the place where, during the Passover supper, Christ tells his disciples that they all will deny him. I knew the passage and that all the disciples, including Peter, would deny him. But Peter, because of his great love for Christ, protested and said, "Lord, even if these deny you, I never will." Christ tells him that before the rooster crows twice he will deny him three times. As I read those words I started to articulate in my heart my own protest of fidelity to Christ, "Lord, if I had been there I wouldn't have...." At that exact moment my roommate's buddy passed right by the window heading for the front door, coming to get my roommate to go dirt bike riding. And here I was with the anti-intellectual book of myths in my hands actually reading it. I instantly slammed the Bible shut and shoved it behind a pillow on the sofa to hide it and answered the door. After the two guys left I realized exactly what level of denial I had committed, precisely when I was on the verge of declaring my loyalty, precisely when I was reading the passage in Scripture where the disciples declared their loyalty to Christ, but later failed miserably, denying him. Hmmm, lucky coincidence? I think not.
What I learned from this episode is that God knows what is going on in my heart, and can even orchestrate free-will-endowed people to accomplish his purposes as he wishes at the precise moment he wishes. Though I was deeply grieved at my failure, on the other hand I was rather glad that God smacked my wrist in such a way as to show me that he really is interested in us, even in what we are thinking. As it is written, "In Him we live, and move, and have our being." He knows everything about everyone. After that episode I never hid the Bible.
Second example of answered prayer.
Still in the Marines, a few years later. I had been smoking for a few years. Though I was in good shape, scoring about 270 out of 300 on PT tests, I was convinced I should quit. So I started a long series of cycles of promising God I would quit after this pack, and would he please help me. I'd finish a pack and struggle for a day, maybe two, and then give up and scrounge through the waste basket looking for a half-smoked cig to burn. Then I'd give in altogether and go buy another pack, or two, or a carton, all the while saying, I'll quit after this one, and please help me. This went on for about six months. Finally, I'd just bought a new pack, had just lit the third cig, had taken a drag, and I was struck with a "moment of truth" about my failure to quit. So, with deep grief, I very earnestly told God that I wanted to quit, and that I was sorry about my failure to quit for so long, but that I just didn't have the power to do it. At that moment an unusual sensation began to overwhelm my body, together with an awareness of the direct and loving presence of God. This encounter lasted about 15-20 minutes and then slowly subsided. A short while later I took the pack with 17 cigs in it and threw it in the waste basket and just left it there to prove to myself God's work in me. I left it there for three months before finally throwing it out and have never ever smoked again.
So having had less-than-subtle experiences like these, and knowing the mindset of a naturalist-atheist from personal experience, I, like all believers who know God make some far reaching conclusions about God as he relates to this world. I cannot say every word I have ever uttered in God's direction was a communication he was pleased with. But CB, no believer who knows God, like Seagoon and others on the BB, looks at this issue as "Prayer Works." Christ said God seeks those who worship him in Spirit and Truth. Relationship is what is at issue. Knowing the truth about our existence in relation to God should instill a very deep humility, and thence open the channels of communication that bring us into a growing communion with God via the Holy Spirit, based on Christ's redemptive sacrifice for us.
Best regards,
Cement
-
You're arguing irrationality.
cf. 'Credo quia absurdum est'
the anti-intellectual book of myths
What's that supposed to mean?
-
Cement,
Thank you for sharing your insight. I do appreciate it, and I respect your opinions and convictions on the matter.
Regards,
cb
-
I think a lot of these people who claim to be athiests are just mad because god didn't save their puppy when they were 12.
That or..... they think the uniform is spiffy.
lazs
-
Lazs2, you got anything better than that?
-
I have ignored this thread mostly cause I've been too busy at work to read that much. But it sure seems to be free of the usual messy nonsense we tend to sink to in here.
I was reading Seagoon's last novella though and the passage by Robert Shaw got my blood boiling just enough to respond.
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.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think a lot of these people who claim to be athiests are just mad because god didn't save their puppy when they were 12.
That or..... they think the uniform is spiffy.
lazs
LOL.. if that quip didn't make yah chuckle, then yer taking this far too personal. Relax. Enjoy your life, do good things for your own reasons without getting bent over the semantics. If god's concerned about reasons, let his accountants do the audit after yer finished living it.
-
chair.... yes, I believe I do but I don't think you are getting it.
MT... I would agree with you. I can't speak to what other peoples motive are. I have allways felt... on a personal level... that the things that I do that are good that count the most... are the ones that very few or no people know I do... the ones that I get the least credit for even if they cost me the most. Sort of the reverse of getting away with something.
The sticky part is... are we doing it for some spiritual reason that involves a god or.... or what?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
chair.... yes, I believe I do but I don't think you are getting it.
MT... I would agree with you. I can't speak to what other peoples motive are. I have allways felt... on a personal level... that the things that I do that are good that count the most... are the ones that very few or no people know I do... the ones that I get the least credit for even if they cost me the most. Sort of the reverse of getting away with something.
The sticky part is... are we doing it for some spiritual reason that involves a god or.... or what?
lazs
You need a reason?
-
Originally posted by hacksaw1
Finally, I'd just bought a new pack, had just lit the third cig, had taken a drag, and I was struck with a "moment of truth" about my failure to quit. So, with deep grief, I very earnestly told God that I wanted to quit, and that I was sorry about my failure to quit for so long, but that I just didn't have the power to do it. At that moment an unusual sensation began to overwhelm my body, together with an awareness of the direct and loving presence of God. This encounter lasted about 15-20 minutes and then slowly subsided. A short while later I took the pack with 17 cigs in it and threw it in the waste basket and just left it there to prove to myself God's work in me. I left it there for three months before finally throwing it out and have never ever smoked again.
Best regards,
Cement
Thank you for sharing your testimony. I too have had a similar answer to prayer. I smoked for fourteen years and for about the last ten years tried to quit. The longer I smoked, the harder I tried to quit and the more effort I put into it. I even managed to quite for three months once and another time for a year.
I tried everything in the book. Cold turkey, the patch, pills, support groups and just plain will power. Nothing worked. I would manage to quit for a time but every day was a battle. Smoking was never out of my mind. I craved it so bad that I was extremely envious of anyone on TV, the movies or in RL that had a cigarette. I just couldn't control myself.
I had been doing some Bible study with my wife and came across the concept that Jesus died for our sins and all we had to do was lay down our burdens at His feet and He would wash our sins away. I prayed like I never prayed before and told God that I was too weak to quit by myself and that I had to give Him my habit. The feeling of having a burden lifted was like nothing I've ever experienced. By the grace of God I was able to quite smoking right then and there and have never had a single cigarette since then. That was over three years ago. And what's even better is that I have absolutely no desire to ever light up again. The entire burden of smoking was taken from me and I know for certain that I will never do it again because the thought of it is now repulsive to me. I don't even think about it anymore and when I see someone else smoking, I have no desire to join them. I don't miss it at all.
Now I know some of you will chalk this up to the mind doing tricks on the body and it being mind over matter. But you will never convince me of that because what I experienced was nothing short of supernatural. I am a changed man because of it.
-
That was my question hang. I don't know why I do it when I do or why it feels right. certainly.... if being here is all there is then I am wasting time and effort and resources...
Why are we supposed to do these things and not others? where do these morals come from? Why does one thing feel right and not another?
Some no doubt is from being taught to believe a certain way... where did that come from?
Not that it matters I suppose. I still find that I agree with MT that whatever your reason... it's fine. Unless of course you are one of those who only does good when people are watching or will know it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I have ignored this thread mostly cause I've been too busy at work to read that much. But it sure seems to be free of the usual messy nonsense we tend to sink to in here.
I was reading Seagoon's last novella though and the passage by Robert Shaw got my blood boiling just enough to respond.
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.
Although I like a lot of what Seagoon said in this thread, I have to agree with MT on this one and strongly disagree with Mr. Shaw. Good works are not useless in the sight of God if they are done by non believers. God, through the Holy Spirit, works in the hearts of all men and all that is good comes from God and all that is evil does not.
Jesus told the story of the good Samaritan, a non believer, and held him up as a model to emulate. If, as Mr. Shaw states, his works were of no merit, then why would Jesus tell the crowd to "go and do likewise?"
I assure you MT, not all Christians believe only they can do good in the sight of God.
-
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.
-
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.
-
But you do take the leap of faith that your consciousness isn't an illusion.
-
How so?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
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
-
@ 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.
-
Howdy MT,
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
subaru.... you say that there is no possibility of a god?
preach on brother!
lazs
-
:D
-
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.
-
moot,
I admit that there is no proof of God to my satisfaction.
If there has been viable explainations, I'd be:
1) Agnostic, or
2) A believer/follower.
luzs,
I'm not preaching. Keep twisting the facts to suit your argument though. ;)
********************
I'm not trying to convert those that disagree with me as the idea of a God/Supreme Beings existance is a very personal one.
Who am I to tell you or anyone else what you are to believe?
Who are you to tell me what I am to believe?
Good people will do good, evil people will do evil regardless of their beliefs.
If you want a discussion about the existance of something, then prove it.
The "rules" of the burdon of proof is to prove that something exists, not the other way around. Yes, one can use circumstantial evidence to bolster their argument(s).
Do you all believe in Big Foot? The Lochness Monster?
I don't. I say they don't exist.
Again, the burdon of proof is for those to prove they exist, not for me to prove they don't.
-
SEAGOON,
I can't speak for other Atheists as we are all different, I can only speak for myself.
Yes, in the end, on a personal basis, it does not matter how I lived after I'm dead.
I don't need to have a belief in a God/Supreme Being as I just don't believe in its existance.
HOWEVER, what defines me as a person, a citizen is how I treat others and who I am while alive. After I'm dead, it will not matter to me as "I" will no longer be here, nor will I have the capacity to care. I will be dead. I am as sure of that as I am sure that there is no God/Supreme Being, that I need air, water, food, rest, etc. to survive in the meantime.
My path is a very personal one as it has to be.
Obviously we all here have different life's paths that we have chosen and will follow.
Do I see your different path as a wrong one? Not at all for it is your own, and is very personal.
As long as you do good and do not harm me, my family, my friends, etc., I will wish you well your journey through life.
-
BigFoot and Nessie are possible, natural entities.
'God' is, as a matter of fact, neither provable nor disprovable by nature.
That God exists, or not, are statements of faith.
-
That 'God' exists is a statement of faith as it is on faith, not proof that 'God' exists.
That 'God' does not exist is not based on faith. It is the absence of the proof of its existance that I base my opinion.
That's the difference.
That is MY opinion. For me, God does not exist.
For you, God does exist. Right?
Okay, let's move on.
To convince me, bring some facts to the table, if you are so inclined.
I am not about to try to convince you that God does not exist for you.
It's not my place nor my goal.
I find myself rather tolerant of other's beliefs (as long as it doesn't harm others) that are different than my own, you?
-
I'm not trying to convince you of my subjective opinion, but to share some plain and transparent logic.
But for what it's worth, I think anything outside of the realm of provable reality is an absolute waste of time, right here and now in this life.
I think faith and hope are foolish, and I think making decisions on anything else than established facts is irresponsible.
There's nothing more to it, you should ask someone to whom it's small change, like someone in the nearest philosophy faculty.. IIRC the 'division' of tought in two, rational and irrational, is something taught at the very first lecture(s) of the very first philosophy classes.
I can't think of a simpler way to explain it:
Absence of proof for something is not a valid confirmation that something isn't true. There's a name for this logical fallacy, but I can't be arsed to look it up.
You're telling me the absence of sufficient proof to convince you that God exists is sufficient to convince you he doesn't exist.
I'm saying proving its existence, or lack thereof, is not possible, and therefore admitting either is necessarily irrational..
I'm not going to give you proof either way, because it's impossible, which is exactly my point.
-
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.
Such an arrogant attitude from christianity, to believe that nothing matters outside of their beliefs, and that the world could not be a good place without some 'supernatural' mumbo jumbo. This is precisely what annoys athiests... the 'if you don't believe in my god then your bad' attidue conjoined 'well if you're a good person then god must be in your heart'.
Before the christians arrived religious people and non-religious people lived, did good, did bad, civilisations rose and fell, life went on just fine without christianity. Right now there are 3 religions dominant in the world, one of those is on the rise, in a few hundred years will islamic American's look back on christianity as America's dark age? The point is even after christianity has died out or become some fringe group of lunies people will continue to do good things without it and live on.
-
I dunno about arrogant, but it's certainly taking for granted sapiens' cognitive biases.
Can't blame em for trying tho.. :D
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You still haven't explained why atheism is less honest than christianity.
religion people are generaly more honest and good.... we better dont ask about those $5 erotic movie, where good god fellas are screaming "ohhh good oooh good" for 63 mins.
Religion people are one of those most hypocratic that i ever meet.
In other words there are many honest and nice people around, but i would not try to pick, identify them on religion basis.
I personaly meet more cheap lairs among christians that among atheists.
Thx god that 80% of local folk are atheists :D
-
Judging by the way this thread has developed, Christian bashing must be the only way atheists relieve the monotony of walking around in circles all day through the unbalancing effect of the chip on their shoulder.
It's pathetic.
Excel
-
Christian bashing?
Where, Excel?
Or, are we to take it on faith?
-
***************DISCLAIMER*****************
My beliefs are just that and not to say what I believe in , so should everyone else. I respect the fact that there are those with various stages in their belief in the faith and the existance/nonexistance of a God/Supreme Being/etc.
*****************************************
Originally posted by moot
~snip~
But for what it's worth, I think anything outside of the realm of provable reality is an absolute waste of time, right here and now in this life.
~snip...~I think making decisions on anything else than established facts is irresponsible.~snip~
FWIW I agree with these points to an extent.
Absence of proof for something is not a valid confirmation that something isn't true.
Too black and white, absolute.
I can also claim that there are no such things as green men from Mars, no Pegasis horses, no ghosts, etc (see the "established facts" statement above).
The arguments I've seen for the existance of a God/Supreme Being just haven't held up to scrutiny as I've interpreted it (again, see "established facts" above).
There's a name for this logical fallacy, but I can't be arsed to look it up.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam? Just guessing the fallacy, not agreeing with your conclusion though.
You're telling me the absence of sufficient proof to convince you that God exists is sufficient to convince you he doesn't exist.
To me there has been no proof of the existance of a Supreme Being.
In my mind, the idea of a God existing via the Christian/Catholic/Muslim/etc ideals just has too many inconsistancies and conjecture.
I'm saying proving its existence, or lack thereof, is not possible, and therefore admitting either is necessarily irrational..
Argumentum ad populum?
And I'm saying that by virtue of the proof/explainations of a God existing not holding up to scrutiny is proof enough of that God does not exist. Occam's Razor? Also see "established facts" above.
I'm not going to give you proof either way, because it's impossible, which is exactly my point.
And some of those that are believers will disagree as will some of those that don't believe. As to the "impossible" is all a matter of frame of reference and to what bias we start from, including yours.
-
Originally posted by Excel1
Judging by the way this thread has developed, Christian bashing must be the only way atheists relieve the monotony of walking around in circles all day through the unbalancing effect of the chip on their shoulder.
It's pathetic.
Excel
I'm an Atheist. I'm not Christian bashing, as a matter of fact, I take great care to point out that everyone has a right to their own beliefs.
So I have to ask you:
1) Why are you bashing Atheists as a whole?
2) You going to put that apparently large chip on your shoulder away? ;)
-
subaru... you are a smart guy... are you saying that calling yourself an athiest is not a statement of faith?
I have admited that belief in god is a statement of faith.... there is no proof other than what is all around us...
An agnostic is more scientific... he says that he doesn't know and that "how could he"... If he sees proof either way he will probly go wit that.
An athiest is simply a wild eyed preacher of his agenda... that there is no god and no possibility of one. How would they know that?
What about aliens and bigfoot? no proof so they must not exist right? I say that there is no proof that god is impossible.
MT... I am afraid that seagoon is correct.... for good or bad all morales as we recognize them are the result of one religion or another. The church of athiesm is a relatively new one that has not contributed to morality one way or the other.... they simply critique or applaud ones allready made by religion.
lazs
-
We're not understanding each other. It's impressive how easy it is to misunderstand over these posts.
I've just had a long day of work and I'm going to argue at no more than one point at a time.. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the following's at the base of your p.o.v., so that's the first point:
I'm saying that not seeing proof of something being true isn't a valid basis to conclude it's false.
I think it's called something like Proof by a negative.. so if you still don't see what i'm saying, you can look it up, I don't know how to boil it down any simpler than that.
Here you go: negative proof. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof)
-
good link moot... arguement from ignorance.... That is all I am saying... you can't say that just because you are ignorant of something it does not exist.
If you do that then you would have to admit that your belief is nothing but faith based..
If you give it a name then you are making a statement... "I am an athiest" You are so concerned that you can't even think straight.
lazs
-
Lasz: I'll repeat it for you again.
Atheism = lack of religious belief. It's not a faith, it's a lack of faith.
What part of that do you not understand?
-
That's just semantics.. one dictionary will say it's the idea there's no god, another the absence of it.
How many types of atheism are there? I always heard it used as the definitive belief of godlessness, but apparently it's a pretty ambiguous title.
-
Atheism = "there is no god" which is actually a religious belief. Unless you have proof?
It's not indifference. It's not dismissive. And it's definately not proveable. It is 100% faith based.
-
moot... apparently there are many forms of the athiest religion with many different beliefs.
It can be either faith based that it is impossible that there is a god all the way to....
"I don't know if there is one but I don't like the uniform of the agnostics so I call myself an athiest to get the snazzy uniform."
either way... seems that it is a very important belief to each and every one of em..
lazs
-
********** Bear with me as I was up very late/early and am going on 4 hrs sleep.****************
Originally posted by lazs2
subaru... you are a smart guy... are you saying that calling yourself an athiest is not a statement of faith?lazs
Absolutely. I base my belief on the facts, not on faith.
I have admited that belief in god is a statement of faith.... there is no proof other than what is all around us...
True, but some believing of religions also believe in an afterlife of sorts, others of reincarnation, ideas they cannot possibly prove. Faith....preach on.
An agnostic is more scientific... he says that he doesn't know and that "how could he"... If he sees proof either way he will probly go wit that.
Now you make a statement of ignorance. How can you possibly know what goes on in the minds of others? Are you clairvoyant?
I have drawn my conclusions as a result of 'studying' the various religions and conversing with believers their arguments for their beliefs in why there is a God and why they believe what they do.
From what I understand of Agnostics is that there isn't a strong enough proof base that a God/Supreme Being exists. They 'feel' that the possibility of a God exists, but doesn't have a direct influence on our daily lives.
This is a generalization as there is rarely a 100% concenscious on anything within any particular group.
An athiest is simply a wild eyed preacher of his agenda... that there is no god and no possibility of one. How would they know that?
Simply wrong.
I have no agenda. I do not try to preach or to convert those that have faith.
I will out of respect answer questions as best I can though.
The origins of life. Evolution. Physics. .........
So far the "facts" put forth by those who do believe of the existance of God have yet to stand up to scrutiny to my satisfaction. Occam's Razor
What about aliens and bigfoot? no proof so they must not exist right? I say that there is no proof that god is impossible.
Careful of the differences. I don't believe in the existance of bigfoot. As to aleins, oh the probability of their existing is very high due to the many similar solar systems to ours out there. But "green men from Mars"? No.
And it would be wrong of me to tell you what you believe and not believe. I simply cannot and will not do that for those basing their beliefs on faith. It is not my place.
MT... I am afraid that seagoon is correct.... for good or bad all morales as we recognize them are the result of one religion or another. The church of athiesm is a relatively new one that has not contributed to morality one way or the other.... they simply critique or applaud ones allready made by religion.
I am an Atheist. I do not go to a house of worship, I do not pray. I do not gather with other Atheists to further an agenda. I do not cheat. I do not victimize others. I do not drink, smoke, or do other drugs. I pay my taxes. I donate to charities (yes, even religious based ones). I help out my family, friends, employees the best I can if I can.
I believe good "moral" people as well as bad evil people have existed since the beginning of mankind before the advent of organized religions. Religions have taken the good "morals" and adopted it into their books of faith, as the cornerstone of how they are to behave.
This is how I see it in as condenced a version as I can put it.
I was born, I live, I will die. That is my life, I only have one chance at it and will do the best that I can.
Continue with your labeling, but you are wrong.
-
Originally posted by moot
We're not understanding each other. It's impressive how easy it is to misunderstand over these posts.
I've just had a long day of work and I'm going to argue at no more than one point at a time.. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the following's at the base of your p.o.v., so that's the first point:
I'm saying that not seeing proof of something being true isn't a valid basis to conclude it's false.
I think it's called something like Proof by a negative.. so if you still don't see what i'm saying, you can look it up, I don't know how to boil it down any simpler than that.
Here you go: negative proof. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof)
Actually I do understand your angle.
You do misunderstand me.
I was right as to "Argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy. See my post of a several hours ago.
The arguments I see most often of those that God exists has been proven false to my satisfaction.
The idea of a God/Supreme Being has been around for ages. Because of the many debates/arguments it has been discussed at length and with the logic we all base our conclusions on.
I say it boils down to this:
Those that believe do so on faith as the facts just aren't there yet to support it.
I don't believe as the facts don't support it. I just don't have the faith of the existence of a Supreme Being/God as the facts don't support it.
Do I believe there to be aliens (not to confse this with 'green men from Mars') even though I haven't seen them? Yes, I have faith that they do exist
as they haven't been disproven to my satisfaction.
I hope my nuances in my thought processes are coming through.
There is a dfference.
-
Originally posted by moot
That's just semantics.. one dictionary will say it's the idea there's no god, another the absence of it.
How many types of atheism are there? I always heard it used as the definitive belief of godlessness, but apparently it's a pretty ambiguous title.
I cannot speak for other Atheists, only myself.
There is no God, no Supreme Being(s). Period.
It has nothing to do with morals, acting good or bad.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Atheism = "there is no god" which is actually a religious belief. Unless you have proof?
It's not indifference. It's not dismissive. And it's definately not proveable. It is 100% faith based.
There is a difference.
"God does not exist."
It is not a religious view.
I do not pray or believe in a Supreme Being.
I do not attribute things as yet unexplained to those of a Supreme Being.
I do not go to a house of worship or a gathering of Atheists.
I do not have an agenda to eliminate religions as I actually believe them to be helpful to some.
Religion is 100% faith based, not the other way around.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
moot... apparently there are many forms of the athiest religion with many different beliefs.
It can be either faith based that it is impossible that there is a god all the way to....
"I don't know if there is one but I don't like the uniform of the agnostics so I call myself an athiest to get the snazzy uniform."
either way... seems that it is a very important belief to each and every one of em..
lazs
What snazzy uniforms do I wear as an Atheist? Name badges? How would you ID me in a crowd?
Despite what you may think, Atheism doesn't consume me. Life is what it is, I just go about it the best way that I can. I do not bring harm to those that have different beliefs, nor do I mock those that have different beliefs than my own.
Those that have made the leap of faith, I understand and actually support their rights to do so.
Tolerance. Can you say the same?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Atheism = "there is no god" which is actually a religious belief. Unless you have proof?
It's not indifference. It's not dismissive. And it's definately not proveable. It is 100% faith based.
So there is no tooth fairy is also faith?
There is no easter bunny is also faith?
-
Greetings Seagoon...sorry for the long delay, but I'm on the last days of my vacation and needed to finish acheiving all the goals I'd set out to accomplish during my time off.
Also, since I go back to work tomorrow after having been off for some time, I may not have time for another reply. So I will try to include only observations in this post rather than further questions.
Originally posted by Seagoon
Crow, that doesn't follow. If a someone really is a Christian, then they have accepted that there is a God and that He is not silent, and that they are now His children and desire to obey His will out of love and reverence for Him.
It goes back to the part that even true Christian sin. And simply repenting does not undo the wrong committed. From my point of view, it appears that being a struggling Christian does not make one inherently more or less trustworthy. One's actions are the true sign of trustworthiness regardless of religion.
Originally posted by Seagoon
On the other hand, the Atheist declares there is no God, that all the values we have are positively, rather than objectively derived, that we must be pragmatic or even utilitarian when making decisions, that some things can be done without anyone in the universe other than ourselves and the person we do them with knowing, and that there is no final accounting. I don't believe I have to walk you through the ways that those concepts all tend to make one more rather than less likely to not keep a promise or the aforementioned wedding vow.
I think that is a generalization that cannot be construed to mean all atheists will break vows or commit other violations of morals of local meme anymore than a Christian (since even true Christians do commit sins). The previously posted alliteration becomes cogent: I find the person who does good works out of respect for their fellow man more worthy of my respect than the person who does good works due to accountability to a god.
If I recall my Biblical mythos correctly, even those arguably closest to Jesus were not trustworthy, right to the end of his life. All 12 denied Him though they knew Him well. Even Paul, who was probably most Christ-like.
Originally posted by Seagoon
No one other than God has the capacity to tell who is and who isn't a real Christian unerringly, but this doesn't mean that we don't have any clues that will help us in that process.
And that is my point. Not even a true Christian can accurately determine another true Christian. The best any of us have to go on is a pattern of behavior. If a person has a pattern of being trustworthy, then again I say it does not matter the religion...they are trustworthy.
Originally posted by Seagoon
Yes I sometimes do see the effects of conscience in a young child, and this view actually militates against the idea of man born as a blank slate. This is because the image of God in fallen man is not entirely obscured. Even the unregenerate is not without a conscience. Christian theology teaches that in the unregenerate, that conscience will be a factor to the degree in which God exercises what is known as common grace.
LOL...I think this is where we part as I demythologize and you have faith the supernatural exists.
Originally posted by Seagoon
But if the biblical worldview represents the true nature of reality, then let me quote a Scottish theologian by the name of Robert Shaw:
"An action may be materially, and yet not formally, good. Prayer, reading and hearing the Word of God, distributing to the poor, are actions materially good; but unless these actions are done by persons who are "accepted in the Beloved," and "created anew in Christ Jesus"–unless they flow from a right principle, are performed in a right manner, and directed to a right end, they are not formally good. Now, unregenerate men may do many things that are good, for the matter of them, because they are things which God commands, and of good use to themselves and others; but, as performed by them, they are destitute of everything that can render an action "good and acceptable in the sight of God." Explicit is the declaration of the Apostle Paul: "They that are in the flesh cannot please God."–Rom. viii. 8.
I'm not sure I see that thought process in the Bible. I will admit being a poor Bible scholar, but I recall Jesus telling the story of an apostate Samaritan doing good works. Rhetorical question: if Jesus Himself says one thing and Robert Shaw says something contradictory, does that make Robert Shaw a true Christian and if he was not a true Christian should someone trying to follow the path of a true Christian be listening to him?
Beyond that, it seems contrary to the concept of absolute morals as most theists reference when citing the Bible. Good is good. I think this may be the source of some confusion on the part of Christians that believe non-theists are untrustworthy...if non-theists do not have the capability to do "formal" good, then all their actions must be evil. I don't think I need to explain how harmful that confusion is and how likely it is that professing Christians might grow to hate non-theists as a result.
Originally posted by Seagoon
Don't think the Pharisees never did something nice for others, they did, but as Christ pointed out their motives were what made those works of no ultimate value.
I've heard this argument before...that atheists are purely motivated by selfish desires and even when they help others they are really motivated by feeling good about themselves when the deed is done. My motives were to help a stranded motorist...nothing more. My only thoughts after completing the task was to make a mental note to carry generic gasket material in the future should anyone else ever need it. And maybe I am a freak of nature in that regard...when I took the Myers-Briggs some years ago my test evaluator was shocked to find that I was 100% 'T' and 0% 'F'. But my point is that one cannot generalize motives...even as some might say that the Christian who stopped was only trying to bribe his way into God's good graces by pulling over to help (which is a selfish act as well).
Originally posted by Seagoon
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.
I've never really been offended by that rhetoric...it is the method all rulers use to solidify followers. It is us against them...so don't listen to them or you may no longer be one of us. Humans instinctually want to belong to a group. There is safety in a group. Being banished from a group was the equivalent to a death sentence in the early days of man.
So here are my observations in the form of rhetorical questions: Do you invite those you want in your house by slapping them in the face and instilling fear of being outside? For those who are already in your house, do you convince them to happily stay by deriding them and making them fear what is outside your house? What is your ultimate objective as a pastor...is it to bring more people closer to God? Is there possibly a more successful approach other than using fear but still remain true to your desire not to tickle itching ears (it might be hard...but is being a witness for Jesus supposed to be an easy thing)? And in the end, does your God want believers who choose to love Him because they are happy to do so, or believers who choose to love Him because they are afraid not to?
I admit I have a selfish motive behind these shell cracking questions. If Christians can happily choose to be Christian, I believe they will be less likely to feel justified to use fear and force as a tactic against non-theists.
Originally posted by Seagoon
Pax,
And to you....
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
They believe there is only one God...that there has been only one prophet, Moses...and only one Holy Book, the Pentateuch or Torah.
That was the origin of the Samaritans.
However, in the reign of Antioch about 150 years before Christ the Samaritans decided to capitulate to the Syrian ruler and convert to Hellanism. They changed their temple to one for worshiping Zeus. This was recorded by Josephus (historian who also recorded the existance of Jesus). Jews considered Samaritans as apostate, ie turned from the one true God. This is why the parable is relavent.
-
subaru.... I think that you are now saying not so much that there is no god but that all the organized religions that you have studied (a monstrous undertaking I might add) that..... you can prove them all false..
forget organized religion.... we are talking about the possibility of a god... of a creator of the universe. there is no way that you could know one way or the other if he exists or not.... to say yes or no is faith based.
vulcan... it is easy to prove or disprove tooth fairy along the lines of the whole tooth fairy story line.... probly a lot harder to say there are not fairies. I am an agnostic on the subject.
crow... like it or not... all the morality we have today originated from religion.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
subaru.... I think that you are now saying not so much that there is no god but that all the organized religions that you have studied (a monstrous undertaking I might add) that..... you can prove them all false..
forget organized religion.... we are talking about the possibility of a god... of a creator of the universe. there is no way that you could know one way or the other if he exists or not.... to say yes or no is faith based.
lazs
How in the world is this a "monstrous undertaking"?
If something is puzzling to you, you do not investigate it further and study it? You draw your conclusions all on faith? Without investigating it?
There is a point that I will say that certain things exist, while others do not.
Now pay attention to these next lines as this whole argument is getting rather retarded:
1) I (that's me, no one else) believe that God/Supreme Being does not exist. I base on the facts as I see them. This is to my satisfaction. This is my belief for me only. You cannot tell me what I believe as I cannot tell you yours.
2) What you or others believe is your business. I am in no way going to tell you what you believe to be the truth for you. How can I possibly know what you truly think/believe?
3) To say "yes" to the possibility of anything that cannot be proven is to be based on faith.
To say "no" to the possibility of something is not necessarily so. It can be based on the facts as we see/interpret them.
That's a big distinction between saying yes and no.
4) I don't believe in a God/Supreme being. Fairies. Big Foot. Green men from Mars (do not confuse this with aliens). Cows flying. Etc.
This is my view, my beliefs. You will not disprove it to my satisfaction without bringing some facts to the table. It is arrogant of you or anyone else to tell me what I believe. You do not know how my mind works or what I think.
5) I believe that those that believe in a God/Supreme being, even though it is faith based, is very real for them. I will not, nor I doubt could change their viewpoints as we're talking faith here. It would be arrogant of me to tell them what they are to believe.
We all hold our truths as we see it based on the ideas and facts as we interpret them.
Originally posted by lazs2
crow... like it or not... all the morality we have today originated from religion.
lazs
That's rather vague.
I take it by "religion" you're basically meaning Christianity?
The "morality we have today" meaning as we have in modern, western, industrialised countries?
Are we talking generosity? Being nice to others? Not stealing? Not lying? Not murdering? (heck, pick the good attribute of choice)
I'd say those things were going on before religion was introduced to mankind. Evolution and all that.
Religion has adopted certain things based on human behavior and adapted it for their "bylaws" on how to behave. Unfortunetly, mankind has used their own religion (as well as other causes) as justification for their own "unreligious" behavior/actions towards others.
People will do good and evil. Some under the cloak of their religion, others not.
*******************
lazs,
I am an Athiest. Now define me, my character, my actions.
-
Saburos, you are showing the classic signs of a soul that is struggling like a butterfly in a jar, afraid to believe, yet afraid to not believe, beating your delicate, powdered wings desperately against your glass prison, which contains a cotton ball in the bottom, saturated with starting fluid.
I only have one question to ask. Have you ever seen a tree? Do you thinks its an accident what dog spelled backwards is?
We are waiting for you to stop struggling.
To pin you into God's collection of disbelieving species.
-
Gunthr, can you respond to a well reasoned post without condescension dripping from your text?
Try and respond on the merits of a message instead of attacking the writer, anything else is dishonest.
-
You're *****ting me, aren't you? Can't you tell I'm joking? Untwist those panties :D
Besides, I'm giddy. I've got spring fever. I'm buying a sailboat very very soon, and I'll be spending much time in the keys and the islands. Don't tell me there is no God. :D
-
Hi MT,
Originally posted by midnight Target
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.
I am about to leave to catch a plane for a conference in Jackson, I really don't have time to give any of the replies the time they deserve, but since I'll be down there till Friday I just wanted to do a "drive by answer" before I go.
Well, in answer to the "least thoughtful" comment, that is of course entirely possible, everyone has their bad days.
But I think the problem here is that my post actually moved from the realm of theology into moral philosophy. The contention that if there is no God and nothing beyond the material realm that there can be no absolutes in the realm of morals is something accepted by almost all major philosophers. In particular the explicitly atheistic philosophies such as Nihilism and Existentialism have worked from that principle. Sartre in particular made the impossibility of absolutes foundational to all of his writing.
To paraphrase Sartre in a way I hope you'll understand, for any point in the universe to have meaning there must be a fixed reference point. So for instance let us take an action, how do we decide if that action is good or bad? Sartre pointed out that you may call it subjectively bad or good but absent a fixed and unchanging reference, that is merely your subjective opinion. The action can never be really good or bad. It merely is or was.
For instance, there have been cultures in which incest was considered "good" and not "bad." Now we may wade in and say, no you're wrong, it's bad. But when they ask us "why?" without a fixed reference point, we are reduced to giving either an entirely subjective answer "Because I say so" or a popular answer "because the majority says so" or a utilitarian answer "because it produces genetic defects and reduces the overall health of society" but neither of those answers make it bad per se. For instance, if incest doesn't result in procreation, then the utilitarian argument is eliminated, if the opinion of the majority changes, then the popular argument is eliminated. None of these methods can actually answer if an action is really good or bad.
I'd say read Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil" but I fear you might find his arguments compelling .
Most atheists are not moral philosophers in any event, and live as though there really are good and bad actions (usually subjectively or popularly arrived at) rather than trying to live in keeping with the ultimate conclusions of atheistic/materialist philosophy.
Gotta go...
- SEAGOON
-
SaburoS, can you briefly list a few irrefutable facts of God's inexistance?
-
forget it moot.... he allready admitted that his belief is faith based and his belief only... That is fine... I don't know why we are discsussing it further...
We all agree that subarus religion is faith based. His religion is that god does not exist. He has nothing but faith to base it on (and lack of tangible evidence) but... we all know that lack of tangible evidence does not rule out the possibility of existence. No one knew that atoms existed... some believed it.
As for studying all religions.... many have spent a lifetime stuying only one religion and not getting it all.... with the thousands out there it would seem a monstruous undertaking to claim to have studied them all..
As for all morality coming from religion.... I did not say nor did I mean exclusively the christian religion.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
We all agree that subarus religion is faith based.
I don't think so.
-
Nice try Seagoon, but don't be so quick to toss off the utilitarian answer to your moral question about incest. That is the ultimate answer. Manners, by and large, are necessities of modern society invented to prevent problems. Simple really. The lack of aggression caused by good manners leads to a more stable society. Don't need religion at all. I Kant see how you could disagree. :)
-
Gunthr,
Oh man, your last post was very funny :aok
moot,
I'm not going there. You want me to prove something that does not exist, a negative? How about you prove something that does exist? Do it in another thread though. You've obviously ignored or misunderstand what I've written. I'm not about to go into the mother of a wall of text. I don't have the time nor will it matter. Those with faith will continue to believe what they will regardless of the facts.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
forget it moot.... he allready admitted that his belief is faith based and his belief only... That is fine... I don't know why we are discsussing it further...
Your reading comprehension is wanting.
Originally posted by lazs2
We all agree that subarus religion is faith based. His religion is that god does not exist. He has nothing but faith to base it on (and lack of tangible evidence) but... we all know that lack of tangible evidence does not rule out the possibility of existence. No one knew that atoms existed... some believed it.
And you would be wrong.
Originally posted by lazs2
As for studying all religions.... many have spent a lifetime stuying only one religion and not getting it all.... with the thousands out there it would seem a monstruous undertaking to claim to have studied them all..
LOL, studying all religions? I don't think that's possible. Not only are you missing the forest for the trees, you're missing the trees for the pinecone.
Originally posted by lazs2
As for all morality coming from religion.... I did not say nor did I mean exclusively the christian religion.
lazs
You were vague so I phrased my questions.
So, what specific morality/moralities originated from what specific religion(s) you speak of?
Originally posted by lazs2
like it or not... all the morality we have today originated from religion.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
To paraphrase Sartre in a way I hope you'll understand, for any point in the universe to have meaning there must be a fixed reference point.
Apparently Sartre did not have a basic grounding in General Relativity.
-
"Regardless of the facts" sounds too final. Be better to say those who have faith will believe what they will.
However mankind doesn't know all the facts and maybe never will. Science is not the matrix for proving the existence of God. Don't understand the disagreement here, except for the implying faith is non-factual. You think science is the only way to enlightment? What about the soul? It's there and we didn't create it. What about the soul, and art and music, and love?
Les
-
subaru... you yourself said that you didn't believe in the possibility of a god. you admit that you have no proof... that your "belief" is faith based.
I have no problem with that. just admit that you are not being scientific and that you have made a religion of it.
and... you claimed to have studied religion and that is how you know it is all false.... How can that be? Unless you have studied them all then how can you come to this conclussion? I will say that I have yet to find one that I would say matches my faith but.... I don't rule out the possibility that one exists.
you on the other hand have found one that makes you comfortable... the religion of athiesm... the belief that... even tho there is no way of proving it.... god does not exist...
At least the guys who say they don't believe in god because he didn't save their puppy when they were 12 are being honest about it.
lazs
-
Belief in God isn't the issue Lazs. The crux of the matter is living life seeking wisdom, which I believe comes from God and Jesus. It is not easy and requires discipline. I'm not one to say. If you looked at my life you would say I'm a fool, because I am not capable of adapting to situations. I make up my mind and follow that, at my peril and the peril of others around me.
I was saved years ago, but have since become more formally educated and question my faith more and more each day. I have not thought I had lost salvation through all the sins I committed over the years.
Any way, you are A-OK with me. In my opinion, you are one of the smartest people in this forum. And I'm not just saying that.
Les
-
I'm not proving anything unprovable, that's what I pointed out a few posts ago.
I was asking you to show brief proof that god was positively inexistant..
I do know what you're arguing, and the problem I see is that you're admitting that proving god's inexistance is possible, but proving his existance isn't.
That just doesn't work, maybe you could demonstrate how you think it does..?