Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on October 03, 2006, 09:27:32 PM
-
Another atheist put together a short video that succinctly represents my views as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg
It's called "Why a care about religion". The folks I'm really hoping will see this are ones like Lukster and his friends that suggest that I'm somehow not entitled to an opinion on a subject that has such a large impact on my life despite my decision not enroll in the 'club'.
-
Your entitled to believe what ya want.;)
But ....what is it that has such a "Large Impact" on your life?
You need an abortion?
Need a Stem cell?
Thinking of assisted suicide? Your "Right" to life?
Just wondering.
-
No matter how unlikely, if by some miracle I were to get pregnant I'd really ... REALLY ... want an abortion! :D
-
It's the bi-monthly "I'm not really anti-religious but resent religion's attempt to influence the law-making process in order to foist their beliefs on me and and thus install a theocratic government, reinstitute the Inquisition, and carry out human sacrifices under the guidelines of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" thread.
Did I go over the top? I can never tell.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
It's the bi-monthly "I'm not really anti-religious but resent religion's attempt to influence the law-making process in order to foist their beliefs on me and and thus install a theocratic government, reinstitute the Inquisition, and carry out human sacrifices under the guidelines of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" thread.
Did I go over the top? I can never tell.
Spot on! :aok
-
So an atheist knows how to use a cheap edit suite and text generator. Big deal.
Come to think about it, I think I'm gonna make a "I care about Hot Dogs" video! Sweet!!! thanks for the idea!!!
-
Hot dogs own
hot dogs
-
I dig hot dogs.
-
I am a Lutheran, and as I get older and older my retention rate to church on Sunday's is definately dropping, but religion is a major part of my life...Im not a serial killer because im scared about going to prison and being executed...Im not a serial killer, because its where I believe I would go if I were executed for such a crime...
-
I AM YOUR GOD CHAIRBOY, KNEEL BEFORE ME AND GROVEL IN THY DEVINE PRESENCE. YOU WILL WORSHIP NO OTHER GOD BEFORE ME!
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I am a Lutheran, and as I get older and older my retention rate to church on Sunday's is definately dropping, but religion is a major part of my life...Im not a serial killer because im scared about going to prison and being executed...Im not a serial killer, because its where I believe I would go if I were executed for such a crime...
The threat of hell is the only thing keeping you in check? I'm not a serial killer either, but it's of my own free will
Who has the stronger character, the person doing something under duress, or the one who does so by choice?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
YOU WILL WORSHIP NO OTHER GOD BEFORE ME!
You're right, I _won't_ worship any other god before you!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The threat of hell is the only thing keeping you in check? I'm not a serial killer either, but it's of my own free will
Who has the stronger character, the person doing something under duress, or the one who does so by choice?
Chairboy- There are ton's of factors to why I dont do things...The major one right up there next to religion is law...I respect my country's laws...If I didnt believe in God, and a heaven or hell, does that mean I would go ahead and break them? hello no! But I do believe that I will some way or another be judged when I pass from this life, and that is a major factor that that plays into decision making in my day to day life!
Not saying I live in duress, but essentially we all do through laws...Unless you have no regard for anyone or anything but yourself (which would still equate to duress because of fear of negative reprecussions upon yourself), then we are all living under some sort of duress whether it be law, religion or something other...
And if you want to judge my character because I have the ability to believe in something unseen, and larger than myself that go right ahead...I am damn well happy with where I am at!
-
i would worship Geroge Welch before him
(http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/praying.gif)(http://forums.progers.net.ru/images/smilies/pray.gif)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6e/George_Welch.JPG/270px-George_Welch.JPG) :D
-
And in the words of the great one, Mark Levin..." It's 8 oclock, UNDER GOD!"
Listen I dont care if your an atheist, a christian, jew or muslim...I have no intentions on going around and converting everyone to Christianity, I just dont really care...This is my personal way of trying to understand what the hell this all is, just as atheism is for you, and islam is to a muslim...
-
click (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdQEFTN5lQ8&eurl=)
-
(http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive/a/images/fe2b.jpg)
-
Folks can belive whatever they want as long as they dont go around preaching their belives to those that has no interest in it.
That beeing said, I really hope one of those religious people that goes around ringing my doorbell puts his foot inside without beeing invited.
-
Originally posted by mosgood
So an atheist knows how to use a cheap edit suite and text generator. Big deal.
Come to think about it, I think I'm gonna make a "I care about Hot Dogs" video! Sweet!!! thanks for the idea!!!
At least you can prove hot dogs exist.
The not selling alcohol on Sunday thing, haha, thats stupid and unnecessary.. Cali might be a granola state with fruits, nuts and flakes, but we can buy beer on Sunday. I never knew that was even a concern.
Religion is fine until other people invade my persnal space with it... if those other people are the Govt, then its flat out wrong.
-
I'm not sure why you care about the boyscouts not allowing Atheists. They are a private organization and have the right to set their own recruiting guidelines just like any other private organization. I'm pretty sure they arent the only private organization that recieves public funding either.
I can see your point about Atheists not being able to hold office. Belief in God (or a God or Gods), or disbelief in the same shouldn't stop one from holding public office in this country.
The words in God we trust on our money? Do you actually read that on your coins and bills everyday? Or everytime you pull out some money from your wallet or pants pocket? I dont. /shrug
Blue Laws? I am just as affected by those as you. When I was stationed in North Carolina I couldnt hunt on Sundays. That didnt bother me one bit. The fact that I cant purchase a car on Sundays here in Colorado doesnt bother me in the least. Before my conversion to Christianity and when I was still living in Lincoln NE, I couldnt purchase alcohol inside city limits on Sundays. I just drove beyond the city limits and got what I wanted, or made my purchases on Saturdays. I didnt even feel inconvenienced. (sp)
Seems to me, that Atheists go out of their way to find things about religion so they can be offended.
When I see things that go against my beliefs, I dont raise a ruckus about it. (Assuming those things are lawful) I understand that not everyone believes the same way I do.
Lets take abortion for instance. I believe that is wrong and that it is murder. It is a legal activity in this country. Those who dont believe that is murder have forced that law upon the rest of us. I could give more examples, but I think that one is enough to show the street is a 2 way street and not a one way street like the video you linked portrays.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Another atheist put together a short video that succinctly represents my views as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg
It's called "Why a care about religion". The folks I'm really hoping will see this are ones like Lukster and his friends that suggest that I'm somehow not entitled to an opinion on a subject that has such a large impact on my life despite my decision not enroll in the 'club'.
Far as I'm concerned You Sir have every right to your opinion. As I have a every right to mine and everyone else has every right to theirs.
I'm not sure what it is that bothers you SO much. I've got my own thoughts on why but that's not really important and I'll keep them to myself.
I will offer you this for thought.
You WILL see what you THINK you want come about. Slowly, but it is coming. Maybe over the next 10 to 25 years it will be getting close to done.
There are individuals that want certain things. Numbered among those individuals are judges, law enforcement people, politicians, school teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc....
You've seen some of them in the news fairly recently I'm sure.
These individuals are working right now to bring about these changes. They've been at it for some time. HMMM perhaps that is why they want to disarm everyone except those that meet with there approval???
One of the major ways they intend to do this is through education or, perhaps more accruately, the LACK there of.
Your children, and the children of others, are being prepared for these changes. Not only to accept these changes but to cheer them on.
The old trust us we KNOW whats good for you, and you don't need to know about that, or those other things, because we know whats good for you and will take care of you. Aren't we providing (welfare, etc.) for you now?
Unless you are one of them, I know I am not such a one, I don't think you will like what's coming.
As to the people that believe there is a GOD. Well they're not going to have a lot of choice either.
Isn't Democracy wonderful? We DON'T have one right now, we didn't start out with one, the individuals that worked to create this nation didn't want one, BUT we're going that way...........
The best way to look at a law, any law, isn't on how it will be used, but how it can be ABUSED! Cause sure as the sun comes up there is someone that will get into power and do so.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
The words in God we trust on our money? Do you actually read that on your coins and bills everyday? Or everytime you pull out some money from your wallet or pants pocket? I dont. /shrug
What if instead of "In God we Trust" the words "Hail Satan!" were on our money? Would it still mean nothing to you?
It would to me... the words do mean something when you put it in that context.
-
very goodpoint moosegod. :)
-
Originally posted by mosgood
What if instead of "In God we Trust" the words "Hail Satan!" were on our money? Would it still mean nothing to you?
It would to me... the words do mean something when you put it in that context.
I dont read what is on my money, coins or bills, I just spend it when I need to. As long as it spends like it is suppossed to, thats all that really matters when it comes to the monies.
Would it annoy me if I spent time dwelling on it? Probably, but I dont dwell on things like that. There are far to many others things in life that are worth worrying about.
-
Personally, I've always thought that the most of the in-your-face athiests have a subtle agenda that may not be readily apparent. Why else would someone fret over a coin in their pocket that says "In God We Trust" ??? I believe in separation of church and state, but why would some of the athiests be so bent on taking thier views to the extreme and be so anxious to impose thier will on the whole country?
Answer: Politics. The most strident athiests are invariablely liberals who recognise that people who believe in some sort of God make up a good part of the conservative base. Athiesm is not driving the hoopla, its politics. Just my .02
-
you zany lefties sure do provide entertainment for me. most atheists are immoral hedonistic ultraliberals. the thought of accountability for their actions is abhorrent to these types of people so they would sweep God under the rug. Amazingly they don't grasp the correlation between themselves and ostrich behavioral patterns when danger threatens their worlds.
-
not to nitpick but.... "in god we trust" is much different than "hail satan"
In order for them to be like... it would have to be something like "in jesus we trust" or "in allah we trust".
"God" means many things to many people. You can make it fit your religion... angus uses scientists as god for instance. "hail satan", on the other hand would be a specific diety and be against the seperation of church and state (as would be "in jesus we trust")
seperation of church and state means.... no state religion. anytime the state gives equal billing to all religions (say tax breaks) then they are within the constitution.
To not allow athiests to be elected is unconstitutional... I will fight this injustice with you chair.
Blue laws? we all live with stupid laws like no smoking in private business and helmet laws and seatbelt laws... plenty of moral a holes to go around... the worst laws are foisted off on me by people who may not even believe in a god.
Nope.. the world is full of people who want to save you from yourself... you are trying right now chair... I fear a person telling me that adultry is a sin less than someone who tells me I will be fined or imprisoned if I refuse to wear a seatbelt. Or... says that I can't have a firearm. If a community wants blue laws.... I probly won't fit in anyway.
So... let's get specific... what is so horrible about the belief in god that you feel the need to martyr yourself on here from time to time?
I don't see the threat. we can even take abortion or death penalty... neither is a religious item in my opinion... both the religious and the devout athiest can take either side of either issue.
lazs
-
Originally posted by storch
you zany lefties sure do provide entertainment for me. most atheists are immoral hedonistic ultraliberals. the thought of accountability for their actions is abhorrent to these types of people so they would sweep God under the rug. Amazingly they don't grasp the correlation between themselves and ostrich behavioral patterns when danger threatens their worlds.
Sorry, couldn't hear ya over the throbbin' beat of the rave music here at my huge gay party. Boy, I sure hope I can steal some more milk money from elementary students to pay for my cocaine habit (btw, snorting it off the american flag is a huge kick). Maybe I can sue some churches to get more money so I can go out and have a bunch of abortions...
Nope, sorry storch, your overgeneralization seems to have misfired, a shocking development. I'm no lefty, I'm a gun owning constitutionalist who votes for less government, takes responsibility for my own actions, and my only beef with religion cults is when it affects me. I think the catholic scandals, Jimmy Swaggarts, and wacky terrorists of the world show just how much accountability and religion are linked at the hip.
-
Actually, I don't really care about the stupid "In God We trust" on the currency. If it makes y'all feel better, then I'm happy for you. I think the point in the video was to spotlight its origin as "a defense against the godless communists". Protect those precious bodily fluids, folks. P-O-E, E-P-O, and so on.
Lazs, I agree with you on all those other stupid laws (seatbelts, helmet, etc). Does one constitutional encroachment excuse another? I don't think so, that's why I don't see the existance of those other laws as an explanation for why the ones I brought up are ok.
I don't think I've ever told people that I don't think they should believe in god. If you review my posts on the subject, the clear item in common should be that I don't think religionists should be able to pass laws that enforce their religious views on the rest of us, and that doing so is unconstitutional. Feel free to pray, sacrament, and wiggle your voodoo dolls (or whatever the different religions do) but keep it out of the lawbooks.
-
Good video, Chairboy. The problem is atheists scare people who believe in some form of god. The erroneous assumption is that atheists have no ultimate divine no-no's, hence have no restrictions against doing anything they want, including antisocial things.
The professor at my college who probably was respected the most by most of the students said he was a Christian agnostic. He believed there was some form of other worldly power but he was still searching and could not make that proverbial leap of faith into belief without more information and understanding.
He was a fantastic debater. No one ever won an argument with him. In that realm of learning without kid gloves, he would let students brandish their most cherished totems, run out on a limb until it bent to the ground, and sometimes leave them in tears.
How refreshing! Someone who would tackle any subject no matter how taboo.
He respected Jesus as a fantastic person but not necessarily the son of God. Most importantly, he endorsed and lived by Christian principles (Ten Commandments; yes, from the Old Testament) and thus had not only a spiritual foundation for his life, but one that put others at ease because those principles have been understood by most peoples as a great foundation for living in peace and harmony, respecting the rights of others.
The term god means many things to many people, sometimes simply as a collective for the great unknown power(s) that we may never understand in this life.
Accurate or not, the stereotype of atheists is of people who lack a belief in an ultimate nonsecular power more important than themselves, and that's what scares people. Most of us are much more comfortable being around others who acknowledge some kind of power beyond this life because that implies a humility and discipline that theoretically makes us all fit together and get along better.
It is sublimely ironic that so many people and organizations require a professed belief in God when none of us knows what God is.
-
Awesome post, Halo, thanks.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Im not a serial killer, because its where I believe I would go if I were executed for such a crime...
That's interesting. Personally, I'm not a serial killer because I don't want to take a human life. I'd hope that most people have an inherent sense of right and wrong without it having to be rammed home through a ritualized recitation of a fairy tale.
Religion is nothing but a fraternity--a group of fraternities. The belief in god, in and of itself, is distantly subordinate to all the perks of membership, the justifications and rationalizations that such membership ensures, and the universal right to belittle anyone belonging to a competing fraternity, or no fraternity at all.
Claiming to do something, anything, in the name of god is a shortcut to conscious thought. It's a shortcut that the majority of people need. A shortcut that one day, hopefully, humanity will be able to discard.
If anyone who is truly religious ever took a step back from their own ego, they would realize just how presumptious it is to assume that they had any idea what something as powerful and mysterious as 'god' thought, did, or had planned. In fact, the biggest honor anyone could give to 'god' would be to claim total and utter cluelessness. In reality, most religious people I've met have a pretty good idea of what god is about. To help dispell some misconceptions, maybe religion should be renamed sacreligion. Any way you slice it, it's nothing but a ritualized method to delude yourself.
-
The problem is atheists scare people who believe in some form of god. The erroneous assumption is that atheists have no ultimate divine no-no's, hence have no restrictions against doing anything they want, including antisocial things.
talk about generalizations...
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Another atheist put together a short video that succinctly represents my views as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg
It's called "Why a care about religion". The folks I'm really hoping will see this are ones like Lukster and his friends that suggest that I'm somehow not entitled to an opinion on a subject that has such a large impact on my life despite my decision not enroll in the 'club'.
Same ole stuff there Chairboy. I don't recall anyone here ever suggesting you aren't entitled to your opinion. You get responses from me because you express your opinion often in a way that seems to solicit a response. If you'd rather I just ignored your opinion you have only to ask.
-
i don't use cash , i use my debit card, it dosn't say god or satan, it just has my banks name and some numbers on it.
and i don't have to fill my pockets with those funny round metal things they give you back when you use cash.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i don't use cash , i use my debit card, it dosn't say god or satan, it just has my banks name and some numbers on it.
and i don't have to fill my pockets with those funny round metal things they give you back when you use cash.
I got my first credit card (Sears) back in '78 I think it was. It had the number 666 in the middle of the number. If it wasn't the mark of the beast it was sure a burden I can do without now. :D
-
You are free to believe or not to believe in anything you want ..
Just don't try to trivialize my beliefs just because they maybe 180 from your non beliefs
Strange how some can't differentiate between a belief in the Divine and man's usually screwed up attempt to define it through organized religion .. they are not the same
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Just don't try to trivialize my beliefs just because they maybe 180 from your non beliefs
Let's list the offenses:
1. I trivialized your belief.
2. Your belief stripped me of constitutional rights, barred my children from groups, strips science from education and and more. Oh, and sprinkled in with the other things, you've trivialized atheism any number of times too. That's fine, but don't pee on me and tell me its raining.
I feel that there is a double standard between religionists and atheists. Atheists are expected to respect the sanctity of religious beliefs, to not assert that the religions are fiction, to not try and "convert" anyone, and to quietly go through life accepting the various slights and impositions produced by religion.
People who have religion, on the otherhand, are generally encouraged to allow atheists to stay alive, but anything past that is fair game. It's ok to make fun of stupid atheists, it's ok to try and convert them, it's ok to pigeonhole them and take away rights, and so on.
-
Religion is like your sexual preferences, do whatever makes you feel good, but don't throw it in my face. Everytime I see a bumper sticker "God loves you", or ear "In God we trust", I picture Laz runing around in stalkings and leather undies.:cry
-
Seems like Athiesim takes as much energy as being a born again Baptist.
Thank God I am agnostic.
-
To all the attacking, disrespectful atheist on here...If your son or daughter were to find religon in their life, how would you deal with that? Would you take the same cheap shots you put on us, and say them to your own kids?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Let's list the offenses:
1. I trivialized your belief.
2. Your belief stripped me of constitutional rights, barred my children from groups, strips science from education and and more. Oh, and sprinkled in with the other things, you've trivialized atheism any number of times too. That's fine, but don't pee on me and tell me its raining.
I feel that there is a double standard between religionists and atheists. Atheists are expected to respect the sanctity of religious beliefs, to not assert that the religions are fiction, to not try and "convert" anyone, and to quietly go through life accepting the various slights and impositions produced by religion.
People who have religion, on the otherhand, are generally encouraged to allow atheists to stay alive, but anything past that is fair game. It's ok to make fun of stupid atheists, it's ok to try and convert them, it's ok to pigeonhole them and take away rights, and so on.
you live in a country that was founded on a belief in a Divine Maker with the freedom to choose how to believe or not to believe but the fact is it was based on the belief that there IS such a GOD/Power/ Consciousness /Enlightenment /Good Force/whatever label u want to use..
sorry for all the "various slights and impositions produced by religion" you have to endure, must be terrible
ps
I am not trying to: "..make fun of stupid atheists ...convert them..pigeonhole them..take away rights" cause I really don't care if you dont believe, it's ur karma, good luck with it
-
Eagler: So you're ok with laws in various states that make it illegal for atheists to hold office?
I'm not just tilting at windmills here.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
To all the attacking, disrespectful atheist on here...If your son or daughter were to find religon in their life, how would you deal with that? Would you take the same cheap shots you put on us, and say them to your own kids?
I sure hope I'd handle it better than the various religionists I've met/heard of who have been in the equivalent situation except with their kids deciding to be atheist. In some cases, they've even cut off contact with the offending child.
I'll raise my kids with my beliefs, and if they choose religion, all the best. I suspect it's unlikely, it's pretty rare for people to convert once they've begun to apply standards of evidence to new concepts. You gotta get 'em young.
-
Those poor downtrodden atheists. Rise up and throw off the man before he feeds you to the lions. ;)
-
Sure, today it's my group that's ridiculed, sanctioned, and penalized. It may even become acceptable to imprison my kind in my lifetime if the current trend of religious involvement in government continues to increase.
If that happens, then I hope there will be people left to object when your group is in the crosshairs.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Sure, today it's my group that's ridiculed, sanctioned, and penalized. It may even become acceptable to imprison my kind in my lifetime if the current trend of religious involvement in government continues to increase.
If that happens, then I hope there will be people left to object when your group is in the crosshairs.
This may be news to you Chairboy but Christians around the world today are being persecuted for their faith even to the point of death. My "group" is in the crosshairs.
-
Then I guess I don't quite get why you'd be so quick to ridicule me and my concerns. I'd hesitate to use words like hypocrisy, but I'm having a difficult time finding a polite term that carries the same meaning.
Perhaps this will work: Your actions seem out of character for someone who is in a similar situation and from whom a certain level of consequent empathy would be expected.
Oooh, I shoulda been a poet.
-
Can't join the boyscouts if you profess your faith or be brutally murdered. It's hard for me to see a real comparison. I will acknowledge that the world just ain't always a very fair place. Wish it weren't so.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Eagler: So you're ok with laws in various states that make it illegal for atheists to hold office?
doesn't bother me a bit
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Sure, today it's my group that's ridiculed, sanctioned, and penalized. It may even become acceptable to imprison my kind in my lifetime if the current trend of religious involvement in government continues to increase.
If that happens, then I hope there will be people left to object when your group is in the crosshairs.
As Laz has already said, there are many laws on the books that IMHO are purely UN-constitutional.
I don't think you will be put in jail. Not for being an atheist. I for one would NOT support such an action. I would fight it.
Something that perhaps should be noted, the current trend of religious involvement in government is NOT new. It has ALWAYS been there. At times it has been more noticable, at others less.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
doesn't bother me a bit
Lukster, wrag, people like this is what I'm talking about.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Thank God I am agnostic.
dang near sig material right here.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Lukster, wrag, people like this is what I'm talking about.
SIR!
I have NEVER objected to your beliefs!
I did object to some of the methods you have used, and at times still use, when you communicate them.
In fact grouping me as you have in this post is, IMHO, a part of those methods used at times by you that I object to.
Go back and look at the threads in which I post a response. You will find I do NOT object to your beliefs, I do object to the methods you seem to use while communicating those beliefs.
IMHO You can say the same stuff WITHOUT using those methods!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
you live in a country that was founded on a belief in a Divine Maker with the freedom to choose how to believe or not to believe but the fact is it was based on the belief that there IS such a GOD/Power/ Consciousness /Enlightenment /Good Force/whatever label u want to use..
sorry for all the "various slights and impositions produced by religion" you have to endure, must be terrible
ps
I am not trying to: "..make fun of stupid atheists ...convert them..pigeonhole them..take away rights" cause I really don't care if you dont believe, it's ur karma, good luck with it
He also lives in a country that was founded on the genocide of its indigenous inhabitants. Do you want to go out and kill some injuns too?
I wonder how christians would feel if they were banned from holding a government position.
-
I am an upper class, straight, white, male christian who loves the USA....I am the most hated person on earth! lmao
-
Poor people need religion because their lives are so miserable that they would not be productive members of society if they didn't think they were going to go to paradise when they die.
Religion can be a good thing in America. It gives a code of conduct to those who are not ethical or educated enough to govern themselves.
'Don't worry, if you work hard, follow the rules, and give 10% of your money to the church, you'll get yours. It might not be in this life, but you'll be rich and live in paradise, and always be happy'.
But religion is here for two purposes. Anthropologists say that we as humans need to believe that we will somehow 'live on' after we die. The thought of just dying, and not existing, is hard the on the psyche. Also, religion is used for control of the population.
I was a Christian for many years. The thing that got me was this- If God is all mighty and all powerful, then why do the majority of people have to burn in a pit of lava? That silly 'free-will' answer never floated with me. I certainly wasn't going to follow a God that wasn't strong enough to defeat the devil and protect his 'children'. Might as well be a truck driver in Iraq with the Virginia National Guard as my escort.
It was at the same I was learning more and more about evolution and biology in college. "Hmmm, God sure took a strange and complex route when he made humans. Look at that, we share 98% of our DNA with chimps. Hey wait a sec, why do humans have remnants of a tail, and primitive gill slits when we are a fetus?"
So I'm quite content with the majority of the U.S. being religious. If it makes them happy (and they behave themselves), then its for the common good. Though I was a bit perturbed when GWB said "God told me to invade Iraq".
-
You guys got the wrong religion. This thread is not about Christians, it's about Atheists. Dang hijackers. ;)
-
Atheism isnt a religion, its a lack of religion.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Atheism isnt a religion, its a lack of religion.
I've heard that before, I ain't convinced, nor is the law of the land.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Atheism isnt a religion, its a lack of religion.
Is buddhism a religion?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Lukster, wrag, people like this is what I'm talking about.
our laws and rule of government are based off the belief in the Divine..
if you do not share that belief are you qualified for the job of public office to represent a huge majority of ppl who do believe?
IMO no
oh yeah .. now who is doing the:
"...it's ok to pigeonhole them "?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
our laws and rule of government are based off the belief in the Divine..
if you do not share that belief are you qualified for the job of public office to represent a huge majority of ppl who do believe?
Eagler, since when do we live in Americanastan? Before you get too carried away with religious fervor, re-read the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Is there a specific part of that sentence that is unclear?
-
sir, you are the one being carried away ...
do you not believe this country was founded on the belief of the Divine? They seem to mention it allot in all those old papers ...
so if someone does not share that, how is he qualified to work for an org that does?
-
i am going to execute each and every one of you with a sharpened marshmallow.
(after i finish this delicious wine)
you have been worned.
888
-
Originally posted by Eagler
sir, you are the one being carried away ...
do you not believe this country was founded on the belief of the Divine? They seem to mention it allot in all those old papers ...
so if someone does not share that, how is he qualified to work for an org that does?
Article 6 of the Constitution provides that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
No, ever, any. It's the most emphatic single sentence in the entire Constitution.
You're saying that it's A-OK that atheists cannot legally hold office in a number of states, and you claim that I'm overreacting?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Article 6 of the Constitution provides that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
No, ever, any. It's the most emphatic single sentence in the entire Constitution.
irregardless. the marshmallow threat stands.
you have veen warned.
8;
-
Originally posted by Eagler
sir, you are the one being carried away ...
do you not believe this country was founded on the belief of the Divine? They seem to mention it allot in all those old papers ...
so if someone does not share that, how is he qualified to work for an org that does?
This country was not founded on the belief of the devine. Belief of the devine was but one of many values that the founding fathers had in common. Values change. If they didn't, and those 'old papers' of which you speak weren't amended 27 times since their inception, we'd be living in a country where it would be legal for you to own other people, yet illegal for blacks and women to vote.
-
I feel pity for Atheists. When I ask people how they know God exists, I get very different answers. The ones like "I see God all around me" or "Do you believe the beauty of the universe could have happened without God?"... I just discard those. But, at least people with religion can look me in the eye and say they know God exists - they've touched God, or felt God, or whatever.
Atheists can't ever prove non-existence, but cling to their atheism anyway despite how empty the premise is.
I'm glad for Atheists, because they seperate themselves from us Agnostics and emphasize how rational Agnostics are. Thanks!
-
you arent listening are you.
marshmallow. pointed. ow.
hello? is this thing..thump.
-
Originally posted by Engine
I feel pity for Atheists. When I ask people how they know God exists, I get very different answers. The ones like "I see God all around me" or "Do you believe the beauty of the universe could have happened without God?"... I just discard those. But, at least people with religion can look me in the eye and say they know God exists - they've touched God, or felt God, or whatever.
Atheists can't ever prove non-existence, but cling to their atheism anyway despite how empty the premise is.
I'm glad for Atheists, because they seperate themselves from us Agnostics and emphasize how rational Agnostics are. Thanks!
oh...and if you are so touched then why are still calling yourself an agnostic?
(or are you speaking hypothetically...having not actually experienced this god as you think is revealed to the knowers) ?
-
Originally posted by Engine
I feel pity for Atheists. When I ask people how they know God exists, I get very different answers. The ones like "I see God all around me" or "Do you believe the beauty of the universe could have happened without God?"... I just discard those. But, at least people with religion can look me in the eye and say they know God exists - they've touched God, or felt God, or whatever.
Atheists can't ever prove non-existence, but cling to their atheism anyway despite how empty the premise is.
I'm glad for Atheists, because they seperate themselves from us Agnostics and emphasize how rational Agnostics are. Thanks!
While all this may well be true, it's still no reason to limit the rights of atheists. If this government is going to quiety persecute atheism because they may, at some point in the future, compromise the existing JUdeo-Christian power structure, then this government should be consistent in their intolerance and make Islam straight up illegal, because its members, representative or not of the majority, have already done far more than any other single group to undermine and compromise that very same Judeo-Christian power structure.
-
agnosticism does make sense, afterall how can one be completely sure about something one cannot experience with the five senses. I come from a family of agnostics yet I'm a person of faith. there is absolutely positively no doubt in my mind that there is a God and that he does indeed care for each one of us individually. I just don't see why he cares about most of you guys. that is the big God mystery to me.
-
Originally posted by JB88
oh...and if you are so touched then why are still calling yourself an agnostic?
(or are you speaking hypothetically...having not actually experienced this god as you think is revealed to the knowers) ?
I have no clue whether God exists. That's why I'm an agnostic. :)
I'm just saying I can't argue with a person who says they believe in God because they had some sort of contact. Maybe they did. It's silly to believe without knowing, though.
Also, in NYC many atheists are the same sort who believe secret government commandos blew up the WTC, or that we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima not to end the war earlier, but because car companies found out some guy there invented a car that runs on seawater. It's like a trendy club for them. "Down with the MAN, and my atheism is an extra in-your-face to you Christians!". It made me question atheism early.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Sorry, couldn't hear ya over the throbbin' beat of the rave music here at my huge gay party. Boy, I sure hope I can steal some more milk money from elementary students to pay for my cocaine habit (btw, snorting it off the american flag is a huge kick). Maybe I can sue some churches to get more money so I can go out and have a bunch of abortions...
<
aahhh your making all that up, your in the closet way to much of the time to have that much fun...
-
Originally posted by Neubob
While all this may well be true make Islam straight up illegal, because its members, representative or not of the majority, have already done far more than any other single group to undermine and compromise that very same Judeo-Christian power structure.
there is no need to persecute anyone, least of all moslems. islam's brightest possible future is right here in America. that's why their "leaders" hate us so much. they recognize the potential for American culture to undermine their agenda for creating a world caliphite. that is why we must be inclusive especially with moslems. scrutinized closely islam and America is really a nice fit especially with liberals. I'll eloborate please bear with me.
moslems like to dress in flowing robes and wear sandals. liberals like to wear dresses irrespective of gender.
regarding tolerance, with both liberals and moslems it's "my way or the highway" moslems would make great congressional representatives and even senators from any "blue" state. in time they would become so embroilled with "issues" and securing their "rights"that they would forget all about explosive harnesses and 72 virgins. they would need backup of course which would increase immigration from the middle east, further draining the manpower over there so we could steamroll them in "da hood" with much less effort.
moslems can't have sex with women prior to marriage but sex with adolescent boys is perfectly acceptable, in fact encouraged. wouldn't you know it, just like in the "blue" states!! if a moslem woman is caught having premarital sex she is stoned. liberal women also have to be stoned when having sex, look at who they must have as partners.
there is enough commonality here to solve two problems.
1. there is the pressing problem that militant islam represents. the solution is Americanization (it always is, take note euros).
2. it gives the liberals a whole new group to fret and fawn over. now I ask you, could anything be more perfect?
-
Originally posted by Engine
I feel pity for Atheists. When I ask people how they know God exists, I get very different answers. The ones like "I see God all around me" or "Do you believe the beauty of the universe could have happened without God?"... I just discard those. But, at least people with religion can look me in the eye and say they know God exists - they've touched God, or felt God, or whatever.
Atheists can't ever prove non-existence, but cling to their atheism anyway despite how empty the premise is.
I'm glad for Atheists, because they seperate themselves from us Agnostics and emphasize how rational Agnostics are. Thanks!
As an Atheist I always find it fairly amusing how a theist always insists Atheists have to "prove" the non-existance of god(s)...I've always thought religious people (even Agnostics - who lets face it are a little too chicken to make a decision on the subject...and I should know I'm married to one) had to have "faith" in or believe in the existance of a higher power(s).
The burdon of "proof" is always on the believer...
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by storch
there is no need to persecute anyone, least of all moslems. islam's brightest possible future is right here in America. that's why their "leaders" hate us so much. they recognize the potential for American culture to undermine their agenda for creating a world caliphite. that is why we must be inclusive especially with moslems. scrutinized closely islam and America is really a nice fit especially with liberals. I'll eloborate please bear with me.
moslems like to dress in flowing robes and wear sandals. liberals like to wear dresses irrespective of gender.
regarding tolerance, with both liberals and moslems it's "my way or the highway" moslems would make great congressional representatives and even senators from any "blue" state. in time they would become so embroilled with "issues" and securing their "rights"that they would forget all about explosive harnesses and 72 virgins. they would need backup of course which would increase immigration from the middle east, further draining the manpower over there so we could steamroll them in "da hood" with much less effort.
moslems can't have sex with women prior to marriage but sex with adolescent boys is perfectly acceptable, in fact encouraged. wouldn't you know it, just like in the "blue" states!! if a moslem woman is caught having premarital sex she is stoned. liberal women also have to be stoned when having sex, look at who they must have as partners.
there is enough commonality here to solve two problems.
1. there is the pressing problem that militant islam represents. the solution is Americanization (it always is, take note euros).
2. it gives the liberals a whole new group to fret and fawn over. now I ask you, could anything be more perfect?
I was trying to pose an absurd parallel, Storch. I don't think they should be persecuted here either. Not so much because I care about them, but because when one group is systematically marginalized, it's a slippery slope to more universal persecution. I'm not a Muslim, nor an Athiest(another silly agnostic), but I know that I'm also not that far down the line as far as people that may be stepped on by the government.
-
chair... any unconstitutional law is just that. You praise halo when I have said exactly the same thing... you must believe in something in order to live some kind of moral life... call it love of your family and fellow man.. that can be your god. That is a power that is all encompassing but can not be measured. it is god. In that you can trust... or "in god we trust" pretty simple really.
What you do is demonize religion and try to take any reference to god from our government... I want a government that has a god... something that is moral.
Now... moral... that is often defined by the people in the country... it is unconstitutional in my opinion to make drugs illegal or to have seat belt laws and a miriad of other things including most gun laws but...
These are not the work of people who believe in "god" per se.
the athiest religion is a very tiny fraction of the population but I bet they are just as prone as anyone else to make moral laws... asking for "god" to be removed is a good example... they do it on "moral" grounds... they are offended and they feel.... most of them.. that religion is the root of all evil.
They are just as bad or worse than the worst snake hanling fundamenatlist as far as my life is concerned... I like reference to god in my government... I think that a government that thinks it is god is far worse.
As for the athiest not being able to hold office... that is illegal in my opinion but.... geeze... look at all the violations of the constitution we all live under.
lazs
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
As an Atheist I always find it fairly amusing how a theist always insists Atheists have to "prove" the non-existance of god(s)...I've always thought religious people (even Agnostics - who lets face it are a little too chicken to make a decision on the subject...and I should know I'm married to one) had to have "faith" in or believe in the existance of a higher power(s).
The burdon of "proof" is always on the believer...
Tronsky
I'm not a theist, that's why I'm an agnostic. The difference between myself and an atheist is that I don't flatter myself by presuming to make a decision on something I can't possibly know.
Making a decision on something so important without evidence one way or the other is a bit foolish, no?
-
Originally posted by Engine
I'm not a theist, that's why I'm an agnostic. The difference between myself and an atheist is that I don't flatter myself by presuming to make a decision on something I can't possibly know.
Making a decision on something so important without evidence one way or the other is a bit foolish, no?
Oh I don't know. You don't know you'll live to see the sun rise tomorrow but I bet you make provision for it.
-
Well in my case the absence of evidence makes it easy...
Tronsky
-
Engine, what's your stance on the Easter Bunny? How about Santa Claus?
But that's not really even the point, despite the best efforts of the threadjackers. The point of my original message was to draw attention to the systematic, unconstitutional discrimination against atheists that so many people in our country (represented very highly here) tacitly approve of. Look at Eagler, he sees no problem whatsoever with keeping atheists out of office. For every reasonable lukster, wrag, and Laz in public, theres a few Eaglers.
If you aren't willing to protect this part of the constitution, how strong is the rest of the document? Is our commitment to our country limited to flying a flag on the 4th of July? Or do we really believe in the principles on which this nation was founded?
-
Originally posted by lukster
Oh I don't know. You don't know you'll live to see the sun rise tomorrow but I bet you make provision for it.
Certainly do. It's a fairly safe bet, since it's risen every day of our lives. That's something you have evidence for, whereas with God you have no evidence.
Chairboy: Very, very, very unlikely the Easter Bunny exists. It's fairly safe to say the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, as a rational adult. However, I wouldn't go ahead and make it part of my deepest core religious belief system, like atheists do with God.
I think you're being a bit alarmist. I strongly doubt atheists will ever be rounded up in concentration camps in the US, but I do agree that it would be extremely un-American to limit the rights of Atheists based on their (lack of) religious beliefs.
-
Originally posted by Engine
I think you're being a bit alarmist. I strongly doubt atheists will ever be rounded up in concentration camps in the US, but I do agree that it would be extremely un-American to limit the rights of Atheists based on their (lack of) religious beliefs.
You might be right about the first part, but you've made a slight mistake on the second one: It's not that it WOULD be unamerican (implying "if it were to happen"), its "IS" unamerican, and IS happening right now.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
our laws and rule of government are based off the belief in the Divine..
if you do not share that belief are you qualified for the job of public office to represent a huge majority of ppl who do believe?
IMO no
oh yeah .. now who is doing the:
"...it's ok to pigeonhole them "?
I served as a decorated public servant, never was my opinion asked, nobody cared because I was doing a good job. Although everyone at my dept knew, I refused to swear in "so help me god" and was always read an alternative admonishment in court... I was in court a-lot too, every DA, judge and lawyer knew.
Nobody ever said 1 word to me about it because it just didn't matter.
Religion is an opinion, to bar people from jobs because they have a different opinion is a bad thing... all you need to know is if they can do the job.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
our laws and rule of government are based off the belief in the Divine..
if you do not share that belief are you qualified for the job of public office to represent a huge majority of ppl who do believe?
IMO no
oh yeah .. now who is doing the:
"...it's ok to pigeonhole them "?
A majority of people in the US are white (or is it Latino yet? Seriously, I'm wondering). Does that mean black people are not qualified for public office?
Dug yourself deep. :)
-
Do atheist hate Bill Clinton? After being caught cheating on the first lady in the oval office, President Clinton said to the world, "This is between myself, my family and MY GOD"........So do you have the same anamocity towards him as you do towards the rest of us?
-
meh, cav, I've seen better bait.
-
Originally posted by Engine
Certainly do. It's a fairly safe bet, since it's risen every day of our lives. That's something you have evidence for, whereas with God you have no evidence.
Chairboy: Very, very, very unlikely the Easter Bunny exists. It's fairly safe to say the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, as a rational adult. However, I wouldn't go ahead and make it part of my deepest core religious belief system, like atheists do with God.
I think you're being a bit alarmist. I strongly doubt atheists will ever be rounded up in concentration camps in the US, but I do agree that it would be extremely un-American to limit the rights of Atheists based on their (lack of) religious beliefs.
Some (myself included) will argue that there is plenty of evidence to support belief in God.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
meh, cav, I've seen better bait.
I'm not baiting you at all...Im asking you a serious question...Do you have these same feelings towards Bill Clinton because his belief in the divine?
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I'm not baiting you at all...Im asking you a serious question...Do you have these same feelings towards Bill Clinton because his belief in the divine?
I think Clinton was an ass, but it's not because of his religious beliefs. Despite your constant attempts to characterize me as a christian-hater, that's simply not true. Re-read my posts, and you'll see that my problem is with the unconstitutional nature of laws that use religion against atheists or to control other people.
Hold on.... are you assuming I'm a democrat? Is that the direction you're heading? HAHAHAHAHA!
Awesome, that's fantastic.
-
Im not calling you a democrat or Republican...I was simply curious what you thought about Bill Clinton and his religous beliefs...nothing more, nothing less
-
Just like Bush, his religion is his own business, as long as he doesn't use it as a club to pass special legislation.
What does that have to do laws making it illegal for atheists to hold office? What's your opinion on that subject, if you'll indulge a request to get back ontopic.
-
You aren't the only one in this country being oppressed Chairboy. I'm a conservative and believe that people should earn their way in this life, raise their children to be responsible and considerate of others, and help others whom they deem deserving. However, a large chunk of my earnings is taken from me involuntarily to support people and programs which I would not. Like I said, life ain't always fair.
-
Lukster, are you suggesting that I should "just lie back and enjoy it"? That's not how I'm raising my kids.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Some (myself included) will argue that there is plenty of evidence to support belief in God.
If your argument is "I was looking at a cornfield, and the clear blue sky, and nothing this majestic could possibly have happened without God", then that's about as strong an argument as atheists use - not very strong. :)
If you don't mind my asking, how do you know?
-
But that's not really even the point, despite the best efforts of the threadjackers. The point of my original message was to draw attention to the systematic, unconstitutional discrimination against atheists that so many people in our country (represented very highly here) tacitly approve of. Look at Eagler, he sees no problem whatsoever with keeping atheists out of office. For every reasonable lukster, wrag, and Laz in public, theres a few Eaglers.
I agreed with you on that also and you didnt even mention me! :cry
Just teasing Chairboy! :D
-
Originally posted by Engine
If your argument is "I was looking at a cornfield, and the clear blue sky, and nothing this majestic could possibly have happened without God", then that's about as strong an argument as atheists use - not very strong. :)
If you don't mind my asking, how do you know?
Maybe you should let me make my own argument?
Fact is I don't think I "know". I do believe however and the evidence is everything that is. I don't believe the universe came from nothing of it's own volition. That does not seem possible to me. I also can't accept that the universe has always just been. It needed a beginning and therefore a creator.
-
Just like Bush, his religion is his own business, as long as he doesn't use it as a club to pass special legislation.
I don't think that is a very reasonable request. Let's look at it this way. Chairboy if you were elected to public office, would you......attempt to pass legislation that was based on or in part on your own personal beliefs? Would you be against legislation that was contrary to your personal beliefs? For me, I would answer yes, and yes to those questions. I could not, with a clear conscience, vote to pass legislation that went against my personal beliefs.
So why do you want politicians to not stick with their personal beliefs and act accordingly? Just wondering.
*edit* :rofl I should NOT keep typing while the wife is talking to me! :D Boy did I mess this one up. :D
-
Originally posted by lukster
Maybe you should let me make my own argument?
Fact is I don't think I "know". I do believe however and the evidence is everything that is. I don't believe the universe came from nothing of it's own volition. That does not seem possible to me. I also can't accept that the universe has always just been. It needed a beginning and therefore a creator.
So... you can't accept that the universe has always been.... but you can accept the same of a creator...
Okie dokie
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So... you can't accept that the universe has always been.... but you can accept the same of a creator...
Okie dokie
Yes, because I am familiar with the physical universe and have observed it's nature of cause and effect. I think it only natural to believe it's origin must have come from something of a different nature. I do realize that my understanding of my existence may be so incomplete that I am incapable of even beginning to know what the universe is, much less God.
-
Seems you just added another step to the chain of regression.
My last question (or first as the case may be) ends with, "What happened before then?"
Your last question is, "Who created the creator?"
and the answer to both is, "I don't know."
-
Ok... so the core of this whole thing is that in some state somewhere there is a law that says athiests can't hold office?
Ok... that is wrong. I believe in god and the constitution and I say that is wrong.
Now, how is my beliefe in god harming anyone? How is my wanting "in god we trust" on the money harming anyone?
since the constituion only says that it is unconstitutional for the state to have a religion there is no problem.
It would seem to me that if anything.... the idea of having "in god we trust" on the money would be something we could all just vote on... majority rules... no harm no foul.
Everyone is free to decide what the phrase "in god we trust" means to them... As I said... it might just be a belief in the good things in man. In morality... it might mean allah or jesus or that mormon guy... whatever you wish.... love... your children... you are free to interpret it any way you like and no one can punish you for your defenistion.
it really is that simple.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Engine
Atheists can't ever prove non-existence, but cling to their atheism anyway despite how empty the premise is.
It's pretty easy actually -- take any two different monotheistic religions and believe in them completely. Bingo: No gods. Mission accomplished(TM).
Religious people are godless atheists about every religion but theirs. Atheists just go the one extra.
As to an empty premise -- I'm confused: what's empty about "there is no god"? In some respects universe is far more amazing and beautiful without a god than with one. With a god, everything is easily explained and par for the course. Without the use of a celestial corps of engineers (and a cute little song in the German language) the whole thing becomes mind-boggling amazing.
Unless you're on about the impossibilitiy of proving the non-existence of something. But then again you can't ever prove the non-existence of the invisible purple duck in the corner of your room, but I think most of the BBS would rule it out as unlikely on the balance of evidence. And most aren't really going to lose sleep over it either.
And indeed the religious can't ever prove that their religion is The One True Religion(TM) because they can't prove that Thor and Guan Yin are pants and don't exist. Which is another point against the religious too.
I'm an atheist based on the evidence at hand: but I'm an agnostic at the heart of it. Anyone with good sound evidence of a god existing could sway me, but they've tried a lot over the years, and so far I'm atheistic. No god is the best fit, especially given all the different religions in the world.
There's three alternatives: only one set has got it right, all of them have got it partly right, or none of them have got it right. Most religious people are adamant that all the other religions of the world are just making it up. So given that even the religious insist that most religons are making it all up, why not give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they've got it partly right, and apply Occam's razor at the same time, ending up with the simplest explanation: that they're all making it all up, all the time. ;)
Indeed atheism is the consensus opinion that best fits most religious people's beliefs, on average, in that they all agree that most religions are absolute pants. So averaging it out, we're all atheists, especially the religious people.
The evidence I've seen so far points to God as being unecessary to the running of anything other than many people's psychological longing for a grown up to be in control of things and for there to be life after death. Gods seem to be a social fiction. A rule of thumb: anything statement involving a god is more honestly reduced to the statement: "I have no idea...".
"God created the universe" is more honestly rendered: "I have no idea how the universe was created".
"God will judge us all in the afterlife" is more honestly rendered: "I have no idea what will happen when I die".
Sure we have a belief in how the universe was created or what happens when we die -- but there's nothing concrete to back it up. Why bother anthropomorphising ignorance into a human-esque god? It's interesting to say the least that people will often say "God knows" when they really haven't got a clue.
Well I have to take the invisible purple duck for a walk now...
And to all the atheists out there:
Goodnight and God bless! :aok
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Seems you just added another step to the chain of regression.
My last question (or first as the case may be) ends with, "What happened before then?"
Your last question is, "Who created the creator?"
and the answer to both is, "I don't know."
There you go putting words into my mouth. Your question appears to be more of a statement than anything else. Can you not simply take what I offered at face value?
I'll answer the question you claimed to have asked anyhow. "Before" only applies where time exists. Time is a part of our universe but God does not exist within it's constraints. I know that's a difficult concept to accept.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I think Clinton was an ass, but it's not because of his religious beliefs. Despite your constant attempts to characterize me as a christian-hater, that's simply not true. Re-read my posts, and you'll see that my problem is with the unconstitutional nature of laws that use religion against atheists or to control other people.
Hold on.... are you assuming I'm a democrat? Is that the direction you're heading? HAHAHAHAHA!
Awesome, that's fantastic.
I got a ticket once for not wearing a seatbelt. I was riding with someone when it happened.
I called the ACLU. I expressed that I felt the seatbelt law was unconstitutional. The attorney I was speaking with agreed. I said lets fight it! He said not likely, yes the law was unconstitutional, BUT... it was a popular law, AND there was NO MONEY in fighting it so the ACLU was NOT interested?????????????????????
Sadly there are a lot of laws that are such. Sadly it can be very difficult, and frustrating, to get others to fight such laws with you.
Interestingly, after having my share of accidents, I always wear a seat belt when I drive. I do it by choice. I also required my offspring to wear em when they rode with me.
I still think the seatbelt laws are unconstitutional!
-
Originally posted by lukster
There you go putting words into my mouth. Your question appears to be more of a statement than anything else. Can you not simply take what I offered at face value?
I'll answer the question you claimed to have asked anyhow. "Before" only applies where time exists. Time is a part of our universe but God does not exist within it's constraints. I know that's a difficult concept to accept.
I did not mean to put words in your mouth. Every inquisitive child asks "Who created God, Mommy?" My assumption was that you were inquisitive... sorry
And the concept of no before fits very well in big bang theory.
-
Regarding the main topic, I would agree that religious tests for public service are not constitutional. I agree in principle with several points in the video, even though I am no longer an atheist. I did find the fellow painting with an awfully wide brush of "religion" as his vague antagonist, a tactic equal to those used in any traditional religious rivalry.
Regarding the peripheral discussion of theism vis a vis atheism, it is hard to imagine that conclusive verification will ever be found from nature to "prove" the existence of the Creator.
On the other hand, there is a lot of "evidence" that points to the possibility. What perfect luck that the moon, only 240,000 miles away from earth, appears the identical size in the sky as the massive sun, 93,000,000 miles away. The sun is 388 times farther away from earth, but the moon's disk perfectly covers the sun during solar eclipses. Not only that, but the orbits of the earth and moon permit eclipse shadows to fall on earth, to be viewed by sentient beings that can appreciate and marvel at such a lucky chance. Well, well. Lucky, lucky us. No other planet-moon system in the solar system attains such a perfect eclipse.
Proof vs possibility. I think that is a key difference in view here. Proof? Not conclusive. Possibility? Fairly good.
As a young atheist I wanted to know two main things.
What is the point of existence?
What is the point of my life in this existence?
During the time that I was pondering these questions, I was learning in Calculus that any finite number compared to infinity appears so small that it approaches zero in comparison. If my transient finite life of 70-80 years was going to wind up in everlasting annihilation, then what really is the point of it all? That question led me to the "possibility" that there may be an eternal Creator, and following from that, an eternal aspect to life. Not proof, but possibility. From then on for several years I went through no small struggle to find more clarity about these issues.
So the bottom line for me is that I found a personal, intimate relationship with the Creator via channels in my life that I find more real than this bulletin board. My relationship is not based on what someone else tried to prove to me, but based on my personal willingness to communicate with the Creator as a submissive creature. I certainly cannot prove to you that God exists. Au contraire! You would have to let Him prove to you directly that He exists, as a submissive creature.
And if you are not interested, hey, free country... Just to add that for a person of sound mind who persistently ignores the opportunity to meet the Author of life, there may be a persistent consequence unrelated to the constitution.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I did not mean to put words in your mouth. Every inquisitive child asks "Who created God, Mommy?" My assumption was that you were inquisitive... sorry
And the concept of no before fits very well in big bang theory.
It's natural to want to apply the same "rules" of our space/time to a creator of the universe but by necessity I say that the creator of space and time must be different in a way that defies conventional understanding. We've had this conversation before.
-
Originally posted by hacksaw1
Regarding the main topic, I would agree that religious tests for public service are not constitutional. I agree in principle with several points in the video, even though I am no longer an atheist. I did find the fellow painting with an awfully wide brush of "religion" as his vague antagonist, a tactic equal to those used in any traditional religious rivalry.
Regarding the peripheral discussion of theism vis a vis atheism, it is hard to imagine that conclusive verification will ever be found from nature to "prove" the existence of the Creator.
On the other hand, there is a lot of "evidence" that points to the possibility. What perfect luck that the moon, only 240,000 miles away from earth, appears the identical size in the sky as the massive sun, 93,000,000 miles away. The sun is 388 times farther away from earth, but the moon's disk perfectly covers the sun during solar eclipses. Not only that, but the orbits of the earth and moon permit eclipse shadows to fall on earth, to be viewed by sentient beings that can appreciate and marvel at such a lucky chance. Well, well. Lucky, lucky us. No other planet-moon system in the solar system attains such a perfect eclipse.
Proof vs possibility. I think that is a key difference in view here. Proof? Not conclusive. Possibility? Fairly good.
As a young atheist I wanted to know two main things.
What is the point of existence?
What is the point of my life in this existence?
During the time that I was pondering these questions, I was learning in Calculus that any finite number compared to infinity appears so small that it approaches zero in comparison. If my transient finite life of 70-80 years was going to wind up in everlasting annihilation, then what really is the point of it all? That question led me to the "possibility" that there may be an eternal Creator, and following from that, an eternal aspect to life. Not proof, but possibility. From then on for several years I went through no small struggle to find more clarity about these issues.
So the bottom line for me is that I found a personal, intimate relationship with the Creator via channels in my life that I find more real than this bulletin board. My relationship is not based on what someone else tried to prove to me, but based on my personal willingness to communicate with the Creator as a submissive creature. I certainly cannot prove to you that God exists. Au contraire! You would have to let Him prove to you directly that He exists, as a submissive creature.
And if you are not interested, hey, free country... Just to add that for a person of sound mind who persistently ignores the opportunity to meet the Author of life, there may be a persistent consequence unrelated to the constitution.
Sir IMHO well put.
IMHO this is NOT an attempt to force a viewpoint on others. It is, IMHO, more of an explaination regarding a personal view.
BTW If the law posted by Chairboy actually exist, AND is actually being enforced, then I agree............ it is unconstitutional and should be removed.
I'm further inclined to think it might take only someone challenging this law in court to see it struck down.
-
Dead, Aquashrimp, Neubob, Chairboy and others kind of sum it up for me.
I was brought up religious. In fact in my family I was the last of my siblings to attend mass every Sunday. But then I stopped, oddly enough coincident with my visit to a red state in the USA. I'm not sure if I ever bought properly into the God thing since I am essentially a questioner. Why, why, why?
I don't label myself as atheist, non believer, agnostic etc. I am not a member of any club. I just came to the conclusion based on everyday evidence that there is no God and in truth such a thing could not exist. I can understand why people believe in God. We all like to believe we have some purpose in the world. Some more than others. My purpose, I believe, is not unlike that of other creatures in this world. To survive and to ensure the survival of my species.
It would be nice to have a God. The thought that someone out there has your best interests at heart is comforting. Hence religion.
When you do finally let go the God myth. It is kind of relaxing. The further away you get from the idea of a supernatural being controlling our life the more absurd the notion seems. It's a 'road to Damascus' moment to coin a phrase. Seeing supposedly intelligent, rational people devoting their lives to a supernatural myth is unfortunate.
The biggest irony about religion as far as I'm concerned is that religion itself helps prove the non existence of a God. There are so many religions and variations within religions all convinced of the rightness of their viewpoint. Rationally and logically we know they can't all be right.
All you have to do is take the next step in logic and realise none of them are right including your version. If there was a God there would be one religion. If there was a God and it visited the Earth, it would be rejected by most religious people because quite simply it didn't represent their version of the myth. Actually God would have to form a new religion just complicating the whole problem.
Here endeth my homily.
-
dead and cpxx... I see your point and I think that with most religions... the only thing they get right is that there is a god.
I think that all the crap they add to that does not change that point..... I just won't play the god game by their rules.
what they do in god's name tho does not affect my belief in god. I would never say that I have the answer as to how god want's me or us to live. I think that it is apparent and that even atheists feel it and live that way or feel "guilty" distortions do not make the root idea wrong for me.
Like you cpxx I like to ask why but am content to live as my god guides me and wait till later to see what it is all about.
lazs
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
I am essentially a questioner. Why, why, why?
I don't label myself as atheist, non believer, agnostic etc. I am not a member of any club. I just came to the conclusion based on everyday evidence that there is no God and in truth such a thing could not exist.
Sounds like you stopped asking why when you came to your conclusion, a questioner no longer.
-
yep... how can you stop asking how this universe came to be and the beauty and nobleness around you and.....
how it is that you are able to appreciate it? How is it that you are given the strength to do things or bear things that you do not have the strength to do or bear?
How can a person who has lived life fully and experianced the good and the awful not believe in a god?
in any case... it is pretty moot. we are guided by him and will someday see what it is all about.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
It's the bi-monthly "I'm not really anti-religious but resent religion's attempt to influence the law-making process in order to foist their beliefs on me and and thus install a theocratic government, reinstitute the Inquisition, and carry out human sacrifices under the guidelines of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" thread.
Did I go over the top? I can never tell.
:rofl :rofl naw, man, you're ok.:lol
-
Originally posted by lukster
Sounds like you stopped asking why when you came to your conclusion, a questioner no longer.
Yes, I stopped questioning and became a conservative:D
But seriously, eventually you must decide what you believe. Well I think so anyway. It doesn't mean I don't wonder how we came to be. It could be that 'God' is not so much a being as a process, not so much sentient as a matter of physics. We could go on delving deeper into philosophical and metaphysical arguments and ideas as to what the concept of God should be. Perhaps God is in fact the universe, a macro God as opposed to a micro human-like God.
The undisputable fact is that in terms of the universe we are not even a millionth of a megapixel. The notion that we as individuals are important to a God which holds sway in a universe this big is frankly ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
The undisputable fact is that in terms of the universe we are not even a millionth of a megapixel. The notion that we as individuals are important to a God which holds sway in a universe this big is frankly ridiculous.
Only when your God is a being bound by the same constraints as we humans find ourselves to be. It would seem ridiculous for a human god to be capable even of awareness of every living being, much less know their intimate secrets. However, for a being capable of creating all of time and space it may not be so ridiculous.
-
Chair likes to stay in his head. I want that boy safely tethered to the space shuttle for one hour in zero G. .. and then let him get back to us on his perspective of human existance...
-
I sure hope my perspective wouldn't be limited to the simplistic view of the universe that religions offer. Nature is far more interesting without the wizard behind the scenes pulling levers and adjusting valves.
-
Just food for thought for people that think politicans should swear on the bible...
It's not required for the armed forces when you affirm the oath. No bible, koran, or any other holy book required.
Why should it be good enough to agree to lay down your life for the country without needing a bible, but not good enough to hold a policy making position?
Shennanigans.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I sure hope my perspective wouldn't be limited to the simplistic view of the universe that religions offer. Nature is far more interesting without the wizard behind the scenes pulling levers and adjusting valves.
That's a pretty distorted view of my beliefs. No puppet master behind the curtain pulling strings. Rather free will given to live in a wonderous place. Though the seeking of one's creator is somewhat analogous to those seeking their courage, brain and heart in the story you mentioned.
-
Originally posted by lukster
That's a pretty distorted view of my beliefs. No puppet master behind the curtain pulling strings. Rather free will given to live in a wonderous place. Though the seeking of one's creator is somewhat analogous to those seeking their courage, brain and heart in the story you mentioned.
There's a paradox for that statement.
The statement that if God knows exactly what you did, are doing, and will be doing is incompatible with the concept of free will.
In the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices.
However, if all of your choices are already known, then it becomes determinism. Determinism states that free will is an illusion.
-
I sure hope my perspective wouldn't be limited to the simplistic view of the universe that religions offer. - Chair
Your view of the universe is incomplete. Your view is no more valid than anyone else's.
-
Originally posted by indy007
There's a paradox for that statement.
The statement that if God knows exactly what you did, are doing, and will be doing is incompatible with the concept of free will.
In the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices.
However, if all of your choices are already known, then it becomes determinism. Determinism states that free will is an illusion.
It's possible that our existence is an illusion. By that I simply mean that it is not be what we suppose it to be.
However, free will is only important if I am faced with a choice between good or evil and am able to act based on my beliefs and convictions.
-
cpxx I think you are talking about the difference between a theist and a diest... the person in your example who thinks the univese is god for instance is a diest. He may or may not have a personal god but it has a very limited influence in his life.
In that case the diest would have no problem with "in god we trust" on his money. I don't either.
I am agnostic about the various religions. I have no idea if they are correct in all their rules and am content to wait and find out. I feel that they are probly wrong and that god is both more complex and less rulebound than any of them think.
I believe in a personal god that I can draw strength from.
lazs
-
Originally posted by hacksaw1
On the other hand, there is a lot of "evidence" that points to the possibility. What perfect luck that the moon, only 240,000 miles away from earth, appears the identical size in the sky as the massive sun, 93,000,000 miles away. The sun is 388 times farther away from earth, but the moon's disk perfectly covers the sun during solar eclipses. Not only that, but the orbits of the earth and moon permit eclipse shadows to fall on earth, to be viewed by sentient beings that can appreciate and marvel at such a lucky chance. Well, well. Lucky, lucky us. No other planet-moon system in the solar system attains such a perfect eclipse.
Proof vs possibility. I think that is a key difference in view here. Proof? Not conclusive. Possibility? Fairly good.
This sort of seemingly amazingly luck is essentially arises from a misuse of probability theory:
Once, during a public lecture, Richard Feynman was trying to explain why one must not verify an idea using the same data that suggested the idea in the first place. Seeming to wander off the subject, Feynman began talking about license plates. "You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in
the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!"
The next time you go to the shops, consider all the amazingly lucky coincidences that happen for that journey to occur exactly that way. Indeed the chances against anything anywhere happening are so staggering that any event is so amazingly improbable, absolutely nothing should happen at all ever. Don't forget the groceries.
And oddly enough, the moon used to be a lot closer, and is moving farther out by about 3.8cm a year, so exact solar eclipses are even more lucky because they've only been around for a while (in terms of the solar system), and they won't last forever. If it's evidence of a design, it's also evidence of a bit of a cowboy job.
Besides which, there's the somewhat odder "evidence" in "creation" as well. In the unlikely event of my meeting the "creator" my opening question will have to be: "What's with this beetle fetish of yours? Why all the different types beetles? I mean, 5-8 million different species seems a bit excessive, if not downright obsessive."
As a young atheist I wanted to know two main things.
What is the point of existence?
What is the point of my life in this existence?
That's essentially sloppy thinking. Biology 101: you are basically here to reproduce. You are one possible iteration of one branch of DNA. The real question is: why is reproduction the point of existence? (Bonus question for the religious: why has your deity set it up like that? Is "creation" your deity's stash of *ahem* art magazines?)
Further interesting questions for you to ask would have been:
Why should there be a point to existence?
Why should there be a set point to my life in this existence?
Why do I feel the need for "someone" or "something" else to define what my purpose is or what I should do next?
But you're looking for the deep philosophical idea of what your individual purpose is -- so the atheistic "philosophical" answer is: there isn't a universal, fixed "point" to your individual existence, because there isn't a plan or a grand scheme of things. No one is in charge. The point of your existence is entirely up to you. What do you want it to be?
During the time that I was pondering these questions, I was learning in Calculus that any finite number compared to infinity appears so small that it approaches zero in comparison. If my transient finite life of 70-80 years was going to wind up in everlasting annihilation, then what really is the point of it all? That question led me to the "possibility" that there may be an eternal Creator, and following from that, an eternal aspect to life. Not proof, but possibility. From then on for several years I went through no small struggle to find more clarity about these issues.
Hmmm: You can't see the point of life and it's very short, ergo there's possibly a god? Holy non sequitur, Batman!
It sounds suspiciously like your eternal creator is founded on that afterlife longing and the need for a cosmic grown up as I mentioned in my other post.
Also if any finite number compared to infinity appears so small that it approaches zero, why has the creator only stuck us on the one planet?
So the bottom line for me is that I found a personal, intimate relationship with the Creator via channels in my life that I find more real than this bulletin board. My relationship is not based on what someone else tried to prove to me, but based on my personal willingness to communicate with the Creator as a submissive creature. I certainly cannot prove to you that God exists. Au contraire! You would have to let Him prove to you directly that He exists, as a submissive creature.
I have a personal, intimate relationship with my creators. It even goes as far as to have just gone on holiday with them. Much like the fabled Xian creator, they too move in mysterious ways, but I just put that down to old age and incontinence. I don't need to communicate with them as a submissive creature, yet I have lots of direct proof of their existence, as well as sightings by other people, singularly and in groups. Despite all this, I won't be trying to get you to worship them. But hey, if you want to, do PM me and I'll give you their address and what sort of sacrifices they like.
And if you are not interested, hey, free country... Just to add that for a person of sound mind who persistently ignores the opportunity to meet the Author of life, there may be a persistent consequence unrelated to the constitution.
Twisted little monkey that I am, I regularly applaud sunsets and shout "Author! Author!" loudly. I have yet to get a response from any author though. I suspect that's probably because like all improvisational theatre, life doesn't have one.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
This sort of seemingly amazingly luck is essentially arises from a misuse of probability theory:
The next time you go to the shops, consider all the amazingly lucky coincidences that happen for that journey to occur exactly that way. Indeed the chances against anything anywhere happening are so staggering that any event is so amazingly improbable, absolutely nothing should happen at all ever. Don't forget the groceries.
And oddly enough, the moon used to be a lot closer, and is moving farther out by about 3.8cm a year, so exact solar eclipses are even more lucky because they've only been around for a while (in terms of the solar system), and they won't last forever. If it's evidence of a design, it's also evidence of a bit of a cowboy job.
Besides which, there's the somewhat odder "evidence" in "creation" as well. In the unlikely event of my meeting the "creator" my opening question will have to be: "What's with this beetle fetish of yours? Why all the different types beetles? I mean, 5-8 million different species seems a bit excessive, if not downright obsessive."
That's essentially sloppy thinking. Biology 101: you are basically here to reproduce. You are one possible iteration of one branch of DNA. The real question is: why is reproduction the point of existence? (Bonus question for the religious: why has your deity set it up like that? Is "creation" your deity's stash of *ahem* art magazines?)
Further interesting questions for you to ask would have been:
Why should there be a point to existence?
Why should there be a set point to my life in this existence?
Why do I feel the need for "someone" or "something" else to define what my purpose is or what I should do next?
But you're looking for the deep philosophical idea of what your individual purpose is -- so the atheistic "philosophical" answer is: there isn't a universal, fixed "point" to your individual existence, because there isn't a plan or a grand scheme of things. No one is in charge. The point of your existence is entirely up to you. What do you want it to be?
Hmmm: You can't see the point of life and it's very short, ergo there's possibly a god? Holy non sequitur, Batman!
It sounds suspiciously like your eternal creator is founded on that afterlife longing and the need for a cosmic grown up as I mentioned in my other post.
Also if any finite number compared to infinity appears so small that it approaches zero, why has the creator only stuck us on the one planet?
I have a personal, intimate relationship with my creators. It even goes as far as to have just gone on holiday with them. Much like the fabled Xian creator, they too move in mysterious ways, but I just put that down to old age and incontinence. I don't need to communicate with them as a submissive creature, yet I have lots of direct proof of their existence, as well as sightings by other people, singularly and in groups. Despite all this, I won't be trying to get you to worship them. But hey, if you want to, do PM me and I'll give you their address and what sort of sacrifices they like.
Twisted little monkey that I am, I regularly applaud sunsets and shout "Author! Author!" loudly. I have yet to get a response from any author though. I suspect that's probably because like all improvisational theatre, life doesn't have one.
Dead
that was one of the most impressive responses on the subject I have ever seen, good stuff.
_______________
-
someone is easily impressed.
-
Storch, can you do better than that? Any specific objections?
-
it was barely worth that.
-
I am not sure what deads point is. we have no idea what gods plans are, or, if he even has any for us. We have no idea if we are alone in the universe.
We have no idea how he came to be...those who do not believe in him have no problem explaining that the universe was allways there or.. that it suddenly created itself.
We have no idea why every group of man from the first has believed in a god.
The idea that god needs to prove himself to those who don't believe in him is ludicrus.
To say that the unexplained is simply science not yet reached is very glib... it is in fact... a religion. There is no basis for it other than faith and past performance on some level.
something created the universe and did it in such a way that everything we see is possible.
For many of us.... something has given us strength from time to time that we could not have had on our own... some of us see others with no faith in a god who will lay down and give up.
In that respect... my god is very good for me.
In either case... god can be what you want. some of you want it to be man and science but we can't put that on the money.
"In God we Trust" is good enough for everyone...let your god be whatever you want it to be.. the government has not right to tell you what that is....
just as it should be.
lazs
-
The Soviets and the Chinese wanted to eliminate religion so that everyone would be totally dependent on the state for moral direction. I think there are those in the US who want the same for us.
-
Oh please. I object to atheists being discriminated against, and that's an attempt to sovietize the nation?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Oh please. I object to atheists being discriminated against, and that's an attempt to sovietize the nation?
Did I step on your toe? I was simply making an observation and it wasn't necessarily directed at you.
-
It is simpler than that Lukster. For some atheists, there's an attempt to establish themselves on the intellectual high ground...and to make certain that believers KNOW that they occupy the valleys.
We have a thread like this with sickening regularity and the arguments never vary. No one's mind is changed. No one yields a point. The voices of moderation are roundly ignored.
-
Shuckins, do you approve of the laws that make it illegal for atheists to serve office? Do you think it's appropriate to discriminate against atheists? Because that's what this thread is about.
-
"I don't believe in a higher power" = No office for you!
"Darwin is Satan, the dinasours never existed, and Santa Clause created the universe" = Hail to the Chief!! Now let's liberate North Korea!!
Yep, sounds about right to me.
-
Injustice is the point of this thread, and I side for Chairboy on several issues.
Looking in much broader terms, in a world full of human injustice, the idea of everlasting annihilation for everyone, the meek and the wicked, doesn't make it for me. That would be like Chairboy never having the possibility of redress for injustice. We have the possibility in this world, however inadequate. But who will redress the murder of the Amish girls who's right to life was unjustly taken from them. It makes a lot more sense to me in the big picture that someday a strict and fair accounting of the actions of all humans will be made, together with an associated everlasting consequence.
Brian Greene, physicist, and author of The Fabric of the Cosmos, writes of physicists who conjecture there must be an Observer for all the existing matter of the universe to have left the state of quantum ambiguity. Now there's a thought!
Having personally struggled with the idea that there is no ultimate purpose to existence I find completely unconvincing the people who must proclaim,
"The ultimate purpose of my life is to proclaim to you that there is no ultimate purpose to life."
Sorry, nihilism and the associated depression no longer appeal to me as a philosophy of life after my experiences.
So to recap, the problems with the worldview of atheism led me to the possibility that there is a Creator. From that point, I have been convinced by the Creator that He truly IS.
Dead said,
-------------
I have a personal, intimate relationship with my creators. It even goes as far as to have just gone on holiday with them. Much like the fabled Xian creator, they too move in mysterious ways, but I just put that down to old age and incontinence. I don't need to communicate with them as a submissive creature, yet I have lots of direct proof of their existence, as well as sightings by other people, singularly and in groups. Despite all this, I won't be trying to get you to worship them.
--------------
Sounds like either "Space Brothers" or else mere rhetoric. My guess is rhetoric, since there seems to be a lack of conviction to convince others. And if rhetoric, then there is no positive argument from experience, but merely rejoinder in the form of ridicule.
-
pretty well said cement and any other view is the product of intellectual dishonesty
-
Dead was speaking of his parents but was not without ridicule of those believing in something more.
-
Chair, I fear you are obsessed with this issue.
Such laws as you describe are routinely challeneged by the ACLU and other advocacy groups and just as routinely struck down by the Supreme Court. So what's your beef?
I realize you have an issue with the Boy Scouts because they refuse to accept atheists and gays into their organization. They publicly took this stand just a few years ago, and were castigated for it by every pc, mush brained group in the country. You're an intelligent, well-read guy. You must have known about this before you tried to enroll your son. Or at least I assume you knew about it.
If you knew about it beforehand, and tried to enroll him anyway...then it would seem to indicate that you were trying to make an issue out of it.
The Boy Scouts of America is a private, Christian organization and has been since its inception. Again, what's your beef? Freedom of association is a constitutional right. They didn't seek you out, ala the Jehovah's Witnesses, or rub their beliefs in your face for the heck of it. You approached them.
The stances we...all of us...take on political issues are based on our personal belief systems. Mine is shaped by my religion...as yours are based on your non-belief. Neither of us should be expected to give up our right to participate in the political life of our nation because of the beliefs we have. If one side or the other tries to persuade Congress to pass laws detrimental to the common weal then we should feel free to speak out against it....but not to denigrate an entire belief system for having an opposing view point.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
I realize you have an issue with the Boy Scouts because they refuse to accept atheists and gays into their organization. They publicly took this stand just a few years ago, and were castigated for it by every pc, mush brained group in the country. You're an intelligent, well-read guy. You must have known about this before you tried to enroll your son. Or at least I assume you knew about it.
If you knew about it beforehand, and tried to enroll him anyway...then it would seem to indicate that you were trying to make an issue out of it.
The Boy Scouts of America is a private, Christian organization and has been since its inception. Again, what's your beef? Freedom of association is a constitutional right. They didn't seek you out, ala the Jehovah's Witnesses, or rub their beliefs in your face for the heck of it. You approached them.
Actually, you're dramatically mischaracterizing that other thread. All I asked about in the thread was if anyone had any suggestions for alternate groups. I never tried to enroll my kid, I knew about their policies and was trying to find an equivalent that didn't discriminate.
Are you deliberately lying/distorting things? Or was it just an error on your part?
-
I think chairboy has been sitting far too long. he should become walkaboutboy and excercise his ample hamhocks, you know get around a bit and see what the world is truly like. i'll gladly provide the tape, construction paper and sharpie to confect a nice "kick me I'm a true atheist" placard as he wanders the by-ways of even his slightly off kilter corner of the union. maybe one of you clever types can devise a kickometer with a satellite uplink and we can monitor how many he actually receives in real time.
-
Storch: Do you think that the laws making it illegal for atheists to hold office are acceptable?
BTW, nice "chairboy is fat" debate technique.
-
Chair, I freely admit that my memory isn't what it used to be. I turned 53 this morning and it has been a devastating experience.
So, I'll take your word about the other thread.
On t'other hand, I stand by my assertion that you are obsessed with this topic. I reiterate, if you consider laws depriving atheists of their rights to run for elective office to be unjust, then by all means lobby against them....but don't lump all Christians in with the fanatics who sponsor such legislation. That's stereotyping....and it isn't fair to paint with such a broad brush.
Regards, Shuckins
-
where in that statement do I proclaim you are fat? having typed that, don't go changing to try and please me. I think exclusionary laws have no place in an open society. the surefire way to limit ourselves is to bring government into any equation. less government=more freedom I am anti government and feel that the most effective government is at the grass roots level. the most powerful person in goverment (when it comes to dealing with the individual) should not be some guy in far off washington but that individual's mayor and town commissioner. to a lesser extent there should be a strong state level authority to help out during times of emergencies.
there is a need for federal government but that sould be a very limited type of national authority. they should not have the power to tax citizens directly. they should tax foreign trade, both import and export. that would represent a tax on the citizens but only those who chose to purchase imported goods. a portion of the taxes collected at the local level should go to provide for the common defense and the federal road systems, they should be able to place tolls on the federal roads as well to provide for maintenance. that should be the extent of federal involvement in our lives.
I'm sure that if the founding fathers took one look at what passes for personal liberty today they would all immediately begin arming themselves and prepare for a protracted struggle.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
but don't lump all Christians in with the fanatics who sponsor such legislation. That's stereotyping....and it isn't fair to paint with such a broad brush.
When did I do that?
-
excercise his ample hamhocks
Sounds like fat to me in the context, storch.
BTW, we agree on the size of government, I don't know what the relevance is to this. As a libertarian, I feel that the government that governs best, governs least. Our government is at least 10x as big as it needs to be to meet the vision our founding fathers had for us and the standards of liberty to which we are entitled.
-
don't be so sensitive ample hamhocks are highly prized, especially in papua/new guinea.
-
Chair....you implied it here:
"Your belief stripped me of constitutional rights, barred my children from groups..." (Were you referring to the Boy Scouts...perchance?)
and here:
"People who have religion, on the other hand, are generally encouraged to allow atheists to stay alive, but anything past that is fair game. It's ok to make fun of stupid atheists, it's ok to try and convert them, it's ok to pigeonhole them and take away rights, and so on."
Looks like an all inclusive statement to me. As I said...you were stereotyping.
Believe what you want, my friend, but you seriously need to step back, take a deep breath, and seriously confront the possibility that you have let yourself become obsessed with a view of religion based on antipathy.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by storch
don't be so sensitive ample hamhocks are highly prized, especially in papua/new guinea.
You’re the perfect example of why people do not like Christians, your smug, prideful and insulting, you dance around it like a child and when you can't make a point and you insult the other guy.
You’re the type of Christian that told my mother that she was a sinner and her 6th back surgery was punishment from god while standing in a Church.
You’re the type of Christian who convinced me in Christian school that the idea was idiocy if people like you could fool themselves into thinking they are a good person yet be an bellybutton to everyone around them. Jesus forgives, you better hope at least.
My understanding is he wasn’t fond of prideful, arrogant, insulting, intolerant people. Maybe I am wrong since I dropped out of that particular club, but I remember the teachings fairly well since I sat through them up to high school.
I am more like Laz, I am not sure of the truth, I lean towards there being a god, but I really hope its not a god who would take a man like you who clearly, if your bigoted attitude on this board is you in real life, do not understand what it is to be a humble god fearing Christian, maybe you should take a lesson or two from Andy, who is all of what a Christian should be.
Maybe you should try listening to your pastor.
For the rest of the Christians on the board, I do not have a problem with you, or in god we trust on money or your beliefs, if you truly try and be a good Christian then I respect that.
Though I am with chair on the issue of not allowing people to be elected if atheist, the laws are stupid and not constitutional.
Being a atheist does not make you a bad person.
Being a Christian does not make you a good one.
Being a good person makes you a good person, and people from both groups can be either good or bad.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
:rofl thank you for your post it was truly entertaining. :rofl
-
Originally posted by storch
:rofl thank you for your post it was truly entertaining. :rofl
Thank you for proving my point. ;)
-
any time
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Actually, you're dramatically mischaracterizing that other thread. All I asked about in the thread was if anyone had any suggestions for alternate groups. I never tried to enroll my kid, I knew about their policies and was trying to find an equivalent that didn't discriminate.
Are you deliberately lying/distorting things? Or was it just an error on your part?
Pot and kettle thing here?
The only possible error I see here is Shuckins thought you MAY have actually tried to enroll your offspring KNOWING about the stance of the BoyScouts?
Most everything else is questions to you or statements about how things are in Shuckins view?
I also noticed you didn't repost his entire statement but only part?
-
Gto, what makes you think I go to church in the first place? you went off with a series of preconceived notions regarding my internet persona? what makes you think I consider myself "a good person"? I would challenge anyone to show me a single "good person" in all of creation. if we use the biblical paradign, there are none, least of all myself.
-
Originally posted by wrag
The only possible error I see here is Shuckins thought you MAY have actually tried to enroll your offspring KNOWING about the stance of the BoyScouts?
Wrag, go read his post:
You must have known about this before you tried to enroll your son. Or at least I assume you knew about it.
In that other post, I never said that I tried to enroll the kid or demanded to be allowed in or said that I felt the scouts needed to change. I simply asked for alternatives because I knew the scouts had membership requirements my kids couldn't meet. Find the part of that thread where I outraged that it must be changed. I dare you.
You, on the other hand, read what you wanted to read in my post. If it was a mistake, then fess up. If you did it on purpose, it's despicable.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
You’re the perfect example of why people do not like Christians, your smug, prideful and insulting, you dance around it like a child and when you can't make a point and you insult the other guy.
You’re the type of Christian that told my mother that she was a sinner and her 6th back surgery was punishment from god while standing in a Church.
You’re the type of Christian who convinced me in Christian school that the idea was idiocy if people like you could fool themselves into thinking they are a good person yet be an bellybutton to everyone around them. Jesus forgives, you better hope at least.
My understanding is he wasn’t fond of prideful, arrogant, insulting, intolerant people. Maybe I am wrong since I dropped out of that particular club, but I remember the teachings fairly well since I sat through them up to high school.
I am more like Laz, I am not sure of the truth, I lean towards there being a god, but I really hope its not a god who would take a man like you who clearly, if your bigoted attitude on this board is you in real life, do not understand what it is to be a humble god fearing Christian, maybe you should take a lesson or two from Andy, who is all of what a Christian should be.
Maybe you should try listening to your pastor.
For the rest of the Christians on the board, I do not have a problem with you, or in god we trust on money or your beliefs, if you truly try and be a good Christian then I respect that.
Though I am with chair on the issue of not allowing people to be elected if atheist, the laws are stupid and not constitutional.
Being a atheist does not make you a bad person.
Being a Christian does not make you a good one.
Being a good person makes you a good person, and people from both groups can be either good or bad.
Assuming allot in your post about ........ Storch is................. Storch. Wait, has Storch ever proclaimed a belief on these boards?
I agree about meeting such people as you speak of. Always ready to tell others what is..................
I just box em in with the ones that don't seem to have enough to do minding their own business so they just GOTTA mind yours as well! Some of em, sadly, are holding public office politicians TOO.
This is my understanding as well..............
"My understanding is he wasn’t fond of prideful, arrogant, insulting, intolerant people."
Church........... many SEEM to think that it is some magical place? Where everyone is supposed to be GOOD? Supposed to be NICE all the time?
NAW............. it's just another place where people gather. The people who gather at these places are JUST THAT, they're people. Nuthin special about em. Well............ they are meeting with the intention of BEING Christians. Some just don't do it very well? Don't seem to be able to get the knack? And I hope you are aware that in every church there are a few that are not there to be, and NEVER had any intention of becoming, Christians.
Considerin that, then it should be expected that we will meet such a person as the mentioned "I have judged you and found you wanting..." person above. Thinkin they got a direct pipeline to GOD? Seems to me this type of thing is a mote, beam kinda thing?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Wrag, go read his post:
In that other post, I never said that I tried to enroll the kid or demanded to be allowed in or said that I felt the scouts needed to change. I simply asked for alternatives because I knew the scouts had membership requirements my kids couldn't meet. Find the part of that thread where I outraged that it must be changed. I dare you.
You, on the other hand, read what you wanted to read in my post. If it was a mistake, then fess up. If you did it on purpose, it's despicable.
I read his post.
And I commented.
Perhaps we don't see the same things in his post?
I see him mostly asking questions? I did see his statement that he thought you had issues.
You do not?
That is all I commented on.
It seemed like he said thought you tried to enroll your offspring, but he later asked if that is in fact what occured.
Over reaction here?
Perhaps we should compare what we see line for line? Word meaning for word meaning?
After I had read his post it seemed to me no accusation were actually made BUT questions were asked...............
All and all his post seemed pretty much inoffensive IMHO. No name calling that I could see. No attacks, unless you feel his thought (fear?) that you may have issues is an attack? He didn't talk about your mother? Said nuthin about how you dress? Not one comment about your shoes?
Further!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you reread my post I make no accusations either. I do state what I see within the post, I do ask questions.
*****So...... I am now despicable for asking questions?*****
-
Wrag, based on our past interactions and your posts here today, I'm not confident that you can be civil. I'm not interested in watching you 'game' the discussion. It is my impression that that's what you're doing.
-
I have met tons of 'athiests' in my travels - hardly any of them exhibited a behavior or trait that said they were truly personable people, or concerned with the well being of others to the point where self profit or preservation was not an issue.
But why should they? No reason to get along. Apparently all they have is 70 odd years on this planet and nothing else. (A planet that miraculously sits in the same orbit year after year to sustain life...) If that is all we're meant for - then I'd be pretty bummed out too. There are way too many obvious clues out there that defy atheism with ease.
I'm sure glad that athiesm is fast becoming an extinct creature. My $0.02
-
Originally posted by Black Sheep
I'm sure glad that athiesm is fast becoming an extinct creature. My $0.02
Not quite. MSNBC reported that:Between 1993 and 2002, the share of Americans who said they were Protestant dropped from 63 percent to 52 percent, after years of remaining generally stable, according to a study released Tuesday by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. At the same time, the number of people who said they had no religion rose from 9 percent to nearly 14 percent,
-
Originally posted by Black Sheep
(A planet that miraculously sits in the same orbit year after year to sustain life...)
Nothing miraculous about it. Then again, to people living in simpler parts of this planet lightning seems miraculous, and an obvious clue to the existence of an invisible man in the sky (probably an angry one at that). Some pray to the sun, something I find far more sensible than prying to an invisible man. At least you can see the sun, and it does indeed sustain life on this planet. However I don't find the sun to be any more miraculous than I find the Earth holding a stable orbit for years miraculous.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Wrag, based on our past interactions and your posts here today, I'm not confident that you can be civil. I'm not interested in watching you 'game' the discussion. It is my impression that that's what you're doing.
Hmmm ............ odd.......................... ......
And that was exactly my impression of what you were doing!
As I said, IMHO your response was an overreaction, and possibly unwarrented, toward the post we are talking about. IMHO He did not attack you! IMHO He did ask you some questions.
You seem to disagree.
Care to explain why?
I have made an effort to explain my viewpoint.
I am trying to be civil. (edited part) I have repeatdly expressed my adverse reaction to the METHODS you have used to communicate on this BBS. This, I suppose, is why you consider me uncivil? (end edited part)
The part about the way you dress and saying nothing about your mother etc. was off the wall humor that seems to have sailed right past you. The intent was to express in a semi-humours manner how I see what looks to me like an unnecassary reaction.
-
Gentlemen.
Religion always held back science.First flight,first book,first medicine.Wars in the name of God...
You know what?F...ck God,bible,co-ran and Talmud.
Every holy book condemns the other one,so which religion is the right one?
-
Originally posted by KgB
which religion is the right one?
I have always been a strong beliver in norse mythology. You should check it out some time, it may hold the answers you seek.
-
chair... saying you have no religion does not mean that you have gone off the deep end to athiesm.... other polls have showed that the belief in god is staying pretty stable in the U.S. and rising slightly worldwide.
I noticed that when people tell you that discriminating against the athiest religion is wrong... you ignore it. you don't say thanks you continue to attack christians... you definetly have a grudge agenda going.
I do not believe that any religion should be discriminated against including athiesm... a mans faith is his own business... if he doesn't want to swear on a bible that is fine... most courts will not force you.
If the athiests want to form a childrens group and exclude every other religion that is also fine with me.
As was said... we are all living under a lot worse laws that discriminate and are unconstitutional than the boy scouts getting some support from taxes or having to swear on a bible... seat belt laws... helmet laws... gun control laws... free speech laws... hate crime laws... the confiscation of private property.. unlawful taxes... non smoking laws in private homes... drug laws..
Horrible stuff.....
I think any percieved athiest discrimination is laughable in it's harmlessness comparitively speaking but yes... I am against it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I have always been a strong beliver in norse mythology. You should check it out some time, it may hold the answers you seek.
I belive that :rofl
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I have always been a strong beliver in horse proctology
Too much info :p
-
Originally posted by KgB
Gentlemen.
Religion always held back science.First flight,first book,first medicine.Wars in the name of God...
You know what?F...ck God,bible,co-ran and Talmud.
Every holy book condemns the other one,so which religion is the right one?
KgB, it's never a good idea to confront a group alcoholics about their drinking, or a group of drug addicts about their drug-use. Inevitably, you'll get an angry, egomaniacal, aggressive response that generally amounts to 'how dare you!!??'
The problem is that all these who persist in their worship of Grown Up Santa and the various variations don't really care about scientific advancement. They care more about their own inner peace than about any other, more global sort of harmony. The result is a die hard approach to religion, just as die hard as any other addict whose brain cells have been reorganized around one primary focus.
I suggest you do what the bulk of them never will. Live and let live, and move on.
-
hmm... I believe in god and have no problem with science... I am aganostic about some of the more bizarre scientific theories (not a true believer like angus say) but.. I enjoy a good scientific advancement as much as the next guy.
I don't think that the athiest religion is an drug or anything... I have nothing against athiests or their religion. I would not discriminate against them and am not surprised when they get all angry and defensive and attack others religion while pretending that they have no agenda.
I have never seen someone who bothered to call himself an athiest who was not fervent in his faith and..... preachy.
lazs
-
Believe what you want. It's no skin off my nose. But the vitriolic bile spewed by fanatics on both sides of this issue gets old...mighty old.
I can honestly say that I don't hate atheists. I hardly ever give atheism a thought...unless I see a thread like this on these bbs. Regardless of whether or not it is started by an atheist or a theist or a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu or WhatHaveYou I couldn't care less....say what you want, believe what you want. Just check your hate at the door first.
For, gentlemen, one thing I firmly believe in, without fear of contradiction and in the utter certainty that this is the one thing about which I'm right...ALL hatred is TAUGHT. No matter how much you or I might think we reach such attitudes and conclusions on our own we are, in effect, blank slates upon which other people attempt to write.
Bulletin boards and blogs such as this are the tools that modern discontents use to leave their stamp on others or write their messages on the slates of impressionable minds...or, perhaps, to convince themselves that their ideas and beliefs occupy some type of nebulous, intellectual high ground.
So, when someone attempts to paint another group as being in some way inferior, whether intellectually, religiously, or whatever....the warning flags go up. As they should for anyone who reads such.
It is no more fair to say that all Christians want to wrest from others their rights than it is to say that all atheists are pedophiles, or all Muslims are head-splitting fanatics, or all Germans were or are Nazies.
Such stereotyping is never justified.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Nothing miraculous about it. However I don't find the sun to be any more miraculous than I find the Earth holding a stable orbit for years miraculous.
Then explain why it doesn't deviate off course. The most minute deviation would render this planet inhabitable to all life forms. I'm familiar with gravitational pull. And I am also familiar with Kepler's Laws and some other mathematical conjecture that tries to explain it. But that Earth just hopped into a near-perfect elliptical orbit with the Sun.... is hard to believe. Most objects nearing the Sun for the first time - get slingshot somewhere else never to return. So this planet had to initially come from somewhere to get HERE. And stay here. And gravity wants us to become one with the Sun, but something has to hold us back. I don't believe it's the earth all by it's little self.
-
Originally posted by Black Sheep
Then explain why it doesn't deviate off course. The most minute deviation would render this planet inhabitable to all life forms. I'm familiar with gravitational pull. And I am also familiar with Kepler's Laws and some other mathematical conjecture that tries to explain it. But that Earth just hopped into a near-perfect elliptical orbit with the Sun.... is hard to believe. Most objects nearing the Sun for the first time - get slingshot somewhere else never to return. So this planet had to initially come from somewhere to get HERE. And stay here. And gravity wants us to become one with the Sun, but something has to hold us back. I don't believe it's the earth all by it's little self.
Earth is not special in this regard, an untold number of objects orbit other objects all over the universe.
Of course the Earth came from somewhere, just like the other planets. I could buy into a "higher power just for our planet" opinion IF Earth acted in sharp contrast to everything else in the universe.
When did the holy man & scientist decide 'some' things were caused by 'god', yet others were not? and where is the list?,
I'd like to know what is the doing of a higher power, and what is science....
If my x-GF was sent by god to torture me, and isn't just another scientifically proven run of the mill lunitic... I'd like to know who I can sacrifice to end this bs.
-
seat belt laws... helmet laws... gun control laws...
OMG TEH END! :rofl
I love your enthusiasm Lazs even if I disagree with ya. I like that in a person.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Believe what you want. It's no skin off my nose. But the vitriolic bile spewed by fanatics on both sides of this issue gets old...mighty old.
I can honestly say that I don't hate atheists. I hardly ever give atheism a thought...unless I see a thread like this on these bbs. Regardless of whether or not it is started by an atheist or a theist or a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu or WhatHaveYou I couldn't care less....say what you want, believe what you want. Just check your hate at the door first.
For, gentlemen, one thing I firmly believe in, without fear of contradiction and in the utter certainty that this is the one thing about which I'm right...ALL hatred is TAUGHT. No matter how much you or I might think we reach such attitudes and conclusions on our own we are, in effect, blank slates upon which other people attempt to write.
Bulletin boards and blogs such as this are the tools that modern discontents use to leave their stamp on others or write their messages on the slates of impressionable minds...or, perhaps, to convince themselves that their ideas and beliefs occupy some type of nebulous, intellectual high ground.
So, when someone attempts to paint another group as being in some way inferior, whether intellectually, religiously, or whatever....the warning flags go up. As they should for anyone who reads such.
It is no more fair to say that all Christians want to wrest from others their rights than it is to say that all atheists are pedophiles, or all Muslims are head-splitting fanatics, or all Germans were or are Nazies.
Such stereotyping is never justified.
You Sir have my AGREEMENT
-
Don't get so hopped up about the Earth being extra special.
The basic unit of life is the cell. We as humans just happen to be a huge glob of cells. But certain cells can live almost anywhere.
Heres some for example:
Acidophile -Grows at pH values less than 2
Alkalophile -Grows at pH values greater than 10
Hyperthermophile -Grows at 90 °C or above, although optimal temperature for growth is generally above 80 °C; maximal growth of pure cultures occurs between 110 °C and 113 °C, although the maximum (113 °C) may well increase as further research is done
Theres other bacteria that can only grow under extreme pressures, and bacteria that live far under the ice in antartica.
So...if you're saying Earth is special because we have life that grows within 300 degree temperature range, a pH range of 0-10, and pressure ranges from 100 atmospheres to less than 1 atmosphere, then I bet some other planets fit the bill too.
Among scientists, especially biologists, the question is not whether there is life on other planets. The question is- Do these other lifeforms use DNA for replication, or some other system?
-
aqua, provide and anwser to the persistently nagging question of origin where did this tenacious life come from? while you're at it also provide one example of chaos evolving into order.
-
oh good. we're making intolerant little zealots too.
jesus camp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co1_9lR9EpM&eurl=)
-
Sounds like a Madrassas for christianity.
-
shukins gets it... I never think about athiest much because they are such a minor religion.
I think that is the problem.. they want attention... never seen one who didn't.
I think most people would agree that discriminating against the athiest religion is not good if it denies them basic human rights. They should be able to hold office.
Where do I sign the petition to get this widely used abuse removed?
How can I help in fighting all this persecution?
I think the thing I really don't like about athiests is their habit of going from arrogant "smarter than you with your myths" to crybaby.. "we are so piocked on" so seamlessly and so easily... often 5 or six times in the same conversation.
lazs
-
The most precious sacrament for the Athiest religeon seems to be attacks against other religions.
I believe in my own concept of God, yet I am quite content to just let Athiests be. I confess that sometimes, I'd just like them to be... quiet.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Sounds like a Madrassas for christianity.
why would you concern yourself with either form of theology. you seem to be a very weak atheist. why are you always seeking approbation from outside of your own religious community? show some conviction in your institutionalized unbelief.
-
Just saying it sounds kinda like the christian equivalent of a Madrassas, what does that have to do with me having weak convictions?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
shukins gets it... I never think about athiest much because they are such a minor religion.
I think that is the problem.. they want attention... never seen one who didn't.
I think most people would agree that discriminating against the athiest religion is not good if it denies them basic human rights. They should be able to hold office.
Where do I sign the petition to get this widely used abuse removed?
How can I help in fighting all this persecution?
I think the thing I really don't like about athiests is their habit of going from arrogant "smarter than you with your myths" to crybaby.. "we are so piocked on" so seamlessly and so easily... often 5 or six times in the same conversation.
lazs
Hey Lazs. I've read a few of your posts regarding atheism, god or gods and faith in general. Numerous times you define atheism as a religion with money/family/egoism being the god.
I do not fully understand this argument, probably because how I define god(s) and religion is different from yours. Could you perhaps clarify what you mean when you use those two words? Then I may understand your point which has been eluding me for some time.
-
futurewalkaboutboy,
I'm just saying that you don't see christian posters attempting to make what could be construed as derogatory statements about athieism. to me that type of behavior would indicate a level of weakness, a lack of conviction on the part of of someone making the type of comment you have made.
onto the next topic. from what I understand of the madrasa is that it they are schools that teach wajabism. wajabism is reportedly a militant spin-off of sunni islam. I say this with only a cursory understanding of islam in general and no understanding of wajabism at all. so outside a troll, how would you, a person who is not involved in either religion would have sufficient understanding of either form of religion to print that type of remark? the most offensive form of christianity that I'm aware of was the medieval catholic church. in what way and in what manifestation do christians have anything remotely related to wajab islam today?
now a question to test your knowledge of current religious events.
what is the most oppressed and discriminated form of organized religion on the planet today?
-
Originally posted by storch
what is the most oppressed and discriminated form of organized religion on the planet today?
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/Butter18/156252211500.jpg)
they eat him...poke and twirl him with a fork. i have even seen them throw the remnants away with common kitchen waste...the horror.
-
Storch, your message doesn't make sense. You're saying I can't comprehend wahabism or extremist religion of any sort because I'm not religious? I disagree, you don't have to be a rapist to have an opinion on rape, an abortionist to have an opinion on abortion, a football player to have an opinion on how the game is played, or a musician to appreciate a good song.
Madrasas are extremist schools that teach their students to use the religion as a weapon and to believe that they are involved in a holy war against the forces of evil. The school featured in that video appeared to be doing something very similar, ie my statement that it 'sounds like a madrassas'. This is an anti-christian statement, because I don't believe that school and its teachings represents the whole (or even the majority) of christians, just as I believe the Madrassas, as crappy as they are, do not represent all muslims.
I don't believe I've called you a troll, and I'm not sure where your veiled accusation comes from. Disagreement is not trolling, this is a concept that's integral to civil discussion on sensitive subjects.
As for who the most discriminated group is, I don't know. I know that there is widespread discrimination against christians in muslim countries and places like China. I also know that muslims in every country are being taken off planes, arrested for prayer, and systematically discriminated against because people only see the face of the 19 hijackers when they see them. I don't think it's a contest to see who is going to "win" the great "I'm being discriminated against most" war of 2001->Whenever, I think everyone (including atheists) thinks that everyone is out to get 'em, and to varying degrees, everyone is right.
-
I'm saying that I didn't come away with an impression of "sounds like a madrassa for christianity" and I don't understand how you do. I don't think that even after your suggestion I could come away with the same conclusion you did. I just don't see the correlation, sorry.
there will probably never be any people donning an explosives lined vest, running into a crowd of moslem children and detonating themselves to a frenzied shout of "bush akbar".
what you will see is people laying down thier lives in the service of their fellow man irrespective of color, creed or religion as is the tradition in true christianity. the very same thing that is occurring in the sudan and china amidst unspeakable privation, persecution and suffering.
-
Originally posted by storch
aqua, provide and anwser to the persistently nagging question of origin where did this tenacious life come from? while you're at it also provide one example of chaos evolving into order.
There are examples of the natural course being increasing order... plenty of them...
Try this... take a bag of marbles. Randomly drop them into a small bowl. When they stop moving around they'll have formed organized layers and hexagonal patterns. Disorder to order without any measurable supernatural influence.
Most solids have a naturally crystalline structure. The atoms line up in orderly fashion, and takes effort to make it non-crystalline.
When it rains molecules are spread over a large area, and become ordered by forming into droplets, and more ordered still when they hit the ground and form into relatively small volumes.
Self-assembly happens all the time in biological systems.
-
yup gravity will pull uniformly round objects uniformly at the bottom of a bowl. yup water will collect and form puddles but these examples you provide are all examples pre existing ordered systems replicating.
since you are asking me to try an experiment then turnabout is fair play. set off an explosion in a print shop and have the result of the explosion be the inerrant yellow pages for your town nicely printed and shrink wrapped.
-
Originally posted by storch
yup gravity will pull uniformly round objects uniformly at the bottom of a bowl. yup water will collect and form puddles but these examples you provide are all examples pre existing ordered systems replicating.
since you are asking me to try an experiment then turnabout is fair play. set off an explosion in a print shop and have the result of the explosion be the inerrant yellow pages for your town nicely printed and shrink wrapped.
You asked for chaos to order natural systems, you got it. The fact that it replicates simply proves the point that it's a repeatable experiment and goes beyond a theory to a fact that natural systems can and do create order from chaos.
Bombing a print shop has very little to do with natural laws other than the thermal expansion of the explosion, pressure shockwave, etc, etc. However, if you were able to replicate said bombing down to the movement of air molecules, the debris from the explosion theoretically will always land in the exact same order. I doubt they'll be shrink wrapped though.
Make you a deal... you provide the print shops, I'll provide the denatured alcohol and fertilizer.
-
What I fail to understand is why do atheists make such a fuss about their belief almost like the 'believers' themselves. Much smarter would be to get registered to the dominant religion of the area, lurk in the corners and bide your time. (Some of you may catch the joke).
That's what I do. Even though I was registered through birth and baptism, I had a church wedding and the works, not a single minute was I a beliver or cared about the stuff. But you can believe it was SO much easyer to arrange everything that way. If someone has issues about being registered to something they're being religious extremists themselves despite not believing in any deity. Ironic.
-
Mr Ripley, I'm making a "fuss" about being told that I cannot hold office in 7 of the United States because of the entry on my form under "religion". I'm being "uppity" because I can not legally testify in court in parts of the country in which I am a citizen. If you'd prefer me to go to the back of the bus and just be quiet, I'm afraid I cannot oblige you.
I love this country, and it is my responsibility (not just my privilege or right) to attempt redress of laws that violate the constitution to which I have sworn my allegiance.
-
st santa... you have not read my posts apparently as I have explained why athiesm is a religion like all others.
It is entirely faith based... it claims that no matter how one defines god.... that god does not exist. It offers no explanation for the creation of the universe but still... out of faith... claims that no way could it be the work of a god.
As you see... most athiests who bother to identify themselves as such.... proclaim it loudly and proudly and put their faith above all others... they can't prove the others wrong but mock them just the same.
An agnostic is more complex... he makes a more logiocal and scientific apporoch and is tollerant of both the theist and the athiest as well as the diest.
lazs
-
As an atheist who left the religion box blank on his Eagle Scout application for fear of losing the acknowlegement of his hard work and service I say this:
I don't need religion to be a good person. It's too bad that some people just can't handle that....
I certainly wouldn't interfere with someone else's right to believe whatever they want. Most atheists belive this and don't go preaching. The message of the video (good stuff by the way) is exactly that.
Funny how so many people who chose to post here missed that entirely. The message was, for those who only saw god haters, that there are others who's oppinions matter in this country besides just christians. There are muslims, buddhists, hindus and yes, atheists.
My personal view, upon a close study of history, is that the major religions have evolved (ooo, that dirty word) into control systems to keep people mentally and phisically in check. Despite this being my personal belief, I would never want to impose it upon anyone. Everyone should have a right to evaluate belief systems for themselves. Modern Civil society was founded on keeping religion in the private, not public sphere, which does not mean the destruction of it.
Remember: When religion ruled government they called it the dark ages.
I AM an Eagle Scout, and if the BSA(a religious and nationalistic organization) wants to come and take my patch they can, but they can never take from me the knowlege and experience that I gained through my involvement with their organization.
-
indy apparently you missed my allegorical reference to the big bang.
-
Other phrazes on money that would also be wrong in a secular society:
In gods we trust
In allah we trust
In david we trust
In the rastafari we trust
In king George the W we trust
In nothing we trust
In science we trust
In hell we fear
In buddha we contemplate
And lagz, atheism is not a religion. It is not based on faith, it is an absence of faith in a diety or other religion. Atheists generally allow science to explain the world for them, which is also not predicated on faith, but on empirical analysis.
On faith: "Often religious believers use the term "faith" in a different way, as the affirmation of belief without an ongoing test of evidence, and even despite evidence apparently to the contrary."
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/faith
among many other definitions.
Again, I do not intend to tell anyone how to believe, but please don't tell me how to belive, and please don't allow ANY organized religion to worm its way into OUR government.
-
by 68Hawk
"And lagz, atheism is not a religion. It is not based on faith, it is an absence of faith in a diety or other religion. Atheists generally allow science to explain the world for them, which is also not predicated on faith, but on empirical analysis."
Sorry, but IMHO science has be wrong MANY times about MANY things.
Also there is a tremendous amount of things that science does NOT know.
Also there are many things that are only theory and unproven which will as often as not be proven later to be WRONG due to a lack of knowledge gained later.
Question: isn't believing an unproven theory to be correct a form of FAITH?
-
wrag
You do raise interesting questions.
"Sorry, but IMHO science has be wrong MANY times about MANY things."
"Also there are many things that are only theory and unproven which will as often as not be proven later to be WRONG due to a lack of knowledge gained later."
Science is a continuous quest for knowlege based on established fact. This often changes, but it is still based on fact as it can be determined at the time.
Theory, in terms of science, has been tested, reevaluated and duplicated. A scientific hypothesis is what comes before rigorous testing in the scientific method.
"Also there is a tremendous amount of things that science does NOT know."
There is much we humans do not know about the world. Often we must wait for serious answers.
"Question: isn't believing an unproven theory to be correct a form of FAITH?"
Scientific theory is not unproven, as I stated above. Believing in an unproven hypothesis is a form of faith, but is not the basis of science. Science is only accepted by the scientific community upon rigorous testing and peer review.
That being said, there are always problems with the system, and things that get reevaluated and later proven false. Still, the reliance is on proof, not belief. Science is not faith.
-
Science is a pathway, not a destination.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
st santa... you have not read my posts apparently as I have explained why athiesm is a religion like all others.
It is entirely faith based... it claims that no matter how one defines god.... that god does not exist. It offers no explanation for the creation of the universe but still... out of faith... claims that no way could it be the work of a god.
As you see... most athiests who bother to identify themselves as such.... proclaim it loudly and proudly and put their faith above all others... they can't prove the others wrong but mock them just the same.
An agnostic is more complex... he makes a more logiocal and scientific apporoch and is tollerant of both the theist and the athiest as well as the diest.
lazs
Well this is why I don't get your point I think. You' re at best using a very strict interpretation of the terms and at worst redefining them completely.
The atheists I know lack faith. They have as much faith in God or gods as you do in, say, the old Norse belief in the deity Thor. Sure it cannot be conclusively be proven that Thor not exist so one must be open to the possibility, but absence of evidence is neither evidence of absence or proof of existence. Asatro, as a religion, is recognized as an official one in several countries (ask Nilsen where :)) so the example is relevant.
Religion is belief in something supernatural, often with a doctrine and set of dogma attached to it. To say 'socceri is his religion' is a bit of a funny and a good indication of someone's obsession with the game, but a far cry from an accurate use of the word. If such use was accepted to equal say the way Seagoon feels about God, it would seriously dilute the word to the point of it being utterly meaningless and non descriptive
Agnostics are not smarter in any way than theists or atheists - agnosticism is not a statemnet as to whether or not God or gods exist - rather it is a statement that the existence of God(s) existence cannot be known. As such both atheists and theists can be agnostics.
Me, I don't know. There's no evidence supporting the existence of Thor, other than the biased writings/archaeological finds of the Viking era. Same thing with the Christian deity. This does in itself neither prove or disprove the existence of either. Thor does however get a strike against him since he is the God of Thunder and we've kind of worked out where lightning and thunder come from nowadays.
To classify atheism as a religion you need to find the dogma, the prescribed life to lead, the shared belief, the supernatural, that is common to all atheists of faith. As the only necessary prerequisite to be an atheist is lack of belief in god or gods, that will prove to be exceedingly hard I think.
-
Atheism is as much a religion as the all the others. Not as fervent, but it still requires some amount of belief - even if they BELIEVE in nothing.
-
Black sheep: Is there any difference in the belief in the non-existance of Santa Claus?
-
Oh but he is real.
Right?
I think you can choose to believe or not to. Either way - it is your belief - and it takes a hefty amount of conviction either way you swing it. But the interesting question is - why do you believe the way you do? (in general)
Does the wind exist? I can't see it, but I can feel its effects. That's how I, personally, know there is a God.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
To classify atheism as a religion you need to find the dogma, the prescribed life to lead, the shared belief, the supernatural, that is common to all atheists of faith. As the only necessary prerequisite to be an atheist is lack of belief in god or gods, that will prove to be exceedingly hard I think.
Here is what American Atheists, at atheist.org, the organization (dare I say church?) founded by Madelyn Murray O'Hair says...
Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.
Here is what O'Hair said in a speech:
The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Atheism is its philosophy, materialism, or naturalism, as it is also known. That philosophy regards the world as it actually is, views it in the light of the data provided by progressive science and social experience. Atheistic materialism is the logical outcome of scientific knowledge gained over the centuries.
We make a fundamental error, I think, as we tilt at the windmills of imagined gods. We need to review from where we have come, under what conditions, and to see the threshold upon which we stand now.
O'Hair said, " The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Atheism," -- sounds suspiciously like a dogma, a shared belief... she also said, "that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units." ...a conclusion based upon no evidence... faith?
Wheras agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities — is unknown or inherently unknowable.*
*Wikepedia
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Science is a pathway, not a destination.
Exactly. That is why science itself is not a religion. Some people may get religious about the pursuit, but I wouldn't reccomend that either.
I also wouldn't want someone speaking for me that claims to speak for all atheists. That is contrary to the point. I really don't care what some people what to make out of atheism. If you want to evolve a dogma around atheism, its already been done, its called Satanism. This is different from Satan worship mind you. Satanism is a religion for unreligious people, or so it claims. I think it's dumb, but some people need things like that in their lives.
Atheism is the absence of religious belief. Simple as that. To say that it takes a leap of faith to get there assumes that religious belief is the standard for humanity, which atheists contend it is not, or at least not for them.
I don't sit around thinking about how to be an atheist, or define myself as an atheist, or how to be a better atheist. Given what christians and people like this O'hair lady ascribe to it, atheist doesn't even really work for many of us any more. Unreligious would be more appropriate.
Does it take water to not be wet? Does it take a car to be a pedestrian? Does it take a soul to be a politician? (ha joking on the last one, kinda:t )
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
.... Unreligious would be more appropriate.
Hence the term agnostic:
Agnosticism involves some form of skepticism towards religious statements.
To not believe is to be skeptical.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Chairboy and I have had this discussion before, and he will disagree, but it is my view that:
Polytheism means the belief in many gods, as in Hinduism.
Monotheism means the belief in one God, as in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity
Atheism means the belief in no God.
The prefix refers to the number of Gods, not the belief or lack of belief.
-
Holden,
You still misunderstand, and if you want to belive that I or someone else believes there is not god, so be it. Someone else might belive it. I'm not going to speak for them.
I don't believe there is no god. I simply have never seen any proof that there is. This is not a matter of belief. To rank atheism as per number of dieties believed in is a mischaracterization that a lot of people operate under.
Just because I don't believe that scientology isn't a load of crap, doesn't mean that I believe that scientology is a load of crap. It's not a matter of belief. I know scientology is a load of crap because, A: I have never seen any evidence to support it, and B: I have seen credible evidence that contradicts it.
Do you believe that trees are green, or do you know that trees are green? Why is that? I'm not trying to preach my views here, but only to enlighten you as to my mental view. This is of course an overly simplistic answer, and many religious people will claim that they KNOW that their god or gods exist, because whatever proof is out there meets their standards of credibility. Thats fine if that's what they want to call it, but these people are largely the ones who see jesus appear to them on a cheese sandwich.
Take the santa example. Do I believe there is not santa clause? NO. I hold it as a truth that santa as conceptualized does not exist because, A: deer don't fly (neither do pigs for that matter), B: Elves don't live at the North Pole, and C: Because santa couldn't make a sled fly with his fat prettythang in it any more than lockheed could. (would be a great holiday special on AH though, give him cannons!)
Belief in something is based on faith, trust or downright superstition (like walking under a ladder will bring bad luck). Knowlege is based on reason. Reason is different from belief. I have reasoned through examination of the facts that there is not a god in the sky, or other beings waiting in the center of the earth to eat me. Faith, trust or superstition does not enter into the equation.
But that's just me. Don't let me tell you what to believe, or know or think. That should be up to each of us individually and not some 'religious leader'.
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
Holden,
You still misunderstand, and if you want to belive that I or someone else believes there is not god, so be it. Someone else might belive it. I'm not going to speak for them.
I don't believe there is no god. I simply have never seen any proof that there is. This is not a matter of belief. To rank atheism as per number of dieties believed in is a mischaracterization that a lot of people operate under.
I do understand... completely.
My argument is semantic. My view is that one who doesn't believe in God is an agnostic, one who believes in the nonexistance of God is atheist.
-
hmm... I can't tell you what god is.. it is a pathway not a destination if that is how you want to define it. I will find out.
I believe that the universe was created by a god and that he instilled rights in me. I say that all this is simply faith based and I can never prove it to anyone. I have no interest to do so. I have gotten strength from my god that I did not posses at the times I needed it the most. Others may use science... drugs.. therapy... etc.
It is quite simple... most people on the planet and all peoples from the beggining of time believe(ed) in a god. the athiest believes there is no god. He has no proof but he has faith that he is correct.
This makes it a religion in the strictest sense.
Hell... there may be some form of thor or whatever. how would I know? I am not close minded enough to shut out the possibility...
Many who are athiests believe in ghosts and bigfoot and alien visitors and all manner of stuff... I am not saying they are wrong... I am agnostic on those things.
Being an athiest is making a statement of faith... a scientific person or a person who really lacked faith in god but was honest and had no agenda would call himself an agnostic. The athiest is close minded and agendized and faith based.
I have lived long enough to know that even the simplest of scientific theories that were embraced by "most" of the scientific community have been proven total bunk in the past and it is still happening.
I certainly am not going to listen to a scientist on the existence of god. They can't even get the food groups right.
lazs
-
Lazs, by your logic a christian is also "dishonest" because they aren't agnostic. Is this an accurate summary? You said "The athiest is close minded and agendized and faith based", do you apply this to christians too?
-
I certainly am not going to listen to a scientist on the existence of god. They can't even get the food groups right.
lazs [/B]
and witches float.
-
burn her
-
Just wondering aloud. How many truly devout followers of christianity do we have on the boards? You know, not so much the "I'm not a serial killer" therefore, I am going to heaven, but how many actually follow the letter of the Lord, at the expense of their own wellness.
Seems to me, that we (and I count myself in this category) tend to follow the rules when they don't inconvenience us. Would any of you go out of your way to aid a homeless guy getting beaten to a pulp and risk the mobs turning on you, or bring some starving person into your home if they knocked on your door for a meal? Would you have cast the first stone on Mary Magdalen?
I'm fairly certain that jesus was an antagonist against highly organized religion, and systems that allowed the priveliged class to overlook social ills.
Seems to me, that many people who profess the virtues of religion, only profess those virtues that best service them at any given time.
-
I think Descartes sums up Religion best :
“The constitution of the true Religion whose ordinances are of God alone.” God to Descartes is, “a substance that is infinite [eternal, immutable], independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, and by which everything else, if anything else does exist, [must] have been created.”
Descartes presents to us an argument for God’s existence, in Meditations, which is the ontological argument. This argument starts with “the idea of God” as “the idea of a supremely perfect Being.” But “a supremely perfect Being,” by definition, “possesses every sort of perfection,: including that of existence, “since existence is one of these.” If one was to separate existence from the idea of God, by definition that person is no longer thinking of God. “For it is not within my power to think of God without existence.” “And this necessity suffices to make me conclude (after having recognized that existence is a perfection) that these first and sovereign Being really exists.” “And so I very clearly recognize that the certainty recognize that the certainty and truth of all knowledge depends alone on the knowledge of the true God, insomuch that, before I knew Him, I could not have a perfect knowledge of any other thing.”
-
chair... "christians" are not dishonest by my logic so far as their religion goes... They freely admit that they have only their faith as proof.
The athiest is dishonest because he will not admit that his belief if purely faith based.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
chair... "christians" are not dishonest by my logic so far as their religion goes... They freely admit that they have only their faith as proof.
The athiest is dishonest because he will not admit that his belief if purely faith based.
lazs
I think your understanding may be a bit off then.
There's 2 kinds of truth.
Absolute truth. Accepting something on faith that it is correct, and will always be correct.
Provisional truth. Accepting something as correct, until it can be disproved.
Religion relies on absolute truth. Science relies on provisional truth.
That is, and will always be, the fundamental difference between religion and science. In religion, questioning beliefs is considered heresy. In science, questioning and disproving beliefs is ... well... what you're suppose to do.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
chair... "christians" are not dishonest by my logic so far as their religion goes... They freely admit that they have only their faith as proof.
The athiest is dishonest because he will not admit that his belief if purely faith based.
lazs
Lazs,
You should re-read the posts of myself and others and examine the content more carefully. Again I will say, faith is completely different from reason. Not to hold one higher than the other, but they are different things.
Personally I do not believe in god because I have seen no evidence, and I have seen evidence that disproves the existing theories of god or gods. I am not relying on faith in someone that told me there was no god, or some abstract belief that there could be no god, I am relying on empirical observation that, in my mind, the world just doesn't work that way.
I think I understand where you're coming from, but it does annoy/offend me alittle when people think they need to ascribe these things to faith or belief. It's like you're trying to defend something, and that by acknowleging what I and others are saying about their own personal world views it will diminish your own justification for your world view. I would have more 'faith' in your argument if you left things like 'purely faith based' out of your statements, as this is missing our points entirely.
Agnostic-
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
[url]http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/agnostic[/ulr]
This means undecided. Atheism would imply a decided rejection of the concepts of dieties or religious belief systems. This does not necessarily mean that they believe that on faith, though some may.
-
An alternate perspective:
It seems to me that it is entirely plausible that humanity's creation of the concept of dieties, stemming all the way back through our history for sure, could collectively be a metaphore for alien beings who initially seeded life on this planet as something of a horticultural experiment. It would easily explain sightings of gods, people's conversations with gods and the common theistic strain running through almost every major religion (beings greater and more powerful then ourselves, seemingly all knowing). That these beings check in from time to time would only seem logical, within this framework of thinking. That UFO sightings have supposedly increased since the invention of nuclear weapons would possibly indicate increased interest in our backwater planet, contingent upon their notice of our technological advancement. Popular fiction such as Star Trek, Predator and many other genres have touched on concepts like this.
Do I believe this? NO. Though I find it more plausible than the explanations that all other human religions have forwarded to this day. Do I know this? NO. Because I have seen no proof of any of this. I have not seen any disproof either, but that does not mean that we can accept it as fact.
It's just a funny thought really. Though it would explain UFO sightings, and weird reports of UFOs hovering over nuclear missile silos, all the switches coming on all of a sudden, the techs freaking out, and then the launch cancelling itself as suddenly as it began. Like there's not interstellar teenagers out there with daddys saucer that have a perverted sense of humor?
My personal view is that human kind invented the concept of religion to explain things around them that they could not explain otherwise, like lightning, as well as to give themselves some higher purpose to believe in. The advancement of science has shown us that many of these explanations were just wrong, and that many more plausible explanations lay around us. Science also tells us that we do not fully know all the explanations, and possibly never will, because life itself is truly bigger than any of us. I'm fine with accepting that we don't know certain things, or that new data in the future will lead us to better explanations than we have now. That has nothing to do with faith, not in a god or in a lack thereof, and not in science.
Again, believe what you want to, but please don't try to tell me what I belive, or on what basis I make these conclusions.
-
Hello indy,
Originally posted by indy007
I think your understanding may be a bit off then.
There's 2 kinds of truth.
Absolute truth. Accepting something on faith that it is correct, and will always be correct.
Provisional truth. Accepting something as correct, until it can be disproved.
Religion relies on absolute truth. Science relies on provisional truth.
That is, and will always be, the fundamental difference between religion and science. In religion, questioning beliefs is considered heresy. In science, questioning and disproving beliefs is ... well... what you're suppose to do.
I realize I am coming into the thread late in the day, and I apologize for that, but actually a number of scientists and philosophers have pointed out that neo-Darwinianism is actually more of a faith than a science, especially now that biochemical evidence has shown that Natural Selection cannot explain the creation of cellular structures or even something as fundamental as a protein. However, since the ruling religion of our age is scientific naturalism, and Darwinian evolution is the necessary creation myth for that particular religion, the evidence has to conform to the theory and not vice versa.
As Phillip Johnson wrote in his essay The Beginning of Reason:
In all the world there is no greater dogmatist than "everybody knows." Dogmatism is a human characteristic that grows out of insecurity. It is particularly pronoinced in the case of individuals or groups that hold power positions what are threatened by criticism. Religious priesthoods have sometimes tried to protect their power by forbidding the translation of the Bible into vernacular languages or by taking the know-nothing attitude toward scientific observations that threatened traditional ways of viewing the world. In our own day the ruling priesthood consistst of authoratative bodies like the National Academy of Sciences, the academic and legal elites, and the managers of the national media.
The new priesthood, like the old ones, has a vested interest in safeguarding its cultural authority by making it as difficult as possible for critics to be heard. The modern equivalent of excommunication is marginalization, which is much more humane than physical punishment but just as effective in protecting the ruling philosophy. Those who try to challenge naturalism are confined not in a prison cell but in a stereotype, and the terms in which the media and the textbooks report any controversy are defined in a manner designed to prevent dangerous ideas from getting serious consideration. Whatever the critics of naturalism say is mere ‘religious belief,’ in opposition to ‘scientific knowledge’; hence it is, by definition, fantasy as opposed to solid fact.
Heresy these days within the scientific community consists of questioning the presuppositions of Scientific naturalism and while one cannot be burned at the stake, ones career certainly can. I have personally spoken with two Biochemists who will not publish what they believe based on their own research simply because they are rightly fearful that it would be the end of their careers.
Just last year, for instance, publishing a peer reviewed article written by a PhD that questioned the ability of Darwinian Evolution to explain the sudden proliferation of animal life in the Cambrian Explosion cost one Evolutionary biologist, Richard Sternburg, his career at that particular institution:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html
Everyone has faith commitments, they are in fact essential to reasoning, its just that some deny their existence in order to assert a claim to intellectual superiority.
So we all scrape and bow and say "Life was spontaneously generated from non-life" and "Chemicals can create information" and "From Nothing Everything Comes" lest we be thought stupid and unreasonable and become marginalized.
-
no wonder why the bible is so damn long.
sheesh.
:cool:
-
I believe in God..... but I have a question that I have not been able to resolve.
If we all stem from Adam and Eve, does that mean we are all inbred?
I can't even play a banjo :huh
-
Seagoon,
Funny how the article you linked does not actually comment on the merits of that guys scientific argument. It does quote one other scientist as saying it was rubbish, or something like that, and mostly focuses on a supposed witch hunt against him. Whether or not that happened, if his scientific conclusions were supported by scientific fact and analysis I do believe (trusting in the scientific community) that other biologists would have been able to comment directly on its scientific merits and shortcomings.
Funny also that his main champion is a Bush political appointee.
Genetics and other scientific disciplines besides biology have shown that Darwin's tested theories on the evolution of species are correct.
King Phil Comes Over For Good Soup: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.
There is certainly orthodoxy in science, but it is a problem. Orthodoxy itself is not a scapegoat for shoddy science, or for good-faith scientific research that does not hold merit.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello indy,
Well said Seagoon. I appreciate your insight on alot of things. However, you're arguing internal and external politics regarding studies and not the actual science.
Do you have articles that can thoroughly debunk all that is known and documented about modern evolutionary synthesis? I would like to know why a whale has a hip-bone, why virtually all marsupials are in Australia, and the fossils of translational species. I'd like a counter to Endosymbiotic theory. Currently it offers an explanation for evolutionary leaps, and the origin of mitochondria & plastids.
-
I think its amusing the way christians like to attack the word and definition of atheism itself. Like if they beat it into a pulp it will go away.
Even more amusing is that atheism does not preclude belief in a religion nor does religion preclude atheist beliefs. Take a look at buddhism for an example.
Whats more amusing is that many christians believe atheism precludes moral behaviour, such irony. When you point them at one of the largest organized groups of atheists (buddhists) known for excellent moral behaviour it really throws them for a spin.
I get a kick out of explaining christianity to some of my buddhists friends who have not had much exposure to it. They laugh at the stories in the bible, much in the same way some christians would laugh at an african witch doctor.
For the christians in this thread, go have a look at buddha's 'creation' comments to get a different perspective on things.
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
I believe in God..... but I have a question that I have not been able to resolve.
If we all stem from Adam and Eve, does that mean we are all inbred?
I can't even play a banjo :huh
Have you tried? (the banjo that is) :D
-
Hello 68,
Originally posted by 68Hawk
Seagoon,
Funny how the article you linked does not actually comment on the merits of that guys scientific argument. It does quote one other scientist as saying it was rubbish, or something like that, and mostly focuses on a supposed witch hunt against him. Whether or not that happened, if his scientific conclusions were supported by scientific fact and analysis I do believe (trusting in the scientific community) that other biologists would have been able to comment directly on its scientific merits and shortcomings.
The heresy hunt is undeniable, and that despite the fact that Sternberg is an editor not the author of the article as well as an agnostic. He is not even a recognized ID advocate. His sin was to publish the article by Stephen C. Meyer.
The Wash Post Article Notes:
An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that "retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false."
"The rumor mill became so infected," James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, "that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist."
NROnline goes into further detail regarding the tactics used against him - none of which were aimed at the actual arguments in the essay he had the temerity to publish:
However strong you think the argument is for Intelligent Design — and I'm no scientist — most reasonable people would agree that an ID theoretician should, without fear of retaliation, be allowed to state his case for the consideration of fellow scientists. This was the view held by Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of ID. However, according to the OSC's investigation, when the Meyer article was published, Sternberg's managers were outraged and a number of them sought a strategy that would make him pay.
Writes the OSC's McVay: "Within two weeks of receiving the Meyer article in the Proceedings, four managers at the SI and NMNH [National Museum of Natural History] expressed their desire to have your access to the SI denied." A typical internal e-mail on the subject fumed, "I hope we are not even considering extending his access to space." (All quotations from e-mails given here are taken from the OSC's letter to Sternberg.) Another expresses frustration that a good pretext for dismissing him had so far not been identified: "As he hasn't (yet) been discovered to have done anything wrong,... the sole reason to terminate his appt seems to be that the host unit has suddenly changed its mind. If that's OK w/NMNH, let me know and I'll send him a letter stating so." One manager huffed, "Well, if you ask me, a face-to-face meeting or at least a 'you are welcome to leave or resign' call with this individual is in order." The same e-mail indicated that a manager had been compiling trivial offenses by Sternberg that could be cited in telling him to get out. Among other things, the Smithsonian staffer had gone over Sternberg's library records. He "has currently 50 books checked out from the SI library (I checked this with the library)."
One bright idea was to tear apart the traditional veil of secrecy concerning the identities of the scientists ("peers") who had reviewed and approved Meyer's article before publication. The "serious effort" to do this, as the OSC document relates, would represent an unprecedented and unethical act within your [Sternberg's] field. They also assumed that you [Sternberg] violated editorial regulations of the Proceedings because you were the primary editor of the article. These comments were made to and by SI and NMNH managers and were published to several outside organizations. It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists. As an aside, the information received by OSC does not indicate that any effort was made to recall or correct these comments once the truth was made known.
One disturbing element in the affair concerns Sternberg's allegations that his supervisor, Zoology Department chairman Jonathan Coddington, called around the museum to check out Sternberg's religious and political affiliations. After I wrote about this in Wall Street Journal, Coddington, who had repeatedly ignored my telephone calls asking for his side of the story, responded on a favorite website of Darwinists.
Coddington wrote: "As for prejudice on the basis of beliefs or opinions, I repeated and consistently emphasized to staff...that private beliefs and/or controversial editorial decisions were irrelevant in the workplace...that [Sternberg] was an established and respected scientist, and that he would at all times be treated as such."
The OSC investigation directly contradicts this: "...at the same time many other actions were taken during the uproar over the Meyer article, your [Sternberg's] supervisor was questioning your friends about your personal political and religious background."
The investigation also contradicts Coddington's assertion that no actions were ever taken against Sternberg: "At no time did anyone deny him [research] space, keys, or access." According to the OSC, "they denied your access by taking your master key." The museum "prevented you from having the same access to the research specimens," access "given to others [who] do not have the same hindrances."
I would invite you to actually read the Stephen Meyer article he published, and point out the "rubbish" in it:
The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177)
You also state, "Genetics and other scientific disciplines besides biology have shown that Darwin's tested theories on the evolution of species are correct. " Actually, Biochemistry and the new field of Genetics are proving exactly the opposite, as Dean Kenyon, one of the premier biochemists attempting to prove "Biochemical Predestination" eventually conceded. I write that as a former believer in and advocate of Darwinianism, who is married to a former Geochemist myself.
Simply put, the "Deus Ex Machina" that powers Neo-Darwinian theory, natural selection, cannot account for the formation of life from non-life or the formation of actual information.
Darwinianism absolutely breaks down at the very cellular level that Darwin had no knowledge of. Let me try to begin to explain why using a minimum of jargon.
Proteins are made up of long complex chains of organic chemicals call "amino acids", various proteins are brought together to form structures within cells each of which has a highly complex role to play - they are in essence the "engines" of the cell, the composition of these amino acid chains is determined by the information contained in DNA. It is the DNA code that instructs the cellular machines that put together the Amino acid chains in what order they are to go. Nothing in Darwins theory can account for the creation of the information in DNA, or most importantly how amino acids were assembled in the correct order to form proteins prior to the creation of DNA. Proteins cannot precede the DNA necessary to construct them and inorganic chemicals cannot create information.
Also, natural selection cannot occur without the driving force of life and death and thus "genetic favoritism" and gradual change. Natural selection actually presumes the existance of at least cellular life-forms before it can operate. It cannot explain the combination of organic chemicals or even their creation.
EDIT: mixed my cans with my cannots
-
Hello Vulcan,
Originally posted by Vulcan
Whats more amusing is that many christians believe atheism precludes moral behaviour, such irony. When you point them at one of the largest organized groups of atheists (buddhists) known for excellent moral behaviour it really throws them for a spin.
I get a kick out of explaining christianity to some of my buddhists friends who have not had much exposure to it. They laugh at the stories in the bible, much in the same way some christians would laugh at an african witch doctor.
For the christians in this thread, go have a look at buddha's 'creation' comments to get a different perspective on things.
Yeah, I spent many an evening myself sitting around with buddies getting drunk and/or stoned and making fun of God, Christianity, Christians, and the Bible and how ridiculous they are. We all agreed how much smarter and more moral we were than those evil ignoramuses. Of course my morals and intelligence have declined significantly since the days when I still knew everything.
As for how Buddhism universally produces "excellent moral behavior" you may not be familiar with flavors of Buddhism such as Nichiren Shoshu, which was briefly discussed in this thread a little while ago:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=189176&highlight=shoshu
Also, while I would agree that persecuting or eliminating other religions is not necessarily part of Buddhism, Buddhists in several nations are not above doing it:
Sri Lanka - May 12 (Compass Direct) – Unruly mobs have attacked three churches over the past fortnight, in one incident setting car tires on fire in front of a Methodist church to prevent people from entering for Sunday worship. On Saturday (May 6), a Buddhist monk in Poddala led a mob to a site where members of the United Christian Fellowship had begun building a community hall and threatened the pastor and a construction worker; one man grabbed the construction worker by the collar and assaulted him. Construction is on hold due to fears of another attack. In Piliyandala, southeast of Colombo, Buddhist monks on April 30 led a mob to a Methodist church and prevented members from entering, as police declined to help. Also in Piliyandala, an Assembly of God church is facing a poster campaign and threats of massive protests if it does not close down. Violent mobs have carried out at least 160 attacks on churches or Christian institutions since 2002, when Buddhist monks first launched their campaign to introduce anti-conversion legislation.
Finally, in application its interesting to see how the differences between Buddhist ethical teachings and Christian ethical teachings produce profoundly different effects in the world. I have an example illustrating this from the recollections of Ernest Gordon who was one of the wretched prisoners who worked on the "Railway of Death" made famous in "Bridge Over the River Kwai", but that will have to wait for tomorrow as I don't have his book at home.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello Vulcan,
Yeah, I spent many an evening myself sitting around with buddies getting drunk and/or stoned and making fun of God, Christianity, Christians, and the Bible and how ridiculous they are. We all agreed how much smarter and more moral we were than those evil ignoramuses. Of course my morals and intelligence have declined significantly since the days when I still knew everything.
As for how Buddhism universally produces "excellent moral behavior" you may not be familiar with flavors of Buddhism such as Nichiren Shoshu, which was briefly discussed in this thread a little while ago:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=189176&highlight=shoshu
Also, while I would agree that persecuting or eliminating other religions is not necessarily part of Buddhism, Buddhists in several nations are not above doing it:
Finally, in application its interesting to see how the differences between Buddhist ethical teachings and Christian ethical teachings produce profoundly different effects in the world. I have an example illustrating this from the recollections of Ernest Gordon who was one of the wretched prisoners who worked on the "Railway of Death" made famous in "Bridge Over the River Kwai", but that will have to wait for tomorrow as I don't have his book at home.
Perhaps you misunderstand. My buddhist friends find the bible funny because of the outrageous fantasy stories it tells, such as walking on water, converting water to wine etc. They didn't need to be drunk, the reaction was more of that akin to what you might think if you encountered 50 year old man who still believed in the the tooth fairy.
I'm well aware of the Sri Lankan 'buddhists', as I understand it they are more of a hindu political movement than actual buddhists, actively using buddhism as a cover as opposed to being a real extremist sect.
As for the railway of death, there was no religious motivation there at all. The japanese persecution of prisoners was both cultural and rascist. A much different kettle of fish altogether.
What you may not be able to fathom is the self judgement involved in buddhism. They doctrine is more of a be good to the extent you know you can be, and the only judge of your deeds is yourself. IE more of a 'its not good to kill if you can avoid it' as opposed to a 'thou shalt not kill'.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Perhaps you misunderstand. My buddhist friends find the bible funny because of the outrageous fantasy stories it tells, such as walking on water, converting water to wine etc. They didn't need to be drunk, the reaction was more of that akin to what you might think if you encountered 50 year old man who still believed in the the tooth fairy.
I'm well aware of the Sri Lankan 'buddhists', as I understand it they are more of a hindu political movement than actual buddhists, actively using buddhism as a cover as opposed to being a real extremist sect.
As for the railway of death, there was no religious motivation there at all. The japanese persecution of prisoners was both cultural and rascist. A much different kettle of fish altogether.
What you may not be able to fathom is the self judgement involved in buddhism. They doctrine is more of a be good to the extent you know you can be, and the only judge of your deeds is yourself. IE more of a 'its not good to kill if you can avoid it' as opposed to a 'thou shalt not kill'.
Actually, in the original language it doesn't say "kill" it says "murder".
The meaning of some words change over time. Such as the word kill. At one time, (around the time the KJV was being created), the word kill was associated with the word murder, as in the taking of an innocent life, whereas slay was used to express the taking of life while in battle against others trying to end your existance while you trying to survive.
With each issue of the newer and newer dictionaries meanings have been changes a little here a little there. Perhaps to reflect the more moderen usage?
Got a couple of old ones that don't quite match the new ones re deffinitions of words.
-
Hello back, pastor Seagoon,
I am not denying that a witch hunt may have ocurred, but I still think it is suspicious as to motive that the lead investigator and main contact to the 'abused' parties was a bush political apointee. Given the bush group's politicizing of this issue of late, it would be nice if you'd bring other evidence from a more reliable source. A source link for the second quote would be nice too.
Even if there was undue pressure or discrimination, I can understand where these scientists come from, as their very professional identity has been under assault from many sides of late, mostly bringing what is truly not science and posing it as such.
As a historian, I would be completely offended if a colleague tried to argue, for instance, that the holocaust did not occur. I have been to some of the camps myself, and humanity can beyond a shadow of a doubt declare that it did happen. If someone were to masquerade an argument refuting this with scholarship I would not only lose confidence in them as a scholar, but I would not want them to have anything to do with me and my scholarly reputation. I would certainly look deeper into that person's background and see as to what their motivations might be. This is called historiography, understanding what someone's motivations, assumptions and analytical framework are for their scholarship in history. This is as important to look at as their actual argument is.
As for Darwin's The Origin of Species, it does not to my knowlege attempt to posit an origin of life itself, but the origin of the species populating the planet today. Please correct me if I missed something in there, as I read it several years ago. That the intelligent design crowd has claimed that it does is telling about their perspective and analytical achievements. It should also be noted that Darwin was himself a christian. It is not my sphere of scholarship to try to comment on what indy posed to you regarding actual scientific theory and it's current conclusions regarding the origin of life itself, or the other compex issues that you raise, but I'd like to see your response to him.
As for the study itself that you linked, thank you and I will read it when I get the chance, but as it is not my scholarly discipline I will refrain from scholarly analysis. I only refered, loosley paraphrazing, to what the article you previously linked said as to the content of its argument as the only substantive thing that was discussed about it in the article itself. If the conclusion itself is any hint as to the actual content of the article, as well it should be, then it basically says that there is no other scientific conclusion to draw but that life is too complex to explain with science, and an intelligent being must have done it. I find this hightly problematic, and the usage of "causally adequate" seems to be problematic as well.
You can feel free to quote me in your sermon on sunday, just don't take me out of context.
-
Quote Seagoon,
"As for how Buddhism universally produces "excellent moral behavior" you may not be familiar with....."
This is not what Vulcan said.
Quote Vulcan,
"When you point them at one of the largest organized groups of atheists (buddhists) known for excellent moral behaviour it really throws them for a spin."
This is what he said. I don't see universal anywhere in there. He might have put 'largely' in front of 'known' for clarification. Is that what you meant Vulcan?
-
"If we all stem from Adam and Eve, does that mean we are all inbred?"
lol. Good one.
BTW, why do men have nipples?
-
Originally posted by Westy
BTW, why do men have nipples?
so we can make fun of fat guys
(http://www.digital-root.net/sideboob.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Westy
BTW, why do men have nipples?
Because they develop early in pregnancy, when all fetusus (feti?) are female. The gender change of 50% of us happens after they develop.
-
And the lord spoke unto the AH flyer:
"Why does thy secular moral flyer ignore me?"
AH flyer says "you command us to do what is good.But is it good because you command it,or do you command it because it is good?"
The lord thinks and then says "It's good because I command it?"
"The wrong answer your mightiness!, if the good is only good because you say it is so,then you could, if you wish, make it so that torturing infants was good. But that would be absurd wouldn't it?"
"of course says the lord, what was the other choice again?"
"You choose what is good because it IS good.But that shows quite clearly that goodness does not depend on you at all. So I don't need to study God to study the good"
"Ok, but you must admit I've written some good books on the subject"
-
Originally posted by Debonair
so we can make fun of fat guys
(http://www.digital-root.net/sideboob.jpg)
THE SIDEBOOB SHOW!!!
-
Originally posted by wrag
Actually, in the original language it doesn't say "kill" it says "murder".
The meaning of some words change over time. Such as the word kill. At one time, (around the time the KJV was being created), the word kill was associated with the word murder, as in the taking of an innocent life, whereas slay was used to express the taking of life while in battle against others trying to end your existance while you trying to survive.
With each issue of the newer and newer dictionaries meanings have been changes a little here a little there. Perhaps to reflect the more moderen usage?
Got a couple of old ones that don't quite match the new ones re deffinitions of words.
I assume you're talking about the bible correct?
Herein lies one of the fundamental differences. Christians argue about semantics, buddhists just say "you know what I mean't".
From my humble point of view christianity is stuck worshiping words and fixed absolute values. It will never survive in the long run because of this.
-
vulcans. (http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Vulcan)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I assume you're talking about the bible correct?
Herein lies one of the fundamental differences. Christians argue about semantics, buddhists just say "you know what I mean't".
From my humble point of view christianity is stuck worshiping words and fixed absolute values. It will never survive in the long run because of this.
Hmm.......
Actually no I wasn't talking about the bible. I was talking about basic word deffinitions and how they can, and do, change over time.
Semantics? Isn't semantics dealing more with what a word means in reference to timing, toneal quality, sentence structure, pronounciation? Like saying a set of words in a specific order using a specific toneal quailty, very slowly, pronouncing extremely carefully, to say an equal, might be consider sarcasm by some? and others might think your talking to someone hard of hearing. Isn't it more concerned of how one speaks?
And if I honestly didn't know what you meant then "you know what I mean't" means what?
Words MUST mean something. Otherwise HOW do we talk to each other, how do we communicate?
I find your christian buddhist comparison .... flawed. It's possable that individuals can become so KNOWN to each other over time that they can say such and everything works out fine.
Your description of christains worshipping words? Fixed absolute values? Please explain your meaning by these statements. Perhaps with an example?
Lets get our word meaning a little more together? More matching is perhaps the word I seek?
-
Rock on Hawco!
-
"Because they develop early in pregnancy..."
Ah. So it seems that at conception we're all the same - just a big jumble of organic parts of which half get dscarded midway through development. Why do men continue to display thier useless spare parts?! Intelligent design? Or nature?
Hmmmm.....
"so we can make fun of fat guys"
lol. More like "so fat guys have some more things to play with" :)
Or the torturer has someplace to attach the clips? ;)
-
I think that some of the "athiests" here are confusing me with a christian.. I am not.
I have faith that there is a god. A creator who has an interest in my life and that there is something besides rot after death.
I freely admit that this is simply faith based.
The agnostic says.. "you may be right, you may be wrong, I don't know"
The athiest says.. "there is no possibility that you are right"
The athiest is dishonest because he will not admit his beliefe is simply faith based and that if it were not... he would not say he was an athiest but an agnostic.
I pointed out that many athiests believe that science can explain everything and... that they also believe in ghosts and aliens and bigfoot and a number of other things that are bizarre and have no proof.
They claim science but... science says that anything is possible till disproved.... athiests say that god is impossible... not science here but.... faith.
Athiesm is a faith and an agenda and... in many cases... a political tool...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The athiest is dishonest because he will not admit his beliefe is simply faith based and that if it were not... he would not say he was an athiest but an agnostic.
I don't believe in the tooth fairey or father christmas. Doies that make me dishonest lazs?
I don't believe in such thing as a god for many reasons....such as:
- the lack of evidence
- the lack of logic required to establish the existance of a god (eg the who created god arguments)
- the overwhelming fantasticalness of religions themselves that worship god(s) (eg christianity and its creationism theories)
- the history of previous gods and hiow they've sooner or later been established as fantasy by suceeding religions
-
Originally posted by wrag
Your description of christains worshipping words? Fixed absolute values? Please explain your meaning by these statements. Perhaps with an example?
The Ten Commandments.
Game.
Set.
Match.
thanks for playing.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
The Ten Commandments.
Game.
Set.
Match.
thanks for playing.
Hmmmm.........
OK to be sure I ge this...............
Your saying they worship the words of the ten commandments?
Fixed set of values? Thought those were morals?
-
Originally posted by wrag
Hmmmm.........
OK to be sure I ge this...............
Your saying they worship the words of the ten commandments?
Fixed set of values? Thought those were morals?
And the lord spoke unto the AH fighter pilot:
" I am the lord your god and I command thee to sacrifice your only son"
The flyers said "There's something not right here, your commandments say Thou shalt not kill"
"The lord giveth the rules and the lord taketh away" said god
"But how do I know you are god? you could be the devil trying to trick me?"
"You must have faith"
"Faith? or insanity? You want to see If I have so little moral fibre that at a command of a booming voice through the clouds, I will commit infantcide"
"Me almighty!" said the lord, What you are saying is that is reasonable for you, a mere mortal, to refuse to do what I, the god, commands"
"I guess so and you've given me no good reason to change my mind"
-
:rofl
I'm done here......................... ...
-
Lazs,
I'm not saying that 'we can't really know for sure'. You may feel this way, and that is all right, but I am saying that for me I see no evidence of a god at all. The human 'thesis' of dieties, in whatever form, has been disproven beyond doubt for me, and while you leave open the possibility that there could be, I don't.
This is not about belief. This is not about dishonesty. This is about a difference in paradigms and initial assumptions. Some people assume that there is a god, and a lack of proof of a god or gods existance does not disprove absence. I do not begin with this assumption, but look at the issue from the perspective of humans positing that there is, and failing to see any proof whatsoever of the existance of dieties, or higher beings. If someone tried to say there were sphynxs (sp?) flying around, I'd say show me a picture. If they couldn't produce any proof I'd say, well sorry, you've never seen one and neither has anyone else. Let me know if you do come across something, otherwise they don't exist. Since we know that a sphinx is a mythological creation of man, as are dieties, we can KNOW that there is no such thing as a sphinx outside of human imagination.
Simple as that. It takes faith to believe in sphynxs. It is not a matter of believing that there are none. Humanity has been so fractured by religious superstition. It will be a great day for everyone when we can all just get over beliving things without any cause or reason.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
The Ten Commandments.
Game.
Set.
Match.
thanks for playing.
Vulcan,
The Ten Commandments is old testament.
Christians believe that the sacrafice of JC allows old testament sins to be forgiven.
So if breaking one of the "Fixed absolute values" can be forgiven, maybe they are not so fixed and absolute....
Looks like the ball was on the line and the call may be overturned by the head linesman.
-
Hello Vulcan,
Originally posted by Vulcan
Perhaps you misunderstand. My buddhist friends find the bible funny because of the outrageous fantasy stories it tells, such as walking on water, converting water to wine etc. They didn't need to be drunk, the reaction was more of that akin to what you might think if you encountered 50 year old man who still believed in the the tooth fairy.
Please don't misunderstand, I didn't need to be drunk to ridicule Christianity either. I despised it in whatever condition I was in, although curiously of all the religions I had studied, it was the one I understood the least and the only one I prefered to only read about through the lens of other critics. I knew nothing of the Gospel, and felt that the miracles were so much make believe as well. I never stopped to consider that if God had actually become incarnate and dwelt amongst us, then what would be impossible for us would be nothing at all for Him. Then again, during Christ's time they either denied His miracles, or when they couldn't actually do that, they attributed them to the power not of God but of Satan. Certainly the rule is that the hardened heart will not accept the good news no matter how much evidence is piled up. And I can say that from personal experience.
As for the railway of death, there was no religious motivation there at all. The japanese persecution of prisoners was both cultural and rascist. A much different kettle of fish altogether.
What you may not be able to fathom is the self judgement involved in buddhism. They doctrine is more of a be good to the extent you know you can be, and the only judge of your deeds is yourself. IE more of a 'its not good to kill if you can avoid it' as opposed to a 'thou shalt not kill'.
It is of course entirely possible, that despite having studied Buddhism and added a few of its teaching to my mix and match world view in the late 80s, I might not be enlightened enough to understand it. Then again, that shouldn't surprise me since everyone on the BB understands Christianity better than I do. ;) But in any event, no I wasn't going to attribute the actions of the Japanese during the Second World War to Buddhism, although many Buddhists took part in the atrocities, that was more due to a nasty nexus of Shintoism, cultural arrogance, and Fascism.
Actually, I was going to cite an example of what the practical outworkings of the ethical teachings of Buddhism versus evangelical Christianity look like. This following was recorded by Ernest Gordon during his time working on the Railway of Death. Incidently, Gordon began his time as a POW as an atheist. His memoirs are recorded in the book, Miracle on the River Kwai. I apologize in advance for the length of this quote, and that it will take two posts, it is however worthy of consideration:
They heard of an Australian soldier who was caught outside the camp trying to obtain medicine from the local Thais for sick friends. The Japanese sentenced him to death for this and insisted that all the men in the camp were to watch his execution. The Australian calmly knelt down, drew a New Testament from his ragged shorts, and read from it. He then put the book away, smiled and called out: 'Cheer up; it isn't as bad as all that. I'll be all right.' He knelt, bent his head forward, and a Samurai sword flashed in the sunlight as he was killed. On another occasion, at the end of a day's work, a guard declared that a shovel was missing. Working himself up into an uncontrollable rage, he screamed: 'All die! All die!' Just as the guard was about to begin shooting the whole group, one man stepped forward and said, 'I did it.' Seizing his rifle by the barrel, the guard brought it down on the prisoner's head. The Scottish soldier sank to the ground, dead. When the shovels were counted afterwards, they were all there. The guard had simply made a mistake.
Such acts of self-sacrifice made other prisoners ask, 'Is there anything in Christianity?' A new spirit of thinking about others became more evident in the camp. Ernest Gordon was not convinced that the Bible was true. He argued against Dusty's faith. Didn't Dusty realize that twenty young men were dying in Chungkai every day? 'Why doesn't God do something, instead of just sitting on his big, white throne in heaven?' Gordon asked.
Dusty thought for a moment and replied, 'We can't see everything God is doing now. I suppose one day we'll see and then we'll understand.'
At this time there was an incident outside the camp that influenced Ernest Gordon. Quite frequently as the prisoners tramped through local Thai villages on the way to work, they encountered yellow-robed Buddhist priests with their silver begging bowls. Buddhism was, and is, the dominant religion in Thailand. The philosophy of the priests was non-attachment to the world. Thus, if a prisoner dropped at the side of the road and was obviously dying, they would ignore him. The pitiful condition of the slave labourers was of
no concern to them. There was no place for mercy in their thinking.
One day the wretched prisoners passed through a village where the inhabitants, at some risk to themselves, gave them food, medicine and money. On enquiry, it was discovered that through the influence of a missionary, the villagers had been converted from Buddhism to Christianity. The contrast between the ethics of Buddhism and Christianity were crystal clear to the observant prisoners. Again, the question asked itself: was there more to what the Bible taught than Ernest Gordon had thought?
His questioning was still going on when an Australian sergeant dropped in one evening. The two men had never met before. The visitor wanted Gordon to lead a discussion group with the object of finding out what the Bible taught and if it was true. 'My men think you are right for the job because you are a fighting soldier and you've been to university,' he was told. They did not want 'Sunday School stuff. They wanted 'the real thing' — strictly no 'waffling', which was the gentle art of avoiding the facts.
The question to be answered was: 'What did Jesus really teach?' How could these teachings have anything to do with their lives? Feeling very unsure of himself, Gordon read from a Bible another prisoner had given him. They
gathered in a bamboo grove near the 'hospital'. He reported what the Gospels taught to the discussion group next evening. At each successive
meeting, numbers grew. Men knew that unaided human reason had nothing to offer them. Why not look elsewhere?
Ernest Gordon and his friends gradually came to know Jesus as a real person in their lives. The cross showed that God, through Jesus, knew all about suffering. There was no obvious explanation, other than sin, to explain why people suffered, but at least they came to believe that God cared. At that time, their biggest question was: 'How do I face death?' To that, human reason offers poor answers, or no answer at all. But Jesus said, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die' (John 11:25-26). These men, including Gordon, approached God through Jesus. Some died trusting in Christ and listening to the Word of God. They knew that God was with them as they neared the end of their lives.
It was there at Chungkai in 1943 that Ernest Gordon and many others became real Christians. They experienced the new life of the Holy Spirit
within them, enabling them to believe in Christ, who had died for them and was gloriously raised again. As a result, a church came into being — not a building, but men united by faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour. They held worship services. They prayed. For bread and wine they had rice and rice water. There was even a Bible-lending library. A man could borrow a Bible for one hour at a time.
This church without walls had all the marks of the biblical model, including an evangelistic spirit. Some British soldiers found two Chinese still alive after a massacre perpetrated by the Japanese. The two men were equipped with
fictitious identities and absorbed into the life of Chungkai camp. Christians witnessed to them. They were converted. There in the camp they were
baptized and admitted into the church without walls.
continued below...
-
Cont'd
On Christmas Day 1943, over 2,000 men attended a service. It was a better Christmas when compared with 1942. There was a new spirit everywhere at Chungkai. Stealing from the living and the dead ceased. Men really cared about one another. Although the guards were as brutal as ever, it seemed to many men that a miracle had happened. Those whose sickness was less intense gave blood for the more seriously ill - They respected the dead and buried them carefully. Chungkai was transformed by numerous acts of faith and sacrificial love. Ernest Gordon knew that if he survived, he would take his newly found faith into the post-war world.
The death railway had been completed in the autumn of 1943, but the suffering and dying went on in all camps across the Japanese Empire until the aggressors were finally crushed. Good Friday 1945 was important. That was the day Ernest Gordon was finally able to forgive the Japanese. They did not deserve forgiveness. The guards and their masters knew perfectly well that what they had done was evil. Nevertheless, the Christian has to pray, 'Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us' (Luke 11:4). And did not Christ on the cross pray, 'Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing'? (Luke 23:24).
The test came when a train moved Ernest Gordon and some fellow Chungkai prisoners towards Bangkok. They were shunted into a siding alongside some trucks loaded with desperately wounded Japanese troops. These men, the refuse of war, were ignored by their own side and waited fatalistically for death.
Without a word, Ernest Gordon and some fellow officers went to give them water. Both the Japanese guards and other British soldiers preferred to let them die. 'You are fools. They are the enemy,' one man protested. Eighteen months earlier these men from Chungkai would gladly have murdered any Japanese had it been possible. Having read the Bible, they recalled the story of the Good Samaritan. Now they obeyed its teaching. Many a time in later
life Ernest Gordon reflected that it was right to forgive and not allow bitterness to dominate his life. 15 August 1945 was the day the war in the Pacific ended reedom came. With a friend he gazed across the hills towards Chungkai and recited in full the lovely words of Psalm 121 which begins:
I lift up my eyes to the hills — where does my help come from? My help comes from the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth... "
[Don Stephens, War and Grace (p.163-165)]
-
the ten commandments are a standard. the first five commandments deal with an individuals relationship with God the latter five deal with an individuals relationship with humankind. they are an unattainable standard, no natural born person is, has been or will ever be that good. we all fall short of the mark. we are essentially condemned by the ten commandments.
christians believe that the christ came and lived as a man amongst men for his appointed time and never failed to keep the standard. his life was offered as God's planned, to be a perfect sacrifice in atonement for the shortcomings of all mankind.
a person has but to acknowledge this and accept the person of jesus christ as Lord and his sins will be covered by jesus' blood sacrifice.
if we remove all of the confusion created by still fallen man since the time of jesus' death, forget sectarian embellishments and all that other crap it boils down to this. who do you say jesus christ is? where your eternal soul will dwell depends on your individual response. you choose to condemn yourself by your answer. if you don't answer, you have answered.
this is what christianity is. from the point of conversion forward the individual is transformed by the indwelling of the God's spirit and through study. we don't all begin our walk at the same level preparedness or understanding and we are all unique but we are all changed by our conversion experience and we all gradually improve. christians, as many of you repeated point out are far far far from perfect.
so it isn't how good or bad you are or how many whoopees you said or what church you attend and how often. no one is better than me and I'm certainly not better than anyone else nor do many of us believe we are and yes many many horrible deeds have been perpetrated by men in the name of religion including christianity. that fact does not change the more important fact that the simple reading of this message represents my witness to the reader that he or she must deal with the person of jesus christ. in effect it becomes fiat, you have your warning. "every knee will bend and every head will bow and every person born will proclaim that jesus christ is Lord" some of us have chosen to do it voluntarily while it still counts as righteousness. this is a message that everyone has heard or will hear many times throughout a normal life. so we all have our multiple opportunities, we are all accountable for our decision.
-
10 commandments are good, but I don't want them:
1. Used as laws in the US.
2. Posted in public buildings with the implication that they are public policy.
If you don't know why I object, take a look at 1, 3, and 4.
-
So you're good with no punishment for murder and theft? Luck with that. ;)
-
Sorry seagoon, but thats bollocks.
"Buddhism was, and is, the dominant religion in Thailand. The philosophy of the priests was non-attachment to the world. Thus, if a prisoner dropped at the side of the road and was obviously dying, they would ignore him. The pitiful condition of the slave labourers was of
no concern to them. There was no place for mercy in their thinking."
This is seems to be a very one eyed view. For a start buddhist monks usually have no posessions, and secondly the japanese would probably execute them if they did do anything. Buddhism aspires to teach great respect for life. I can easily counter this example with examples of 'christians' in germany who did not lift a finger to help jews in concentration camps, or in some cases even exploited them.
My view on posts such as yours...
If a christian man commits a good deed, he is a good christian. If he commits a bad deed, then he is obviously not a true christian. (as viewed by christinans)
If a buddhist man commits a good deed, he is a good man. If he commits a bad deed, then he is a bad man. (as viewed by buddhists)
Apply it to your post.
See the difference?
-
You shouldn't admit something you can't prove.
You can't prove something that's outside the dominion of reason, religion being one of those things.
Just as you can't do certain things at the commands of an airliner without a good reason, you can't responsibly allow your own faith to affect anyone but yourself; not without their consent.
Should your faith, or the consequences of your faith's 'overlap' onto another's inalienable rights, e.g. equal opportunity to pursue hapiness, you would be left to justify your actions by something unreasonable (see first paragraph).
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Sorry seagoon, but thats bollocks.
"Buddhism was, and is, the dominant religion in Thailand. The philosophy of the priests was non-attachment to the world. Thus, if a prisoner dropped at the side of the road and was obviously dying, they would ignore him. The pitiful condition of the slave labourers was of
no concern to them. There was no place for mercy in their thinking."
This is seems to be a very one eyed view. For a start buddhist monks usually have no posessions, and secondly the japanese would probably execute them if they did do anything. Buddhism aspires to teach great respect for life. I can easily counter this example with examples of 'christians' in germany who did not lift a finger to help jews in concentration camps, or in some cases even exploited them.
My view on posts such as yours...
If a christian man commits a good deed, he is a good christian. If he commits a bad deed, then he is obviously not a true christian. (as viewed by christinans)
If a buddhist man commits a good deed, he is a good man. If he commits a bad deed, then he is a bad man. (as viewed by buddhists)
Apply it to your post.
See the difference?
i dont see the difference, but i didn't read the post, or most of this thread omfg lol
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
My view on posts such as yours...
If a christian man commits a good deed, he is a good christian. If he commits a bad deed, then he is obviously not a true christian. (as viewed by christinans)
If a buddhist man commits a good deed, he is a good man. If he commits a bad deed, then he is a bad man. (as viewed by buddhists)
Apply it to your post.
See the difference?
sorry vulcan but that is your perception. any person who commits a bad deed is not necessarily a bad person but perhaps a person who made an incorrect choice. a person who commits a good deed is not necessarily a good person, sometimes truly bad people do very good things for ulterior reasons. what has any of that to do with a person's belief system?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
10 commandments are good, but I don't want them:
1. Used as laws in the US.
2. Posted in public buildings with the implication that they are public policy.
If you don't know why I object, take a look at 1, 3, and 4.
chairboy have you read the poem "invictus" by william e. henley?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
10 commandments are good, but I don't want them:
1. Used as laws in the US.
2. Posted in public buildings with the implication that they are public policy.
If you don't know why I object, take a look at 1, 3, and 4.
wah!! :cry
china is nice this time of year ...
-
Originally posted by storch
chairboy have you read the poem "invictus" by william e. henley?
Yep. ?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
wah!! :cry
china is nice this time of year ...
You know what's even better? Establishing a country with the clear goal of keeping government and politics apart so neither can infect the other. What you implicitly advocate is unconstitutional. You don't have to be an atheist to see that.
-
chairboy, what you fail to see is that the ten commandments are the basis for our legal system. nothing is implied it is a fact, that's why it works as well as it does. is this what rubs you in the wrong direction?
-
You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God.
Remember the Sabbath, and keep it holy
You really don't have a problem with these being official government policy?
-
some ppl just can't get their head around the idea there is more to life than themselves
heheh .. in the end, they are in for a rude awakening lol
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You really don't have a problem with these being official government policy?
really can't remember then last time anyone was arrested for saying GD or mowing their lawns on Sunday .... is this REALLY that big an issue in your life?
must be nice ..
-
not at all
I believe in the creator. since I do then,
why not revere the creator and his name?
why not rest one day out of seven?
have you always been an atheist?
did you know that henley was a crippled by having a foot amputated due to disease. I read somewhere that he was a very bitter man.
these are very common threads that run through most of the atheists I've the pleasure to interact with. they all became angry with God at some point then they wanted to eradicate the God that would not serve them.
-
Hello Vulcan,
Originally posted by Vulcan
Sorry seagoon, but thats bollocks.
"Buddhism was, and is, the dominant religion in Thailand. The philosophy of the priests was non-attachment to the world. Thus, if a prisoner dropped at the side of the road and was obviously dying, they would ignore him. The pitiful condition of the slave labourers was of
no concern to them. There was no place for mercy in their thinking."
This is seems to be a very one eyed view. For a start buddhist monks usually have no posessions, and secondly the japanese would probably execute them if they did do anything. Buddhism aspires to teach great respect for life. I can easily counter this example with examples of 'christians' in germany who did not lift a finger to help jews in concentration camps, or in some cases even exploited them.
I expected that something like that would be your answer, as it probably would have been mine when I was a pagan. In the face of evidence that would support things like the eternal change for the better that Christianity can make in a persons life, deny the evidence, or go after the messenger.
Vulcan, Gordon lived for three years (1942-1945) as a slave worker in the midst of a Buddhist culture, for the first of those years he was an atheist. He saw what the effects of embracing a philosophy of pragmatism and materialism were in the Chungkai POW camp. He saw first hand what a miserable society those philosophies produce. Then he saw the difference between the actions and lives of the evangelical Christians in the camp, particularly in terms of self-sacrifice, peace, and contentment. He also noticed that it was not his fellow atheists who sacrificed themselves to help him. He did however find out that Christians sacrificed to save him, and that others like Angus McGillivray died to save men in the camp. He then saw the huge change in the camp and its prisoners after widespread conversions began to occur.
We aren't talking about theoreticals here or the famous "what should happen," but what did happen we are talking about historical facts, recorded in his memoirs and which many have affirmed and which noone amongst the thousands who survived the railway have contradicted.
Now, he also noticed that when a prisoner fell out and was dying, the local Buddhist monks didn't help, why would they? As the Buddha taught "All Life is suffering" and quite possibly the suffering man was reaping a Karmic reward. Regardless, there is no good Samaritan parable in Buddhism. He noticed the difference however in villages that had converted to Christianity, they did help, giving what help they could to a suffering stranger, regardless of the terrible consequences that could follow. The monks could have helped, if only to ease the suffering of that man's passing, but they did not. Even the monks outside the camp had more than the prisoners did, but they saw no reason to help. Now you can argue that it was not better to help, that to help would have been based on a faulty Christian worldview, or even that they weren't truly Buddhists as you argued about the Sri Lankans, but the fact is that one group didn't help dying prisoners because of their worldview, and another group did because of their worldview.
As for the Germans, I've documented in a previous thread (Chairboy's "Atheists Least Trusted" back in March) that the German "Christians" who supported Hitler were not worshipers of Christ but of Hitler and were co-opted overwhelmingly from the theologically liberal churches that didn't believe in the fundamentals of the Christian faith. As I wrote back in March:
"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 here 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, rejected supernaturalism, and thought Christianity was just another source of morals and national pride."
As the leading Pastor in this movement put it: "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." Now surely you can see the difference between that kind of idolatry and the genuine Christianity that swept through the Changkai prison camp?
My view on posts such as yours...
If a christian man commits a good deed, he is a good christian. If he commits a bad deed, then he is obviously not a true christian. (as viewed by christinans)
Not really, Christianity has more to do with faith in Christ and a supernaturaly changed heart. Good works in Christianity are the fruits and evidences of a lively faith. Their total absence indicates an empty profession. However, Christians freely confess that it is impossible to live a sinless life this side of eternity. The genuine Christian's life will therefore consist of a struggle with sin, and involve a lot of repentance and a gradual process of growth in grace and holiness.
But the critical difference between the Christian before and after, is the new desire to die to self, to live for Christ and to turn from sin. The complete change not just in philosophy but of life. This new birth is impossible in the closed universe of scientific materialism, therefore it is denied and the evidence of it dismissed, or as was the case with Nazis, this new life is dismissed as weak, worthless, and pathetic. This however is a problem with the observer, not a problem with the evidence.
-
During this thread, the concept of dishonesty has come up a number of times. Usually in the context of Lazs judging atheists.
The evidence, however, seems to suggest that dishonesty is present in the assertions that you two have just made, Eagle & Storch. In other threads, I've seen you promote the constitution and make comments to the effect that you believe in the principles on which this country was founded. Yet in one breath, each of you have just tacitly promoted the idea of a christianized nation with official recognition of that god, the sabbath, and the implied second-classification of anyone who does not meet that religious test.
For a good example of what happens when religion and government mix and become one, see Afghanistan's Taliban, or the government of Iran. Just because your religion is 'better' doesn't mean that the same basic things won't happen.
BTW Storch, I reflect on that poem's most recent appearance. Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph (America's two most famous christian terrorists) both quoted in in pretty high profile. McVeigh read it aloud immediately before his execution, and Rudolph used it during his trial.
Edit: grammar in last paragraph
-
Hello Chair,
Originally posted by Chairboy
During this thread, the concept of dishonesty has come up a number of times. Usually in the context of Lazs judging atheists.
...
The evidence, however, seems to suggest that dishonesty is present in the assertions that you two have just made
...
BTW Storch, I reflect on that poem's most recent appearance. Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph (America's two most famous christian terrorists)
Come now Chair, you've made that assertion before. The following is my reply is from the last time you asserted in a thread on Terrorism that McVeigh was a "Christian Terrorist":
Tim McVeigh was a nominal Catholic and there is no evidence that he ever attended church as an adult. He never once claimed to be anything approaching an evangelical Christian and told his biographers Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck that he was an agnostic, here is a quote to that effect from the transcript of their CNN Interview:
"Question from chat room: Does McVeigh have any spiritual-religious beliefs?
Lou Michel: McVeigh is agnostic. He doesn't believe in God, but he won't rule out the possibility. I asked him, "What if there is a heaven and hell?"
He said that once he crosses over the line from life to death, if there is something on the other side, he will -- and this is using his military jargon -- "adapt, improvise, and overcome." Death to him is all part of the adventure." (from: http://www.cnn.com/COMMUNITY/transc.../michelherbeck/)
McVeigh never once indicated that the bombing of the Murrah building had any religious component whatsoever. He also wasn't much of a "Moralist" given that during his trial it became apparent that a good part of his life after the army involved the use and sale of Crystal Meth.
Additionally, he sympathized with Saddam and the Iraqis and espoused many of the same talkingpoints that are now popular in anti-Bush rhetoric. For instance:
If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass destruction" -- like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above? (from: An Essay on Hypocrisy by Timothy McVeigh )
-
Well, he accepted the extreme unction of the sacrament while in prison. I suppose that's not compatible with the "he wasn't a christian because he did bad things like sell meth" argument, but it sure makes me wonder.
There's plenty of evidence that he was christian, but I understand the discomfort this would cause among followers. Please understand that one person's actions do not reflect on the entire group. I no more think that Mcveigh was an example of christianity's bloodthirstiness than I believe that the 19 hijackers identified all of islam as evil.
I used the phrase 'christian terrorist' specifically because Storch was using the poem to identify a 'bitter atheist', which I found ironic considering its most recent use in the media.
-
whatever chairboy .. good luck with your fight to remove the principles this country was founded on .. I think it will happen if the left gets their way .. not today or tomorrow but as more closed minded selfish individuals gain power, it could happen in this country and it'll be a sad day indeed - good day
-
Eagler: I have the constitution, the bill of rights, and the writings of the founding fathers on my side. With respect, you have yet to produce anything quite as compelling during your misrepresentation of the facts.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
whatever chairboy .. good luck with your fight to remove the principles this country was founded on .. I think it will happen if the left gets their way .. not today or tomorrow but as more closed minded selfish individuals gain power, it could happen in this country and it'll be a sad day indeed - good day
Well, it could easily be said that we're not founded on religious principles.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident"
If something is self-evident, it doesn't matter what God you believe in, or if you even believe in God at all. It is accepted as moral truth for all people united under the Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately, reality does not mirror our founding principles.
You can take it a step further and say it directly contradicts religious morality, in that religious reasons are used to deny the right of liberty to others.
-
Hello Chairboy,
Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, he accepted the extreme unction of the sacrament while in prison. I suppose that's not compatible with the "he wasn't a christian because he did bad things like sell meth" argument, but it sure makes me wonder.
There's plenty of evidence that he was christian, but I understand the discomfort this would cause among followers.
I have no idea if at the very end of his life McVeigh repented and believed, but the fact he was baptized at the beginning of his life, and was anointed by a Priest at the end does not make McVeigh, or anyone else for that matter, a follower of Christ. If you have evidence beyond his receiving the last rites, I'd love to see it. Timothy identified himself as an agnostic to his biographers while in prison, and there is no evidence whatsoever of the Christian faith in his adult life.
His acts of terrorism had nothing to do with Christianity, and all of his declarations affirmed that fact. they stemmed entirely from his political beliefs.
Anyway, in the McVeigh example you have the weakest possible argument, if you want a strong example of acts of murder stemming from what a Christian believed the bible taught then you'd be better served by citing Paul Hill. There at least you have an indisputable link and clear first person declarations, rather than having to try to shore-up a contention lacking in any credible evidence.
-
vulcan...there may be some bunny somewhere that hides eggs.. there may be some truth to the whole myth... how would you or I know?
you "scientists" here that also claim to be athiests.... silly... you lack faith in some theory? that there is a being(s) who created the universe? how is that the same as... "it is impossible"
seems the scientist would say that it seems very improbable but possible... he would be an agnostic.
How do I view athiests?
I see em as the loud mouth PC like aholes who get all upset when they sneeze and someone says "bless you" or decide to be griefers on the whole "in god we trust" thing on the money.
That is not to say that thier religion should not be protected... They should be able to hold office and they should have all the rights of any other citizen. It would be unconstitutional to not.
The little PC crap that athiests are so vocal about is simply disgusting and pathetic. It also smacks of leftist agenda.
I like to see "in god we trust" or someone to say god bless you or "with gods help"
I was raised a catholic... here is one most of you can hate... when I rebelled against that upbringing I rebeled against a god... any mention of god made me mad and lash out. I have since come to my own understanding of god and my own relationship with him.
I realize that someone saying "bless you" may not mean that we have the same god or "in god we trust" doesn't mean my god but is generic.
why don't you PC atnhiest aholes lighten up? Is your life so easy or so bad that you have to lash out at benign and benevolent slogans?
lazs
-
and chair and others.... your new "paradigm" ( a word I hope goes the way of white belts and polyester suits).
Your new "paradigm" is that you lack faith in a god so you are an athiest? you lack faith so it is not possible?
If being an athiest means that you lack faith that there can be a god then what the hell is an agnostic? how is "it is not possible" the same as "I lack faith"?
just admit that either it is possible that there is a god until proven otherwise and that you are really a scientist and an agnostic or...
Admit that you believe that it is not possible for there to be a god and that you are a faith based religion not much different than the other religions.
vulcan goes on about the budhists... yet seems to know little about them... that they believe in god for instance... that a christian can also be one... that they embrace all gods. They find room.
lazs
-
Lazs, you've repeatedly mentioned the 'In God we Trust' issue in this thread, but I think I might be missing the posts where an atheist is railing against them. I mentioned earlier that that was an item in the YouTube flic that didn't really resonate with me, so I don't think you're talking to me. Who, then?
-
and I mentioned that if athiests are being discriminated against because of there religion then that is wrong so who are you trying to convince?
I told you... let's take things one at a time and see how we each feel about them....
we agree on "in god we trust"
Can I assume that "god bless you" when you sneeze doesn't cause fits of anger and PC censure from you?
I bet we agree on most things mentioned on purely constitutional basis.
I don't believe that you are a true believer athiest in any case... you are a "shade of athiest" who wants the shock value a full blown athiest status gives you. but.... You can't bring yourself to say that you have a faith based religion of athiesm that makes it impossible to have a scientific opinion of agnostic...
Where is the outrage of "agnostic" or shock value? I mean...you can still rail against the excesses of the religious but it lacks the impact of "athiest".
lazs
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello Chairboy,
I have no idea if at the very end of his life McVeigh repented and believed, but the fact he was baptized at the beginning of his life, and was anointed by a Priest at the end does not make McVeigh, or anyone else for that matter, a follower of Christ. If you have evidence beyond his receiving the last rites, I'd love to see it. Timothy identified himself as an agnostic to his biographers while in prison, and there is no evidence whatsoever of the Christian faith in his adult life.
His acts of terrorism had nothing to do with Christianity, and all of his declarations affirmed that fact. they stemmed entirely from his political beliefs.
Anyway, in the McVeigh example you have the weakest possible argument, if you want a strong example of acts of murder stemming from what a Christian believed the bible taught then you'd be better served by citing Paul Hill. There at least you have an indisputable link and clear first person declarations, rather than having to try to shore-up a contention lacking in any credible evidence.
iN my earlier post, I spoofed a conversation between God and an Abraham like figure who was asked to kill Issac and turned it it into a more modern theme.
I have decided to expand on my train of thought as the community has brought up Faith based murder and the concept behind that, As an avid philosopher, I'd like to look at that point and expand it for disscusion.
In the Book of Genesis, God found a more compliant servant in Abraham, who went along with the instruction to sacrifice his son, until the last minute, when, knife in hand, he was stopped from going ahead by an Angel. Abraham has been presented as a paradigm of faith ever since.
Let us assume that Abraham firmly belived in God and that God exists-this is not an atheist critique of his actions. Abraham then receives the instruction to kill his son. But wouldn't he be mad simply to go ahead and do so? All the problems of my earlier post apply here, It might not be God talking, but the Devil, Abraham might be mad, the test might be to see if he refuses. All three of these possibilities seem more pluasible than the idea that God wants his son dead, since what kind of God would command such a barbaric act?
So if this really is a story about the nature of faith, what is it's message?
Is not simply that person of faith will do Gods bidding, however unpleasant. Is it that a person of faith can never know for sure what god's bidding is. Faith does not just enter the poicture when action is called for, Faith is required to belive in the first place, despite the lack of evidence. Indeed faith sometimes needs the devout to go beyond the evidence and belive what is contrary to all they previously thought was right and true; for instance that God does not approve of pointless killing.
This is not the faith that is often preached from the pulpits. That faith is a secure rock which provides the beliver with a kind of calm, inner certainty. But if abraham was prepared to kill his son serene in his own faith, then he couldn't have realised what a risk he was taking with his leap of faith.
If you remain unpresuaded, consider for a moment the people who belive that God wishes them to become suicide bombers, or to prersecute an ethnic minority.
Before you say that God could never command such wicked things,remember that the God of the three Abrahamic faiths not only ordered the sacrifice of Issac, but also condoned the rape of a wife as punishment to the husband (2 Samuel 2) ordered the killing of followers of other religions (Deuteronomy 13) and sentenced blasphemers to death by stoning (Leviticus 24). It seems there are no limits to what god might ask and some people of faith will do.
-
Lazs, I no more crave 'shock value' for my concerns about discrimination than you crave a pitched firefight with law enforcement over seatbelt laws. We both have issues that we'd like resolved, and we're both motivated to address them reasonably and using the constitution as the foundation for our argument.
I fail to believe a god exists and the quality of data used to promote god (the bible, with many, many known fallacies, rewrites, and so on) is not adequate to meet basic standards of evidence. No faith is required to hold this view, and an absence of faith is indeed what I have.
This thread was an effort to have a discussion about the constitutional violations surrounding religion and atheism, and you and I agree on those points. Isn't that enough?
-
Originally posted by storch
chairboy, what you fail to see is that the ten commandments are the basis for our legal system. nothing is implied it is a fact, that's why it works as well as it does. is this what rubs you in the wrong direction?
Technically if you want to trace roots, the basis of our legal system stretches back to the legal systems of Rome and Greece, which predated or had no influence from the ten commandments. British law, based on these things is a historically closer relative or predecessor.
The ten commandments have had great influence in western civilization, but are not the foundation of our legal system. This is a historical lie that has been spread by those who would like to see an active role for religion in our government past what has already ocurred.
The first amendment of the bill of rights directly contradicts the first commandment:
God: You shall have no other gods before me.
This means one god for one religion. Very specific.
Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
This means no laws for or against any one establishment of religion. Cannonizing the ten commandments as an aspect of public policy is making policy with respect to one specific establishment of religion.
This is dangerous from a political perspective, as religious influence in government throughout history has been largely disasterous. The Crusades, imperialism in the third world, America's westward expansion, Hitler's holocaust, the fighting in the middle east right now and essentially even the Cold War on both sides have been justified using religion. They were actually more driven by economic and political concerns, the whole of them, but religious justification was the tool used to sell it to the people.
This is also extremely dangerous from a religious perspective. No religion wants a government telling it what to do or teach. The separation of church and state was designed as a means to keep these two entities seperate from each other so that they would not have influence over each other's actions. That public display of the ten commandments (by public I mean within public institutions, not billboards or public spaces by and large) is somehow enshrined in the constitution is the kind of argument brought by pundit pastors on CNN or CBN and is not supported by history or good logic.
Atheists, and other theists who argue as they do, do not call for the destruction of the ten commandments. I think we can all agree that it's not ok to go out and kill someone. The point is that this would be public policy respecting AN establishment of religion, and disregarding others in the process.
Lazs, you again ignore or fail to see the initial assumptions that we and you are opperating under. The question of god or gods is a thesis by humans that some feel is proven. Others of us haven't seen proof that justifies this thesis to us, and as such it is false. Atheists tend to start with no actual assumptions and work their way up. Those who argue that lack of proof can never be proof of lack are technically correct in their thinking, but fail to acknowlege that they are working from an assumption back to their evidence, and that itself is bad science. While I respect the position of agnostics, they are basing their indecision on lack of evidence either way and reverting to a possiblility for their initial assumption. For me this is bad reasoning, and belief has nothing to do with it. This is also not about a leftist political agenda, though some may try to abuse it as such.
Those with a lack of faith or creed cannot inject that into politics, short of attacking religion itself, which is not what is happening in this country right now. There is nothing to inject. That atheism is a belief to be used as a political tool is a stupid and wrong assertion forwarded by religious pundits, fearful of losing their influence in religion, politics and society. Atheism is not actually anti-religion, but religious ideologues happily say that it is to justify their own purposes.
-
Originally posted by Black Sheep
Then explain why it doesn't deviate off course. The most minute deviation would render this planet inhabitable to all life forms. I'm familiar with gravitational pull. And I am also familiar with Kepler's Laws and some other mathematical conjecture that tries to explain it. But that Earth just hopped into a near-perfect elliptical orbit with the Sun.... is hard to believe. Most objects nearing the Sun for the first time - get slingshot somewhere else never to return. So this planet had to initially come from somewhere to get HERE. And stay here. And gravity wants us to become one with the Sun, but something has to hold us back. I don't believe it's the earth all by it's little self.
Actually I don't think you're much familiar with the concepts of gravity since you wrote that post. However I'm not even going to try to explain - not because I think you wouldn't understand, but because I don't think it will change anything. And if it doesn't change anything, there's no point.
The universe is incredible simple. There's just so astronomically many small simple things interacting with each other that it makes it mind-boggling complex. We can't hope to understand it all - so we call it God.
-
Hawk68 said:
Atheists tend to start with no actual assumptions and work their way up.
Hawk, I don't know if I can go along with that. As a naturalist relating to the world around me, I "believed" matter and energy, by inherent properties contained within, issued forth in the Big Bang, some 15B years ago, and we all lived happily ever after. Somehow, according to the assumptions I was operating on, inert matter jumped the prebiotic hurdle by purely natural processes. Assumptions of natural, inherent properties of matter and energy were a major factor through which I dealt with, or rather denied, the possibility of a Creator. Maybe that is not what you are getting at. But I would say, from my experience, that there are basic assumptions about existence that a naturalist clings to and they have a significant influence on the readiness to consider the possibility that God is.
Since orbits have just been mentioned, I'll take a moment to comment on a post a few pages ago about spectacular Solar eclipses.
Dead said: "And oddly enough, the moon used to be a lot closer, and is moving farther out by about 3.8cm a year"
3.8cm = 1.5 inches
In 5280 * 12 / 1.5 = 42,240 years the moon will have retreated from earth by ONE MILE.
In 420,000 years it will have moved 10 miles farther than its present orbit.
In 4,200,000 years it will have moved 100 miles farther.
In 42 million years it will have moved 1000 miles farther out.
Since the lunar perigee is ~ 221,000 miles and the apogee is ~ 252,000 miles the difference in radius of 10,000 miles in 420 million years would hardly be noticed.
So, even for those who look at natural history from the typical modern view of long ages, any hominid that I'm aware of ~5M years ago would have seen basically the Solar eclipes we see today, with a moon about a 100 miles closer. I don't really think that is much of a Cowboy job.
Best Regards
-
thats inaccurate.
both the earth & the moon sweep up many tons of meteroric debris every day, altering the orbital dynamics.
also there are other sources of gravity & as you certainly know, any orbit with three or more bodies is inherently unpredictable. there are solar winds to factor in also....
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am not sure what deads point is. we have no idea what gods plans are, or, if he even has any for us. We have no idea if we are alone in the universe.
My point is why stop there? The uncertainty can continue: we have no idea if gods are there at all.
As to "are we alone in the universe"? I think it's highly improbable that we are "alone". Too much space, too many planets for it not to have happened somewhere else.
Religions, on the other hand, are generally of the opinion that this is the only game in town. Read the myriad creation myths (funny how creationists never want to give equal time to all of them in the classroom): not much scope for other life forms on other planets. Everything tends to be terracentric. Which one can speculate is most probably because ancient people on Earth have made this whole god business up, rather than vice versa.
Props to the Dogon tribe however, for their righteous "Sirius is a binary star and god came from there" thang. Weird stuff indeed, there.
We have no idea how he came to be...those who do not believe in him have no problem explaining that the universe was allways there or.. that it suddenly created itself.
Or indeed if he came to be at all...
I do have a problem with explaining the whole universe origin thing.
Frankly I have no idea, but it's fairly obvious if you chuck in a brand X god and squeal "that's the slag wot done the blag", you've merely put the whole question off. It just begs the question: "where did brand X god come from then?" It explains nothing, and imparts no new knowledge about the process, and in a logical sense is an unnecessary extra layer to "no idea how it happened".
Worse still for the creationists, their particular brand of special G sauce is the mother of all irreducibly complex and highly improbable things, ergo(so their argument goes) the big G must have been designed. ID is a complicated way of arguing your way into an infinite regress.
We have no idea why every group of man from the first has believed in a god.
Well, there I'm of the opinion that there are a few psychological needs at play:
1. The cosmic parent to smite the naughty, to kiss it better when it hurts and to blame for random "acts of god" (now there's a coincidence!).
2. Life everlasting/better life after death and other cosmic justice.
3. A handy bendy dandy explanation for everything we can't work out.
Add to that the fact that god inc. is a big money-making scheme (God is not an Englishman after all -- turns out he's from Nigeria*), and bingo you have organised religions all over the shop.
You will note however on the fundamentals -- what's god like, what does god want, how many gods are there -- there are profound disagreements.
The idea that god needs to prove himself to those who don't believe in him is ludicrus.
As indeed is the idea that "he" needs people to believe in "him". What's so secial about people believing in you?
To say that the unexplained is simply science not yet reached is very glib... it is in fact... a religion. There is no basis for it other than faith and past performance on some level.
No I say the unexplained is just that: the unexplained. I have no idea if science can come up with explanations for the as yet unexplained.
Science doesn't really come up with explanations at all -- that's religion's job. It's why religion stifled science -- because religions already know everything there is to know.
Science comes up with theories, that only stick around as long as they work as models for how stuff works -- ie they make predictions that come true. Science professes uncertainty, and is open to change. It often takes a long time to change, but science will admit being wrong. Religions do not.
I also note that whilst you posit that saying "that the unexplained is simply science not yet reached is very glib", you seem to be of the opinion that saying that the unexplained is simply god is somehow very profound.
something created the universe and did it in such a way that everything we see is possible.
That's just sloppy thinking -- who says something has to have created it? Personally, I freely admit that I don't know at all and couldn't conjecture. But it's also not necessary to drag god into it -- as George Carlin says, "god has problems, too: Everything he makes dies."
Some scientists are however thinking about the origin of the universe, and have come up with theories about it, some of which seem to be borne out by the current state of the universe. String theory & zero point energy certainly look like promising avenues of inquiry.
The problem with religions is that saying "god dun it" and dusting your hands doesn't advance our knowledge. When someone then asks for details -- "how did god do it?" -- religion provides another useless answer like "by magic" or "he moves in mysterious ways" or the supremely self-referential "he's god: he just did it". It just doesn't move us forward. It is perhaps no coincidence that the era of the most unquestioning xian faith in Europe was known as "the dark ages".
For many of us.... something has given us strength from time to time that we could not have had on our own... some of us see others with no faith in a god who will lay down and give up.
In that respect... my god is very good for me.
Again, there is no evidence that this is a god. That does sound like the psychological crutch I mentioned before. But [Insert muse here] will get you through tough times just as well. In fact how do you know that it wasn't just you that gave you strength? I've had some mad fun and "deeply spiritual" moments on mushrooms and that was all entirely me and my brain chemistry (the mushrooms would have no effect on the brain if they didn't act like the brain's own chemicals).
And indeed what is this "strength"? Can you define it all? I ask because it may be crucial to working out if you could indeed not have had it on your own.
And indeed some numbers on those with no faith in god giving up versus those with faith giving up would be nice.
And as such this distnction between those with faith going strong and those without giving up would appear to be at odds with your assertion that atheism is just another faith-based religion. And if indeed you are correct that it is a religion, you would then appear to be wrong about them giving up -- because it's a very early religion (the word itself is circa 500 BC
In either case... god can be what you want. some of you want it to be man and science but we can't put that on the money.
Well god seems to be a social fiction to me. And god doesn't need replacing with man or science or anything else because god didn't do anything, due to being a made up concept, by a minority of terrans.
"In God we Trust" is good enough for everyone...let your god be whatever you want it to be.. the government has not right to tell you what that is....
just as it should be.
Sadly for the atheist, it translates to "In utter pants we trust" Which does at least have the merit of explaining the missing WMDs and other fiascos in Iraq. Whoa! More proof of gods' non-existence off of a dollar bill and US foreign policy?!? Shome mishtake, shurely? :lol
*Let him that hath understanding count the number of god: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Four hundred onescore less one.
-
Hi again Chair,
Originally posted by Chairboy
This thread was an effort to have a discussion about the constitutional violations surrounding religion and atheism, and you and I agree on those points. Isn't that enough?
Alright, before I reply to any of the other posts, lets for a moment attempt to assess this idea that Christianity poses a threat to the liberty of Americans.
Let us set aside the fact that America was not founded by atheist and communist emigres who in the pursuit of freedom from religion, left the Old World and landed on the West Coast at Berkley and then made the great trek East by VW Bus.
Let's just talk about the credibility of the Christian "threat" to the rights of Atheists.
Obviously you are not talking about a threat from the Christian left, that is the modern mainline churches like the PCUSA, UCC, UMC, ELCA, NBC, and TEC. They have become both theologically and politically liberal and are actually amongst the most vociferous voices for progressive politics in the nation. They also tend to despise fundamentalists more than most atheists. It's interesting to note, for instance, that Barry Lynn the executive director of "Americans United for Separation of Church and State" is an ordained minister in the UCC. To be frank, Chair, you probably take the bible more seriously than the average UCC minister. Additionally a huge proportion of the Roman Catholic church is also politically and theologically liberal. This is important to note because we are talking about millions of Americans who would identify themselves as Christian.
Then lets talk about the people the media would "the Christian right." The "Fundamentalists" or Evangelicals. You know, me and my homeboys. You are concerned that they are co-opting the society. Actually, being a resident and long-time observer of that particular sub-culture, I can tell you that actually exactly the opposite is going on - the culture is co-opting the church. Pick the largest evangelical mega-church in your area and attend one Sunday, odds are good that you will find a service that looks more like a Baptized version of "American Idol" and if there is any sermon at all in between the entertainment portions of the service, it will most likely be lacking in anything except a vague feel good message and lots of entertaining anecdotes. While most American evangelicals are still politically conservative, their theology is increasingly adrift.
You fear that they want to enforce the Ten Commandments in society, but surveys indicate that the majority of American evangelicals can't even give the Ten Commandments in their correct order or tell you where they are in the bible. I come from what is considered a theologically robust denomination, and yet many of the ministerial candidates graduating from Seminary whom I tested and interviewed on the candidates committee of two different regional presbyteries were generally weaker in their knowledge of the bible and theology than Presbyterian laymen in the last century. Their worldview as well tended to be a Christianized reflection of the American popular culture. The average American evangelical, far from wanting to reinstate the blue laws, can't wait to get out of church so they can have brunch, go shopping, and watch football. The increasing proliferation of signs on American business saying "Now Open on Sunday" has a lot to do with the consumer habits of American Christians.
As for the impact of evangelicals on the laws and mores of our society, I would say it is at best marginal and currently declining. For instance, I am currently doing a brief series of Wednesday night studies on the problems with evolutionary theory, and the inadequacy of neo-Darwinianism to explain creation or even "the origin of species". After the last series, I was asked by one parent what could be done to get public schools to revise their text books to at the very least remove outdated and erroneous information. I answered "realistically nothing" and explained that even if 100% of the parents in a particular area insisted on such a revision, it would be impossible to implement as it would be blocked by legal action from the NCSE, NEA, AU,and ACLU. I pointed out that it was not possible to introduce material from mainstream Science publications that even questions the validity of Darwinianism. Parents today have almost an impossible task in ensuring that their children are not taught about homosexuality in a positive light in Kindergarten. High School Valedectorians could talk for hours about how Marxism, Scientology, or Cross-Dressing improved their lives and enabled them to get higher grades, but if they talk about Jesus, their microphones are unplugged.
Personally, I am in no fear of a Christian take-over of the government, quite the opposite. I teach our congregation to expect days of increasing persecution in the future, and to be ready to endure them with longsuffering, hope, and patience and point out that in actuallity the freedom from persecution that Christians have enjoyed in this country for 200 years is the historical anomaly, and that what Christians endure in Pakistan and Indonesia and North Korea is much closer to the historical norm. In some ways, while I don't look forward to being persecuted, I do see the need for it. As one Chinese pastor observed to me, the modern American church has become the ecclesiastical equivalent of a suburban couch potato: fat, indolent, lazy, and spoiled. And nothing separates the wheat from the chaff like persecution.
-
Hacksaw, you have a good point.
My comment on assumptions is specifically directed at the initial assumption that there is a god. It's kinda like one person saying 'there is a god' and one person saying 'there is a what?'.
The scientific 'assumptions' you talk about are observations that have largely been tested and proven through the scientific method. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that we're talking about the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. Even if we don't completely understand all the dynamics of how gravity functions, we know it is there and have observed hard evidence of its effects. This is not really speaking about an assumption.
Also, I certainly wouldn't argue that some people might approach religion from completely different angle that I do, and if you do operate under some things that are pure assumption in your evaluation of the universe that's quite alright. I only mean to convey my perspective on it, and to refute those who insist that I'm beliving something without cause or reason. No one will ever be able to see inside my head, and honestly it would scare the crap out of them if they did. Scares me every night! :O
-
Hello Hawco,
Please forgive me for snipping and a relatively brief reply, but I have to teach a class at 6:30 and I have some materials still to get ready.
Originally posted by Hawco
I have decided to expand on my train of thought as the community has brought up Faith based murder and the concept behind that, As an avid philosopher, I'd like to look at that point and expand it for disscusion.
In your point about God's command to Abraham to sacrifice his son you do not stop to consider the greater theological importance of that event in the broader context of redemptive history. Abraham had such confidence in God's promises, which he had tested and found faithful, that he knew that even if he had slain Isaac the promise that Isaac would be the father of a people more numerous than the stars of the sky and the source of a great blessing to the nations, meant that God would deliver him back from the dead. That is the point made by the author of Hebrews in Hebrews 11:17-19 -
"By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, "In Isaac your seed shall be called," concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense."
Additionally a host of further lessons are taught in this episode: first that God calls us to love Him as wholeheartedly as He loved us and not to put anything else before Him. Second that God Himself will provide the sacrifice of propitiation that turns away death, third that God's love to us is demonstrated in that while he did not call upon his followers to prove their devotion by going through with the actual sacrifice of their children, He did not stay His own hand as he commanded Abraham, but slew his only begotten Son, Jesus, in order that our sins might be atoned for. I could go on, but lets just say preaching the Gospel from Genesis 22 is not hard to do.
Before you say that God could never command such wicked things,remember that the God of the three Abrahamic faiths not only ordered the sacrifice of Issac, but also condoned the rape of a wife as punishment to the husband (2 Samuel 2) ordered the killing of followers of other religions (Deuteronomy 13) and sentenced blasphemers to death by stoning (Leviticus 24). It seems there are no limits to what god might ask and some people of faith will do.
Very quickly, and I'm going here from memory - 2 Samuel 2 concerns the brief civil war that preceded David's ascent to the throne. I don't recall any rape there, what are you refering to? Deut. 13 forbids and punishes syncretism and apostasy, i.e. that the people of Israel would turn away from the God who saved them and worship the false gods of Canaan and practice their abominations (which included male and female ritual prostitution, bestiality, and the sacrifice of infants by burning them alive). Had they turned aside and gone after those idols they would have been subject to the same temporal and eternal judgment that fell upon the Canaanites (incidently God specifically stated that he had given the Canaanites 430 years to repent). Finally, considering that the Bible makes clear that God could simply have judged everyone after the fall, and that he mercifully extended salvation by grace, treating Him as holy and punishing cursing Him isn't exactly asking too much of His people. You question presupposes that all men were good and inherently worthy of salvation and that God is somehow dealing with them in an unfair and arbitrary manner. All sin is cosmic treason and even the NT makes the point that they are all worthy of death. God's mercy is seen that he covers the eternal penalty for those sins by the atoning death of His Son. You see the Good News is so Good, precisely because the Bad News is so very Bad.
-
Originally posted by hacksaw1
Dead said: "And oddly enough, the moon used to be a lot closer, and is moving farther out by about 3.8cm a year"
3.8cm = 1.5 inches
In 5280 * 12 / 1.5 = 42,240 years the moon will have retreated from earth by ONE MILE.
In 420,000 years it will have moved 10 miles farther than its present orbit.
In 4,200,000 years it will have moved 100 miles farther.
In 42 million years it will have moved 1000 miles farther out.
Since the lunar perigee is ~ 221,000 miles and the apogee is ~ 252,000 miles the difference in radius of 10,000 miles in 420 million years would hardly be noticed.
So, even for those who look at natural history from the typical modern view of long ages, any hominid that I'm aware of ~5M years ago would have seen basically the Solar eclipes we see today, with a moon about a 100 miles closer. I don't really think that is much of a Cowboy job./B]
Well, first off the moon has been there for 4.53 billion years (the sun has been out there for about 5 billion, which suggests a move of 1,000,000 miles further out since incept (although I doubt the rate is constant -- as earth/lunar gravity weakens, the moon will probably accelerate away). And in a billion years' time (so the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/solarsystem/sun/solareclipse.shtml) tells me), the Moon will appear too small for there to be any total solar eclipses at all. The sun - it is estimated - will last another 4 billion after that.
But secondly (from my big book of eclipses the webpage (http://www.scienceu.com/observatory/articles/eclipses/) ):
"When there is a solar eclipse, the Moon is about the right size to completely cover the disk of the Sun. If the Moon is close enough to the Earth, it will cover it completely, and we get a total solar eclipse. This is the most spectacular kind, where the day changes into darkness, and one can see the stars in plain day. If the Moon is further away from the Earth, then its disk will not be big enough to cover the Sun completely, and we get an annular eclipse, where most of the sun is covered, but an annulus remains, surrounding the dark disk of the Moon."
So we don't always get full eclipses even now. Which is only down to a difference of 31,000 miles. So we're back to the Cosmic Cowboy builder again. "Ahh, good enough -- they'll never notice!" As your attorney, I advise you to follow Basil Fawlty's timely example and insert a gnome into the builder in question.
Furthermore only a cowboy would stick the whole damn thing in the middle of what is essentially a shooting gallery and then shoot things at it. Ye-hahweh, I presume.
Actually i think it's partly down to the human knack of pattern spotting -- the eclipses don't happen perfectly over the whole of the part of the globe in sunlight, just in certain limited areas. And even in those certain limited areas it usually does not happen perfectly. Not particularly significant in the end. It merely seems significant to our very pattern-recognition-orientated brain.
Here is a further wonderful pattern you may care to enjoy and marvel at: 23 Skiddoo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23_%28number%29). The Daily Mirror (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/tm_objectid=13136269%26method=full%26siteid=94762-name_page.html) believes it all. The smallest measure of time is 10 to the minus 23. We all have 23 pairs of chromosomes... and each person contributes just 23 chromosomes to our offspring... DNA has bonding irregularities every 23rd angstrom... 23 + 2 + 3 = 28 the lunar phase! What luck! How amazing! Be careful though -- keeping note of all the 23s out there can become extremely scary. Which is basically the point. Try it for a month.
And finally as I noted previously -- it's essentially a misuse of probability to wonder at the odds against event X using the finishing point and working back. Event X is always entirely improbable for any given event - be it you posting on this BBS, brushing your teeth, or the moon being exactly where it is.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello Hawco,
Please forgive me for snipping and a relatively brief reply, but I have to teach a class at 6:30 and I have some materials still to get ready.
In your point about God's command to Abraham to sacrifice his son you do not stop to consider the greater theological importance of that event in the broader context of redemptive history. Abraham had such confidence in God's promises, which he had tested and found faithful, that he knew that even if he had slain Isaac the promise that Isaac would be the father of a people more numerous than the stars of the sky and the source of a great blessing to the nations, meant that God would deliver him back from the dead. That is the point made by the author of Hebrews in Hebrews 11:17-19 -
"By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, "In Isaac your seed shall be called," concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense."
Additionally a host of further lessons are taught in this episode: first that God calls us to love Him as wholeheartedly as He loved us and not to put anything else before Him. Second that God Himself will provide the sacrifice of propitiation that turns away death, third that God's love to us is demonstrated in that while he did not call upon his followers to prove their devotion by going through with the actual sacrifice of their children, He did not stay His own hand as he commanded Abraham, but slew his only begotten Son, Jesus, in order that our sins might be atoned for. I could go on, but lets just say preaching the Gospel from Genesis 22 is not hard to do.
Very quickly, and I'm going here from memory - 2 Samuel 2 concerns the brief civil war that preceded David's ascent to the throne. I don't recall any rape there, what are you refering to? Deut. 13 forbids and punishes syncretism and apostasy, i.e. that the people of Israel would turn away from the God who saved them and worship the false gods of Canaan and practice their abominations (which included male and female ritual prostitution, bestiality, and the sacrifice of infants by burning them alive). Had they turned aside and gone after those idols they would have been subject to the same temporal and eternal judgment that fell upon the Canaanites (incidently God specifically stated that he had given the Canaanites 430 years to repent). Finally, considering that the Bible makes clear that God could simply have judged everyone after the fall, and that he mercifully extended salvation by grace, treating Him as holy and punishing cursing Him isn't exactly asking too much of His people. You question presupposes that all men were good and inherently worthy of salvation and that God is somehow dealing with them in an unfair and arbitrary manner. All sin is cosmic treason and even the NT makes the point that they are all worthy of death. God's mercy is seen that he covers the eternal penalty for those sins by the atoning death of His Son. You see the Good News is so Good, precisely because the Bad News is so very Bad.
You haven't adressed the issue of the rationality of faith, also would you accept that there is any constraints on "gods" powers?
-
Hello Dead,
I took a look at the site you linked. To me the picture of the annular eclipse is quite spectacular as well, knowing that there is a difference in distance of times 388 between the two bodies.
If you are saying that all events in the universe have an equal statistical unlikelihood of occurring, then I don't think I can agree with you.
We observe the universe around us and draw conclusions about the way objects relate to one another in time, and we call those conclusions Newtonian physics, Special or General Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics. We also postulate extrapolated effects forward and back in time to strengthen or diminish the confidence we have in our observations. The fact that there are physical "laws" at all means that some outcomes of interactions are likely while others are highly unlikely, or impossible under certain constraints. Working backwards from event x and drawing conclusions about likelihood is not invalid at all.
Two of the examples you give - posting on this BBS, brushing your teeth – must also take into consideration human intent. In that context of intent, I would say the following two strings are not equally likely, and do not have equal information content.
p nm3 9aes"a 23 q (o a]v - @3 65% L =i3n #@ 3 qp I ksd
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
I, as a being with the capability of expressing intent, have typed, "In the beginning...." many times in my life and likely will type it again someday. But that was the first time I typed, "p nm3 9aes"a..." and I cannot imagine ever typing it again, nor other meaningless gibberish like it. Based on experience, there is high probability for one outcome, and low probability to the point of non-existence for the other outcome.
By the way, my reasons for asking myself about the purpose of my existence, as I mentioned in my post several pages ago, are related to a lot of other "life" experiences that I chose not to include. But to briefly mention a few, as a budding naturalist, age 15, I discovered a growth on my body that was not diagnosed for about 3 months, and an uncle had died not long before of a malignant cancer. So, though not knowing, I considered the possibility that the growth was cancerous and that I might be entering my everlasting void a lot sooner than I'd expected. That was not a particularly buoyant feeling. Family problems also contributed to my inquisitive approach to the purpose of life. My dad was drunk a lot of the time, unfaithful to my mother, and violent when I was very young. So I suspect that my circumstances were different from those you grew up in. By the time I reached university, still a confirmed naturalist, I was exposed to more physics and chemistry and was amazed at the high order of the universe from micro atomic level to the macro. So, I didn't proceed with "sloppy thinking" or non sequiturs, but I weighed a lot of information for a long time.
The bottom line for me is that my relationship with the Creator is not a result of science. However, once I admitted that science does not rule out a priori the possibility that there is an eternal Creator, then I left my insular rejection, and began to "test" communicating with Him. I was in the Marines at the time, and in electronics/avionics courses to learn to service airborne fire control radar. Since then I have reached the conclusion, through indelible experiences, an abiding awareness of God's presence, as well as study, that God is very interested in every one of us, whether we are interested in Him or not.
-
Chair, let me get this out of the way. I believe very strongly in my own concept of God, to the point where it is the core of my life. I consider my philosphy to be private, and I don't consider it my duty to evangalize. If someone asks, I might explain it, but otherwise you won't hear about it.
Yet, I strongly support separation of church and state. I believe that it is the only way we can have a real democracy. For me, it is a case of "give unto Ceasar..."
I do not feel threatened at all by atheism. The thought of the athiestic philosophy doesn't grab me emotionally in any way. I welcome your proposal that our laws should be consistent with the constitution, and I believe that they will be, eventually (laws effecting athiests are not the only laws that are inconsistent with the consitution or archaic, or outdated).
Chair, if the video you linked succinctly represents your views, I need to ask you a question.
Why does the producer of the video, and by extension, you, assert that a person who is against abortion, for example, is someone who is in the grip of "religious ferver." ??
In your worship of rationality, isn't it true that some arrogance has crept in, allowing you to assert that anyone who disagrees with you on an issue like this is doing so out of religious ferver?
Is it part of the dogma of the atheist religion that no atheist can be against abortion?
Are you seriously telling us that there are no atheists who believe that abortion is murder? Are you telling me that because I am against abortion, it must be due to religious ferver, which I assure you, it is not?
-
dead... I believe that you would be considered an athiest. I was at one time myself. I believe in a god. I believe there is a god in my life.
I freely admit that I have no proof that I could show you. I know that I have been given strength that I did not posses when I have asked my god for it.
I have no problem with science and my god... no conflict. I am curious and look forward to scientific discoveries... I have, of course, lived long enough to have seen many scientific theories that were touted as absolutes.... be latter proven wrong.
I believe that the closer that science gets to god the more it will simply prove his existence.
It is not only the wonder of the universe that proves his existence to me but... more importantly... the fact that I can appreciate it.
You claim that it is highly probable that we are not alone... you are agnostic leaning toward believer on alliens... your proof? "how could it be otherwise?" That is my "proof" if any that god exists.
I don't believe that god needs worshippers. God isn't the one who benifiets.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Is it part of the dogma of the atheist religion that no atheist can be against abortion?
Are you seriously telling us that there are no atheists who believe that abortion is murder? Are you telling me that because I am against abortion, it must be due to religious ferver, which I assure you, it is not?
You're right, that part of the video does not represent my personal views. I make no assertion that an objection to abortion is part of any religious hysteria, and there is no connection between atheism and that opinion. I should have noted that earlier, I guess I just missed that part of the film. An objection to abortion is rational and does not reflect any mental illness or fervor. Thanks!
-
I also support the seperation of church and state. The ten commandments in a court may be over the edge....
A nativity scene may be also in a public owned building...
In god we trust or "under god" are not. So long as god is a generic one then there is no violation of the seperation of church and state.
However... those who are offended by a nativity scene or crosses on military graves are PC aholes. There may be some violation but it is not intended as such. it is meant to give cheer and comfort.... only an ahole would try to take that away from people.
68.... either you believe with all your heart that it is impossible for there to be a god and you are of the athiest religion or...
You admit that you don't know and you are an agnostic.
there are no degrees of athiesm. You are a believer in the religion or you are not.
commies are true believers and... they don't believe in seperation of church and state when it comes to their religion (athiesm) it is above all others and controls the government.
I would contrast a government formed on a beliefe in god (the U.S.) with one where god was outlawed (soviet russia).
Seperation of church and state is good but no god in government is bad.
lazs
-
However... those who are offended by a nativity scene or crosses on military graves are PC aholes. There may be some violation but it is not intended as such. it is meant to give cheer and comfort.... only an ahole would try to take that away from people.
I agree they are PC Aholes. I think the gubmint can allow any symbol a person might want on thier grave, even in a gubmint owned cemetary, without violating church/state.
But the argument whether to allow a nativity, or ramadan or a satan upsidedown cross, or wiccan pentagons or Buddahs or whatever, on the lawn of a city hall is a little different. I think we just have to acknowledge that the world is different today, the make up of the US population is way different. Gone is the day when the population was 98% religiously homogenius and nobody minded nativities because most of us believed the same. No more.
For me, I'd rather the government face the difficulty of allowing every religious philosophy under the sun be allowed to have displays for the sake of fairness to taxpayers, or allow none of them. Its a bit much to expect government to get involved in all that and it does require a lot of money and resources to be fair to every taxpayer, so we should just allow no religious displays that are payed for with public monies. But gubmint should be tolerant and allow people, groups, to display any religious symbols they want, which is their right.
I know for me, if I lived in Dearborn, MI, an Islamic enclave, I'd rather have no displays allowed at all, than to have any kind of Islamic claptrap in the lawn of city hall, since I'm not too fond of that particular religion any more. I'm worried about Shariah creeping into that gubmint in Dearborn, let alone Islamic symbols on city hall lawn.
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
Those with a lack of faith or creed cannot inject that into politics, short of attacking religion itself, which is not what is happening in this country right now. There is nothing to inject. That atheism is a belief to be used as a political tool is a stupid and wrong assertion forwarded by religious pundits, fearful of losing their influence in religion, politics and society. Atheism is not actually anti-religion, but religious ideologues happily say that it is to justify their own purposes.
It should be noted, that this is not always the case. There are those, (on both sides) that desire to "enforce" their views on the other side. (Believing, of course it's for their own good.)
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
I would like to note that it is chairboy who claims that I am the one who "always" goes on about religion.
In fairness... he hasn't done this in a long time but for a while there... every other thread he started was anti god.
I have nothing against athiests... they are entitled to their religion but...
I can't help but point out the basic dishonesty. Most claim no belief yet.. they are fervent in their belief that there is no god... totally faith based belief..
most claim they have no agenda but their hate for those who have a god is obvious.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have nothing against athiests...
Originally posted by lazs2
I can't help but point out the basic dishonesty.
You have nothing against them, but they're all liars.
C'mon, get real. My lack of belief in a god does not make me dishonest, it just means that I'm an adult who doesn't have an imaginary friend.
-
LOL... not only do you not have an imaginary friend but you claim that you know for certain that no one else does.
My point is that you have an agenda... when someone tells me that their god says this or that or that they believe in ghosts or esp or bigfoot...
I don't go on a campaign to say how silly their belief is... because... truth is... I am not sure if they are right or not.
I am an agnostic on the subjects. to say that you absolutely believe something that can't be proven is a matter of faith.
To say otherwise is dishonest. it is basic logic. sooo.. in that at least...you are dishonest.
anyone reading this thread knows how dishonest you are when you say you have no agenda. perhaps you are the only one who doesn't see it?
lazs
-
Lack of belief is rational (Agnostic). Belief in non-existance (Atheist) is, as Lazs says, faith-based. It's unprovable.
-
Originally posted by Engine
Lack of belief is rational (Agnostic). Belief in non-existance (Atheist) is, as Lazs says, faith-based. It's unprovable.
Are you saying that, being an "Atheist" or a "Believer" is not rational?
--Tachus
-
I've asked one question repeatedly, but mysteriously, lazs has never bothered to answer it. I'll try again:
Lazs: Is believing that the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus don't exist 'intellectually dishonest'? If not, what's the difference?
-
Sometimes the word "Faith" is used like it's dirty word. It's contrasted with words like "Knowledge" or "Science" in such a way that it would imply; you either are "Intelligent" (don't buy into that whole faith thing) or you are "Ignorant" (believe in fairy tales, because you have not learned the truth, or you refuse to believe the facts.)
I happen to believe most of us have come to our conclusions in the same fashion. Although, clearly these conclusions are not the same.
The atheist has examined the evidence and drawn a conclusion. "There is no God" He cannot prove it, but he has reach a point where he is convinced.
The believer does the same thing. He examines the evidence (often the same evidence the atheist has) and draws a conclusion. "There is a God" Again, he cannot prove it, but he is convinced.
The agnostic does the sames. (Again examining the same evidence the atheist and the believer has) and draws a conclusion. "I don't know if there is a God" So in his case he decides the evidence is inconclusive, and cannot prove it either way.
Each group looks at the other two, amazed they could reach the conclusion they have.
It should be noted, drawing a conclusion based on the observation of evidence is not irrational, even though it cannot be proven. It happens all the time in our court systems. A jury decides a case, based on the observation and interpretation of facts, and draws a conclusion. Can they "Prove" it? Many times "No", they weren't there, their not all-knowing, but they still make a decision. After the decision is made, (regardless of what that decision is) they can always be challenged with, "You can't prove it"; but we don't call them irrational. We don't say they operate on blind faith, or they viewed the facts and got it wrong (Unless it's the OJ trial :) )
Most of us exercise some level of "Faith" in our lives everyday. We simply don't identify it as such, unless it's tied to a belief in God.
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
fret over a coin in their pocket that says "In God We Trust"
taking thier views to the extreme and be so anxioux to impose thier will on the whole country?
Well I am definitely not an atheist, but I think you just answered your question with a question. Many secular peoples ar just as opposed to christians as they are to atheists. The difference being, we don't see Atheists pushing their beliefs on us near as much as the christians do. I generally see the atheists as takiing up opposition/defensive positions against the christians, where as the christians are seen as the more aggressive of the two! I am all for seperation of church and state, whether it is an atheist church or a Church of God!:aok
-
(http://hallert.net/images/help_oppressed.gif)
-
Originally posted by Viking
No matter how unlikely, if by some miracle I were to get pregnant I'd really ... REALLY ... want an abortion! :D
I think we could all agree on that :D
-
To all the atheist and agnostics. If there isn't a God then why are you so intent on proving it? You must feel there is something to it or you wouldn't be trying to disprove it. :confused:
-
Originally posted by SkyRock pushing their beliefs on us
The above phrase caught my eye. I'm guessing that if a poll were taken asking O'Club frequenters does Truth (with a capital T) exist and is it knowable? The answer would be no. So, I'm going with my "guess" on what follows.
Democracy fosters the production of a contesting of beliefs. Be it gun control, speed limits, etc. Saying, "research shows" is a no no. See the global warming thread. Folks politicize facts to suit themselves. And of course, people argue out of bad faith. The O'Club is an excellent example of insincerity, malice, and what have you winning the day upon more than one occasion.
An interesting exception is when it comes to things like money, health, and if you catch your wife with another man. Things where we really live. Truth triumphs then in spades even for the the most publically rabid relativist or determinist.
If I agree with the "belief" that wins the day, let's say Roe versus Wade, then I'm happy. If I'm disagree, then I might cry someone is "pushing their beliefs on me!" How could it be otherwise?
In the absence of Truth, all becomes a jostle of perception rather than a frank admission of that which is so. Which, of course, is folly.
St. Thomas Aquinas says rightly, reason and revelation abide to show us Truth. Both given to us by God. That 42 zillion cry, "say it ain't so Joe!" "It is not so because we say so," does not make the point at hand, or anything for that matter, false.
To blame religion for "pushing beliefs," that is, all would be better without religion because then there would be no "pushing of beliefs," is absurd. That's all that would remain. Get enough folk to rally around a notion, and that notion becomes so. 45 years pass, and the next new notion gains creedence without truth though.
Quite dismal actually.
-
Originally posted by swoose
To all the atheist and agnostics. If there isn't a God then why are you so intent on proving it? You must feel there is something to it or you wouldn't be trying to disprove it. :confused:
We don't have to prove anything, we just try and defend ourselves from new laws and regulations that have religion as their foundation. We're not pushing anti-christian laws, but there are plenty of anti-atheist laws on the books, and recent polling shows that folks have no problem discriminating against atheists for their lack of belief.
-
Originally posted by Tachus
Are you saying that, being an "Atheist" or a "Believer" is not rational?
--Tachus
To believe in an unprovable non-existence? Yes. It's unsupportable.
If you have no evidence supporting God's existence, it's best to simply say so, instead of trying to support an "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" standpoint.
-
We don't have to prove anything, we just try and defend ourselves from new laws and regulations that have religion as their foundation. We're not pushing anti-christian laws, but there are plenty of anti-atheist laws on the books, and recent polling shows that folks have no problem discriminating against atheists for their lack of belief.
Good answer Chairboy. I see where you are coming from. As a Christian I try not to judge others and I agree we have a lot of prejudices in this country. It's hard to get equal rights for everyone because we are such a varied culture. Have you voiced your opinion to the lawmakers?
Swoose
-
Swoose, a great question. I contribute to groups that I think will help, but I haven't written a letter or anything. Couldn't hurt.
-
Originally posted by Engine
If you have no evidence supporting God's existence, it's best to simply say so, instead of trying to support an "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" standpoint.
You are correct Engine.
For anyone interested, a beginning might be had here, from the Gifford Lecture series, Scotland, 1905. James seeks to answer 2 questions. What is religion? Does it have value?
Changed my life.
(http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/8720000/8722766.gif)
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9781593080723&itm=1
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
We don't have to prove anything, we just try and defend ourselves from new laws and regulations that have religion as their foundation. We're not pushing anti-christian laws, but there are plenty of anti-atheist laws on the books, and recent polling shows that folks have no problem discriminating against atheists for their lack of belief.
I find it very hard to believe Chairboy that you didn't pray once after the Dec 26th 2004 Tsunami yet you had all of us in here praying for your Brother.
Get Real Man.
Mac
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
defend ourselves from new laws and regulations that have religion as their foundation.
Are you okay with the old laws that have religion as their foundation?
-
Originally posted by swoose
It's hard to get equal rights for everyone because we are such a varied culture.
"Variation" is not an obstacle. Greed, fear, and evil are though.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
I find it very hard to believe Chairboy that you didn't pray once after the Dec 26th 2004 Tsunami yet you had all of us in here praying for your Brother.
Get Real Man.
Mac
Where did I ask anyone to pray for him? Please provide a link or retract your despicable claim.
Using his death for your agenda is pretty low.
-
I never said I used your Brothers death as a claim. Now did I?
Did you pray? Is all I asked.
Have you ever prayed?
Have you ever been to Church?
Please don't attempt to read into the lines... I asked a simple question and as always it gets blown out of wack.
As I asked... Did you pray and if so to who?
Mac
BTW trying to "Kill" Religon" to suit your agenda is a lil cold also as I see it.
Get Real.
-
Provide the requested link of me asking for prayer or retract your claim.
-
[Prince]This is what it sounds like when 'tards fight.[/Prince]
-
No Chairboy... you search... look really hard too.
You'll find it... in your Heart. and when you do just remember those that stood by you in your time of sorrow.
Mac
BTW I'm NOT retracting a claim asking if you Prayed.
-
Here ya go Mac & Boy
(http://www.fox-obel.com/images/cheese.jpg)
-
Originally posted by RATTFINK
Here ya go Mac & Boy
(http://www.fox-obel.com/images/cheese.jpg)
Funny RattFink, but seeing as how yer a Texan I can understand.
Mac
Just recently GOD asked a Texan to build an ARK and collect animals...two by two....
GOD: Hey NoahBob....
NoahBob: Who's zat? *Click of gun*
GOD: It's GOD.
NoahBob: Okay.. Watta ya want? Step out where I can see ya!
GOD: I want you to build an ARK.
NoahBob: I can't build no dam ARK...What's an ARK?
GOD: It's a huge boat to house animals before the flood...
NoahBob: Hell my Wifes Sister already has one... a Trailer, Double Wide, 6 kids, 4 Dawgs and 3 Cats, 3 Coons and a Opossum. We survivin the Flood.
GOD: No you don't understand....
NoahBob: I'm thinkin I do, yer from FEMA right?
GOD: NoahBob listen to me a minute....
NoahBob: Don't mess with Texas!!! *Blam, Blam, Blam..*
-
WHOOOP!
-
Reprehensible, AWMac. I re-read the thread, brought up a lot of tough memories and many kind words from folks here, but not a single request from me for prayer.
Originally posted by Chairboy
Thanks guys for the kind wishes. I'll pass it along to my family.
Here's the thread:
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138850&highlight=tsunami
Using my dead brother to push your agenda? That's just... bewildering.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Reprehensible, AWMac. I re-read the thread, brought up a lot of tough memories and many kind words from folks here, but not a single request from me for prayer.
Here's the thread:
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138850&highlight=tsunami
Using my dead brother to push your agenda? That's just... bewildering.
I used a date that touched alotta people. Not just to you, reread my post Chairboy. Use from it what you want yet you exactully know what I said.
Folks were Praying for the best. For all people.
I had stopped counting of 30 people Praying for you and your Brother.
I asked you one dam question.
Did you Pray?
Simple question... Yes or No?
BTW I just reread the entire post... not once did you ask anyone to NOT Pray for your Brother Chairboy. Why? If you didn't believe in Prayer then it would have been correct for you to respectfully to decline the thought of those praying for your Brother.
But let's NOT drag this off to you and Family sorrows. All I asked you was did you yourself Pray?
Mac
-
It seems you have an agenda to push with this Atheist thing across the board yet when it gets a bit personal it's not allowed.
Push your Agenda Chairboy... state a few more Anti Christian mumbo jumble...
Yet when yer Heart is ripped out again, and all seems lost and you seek help... who will YOU seek?
Get Real,
Mac
GOD Loves You Chairboy.
-
You're a piece of work, AWMac.
No, I didn't pray, no more than you would pray for Santa. You posted "yet you had all of us in here praying for your Brother." as if I was requesting prayer, I wasn't. I printed out the thread for my family and those of them that are religious appreciated the prayers, those who were were comforted by the kind words and sentiments.
If the rest of the folks here agree with AWMac, then I've misjudged, and I'll refrain from posting about personal things again.
I received comfort from my friends here, not from an abstract concept of god. If that's not good enough, or somehow makes my grief worthy of your criticism and it is accepted that it's ok for you to make fun of it, then my place is elsewhere, and I made a mistake when I came here.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You're a piece of work, AWMac.
No, I didn't pray, no more than you would pray for Santa. You posted "yet you had all of us in here praying for your Brother." as if I was requesting prayer, I wasn't. I printed out the thread for my family and those of them that are religious appreciated the prayers, those who were were comforted by the kind words and sentiments.
See?
Are you that Blind?
What point are you missing here?
You missed the entire thing.
Turn around and see what you missed.
Mac
If the rest of the folks here agree with AWMac, then I've misjudged, and I'll refrain from posting about personal things again.
So now I need to feel sorry because yer an Atheist and the word Prayer pissed you off?
PahLeez Louise How old are you? Are you living a Sheltered Life still?
Pffffft yer a Class Act.
Mac
-
The word prayer didn't piss me off. You using the death of my brother to push your "there are no atheists in foxholes" agenda did.
-
Also, you made a clearly false statement, I called you on it and provided the link to the thread when you declined to procure the requested evidence.
You lied. You brought my dead brother into the thread to try and prove a point, and now you're trying to weasel out of it. That's super.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The word prayer didn't piss me off. You using the death of my brother to push your "there are no atheists in foxholes" agenda did.
"there are no atheists in foxholes" Sorry Bud but I have never seen one yet. Have you ever served in the Military? Ya know they even let Athiest in.
My question is you push a Atheist Agenda down everyones throat and yet I post a Date you you get all personal on me... All it was was a date in time.
If I posted the date on the Nuke over Hiroshimo would you have been just agressive in pushing your Agenda?
If the things in America don't fit you and you have probs with "In GOD We Trust" on coins then maybe America isn't the place for you.
I'm sure there's a place somewhere.
Mac
-
Originally posted by Engine
To believe in an unprovable non-existence? Yes. It's unsupportable.
If you have no evidence supporting God's existence, it's best to simply say so, instead of trying to support an "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" standpoint.
Actually, I never took that position. If you look at my post which followed the one you quoted, I said the atheist and the believer, both came to a conclusion that could not be proved.
However, as I pointed out in that post, this is done all the time by people, (I would venture to say, yourself included), and it is not necessarily irrational. The only way to avoid this, is to"never" draw a conclusion about a great many things in life.
We hold many things to be true, that we have never "Seen", nor can we "Prove". The structure of the atom is a great example. You've never seen one, I've never seen one, but based on observations we have drawn conclusions about them. (There are allot of other examples of this is science.)
The origin of life is another. I would say life began some time in the past. However, I can't prove it began. Perhaps, life has simply always been. You can't prove otherwise. Even if we accept that life began sometime in the past if we use your line of reasoning, no one can ever draw a "Rational" conclusion about how life began, because we can never prove it.
So unless a person walks around refusing to every draw a conclusion (which seems irrational to me) they ultimately we accept a certain number of things as being true, without "Proof"
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Also, you made a clearly false statement, I called you on it and provided the link to the thread when you declined to procure the requested evidence.
You lied. You brought my dead brother into the thread to try and prove a point, and now you're trying to weasel out of it. That's super.
Look pinhead... I brought up a Dec 26 2004 incident... never brought yer Brother into this just asked you if you Prayed then.
For you to make it personal is on you. I asked you if you Prayed and you couldn't honestly answer.
So with that being said ChairBOY, I have nothing more to say to you.
GOD Bless You,
Mac
-
Posted by Hap
"Variation" is not an obstacle. Greed, fear, and evil are though.
Good point Hap. I stand corrected.:aok
Swoose
-
Originally posted by AWMac
If you have probs with "In GOD We Trust" on coins then maybe America isn't the place for you.
I'm sure there's a place somewhere.
Mac
Mac, you come off as a tard in this quote! Sorry.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Mac, you come off as a tard in this quote! Sorry.
Not a Prob... working on NOT being a Tard.
Made a point though.
Mac
-
Mac,
You need to read Colossians 3:1-17.
Swoose
-
Originally posted by swoose
Mac,
You need to read Colossians 3:1-17.
Swoose
Thanks Swoose...
I needed that....
Good timing.
Mac
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Not a Prob... working on NOT being a Tard.
Made a point though.
Mac
Someone had a problem with it not being on ther too, maybe they should have left. The point being, as long as we allow religion to be enacted as laws, then whatever the majority religion at the time, will make the laws to satisfy their faith. I would rather take faith out of the system altogether and lets set a course based on what we know to be true. Would you be happy if it said, "In Allah we trust"? Maybe "In Buddah we trust"? Even, "In Satan we trust"?
How about just good ole, "One Cent". mark
-
Point taken.
TY Mark
Mac
-
chair said.... "I've asked one question repeatedly, but mysteriously, lazs has never bothered to answer it. I'll try again:
Lazs: Is believing that the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus don't exist 'intellectually dishonest'? If not, what's the difference?"
chair... I have answered this question a half a dozen times for you... but here goes again.
If you believe that the easter bunny or santa clause probly don't exist then you are agnostic and pretty reasonable.
If you say that it is impossible that any bunny anywhere has ever hidden chicken eggs or that any bearded fat guy has ever delivered presents to strangers then.. you are believing such on pure faith and with an agenda....
If you claim otherwise then you are dishonest.
you example hoists you on your own petard. Not only that but I bet their are other things like aliens of esp or whatever that you believe on simple faith.
so yes... it is intellectually dishonest to say that you have no agenda if you claim that it is impossible for a bunny somewhere to hide chicken eggs. It would be honest to simply say that as far as you know this is not true and that you doubt it.
lazs
-
Mac,
Check your pm.
Swoose
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
(http://hallert.net/images/help_oppressed.gif)
Actually the number of evangelicals in this country has dropped to about 9% (So I'm in the minority, a few more "bad" years, and even atheist will out number us.) The number of "Born Again" believers is about 33%. (Of which evangelicals are a sub-set)
But, on to the more important stuff.
What so many people fail to see in the church, and outside of the church is something I believe we can agree on Chairboy.
When a country begins to strip away the rights of its citizens. The majority often stands and cheers, without the understanding, that a day may come when they find themselves in the minority. I don't want to strip away your rights, for the same reason you don't want to strip away mine. Because some day, we may find our positions reversed.
If you live in a state where you cannot hold office because you don't believe in God, then I would oppose that law. (I might not vote for you, but I would not deny your right to run) If you wish to raise your children as atheist, then that is your right, and I would defend it. At the same time I want to exercise my right to raise my children as Christians.
Whether our money says "In God We Trust" or not, makes no never mind to me. I don't have an issue with it being there, and won't lose much sleep if they remove. Would I like to live in a country that was "more" Christian, sure I would. However, I would like to see that happen by choice, and NEVER by legislation.
"Religious" people do some valid concerns . They don't want to loose the right to teach their children. (Nor have their teaching undermined by public schools.) Churches don't want to be forced to hire people that do not hold the same moral standards, and beliefs.
In the end, I want liberty, not just for me, but for you also. I do not want to be oppressed, nor do I seek to oppress. I am convinced without the slightest doubt I right and your wrong about what we hold to be true, but that's beside the point. (At least for the purpose of this discussion.) As far as "Rights" go, I do not want to be denied, and don't want yours denied either.
I don't expect special rights, and I don't expect you to receive any either.
I refuse to have my right to free speech taken away, and I would refuse to stand idly by while your's was.
I think we can also agree on this next point, and it is a sad one. Both sides have those that are rigorously attacking the other. Sadly, it is not enough that some have the "right" to be an atheist, they openly attack religion, and often specifically target Christianity. They blame the ills of the world on religion, and it seems if they were to have their way, they would end it all. The same is true of the other side. They believe "you" are the problem, and we need to get rid of you. It's too bad, things will most likely never change. (Well not until we are all dead, and sun grows cold, and the earth freezes in utter darkness. "If you're right" Or Christ returns and restores His creation to its original glory and perfection. "If I'm right")
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Someone had a problem with it not being on ther too, maybe they should have left. The point being, as long as we allow religion to be enacted as laws, then whatever the majority religion at the time, will make the laws to satisfy their faith. I would rather take faith out of the system altogether and lets set a course based on what we know to be true. Would you be happy if it said, "In Allah we trust"? Maybe "In Buddah we trust"? Even, "In Satan we trust"?
How about just good ole, "One Cent". mark
The issue of removing "faith" altogether is a difficult one, and would present a number of difficulties. Also, enacting laws based on "What we know to be true" is a real problem.
Here's why. What exactly, do you know to be true? What basis do you have for that? If you say, it's what the majority sees as acceptable, then that will change, just like the prevailing religion could change.
Our country "Knew" slavery was alright in the past, but we "Know" it's not today. Some countries "Know" prostitution is ok, but ours doesn't "Know" it. Some countries "Know" women shouldn't vote, but we "Know" they should. This list goes on and on. So is what we "know" more valid that what they "know"
My point is, it's easy to say, but not easy to do.
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Originally posted by swoose
Mac,
Check your pm.
Swoose
Relied.
Mac
-
One more thought about "Proof" and accepting things on faith. As I mentioned a few posts ago, we all do this at different times.
All of you that have read my posts here in this thread, have accepted a number of things concerning me on "Faith" (If we define "Faith" as believing something you can't prove.)
If you believed, me to be human, you have done so on Faith. You have no reason to believe I'm human, outside of the fact, that everyone you know that posts on BB are human. Yet you haven't seen me, it would be difficult for you to "Prove" one way of the other that I am. However, you have accepted it. (You drew a conclusion, based on your knowledge, experiences and the observable facts; but you have "Proved" nothing.) I could be an alien, or a chimp for all you know. (A very intelligent Chimp of course :) )
Not only did you believe I was human you believed I was "Alive" I could be dead, you really don't know, you simply have drawn a conclusion based on the same factors I mentioned above. I could be some form of Artificial Intelligence, you don't really know, you have accepted the fact that I'm alive on "Faith" (Again, if we define "Faith" as believing something you can't prove.)
In fact you can't prove I'm not an alien, all you can do is ask me to prove that I am. (All you can do is believe me, refuse to believe, or refuse to make a decision.)
Again, my point is, drawing a conclusion about something based on our knowledge, our experiences, and our observations of the evidence, is not irrational, it is a part of everyday life.
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Tachus, it doesn't take much effort to track somebody down across the internet and prove they're human. No offense, but that may just be the weaknest analogy I've ever seen.
-
AWMac, you'd better hope there's no God, because otherwise you're going to Hell for what you did to Chairboy. Your comment on his brother was evil and unnecessary.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Tachus, it doesn't take much effort to track somebody down across the internet and prove they're human. No offense, but that may just be the weaknest analogy I've ever seen.
The point is, you accept the fact that I am, and almost certainly could not be convinced otherwise, without ever tracking me down. Not based on "Proof", but based on the factors I listed in my post. So you believe something that has not been proven.
Also you can't prove I'm human, even if I'm standing in the same room with you. (Although you could prove I'm not a chimp, but you couldn't prove I'm not an alien.)
Yes, of course you can check my DNA, so does that really "Prove" I'm human. We assume things, accept things, believe things, without "Proof"
Prove to me, that life (what you call Human) didn't start somewhere else. I don't believe it did, I'm guessing you don't' believe it did, and it seems unreasonable to me for someone to believe it did, but you can't "Prove" it, one way of the other. Thus, my point you can't prove, I'm human. (At least not in the sense that you assume that I am.)
So, we all "believe" things, which have not been "Proven", and somethings that cannot be "Proven" that is not (in and of itself) irrational. It is in fact a part of life
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Originally posted by Tachus
What exactly, do you know to be true? What basis do you have for that? --Tachus
Well, we can only do what we as humans are capable of doing when it comes to "knowing" anything. We form a set of principles or standards of evaluation to determine, something that is the case, and/or something that actually exists. The outcomes of these evaluations must be in agreement with fact or reality. "Knowing" still poses many problems between the believers and non-believers, which is the case in most "religions". Hence the need for a system of standards in which to base knowledge that is, as best as humans can do, considered to be "fact". Given the history of mankind, it is and always will be unwise to confuse fact with faith or, even in the slightest, to give faith equal weight when building a database of knowledge for the posterity of mankind.
-
Originally posted by Viking
AWMac, you'd better hope there's no God, because otherwise you're going to Hell for what you did to Chairboy. Your comment on his brother was evil and unnecessary.
Viking
Read my posts Son.
I stated a date, no mention to his Brother. Just a Global event. Now get yer watermelon straight. Read, just don't comment!
Bud there is a GOD and you are in no position to tell me if I'm going to Hell or not.
Read before you post.
Mac
BTW .....
IN
-
Originally posted by Tachus
The point is, you accept the fact that I am, and almost certainly could not be convinced otherwise, without ever tracking me down. Not based on "Proof", but based on the factors I listed in my post. So you believe something that has not been proven.
There’s lots of proof that you’re a human. You’re communicating with me in a way typical of humans. I have yet to see a “bot” on these forums, and at least no “bot” that expresses opinions like you do, so I have no reason to assume you are a “bot”. Also I have never met or communicated with other entities that can communicate the way humans do. My conclusion is that you are human, and it is a belief yes, but not faith. Faith is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof”.
Originally posted by Tachus
Also you can't prove I'm human, even if I'm standing in the same room with you. (Although you could prove I'm not a chimp, but you couldn't prove I'm not an alien.)
Yes, of course you can check my DNA, so does that really "Prove" I'm human. We assume things, accept things, believe things, without "Proof"
Prove to me, that life (what you call Human) didn't start somewhere else. I don't believe it did, I'm guessing you don't' believe it did, and it seems unreasonable to me for someone to believe it did, but you can't "Prove" it, one way of the other. Thus, my point you can't prove, I'm human. (At least not in the sense that you assume that I am.)
Yes I could prove you’re a human using the methods you describe. Whether you are from Earth or some other place in the universe is irrelevant to the definition of you being human or not.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Viking
Read my posts Son.
I stated a date, no mention to his Brother.
Bud there is a GOD and you are in no position to tell me if I'm going to Hell or not.
Read before you post crap.
Mac
No mention to his brother?
Originally posted by AWMac
I find it very hard to believe Chairboy that you didn't pray once after the Dec 26th 2004 Tsunami yet you had all of us in here praying for your Brother.
Get Real Man.
Mac
You're a liar. And what you did was evil and unnecessary.
-
Originally posted by Viking
No mention to his brother?
You're a liar. And what you did was evil and unnecessary.
Pick and choose what you want to comment on... read ALL of the post before you reply.
A Liar? A lil harsh don't you think?
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Well, we can only do what we as humans are capable of doing when it comes to "knowing" anything. We form a set of principles or standards of evaluation to determine, something that is the case, and/or something that actually exists. The outcomes of these evaluations must be in agreement with fact or reality. "Knowing" still poses many problems between the believers and non-believers, which is the case in most "religions". Hence the need for a system of standards in which to base knowledge that is, as best as humans can do, considered to be "fact". Given the history of mankind, it is and always will be unwise to confuse fact with faith or, even in the slightest, to give faith equal weight when building a database of knowledge for the posterity of mankind.
And of course, there in lies the problem. Who decides, what is the proper evaluation? Who decides the standards?
The issue is never "Facts" or "Evidence" it's always in the interpretation of those facts. Even if we agree, that we will not deal is matters of faith, and we agree on how we define what "matters of faith" are. Let's assume I believe a society should be based on the "Respect of Persons" perspective (which I do), but you believe the foundation of society should be based on the Utilitarian perspective (which you may or may not). The two are diametrically opposed. (Yes both operate in our society, but they always class, and decisions must be made as to which point of view will take president over the other.) It's not an issue of faith, at this point it's an issue of authority. Which of us, has the authority to enforce our views on the other? If the answer is neither, then what is to be done? We allow a majority consensus to decide what the "Flavor of the Month is" as far as the basis for our government, and what moral code we will follow.
The point being, it will always change, because there is no standard, other than "This seems right to me" So whether it's across religious lines, cultural lines, racial lines, or philosophical lines, there is never really agreement on what is "Right" And if this is the case, then why would my "This seems right to me" be discounted, because someone believed it was rooted in my belief in God? If it is acceptable to the majority, then it has been given the validity as any thing else accepted by the majority. If the defining authority is a majority consensus?; and if that is not the defining authority than what is?
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Pick and choose what you want to comment on... read ALL of the post before you reply.
A Liar? A lil harsh don't you think?
No I don't. You said you made "no mention to his brother", yet you evidently did. That's lying. I have read all your posts, and you sucker punched Chairboy with a personal comment you knew would hurt him, and you had to lie because he never did ask for prayers for his brother. What you did is not something a true Christian would do ... it is not something a civilized human would do. You may believe otherwise, but you are neither.
-
Viking now yer playing a fool.
A Fool, I'll give you that, seems to fit.
I'm NOT A true Christian? NOT a Civilized human being...over a simple statement like "Prayer".
You gotta be kidding me.
GOD Loves you both.
Get Real,
Mac
-
Originally posted by Viking
My conclusion is that you are human, and it is a belief yes, but not faith. Faith is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof”.
But you believed without "Proof" which was my point. You had evidence, experience, and knowledge and you drew a conclusion based on those. (All the factors I have listed in my earlier posts), but not proof. You assume, (reasonably, I admit) it could be proven, but you still don't have proof. You believe based on your what you observe. (This is exactly what I do with God, by the way. I observe the evidence, and use my experiences, and my knowledge to draw a conclusion. A conclusion for which I have no "proof", but a reasonable conclusion based on what I have observed.)
As an aside on the issue of Faith. If then faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven, do you believe people have to have Faith to believe in evolution? Or in the existences of the atomic structure? Neither of these can be "Proven" (At least not today, perhaps in the future, but then I could say the same thing about God.)
So call it what you will, the issue I was addressing was the statement that, "Believing in something that you couldn't prove, was irrational" The point I was making is, it's not, we do it all the time, in many areas. It is a part of life.
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
IN
-
Ignore Time.
:cry
Mac
-
As an Atheist, I'm perfectly fine with the term "In God We Trust" on our money.
It's a term of faith that our money is actually worth something :)
Also, I don't pray. It doesn't make a difference (for me).
I feel discussing facts over faith and faith over facts is a waste of time if it comes down to trying to change other's core belief system. Rarely is one swayed over.
-
Tachus, nothing can be 100% proved. However you can prove many things beyond a reasonable doubt. You being human, evolution, atomic structures can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind. Whether the existence of God falls in the same category is dependent on the mind doing the thinking. In my mind I have yet to see any proof or evidence of the existence of God, but perhaps I'm just blind to it. Some people claim to have experienced things that prove to them that God exists, and for them the issue is no longer about faith, but knowing God exists. The biggest mistakes we humans often do is assuming we're all the same; the fact is we all have a unique perspective of our existence.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Viking now yer playing a fool.
A Fool, I'll give you that, seems to fit.
I'm NOT A true Christian? NOT a Civilized human being...over a simple statement like "Prayer".
You gotta be kidding me.
GOD Loves you both.
Get Real,
Mac
Repent sinner! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Viking
Repent sinner! :rolleyes:
Get Real. Got Faith?
-
Tachus: If reason is not worth trusting, then what are you doing arguing?
Are you arguing that it's in vain to argue?
-
Originally posted by Viking
Tachus, nothing can be 100% proved. However you can prove many things beyond a reasonable doubt. You being human, evolution, atomic structures can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind. Whether the existence of God falls in the same category is dependent on the mind doing the thinking. In my mind I have yet to see any proof or evidence of the existence of God, but perhaps I'm just blind to it. Some people claim to have experienced things that prove to them that God exists, and for them the issue is no longer about faith, but knowing God exists. The biggest mistakes we humans often do is assuming we're all the same; the fact is we all have a unique perspective of our existence.
I agree with you completely. (Well...., not completely, I don't know about evolution being proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but close enough :) )
Best regards,
--Tactus
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Get Real. Got Faith?
I thought you said "ignore time"? Were you just lying again or was I mistaken in thinking that meant you would put me on ignore?
-
Kinda like the "I belive I was born an Atheist just ask GOD.
:D
If it wasn't for Atheist there'd be no Comedy in the World... well there's always the Democrats.
:aok
Mac
-
Well, I'm not an atheist. I don't believe in the existence of God ... at least not as described by any religion known to me. However I do not exclude the possibility that God may indeed exist. I have no evidence either way, however I find it ... improbable. I guess that makes me Agnostic if you have to put a label on it. Belief is a subconscious thought process.
-
Hmmmmmm....somewhere there is a joke about Darwinism and AWMac's posts as they start from bold, brash statements, turn into rebuttals and lies, morph into personal attacks and obfuscations and finally evolve into denials and non-sequitars.
-
lol
-
Originally posted by Tachus
Prove to me, that life (what you call Human) didn't start somewhere else. I don't believe it did, I'm guessing you don't' believe it did, and it seems unreasonable to me for someone to believe it did, but you can't "Prove" it, one way of the other. Thus, my point you can't prove, I'm human. (At least not in the sense that you assume that I am.)
As far as I know, we're bacteria that got dropped off by a comet. I've seen what some could recognize as a god. This giant star called Myrah. It's trucking along through the universe leaving the bits that make up solar systems in its 30,000 year long tail. It's definately something's creator.
That said, until somebody comes along with a repeatable experiment that proves any of the religions are correct... I'll accept it. Until then, I'm an Atheist.
It's not hard to realise we're created by something. It's another thing entirely to claim that that something is a supernatural, omnipotent being as given to us by the various holy books.
a·the·ist /ˈeɪèiɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
-
Originally posted by moot
Tachus: If reason is not worth trusting, then what are you doing arguing?
Are you arguing that it's in vain to argue?
No, not at all. I'm arguing, that "Reason" is sufficient. That we often draw conclusion based solely on our reasoning skills, and that is not an irrational thing to do. "Reason" is sufficient to believe in a great many things, that have not, or can not be proven, including God.
Again, many people think they only believe in what is "Real", what can be "Proven", without giving any thought to the amount of things they "Believe" based purely on their "Reasoning Skills" I point it out, because these same people often imply a person that believes in God practices some sort of exercise in blind faith, while they only believe what is "Real" and can be "Proven" which simply isn't true. We all believe and act on a great many things, without "Proof", based solely on our ability to "Reason"
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying, people that believe in God are not the only ones doing it.
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
[Prince]This is what it sounds like when 'tards fight.[/Prince]
[SIZE=12]L M F A O!!! [/SIZE]
For you Mac,
Oklahoma
Where was the toothbrush invented? Oklahoma.
If it was invented anywhere else it would have been called a teethbrush.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- You know the difference between the city of Durant and the city of Doo-rant.
- You have used the phrase "fixin' to" during the last 12 months.
- Someone you know has used a football schedule to plan their wedding date.
- You save all your life for your dream vacation, and use it to go to the OU/Texas game.
- A tornado warning siren is your signal to go out in the yard and look for a funnel.
- It doesn't seem peculiar if your spouse says "I'm going in to town for something" even though you live in town.
- You can properly pronounce Eufaula, Gotebo, and Okemah.
- You can remember the last 12 times a state legislator seriously introduced a bill involving castration, and he didn't mean farm animals.
- You don't turn on the news until 20 minutes past the hour, because that's the only thing you care about anyway.
- You know exactly what calf fries are, and eat them anyway.
- When someone refers to the current season, you have no idea if they mean spring, summer, fall, winter or football.
- "Howdy" seems to be a normal way of greeting another adult, with no irony intended.
- You think that people who complain about the wind in other states are sissies.
- It bothers you not one iota to use an airport named for a man who died in an airplane crash.
- A bad traffic jam involves two cars staring each other down at a four-way stop, each determined to be the most polite and let the other go first.
- You know in which state Miam-uh is and in which state Miam-ee is.
- You have no sense of humor.
-
Originally posted by indy007
As far as I know, we're bacteria that got dropped off by a comet. I've seen what some could recognize as a god. This giant star called Myrah. It's trucking along through the universe leaving the bits that make up solar systems in its 30,000 year long tail. It's definately something's creator.
That said, until somebody comes along with a repeatable experiment that proves any of the religions are correct... I'll accept it. Until then, I'm an Atheist.
It's not hard to realise we're created by something. It's another thing entirely to claim that that something is a supernatural, omnipotent being as given to us by the various holy books.
I wasn't trying to convert you :) or even convince you that there is a God for that matter. (That would be off topic for this thread. I'd need to start a "Let's convert indy007" thread for that. Hijacking is against the rules.)
I just wanted demonstrate the fact that we use observations, experiences, and knowledge to make decisions all the time, and many of these "times" are concerning things that cannot be proven. (Though they may indeed be reasonable.)
Often people, say I only believe in what's "Real and what can be Proven", but that's really not the case. We often believe things, based on our observations.
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Ok, my final post to this thread. (Unless someone specifically asks me to address something)
I have really enjoyed this thread. (For the most part, there has been no shortage of, hmm... what's a nice way to put it.... well I think you know what I'm trying to say, on both sides, but there has been plenty of intelligent discussion from both sides as well, which I do throughly enjoy.)
But alas, I have spent a HUGE amount of time in this thread, and as much as I've liked it, I've gotta have some down time. (I've good work to do)
I had a mentor once that told me, "If you can not articulate it, then you do not fully understand it." So I've always believed, "intelligent" discussion about what we believe is a good thing, and an intelligent discussion about what we believe with those that disagree is the best thing. It causes us (well most of us) to continually evaluate our position, refine it, define it, and sometimes adjust it. All in all a great exercise, I see why the Greeks loved to do it.
Thanks to all that contributed, and shame on those of you that were "small, and petty"
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Nice talking to you Tachus. Have a good day at work. :)
-
Originally posted by Tachus
And of course, there in lies the problem. Who decides, what is the proper evaluation? Who decides the standards?
The issue is never "Facts" or "Evidence" it's always in the interpretation of those facts. Even if we agree, that we will not deal is matters of faith, and we agree on how we define what "matters of faith" are. Let's assume I believe a society should be based on the "Respect of Persons" perspective (which I do), but you believe the foundation of society should be based on the Utilitarian perspective (which you may or may not). The two are diametrically opposed. (Yes both operate in our society, but they always class, and decisions must be made as to which point of view will take president over the other.) It's not an issue of faith, at this point it's an issue of authority. Which of us, has the authority to enforce our views on the other? If the answer is neither, then what is to be done? We allow a majority consensus to decide what the "Flavor of the Month is" as far as the basis for our government, and what moral code we will follow.
The point being, it will always change, because there is no standard, other than "This seems right to me" So whether it's across religious lines, cultural lines, racial lines, or philosophical lines, there is never really agreement on what is "Right" And if this is the case, then why would my "This seems right to me" be discounted, because someone believed it was rooted in my belief in God? If it is acceptable to the majority, then it has been given the validity as any thing else accepted by the majority. If the defining authority is a majority consensus?; and if that is not the defining authority than what is?
Best regards,
--Tachus
I think you are trying to argue a point in faith which is very different from, basically, a world-wide accepted form of fact gathering. Only extremists look at the worlds system as an opinionated one(although you will find instances of biased fact representing). Take for instance, medicine. Most religions rely and believe in the facts upon which modern medicine is based, yet you have thousands of children worldwide that die each year because the parents do not believe in the intervention of modern medicine over their faith in their God. It doesn't mean that medicine is not factual or that there is a conspiracy to convert extremist to trust the facts of medicine, it is simply an example of how a few will never trust the system.
The fact that penicillin was, in fact, a product of the efforts of man to determine truths in chemistry(albeit by accident), is proof that our system is not bound by faith, but by standards that have been proven to be successful and ultimately factual. Fact gathering and the acceptance of said facts has always been in a struggle with the "church". Yet the difference is that the majority of fact gatherers are not gathering facts to disprove a faith, but to ultimately find the truth. On the other hand, efforts by many in religion, do not neccessarily seek the ultimate truth, but seek data that avoids proving their faith unfactual.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Another atheist put together a short video that succinctly represents my views as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg
It's called "Why a care about religion". The folks I'm really hoping will see this are ones like Lukster and his friends that suggest that I'm somehow not entitled to an opinion on a subject that has such a large impact on my life despite my decision not enroll in the 'club'.
I think the best part of the video is to remind us all of how much the founding fathers delighted in the belief in God and never intended the kind of separation we find today. (requirements in the avowed belief in God to hold office, etc). The founding fathers expected us to pray in school (any way we chose) or to not, at our discretion. We have allowed the atheists to twist the constitution enough.
All that said, I could care less if someone believes or not. It's their business.....another hallmark of the country whose roots the atheists and radicals desire to kill.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
(http://hallert.net/images/help_oppressed.gif)
There are what, two billion christians in the world? Out of how many people total? The Pac-man thread was more informative.
-
AKIron: That's a US specific graph.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
AKIron: That's a US specific graph.
I know, cheap jab. :p
-
i care because religion gives more logic answers than science for Qs about mistery of life;where we came from, our mission here,where are we heading,
-
Originally posted by ghi
i care because religion gives more logic answers than science for Qs about mistery of life;where we came from, our mission here,where are we heading,
answers? Faith based answers hold little value in the quest for factual truths just by definition alone.
-
Originally posted by ghi
i care because religion gives more logic answers than science for Qs about mistery of life;where we came from, our mission here,where are we heading,
We came from our mother, our mission here is to make babies, we are headed to extinction.
-
Originally posted by stockli
We came from our mother, our mission here is to make babies, we are headed to extinction.
There are 4 colours of skin on the earth; white, black,yellow and red, and same 4 colours of clay and dust covering the planet, proves the biblie myth :God made us out of clay ,but he did add the soul
If you watch yourself in the mirror,you see the dust and mineralals,colected from the earth and yes, they will stay here ,that's not all of YOU! the most important part is what makes you able to understand what are you watching in the mirror, and i belive that mysterious energy ,soul comes from outside, from God, or other dimension, doesn't just come from mother,makes babies and die,
i've seen on Discovery some kind of insects live few minutes, our life comparing with the infinite univers over our heads looks even shorter, and can't resume to material stage only,
sorry for my poor english
-
there is absolutely positively no doubt in my mind that there is a God and that he does indeed care for each one of us individually.
====
are you sure about that ? :aok
-
Originally posted by ghi
There are 4 colours of skin on the earth; white, black,yellow and red, and same 4 colours of clay and dust covering the planet, proves the biblie myth :God made us out of clay ,but he did add the soul
If you watch yourself in the mirror,you see the dust and mineralals,colected from the earth and yes, they will stay here ,that's not all of YOU! the most important part is what makes you able to understand what are you watching in the mirror, and i belive that mysterious energy ,soul comes from outside, from God, or other dimension, doesn't just come from mother,makes babies and die,
i've seen on Discovery some kind of insects live few minutes, our life comparing with the infinite univers over our heads looks even shorter, and can't resume to material stage only,
sorry for my poor english
Just a little tidbit of info, Elephants mourn their dead for years, and many animals are able to see themselves in the mirror and understand that it is themselves that they are looking at. I believe that our species past a stage of development where our ability to discern ourselves with our surroundings, created a gap. This gap was subsequently filled by faithbased religions. It is very creative and quite honorable, yet falls way short of our ability to seek the factual truths as our ablilities to discover these truths become more advanced.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Hmmmmmm....somewhere there is a joke about Darwinism and AWMac's posts as they start from bold, brash statements, turn into rebuttals and lies, morph into personal attacks and obfuscations and finally evolve into denials and non-sequitars.
They do make for a good laugh though.
-
Originally posted by Tachus
Actually, I never took that position. If you look at my post which followed the one you quoted, I said the atheist and the believer, both came to a conclusion that could not be proved.
However, as I pointed out in that post, this is done all the time by people, (I would venture to say, yourself included), and it is not necessarily irrational. The only way to avoid this, is to"never" draw a conclusion about a great many things in life.
We hold many things to be true, that we have never "Seen", nor can we "Prove". The structure of the atom is a great example. You've never seen one, I've never seen one, but based on observations we have drawn conclusions about them. (There are allot of other examples of this is science.)
The origin of life is another. I would say life began some time in the past. However, I can't prove it began. Perhaps, life has simply always been. You can't prove otherwise. Even if we accept that life began sometime in the past if we use your line of reasoning, no one can ever draw a "Rational" conclusion about how life began, because we can never prove it.
So unless a person walks around refusing to every draw a conclusion (which seems irrational to me) they ultimately we accept a certain number of things as being true, without "Proof"
Best regards,
--Tachus
Hiya Tachus,
Sorry it's taken me this long to respond.
With regards to drawing conclusions without evidence: Yes, we all do this every day. However, our significant conclusions and beliefs are ones that allow us as individuals and as a society to function. For instance: I will behave as though you have a consciousness, despite not knowing for certain... therefore I won't kill you and take your property. But in the end, I think we're forced to admit we -don't- know much for certain, but we still have to draw conclusions and act as though we do. Yeah, I know, it's solipsistic (sp?) :)
Basically, these are practical conclusions that help us function. Most of them are supportible with evidence or experience (i.e. - I believe this chair will support my weight, like it did yesterday). The objective existence of God is not.
-
Religious thought needs no reason.
Scientific thought is incompatible with anything else.
The leap of faith that we're not brains in jars was covered by Descartes.. Everything downstream from it can still be rational: You assume your senses aren't being fooled on the whole, and henceforth make rational arguments from them.
Taking the other way from that fork in the road, you are headed down a rabbit hole that goes nowhere, fast.
And of course, there in lies the problem. Who decides, what is the proper evaluation? Who decides the standards?
Reason.
-
Originally posted by moot
Reason.
Very well said, Moot!:aok
-
The idea that "faith" is prerequisite for a belief in non-existence just doesn't hold water.
If I said I could turn myself into a rocket and fly to the sun and back in a second, you would not need "faith" to believe I couldn't. It's ludicrous. It can be rejected out of hand with no further thought of effort required.
The same could be said of a god that created the entire universe and everything in it.
-
Prove it so we can all dismiss it out of hand. Test the theory beyond doubt or, failing that, it'll remain a hypothesis unless you or anyone else chooses to take a leap of faith and make it their belief without evidence.
One of the easiest proofs for god being unarguable either way is its infinity.
Do you know infinity like you know the reasons for not being able to change into a rocket, etc? Those and an infinite being (or whatever) aren't comparable. Belief in non-existance of something that can't be proven either way is a leap of faith.
-
If there is indeed an intelligent creator of our space and time then at some point all of our doubts and disbelief will seem very foolish. If there isn't, then at that same point, it won't seem anything.
-
Originally posted by moot
...Belief in non-existance of something that can't be proven either way is a leap of faith.
Because you, or others, do not view the idea of an all powerful being that created everything and watches everything as ludicrous, you have a difficult time dismissing it out of hand.
Others have no problem doing so. No faith involved.
The flying spaghetti monster is an example of the way some people express how absurd the idea of an all powerful deity is to them. It's just makes no sense. It does not take faith to believe it does not exist.
-
BLASPHERMER!!!!
forgive him oh great noodly appendage...forgivvvvvvvve!!!!!
-
Originally posted by moot
Prove it so we can all dismiss it out of hand. Test the theory beyond doubt or, failing that, it'll remain a hypothesis unless you or anyone else chooses to take a leap of faith and make it their belief without evidence.
One of the easiest proofs for god being unarguable either way is its infinity.
Do you know infinity like you know the reasons for not being able to change into a rocket, etc? Those and an infinite being (or whatever) aren't comparable. Belief in non-existance of something that can't be proven either way is a leap of faith.
I totally agree, and therefore, I do not believe that there is no GOD, but that there is an incapability of humans on this planet to even come close to understanding what God might be like. It is the only reason I will never buy into religions based on the fact that they were born from an intelligence level which was in it's infancy at best during the times most religions were being formed. I was raised in the church and it wasn't until I was tutored from the 11th grade to the 12th grade in the bible(was actually part of the course to read old and new testemants) that I found something wrong with.........faith! I found that my curiosity was challenging my faith. It was a horrible and a very guilt ridden journey, yet in the end, I found a peace that was overwhelming. I do not believe religions of this world. I also, through my education in the sciences, do not believe that God is disproven, just that humans do not have the capacity of understanding to attain the conception of what apparently is the power that exists in the Universe that ultimately may be considered.....GOD! The human soul, not much unlike tracing your roots, can be mapped through history from when burials started to take the form of decorating the dead. It is not inherently without hope, yet very hopeful in our quest, to understand what is the "math", "reason", "purpose", and ultimately our "goal" for being alive!
Mark Magill 8/21/07:aok
-
Originally posted by JB88
BLASPHERMER!!!!
forgive him oh great noodly appendage...forgivvvvvvvve!!!!!
NEVER!!!! The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a VENGEFUL Spaghetti Monster!!!
-
step into the light. (http://www.subgenius.com/pam1/pamphlet_p1.html)
-
My name is Michael, this is my creed.
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger unto those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
-
The way I understood the spaghetti monster was as an illustration of the absurdity of pretending to know for sure anything that's in the realm of irrationality. Anthropomorphism of god (rain gods, god hates studmuffins or doesn't, prayer does or doesn't help, etc). Just because a ton of folklore has accumulated around the myths of god (old grandma BS sort of stuff) doesn't invalidate the philosophical notion of god.
What's ludicrous about something beyond the reach of your understanding? I don't picture god as an all powerful being that created everything and watches everything, or as anything else. I don't picture it at all. You could say I dismiss it out of hand, but not because I think it's true or false or unlikely or not, but because being beyond what I can understand and therefore predict, it's by principle a non-factor.
It's as elementary as 2+2=4 that if something is beyond your understanding, it's unpredictable in any way. God isn't just beyond your understanding like 21st century tech is to cavemen, it's infinite.
So "god" is in fact as ludicrous to our scale of thinking as changing into a rocket etc. That it makes no sense is more proof of the ludicrous dissimilarity between us and it.
It does not take faith to believe it does not exist.
Belief is faith.
I'm not splitting semantic hairs or trying to get into a last-word argument here, the matter's really clear: God cannot be proven or disproven (where is your proof? No proof = no certainty), and yet (in your own words) you believe. You're positive god is inexistant, with ridicule or disbelief (I think the formal name is argument from disbelief) as justification. Look it up, it's not a valid argument.
Would you take it seriously if someone answered your post with only "I don't believe that/it doesn't vibe with my instincts, so it just can't be true"?
-
I think that on this one, skyrock reflects my views fairly well.
I would chop up the post a little more tho.
lazs
-
Me too..
Man could somehow do justice to "God's greatness" with his little ideas :lol Yeah, right.
-
Religion: The service and worship of God.
-
Originally posted by moot
..but because being beyond what I can understand and therefore predict, it's by principle a non-factor.
It's as elementary as 2+2=4 that if something is beyond your understanding, it's unpredictable in any way. God isn't just beyond your understanding like 21st century tech is to cavemen, it's infinite....
So "god" is in fact as ludicrous to our scale of thinking as changing into a rocket etc. That it makes no sense is more proof of the ludicrous dissimilarity between us and it...
...but it is you that has assigned this "god" an infinite unknowability. That doesn't make it so.
..,So "god" is in fact as ludicrous to our scale of thinking as changing into a rocket etc. That it makes no sense is more proof of the ludicrous dissimilarity between us and it...
We are dealing with facts now?
...God cannot be proven or disproven (where is your proof? No proof = no certainty),...
That is just a form of a negative proof argument.
...and my "belief" was not that there is no god, but that it does not require faith to believe there is no god. I am merely using the word "belief" to convey an idea, not assign it some metaphysical power. So, off into semantics? Yes.
Also, where did I state that I believe god to be non-existent?
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I am a Lutheran, and as I get older and older my retention rate to church on Sunday's is definately dropping, but religion is a major part of my life...Im not a serial killer because im scared about going to prison and being executed...Im not a serial killer, because its where I believe I would go if I were executed for such a crime...
Wow. haven't read whole thread to see of someone has already responded to this, but I say you are completely morally bankrupt if the only reason you don't go on a killing spree is because you fear punishment by God.
I'll take an atheist who is moral and kind to his fellow man because of a strong sense of humanity and empathy over a devout Christian who, were it not for some words in a book telling him not to would take a hatchet to my head.
It paints a pretty sad picture of Christians if you really say "I want eternal life for myself and so I choose not to kill you."
And a pretty strong picture of atheists who say "It's not about me, I turn to dust either way, but I want you to have a long life and so I could not comprehend of killing you."
-
Originally posted by Furious
...and my "belief" was not that there is no god, but that it does not require faith to believe there is no god.
[semantics]
Belief in the unknowable and unproven is the definition of faith.
As non-existance cannot be proven, the belief in the non-existance of something is therefore faith.
The disbelief in something is not faith as there is no belief.
Atheism = the belief that there is no God (faith)
Agnosticism = the non belief in the existance of God (No faith)
[/semantics]
-
Originally posted by Samiam
Wow. haven't read whole thread to see of someone has already responded to this, but I say you are completely morally bankrupt if the only reason you don't go on a killing spree is because you fear punishment by God.
I'll take an atheist who is moral and kind to his fellow man because of a strong sense of humanity and empathy over a devout Christian who, were it not for some words in a book telling him not to would take a hatchet to my head.
It paints a pretty sad picture of Christians if you really say "I want eternal life for myself and so I choose not to kill you."
And a pretty strong picture of atheists who say "It's not about me, I turn to dust either way, but I want you to have a long life and so I could not comprehend of killing you."
Actually, the purpose of the law (in the Bible) is to reveal "Sin" so we know what is "Right", and to reveal that no matter how good a person might think they are, they still fall short of perfection. (Which is God's standard.)
The proper understanding of how the law applies to a Christian is best understood like this. I love my wife, so I don't commit adultery. It makes no difference to me whether it's against the law or not. (So I do not refrain from adultery because it's against the law, but because I love my wife.) In fact think how your wife would feel, if you said, don't worry dear, I'll never be unfaithful, because it's against the law.
The same "Should" be true for Christians. I don't "refrain" from murder, because it's "Against God's Law", but because I love God. So whether it's against the law on not, I don't murder.
BTW, I know a number of you have responded to some of my posts, and I have not replied. This is not because I'm not reading them, but I had spent a great deal of time in this thread, and I needed some down time. (As I had mentioned in the post previous to this one.) Of course as I mentioned before, I would be happy to answer any direct questions. Other wise I will just read your thoughts and comments. (Besides, I'm not the kind of guy that feels compelled to get the last word.)
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Well said, Samiam.
-
well said tachus.
lazs
-
Well, Tachus, you certainly give me more comfort than cav58d does.
But still, the argument of christians is that they would not vote for atheist for president because an atheist has no moral compass.
But isn't it the case that a 50ish year-old law abiding atheist who has raised a family and not cheated on his wife (unlike most of the current crop of christian politicians) and led a reasonably good life with no other motivation than empathy toward his fellow man has a MUCH better sense of morality than a christian who is simply obeying the laws of god on faith that there's some greater reward.
And aren't terrorists who blow themselves up along with innocents claiming to simply be obeying the laws of god as they interpret them?
I don't want you to not kill me because of the way you choose to interpret the laws of your god. I much prefer you not kill me because you see me as a fellow human who wishes to live and you have empathy for my wishes - even if your god's laws have different ideas about me.
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
My name is Michael, this is my creed.
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger unto those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
What does Pulp Fiction have to do with this? :huh
:rofl
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
I totally agree, and therefore, I do not believe that there is no GOD, but that there is an incapability of humans on this planet to even come close to understanding what God might be like. It is the only reason I will never buy into religions based on the fact that they were born from an intelligence level which was in it's infancy at best during the times most religions were being formed. I was raised in the church and it wasn't until I was tutored from the 11th grade to the 12th grade in the bible(was actually part of the course to read old and new testemants) that I found something wrong with.........faith! I found that my curiosity was challenging my faith. It was a horrible and a very guilt ridden journey, yet in the end, I found a peace that was overwhelming. I do not believe religions of this world. I also, through my education in the sciences, do not believe that God is disproven, just that humans do not have the capacity of understanding to attain the conception of what apparently is the power that exists in the Universe that ultimately may be considered.....GOD! The human soul, not much unlike tracing your roots, can be mapped through history from when burials started to take the form of decorating the dead. It is not inherently without hope, yet very hopeful in our quest, to understand what is the "math", "reason", "purpose", and ultimately our "goal" for being alive!
Mark Magill 8/21/07:aok
SkyRock,
This is one of the better descriptions of the Western realisation of "What is the sound of one hand clapping"?
Each of us has the capablility of knowing we are aware of the infinite. Some of us strive to place a face or form on the infinite. Obviously this is impossible. In the moment of hearing the sound of one hand, the infinite is realised, then lost. But the knowlege and form of it stays upon our being. This is enough to keep us on the life long journy to return back to the infinite of which we always have been from before birth and after birth.
After nearly 20 years of zen and buddism as a foundation for kenjutsu, I decided the infinite is God. God is formless, all form and infinitely beyond our earthly conceptual limitations. Religion's these days seem to have lost the mission that they are to help the flock follow Gods foot steps and sign posts which are everywhere if one can just stop their EGO and listen to the sound of one hand clapping. Any human being at any time can touch the spark of the inifinite and know. That is on of the affermations of free will.
It is also one of the affermations of free will that some choose not to. Neither person is more or less than the other for these two choices.
-
Originally posted by Samiam
Well, Tachus, you certainly give me more comfort than cav58d does.
But still, the argument of christians is that they would not vote for atheist for president because an atheist has no moral compass.
But isn't it the case that a 50ish year-old law abiding atheist who has raised a family and not cheated on his wife (unlike most of the current crop of christian politicians) and led a reasonably good life with no other motivation than empathy toward his fellow man has a MUCH better sense of morality than a christian who is simply obeying the laws of god on faith that there's some greater reward.
And aren't terrorists who blow themselves up along with innocents claiming to simply be obeying the laws of god as they interpret them?
I don't want you to not kill me because of the way you choose to interpret the laws of your god. I much prefer you not kill me because you see me as a fellow human who wishes to live and you have empathy for my wishes - even if your god's laws have different ideas about me.
The statement, "the argument of christians", should say, "Some, christains argue". Implying "All" Christians argue, is no different from Christians saying or implying, "All" atheists are immoral. Both statements are based on prejudice, concerning the other group, based on the actions of some with in those groups.
No one can deny the large number of atrosities that have been committed by "religious people" in the name of their god. However, using that point as grounds to discredit, religion or religious people in general, is not valid. Just as it would not be valid for someone to point to the large number of atrocities committed by atheists and therefore conclude, "All" atheist are immoral. (So the argument about not voting for an atheist, because he lacks a moral compass is not valid, as you have submitted.)
I understand the point you are making, when you say,
" don't want you to not kill me because of the way you choose to interpret the laws of your god. I much prefer you not kill me because you see me as a fellow human who wishes to live and you have empathy for my wishes - even if your god's laws have different ideas about me."
However, consider this example. If someone was to commit some terrible crime against one of my daughters, I "as a human", no longer care about their wishes to live and don't have any empathy for their wishes... (So I might want to kill them) However, I'm still "Bound" by a standard, that does not rely on how I feel, or what I might decide is justifiable, or what I might think is acceptable. Not only am I "required" to refrain from killing them, but also to forgive, and treat them in a kindly fashion. (Which, I freely admit, is not with in my nature to do, but I still do them, to the best of my ability, because I know it's "right") So in this case, the father or mother of the person that committed that crime against one of my daughters, might be very glad I don't create my own "standard", but strive to live by the one my God (which is the God of the Bible) has created for me.
So, as I said, I understand the point you are making. I just want to point out, a person being "bound" by an "outside" moral standard is not a bad thing. (Unless the standard is bad. However, this is no different from a person living by their own standards. If their standard is "bad" then their morals are bad.)
As far as voting, I would much rather have person stand up and say, I don't know if there is a god, or I don't believe in god, then have them stand up and say they are a Christian, but lead a lifestyle that is completely contrary to biblical teachings. This simply gives Christians a bad name, and we have enough problems to deal with, without that being added to them.
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Chairboy, thanks and please don't think I am a bloody commie because I am not. I am an Atheist born in an Orthodox country, so I am probably first Orthodox by birth and then an Atheist as a sane decision.
I had enough "relationships" with religious people this summer. No, thanks, if you want to worship something - the door is right there.
I have never thought anyone can reach such a level of hypocrisy. If they think I should do something for them just because they are so ****ing Righteous an I am a bloody Heathen - they are badly mistaken. No use preaching. Just bring me a glass of water when I am sick. If you don't - then you should go elsewhere, I don't see you here. Find yourself a moron to preach.
-
The reason I know that there is a god is because he has given me strength when I have needed it most.
Strength that I do not posses on my own.
I can't put a face on him tho and he doesn't tell me what he wants for me or the rest of you. Your milage may vary.
I am fairly strong willed and fairly tough on my own but life throws things at us that we can't handle on our own.
That is my "proof" it is of course... nothing but faith. no different than the athiest that says I am wrong because he has faith that it is impossible.
I say it happened and the athiest tells me that it can not happen because he has faith that it can not.
That is fine but I think you can see why I am a little sceptical about their honesty when they say they are not a faith based religion.
lazs
-
The "honesty" schtick is old and tired, Lazs. I'm not a liar because I fail to believe in a god, and your smear campaign isn't going to change that.
That's just cheap, and you're capable of better.
-
Tachus, you make a very reasoned and articulate case.
But here's where it gets fuzzy for me. You say you are bound by the laws of God to not only not seek vengeance, but to find it within yourself to forgive. I believe this is consistent with the teachings in the New Testament.
So why is it that a vast majority of states in the so-called bible belt are death penalty states? And how is it that the Christians on this board overwhelmingly support the war in Iraq? And they support W as a president when Jimmy Carter's pacifism and approach to brokering peace in the middle east was MUCH more consistent with Christian ideals than W's (NOTE that I'm not claiming anything in terms of effectiveness or what was right for the nation, only that Carter acted more like a Christian and would seem should have more support from those wishing to rule the country based on Christian morals).
So, again, there's an interpretation going on. You, and some Christians I know, read the bible and interpret it as directing you to not ever take a life - perhaps even if doing so could save a loved one. Others read the same Bible and believe that it's perfectly fine to take lives - eye for an eye.
So I still believe that if the primary basis for a person's morality is the Bible - that's worrisome because people interpret it many different ways and sometime use it as an excuse for behavior that I do not find moral.
So, my main point is still that any claim that an atheist is somehow more susceptible to immoral behavior because they lack the guidance of God is bunk. And further, an atheist with a life history of lawful and good behavior, I claim, has nobler motivations having done so than a Christian who may only be acting like a good person because they fear the retribution of God. So why not vote for an atheist?
-
for the people that wanted to know what the god I mentioned looked like...
(http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/185517main_a-516.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Furious
...but it is you that has assigned this "god" an infinite unknowability. That doesn't make it so.
First of all, tons of things were unseen but subsequently found to exist only because someone let their imagination run loose, IOW play things out in idea. More things yet have been found to be possible, i.e. make sense, thanks to logic.
It stands to reason that there is a limit to man's understanding. There's no proof yet (your requirement to credibly qualify something as such or such) that such a thing as the infinite or a god doesn't exist, or that it isn't possible.
God being a being an unknown so far, it remains for the time being just an idea, just as relativity and black holes and airplanes and a ton of other things were until they actually happened, or were proven impossible. Those do "incredible" things, so something as incredible in itself as an infinite entity (a possibility until proven otherwise) could manage something as ordinary as manage something its own size.
I don't see what the big deal about this is.
Back when the earth was widely thought as flat, someone asked a flat-earther: "Ok, so the Earth isn't round.. So what would it look like to us if it was?"
So here you are saying the idea of god itself is flawed.. "God doesn't exist"? What would it look like to us if he did and was everything that he's reasonably (infinite and unfathomable, not a bearded titan) supposed to be?
"God" and religion are irrational ideas, your arguing them isn't going to get anywhere more concrete than platonics.. Philosophy 101 taught by any teacher atheist or deist, would tell you the same. (Not to ramble here, but incidentally the teacher would likely include that ideas are the most real things).
We are dealing with facts now?
Yes, it's a fact that the idea I enunciated is subject to the same rules as any other (real or not, rational or not), those of logic. Logic validates the idea as I said it and as HoldenMcGroin points out too.
I'm not saying god is anything specific, anymore than you are admiting god exists by spelling out his "name" or thinking about the idea of "god". What you've yet to do is point out why the idea god is not possible.
...and my "belief" was not that there is no god, but that it does not require faith to believe there is no god. I am merely using the word "belief" to convey an idea, not assign it some metaphysical power. So, off into semantics? Yes.
No need to go off into semantics, that doesn't even make sense. If you can't refute my saying so, maybe Holden's?
Also, where did I state that I believe god to be non-existent?
Here:
The idea that "faith" is prerequisite for a belief in non-existence just doesn't hold water. [...]
The same could be said of a god that created the entire universe and everything in it.
How am I misreading this? You don't believe in the bearded guy, ok. I'm on about the idea of something infinite, the only sort of thing we can reasonably say we will never appreciate (like Zeno said, only this time it's not a matter of infinite portions of a finite distance, but even just one infinity). I'm debating the idea of it. It seems like an important argument because it decides the validity of everything religious downstream of it (and **** knows there's an abundance of that everyday and just about everywhere) and happens to be on the limit of rationality, which a good reference point in terms of where I can look back inward from the limits of possibility, i.e. decide the limit past which it's not worth arguing or even considering.
If you're going to insist on something not only being possible but definitely true, then failing concrete proof, you should be able to demonstrate it with reason. Believe it or not, the only thing keeping me from being atheist is reason.
Honestly Furious, have you read up on philosophy in general and/or religious philosophy? There's maybe as much as a thousand years or two's worth of debate on this thing's validity. Do you really think you've got the answer to nail it all down once and for all? I'm all ears if you do :)
-
Samiam,
The issue of morals, (I mean, where they get theirs, not if they are an immoral person) is rather a poor basis for Not voting for a person.
The broader question, might be why is there such hesitation to vote for a atheist in general.
The reason most likely can be found in the mixing of "terms". Often we tend to link certain terms in our mind. This is what I mean.
Some atheists are aggressively anti-god, and anti-religion.
So many make this connection. Being an atheist = Being Anti-god and Anti-religion. So I can't vote for someone that is anti-god. They might strip away my rights and oppress me.
Of course it works the same on both sides.
Because some "Christians" don't belive evolution, and want to have evolution kick out of school, and replaced with the biblical teaching of creation, and don't believe in science.
Many assume, all Christians that reject evolution feel the same way. So they wouldn't vote for a Christian because they will oppress science and teach their kids fairy tales.
So, though I am a creationist. I don't want to remove evolution from public schools, (though I would like to see the difficulties taught as well as the evidence) I don't want Biblical creation taught in public schools, and I in no way dis-believe science. (I'm working to complete a science degree right now.) However think of how many people might be "hesitant" to vote for me, believing, I might sign a law that enacted some of those things I listed.
I'm not saying it's right, just that I think this has allot to do with it.
As to the issue of interpretation, I agree completely. It should be noted though, this is still true of those that have a moral code not based on the bible. There is always an element of interpretation, and differing opinions. Hunting is a great example of this. I would assume, there are some atheist that are like me, (I have no issues with sticking an arrow in the side of a white tail, dragging it home and cooking it on the grill :) ) and then there are some that believe hunting is immoral and should be banned.
Finally, I agree with your last point, a person that doesn't break the law, because they fear getting caught, just seems less "noble" than one that does what is right, just because it's right. I only hope you understood what I was trying to say. I make every effort to do what is right, just because it's right, just like you. I simply base what I believe to "right" on the Bible.
BTW, I would like to commend you on your postings. There are well done, as well as respectful. (I don't want to turn this into a group hug or anything :), but I can't say that about a good number of posts on this board, regardless of their position.)
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
The issue of morals, (I mean, where they get theirs, not if they are an immoral person) is rather a poor basis for Not voting for a person.
And yet this is precisely the reason given when "atheist" shows up below "axe murdering troll" on the list of who people would more likely vote for.
Some atheists are aggressively anti-god, and anti-religion.
So many make this connection. Being an atheist = Being Anti-god and Anti-religion. So I can't vote for someone that is anti-god. They might strip away my rights and oppress me.
You make an excellent point. But let's understand what "Anti-religion" really is.
It seems today that if I assert that I do not think the ten commandments, or prayer time, belongs in public schools, or that I think "one nation under God" doesn't belong in the pledge, then I am being anti-religion.
True, there have been regimes who have actually been anti religion to the degree where religion has been outlawed and pushed underground. But that is always about exerting political control, not atheism. These same regimes stifle free speech - it's not about religion itself.
I don't believe there are any outspoken atheists in the western world today who believe that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buhdists, etc. should not be able to freely practice their faith and live life according to their beliefs. They are adamant that this faith not overly influence public policy. (And they get plain freaked out when there's an administration who seem to think that the Rapture will occur in their life time and that they are destined to play a role in it and this is the basis for certain decisions).
When I insist that the monument to the commandments be removed from a courthouse, that's not anti-religion. That's just me saying "get your religion out of my business and go practice it with your like-minded faithful."
Believe me, I, and any atheist I know of, am glad you have your faith to guide you and am glad that Lazs can draw power he needs in times of trial from his God. Really and honestly I am.
But I cannot stand that public policy is being made on the basis of faith and it's sad that an atheist is less likely to be elected to national office than a rabid hamster because of a misguided notion of what really constitutes morality.
And back to what drew me into this thread: if a christian represents that they only don't kill me because they don't want to go to hell, well, maybe I verge on anti-religious sentiments because that notion is just plain scary to me.
-
Ok chair.. do you believe that it is possible that there is a god?
lazs
-
Lazs: Do you believe that it is possible there could be a Darth Vader, Sith Lord working for the Emperor to hunt down Jedi and squeeze throats with The Force?
-
Not probable but far from not possible. I don't believe that anyone has ever asked me that before tho... do you believe it?
lazs
-
It is pretty commonly taught in philosophy classes that is "possible" for their to be a God. The real issue becomes, is it probable. Some theoretical physicist would hold to the fact that there an infinite number of realities, in which every possible reality is played out. (So from that perspective, I would say Darth Vadar is possible.)
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Not probable but far from not possible. I don't believe that anyone has ever asked me that before tho... do you believe it?
lazs
Sounds pretty wishy washy. By your logic, you're being intellectually dishonest because you KNOW Darth Vader is a fictional character.
Either way, I just don't see a god shaped hole in the universe, so I fail to believe it exists. Doesn't make me a liar.
-
Actually, your point about Fictional is well taken. So perhaps, not "Darth Vadar", exactly, but a reality, that plays out similar to the one you were referring too. Is "possible", I suppose.
--Tachus
-
Originally posted by -dead-
edited out
:
MY first question is
Do you have kids?
if so do you remember a time they hurt themselves?
and you felt the pain. truly felt it!!!!
how is this possable? GOD thats how
GOD is love,
i feel most religions have an aspect of truth to them.
ive read different christen bibles
the message in all of them is the same.
i also know that many of todays "Christen believes" are pagen,
does not change the fact that we where created by GOD. JHVH= LORD =YAHAVEH = allah= jahovah= jah=elohim=adoni=yaweh
NOT YEHASHUA{JESUS} he is GOD's first creation his father gave him his power. HE IS THE LIGHT TO THE GENTILES...
when GOD spoke the words LET THERE BE LIGHT... he created our messiah{the christ}
who was crusified . died for all men...
and was risen... to become the first and the last...
peace
-
Sounds like Dr. Bronner. Here's an excerpt from one of his bottles of soap:
Absolute cleanliness is Godliness! Who else but God gave man Love that can spark mere dust to life! Poetry, uniting All-One! All brave! All life! Who else but God! "Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!
Einstein, 1939, after Nazis & Commies united, proposed spacebombs that destroy all, unless we finally teach the Moral ABC's the real Rabbi Hillel taught Jesus to unite all in All-One-God-Faith. As teach astronomers Abraham - Israel - Moses - Buddha - Hillel - Jesus - Spinoza - Paine - Sagan & Mohammed, inspired every 76 years, 6000 years by the Messenger of God's Law, the sign of the Messiah, Halley's Comet: "WE'RE ALL ONE OR NONE!" "THERE IS NO GOD BUT GOD!" "TEACH LOVE THY ENEMY!" "LISTEN CHILDREN ETERNAL FATHER ETERNALLY ONE!" Israel-Moses-Buddha-Jesus-Mohammed: ONE! ALL ONE!
Anyhow, nothing I can say in response to your messages is as comprehensive or effective as your own words:
Originally posted by ink
watch the video and tell me that the towers fell due to fire
its total bull,
if you are a terrorist why would you do something on a day that every one knows, 9/11 911
that is our emergency phone #
only our government is that screwed up,to think they can decieve the people
-
i stand by my words
when the towers fell i was aghast that my government would kill its own people.
as they where falling i knew...
whats worse is there are people who are so blind no matter what they see
they will never see the truth...
-
Originally posted by ink
i [...] will never see the truth...
Chairboy, giant teapot starships and darth vaders not being believable have nothing to do with god.
-
Ink,
This is a little of topic, and I may indeed regret even asking the question.
Do you base your belief that Jesus was created solely on the Bible, or do you use other sources as well? Just wondered.
BTW, the verse which you quoted from Genesis, "let there be light", which you claimed refers to the creation of Jesus, is misapplied. A fundamental principle used in interpretation states, we should always seek to understand the author's intent. (it doesn't matter what we think it says, what matters is what the author meant.) A second principle states, the intent should be understood as it applies to the original reader "First" and then we can move to the question, "How does it apply to us" (or how did they understand it, then how should I understand it)
When the author of Genesis wrote, it seems clear he intended what he wrote to be understood as a literal historical narrative of creation. Thus, either the author was speaking of actual light, or he was misleading his readers. It seems clear the original readers would have "understood" the author referred to "actual light" (There is absolutely no reason to believe they would have understood it any other way). Also, no other portions of this narrative use figurative language, so we have no real basis to assume this portion is figurative. So to draw a conclusion that it means something other than actual light, is really a stretch.
Further more, the Bible is very clear that Jesus created all things, and even if one was to concede, that was all things besides himself (meaning he was the very first thing created), the creation of light comes after the creation of the heavens and the earth in Genesis. Thus, the interpretation you used, is not easily reconciled with other passages.
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
let there be light... was not actual light we see
the sun and moon and stars where created later'
jesus first off, is not his name, jesus is from a greek translation of iesous.
yehoshua, was his given name,
he is the light to the gentiles...
and i cant explain how i know
except with GOD all things are possable.
i have not always believed or thought that he was real, and at one point in my life i truly hated him (used figurativly)
but the truth cannot be denied, he came into my life, he made me open my eyes, well he did not make me, but made it possable for me to open my eyes.
and now my job is to spread his name. and to try to help others see the truth. if they so desire.
peace
-
At the root of all religions, as far as I can tell, are imaginative and earnest folks like Ink who really believe what they're saying.
It's just not for me. Kids, sure, but adults with imaginary friends? Nah.
-
A pretty smart fellow once said "imagination is more important than knowledge".
-
Originally posted by ink
let there be light... was not actual light we see
the sun and moon and stars where created later'
jesus first off, is not his name, jesus is from a greek translation of iesous.
yehoshua, was his given name,
he is the light to the gentiles...
and i cant explain how i know
except with GOD all things are possable.
i have not always believed or thought that he was real, and at one point in my life i truly hated him (used figurativly)
but the truth cannot be denied, he came into my life, he made me open my eyes, well he did not make me, but made it possable for me to open my eyes.
and now my job is to spread his name. and to try to help others see the truth. if they so desire.
peace
Well, I don't want to hijack this thread, so I won't get into a long debate about the meaning of this verse (At least not here) However, I will point out one more important principle of proper interpretation. Words have no meaning apart from sentences, and sentences rarely have meaning apart from paragraphs. (At least the meaning rarely can be properly understood.) So if I present you with just a word.
Read
And I ask you what it means. You can guess at the definition, but you can not know my intended definition, because the word lacks context. (so it could be "read my post", or "I read your post", you can't be sure.) Same is true of sentences. You might quote me as saying, "I'm going to kill myself." This might be exactly what I said, but if the context was, "The next time Rex Grossman fumbles a snap, I'm going to kill myself." It means something quite different. So the statement's proper meaning can only be known in it's context.
So as odd as it might seem, according to the context of the verse you are referring to, actual light was present prior to the creation of the sun, moon and stars.
"4And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day." (You don't have an evening and a morning without light, and the original readers would have understood it in that manner.)
So, the context requires the presence of light, and verse 3, provides it, through the creation of light (actual light). This is also consistent with intent. Clearly the author implies, there is light at the end of the first day (3 days before the sun was created) We know from the context of the passage. Verses 4 and 5 make it clear. (He makes reference to Light and Darkness, Day and Night, Evening and Morning.)
So your interpretation of this verse violates all three of the commonly accepted principle I mentioned. (Author's intent, how the original readers would have understood it, and context. As well as others I have not addressed here.) The interpretation you offer simply isn't sound.
(BTW, Jesus, is the light of the gentiles, in fact the Bible says He is the light of the world, not just limited to the gentiles, but this does not prove the light spoken of in Genesis, is referring to Jesus.)
Further more, if we follow the conclusion that the light mentioned in Genesis verse 3 refers to Jesus, and not actual light, then I could claim his name, is neither Jesus, or Yehoshua, but his name is Yom, the Hebrew word for day. This is clear from verse 5. "God called the light Day".
Finally as to the issue of names, I've often heard people make a rather large issue of this. Jesus was called Ἰησοῦς in Greek, (which we translate Jesus) but keep in mind that was the only name he was called by most of the gentile converts. So, if the early gentile church used this name, which we translate Jesus, and there is nothing the Bible that would indicate the apostles had an issue with this, then I'm not sure why people today would have an issue with it. This is similar to people saying we should only address God (the father) as Jehovah. The interesting thing is, the word is never found in the Greek new testament. So most gentiles in that day would not have referred to God as Jehovah, and the Jews neither spoke that name, nor did they write it.
Also, Peter in the book of Acts refers to the Christ as Jesus, and then goes on to say there is no other NAME under heaven by which men might be saved. (The name was not, Yehoshua, but the Greek name we translate Jesus.)
The point being, I don't make a big issue of it, and I don't find proper cause to in the Bible. (So, why bring it up.)
Sorry about the length, and the Hijack, I'll refrain from pursuing this topic in this thread, any further.
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
At the root of all religions, as far as I can tell, are imaginative and earnest folks like Ink who really believe what they're saying.
It's just not for me. Kids, sure, but adults with imaginary friends? Nah.
Sir Issac Newton, one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, had the same "imaginary" friend I do. (Of course he didn't believe He was imaginary, and either do I :) )
--Tachus
-
my grandfather is a congregationalist.
we speak of buddhism often.
-
Originally posted by Tachus
Finally as to the issue of names, I've often heard people make a rather large issue of this. Jesus was called...
If Jesus was a Jew, why the hispanic name?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If Jesus was a Jew, why the hispanic name?
That's pretty funny.
--Tachus
-
I tell my mexican girfriend that god loves the mexicans so much that he named his only son after one of em.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I tell my mexican girfriend that god loves the mexicans so much that he named his only son after one of em.
lazs
Is she a legal or an illegal?
-
Originally posted by ink
and i cant explain how i know
except with GOD all things are possable.
That translates in my head to, "I don't actually have any sort of proof, so I'm just making things up."
"God is, because God is," is a logical fallacy.