Category: philosophy/religion topics
Prayer is a common proponent of religion. Most prevalent perhaps in christianity. In order for christianity to be a viable belief system, prayer must work, the prayers must be answered by the higher power to which they are directed. The question that is asked by many, however, is if these prayers are actually answered at all. If they are, then the christians have been proven correct, and all the world, I'm sure, in a short time will be bowing down to the newly proven god. Wars over religion will cease, and the world will be a better place.
So, is it possible for us to devise a plan to ascertain whether prayers are answered? It most certainly is. I have outlined here a simple test, which you can do at home, to determine for yourself, whether prayers are answered or not.
step one:
Find in your house a normal, six sided dice, unweighted, and unbiased in any way. Hold it cupped in your palm over a hard surface. Now choose a number between one and six; that is to say, a number represented on one face of the dice you hold. We will say six, for our example.
step Two:
First, close your eyes and pray to Ra. You might pray to him thus:
"Oh Ra, great and powerful sun god of Egypt, I ask that you look down upon this dice, and with your power I ask that you make it land on six in all of the fifty times I cast it. I ask this in the name of the most high god ra, highest of all the gods."
You may of course change the wording of the prayer however you wish, as long as it is to ra, and as long as you ask him to cause the dice to land on your chosen number every time, in each of the fifty casts.
Then, cast the dice fifty times.
Did your dice land on your chosen number each time? By simple statistical math we can assume it did not. We can assume that, because the dice has six sides in all, it will land on each number approximately once out of every six rolls. that is certainly not what we prayed to ra to grant us.
Of course, you didn't think it was, did you? You don't believe in ra, I doubt you know anyone who does, or have even heard of anyone who does. Ra vanished into the mystical realm we call mythology nowadays. So of course, he could not have made your chosen number appear each time you cast the dice.
step 3:
Take the dice in your hand once more, and this time pray to God. You might pray thus:
"Dear heavenly father, I, your humble servant, do ask that you in your wisdom, cause this dice to land on six each time in the fifty times I cast it. I ask this in the name of your son jesus christ. Amen.
Again, cast the dice fifty times. Did you get your number every single time?
Again, of course you didn't. the statistics have not changed because you prayed. Oh certainly, it is possible you got your number the first, and perhaps even the second roll. It is imaginable that you got your number even the fifth or sixth roll, but to expect the exact same number to appear each time, fifty times, is statistically improbable, to the point of practical impossibility. If it did, you most likely have weighted the dice, which is cheating, it isn't an answered prayer.
Now, of course, the theologians amongst my readers are saying to the screen, "Well of course it doesn't happen, who says god has to answer your prayers to be real? He can exist, and not answer your prayers."
Certainly, there are many arguments for this. Points are made constantly, all revolving around certain themes.
Many will say, "Your prayer is not important enough". To which, I remark, "Very well, take someone who is close to you who is ailing. Lets say your mother has cancer, as an example. Gather all your friends, family members, co-workers, anyone you can convince to gather in a circle, and have them all pray. But don't just pray that your mother will be cured of cancer, perhaps use a prayer such as this:
Dear heavenly father. We gathered here, come to you to raise our collective voices, to ask that you, almighty, strike the blight of cancer from the earth tonight. We ask that this very night, you remove the cancer from all who are afflicted with it, and spare those who will be afflicted with it in the future. Let cancer never touch a human body again lord. We ask in jesus name, amen.
Now that's a powerful prayer, isn't it? Your not only asking for your mother to be cured, but everyone to be, and everyone who will ever have cancer to be spared, what could be better? How could you argue that is not in the good of all involved? Cancer serves no higher purpose, it is evil and wicked, painful and tragic. Removing it from existence would be a blessing above perhaps even those in the bible. Do you think your prayer will be answered?
No, of course not, you know it won't be. You probably know that that prayer has been prayed over and over and over again in hospitals around the world, in one language or another, by men and women, children and adults, rich and poor, devout and people who just barely know how to pray at all. It has never been answered, and we can wisely assume by the evidence, that it will not be answered when you and your gathered group pray for it.
If that is so, then the importance of the prayer is not an issue.
Perhaps you will say then, that classic of lines, "god answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is no." This is convenient. Not only does it mean that our prayer was answered all of fifty times in our dice experiment, but that our prayer for cancer to be removed was answered also, but that all of them were rejected for one reason or another. God must have found fault with them somehow. Who could argue against that logic?
Well actually, you, the christian, argue against it yourself. The bible itself, the most holy book, the word of god, defeats you in that argument. You might say that to use that argument is to throw yourself on your own sword, as it were.
Of course, by now, your wondering how the bible contradicts such theological logic. I invite you to go and get your bibles. I will provide the text here of course, but you may not believe me unless you see for yourself. So, go, and get your bibles, and follow along with me in these verses.
mathew 7:7
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you."
mathew 17:20
He said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.
mathew 21:21
And Jesus answered them, “Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen.
mark 11:24
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
john 14:12-14
12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.
mathew 18:19
Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.
These verses don't say that god will say no sometimes, they say that if you ask, it will be given. It does not say may be given, might be given, perhaps, sometimes, mayhaps, if I feel like it, if it is good for you, if it fits with my plan, if its important enough, or anything else. It says, will be given to you. It says nothing will be impossible to you. You could ask a mountain to move, and it would move. Certainly, that has never happened. I shudder to think what would happen if that were possible. Geography classes the world over would be hectic.
So, why are our dice not landing on the same number? Why is cancer still able to afflict the human body? Is it because god does not care? Certainly not, all of christianity will tell you that god is loving and just and kind. Certainly he cares. Is it because he cannot? No, for he is an all powerful god, and all knowing; which means he must have known we were praying, he couldn't have misunderstood us. So why then?
Certainly your mind is flying with reasons for this, it would be impossible for me to defeat all of them individually. However, if you can force yourself to step back, step away from your faith for a moment, and think of it rationally, many of the reasons that are swimming through your brains right now, will defeat themselves.
The obviously logical answer is, that the god we pray to, is as unreal as ra, or athena, or isis, or jupiter, or oden. And all of them in turn are as unreal as allah, or yahweh.
The only thing that is real, that is unfailing, that is ever present, that is all knowing of your inner feelings, turmoils, stresses, and joys, the only thing that will never fail you, the only thing that will always be there for you to turn to, is yourself. That does not mean you are alone, nor does it mean you can do anything you wish. It simply means you do not need to look into the heavens for a savior, you need only look inward, and find your own strength.
disclaimers
1. All verses were taken from the ESV version of the bible.
2. the basis for this experiment were not mine own. Full credit must be given to www.godisimaginary.com. For full details, and to see what I changed, please visit their site and read their proofs.
3. I fully and willfully accept the consequences that may result from this board post. I will not whine if criticized, but nor will I shrink away from my stance. Any who disagree are welcomed and encouraged to do so in any way they see fit, and as vehemently as they feel necessary. Under no circumstances do I believe that the CL's or administration of this site need be involved in the results of this topic in any way; thus, I will not call upon them. I welcome the disagreement to this post and hope that all who read will enjoy the experiment.
Thank you.
So....what exactly are you trying to say here? It seems you're trying to disprove something which can neither really be proven, or disproven. For every one of your "experiments" there are stories of happenings which can only be considered Miracles. Those who chose to devote time disproving religion will no doubt find a multitude of ways to do so. Likewise those who defend it will find what they consider evidence. But either one is right, or the other is. Either God in however he is percieved exists in some form, or he doesn't. The whole proving/disproving thing is serves little purpose other than to stir the pot.
Look at the last three words of your post, and you'll answer your own question.
either prayer works, and the bible verses shown in cody's post are correct, or it doesn't, and the verses shown are wrong. How do you explain the "sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't" theory. if god is picking and choosing which prayers to answer and which ones to leave alone, those verses are wrong, are they not? And if, as some people say, God will carry out his plan as he sees fit in time, then why do we pray in the first place?
"Oh Zone God, great and powerful god of all web browsers, I ask that you look down upon this dice, and with your power I ask that you make it so that the poster of this post reply. I ask this in the name of the most high god Zonebbs, highest of all the gods."
I find it interesting that when you posted you used this verse.
mathew 17:20
He said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.
When you posted this you focused on the fact that the prayers people offer up are not answered. You focused on the fact that if you offer up a prayer to the all mighty god or Allah or whom ever you may believe in your prayers will not be answered. You clearly stated
"Again, of course you didn't. the statistics have not changed because you prayed. Oh certainly, it is possible you got your number the first, and perhaps even the second roll. It is imaginable that you got your number even the fifth or sixth roll, but to expect the exact same number to appear each time, fifty times, is statistically improbable, to the point of practical impossibility. If it did, you most likely have weighted the dice, which is cheating, it isn't an answered prayer."
I honestly could give a damn if you believe or don't believe but in god whom ever he may be but I do find it interesting that you discounted the following part of the verse.
"He said to them, “Because of your little faith."
So, in conclusion is it not a valid argument that if you bow your head in prayer, raise your hands and close your eyes no matter how much you pretend something will happen in the end because of your lack of faith nothing will? I don't think many people Christian, Muslem, or even Jews truly have sufficient faith in their chosen deity to honestly expect something to happen when a prayer is raised to the heavens. Also, why try to disprove religion simply because you don't believe in anything yourself? Did you ever sit down and consider that to that person dying of cancer perhaps the simple peace they might receive from believing they will die and go to a better place without pain and suffering is enough? Whether in the end they go to heaven or become nothing at all perhaps they found peace and comfort during their last moments believing in something greater. I don't care what people believe in I think everyone has a right to believe in what they wish and worship what they believe in why take that away from anyone? Why take the comfort away from a single mother living with almost nothing day to day only having god or Yahweh to believe in?
One last item, since you mentioned several verses I thought I should also mention the following verses so that we didn't have a one sided argument.
(I John 5:14) 14 This is the boldness which we have toward him, that, if we ask anything according to his will, he listens to us.
(James 1:6) 6 But let him ask in faith, without any doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven by the wind and tossed.
(Hebrews 11:6) 6 Without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing to him, for he who comes to God must believe that he exists, and that he is a rewarder of those who seek him.
(James 4:3) "When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures"
so, if you don't believe, your prayers won't be answered? Yep. That's really going to help us believe. Every time I see a post like that, my beliefs are confirmed to me that much more. so let's say, for a moment, that you're having a conversation with your birth father that goes something like this:
Father: Son, I love you very much, and this love is unconditional.
son: Father, I don't believe you because you're not doing anything to show me this love.
Father: Well, then, if you don't believe me, I won't do anything for you. I'm not going to do anything to show my love unless you really believe it's real.
Son: But you just said this love is unconditional. doesn't that mean you will love me no matter how I feel about it?
Father: Well, if you don't believe I love you, why should I show that to you?
Son: Unconditional love is just that; love without conditions. That means there is no criteria for this love. right now you are showing me your love is conditional; not unconditional. You are disproving your own statement right before my eyes.
Hmm. As far as I know, most fathers who exhibited these behaviors are nothing short of unfeeling, cold, and heartless. But....it's ok for god to do this? Well, even if he does prove his existence, I'm not going to worship and give my life to a god like that. No thanks, I think I'll pass.
So the basic premiss of your argument Ghost is this:
The bible is right, as long as you take the right verses from it. If you take the wrong verses from it, then there are always the right verses from it that someone who knows more about it than you, will be more than glad to show you, so you don't believe the wrong verses.
So, in light of that argument, I have decided to become a fortune teller. I will now predict your future.
You, Ghost, whom I do not know in any way whatsoever, will have a wonderful life, providing you put the effort into it. Of course, you will have hardships, but the possibility to make them better will always be available to you, if you are willing to do the amount of work necessary.
You will find the soul that you are destined to be with. However, you may not ever know it, and it may slip you by. Of course, if you look, you will be able to see them when they come, and will spend your life in happiness. Given that your eyes are open.
Now, if you read that very carefully, you will come to one conclusion, I'm full of shit. I didn't predict the future, I said one thing, took it back, then told you how you could reverse it. Of course your future is going to be like that, everyone's future is going to be like that.
That's like saying, you will be right, unless you are wrong, but if you are wrong, you will be able to be right on your second try. Of course that's true, its so simple.
That's basically what your arguing the bible is saying? Basically, if you pray, and get what you want, then god answers all prayers, but if he doesn't, then that verse is noll and void, and the one that said its your fault, comes into effect.
so half the bible is right some of the time, and half the bible is wrong some of the time. Sometimes god is a kind and loving god, and sometimes we're just worthless, faithless smears on the face of time, who aren't worth his time.
Oh, and saying that god will grant us prayers that fit in with his plan, begs a question. If he has a plan, how do we have free will?
Now when I ask this question, I always get the answer, "well he has a plan, and its our choice to follow it or not". But god already knows if we're going to follow his plan or not, he's god, he knows everything. So he has a plan for your life, that he knows your not going to follow, but he's going to just sit back and let you run yourself off the cliff. But remember, he loves you unconditionally, unless of course you piss him off, at which case he doesn't love you quite as unconditionally before. In fact he loves you pretty damn conditionally, but of course, its all unconditionally, given that you meet his conditions.
So, in a nutshell, you can sit in any chair you want, as long as you want to sit in this chair right here. That's not free will, that's being a snake oil salesman. Not that I ever expected god not to be a snake oil salesmen. I'm just wondering how you thought that argument strengthened your point at all.
God's love is unconditional, but his inheritance is not.
God answers all prayers; the answer is sometimes no.
I believe all hardships are tests and opportunities to learn lessons and gain wisdom.
And lastly, this verse:
2 Timothy 2: 12
If we endure, we shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us.
So how do you refute the verses I included raven? If you're going to make the claim that sometimes god answers no, how do you refute the verses where jesus says that you will get whatever you pray for?
So, he's stooping to our level, is he? We don't love him, so he, in turn, will not love us back. That still sounds conditional to me, and I still don't want to worship a God like that even if his existence was proven. If we are all sinners, and none of us are perfect, he should know that sometimes we stray from the path he approves for us. As for those of us who don't believe, well, if he knows so much, he shouldn't say to imperfect human beings; Look. I'm out here. I know you can't see me and I've never shown myself, but you have to love and believe in me anyway. Frankly, I'm actually surprised that so many people actually bought that, when those same people probably wouldn't buy the same story from a human being. I mean, I can't even begin to count all the times I heard people saying to me; You should be careful about who you trust online, because those people may very well be feeding you a load of crap, and they may end up hurting you, because you're going by nothing more or less than what they say to you. So, that's a logical point, but the fact that God has never shown himself to us and we're still supposed to have faith regardless is also logical, never mind the fact that the message is the exact opposite? yeah. I know. that sounds confusing, doesn't it? Well, that's exactly how I feel, and this is why I don't believe.
I find it amusing that the argument has been diverted to whether god's love is unconditional or not now that the argument of god not existing due to the lack of answered prayers didn't work. In any case let me give you a simple example. I have a son and I love him unconditionally, if he grew up to be a murderor I would still love him just as much as I love him now however, my love for him doesn't mean if he misbehaves today I won't punish him by putting him in time out. It also doesn't mean if he grew up and turned into a murderor I wouldn't send him to jail. You are saying because a parent punishes a child for wrongdoing they must of course not love their child? What kind of argument is that? The simple answer to this whole debate is once again that all of us have a right to decide what we believe in and why we believe in it. I do not judge you for not believing in god or for having your own belief system but why do you feel the need to force those beliefs onto others? You are very likely because of your lack of belief one of those people who complains about Christians or Jahova's witnesses knocking on your door to preach to you. Guess what? I can't stand that either I believe forcing one's beliefs onto others is unnecessary and each and every one of us should come to our own conclusion as to where the universe sprung from. If you wana worship the all mighty gold fish more power to you.
Cody, I will not refute any verses you used. Ghost did not refute them either, he added on the stipulations. Yes, a believer will get whatever they ask for, so long as they are not doubtful or selfish with their blessings.
When God says no, he's also saying: "I have something better in mind."
For example, my dream was always to go to WMU here in Michigan. So let's say I applied, and prayed to God that I am accepted to the school. But God says, "No no, that's not where you belong. I have a better school for you. It's still in the Western part of the state; it's much smaller, but you'll like it better there."
So the answer may be no, but only so one's blessings are not cut off.
But that isn't what the verses say. Jesus didn't say, "You'll get what you want, as long as its what god wants, and you believe, and you have no doubt, and its a tuesday, and I'm not too busy watching the jerry springer show". He says, "Ask, and ye shall receive". Where is the wiggle room in that?
If I say, "break into my house and ye shall be shot", you'll pretty much say, "Well gee, maybe breaking into cody's house is a bad idea". You're probably not going to say, "Well, just because cody used an absolute, doesn't mean the word was actually absolute, you have to take the context, I mean, the word shall isn't always an absolute, sometimes it might perhaps somehow not be an absolute". No, the word shall, means will, the word will, means there is no possibility of it not happening. They are both absolutes.
So, in order to make your argument valid, either A. you must show a verse in the bible saying that verse A. (the verses I quoted) actually don't matter at all, and jesus was just making a joke, and the verses that ghost quoted are the actual ones; which I don't think your going to be able to do. Or B. show that the verses I quoted aren't in the bible at all, and I made them up entirely; an act I know your not going to be able to do. Or C. show conclusively that they are both applicable, by showing how the words sometimes and always are actually the same thing; which is linguistically impossible. The words sometimes, means that there are certain times when you will get it, and certain times when you will not. the word always completely takes the second category out of the question.
So tell me, which one did god mean, and how do you know that? I can give weighty scientific evidence toward my argument that god does not exist, which I will be happy to do; just on the basis of prayer. For a small example, look at the amount of people who depend soully on faith healing, and look at the percentage of them who recover from their life threatening illnesses. I still await your logical evidence that always and sometimes are the same thing, or that jesus was joking when he said always.
Oh, and ghost, about your example. We're not talking about you loving your son and him growing up to be a murderer, and you still loving him through the bars of a prison. We're talking about you setting out every miniscule detail of his life, then telling him he can do whatever he wants with his life, and that you will love him no matter what. Then, when he sets foot off the exact, miniscule path you've set down for him, you throw him into a lake of boiling fire, to burn for eternity; keeping in mind that he had your loving permission to do whatever he likes.
If that is your definition of loving parenting, I'm going to go thank whatever force controls my fate that I am not your son, while listening to the hold music for child protective services.
Your questions have already been answered.
From what I can tell, the verses you and Ghost cited don't counter each other.
You can cite all the evidence you like to disprove God's existence and it will serve no purpose because you can't prove to me or Ghost that God does not exist. You can't disprove all the blessings I've received, the miracles that have happened, all the holes I've been dug out of, and the love and comfort I feel from God.
Ok raven, given the claim that the two do not counteract each other, please explain to me how one verse that says whatever you ask, you will receive, (not a direct quote), and if you ask in faith, you will receive.
Saying, if you call, you will be able to speak with a live operator, is not the same as saying, if you call on wednesday, you will be able to speak with a live operator. Granted, they do not directly contradict each other, but they cannot both be true. If the first is true than calling on thursday will get you an operator. However, if the latter is true, then calling on thursday will get you absolutely nothing, or at the very least, not a live operator.
So please explain to me, how in the world those two things are the same.
As for your claim that all the scientific evidence in the world would not sway your beliefs, that claim should terrify you. Your actually saying, no matter what happens, my beliefs will never change. That said, if the spanish inquisition were to begin again, and the witch hunts were to be started again, and you were no longer allowed to show your face, or speak a word in church. If you could be put to death if you were not able to show sufficient evidence of your virginity on the night of your wedding. If you were no longer allowed to attend school, if every female who is in a position of power over a male were to have her job taken away. If it were legal to stone disobedient children to death. If the children of criminal parents were killed, and the parents were forced to eat their children if it were not their first criminal offense. In short, if we were to go back to a system where mosaic law, the law of jesus, which jesus strictly adheered to, preached about, and condemned people for not following, your absolute belief that you follow a just, kind and righteous god, a god who loves all, and cares for all, and protects all, would not be swayed.
If god were to make you the nevxt job, andtake everything you had including your health, and admit that he was doing it merely on a bet with the devil, your faith would not change at all. That fact should terrify you, and I honestly urge you to search yourself thoroughly. I urge you to look at the bible again, and this time to read with your mind, read what the words are actually saying, and resist the temptation to put any special meaning to them. Read them as an absolute law, as they were intended.
There is actually a group of people who do this, who take the word of the bible exactly as it is written down. If you'd like to see what their opinions are, feel free to go to godhatesfags.com and read about it. However, I urge you not to do it after eating, as it is morally disgusting.
Go to godhatesfigs.com instead. And he does, else he wouldn't have made that poor innocent fig tree whither.
Both you and Ghost cited verses saying if you ask, believe you'll receive it and do not doubt God, and you shall receive it. I don't understand how you think these verses refute one another.
Anyhow, the Bible is not a book that we just read once. I have not even read the entire Bible cover to cover. I'm sure you know the Bible is not that sort of book. It is a book meant to be studied repeatedly by Christians.
I will sometimes read the Scripture discussed in church, and I also read independently each day. I will sometimes read the same verses two or three days in a row, and I might come back to them the next week.
So for you to suggest I read the Bible again as if I only read it once is silly.
And I do not assign any special meanings to the words in the Bible. Just because I understand and interpret them differently than you do does not mean I give the words special meanings. However, I am not a biblical literalist, and I am able to determine which text is symbolic or figurative. I may not understand the comparison or symbolism, but I know when I'm looking at symbolism or a comparison.
Cody, I don't think I should be terrified that I am strong in my faith. Yes, I will believe in God no matter what.
I believe all people go through their own versions of "hell" in their lives. Some people go through it multiple times, and some people's "hell" lasts longer than others. I am fortunate enough to live in a time and country where I have more freedoms than many people. But I am not exempt from suffering and wondering, "Why me?" I have been through plenty in my almost nineteen years, and I've been through too much not to worship God. During and after all my troubles and suffering, He was and still is here for me.
Wait, you haven't read the bible cover to cover? You don't actually know everything that is in that bible? So there could be a story in the book that is all about... something like... say, lot having drunken insestuous sex with his two daughters at the same time? That could theoretically be in the bible, and you wouldn't know because you haven't read the whole book?
How can you possibly believe something when you haven't even read the entirety of the book its based on? That's like saying I completely agree with everything in the constitution, when I haven't read it. (note, I have read the entirety of the constitution)
So raven, ignoring the fact that you can't possibly know what your talking about, because you haven't read the book your basing your entire reason for living on, how do you know what is symbollic and what is not? Do you have some seeing stone that allows you to see the hidden footnotes in your copy of the bible? How do you know its metaphorical, when there is a part in the bible you haven't read, which may actually say everything in the bible is absolute truth? What principle are you basing this differentiation on? How do you come by the realization that verse A. is symbollic, whereas verse B. is actually true?
So, just for my education, let me ask about a few verses that have been giving me trouble, and you can tell me whether I should be paying any attention to it or not. Lets start with that one about stoning disobedient children, is that one symbolic? The one where faithful people will be able to drink poison and handle venomous snakes without coming to harm because of their faith, is he just bullshitting me?
Please, shed some light on this, because you apparently have some major breakthrough that your not sharing with the rest of us. You could solve the entire argument over religion. Teach us oh great one. How do we tell what part of the bible is true, and which part is poppycock?
1. Which of the following delicacies did people of the Bible dine on?
Correct Answer: C (A and B.) “But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you” (Isaiah 36:12)?
2. Did God order His followers to make their bread with excrement?
Correct Answer: C (God preferred they bake it with human feces, but when they complained, He allowed them to substitute cow patties.) “And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man...Then said I, Ah, Lord God, behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself...Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow’s dung for man’s dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith” (Ezekiel 4:12-15).
Taken from 'The Bible Poop Quizz. You take a book in which those verses appear seriously, you've got dung for brains.
Guess the God Zonebbs answered me. Smile. Seriously. This arguement will continue, and Cody will be the fonder of it many many times. He always post differently, but I think he hates that people like me, can believe in God, or a God that is a giving God. No Cody, you are correct, that just because you ask it you it most likely won't happen, but you are also refusing to except that some people get answered. Why that happens has many factors involved. Sometimes praying makes people feel better, so they strive harder, so that accomplish the goal, so indirectly they are answered. These that wish to cut others beliefs in half hate there challenged. Isn't that interesting? Smile.
Praise the Zonebbs!
But if praying makes them feel better, so they try harder, so they achieve their goal, the prayer isn't answered. You do the same thing in sports with a coach. You go to your coach, say "hey coach, I have a problem", and your coach tries to help you through it. That's all well and good, but your not praying to your coach, your just leaning on him for a bit, and your certainly not giving him the responsibilities that people put on god.
People pray to have their children healed from life threatening diseases, instead of getting them medical care. They pray to god to get them out of bad situations like abuse and poverty, instead of doing things themselves.
You know that popular saying, god helps those who helps themselves? does anyone know where that came from, or what it means? Anyone at all? I'll give you a hint, it isn't in the bible.
I understand that humans need help, sure, but when your need for help starts killing people, or deminishing from your life, then it is dangerous. Letting children die while you mumble words into the air that are obviously not working, is child absue, it isn't faith.
I challenge anyone to present a situation where someone prayed, and it was answered, and there is absolutely no plossible scientific explanation.
Cody, your questions are so silly that I'm compelled to create posts filled with immature ramblings. I see I have been a great source of entertainment for you thus far. I cannot appreciate your arrogance.
I accept God. By accepting God, I accept His Word. The Bible is His word. Therefore, I accept the Bible.
I have already answered all of your questions. If you read and absorbed the posts made by I and other Christians on this thread and the others concerning Christianity, you would have the answers to these questions. It's as though you enjoy listening to a certain album, but you can't get past a certain line of the first song, so you keep asking someone to sing it for you.
I will not do as I have on other threads and keep reposting the same thing in different words. I greatly enjoy these discussions, but don't keep asking me how to get 42 when I've already said multiply seven by 6, 3 by 14, and 2 by 22.
I understand you don't believe in God, so anything a Christian says concerning the Bible and our beliefs is wrong, and therefore nonsense to you. You don't need anyone to explain the Bible to you because it seems you think you have the most correct understanding of it, which is fine. I don't view it as you do because I am not a hostile audience.
I am pleased I've been able to tickle yor nipples, jingle your dingle, and make you pile on a smile. Okay, see. There it is, rearing its adorably ugly head.
I'm glad that your entirely baseless faith has been strengthened raven. Now perhaps you'll... oh... actually read the book.
For information, I don't do this for entertainment. I don't do this because its fun. I do this for three major reasons:
1. I do it so that I can test my own system of beliefs. Perhaps someone somewhere will have some breakthrough that will prove me entirely wrong. If that day comes, I won't be able to know about it if I don't search for it, and keep my mind open to such possibilities. So far, however, no one has gotten passed the whole fact that the bible is approximately as holy as the goan inquisition.
2. I do it because I know how it feels to be under the yoke of religion. I know how it feels to have every question you've ever asked against religion quelled like so much fire in a dry forest. I know how it feels to be completely alone in your beliefs, and have no one that you feel you can turn to, to ask the questions you have, without being riddiculed and punished. I know that feeling. If I can spare just one person from that, then I feel I've done something good. If one person reads my board posts and says, "Yes, I feel the same way" and they feel they can come to me, then I've done something good. And anyone who has such questions, come to me and I will do anything I can for you. If I can't answer your questions, I'll find someone who can.
3. Because religion is horrible, cruel, violent and detrimental to a healthy society. If we continue to let it spread, as it has spread for centuries, then we have failed as a society. I do not feel that religion should be allowed to force itself on others, to torture, rape, starve and kill them in the name of god. I think it is time for the people who know better, who aren't lead by a mellenias old book, which promotes the most vile and wicked acts ever devised, and calls them holy if done against those who don't believe, should stand up against those who are. We have an incredible tool in the internet, that we can finally spread intellectual thought to the world. It is time we start showing that religion is not all there is in the world.
That is why I do what I do on these boards. do I think it will spread widely, absolutely not, but we have to start somewhere. I am not trying to proclaim myself as some type of profit, I'm not that good, but I cannot let myself simply sit back and not try to help as many people as I can.
I never said I don't read the Bible. I probably don't read it as you did or would, but I most certainly do read it and will continue reading it for the rest of my life.
Yes Cody, it is terrible that the devil exists and uses the Wholly Bible for his purposes. It is Satan's job to turn people away from God, and I will not fall into his crowd.
The proof of God's existence that you're looking for is something you can put in your hand. You want something you can hold, turn over in your hand, and fondle. It's all around you, but that isn't proof enough. Just because you deny something does not mean it is not real. There are people who don't believe in ghosts and will turn the gears of their minds to come up with a scientific and physical explanation for everything that happens. But ghosts still exist, and not believing in them will not make them nonexistent.
You cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. Therefore, it exists. So nya nya nya! And, devil is just lived spelled backwards.
The only evidence I see all around me is evidence that god doesn't exist. the fact that he doesn't answer any prayers, no matter how faithful the person giving them is. One has to wonder how often the pope has prayed for peace. We ain't got peace yet. The fact that you have to interpret his word, yet if you interpret it wrong, you go to hell, but there's nothing to know if you interpretted it right or not. The fact that it took almost two thousand years to write the bible, and the fact that its still being revised. The fact that people make a claim so idiotic as to say that the word of man is flawed, then pick up a manmade book and say that its perfect is actually allowed to happen. I could go on and on and on. There is mountains of evidence that god does not exist, no god, not christian, not muslim, jewish, hindu, bhudist, greek polytheistic, roman polytheistic, or egyptian crocodile worshipping; none of them are real.
Religion served a purpose at one time. It explained the unexplainable. Once people started explaining things, the religious started making it law that you couldn't believe the people who were explaining the unexplainable. Any religion who has to make a law, is not worth believing in anyway. If god were everywhere, all powerful, all knowing, and always good, how in the world could anyone not follow him? How could the devil even have a hope of tempting you away from an all powerful being? That's impossible. If you can be taken away from him, then he is not all powerful. If he would let you be tempted away, and willingly throw you into a lake of fire, then he is not always good. I don't care how you slice it, lakes of fire are not good things.
Raven, if your faith is so strong, and your erligion is so right and your god so perfect, then get a shovel and gather all your family together, bury yourself up to the neck, and let your parents throw rocks at your head until your dead. Why? Because that's what jesus says you should do to disobedient children, and I am absolutely sure there is not a single child alive who is conscious who has never disobeyed their parents.
Until you do that, I question the validity of your faith in god.
P.S. reading half the book, doesn't count. You can't read, "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times", and then go, "this book fuckin' sucks". You have no idea what is in the other half, the other half could tell you to kill yourself.
I do believe that the saying God helps thoughs that help themselves is in the Bible my friend. Its in the Koran and the Torra as well. I've read these. I am not a Christian, but as I say do believe in God and I like that someone posted you can't get past the first line of the song, so keep asking about it. You can't prove that God does not exist and nor can we prove God does completely, but God is all around you and how you choose to perceive is up to you. Without God in the world I think people would be worse to each other, so for that fact alone God is truly a blessing. It keeps people from just doing wrong because there is no penalty for not.
Well, I don't know what you were reading when you read those three books, or what you were smokin', but its not in the bible. It was written by benjamin franklin, in his poor richard's alminac. The strange thing about that... benjamin franklin was an atheist.
the phrase, god helps those who help themselves, doesn't mean that god helps you if you look for it, it means get off your ass and do it yourself, cuz that's the only way its gonna happen.
Having God in the world makes people better to each other? Really? Could've fooled me when people are being hated on for their differences, religious wars have been happening since the beginning of history, and everyone who doesn't live a certain way supposedly will suffer an eternity in a firey pit known as hell.
I didn't say it was perfect, it just helps. Smile. Religion saddly is a main source of fighting, but normally people try to practice some sort of guiding. No Cody that exact fraze is not there, but the idea is vary much so. If you read the old Testament you'll see that many of the people had to do something not just sit and wait. As they did God helped them. We are not going to agree ever, but the one thing I am not going to say is you are wrong for your belief system. Enjoy it. Live it. Practice it, but like many religious groups do, and you fight against, stop trying to change others to your ways. You do exactly what you hate, preach a religion. Smile.
Since when is atheism a religion? Where are the sacred books and the rituals?
A. Religion, by definition, is the belief in a god. Since atheism, again by definition, do not believe in any god, and if they do they are not atheists, it cannot be a religion. It is certainly a philosophy, but it is not a religion.
B. I do not hate preaching. Preach all you like. However, do not preach hate, and do not preach violence, or anything that supports violence. Religion is dangerous, cruel, unhealthy and evil. Millions of people across the world are spreading AIDS, because religions, including but not limited to christianity, are teaching them that condums are specifically built with microscopic holes in them to allow the AIDS virus through. Religions have blocked the spread of the polio vaccine, causing the proliforation of that disease in several countries in which it was nearly completely conquered. It has mutilated the reproductive organs of young women, raped and sexually tortured young boys and girls, killed sick children who could not get medical attention because their parents were too blinded by their faith to seek it. The number of evil and wicked things in the bible alone should be enough to have it called a snuff book, but its not. Its called holy, and people like those who have posted on this board try and find any way to defend it, while all they do is prolong the time before they have to admit that they don't actually know what they're talking about. Because to know what your talking about in this instance, and to still believe in it, is to say that your ok with it. Your ok with a faith that calls for the stoning of children, the raping of virgins, the slaughtering of entire civilizations, insest, murder, slavery, torture, and the list goes on.
And you think this is confined to some ancient history book? Your fooling yourself. Look at Ireland, a beautiful country that has been ripped apart by two sects of the same religion. They read the same book, and yet when they're done reading it, they pick up hand grinades and blow each other up in the streets, all in the name of the god they both worship. This is what we're supposed to be teaching our children, and basing our moral principles on? This is what you want to preach?
I have no problem with people preaching, but the more you preach, the more you should be prepared to have people like me, people like richard dawkins, christopher hitchens, and the others that have posted here, and in hundreds of other places, who are willing to stand up and tell you how backward and absolutely and unbelievably evil your faith system is. And I can already tell you, that you can't handle that. You have not been able to handle it here without falling back to the classic argument of, "Well that's what I believe, so its true".
If you want to be christian, then fine, but be all of a christian. If you want to claim the bible is your basis, go for it. Pick up a stone, and beat your children to death with it. Then use it to kill anyone who does any work on sunday. When you marry, have yourself tested to make sure your a virgin, and if you can't prove it, have someone beat you to death with a rock.
If you can't do that, then you can't claim to believe in the bible. You may believe in the nice parts of it, the parts you like, but that isn't what it means to say that the book is the word of god. That means all of it is. Not just the parts you think are acceptionally poetic.
I don't think you can handle that, and if you can, then seek help immediately, because your psychopathic.
The Bible in itself doesn't preach these things you are railing against. It is the fanatic, and that includes atheism, or people that are always pushing there ideas and beliefs on others causing pain. You can't say that atheism has never and does not cause pain, it does. We the religious, and not are all guilty of this. I am not speaking of you or myself directly, but I think you understand. As you posted, some here just believe blindly, but I am sure they don't believe, or condone many of the human failings in the name of religion you have pointed out. You believe strongly in atheism even though it has caused much harm, however I hope that you don't condone that harm either. You'll not change the millions of peoples minds about there beliefs, just like you refuse to change yours. Anyone that keeps pushing there ideas, and postiing that others really need to think like they do, and coming up with all and every argument is preaching to me. Think about that. As strongly as you believe in your atheism , I believe in the goodness, and truth of God, but you've not read a post of mine stating this fact and that all people should stop being foolish and come to the light. I will say what I think if asked, or on a post such as yours, but I don't preach. If you enjoy your pulpet, high 5's to you, but don't say you don't preach. Smile.
Wait. Hold on just one minute here. Atheism is harmful? Please explain to me how the lack of a belief in any type of God, and choosing to live life by our own morals and standards is harmful. I mean, besides the obvious fact that our very obvious and bold views are clearly hurting your feelings. Please, someone explain this to me, because I'd love to hear your responses. O, and by the way, if our very obvious and bold beliefs are too harsh for you, you're quite free to avoid this topic and any others like it. We're not tying you down.
atheism causes pain? really? do you claim to have found that in the bible, or did you simply pull it out of your ass cause you *had* to say something, and that was the best thing you could come up with?
I challenge you to name a historical figure who massacred in the name of Atheism.
Let me cut off your easy routes of retreat here. Hitler was not an atheist, in fact in his book he mentions more than twelve times that he is doing gods work. All SS officers were sworn in on a bible, and swore to god. All officers wore the german phrase translated as god with us on the buckles of their belts. Hitler himself was a roman catholic, who made several pacts with the pope himself.
Stalin was indeed an Atheist, however his massacres were done in the name of communism and self-power, not atheism. Same is said for mau, kim jon il, and all the other communist dictators across the world. No one has ever massacred people because they were not atheists.
I can think of several instances when people have massacred because someone was not of the right religion however. Now, tell me one historical example.
Stalin in Russia. He killed many Christians because of there beliefs. I'm not saying that atheism , or religion is harmful in itself. I am saying that fanatics of any sort are the problem. Why should I avoid this topic? I love a good debate. Smile. I tend to take the middle road in life. I have strong opinions, but these are mine, and if you want to go to Heaven or Hell in your own way I allow it and don't try to convince you you're wrong. But debate is the fruits of humans and this is why anything atheism , or extreme religion is harmful. You don't agree with me I'm going to make you even if I have to make your life painful, or end it to get my way. Fanatics.
Did Stalin actually say: "I'm going to kill all these people because they do not share my atheist beliefs"? I certainly don't find this in any of the history books. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen, but can you prove that it did?
No, history never records stalin saying, I'm going to kill you because you believe in god. He killed them because he saw them as a threat to communism. Didn't I already go over this?
And can we please drop this, "I don't care what you think, you can think whatever you want, aren't I nice", act? If you truly don't care what anyone else thinks, you would never have posted here in the first place. Obviously you care at least a little, or you wouldn't be willing to debate. So now you've engaged, and I think we're all convinced that you care at least a little about what we believe. So own up to it, stop trying to act like your just trying to be switzerland in one sentence, and then germany in the next; it doesn't work that way. I have nothing against you caring about what I believe, but admit it for the love of god. (pun intended)
Now then, your wrong about stalin, would you like to try again, or take door number three; the one with the big label of, "it never happened in recorded history, atheists don't kill over atheism, or at least haven't yet".
I do care about what I believe. What I don't care about is what others believe. That is my side. You care about what others believe, and so have posted this board. You posted this bord to get some response I assume, so I am giving you some for the reasons of debate not to change your mind. You however are trying to change my mind. Communism from what I understand was also about not believing in God, or some parts of it are and were. I have no other concrete proof, because I don't sit around trying to refute your beliefs as you do mine, so I haven't read, or studied your belief greatly. My point, and you'll twist it, but that is fine, is that any belief that becomes fanitical will, and does harm. You read that point, but seems you have changed it in to I'm a believer in God, but don't care about it. What I don't care about is what you think, or believe, I'm debating you. I don't have any hopes of changing you in to a man that says his bedtime prayers. Smile. I love to debate. I once to the other side on a board of yours just do debate you. Can't remember the one, but I thought it was fun. You post many boards trying to change others reasons for believing in God, and I suppose that is because you really care about this subject deeply. That is fine, but when you post a board you're going to get the other side.
Yes, and I expect getting the other side, there is no debate without the other side, but the fact that you read this, formulated an opinion, and then wrote that opinion out, means that in some way, you cared. Now, you may not be trying to convert anyone, which, while it goes against a mjority of the commandments to that subject in the bible, is perfectly acceptible, but you do care. Stop trying to say, "I don't care, but here's a thought anyway", its a debate, you obviously take some sort of enjoyment from it, IE you care.
Also, if you are not trying to convert anyone, then no one cares, and you can stop saying it. Those of us who feel you are trying to change our beliefs, are not going to believe you, and those of us who don't think you are, don't care that you in fact are not trying to. Thus, there is no need for you to say it again.
But, that is just a small disagreement. Now then, communism.
The reason that so many communists are thought to be atheists is that the government, (communism is a governmental system, not a religious one), believed that if people believed in god, they had a hire purpose than the government. Since communism was completely centralized, having any higher responsibility than the government was, if you'll pardon the pun, sacreligious. Thus, they forced everyone to aclaim atheism.
Let me make this very clear, pointing a gun at someone's head and shouting, "Say your an atheist or I'll kill you", and them going, "I'm an atheist I'm an atheist, please don't kill me", is not convertion. Just as many of the tribal civilizations went right back to being tribal, and not christian, after the mercinaries left. They thought, "if this white guy is here, and willing to build us schools, I'll say I'm christian", or in the vast majority of the cases, "This white guy is here with big stick that goes bang and make people die, and big knives that he cuts my children to bits with. Maybe I'll say I'm christian to keep from having my head cut off." Its really logical if you think about it. It doesn't mean they were actually christian.
Its the same with the communists. Stalin, and lennon before him, sent people out to find citizens of the USSR who were not being atheist, and that means, they weren't giving themselves wholly to the government. Some of them he shot in the head, to prove a point, and scare the god out of the rest of them.
I say again, this is not in the name of atheism, it is in the name of communism. I'm not saying its good by any means, but it is not in the name of atheism.
That is the connection between communism and atheism. Not all communists are atheists, however, and certainly not all atheists are communists.
I still affirm that no one in history has ever killed in the name of atheism. Several have killed in the name of christianity, jewdaism, and islam, and slightly less in the name of the other major religions, hindu, bhudist et al. I welcome you to refute that claim if you can.
In Iriland they killed in the name of your belief. Atheism in itself is actually a religion. Here is a quote from Encyclopedia Atheism (from Greek, "ethos" meaning 'hell', "eios" meaning 'demon' or 'Satan', and "ismos" meaning Liberal, literally "Satan's Liberal Helldemon") (pronounced Eehtheism in Cantuckistanish) is a fundamentalist religion which dogmatically adheres to the conviction that Yes that is only part, but this is why I say it has and does harm. You said point out one historical event, and that would be the Salem itch hunts. You pointed out about the Holocaust, and that event, even though Hitler might have been Catholic, was mainly about stamping out religion. I pointed out that fanaticism is the cause of hurt, not religion, nor Atheism in itself. When people decide there is no God they tend to turn to the extreme and worship the devil. Why not? I mean if God doesn’t exist, than why shouldn’t we do as we please to get our pleasures? Halloween is a great example of when the Godless hurt. On that day human sacrifices are made, children looking for some harmless fun are poisoned, and much murder happens. Why? No God. In my city alone I have personally been to a store that caters to Atheist, and the pursuit of devil worship. We have cults, and even churches, so to speak setup for the pursuit of getting together to help others stand in their belief that God and religion are bogus and pointless. Most wars are caused not because people want to make people be religious, but because they want something they have. Land, oil, women, whatever, and in war there’s no God. I fear that you and I could argue this issue forever, but the act, and the point I am trying to make is that (fanaticism) be it religious, or Atheistic harms. Look at how many books available refuting one or the other? I fear there are few that believe as I do. Live and let live, but don’t hurt anyone for any reason because they don’t agree with you. No God, I feel like killing somebody. God is my mantel, so I’m going to go out and kill some devils. It’s all harm. In history when a large group believes in omething, they want to make all believe. I wonder if you would, or could be convinced through your constant studying that we should exterminate the ignorant?If it were legal, would you remove all religious items from schools, public buildings, museums, private citizens? Maybe on the Zone here wipe all that religious crap off the boards?You say I care, and you are right, about the debate. However, knowing you don't believe in God has not made me post articles about why you should.
So you actually depend on your religion to make you moral? The fact that killing someone is wrong, is not why you don't do it, its because your god tells you not to. That means that stoning children is not morally wrong to you, because god tells you to. If that is the basis for your morals, then I'll stick with mine. Besides, tell me, which is more moral, the one who does something for a reward, or the one who does something because its what they should do? You act morally because it will get you into heaven, I do it because its how a human should act toward another human.
Secondly, how can you make such an idiotic statement as to say that because we believe in no god, we believe in the devil? Do you really not see how stupid that sounds? If you don't believe in your god, why in the world would you believe in the enemy of god, who was created by the same religious process as the god you don't believe in? Can you please explain how that makes any sense?
Atheism is not a religion, we can be religiously atheist, I consider myself to be so, but religiously and religion are not the same thing. You can brush your teeth religiously, this does not mean you praise jesus while brushing your teeth, it means you do it on a basis that is so regulated, it has become likened unto a dogma in your daily schedule. I drink coffee religiously, I do it every day, that is not religion, its doing something religiously. One is a noun, one is an adverb. Atheism is a dismissal of all religions, we can do it religiously, but that does not make it a religion.
Whatever source you got that breakdown of the basis for the word atheism from, you need to find a new one. Atheism comes from the word theism, which is a system based around a god. the prefix A, means not. As in asexuality. Atheism means not theistic. It doesn't mean devil's liberal helldemons, and anyone who actually believed that either A. is an idiot, or B. has no idea about atheism or devil worship.
If anyone ever tells you that atheists worship the devil, call them a liar. I don't believe in the devil, any more than I believe in god, they are both gods, and I dismiss the idea that there is such thing as a god at all.
Oh, and halloween is pagan, not atheistic. It is based on a pagan right of the ancient british aisles, wehre they would invoke spirits and have feasts. The christians turned it into halloween, which comes from all hallow's eve, or all saint's day, which is the day after halloween. Christians take all of there holidays from pagan festivals and celebrations. As amatter of fact, practically nothing of christianity is original; its all been taken from other belief systems.
Lastly, in ireland, there are two warring factions, catholics, and prodistants, both of which are sects of christianity, which is a religion, not atheism. The holocaust was, according to Hitler's book, God's work. That makes it religious.
You cannot say that all fanatics become violent and harmful. Fanatic janists will refuse to hurt a fly, literally. They are entirely nonviolent, even to the point of self-preservation. It is only in cases whereethe religion itself calls for killing, such as christianity, islam, and jewdaism, that fanaticism becomes violent and dangerous.
If you were right in saying there is no god in war, then why do muslimssblow themselves up in the name of islam?
And were did you read that I said (all)? That holiday before all saints day for the others extreme to raise the devil before. Now I didn't personally write that quote, but it must be a reliababl one even if you don't personally like it.Just as you are moral because you want to be, so am I. I don't rely on God to make me so, howver many people do, just as many people decide if they aren't going to have a God, than they will go the other extreme. Now what Hitler believed, and said doesn't change the fact that the whole thing was against the Jews and the belief, lifestyle and all they live. Explain why that cross is an Atheistic symbol? Hitler wasn't your staunch church goer, had a mistress, and probably needed that "God's work" to make his ideas more exceptivle. Our world is as it is, and no matter how many books you read, and except others opinions on how you should live, and that goes for myself, we'll not change the tide of belief. As I don't like the extreme religious person and you claim you are not part of devil worship, we are stuck with our prospective groups. Does that make use as they are? No, but it doesn't make me decide to become as you are. I believe in God because of the many things I have witnessed myself. Sure, you can come up with a reason why these events happened, but it doesn't change the fact they do, and science has no explenation for many of them. I'll keep my God thank you. Smile. I do wish others that are stronger than I am would post. I find that interesting.
Wayne, you are, and always will be, completely full of shit.
Completely? Smile You sure?
In order to be a "devil worshiper," one would have to first believe in the Christian God. Satan worship is equally as silly as Christianity because it's nothing but reactionary.
Let me outline a basic principle of existence, what you believe has absolutely no impact on reality. Just because you believe something to be true, does not make it true. Simply because you have a belief that something is, does not actually make it so. Is that enough times of me saying it, or would you like me to repeat it again?
Here are a few truthes that are provable. One, the bible contains verses in both testaments which condone and encourage cruel and immoral acts such as, but not limited to, the stoning of children and adulterers, rape, forced marriage, slavery, the beating of children and slaves, the killing of those who do not agree with your doctrine. 2. The bible also contains verses that say that all of it is inspired by God, and it is all true and is right to be used for doctrine of any that follow its teachings. that is to say, everything between those two covers is true, and you should follow it to the letter, according to the scriptures. 3. Atheists believe that all gods, both good and evil, monotheistic and polytheistic, major and minor, demi-gods and all mighty gods, are make believe. To an atheist, god, faeries, unicorns, santa clause, the tooth faery, the easter bunny, and the boogy man are all in the same category of not existing. 4. Nothing that you believe, or can convince yourself of can possibly change those facts. No matter how many times you spout some belief, it does not make the facts less true. You cannot, under any circumstances, change a rock into a lump of cheese, by simply believing strongly that it is in fact a lump of cheese.
Hitler, no matter how much you believe him not to be, was a christian, and he believed himself to be doing god's work. Now, the belief in this instance is important, whether you believe him to be christian or not is not important, because it doesn't change the fact that he was. However, him believing that he is doing god's work is important in this instance because we are debating whether or not he was an atheist, and doing his acts in the name of atheism. Since we have already established that atheists do not believe in any god of any kind, it is impossible for him to be an atheist, and to be doing god's work. See how that works?
Lastly, I come to your definition of the word atheist. I read the article from which you got that definition. I am assuming that you did not read it because any self respecting person would never have used something that idiotic in a debate; especially if they claim to enjoy a good debate. That definition is worse than a wikipedia article, which is not accepted in any reputable circles of research. I could go on to wikipedia and write that Brooke Shields has sized tripple L breasts that are made out of the testicals of a female elephant, and wikipedia would allow it. You really should learn how to do quality research, rather than shotty research like that.
I theorize that you were desperately looking for something to refute my argument with, and your attempt was so pathetic that it hardly could even be considered an argument at all. If your going to act like an ignorant child, than there is no reason to continue this discussion. Nothing on here that I have said can not be varified, from a source other than wikipedia or the slang dictionary. I hardly think anything you said, at least in that last attempt at debate, could be confirmed by anything even approaching reputability.
If your going to invite someone who has stronger faith than you to come on, perhaps you should be more worried with researching a. why you have the faith you do in the first place, and B. what exactly it is you have faith in, rather than trying to disprove an argument you can't disprove, by use of pathetic attempts and copy and paste from poorly phrased articles with no background in anything approaching fact.
Not exactly. To be a devil worshiper one only has to believe in evil, or be hell bent to not believe in a God. I use that term devil as the extreme. Some don't believe in anything, but are in to anything evil. This is the extreme as I have stated.
Where in the world do you get that not believing in god is devil worshipping? I have no evidence that the devil exists, and so I do not believe in him, you cannot worship what you do not believe in. Where are you getting this idea that if you do not believe in god, you are worshipping the devil? Please explain this and your logical deductive reasoning which lead you to such a conclusion.
Well, if I were Lord Amon Ra, I would have far better things to do than make someone's dice land on 6 fifty times. Lol. Oh, and just for the record, I give honour to Ra; he is also known as the Babylonian god Marduk. Not that you care, but nonetheless...amusing topic, though.
yes, Wayne. I, too, am curious what the hell leads you to the conclusion that I, as an atheist, worship the devil. wow, what ignorance.
I don't know how else to explain what the "hell" I mean. I have stated many times that "people if they do not believe in God go to the extreme and believe in the Devil." I did not say "all!" Just because you are a believer in God as I am doesn't make you a Christian right? So not believing in God doesn't make you believe in the Devil. I have stated that this is normally the case, and that because people have no God they decide to go the other rout. Cody had asked me how it harms, and that is why it harms. We believers in God and non believers in God are stuck with our groups. It is life, get use to it. Smile. Maybe instead of calling yourselves Athest and putting a label on yourselves, so that you are lumped with all groups that come under that title you could call yourselfs nutruals? I personally don't label my belief, so you have not saw me state I am a Christian, muslim, or any other title. I'm a believer in God, and I enjoy my belief just as much as you all. I'm not going to read a post, scratch my head, and say, ah, I've been doing wrong. If anything I can't lose now can I. If there is no God I don't have to worry much about not believing this way now do I. No, I don't base all my belief on rewards, but many other things, and reasons. Personally God has been a positive factor in my life, so I'll stick. Smile.
Oh, because "atheism" is such a harsh, dirty filthy word, isn't it? I believe the word you meant was "neutral."
I don't make the rules friend. atheism carries meanings for many people, but again I'm not here to tell you what you need to call yourselves, but if you use this term people are going to assume. If I say I'm a Christian you assume things don't you. Yes call yourselves neutrals. Smile.
you know what else will keep encouraging people to assume? people like you, Wayne, who try to get us to stop mentioning the word atheism. in fact, I'd argue that's first on the list.
The major problem in your argument, which has several problems in it, is that atheism is not neutral. We are not trying to be switzerland in world war II; (in case you don't know, switzerland stayed out of that war and let everybody else kill each other, while they got rich off the money involved). Atheists, or as I like to refer to myself, antitheists, are the opposite of religious people. Devil worshippers are not the opposite of theists, they are theists themselves.
Basically what you are claiming is that people get so fed up with something, that they go to the complete other end of the scale, and do that something themselves. That, of course, is idiotic. If you get fed up with capitolism, you become socialist, or communist, depending on how many automatic weapons you have. If you get fed up with eating meat, you become vegan. You do not, however, eat a different kind of meat, or become an austrian capitolist. That is the same thing as any other kind of capitolist or meat eater.
Let me see if I can explain this better. An atheist is the complete opposite end of the scale. You would not say that people get so fed up with religion that they become muslims, because muslims are a different religion. yet that is exactly what your claiming. Devil worship, or satanism, is another form of religion. Granted, it does worship a different god than you do as a christian, but it still worships a god. Atheism however, believes there is no god at all, no God (not the capitalization) no yahweh, no allah, no vishnu, no ra, no zeus, and no satan. They worship nothing, and do not need to. If they were to worship something, even if it were a statue, they would no longer be atheists.
Anyone who becomes a satanist and calls themselves an atheist, is either an idiot, or does not know what the word satanist or atheist actually means.
Actually, there is an atheistic Satanism where Satan is seen as just a symbol of our carnal nature. The word satan originally meant "adversary," accuser," "opposer," etc. So I feel that definition fits with me as an atheist. I am an adversary to all spiritual creeds.
Sorry llev, but if you deify satan, you are no longer atheist, you are just an awesome theist.
I have to admit, there is something incredibly respectful about a group of people who looked at the bible and said to themselves, "Fuck this, I'm going with the other guy".
Yes it does and that is not my fault now is it? It is assumed that if you arepracticing atheism you are 1. Not a believer in God, and that is what you say you are, or 2. Not a believer in God, and that you are a devil worshiper.Now I didn't set this rule up, it is just how it is. Happy heart where did you get the idea that I am trying to get people to stop talking about the word or saying the word atheism? I personally don't go around preaching to anyone about changing what they believe in, so if you want to call yourself as you do this is good to me, however when you do you, as I do must put up with assumtions.
Now Cody I am not saying that people get fed up with anything. I am saying when people have no God, and I did not say all, that they if they go to the extreme decide that they will be devil worshipers. Mostly I think that is for shock, but some people honestly believe, but I was using this to show you how atheism has harmed. You don't wish to except it, so that is your choice, but you want me to except that believing in God is totally wrong, and I won't agree, so as I said before we'll be at a stale mate my friend. Anmy time you post a new topic saying how good, and great your atheism is expect some arguement.
Let us pray. Dear Zonebbs, God of all web browsers, and king of the web. We lowly servants and slaves to debate can't seem to agree, and we thank your goodness for allowing us to vent our opinions in your Zonest ram. Thank you old Zonebbs.
Peace.
the problem with that theory is that to assume atheists are devil worshippers is A. improvable, and B. incredibly mistaken. My claim, that christianity condones harm and has done gross amounts of harm in the past, and is currently partaking in it, is completely provable, and thus, not nonsensical.
Simply assuming something, does not make it true. I fully realize that people assume things, but that does not mean that one must back down if someone assumes the wrong thing about you. it means quite the opposite, it means you must bring irrefutable evidence to the contrary of the assumption. i can do that with your assumption, you have thusly proven by the fact that you haven't done it, and have been reduced to the use of pascals wager and of the immorality argument, that you cannot and will not be able to refute my argument, or even present any based evidence that it is anywhere near faulse.
Asumptions do not make arguments, they just make you look stupid.
Ah yes. I've experienced that myself. Let me say for the record that in my younger years I tried te whole religion thing and it wasn't fr me. I find it, to put it into as few words as possible, far too restrictive and divisive. And I must say that religious people, particularly the ones who are constantly outspoken about how devout they are (and ironically these are generally those who set the worst examples of how to behave when one chooses the religious path), see hell bent on coming up wit, to put it bluntly, the most riddiculous reasons for doing or not doing something. When asked why gays should not be allowed to marry and call it a marriage, their only response is that tred old excuse that God said so. I've observed enough of wat's been going on int he last couple of decades that I wouldnt be surprised to learn that while he may indeed have objected to the idea of same sex unions at the beginning, he's gotten to the point where any little bit of love he sees is acceptable. In fact I've begun to subscrie less and less to the believe that homosexuality is a Satanic thing or whatever than to the belief tat te higher powers, call it GOd or whatever you prefer, intentionally allows it as a means of testing faith and how willing we are to love our neighbors. And if tat did indeed turn out to be the case then we would be disappointing him by denying these people their rights in his name. But getting back to SL's last comments I've indeed experienced it. I'm not sure I do believe in a god, but nor am I absolutely certain that there isn't. So I'd onsider myself, if I were to put a name to my religious convictions at all, an agnostic. Unfortunately in the eyes of many religious folks agnostics and atheists are the same thing and equally bad. My very first girlfriend was of that particular ilk. She was always trying to "save me," and n doing so se brought about the ruin of our relationship because every single thing I did was wrong. And it's behavior like that that's turned me away from religion because over the years I've grown tired of trying to defend myself to peple I know won't respect my decision to live the way I do.
I'm amused by this idea that atheists worship the Christian's made-up devil. This shows that whoever believes this does not fully grasp exactly what an atheist is and does. See, let me try and put it as plain and simple as I can. Atheists do not just disbelieve in the Christian god only. They disbelieve in all gods of any kind, including the adversaries of said gods. The whole concept of a being known as a god is seen as just as fictional as Tolkien's goblins and elves or the Harry Potter universe, or Frankenstein or Godzilla or Mad Max. It's all fiction. Atheists worship nothing, which is something that is hard for Christians to process, especially if they've been in Christianity all their lives. This is the best I can do, guys, I don't think I can put it any plainer than I just did. If you still think atheists are devil worshippers, there's just no point in trying to convince you of anything more.
I'll say this. The idea that people who believe in nothing worship the Christian devil thing can be amusing. So here are a bunch of people who worship absolutely nothing, sitting around in a graveyard and they're all dressed up in black and they're dismembering some innocent animal or human to sacrifice it to a devil they think is utter absolute bullshit.
Sounds fun! Where do I sign up? Heheheh.
Yeah really. LOL. Then again, every major religion I know of thinks that anything that isn't affiliated with it is wrong. I've got many friends who are Wiccan and their Christian families did everything short of disowning them.
I find this entire argument--while being a healthy debate--a bit pointless. People who don't believe in God are not about to change their ideas, and those who do believe in God are not about to stop believing in Him. Those who do not believe in a higher power are not usually going to take anything a Christian (or member of any other religion for that matter) says seriously, and one who worships a higher power isn't about to listen to someone who doesn't. I fully support everyone's right to believe whatever they wish and do as they please, so long as they're not harming anyone. In other words, go to heaven, or hell, or wherever, or nowhere, in your own way without getting grief from others about how you do it.
Saying that, because no one will listen, we shouldn't voice our opinion, is like not giving medicine to a sick person because everyone is going to die in the end. Its inevitable, why fight it, it won't actually do any good.
Do you know how many people during the american revolution said exactly what your saying now? The british will never listen, all we'd get by protesting is a lot of used nooses, why even try. In the late 1800's and early 1900's, women in america said the same thing, well some did, by no means all of them. We'll never get the right to vote in a male dominated country, why waste our breath and blood?
Throughout history we see example after example of people who said exactly what your saying, and if we'd listened to them, the world would be a darker place.
You say you think everyone should be entitled to their own opinion unless it harms others. Well what do you call the hundreds of cruelties perpetrated by religions throughout the world's history, and which are still going on today? You know all those news reports you see of violence in the middle east, you think they're all muslims and jews? Think again, christians are doing just as much killing in places.
If no one is willing to stand up to that, then what happens when they want to harm us here in america? What happens when they want their dogma taught to our children in school science classes? What about when they want to force their ideals on us in the government system by making what they view as a sin illegal, simply because it doesn't fit with their antiquated belief systems? Are you going to stand up then and say that it isn't right for you to be told what to do by a system you don't take part in, and which you think is immoral? where is your line drawn in the sand? Where is the point at which you say, enough is enough? And when that time comes, will you be the first to say, its no use, no one is listening, why even try?
Hmm...that's not at all what I said, or what I believe. But I doubt you'll change your view of me, and It would be a waste of time for me to try to make you. I believe in standing up for yourself, in challenging and questioning any and all systems, and I don't think that my poste reflected otherwise. I was advocating for tolerance, not oppression or indifference. Enough said.
But how far does your tolerance go, that is my question.
Everyone's beliefs are going to be challenged, especially on a place like this where open discussion is the name of the game. that doesn't mean we don't respect you; It means when you make a statement, we're going to come back and say, Ok. and how, exactly, did you come to this conclusion? the same can be said for either side of the debate here. If you want to talk disrespect, or intolerance, bring on the window smashing, book burning, graffiti, and utter destruction that comes with intolerance of other people's beliefs. as far as I'm aware, nobody here has threatened to do any variation of that.
I guess my biggest gripe with religion, and I don't mean just Christianity here but all the "major" religions, is that they go on and on about loving thy neighbor and things like that and yet they refuse to leave each other alone. None respects the other. The only ones I haven't heard consistently bashing each other and telling each other they're going to hell, are the Wiccans. Not to say that never happens but I've known quite a few Wiccans and wile they have their own beliefs I don't here them constantly telling every Christian they meet that said Christians are wrong for being CHristians. If anything it's the other way around. In fact a few of my girlfriends were Wiccans and they actually seemed to have their heads on more straight than a lot of people I've known who weren't.
One thing that makes some religious folks look primitive and superstitious is when somebody tries to explain why a destructive natural disaster happened by saying God did it on purpose as some kind of leson or punishment. Usually said lesson or punishment conveniently is something the speaker is against. I think if there is even such a creature as a god, Christian or otherwise, it doesn't give a damn about human politics or what side people take in them. Why did the earthquake or the storm or the fire happen and destroy so much property and kill so many people? Nature is unpredictable, that's why. It was not because God doesn't like who you vote for or what fictional books you read or what side you take in the political squabble of the moment.
Guess you can now say I’m hooked, or care about refuting your claims. Here is a bit on prayer. I have agreed that prayer doesn’t always work, but it is the case, and it is not scientifically explainable that prayer or praying does work. These articles are too long to reprint here. I felt I might post them for the other side’s opinion.
http://www.proofgodexists.org/scientific_study_of_prayer_under.htm
Now I also believe and have stated that prayer, or praying helps people to get themselves in prospective. Maybe it or the praying causes relaxation reducing stress, in turn reducing for example blood pressure. This study is interesting.
http://www.plim.org/PrayerDeb.htm
Now in this case of this posting if you already don’t believe in prayer, than pray for money to become more, well its simply going to give you the exact results you are hoping to receive. Your money won’t grow. Not everyone has the power to achieve the power of prayer, but I believe that most people have the power to use prayer as a means to getting the mind in the right place to achieve a goal. I suppose this type of prayer could be called meditation. In my own life I don’t pray for things, but guidance. I also don’t pray daily except for the morning thought that I have been blessed with another day, and that that blessing gives me another day to succeed or enjoy life. This thought/prayer makes me smile and be at peace with the world. If the Sun is shining the day is bright, Cloudy, the morning has a special smell or scent, and it will be crisp and cool. Have you ever taken the time to notice the crisp smell of a fresh snow, or the fresh smell of the rain? My prayers are about being thankful for all these things that have already been given me, not for things I want. If I have that day I have been given time to get these things I want. Prayer doesn’t work for everyone the same, but prayer works.
On your other post. The studies were actually, and so were the results. If the writers chose to document them that doesn't change the results. No, as I pointed out not all were healed, but many were. Prayer works for many people. Its not explainable. Prayer also works for many people in other ways such as I have talked about in my life. I can't pray up a million dollars, or even my dinner, but I can pray up the drive to get either. It makes me feel good, so it works. Some people even lower sugar, blood pressures, feel better. Its not magic why that happens, and it can be explained, but true healing is something I except as it is. I except things happening because someone one prayed for them to. Why not? It doesn't threaten me. You can't pray for evil, so true prayer is simple to except.
prayer makes you feel good, therefore, it works? that has to be the biggest load of crap I've ever heard.
But the bible doesn't say that you can pray for some things and get it, and other things and not. It is not that god answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is no. The bible clearly states, as I posted in my outline of the experiment, that if you pray for it, you will receive it. Now, I will grant you that perhaps you must be faithful to god in order for this law to apply, but if that is true, why do perfectly faithful people still die of cancer? Why can't perfectly faithful people heal themselves of all diseases? Why are the faithful still afflicted with all sorts of curses from life, which they seem to not be able to pray away? If the bible says, as it clearly does, that if you pray, you will receive, then why don't the most faithful among us get everything they pray for?
Cody, you can correct me on this, but I think there's a word for the idea that if something feels true, then it is. The word is truthiness.
I can't agree or disagree, and certainly can't correct you; I have never heard such a word as truthiness.
I have not heard this word either, so can't agree or disagree. Happy Heart you really feel that making yourself feel good, or bringing down your blood pressure isn't worth anything? How about we call prayer meditation, would that make you feel differently about it? That isn't fighting words I am asking because I want to know. In fact no statement I'll make here will be fighting. Lets have a discussion in peace. is The Bible does state that if you pray for something you can receive it. The problem with this is the subject praying, and why maybe? Ones faith, or strength in that faith? Some people can heal with prayer, why I can't say.
I made the statement that you couldn’t pray up or for evil. On second thought I suppose it is possible to pray up, or for evil. I’ll explain.
I have a close relative who was married to a lady that believed in and practiced Voodoo. I never understood all the facts of why the relationship went sower, however, she decided she wanted rid of him. First she insisted he convert to her Catholic faith, because if he did not the union would not be valid. Next she began to talk about her faith in Voodoo, magic, and such. Her mother and some other family members here heavily in to it. She, when she decided to get rid of him told him she was going to put a spell on him with her groups help so that he’d never ever be successful in life, or even find another woman. She told him he’d lose his hair and become sick, and she set about doing the things to cause his downfall. She even tried to kill him with the car by running him down; she had put a spell on him so he not move. Fortunately he jumped, but some of the spell worked actually. He did become sick for a time and would get these unexplained knots on his head that would cause him to lose hair in spots. For a long while he seemed to not be able to hold a job or get ahead, and he was a general nervous wreck. To get him straighten out for the most part, his family took him to a witch in the country to counter the spell. He’s better, has a new wife.
My next dealings with this are I was thinking about dating a lady, but she was Wiccan. She spent lots of time with me explaining how it all worked. She explained she was not a black Wiccan, so did not bring up evil, but that she prayed for things using her candles. Her home is full of her faiths devices. When she did her rituals she puts the candle in a special dish, it has a name, but I’ve forgotten. Then she lights the candle and prays. She says the smoke that rises takes her prayer up, and that is how it gets answered. She swears that it has and does cause profound differentsin her life. She runs a successful business and other things, and she claims without her prayers it would not be.
I have read some articles on this subject because of her. She claims that the prayers could be directed the other way, and that black Wiccan’s can do this. I believe myself to be open minded but was afraid to continue that relationship. Smile.
I have heard, and been told that if you can convince a person that you have put a spell on them, or if they believe it can be done than Voodoo, black magic, and such things work. In all the main religion books, or Bibles, there are some menschen of this, but I don’t have these pages on the top of my head, so would have to go looking. So I suppose I’m wrong on that fact. Praying up evil on me doesn’t work, because I believe I’m mentally strong enough for these things not to affect me. I have read, thinking about it that during the Spanish war, I believe it was that the Spanish used Voodoo on the opposing armies. It didn’t work, because they had no concept of it, so didn’t realize they were being spell attacked, and next didn’t believe in it anyway, so it was fruitless. It is widely practiced in Africa and some other places and has a strong group of believers. Maybe prayer, and its effects or lack of has to do it the power of the mind? Science has not figured out but a small part of how powerful our minds are, so maybe if you are powerful enough to think it will be? Just a thought.
Wait, she practiced voodoo, but tried to get him to become catholic? You do realize that catholics are not voodoo practicing right?
Yes, you can convince someone that they are sick, or cursed if you want to use such a word, but it is not magic, and it is certainly not prayer. It is the same principle that allows you to will yourself to be happy, you can also convince yourself that your not happy. For example, a lot of abused women start to believe the negative things they are told. Their husbands repeatedly tell them that they are ugly and worthless, and eventually they start to believe it. It isn't true of course, but that doesn't make it any less powerful.
You have to understand the power of persuasion, it is an enormous force. If I tied you in a room and piped Richard Dawkins through a speaker system and only fed you when you agreed that there was no god, eventually, no matter how strong your mind is, you would start to believe that stuff. It doesn't mean you chose to believe it, so that word is debateable, but you will act like you believe it.
i will grant you that prayer can relax you, but that's obvious. you take time out of your day to sit quietly and meditate, of course its going to calm you down, but you could get the same effect by reading poems or some equally calming activity. If you sit down every day and just take a bit of time to relax, it will have the same health effects as praying. Its not the mumbling to some invisible man in the sky that does it, its the fact that your not doing anything else while your mumbling to an invisible man in the sky.
You still haven't addressed though, why are prayers answered with no, when it clearly says you will receive what you pray for. Either the bible doesn't say that, which you will then have to prove, or the bible is wrong, which would then make it not an infalible document. Which is it?
if I had health problems, no, I wouldn't pray, meditate, or what have you, in hopes I heal. I'd use this thing called knowledge to evaluate how serious things were, try to get better myself, and, if it came down to it, I'd go to a hospital where I'd be well taken care of.
I'm not sure if that appropriately answers your question, forereel; I did my best, though. still, you can say all along you aren't trying to be harsh, but it's quite obvious you're unwilling to accept what's being thrown at you by many of us.
apparently Cody and I posted at the same time, and after reading his reply, it appears I've misunderstood the question asked. so, I'll say that Cody is right: sure prayer relaxes people, but that same feeling can also be achieved through numerous other activities. if you had any common sense, forereel, you should've thought of that simple fact.
So, prayer can change some aspects of the body. this, my friends, is psychology, and psychology, last time I checked, is science; not religion. I love to meditate, yes, with nature, and/or calming music, in a quiet place with no distractions. This accomplishes the same thing for me as prayer does for you. so please explain to me what your prayers can accomplish for me that my meditation cannot.
I see I have much to answer an I willwhen I have more time to compose my thoughts on them. but I wanted to add this to my other post. I will address the questions ask of me. .
Okay. I’m going to try to address why prayer doesn’t or might not work for some people and why we still die of things. Let’s talk first about the person that has no faith. He or she knows about God, but doesn’t use God in life. I’m not talking about going to church as such things; I’m talking about a basic belief system. I am also not talking about being good, righteous, and that sort of thing, because from where I sit God is forgiving.
Now this person wakes up one day with a cold. She or he hates having this cold, and wishes it gone, because that concerts to night you know, and I really want to be feeling good to go. They think about the fact that “if you pray it will come true right.” That person’s prayer probably won’t get answered. The only come to God when they need, not all the time. Let’s take God out of the equation and call it meditation again. They only meditate when they need something, meditation is not a daily part of life, and they don’t even think about it until they need it. How can the unpracticed mediator bring him or herself o the correct mode to make that meditation work? I have stated that I don’t pray daily, and I don’t pray for things. I pray for guidance, and I thank God for the new day daily. If I decide to pray or meditate for the healing for my sick child. How can I expect my prayers, or meditation to work? How much faith do I really have?
I like this here. It sums up what I’m trying to say. Acts 17:11 has some on this.
Luke 18:8b (NIV) When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?
Believing the Truth
• Faith believes in what is true. Faith has two elements: 1) being convinced of the truth, being certain of reality, having evidence of unseen things, and 2) believing, hoping in, embracing, seizing the truth.
Heb 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Heb 11:1 (NIV) Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Heb 11:1 (NEB) Faith... makes us certain of realities we do not see.
Heb 11:1 (Mof) Now faith means that we are confident of what we hope for, convinced of what we do not see.
Heb 11:1 (Wey) Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see.
• While faith requires being convinced that what we believe in is true, just knowing the truth is only half of faith. God's word must be hoped for, embraced, seized!
Luke 17:5 (NIV) The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!" He replied, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you."
• Believing is not exactly the same as faith. For belief to be faith, it must light on what is certainly true. Yet Scripture gives examples of situations where belief alone is required, even commanded. There's no time for evidence collection, to wait, to hear, for certainty. Just believe. Like Peter walking on the water--don't think, act! God even requires us to believe in him when, temporarily, the evidence looks bad: to trust. [God requires belief and trust in moments of human weakness, but faith is what makes us strong. Here is one person’s view on prayer. I can’t say I agree totally, but it is a view. Smile. http://www.mcleanministries.com/PRAYER.html
Maybe we’ll get some others that are better suited or heavier in the Bible than I am to post on this board their opinions. I am hoping so. Smile.
But no where in that did it ever say that you can change truth. In order for your prayer to work it should not be restricted to what simple meditation or a Bach concerto can accomplish. Your prayer should be able to do the things science cannot. For example, science could not make a fig tree grow in the ocean, its impossible, they just don't grow there. Yet the bible says that if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can do it. If that is true, do it, I will even find you the fig tree and the ocean. That is something a bach concerto certainly cannot do, its powerful, but it can't move trees.
You claim that the bible holds these answers, but I see none. I only see double talk. It gives with one hand, and takes away with the other. That way, when I present one verse, you can present its opposite, it is how many religious texts work. Its also how mediums work, they say one thing, then take it back, so they're never wrong and its difficult to argue against them.
Now, lets say your sick, very sick, not just a cold, lets say you have a malignant brain cancer, which would you do, pray, or go to the hospital? Certainly, you would do both, you being a christian, your course of action would be to go to the hospital, then pray, or some variation thereof. However, that begs one simple question, if your god is so powerful, so almighty, and your prayers are heard, and you pray for his will to be done whenever you say the lord's prayer, and he has created you with a specific plan involved, and your faith can surplant fig trees, then why do you go to the hospital? Surely it would be better for you to pray so vehemently that god will listen to you? Surely there is no need for doctors to give you medicines, prayer can heal you.
It amuses me how people will say that god hears your prayers, then they curse those that practice faith healing, to the death of their children. Its not foolishly childish for you to pray for guidance in something, but its cruel and insane for them to pray for their child to be cured. Now, I'm not saying I think faith healing is correct, I think they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but it is still amusing how christians react to it. They are perfectly fine with praying for the little things that don't matter in the long run, but you face them with something life or death, and they beg for sciences help. Then of course, they make some lame excuse like, "well god guides the scientists and the doctors". Then why do you ignore them in the little matters, and think them satanists when they believe god does not exist?
well said, Cody.
Truthiness is a word made up by Stephen Colbert, and I think it perfectly describes the idea that if something feels true in your gut without facts or evidence to support it, that's truthiness. If you don't believe me, have Google go fetch.
I have no reason not to believe you. I think its just faith though. Everyone has faith, but is the thing they have faith in founded or not?
She was a devout Catholic. She insisted he go through the steps to become one before she’d marry him. I attended the Wedding, lovely affair, but. Yes her family practiced Voodoo. It’s a paradox, but that was how it was. The all lived in Florida, and Florida is a major place for Voodoo and such things. Yes some people can be mentally controlled through suggestion. I happen to not be one of them. My feelings, convictions, and thought are based on my upbringing, things I have experienced, people I have met. Happy Heart you ask why I don’t just agree with all the logic that is being given me I’ll give you a personal example. On another board we were all giving a girl here support for leaving home. I made the statement that family could be some of your best friends. You posted you disagreed with me. You said that family was the worst. In this we were both right according to what we knew. My family is truly my best friends. They help me as I help them. Together we make our lives easier. We are not perfect, but in that we are strong, so you see I have experienced something totally different than you have, so that is why I don’t agree. Now I do except all your opinions, but I am here to point out the other side of it. I’m not trying to convince you prayers are the way. I am trying to convince you that there is another method for some of us. Now if pray relaxes me, gets me straight in my mind to succeed, and I am thankful for this does it not have worth? I even took it from the religious and made it meditation. If I called my praying meditation would you say it had worth? Ocean Dreams you use meditation to get yourself right with your world, so what if I said to you meditation doesn’t work? It’s foolish to believe in it and waste our time doing it? You would say to me it works, because you know it to be so due to your experience with it. Now everyone is not able to get your results. They can try, but some just can’t do it. I have posted that I don’t pray daily, and I don’t pray for things. I thank God for giving me the day, so that I can accomplish and I pray for guidance this get my mind in order. I believe the tree and other stories in the Bible are use as examples, metaphor’s, not as fact. The tree was handy to use as an example. You have forgotten that I, where I believe God, nature is all powerful don’t happen to believe that anyone with a major sickness can pray themselves well. Remember we don’t know how faithful the subject that has a major sickness is. They get sick, so they go, or come to God, but how strongly do they believe, and if that prayer were answered would they continue, or write it off to what the doctor has done? Most times when the Bible is talking about healing it is spiritual healing not physically healing, although some physical healing is talked about. I don’t believe anyone that grabs a Bible, says some words are a healer. There is a verse I’m looking for those talks about this. It goes something like “and you shell know them by their deeds, not there speech.” That is not exact. Sure that person with brain cancer should go seek medical help. God has given us the means to cure many things, and that to me is true healing. With prayer, and skill many people are healed. I believe that people that won’t take a child to a doctor should be punished 42 U.S.C. under that law. They have no clue if the person they are trussing has the power truly. They don’t even know if the doctor has the skills, but it is far better to get several opinions than just one person you aren’t sure even believes what he or she is saying. Pray has healed, and I posted some studies to prove that fact, but all prayer doesn’t heal. It doesn’t even get you from point A to point B. We as blind people use faith daily if we travel. You cross a street believing that the traffic will remain steal until you get across, because you are walking with the light on right? It’s not a 100% deal though. Anyone of the people driving might decide she or he is in a hurry and run that light. I’ve had it happen. It is an act of faith to step out there. So you see from where I am prayer works. I believe in it power, it works in my life in different ways like your meditation, or your logic, or your knowledge.
You didn't post any studies at all. You posted interpretations, interpretations are not studies. If you want to try again, that is fair enough, but you need to find out the difference between a primary source and a secondary source before you do.
Now then, your claim is that because you pray for god to give you guidance and it relaxes you, that prayer works. Well no, it doesn't. You see, prayer relaxing you is a side effect of prayer, it is not the point of prayer. You do not pray to be relaxed, you pray to communicate with god. God does not give you any guidance, the evidence that you seek is always there, you just attribute the finding of it to the prayer. Let me see if I can give you an example.
Lets say there is a little girl named Emily, who has a very bad head cold. Now every day, Emily beats her head against her pillow four times, fully believing that it will end her cold. Now this faith allows her to feel better after beating her head against her pillow, it relaxes her and allows her to sleep. One day, of course, Emily gets better, did she get better because of her beating her head against the pillow? No, of course she didn't, she got better because her immune system fought off the cold, its what happens. Now, her relaxing and being able to sleep may have helped, but that isn't why she beat her head against her pillow. She did that to heal the cold, not to sleep.
Its the same with your prayers, yes, it may relax you, but that isn't why you pray, you pray for guidance. The things which guide you are constantly all around you, and you would have been guided by them even if you hadn't prayed, so prayer does not work.
Yet again you have not addressed the bible saying that all prayers are answered in the positive though. Are you unable to face this subject? Is it that you cannot find a way to talk your way around a solid bible fact? Does that knowledge that your precious bible has betrayed you so thoroughly, make you unable to stand up and justify it. Is it just that your wrong, and don't have the ability to admit it? Why won't you even mention this fact? I've mentioned it several times, why won't you?
Whether prayer works for you or not, there is some amount of a psychological element to it, like it or not, for the simple fact that you believe that your prayer will help you. This is why prayer will not work for us atheists, because we do not believe it will help us, and therefore, we do not get the same psychological effect that you do. the same can be said for meditation, hypnotism, and any other type of act that stimulates the mind. If you do not believe it will work, it won't. This is science; not god. Some scientists go so far as to say that if you give an ill patient a sugar pill and make them believe it's the real medication, it will work almost as well as the real meds would, because part of what cures these symptoms is the psychological belief that that little pill you just swallowed is going to make you feel better. In a sense, if you will, this psychological power your mind has is your "God", if you will. it's the closest thing to a god I'll ever believe in, myself. and this, my friends, is why I, and so many others say that if prayer works for you, please go for it, but keep in mind that until we believe in that power like you do, no amount of quoting bible verses, telling us about all the success stories you've heard, and praying for us yourself is going to change the fact that this does not work for us. end of story. You wouldn't like it if I tried to force you to see a hypnotist, would you? But seriously man, it works. I can tell you so many stories of people completely changing because of hypnotism. It really, really works. Well, not if you don't believe in it, it won't.
Here here.
Let me address why I pray. I don't pray to relax, not me personally. I posted that some people gain lowered blood pressure for prayer. Sure they pray to comune with God, but that act makes them feel better, so it has worth. Now me personally prays for guidence, and yes I ask God to help me with it. Now I'm a bit different, because I don't expect I'll get an answer, and I don't expect to get it directly as I ask. What I expect is to get the peace of mind to get my answer. Relaxing I have other things I do. Now I talked about my morning prayer. That is for thanks. I posted why I am thankful. Sure the mornings going to be as it is, but I always tried to find the positive in it no matter the weather as I talked about. I'll come back to address the subject of why all prayers don't get answered. I thought I'd talked about this in my post on faith. The Bible says that all true prayers will get answered, but it never says how. I talked about people praying that probably are praying because there in a bind, but normally wouldn't be praying. Do they really believe? Do they have faith? Sure the Bible says prayers get answered, but how, when it doesn't say. I'll come back with some verses. Now I do understand going directly to the source for thing. These people were not the source, but wrote about the sources findings. This is a practice that happens all the time. In medical studies, scientific studies, some one will write that A study found that... They are not always the source, but speak about the findings. If these were scientific studies on say a cure for athletes foot would you have found fault with them? I am posting off the top of my head, but will continue.
There is a difference between a retelling of studies, and an interpretation of studies. The fact that in the articles, the authors wrote of their own personal uses of prayer, and were clearly religious, and clearly looking to prove a point, shows that they are biased. if it were a reideration of some cure for athletes foot, the author would most likely say that one thing works, and one thing doesn't. If it is an article published by the makers of a specific type of athlete's foot cure, and they showed studies where it worked every single time, I would be highly suspect of it. I can garrantee you that the studies they quoted never once said all, its a basic rule of science, you never say all.
As for prayer, the bible does say how prayers will be answered. Ask and ye shall receive, knock and the door shall be opened for you. this means that not only will prayers be answered, but they will be answered in the positive. If you ask for a pony, you'll get a pony, if you ask for your aunt susy to be cured of cancer, no more cancer for aunt Susy. Of course, this doesn't happen, we all know that, but you seem to be unable to accept that this means there is a flaw in the plan somewhere. Either all prayers are answered, which clearly does not happen, or the bible is wrong. If the bible is wrong, it can't be the word of god. If the bible isn't the word of god, your entire base for faith falls apart. I can understand completely why you are loath to admit this, but I think the evidence has beaten you in the face enough times for you to just look stupid if you continue to argue against it. Of course, you'll continue anyway, and probably won't understand why you keep looking foolish, but you can't say we didn't explain it to you.
Oh, and, little tip, paragraphs, they're wonderful things.
LOL. And anyway even if the bible was truly the word of god, we as umans have an unfortunate tendency to deliberately misinterpret what we don't want to hear. So if it said right tere in the bible that god ad no problem with gays marrying (this is just an example), some of us might not like that so they'd invent something else. We change other things around if we don't like what they say so why not the bible? And look how many versions of that there are.
You say I have not answered the question of why prayer doesn’t work every time, and I have spoken about this at length. To say all or every time is an impossible thing. You have read one section in the Bible, and are using it to say that prayer doesn’t work, and that the Bible is wrong. The Bible talks about all you need for our prayers to work, or be answered, so as I stated it’s not going to work for everyone that prays. There are many factors. Also the Bible says that your prayers might get answered in a different form than you are praying for. Let’s talk about that term all, or ever time. All is not an absolute, because it is fallible. Where we can state that “Dell computers are good machines,” we cannot say that all Dell computers are good machines. Every leaf that starts on a tree doesn’t become full grown, even though many leaves on that same tree are successful. I have posted studies that have worked. Now you’re agreeing with them, or the fact that the authors of them used other sources for their publications doesn’t make them unfounded. I could ask you the same question where your sources for your study are. Suppose in your study we have 500 subjects and we put them all in a controlled setting and all environments was set. All 500 of them did the test. After they went home three out of that 500 found that they had extra money from some source that was not expected. I could than say, and they might even say that the prayer worked just in a different method. Now sure I commune with God, because I believe in God. In meditation people use different methods to get there. Some hum, some say a word, some use objects to get them in to the meditation mode, and all these methods work. The issue here is that it prayer, and prayer shouldn’t work, because it’s tied to God, and there is no God, so nothing Godly is correct. Smile. My prayer, and other prayer works in it method for me and others that believe it does. You use a girl betting her head on a pillow as an example. Now you might not agree, but if she believed her cold went away because of her actions she’d beat her head 4 times every time she got a cold. Of course she could be shown that she doesn’t have to, but until she is she’ll do it. Now with prayer you can’t absolutely show it doesn’t work. It works for me! No I don’t use it to cure the sick; I don’t use it to bring me wealth, but for what I use it for it works. You all know the story about Moses parting the Red Sea. This same story is in all the religious text, Qur’an, Torah, and Bible. Science has studied this and found that it did actually happen, but can’t to this day explain why. What can we think about that? Was Moses just in the right place at the right time? Just like the people that went home and found that they had extra money in my example, can we say it would have happened anyway? These are facts we don’t know.
Oh and these paragraphs,teacher, the Zone reads smoothly when I read it with my Jaws, so i don't bother with them. Your post read the same, so I can't tell if you are using them or not. Just sayin! Smile.
Wow, never thought this board would make it to a hundred posts.
Ok, let me go over this again, and maybe you'll understand it this time. Maybe try slowing down your jaws, or having someone else read what I write and explain it to you, something. Really, it gets tiring to write the same things over and over again.
I have already pointed out that the bible says one thing, and then takes it back. It says one thing in one verse, and says a totally different thing in another verse, both partaining to the same subject. Psychics do the same thing. Watch the silvia brown lady one time, she'll say something, then take it back. Its subtle, but if you pay attention, you notice it.
Now, we can certainly agree the bible does this same thing. However, the question that I have asked, and you have not is, "why in the world would the word of god need such ambiguity?" He's god, ok, assuming he exists, he's all powerful, why would he need to say one thing, and then take it back again, so that he covers all his bases. He's the god damned ruler of the god damned universe. He makes the rules, the laws and the boundaries. He's in control, he makes the people who follow the law follow it, and those that don't not follow it. That's why he's a god and we're not. Why does he need to cover his bases like this?
Now I have found an answer. My answer is, he doesn't, because he doesn't exist. What is your answer, please, tell us. Explain to us, simply and straight forward, why does god need to use such tricks to be safe?
Oh, and please show me scientific evidence where scientists have proven that the red sea parted. I garrantee you it doesn't exist.
Your opinion. I'll look that information up. It has been a long time sense I read it, but I'm sure I can find it.
I posted and I can't stop laughing at the way you put the last post. Yes I know, I know, but well. Smile. Okay I'll find that study.
Alright I went fishing for some scientific facts on Moses. My funny bone got tickled, so I’ll say sorry if this story offends anyone from the start. Smile
The Pass Over.
Now Moses was a rich rebellious Egyptian prince that wanted stuff his way, and we all know how these rich dudes are right?
" The skeptic's skeptic, Sigmund Freud, called the Passover story "a pious myth," contending that Moses was a rebellious Egyptian prince who worshiped the sun god Aton and made up the Jewish religion as a political pl.”
I mean he had to be somebody to get all these people following him straight in to the sea you know.
Moses and the boys were walking down a road one day smoking some good weed, and a bush just started burning, right there on the road!
” Bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consume.”
Moses heard the voice of God coming from that bush telling him im bout to deliver ya from these A Rabs now!
"I am come down to deliver [the Israelites] out of the hand of the Egyptians."
As for the voice of God, Hebrew University psychology professor Benny Shanon proposes that Moses was tripping at the time on a hallucinogenic substance similar to ayahuasc“
So Moses hurried on home and calls all the people together and made his, I had a dream speech.
All the people packed their stuff and went down to the water the next day just like Old Moses said to see if this dude was serious.
Now you know Moses couldn’t just do the deed, politicians don’t; he probably had the musicians play and the girls dance a little, and the strong boys parade, until it was close to night fall before he got down to business not knowing if it was going to work, because he’d sobered up by then, but what could he do right?
“And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their lef
“
Was Moses just lucky? I mean he’s just in the right place, at the right time, and this event takes a few days to finish, so isn’t that food for thought?
Science shows this could happen, and has used computer models to set up the experiment.
Here is a general explanation and some links to read if interested.
Accepting the biblical account as a "possible 'qualitative' description of an event," Florida State oceanographer Doron Nof set out to investigate whether the parting of the Red Sea is "plausible from a physical point of view." Using a common phenomenon called wind set-down effect, he found that "a northwesterly wind of 20 m/s blowing for 10-14 h is sufficient to cause a sea level drop of about 2.5m." Such a drop in sea level, Nof speculates, might have exposed an underwater ridge, which the Israelites crossed as if it were dry land. Although the event is plausible, Nof estimated that the likelihood of such a storm occurring in that particular place and time of year is less than once every 2,400 year
Sources.
http://www.slate.com/?id=2215127&
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0921/Moses-parting-of-the-Red-Sea-Is-t
• www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070908/posts
http://planetsave.com/2010/09/23/red-sea-crossing-acquires-scientific-plausibility/
Here is the direct technical article.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0012481
There are more. I do admit not understanding all the wars, but then I don’t profess to understand our modern wars either. Guess its mankind’s plight to kill, burn, and struggle against each other? The religious and Atheist alike do it. Why I have no clue.
In order for there to be a wall of water on either side, there would first have to be trenches dug to contain all that water. I highly doubt that happened.
But actually, that would be walls of mud and sand, or something.
Ok, lets just assume that this is correct, and for the record I think your researching skills are about on par with your interpretation skills, which is to say non-existent; but lets assume that this scientific model is correct. If a storm blew, and a wind was caused, and the water was blown back to expose a land bridge, where is the miracle? Isn't a miracle something that couldn't have happened without divine assistance? Obviously, this is something that happens naturally, and thus, not a miracle. So thank you, you just destroyed a major believe of the religious without me having to lift a finger. I think you should do more research.
And how was old Moses just in the right place at the right time? It hasn't happened again in that place for over 3,000 years.
Old Moses was a celeberty way back than, we're still argueing and debating what could have or might have happened. People are spending good money on this foolishness as you say. Lol I don't know, miracles don't happen every day. It's food for thought as I see it.
Moses was a celebrity? then why is it we have absolutely no archeological record of him other than in the bible? He must have made a sex video and been forgotten, moses was biblicial paris hilton.
Well we're still talking about him and its been 3,000 years, and we don't even know if he made that video and forgot.
Her name would have had to be something like Basheba though. Grainy pidcure I'd think? You know camera technology wasn't what is is today back then.
Probably turned to dust already. Film doesnt last 3,000 years, but miracles do!
So why are there no miracle workers today, huh? Didn't Christ clearly state that anyone with sufficient faith could heal the sick, move mountains and so on?
Sufficient faith, that is the key. And you will know them by there deeds. Miracles don't happen every day, never did.
Uh huh.
Okay, just to clarify something here, for those not intelligent enough to see it. I did not become a Satanist, dedicate my life to him, because I wanted to go to the so-called opposite end of the spectrum. I did not dedicate to be rebellious, either. I was never, in fact, raised christian at all. I found Satanism quite by accident, as it seemed, and had no previous judgements about him that swayed me. I just felt I needed to state that, clearly. I shall say no more here.
I can't believe I'm getting involved in another one of these.
All I'll say is this. There are miracle workers Impricator. But this is a big world, and not all miracles are made known. Nor are they major epic events. Plus, what one considers a miracle, others will explain away. I have explained what I consider two significant miracles which I have witnessed in my life. Yet my stories were recieved not only with doubt, but with actual denial. This leads me to believe miracles are highly contravercial things. Even when Jesus himself was performing miracles in plain sight, there were many who turned away. He healed countless people. The scriptures are full of stories of people who saw angels and witnessed many marvels. They asked for signs, and the lord showed them signs. Yet even after, they refused to believe. We see what we see. I look at a spontanious, unexplainable recovery which the doctors don't understand and see a miracle. Others look at it and say "ohh, well that person obviously wasn't very sick". It's perspective.
Hell's Child, on a very different note. I would be very interested in learning about how you came to embrace Satanism. I'm not asking because I want to correct you, or even to judge you. I think of Satanism and I admit the first things that come to mind are violence, sacrifice and wierd rituals - basically everything the media portrays. I invite you to post the how and why of your beliefs on the "how and why" topic if you feel comfortable doing so. If not, (and I'd completely understand) I'd still like to hear about it.
Doctors aren't infallible. They're not always going to be correct the first time. I'll believe in miracles when I put my hand on the stump of someone's amputated arm or leg, and feel it growing back, but I can't see that happening any time soon.
The verses quoted by the OP are addressed to those who follow Jesus. It isn't enough for them to believe in him. They have to also obey his teachings. If you think it necessary to do the dice experiment you do not have enough faith in God.
Regarding God's answering of prayers, I think sometimes people forget that God is described in the Bible as both loving and disciplinning. I think the disciplinning part is often forgotten by many Christians, who only want to see the positive things. They distort God so in their minds he is who they want him to be. If you want to understand God as he is portrayed in the Bible, a good understanding may be gleaned by reading all of Deutoronomy 28.
So then, if everything is granted to those who have enough faith in God, why don't those few people go around healing amputated limbs and the like? Do the impossible, since they're the only ones who will be able to. Then there would be no Atheists. God will have proven his power. But that doesn't, and can't, happen.
Because it dioesn't work that way. Our faith gives us power to do many things if God wills it. But sometiems God's will is contrary to what we want, whether we like it or udnerstand it. That's a hard thing for someone to accept. But one thing I've learned, and which has been hammered into me over and over again is everything has a purpose. Sometimes it takes a long time for us to realize what that purpose is; other times we may never know. We are guided by God, but we are not controlled.
But that is not what the verse says. It does not say, "ask and it will be granted to you if I think its in your best interest and I kinda like the idea and you burn a cow for me and I'm feeling cheritable and the game isn't on" It just says, "ask and it will be given to you". Period, that's it, no qualifications, no refunds, no exchanges, no by backs, no returns for store credit. You ask, you get it.
Even if I were to accept that you have to have a certain amount of faith or to believe the word of God exactly, you still can't claim that it has to be in God's plan, because that isn't what the verse says. And let me remind you, we're talking about the bible here. The absolutely perfect word of God. so which is it, is the word of God wrong and thus not perfect, or do you not actually get everything you ask for, just the things god thinks you need?
Possibly parts of it are wrong, or misunderstood. Naturally this ask and you will receive business, if thought about, won't really fly.
You have one person asking for Team A to win, and another asking for Team B to win. In the same competition. Provided there was any divine intervention in physical things, which team would win?
There is probably more to the equation. One thing I personally have observed is that in dealing with things Christian, probably other religions as well, it's more a justification for why things are rather than actual physical improvements of any sort. The only real improvements are internal. You are of course right, Cody: hardworking Christian people end up in debt (I'm not talking foolish spending, but economic calamity), have their kids die in accidents, they themselves die of cancers and other diseases. Leaving off personal choices, only including what insurance companies call Acts of God, you're absolutely right. Analysis is made by the rule, not the exception, and the rule is, nothing happens. Far more Christian people than I will ever be have lost their homes, their livelihoods, their marriages, and a ton of other things.
Rather than blame God for any of it, I actually think He basically does scarce little in the physical universe we inhabit. I wonder also if what is meant by the perfect Word of God, means it's the defining work. The Magnum Opus, of God. You've pointed out some, but not all, of the mathematical errors, scientific misunderstandings, and other conflicts that occur in it. And there are some really serious challenges in it.
There are some defining works on various programming languages that I personally have found questionable parts in, or something that didn't add up. But that didn't make the work any less the defining work, or my use of that particular language for a particular project any less viable.
Admittedly bumbling a bit here, but just being honest. I'm not blowing smoke when I say defining work: it is as much as I have personally been able to figure out. I mean, Cody, can you read in another language? If you read Spanish, for instance, some of the passages will read differently (slightly so) on BibleGateway if you select that language and in the drop down box pick either Latin American or the European ones. So the Word cannot possibly be the words themselves, or how they are phrased in a particular language. I can read enough French to be able to see it's different in parts from either the English or the Spanish. And of course these aren't even remotely close to the original languages. Of course you know this. But the words themselves can't possibly be the Word, or you'd have had to say the words in Aramaic, or Hebrew if that is different from Aramaic, or Arabic or whatever other languages were initially used.
I have read parts in multiple languages, in part because people have told me over the years about what was really meant by translation of certain words, like love for instance. Now I was a translator for the Federal government - Immigration, to be precise, in the late 1980s. So I do know a bit about this. All I can say is our standards of measure must be much higher than theirs, and our margins for error a lot narrower. if a modern translator for the Federal government made these types of errors-they would be in serious trouble on several counts .
Considering the lack of proper translation specifications, it's actually quite amazing how intact the Bible has remained. I often look at it like piecing together a less-than-professionally-done translation.
Say, a set of financial books that reads 'transaction' where it means either 'income' or 'expenditure. You'd have to do your best to figure it by context, and make a note of the problem areas. This is where we Christians are, I think, and I'm willing to bet we mess it up pretty good some of the time.
But I think the infallibility of the words doesn't make any sense unless you can't read in multiple languages, and think this was the language it was written in. But the cradle of civilization was the Middle East where monotheism came from, and the languages there are Arab-based mainly, so again, you can't really get there from here.
You'd have to look at the entire paragraph, and probably in multiple languages, to really get it. Obviously it can't be talking about the physical world, as you've got just the issue of competing interests, long before you ever get to probability.
I completely understand the idea that there is some possibility of mistranslation. However, it begs the question of why the bible in greek, hebrew and arimaic is devinely inspired, but then God the almighty just sat back and let it get messed up when it was made into German and French and spanish and italian and swedish and english and all the other languages. Why didn't he just inspire the translators, or have a language that only the bible was written in tat everyone automatically understands? I mean, he's all powerful, he even made the languages, he did that in the tower of babble story. Why didn't he make his word readable by all?
and of course there are differences, of course no two teams can win, that's exactly my point. If the passage says ask and ye shall receive, how can they both receive?
This is I think one of those eternal questions which doesn't really have a happy answer. Lightning, Have you ever seen the movie Bruce Almighty? In it, a normal, every-day man inherits the powers and responsabilities of God. To make things easier on himself, he simply says "yes" to every and all prayers. That creates this very conflict Leo spoke of. This is only a movie, but I can't help wondering what would happen if he did that in reality. That conflict of interest would inevitably pose a problem.
The translation in the Bible is absolutely one of the biggest issues. And it's one of the reasons I believe so strongly in the LDS church. Modern day revelation from our prophets clear up many things, and so do our additional scriptures. That said, even in our aditional scriptures, the "ask and ye shall recieve" promise is prominent. And this promise is true. I can think of countless experiences in my own life where I've asked for something, only to clearly recieve it. But usually there is some work on my part to be done. The saying "God helps those who help themselves" is not entirely accurate; however, we are to take an active role in our own lives. If we're extremely sick for instance, we should absolutely pray to be healed, but we should also do what we can to make it happen. Do you remember the old joke where a man is caught in a flood. He's standing on his roof and he prays to God to save him. A man in a raft shows up to help, but the man says "thank you, but I'm okay. God will save me. This happens two more times; a boat and a helicopter come I believe. Each time the man says the same thing. Eventually he dies. When he stands before God and asks "why didn't you save me?" God replies "I sent you a raft, a boat and a helicopter. What more did you want?"
What does all this mean? I take it to mean sometimes we don't recognize God's answers when they are given. We expect big and mighty miracles, or for inspiration to come into our minds without any effort on our part. Sometimes that even happens. But often the answers come, not as a voice of thunder, but a whisper. If we're not in tune with the Holy Ghost; if we're perhaps doing something we shouldn't, or thinking ill thoughts, or enslaved at the time by our own emotions, we may miss the impressions. God always answers prayers. But sometimes his answers will be "no". He has a plan for all of us. It's up to us whether we wish to go along with his plan, or turn away. But without a doubt, everything happens for a reason. I know this to be true, even if that reason takes a long time to become clear. The reason most of us scoff at these ideas is because we lack the eternal perspective. Our own lives, here and now are what matter to us. For you who are atheists, I imagine that's even more true. If there is nothing after life's end, all you have is the here and the now. But we believe life on earth is merely a moment in the eternity of our existence. It's a probationary period; a training ground if you will where we learn, experience and begin our progression. Sometimes the effects of our actions won't be known until we've left this mortal coil, and that's very difficult to remember during hard times.
Sometimes it's not easy. So often we see things happening either to ourselves or others and curse God for being cruel, or merely doubt his existence. Why WOULD he allow a child to die? Why would he not save a little girl with cancer who was nothing but a blessing to the world? Why would he allow a woman to be raped. Why would he allow war, fammon, and disease? Yet so many tragedies bring people together, they make us stronger, and they help us remember one another, and God. They also make evil people who commit such atrocities extremely accountable for their actions. From a human perspective it definately seems extremely cruel. But I have felt the hand of the Lord at work, even when I struggle against it.
Two days ago my wife, who was three months pregnant, miscarried. We'd just finished telling our families. We were so scared how they'd react, but they were overjoyed. Right before it happened, my wife was in severe agony; she couldn't stop bleeding, and she was so scared. This next part might be wierd to some of you. I called a friend of mine and the two of us gave my wife a blessing. We believe anyone who has the athority of the Priesthood, which they must live worthily to have and must use in righteousness can bestow blessings on people, in which they can give enspired council. It sounds strange probably, but hear me out. In that blessing it was said that no matter what happens, she is loved, and that everything happens for a reason. Literally the instant the blessing was over, the baby came in a gush of blood. We saw it; it was there in her hand. For the next eighteen hours we were at the hospital while she continued to bleed. She suffered pretty much most of the symptoms of pregnancy. She passed out three times and had to be hooked to an IV. I sat beside her all night, feeling completely helpless. During that time I couldn't help asking myself why the hell this was happening. Why would God do this? Not long before in another blessing it said this child would be a blessing to not only our family, but to the world; whatever that meant. How could that happen now?
It's been a couple of days, and we've both had time to think. In that time we've grown so much closer. We've seen old emotions long buried rise to the surface between her mother and father (who have been divorced for many years), we've discovered how loving and supportive our families and friends can be, though we underestimated them before. But what about that earlier blessing? How can it be true? We don't know at what point a soul and Body become one; nobody knows yet. But there is one thing we do know. One of the greatest gifts we are given is a physical body. It's essential to our progression. But for some spirits, that's all they need. They don't need to live out a full life on earth. They're so good that all they need is a simple connection to a body. I'm not at all explaining this right I think. But if you look at a severely mentally disabled person, you can see a profound goodness; an inner light and beauty few of us achieve. People pitty the mentally handicapped, but I am in awe of them.
Personally for my wife and I, we think our little one's spirit hasn't come yet. It's waiting for the right time. See, we were in the process of moving across the country. I'm out of work, and we aren't as financially stable as we would like to be. It's very possible she's right. I don't understand more than a fraction of what she's dealing with. But a mother - a woman is special. There's a very good reason they're called the farer sex. If this is what she feels, I believe her without question. And that's what faith ultimately comes down to. Belief in something without physical proof. I don't like it. Like you and others Lightning, I'd love to see God's hand fully at work. I'd love to see unquestionable proof that God exists. But if I did, I know i'd be even more accountable for my bad decisions than I already am. If faith is replaced by cold hard fact, how much greater would be our responsibility. It's so easy to look at the state of the world and the history of some religions and come to the conclusion God is fiction. But even fifty years ago, many things were hidden from us. Even earlier than that, everyone thought the world was flat and the center of the universe. People even died for the latter belief. Now we know better. and as a species we are continuously growing, learning, finding answers. Yet even in science, there is so much we don't understand. So it is with God. Religions change, sometimes at the hand of man, sometimes through the inspiration of God. But God himself is a constant presence; our father in every way. Like any good father, sometimes he gently diciplins us, other times he lets us figure things out ourselves.
@Blind Guardian, I admit most of what you said kind of sails past me, but I believe you are right that we can in fact miss the opportunities that get presented, and that usually comes from ourselves and what we're up to.
I think whether atheists profess it or not, they have a perspective that far exceeds this life, just like the rest of us. They're environmental scientists, engineers, and all sorts of professions whose work results in an improved world for our kids.
That in and of itself is greater than just a one-lifetime perspective: it's leaving a legacy for future generations. Frankly, I share a lot of their concerns. I just think it's a bit of an unfair judgment to say their perspective is only the duration of their lifetime. I've had the privilege of knowing and working with people who have made contributions that will improve things for my daughter's generation when she's an adult. This is kinda close to home, since she's graduating high school in a year.
You're right, Leo. I suppose I never thought of it that way. My appologies to you atheists for this. What I was getting at was that many people (atheist and otherwise) lack an eternal perspective for themselves. I should have made that a little clearer. I'm sorry. Of course they've made incredible contributions to the world that have far-reaching benifits. And there are absolutely "good" Atheists, just as there are "very evil" Christians, or Muslims, or Jews etc.
blind guardian: it couldn't have been that your wife's body was, in every sense, ready to have this baby, could it? oh no, not at all; it was god's choice. this oh so loving being chose to take away something that two people created cause he loves them so much and felt he should make them feel sadness instead of happiness. that's no god I'd even think about devoting my life to. far from it, in fact.
I know you'll attempt to explain my views away, but I'll continue sharing them anyway.
So wait, God chose to get your wife pregnant, have her go through at least a few weeks of pregnancy, probably a good bit of misery, then had her bleed and be in agony for a while, and finally have her baby in her hand after it had left her body; all so he could show you that you're not ready to hve a baby. Instead of, say, not getting her pregnant in the first place, cuz he's god, he can do that. And that makes sense to you, and is considered merciful and good and loving? Sorry, but that's just fucked up.
It's a good question. Why wouldn't she have just not gotten pregnant. Surely that would have spared us a lot of grief. I can't deny I'd prefer that right now. Nobody's happy about this. In fact we're down-right miserable. It's a very traumatic thing to go through. I'm not going to bother explaining this away to you lightning, because nothing I say is going to make even a shred of difference. I hate it. But I can't deny the long-term results I can already see in this, and even through her sadness and pain, neither can she. I've made my point; you rejected it twice. So be it.
Sorry, forget the twice rejection comment (though you will). I thought the last two posts were from the same person.
so, now, rather than admit this couldn't possibly be the act of a loving god, you choose to completely back away from mine and Cody's stance. wow; it really does take all kinds.
Guys, we as Christians don't live in a fantasy land just because there is a perfect God who does his perfect will. That's not the way it works. God allows things to happen for various reasons that most of us wouldn't really be able to understand, basically until after this life. But the Bible says that ALL things work together for good to those who love God and who are called according to his purpose. So that miscarriage that Blind Guardian talked about happened for a reason. I'm not exactly sure about a specific reason as to why it happened, only God knows that. A lot of times, God allows for crazy things to happen to strengthen our faith in Him. Sure, he is a loving God, and he does comfort people, but it's not all about getting a big bowl of cherries and a box of Hershey Bars. He will allow things to happen to test your faith, and that's reality.
Then god is an asshole, and an egomaniac, and he doesn't deserve praise and worship.
again, I wouldn't ever consider bowing down to an asshole who allows tragic things to happen cause that's his idea of "testing people" for their betterment.
Yes Happy Heart. I'm backing down from your stance. I have little reason to debate further. If everything I've said so far simply meets with snide comments, then nothing else I can say will. To be frank, Illumination hit it right on the head. And nobody is asking you to bow down to anyone. I'm not one of those "you need to accept Jesus or go to hell people". Not only do I not believe it works that way, I also don't feel it's my place to force my beliefs (or lack of belief) down people's throats. I'd like to think my lack of bitterness in the examples I've given on these topics should stand for something. But I guess to some of you I just look like a bible thumping fool. You haven't said as much, but a few of your responses have given that impression. That's okay. I do find it interesting that so many of you frequent these topics. Yeah I know it's a discussion board, but I'm starting to sense a pattern here.
a pattern which, as has been stated time and time again, you clearly can't stand. that's okay. I'm not one of those people who wants to convert others; I'm simply unafraid to articulate my beliefs whenever and wherever I see fit regardless of how others perceive me.
BG, you may not be a bible thumping christian, but you are a kind that is just as grating on the nerves of anyone you disagree with. And, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that you don't even realize it.
I will completely agree with you that you do not pound the bible and rage and scream about how we're all bound for hell if we don't repent and so forth. You don't do that. What you do do though is take an "oh aren't I good", stance. You present your church as if all the other christians are the morons, and you just squat down and shit gold bricks whenever you feel the urge. You have one of the worst holier-than-thou mentalities of them all. You're not forceful with it, your just stuck up about it. And like I said, I doubt you even notice it, most people don't.
As for the subject at hand. I have to ask this. How is it that you guys can say, "that's just something we won't be able to understand" so often, and still have confidence in what you believe? I mean, if I don't understand something, i don't have confidence in it. If I'm walking a stone bridge, and I don't know and comprehend completely that those stones are going to keep me from plummeting to my death, I don't go out on the bridge. How is it you can go, "well I don't really get this, but what the hell, it feels good, lets run with it". How do you do that?
If that's how you perceive me, lightning, I wonder how you perceive yourself, and a couple of the other atheists on this board.
I do not believe all other Christians are morons. I haven't had any Christians tell me I've come off that way, but if I actually have, I'm deeply sorry to them, because that was never my intention. I do not wish to come off as a "holier than thou" Christian, because you're right, they really are grating on the nerves. What is also somewhat frustrating are people who ask questions not because they're sincerely interested in the answers, but to try and find ways to use those answers to prove their own points. Where you consider me holier than thou, I must admit I feel you and a few of your fellow atheists are quite condescending. It's one thing to disagree with people's beliefs, but it's something else entirely to demean them. You guys think it's all well and good to spread your anti-religious sentiments anywhere you choose, regardless of how you're perceived. Indeed, you have the rite to do so. But if we who are religious do the very same thing you aren't at all pleased.
Lightning, I highly doubt at this point you're actually interested in any answer I may give to your question. But I'm willing to give you the benifit of the doubt, too. The reason I can be okay with not understanding every little facet of my religion, and yet still believe it is this. Everything I "DO" understand makes sense to me. Yes. it's that simple for me. There's a lot I don't understand in my church. There was even more I didn't understand three years ago. But what I do understand speaks to me. Furthermore, it fits with the way I always invisioned Christianity. The concepts of the preexistence, and the hereafter always made a lot more sense to me than the simple peaceful heaven and fire and brimstone hell ideas. But as I've said countless times, I do not follow blindly. I ask questions; I find answers. And while I don't always remember every little thing I learn (and kudos to you if you can do that after only hearing something once or twice), the answers are always more than satisfactory when I learn of them. I'll admit there are convincing-sounding arguments which are very contrary to my religion and its foundation. But they are like grains of sand compared to the lake of information which fits with what I believe. If I can believe so strongly in the things I do understand, it stands to reason that the things I don't yet understand which all come from those same sources must also, if not be completely true, then have at least some truth in them. Furthermore, each of our church leaders, including the prophet who yes, I do believe is a man who communicates with God on at least some level, though I don't know how, speak to our church often. And nothing they've ever come out with is contrary to the way I perceive the church. I might not like everything they ask us to do; I'm not perfect. But I can never disagree with anything they say, because I whole-heartedly see the benifit of following them. You'd be very hard-pressed to find actual fault with something Gordon B. Hinkley or Thomas S. Monson (most recent and our current prophet respectively) say. Only good can come from "sincerely" following the words of the scriptures, and the words of the prophets. Where religion runs into problems is when certain people deviate from abiding by its precepts. But that's their decision; we're all free to choose.
Twist away.
BG, I can inform you how Cody perceives us atheists, since you clearly can't do so yourself. he finds it refreshing that there are people who share his beliefs and aren't afraid to back him up/add to points he makes.
I can also tell you the more ludacrous, "I'm such a good religious person and the rest of you are below me" responses you and your fellow theists come up with, the stronger we become in our self-belief and assurance that focusing on hear and now is all that matters.
for the record, I could never imagine accepting something I don't have total confidence in.
But I do have complete confidence in my beliefs, happy heart. That's my point. And I have never once said I'm such a good Christian. I have a lot of things in my life I need to work on before I can ever say that. But thank you for your response; it was exactly what I needed to hear.
Wow, I was right, you weren't able to say that you could possibly be wrong. I can, watch: "I could possibly be wrong, there is some possibility that there is this God you believe in, and I am completely wrong in not believing in him." see, I said it, didn't even qualify it, I just said it. You can't even do that.
I tell you what, just for you I will go and try to find some of these writings or teachings or sayings or whatever from your profits, and we'll see if I actually can't find fault with them. I'll do it academically, i won't just say, "well they spelled this wrong, the idiots", I will actually see if I can find fault with them. If I can't, I will admit that.
As for me not being pleased when you share your religion, nothing pleases me more. I love it when people share their religions, that's what opinions are for, and what is a religion but an opinion? Its just when you start to act like your religion is the only one that matters, and you get pissy when someone questions your religion. I don't get pissy when someone questions mine, I may present evidence to the contrary in a way you aren't comfortable with, but I don't get pissy and throw a fit.
Did I miss anything?
Cody; you hit the nail on the head. thank you for so elequently articulating what I'll say till the end.
BG, it isn't that we're perturbed at a particular religion; quite the contrary, actually. like Cody, I love hearing people's opinions, being made to think outside the box, and sharing mine. also like Cody, I'll inform you that what you're mistaking as atheist pissyness, is simply us sharing our views in ways religious folks aren't comfortable with.
unlike many religious among us, we don't need to go to a sight devoted to atheism to articulate our beliefs. I think that's another thing Cody was getting at (correct me if I'm wrong). the fact you've said, "I can't explain myself very well, but my church's website can" is a clear picture that not only are you lacking confidence in your beliefs, but you obviously don't understand them as you so adamantly claim you do.
Religion is like a penis. It's okay to have one, its fine to be proud, but don't unzip your pants and show everybody, don't shove it down my kids throats,and do NOT shake it around in school!
BG, the following quote further elaborates on mine (and I'm sure other atheist's feelings) of why we keep speaking about our beliefs. "religion thrives on fear, and the powerful take advantage. they always do their best to silence anyone who questions".
with that quote in mind, maybe you oughta do some questioning yourself as to why you and other religious in the world make such false assumptions about what atheists represent. based on what I've seen from various topics, it's cause you don't wanna admit you could be wrong. that's one reason, anyway.
I can't say there isn't more truth to that quote than I'd like to admit, Happy Heart. It's why I try so hard to show people that religion isn't the fear-mongering monster some people portray it to be. It's not meant to be a way to control people. It's not meant to make us feel guilty or put us down. And it's definatley not meant to be abused and misused in order to gain people power over others. If I hadn't experienced many of the blessings and felt something greater than myself at work in my life, I'd find it a lot easier to agree with much of the reasons you all say we religious types are wrong. I would be able to do as you said, Lightning, and admit that I could very possibly be wrong. I did to a degree admit that, though not as boldly as you'd like. I just said that if I am wrong, it wouldn't matter in the long run. But I can't admit there's a chance we're all on our own in this world when I, personally have seen, heard and felt so much to the contrary. There's definately a chance Christianity as we all understand it isn't the whole of that greater power. But I can't honestly look at this world and think this life is all we ever have, and that once we die, we simply cease to exist. To me, that sort of existence is not only dreary, but also rather pointless. We go through our entire lives accumulating knowledge and experiences, overcoming trials and difficulties; developing as creatures of mind and body, only to have it all disappear with our last breath. To me, that sounds really sad.
With every reason you tell me I'm wrong; with the reasons you defend your unbelief, and the arguments you make against both me, and my beliefs, I slowly start to understand why you all may believe the way you do. How could you possibly believe when all you see is the evil wrot by practitioners of religion; when all God appears to be is uncaring and unkind; when so many people follow blindly the words of books which seem to have so many holes and contradictions; when their precepts condemn many of the things this world embraces with open arms? I have apparently failed in my attempt to even remotely change your perspectives. I will not waste your time any further in this cycle of debate. Doubtless you'll twist even these final words; be my guest. But I can not, I will not stop talking about and defending my faith. Because if I'm right about all this, I don't want it ever to be said of me that I didn't at least try to clean up the misconceptions and disputations infesting the idea of God.
And Impricator; that was actualy pretty funny. I'll put away my penis when other people stop trying to prove theirs is bigger by telling me mine is smaller.
So why can't it be like, you're gonna die, so live the one life you have now. If we're gonna blink out of existence, so what? We won't experience the dreariness as you call it, because we um, won't exist.
You're right. There's no point in worrying about it; you'll be dead and gone. And hey, if by the most minute chance you're wrong, you can just be all like "oops! Sorry. I didn't know." And deal with whatever happens. And guess what? You're a free spirit. You're allowed to do that. Nobody's going to stop you from living your life the way you want.
Sarcasm aside, you really are right about making the most of the life you have. But if you're expecting us religious folk to be respectful of your beliefs, you really aught to extend us the same courtasy.
BG, I almost pity you for feeling sad at the knowledge we cease to exist after this life. I've never understood why or even how people see it as a scary thing. it's far from it.
I embrace only having this life, for the simple fact I treasure everything I've gone through and those who I know truly care. why would I even want or long for more when every bit of life is meaningful now?
for the thousandth time, I'm not an atheist cause of the bad things I've seen. I'm sorry you continue thinking that, BG, after the countless times it has been explained to you.
But BG, that's just it. I'm not saying you can't have your religion, have it, enjoy it, live it, love it, cover it and frosting and name it Fred, I don't care what you do with it, just A. don't put it in public or attach it to a government entity, and B. don't expect me to respect it when you bring it in public. That is why I never whine about people who put down atheism, because I put it in public, so I prepare for whatever may come. The religious, especially christians, need to start doing that too. And don't say you do, cuz you don't.
So if we gain so much knowledge during life, and learn about so many things, how can we just die and cease to exist? I just don't feel that that doesn't really fit in the puzzle here. I've heard of people who have had out-of-body experiences because of a heart attack or something like that, and they all told me that they were taken out of our universe, and also that they did see a Creator, as well as Heaven and their loved ones. But the point that I'm trying to get at is that, if we gain all this knowledge during this life, I just don't see how, when you're flip the switch, and your body dies, you simply cease to exist. That just makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Technically you don't cease to exist, as you can't uncreate matter, that's impossible. Your body becomes something else, a plant most likely, due to our practice of burying our dead in most cultures. However, it could be carbon if you are cremated, or any number of things. Then those atoms which used to be you get taken in by something else and continue to transfer from thing to thing throughout the centuries until the end of time. However, what does that matter, its just a body.
Now, lets look at the mind for a second. What do we do with our minds, well we think with it of course. If you're a writer, you make sentences with it, if you're a poet you make poems with it, painters make paintings with it, sculptures make sculptures with it, and composers make beautiful music with it. All of that is done with our minds, and all of it is permanent. Emily Dickinson, one of my very favorite poets, is dead, we can all agree on that. However her poem still touches something inside me which can spark more emotions than I know how to put words to. William shakespeare wrote plays which are still moving audiences to tears or to laughter or to happiness. Beethoven is still moving people with his music. Plato is still making people think, thousands of years after his death. Hundreds upon millions of people have been born, left some mark on the world, then died, but the mark remains. The paintings, the poems and the symphonies still live on after our bodies do.
Now, an Atheist such as me says that this is the point of existance, that as long as you have left your mark on the lives of others, you will live on until that mark fades. Whether it is by your great grandchildren telling stories of you to your great grandchildren, or by a lonely girl reading your poetry three hundred years from now and being gladened by it; whatever it is, you live on through it. A religious person dismisses this life as something to be given to God, as unimportant when looked at against the eternal life hereafter. They pray for the day when they will be taken out of the world they are given, and sent to live with their father in heaven or with allah or whomever.
A religious person sees life as a path, a struggle to follow the right steps so that one may finally reach the destination. A hard road that they must struggle on to prove themselves worthy, and upon which they spend time hoping that the destination will arrive soon. An atheist thinks we are at the destination. This is it, we are here, we have reached the place where our lives can be used, can be put to good to effect the lives of others and to make the world we have now a better place. We only have this, and afterwards we make room for someone else to come and leave their mark. We must fit as much greatness into these few short years that we have. Then we must step aside, and pass the paintbrush onto someone else, for them to make a few brief brushstrokes on the canvas. And we will be remembered by those who build and thrive upon our own brushstrokes.
Why do you think that this is a sad way to live, or a tragic outlook? This gives me hope, more hope than you can possibly imagine.
No, I think your outlook in that respect is wonderful, Lightning. I whole-heartedly agree with living this life to the best of your ability. Make something of your life. Make it count. Make the world a better place; make someone's life have meaning. Make your mark for that matter. That's all wonderful (unless it leads to us doing something really stupid, like starting a war.:)) But I think for the most part, the Christian way isn't quite how you've described it. It's true that we look ahead to the time where we return to dwell with God. But that doesn't mean we're so eager to duck out of this life that we neglect it. I know that philosophy was popular in the feudal era, but it lost a lot of steam once people started "living". Giving our lives to God doesn't mean we're going to stop living. It just means we live in harmony with his teachings, and do our best to be his instruments. Sure some people have a really messed up idea on what it means to give their lives to God. A terrorist exploding themselves on a school bus is on a whole other level to someone devoting their lives to healing or teaching.
I myself am in no hurry to leave this life. I'm extremely interested in experiencing what comes next. But I like my life on earth very much. I'm sure there are people who pray for god to take them away from the woes of the world. I myself am not one of those. But if we spend so much time learning, growing and experiencing, then suddenly it all ends, well then that's not really great for us in my opinion. Our memories live on in the hearts of others, and in the things we leave behind. But what of us? What of who we are? What of our personalities? If there were truly to be nothing at all after this, no thought, no feeling, no existence, we'd have nothing at all to look forward to. I do indeed find that idea rather bleak. That doesn't mean life is bleak. I suppose it doesn't even mean absence of existence afterwards is bleak. But darned if I don't want to keep going after this is all over. There's no reason you can't believe in an afterlife and still make the best of the life on earth you have. It doesn't have to be one or the other; it can be both.
I wholeheartedly disagree, BG; you can't have your cake and eat it too. either you'll fully enjoy this life for the beauty it is, or you'll continue pondering another since you clearly don't look forward to what will be offered to you in this one.
as for your question of what becomes of our personality and everything we stand for, let me explain this elementary concept to ya. when we die, loved ones will likely want our legacy to live on. therefore, we aren't gone or forgotten. we're no longer alive, but as Cody said, that simply means it's someone else's time to carry the torch in addition to adding their personality to what you represent. that, to me, is the happiest thing in the world.
Well said.
You're free to disagree, but yes, you can indeed "have your cake and eat it too". My interested in the life to come does indeed enter my mind, but it doesn't take away from my enjoyment of this life. All it does is grant me the knowledge that I needn't fear death, and that my existence will transcend mortality. I still love this life on earth though, and I'm planning to make the most of it.
In what way are you going to make the most of it BG? Are you going to live it to its absolute fullest? Are you going to jump off cliffs for the simple joy of flying, sleep with a beautiful woman for the sheer pleasure of her, have a beer with friends for the mere happiness of being with them? Or are you going to be a good person because it will get you into heaven, are you going to give to the needy because it will make God happy, love thy neighbor because it is what the bible tells you to do? In short, which life are you living for, this one, or the one after? Its clear which one you're living, but which one are you living for?
Cody, I believe I have found the answer to your original question, not only for you if you care for it but for myself.
Like you, much of this sounds incomprehensible to me, but I found something today that may be a full explanation.
I got this from BibleGateway and in the drop down box selected the New Living Translation. I admittedly cannot attest to the credibility of the translating organization, a publishing company called 'Tyndale House Publishers'.
But the paragraph comes from Luke chapter 11 and the verse numbers are about 5 to 13 I believe. I stripped out the numbering system which was added sometime in the middle ages, from what I have red.
But anyway here it is, the caveat is at the end:
Then, teaching them more about prayer, he
used this story: “Suppose you went to a friend’s
house at midnight, wanting to borrow three
loaves of bread. You say to him, ‘A friend
of mine has just arrived for a visit, and
I have nothing for him to eat.’ And suppose
he calls out from his bedroom, ‘Don’t bother
me. The door is locked for the night, and
my family and I are all in bed. I can’t help
you.’ But I tell you this—though he won’t
do it for friendship’s sake, if you keep
knocking long enough, he will get up and
give you whatever you need because of your
shameless persistence.
“And so I tell you, keep on asking, and
you will receive what you ask for. Keep on
seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking,
and the door will be opened to you. For
everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who
seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks,
the door will be opened.
“You fathers—if your children ask for a fish, do you give them a snake instead?
Or if they ask for an egg, do you give
them a scorpion? Of course not! So if
you sinful people know how to give good gifts
to your children, how much more will your
heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those
who ask him.”
So if you read it all the way to the end, the requested, and granted, item is the Holy Spirit. No more, no less.
Of course you and I know it can't possibly be physical: we know people who lose everything, work for companies for 30 years, get laid off, the wife leaves 'em and takes the house and the bank account, people who turn up their toes and just die mid-lawn-mowing, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist or what not.
So the requested item and the implied need for persistence is the Holy Spirit.
Again, as I've said in other places, faith could not put Buzz Aldridge into space. He could only celebrate Communion up there and reflect in a way none of us have (from above our planetary biosphere), because of a dedicated team of engineers who based everything not on belief but sound principles of thermodynamics, gravitation, and a ton of other fields.
Had you not pushed us a little, by asking this question, I'd probably have forever remained on the outside on that one: thinking it was just one of those things that isn't adding up, a mistranslation someplace, or what have you.
AAdmittedly, it seems odd to have left the subject - the holy Spirit - to the end of the paragraphs, but again who knows in the original?
Hopefully Google's Translation AI will resolve a lot of things for us in the next five to ten years.
I'll not hog this thread. But in answer to declaring we could possibly be wrong.
I will declare it as a possibility. But that is totally meaningless to you or me. I have admitted being profoundly wrong in my own line of work, which led to a refactor of an implementation. But for me to do that, I need to see a path of divergence in principle, if the premise is to be wrong.
If you want a willingness to admit we could be wrong in the implementation of the principles, that one happens rather often, I must admit. Means nothing unless applied personally though, to and about myself.
To my understanding, Christians have already admitted being profoundly wrong on quite a number of counts in order to convert. I'm not talking a comedic-looking first-year-Thesbian-like podium pounder repeating themselves over and over. I mean personally, I mean personally between oneself and God.
So yeah, I'll say it right off: it is entirely possible we miss some major element completely. After all, even the most devoted - the Jewish population when Jesus was alive, were profoundly wrong on a vast number of counts. If the texts are to be believed, they missed most of it. So I don't see why we might not.
Church history is full of us having been wrong on a wide variety of counts, a very few of which you have pointed out.
Some in every generation have been wrong about them living in the so-called worst of times, or how the apocalypse would ultimately happen. Even in the Text itself, it reads like they thought they were all gonna bite it around 100 A.D. or so.
But we can do the very best we can in this life, which may or may not have consequences in the rewards system of the next.
I can enjoy life, have a beer or several with friends, do my level best as a volunteer Coast Guardsman and as an employee on the day job, and hopefully what I accomplish has the types of eternal consequences you spoke of: future discoveries, enhanced technologies, lives saved, a daughter with a better chance at some things in life than I had.
I'm not gonna say people don't do this without God: I'm surrounded by people who have, and I once did. If anything, you're working the equation backwards. I think we probably spend more of life finding out how God factors in, rather than attempting to claim that when you factor Him out you're flopping helpless like a jelly-fish at low tide.
Doing it with God only has the potential to add more meaning than there was before. That doesn't mean that before there was no meaning - it adds more.
If interested, you may want to take a look at Francis Collins' book on Bookshare. The title is a bit misleading, in that it looks like some lawyerly apologetics type work. He's a real scientist, you can Google his contributions to the Human Genome project among other things. He's a real scientist, and so doesn't try to prove the existence of God, a scientific fallacy among apologetics writers.
It is possible to have faith in an Omnipotent God, and accept his Son Jesus as the true way to life in the hereafter, and still build, discover, make new innovations, improve life for countless people around you, leave your mark for countless generations in the form of real things people can use. That is my personal aim.
And, a Christian doesn't say they believe Christ to be the True Way, without full well knowing some will find that totally ridiculous and others will find it outright offensive. I was in the former camp at one point.
And, I have yet to find a place that says we have to accept it all without question. I question a lot of things, and take it as a boon when people like you and others push us. But to question implies a willingness to do the research and try to find out. I'll admit my research in this area is often less than adequate.
I can do all those things if I choose to do so, Lightning. It's true I may choose to do certain things with the long view in mind. But that does not encroach on my enjoyment of this life. Knowledge of what is to come does influence my decisions sometimes, but I have yet to have anything bad or even miserable happen to me by living my life with an eternal perspective. My whole reason for obtaining a body is to gain knowledge, wisdom and experience. Sure I could be doing more to live my life more fully, but I can promise you that has nothing to do with my belief in eternity; I'm just not as motivated as some great men throughout history.
Leo, I've compared the translations, and while mine differed slightly in its wording, the concept remains the same. This passage is quite right, though blessings are granted in other ways also when we ask, or when we keep his commandments. You can and will scoff at this notion Lightning; why follow the rules of some being who can't possibly exist? I can't give you a satisfactory answer. But I can testify that for me personally, when I do follow the commandments of the Lord, I am often blessed in ways I do not expect. Sure you could argue many of those instances are coincidence, but to me, there comes a time when coincidence becomes just a convenient excuse. There is a corrilation between following the will of God, and being blessed for it. Sure I still have bad things happen to me when I follow the commandments , and yes I've had good things happen when I don't. But I find it amazing how conveniently things fall into place when I do.
I can't prove to you that God exists. I can't make you understand he truly does love and care for each one of us. Were it that we could all see signs, wonders, angels and miracles, there'd be no need for faith. And we'd be even more accountable when we transgress and do stupid things (and believe me, we would do them, because that's what humans do). The bible and other scriptures are full of stories of people seeing actual proof that God exists and then discounting or working against it. Proof does not necessarily equal belief. heck, we have tons of proof about the moon landing, and the hollocost, yet there are some who argue they never happened. You can not prove the existence of God by mere logic and intelect alone. If only it were that simple. You can study, research and make connections. But I doubt we're ever going to be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is real; though some scientists believe they're finding evidence to prove that the universe was in fact created. Our logic and our intellect, our wisdom and curiosity ... they are all great things to learn more about the scriptures, and to understand God. But we must also allow our hearts to be softened; to feel the Holy ghost in our lives. And that is a barrier which is hard to overcome when one relies solely on themselves. All more religious clap-trap? Perhaps. I'd certainly have thought so had you asked me six years ago. But I have senced a greater hand at work; I have seen and heard things I can not explain. And I have occasionally felt the presence of the Holy Ghost in my life. Because of my experiences, I can not discount God; I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he, his son, and the Holy Gost are real. Sure there may be a chance the Christianity doesn't have it all figured out and is somewhat misguided. But that doesn't mean every religion everywhere throughout history doesn't have aspects of truth to it.
You Atheists who are skimming this will discount all I say, and likely consider me just another religious fool. That's fine. It's okay to disagree. But I ask only one thing. If you can't accept the Christian God because of everything you've learned about him, don't discount the possibility, no matter how remote that there is something more wondrous and eternal in this universe of ours. We Christians are not the only outlook on a higher power. There is so much about this universe we humans do not understand. There is so much about the workings of our own bodies we don't understand. Just because we don't yet know about some things, doesn't mean they don't yet exist. Microbiology existed well before man discovered it. Whether we discovered it on our own, or whether we were given a gentle nudge in the right direction by something greater than ourselves doesn't matter.
Very well-said, Leo. Kudos.
I obtained a body because my parents decided to have a little fun with their clothes off. That's all. Heh.
BlindGuardian, in Post 158 you said they'll probably think you a religious fool.
Indeed, we are fools to them. They've made it plain. The Scriptures themselves make it plain. I don't wear that as a charity card or a brownie button, and I'm not boo-hooing over it, it's just the way it is.
In fact, Cody is far more fair to the rest of us than I was to several people I knew before my conversion. They were not getting in my face, they were not causing a problem. I'm not talking the circus acts of podium pounders, just ordinary Christian people who, word got out, were Christians. Not something I'm proud of, but Christianity does demand we take a transparent view of ourselves.
Of course we're fools: we claim Christ is the only way, we claim to be living with an eternal perspective, something it sounds like you do a lot more than I: still working my way to that one. Of course we're fools, we know it, and we've no call to be offended or put off. Jesus told us to count the cost of following, something that I have more done after the fact than I did before, but still. It's outlined in there, plus some of us, at least, were really rather juvenile and hostile beforehand, so have a little experience in that area. Again, this isn't a charity card or a brownie button, just par for the course.
Cody hasn't taken away our houses, land, kids, bank accounts, or personal freedom. The so-called attacks on personal freedoms that many fundamentalists claim are not attacks at all, they are remonstrations to behave oneself like a civilized human being in public. Remonstrations I could have used a little more of in my early to mid 20s, perhaps. Ironically, the Christians I personally knew in the situation I speak of did not engage the way so many do now, did not become overly offended though it had to hurt to be referred to openly as incompetent embiciles and other things so-called smart engineering people with little practical sense may say to some others.
Although I have been sorry for the way I was, I profoundly respect their responses.
On a similar note, take religion out of the equation.
I recently posted on my Facebook about getting my marine safety qualification in the Coast Guard. Lots of people are offended by the idea of environmental controls, and men (and women) in boots enforcing regulations like don't throw your pooh overboard, and oil tankers have got to be certified. So when someone posted in response an I'm-offended-you-government-people-are-the-problem type response, I wasn't at all surprised. It came among a myriad other responses, including a Bravo Zulu from my District Captain. People will continue to be offended at us saying wear your life jackets, no bow-ridin', and no drinking and driving on the water. May sound hypocritical to some, but some of us did all those things in our youth, and also used to be offended, or more like just plain p'ed off, at people trying to enforce any of that on us.
Again, not a charity card, not a brownie button, just par for the course. Just an opportunity to grow a pair.
Again Leo, very well-said. I honestly think one of the reasons some people seem hypocritical between what they tell others to do, and what they've done themselves in their youth is because they have done those things. They've seen the results of them and they want their fellow man to avoid the reprocussions of the mistakes they themselves have made. For instance, I'm a huge believer of avoiding sex before being in an extremely committed relationship because I've done the exact opposite before. I've seen the effect it can have on me, and the effects it can have on others. That's just one example, and I won't dwell on it.
It's true we as practitioners of religion are often considered foolish. I suppose to an outsider it's understandable. A couple of the Atheists here have some very compelling reasons to disagree with our beliefs and have asked some of the very questions that kept me from believing in one specific faith for years. But it's when we fail to understand one another and call each other fool that things become tense, and tempers flare. At that point, no ammount of convincing, or testifying can change a person's mind. Heck, the Bible even speaks on this matter. We're so quick to judge one another's beliefs, to make light of them and to discount them. And often we get offended, not only when offense is not meant, but also when it can do the most personal harm. Yet many of us do not first stop to judge ourselves before condeming others. "Do not move to pluck the mote from thy brother's eye until thou hast first removed the beam from thine own."
One problem I've seen with atheists and theists alike is a predisposition towards taking offence. Our differing ideals aren't the problem; it's our reactions to others' ideas that causes contention. I feel this is true in many aspects of life. In the end, sometimes all we can do is stand alone in the face of advercity and hold fast to our beliefs. Without conviction, belief, and faith in that belief mean nothing.
Oh yes, and impricator, that is exactly how you came to be born. I can't argue with that. That doesn't change my belief in the preexistence though.:)
Of course there is something more wondrous and eternal than us in this universe BG, its called the universe. Its a wondrous and long existing thing. Its not infinitely existing, but it will exist a lot longer than I will.
The odd thing is, you think every single spec of it was made for you. I think I'm just a spec. Just a bit of food for thought there. I've always kind of found that a little selfish. To believe the religious montra, you must be able to look into a telescope and see all the billions of stars, and be comfortable saying, "look at what god has made for me and my purposes". After all, he didn't make any other humans besides us, he didn't make the world for the animals, or the birds, or the plants, or the fish, just us. The entire enormous thing is for us. That is selfish to me.
As for your paragraph on the fact that you've had bad things happened while you followed the tenets, and good things happen when you didn't, but you felt that good things happened more often while you were following the tenets, I would like to tell you a little story.
There was once a cab driver. One day this cab driver was sitting at a red light, thinking to himself.
"You know," thought the cab driver, "No one has ever leapt into my taxi and yelled, "follow that taxxi" at me. How very odd."
So the cab driver continued to think about this oddity for a long time until finally the answer came to him.
"I have it," he exclaimed, "I must be the cab that everyone else is following."
You, in this instance, are the cab driver. You follow the tenets, or at least attempt to, a very good deal of the time I am sure. Otherwise, you would not claim them. You base your life around these tenets. so, it only seems logical that you would have more good things happen to you than bad, because usually more good things happen to people than do bad things. Plus, we are wired in our brains to forget the bad things that happen to us. we have a portion of our brain that actually does that.
Its like, if you were to go walking on a sidewalk and sudden comment on the fact that no cars ever run into you while on these sidewalks. What a wonderful person I must be to avoid all the cars on this sidewalk, you'd think to yourself. Completely not noticing that there are very very few cars on the sidewalk.
see what I'm saying?
Oh, and let me clear one little thing up, I do not think you're a fool. I may think you have foolish ideas, but everyone has foolish ideas. I foolishly have a fear of sliding glass doors, its just one of those things. Your foolish idea, in my opinion, is religion. That just happens to be the subject about which we are talking. Please do not mistake that for me thinking you are a fool. I'm sure you and I would agree on a multitude of things, were we to talk about other subjects. As it happens though, we aren't, so we don't.
Are you sure there is no other life out there? I thought that question was undecided, not a clear affirmative. I find the premise hard to believe, with the vastness of the universe. If it can be done once, it can be (and probably has been ) done again.
I don't think there's anything definitive in there on the issue, though I could be wrong. The people tasked with putting down what they knew and experienced were decidedly terracentric for one thing, and that was not an innovation of the church.
Leo, if your a christian, you have to go with what the bible tells you. The bible says, in one version or another, "in the beginning the god created the universe", a few pages later it says, "god created man". Thus, no other beings in the universe other than man in the christian belief system. Personally, I don't care if there are other people, we have many other things we could be concentrating on than finding other civilizations.
Evidently animals don't count in the Bible LOL. But as for whether there's other life in the universe I find it hard to believe that there couldn't be. After all we've only ever explored, to my knowledge at least, a small portion of it, that being mostly our own solar system. And man has only stood on the surface of the moon and not on those of other planets. So we don't really KNOW for certain that our world is the only one in the entire universe with inteligent life on it, if you can still call us inteligent LOL.
Interesting. I don't see it as having been exclusive. Yes, literal or figurative (I tend to lean toward the latter on several counts there), it didn't say anything like "And this is the only creation that ever ever happened anyplace in the cosmos."
"Worlds without number have I created." This is something the lord Jesus Christ, who we believe created this world under the direction of his Father once said. Furthermore, in the Pearl of Great Price, which adds some additional information to the book of Genesis, God created the world out of unorganized matter. It said (even in genesis itself) that he created the heavens and the earth, and all things which are in them. Thus I can't help but think there absolutely must be other life out there, either created by our God, or by someone else. Whether we'll ever have the oppertunity to interact with them though is a question I have no answer to. But even from a purely scientific perspective, this universe is incredibly vast. We're finding out new things about it constantly, and we still know next to nothing. Surely we can't be the only centient (not to mention living) species in that vastness. I think it's rather arrogant to think we are. Admitedly all of this might be an unpopular oppinion for most Christians. But we believe God had a beginning, though not an end. Just as we were born spiritually, yet will never cease to exist.
I see it has been said here "if I don't completely understand something I have no confidence in it." When you breathe, walk, and move your body do you understand it completely? When you walk your legs, and feet, and brain and many things work to cause the movement, but I'm sure you don't exactly know how it all works, but you take that next step believing you can. That is why some of us can believe in miracles.
Actually, I do know how that all works, its pretty simple science and can be replicated. Its just basic biochemistry and physics. It might be in a complex system, but its still pretty basic physics.
That just outlines my point though. If I don't understand how something works, its a matter of research to find out. I can find out how it works. If I didn't know how we walk or move or breathe, I could find out the actually answer. So far in religion, it doesn't seem like anyone can agree on what the answer is, or the question, or how to get from the question to the answer.
Sadly, I can't disagree with that one. The concept of religion has always been a mystery to a degree. There's such a staggering number of differing beliefs, even within the same belief system, and most of them are pretty certain they're not only the right one, but the only one. That would be fine if it didn't lead to intense hatred and war sometimes. On one hand, the whole thing can get rather overwhelming. On the other, it's one of the reasons I'm certain there is more to everything than simply we humans.
I don't disagree that religion is mixed up as far as thought,, but so is science.We think we understand, but actually we don't have all the answers to anything, but still we trust in many things, like walking.
You sit in a chair and you assume if you decide you'll simply get up and walk. You start to rise, but you suddenly get a cramp and you can't move. That cramp stays a while, and if you go to a doctor, and mostly you'll not, the doctor will not have a concrete reason why you had that cramp. Life is just not absolute, but there is much room for faith, and we all practice it religiously, or not.
Possessing a belief that if you are sitting in a chair, and stand up and begin walking, that you will actually stand up and begin walking, is not faith. That is a logical conclusion reached by comparing the present situation to a long string of similar events in your past. You have sat in a chair countless times, and each time before you got up and walked, logically you would be able to this time. That's not faith, you have evidence.
Now, a belief that you will float to the ceiling and turn a cartwheel when you stand up, that would require faith. Unless that is a common occurrence for you, in which case you might want to seek psychological or gravitational help.
and the cramp?
The cramp is just a signal telling you that something may be changing your chain of events. The next time you stand up, you'll probably do it a bit more carefully. Then after a chain of events that don't involve the cramp, you'll stop worrying about it and go right back to standing up.
But this is going so far off my point two posts ago. My point is, I know how walking works, whether we're talking about physics or biochemistry, its observable. God isn't.
Not in a physical in your face sense, you're right.
More like an in your imagination sense, like the toothfairy, Santa, The Easter Bunny, unicorns, etc.
exactly, impricator; evidently, there's nothing better for most of society than an imaginary friend.
I believed and the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny, and it worked good for years.
Now my point about walking is that you have faith it will work every time, and sure it does, because it has before, but it is possible to stop working, and we don't know all we need to know about how it works exactly. Like the brain and other things man is searching for answers.
Explain the feelings, and mental connection that is between some twins? Most would call that magic, or whatever, but some twins actually have it and it is real to them, but us that have never experienced it can't understand it.
Back to faith, you put your faith in many things, hoping that they will work the same way they did before. That just a fact. I see no harm in faith, because I'm not vain enough to believe I understand everything, so a little faith does me no harm.
You may want to review the dictionary entry on faith. Believing that something will happen based on prior experience, is not faith, its a logical conclusion. IN order for it to be faith, there must be no logical evidence for it. That is what makes it faith. Believing in the illogical is faith, believing in the logical is just logic. So believing something will happen because it has happened several times before, is not faith.
That is why religion requires faith, because it can't produce evidence. You can maybe claim some anicdotal stories that you claim as evidence. "well I walked outside one time, and it was just so beautiful, I just knew it had to be the hand of God at work." That's all well and good, but its not evidence, its just you thinking your lawn is pretty.
Well now darn! By that logic I really don't live by faith at all. I live by certain knowledge, which means I better start being a better Christian. Once again, dictionary to the rescue!
Of course another definition of faith is ""to believe in something which is not seen, but which is true." By that logic we all live by faith to a certain extent. How many of us read something on the internet, and instead of attempting to verify it for ourselves, we just spread it around like it couldn't possibly be wrong. heck, Wikkipedia, bless its usefulness is all about that. Sure we can research and attempt to verify truths for ourselves, but most people I come across just read it in a book, or on a website or hear it on the news and automatically embrace it as the gospel truth. That's even more disturbing in this age of mass information in which we live.
But if something is not seen, and by seen here I mean experienced by any of the senses, it cannot be proven, thus it would require faith. However, it also cannot then be called true. Children have faith in santa clause, that does not make him exist.
In order to be able to call something true, it must be observable. We can claim that gravity is true because we can observe it, buoyancy, observable, chemistry, observable, physics, observable, God, not so much. The best evidence you can produce for God is the stories you tell about how he touched your life. That is all well and good for your own beliefs, but you can't then claim him to be true because of it. It isn't evidence in an observable sense.
That is why so many atheists ask the question, "if God exists, why doesn't he heal amputated legs?" Its not to be snide, its a challenge for observable evidence. Doctors cannot make a leg grow back, not yet at least, only God would be able to do that. So if it actually happened to someone, it would be observable evidence of God. However, you cannot point to a single instance, not one, at all, that is not highly questionable at best.
And before you start spouting off about how your great grandmother's next door neighbor's uncle's neice twice removed on your mother's side had male pattern baldness and she prayed and some guy in a string bikini spat holy water on her head and had it rubbed in by six nuns in green robes while she took communion, and suddenly her hair grew back. That is not prove of god, its just an anicdote. It is something you take as proof of God, but you can't actually prove that God had anything to do with it. It is the explanation you choose, but just because you choose it, does not make it the actual explanation.
Its just like if you were to take a three-year-old onto your lap and ask her why she believes in Santa, and she told you she saw him once, you'd probably say, "aww, isn't that cute". You wouldn't say, "well hell, if she saw him outside her window last christmas, he must be real".
To atheists, christians are the three year old, and we're simply saying, "well sweetie, were you sleeping when you saw santa?"
Poor dead horse. It really doesn't matter what I'll say. In the end, I can't prove to you God exists. Even if I could, it wouldn't change anything. But neither can you prove he doesn't. This whole discussion was born out of some random notion that the success of prayer can be calculated by odds. You're no better than I am Lightning, coming up with thin excuses why we're all 3 year olds. I'll admit some of your arguments are quite compelling, but you depend on logic and twisting. Logic and knowledge alone is not sufficient to prove (or even disprove) the existence of God. You and others may call this a cop out, but to be honest, coming up with a poinient response which results in condescention and stubbornness it really just getting tiresome. You're an antitheist. If God exists, you'll fight against him. Okay. That's that. There's no point measuring whose is bigger. Let's all put 'em away, zip up our flies, and move on.
Its funny BG. every time we start a religious debate anywhere on the boards, you're the first one to go, "ok ok, lets just end this, its not getting us anywhere". You also always say a variation of the line, "I'll never be able to convince you". Every single time. So one has to wonder why you post anything about religion at all.
If you want to have a religious debate, I'm all for it, lets go. But I'm absolutely sick of you talking about how I and my fellow atheists are the only ones beating the dead horse. When we're the only ones on here who don't say, "enough, I can't take it anymore". We're the only ones who seem to have the balls to enter these debates, knowing that our beliefs are going to be questioned, and don't whine about it like babies.
I'm sick of you being all ready to jump in when I make a post you don't like, but when I present evidence that completely negates everything you've said instead of manning up and admitting that you didn't handle yourself so well, you claim that I'm the one beating the dead horse, and you bawl for us to just stop and all be friends. You refuse to admit that if these religious debates actually are problems and I don't think they are that you are an equally responsible party as me.
You're all ready and willing to jump in at first, but when the first few punches land, you start sniveling and I' god damn sick of it. If you want to take part in these debates go for it. If you want to present your opinions about religion, or politics, or abortion, or gun control, or whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, you're welcome to do so. However, knock off this childish and immature whimpering whenever your feelings get hurt because you can't hack it.
You wanna play, lets play, but I don't pull punches, I never have, I never will. so if you want to come onto these boards and start posting about your religion, which I invite you to do, I suggest you get some arguments based on fact and evidence that can't be so easily defeated. Because let me tell you this BG, these debates that we've had, are easy for me. You don't make me even have to stretch my mind to come up with a way to defeat you. Its simple. Its like debating with a second grader about global warming.
Now, if you can't come up with some good arguments, and can't find a way to stop spitting out platitudes like tobacco juice, then I have a simple suggestion for you. Shut the fuck up and let those that can actually handle taking a punch and losing a little blood talk. You should go and find a nonpublic forum where everyone will agree with you. That way you don't ever risk getting your feelings hurt.
If you can't stand the debates, don't post your opinion. Because posting your opinion is an invitation for it to be questioned, and you don't seem to be able to handle that. So stay the fuck out.
to add to Cody's well articulated last post, don't ever set foot out of your house again, BG. since you throw a temper tantrum whenever people encourage you to think about the fact you're likely wrong, you should just focus on talking to this wonderful being you call god the rest of your life. then, no one will ever disagree with you again and you'll be able to continue living in this fantasy world you love with all your heart.
we atheists, on the other hand, will continue speaking out in order to educate people, never faltering when our beliefs are challenged or questioned in any way.
Wow. So much for this being the "safe haven" board, the same level of outright rudeness and disrespect is no different here than any of the other boards. What a shame. That's all I'll say.
Respect has to be earned. I'm sick of hearing this crap that religious folks automatically deserve respect, just because they're Christian, or Muslim, or whatever.
I'm not giving up because my points are being refuted. You people might not respect me or my beliefs, but I actually do respect all of yours. What frustrates me is that no matter what I seem to say, the responses I get come off condescending and confrontational to me and my beliefs, not the beliefs themselves. I don't care that you disagree with me. If I was trying to make friends, I certainly wouldn't do it by debating. But you speak of my beliefs as fantastical, immature, thoughtless, silly and rediculous. Yes, these are all ways in which a couple of you Atheists come off. I don't feel persecuted, or anything so dramatic as that. But when an intelligent debate begins to devolve into immature confrontation, it becomes apparent there is little reason to continue. Some of you have taken some very personal experiences of mine, devalued and demeaned them. I didn't share my experiences to gain friends, or sympathy it's true, nor do I expect my experiences or words to convince you of anything. I would however appreciate my experiences, and my beliefs to be treated with respect, even if you do not agree with them; even if you bring forth boat-loads of "evidence" to contradict them.
I accept that you atheists do not believe as I do. What I do not accept is the arrogant way a few of you ignore, devalue and demean my beleifs, and those held by people like myself. I am not attacking any one person specifically here. I admit I don't know everything. I admit there is a chance some of what has been said in opposition to my beliefs may be true. If I have come off at any time in the manner I am speaking out against, I sincerely appologize. I do not wish to be a hypocrit. But just because you think you've got it all figured out, that nothing I say could possibly be true, even if you choose to ignore and reject some of the points I raise, that does not give you the rite to disrespect them. It's not a matter of me being "man" enough to take it, it's a matter of it being unnecessary in the first place. I don't deserve automatic respect because I'm Christian, just like you don't deserve automatic respect for being atheists. We deserve respect because we're human beings, with ideas, experiences and different understandings. I deserve respect because I have - the the best of my knowledge - done my best to come off peaceful, kind and polite to this community. Challenge my beliefs. Provide actual evidence to refute them. Ask real questions that you're actually interested in hearing the answers to, but please do not cross the line between debate and a personal argument.
feel free to think we're being disrespectful, bg; if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. presenting beliefs and opinions with the expectation/want for them not to be refuted is absolutely ludicrous. that's part of life. get used to it, cause it'll never change.
Alright, that's it. Disrespect, here we go.
You're a Moron. You read the book of Moron, you attend a moron church, you believe Joseph Smith saw an angel named Moronic. Har har har. There. Is that disrespectful enough?
No one deserves respect BG. Absolutely no one, for any reason, ever, in any place, has ever deserved respect. No historical figure, no elder, no better, no one has ever deserved respect. They earned it.
Yes, I belittle your life stories because I find them frankly pointless. But besides that, I never once chose to share one of your life stories. I don't know any of your life stories. You made that choice all on your own. You opened the door and said, "here, this is my story, now what do you guys think". You can't get pissed off when we think your story is rather silly.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that I hate all christians, and I think all of them are brainless morons; that's not true. I have christian friends who I respect greatly. I respect them because they make concentrated attempts at forming theories that are not based on feelings and stories. They debate the bible using logic. They usually lose, and I never agree with them, but they still try. And best of all, they can admit when they've been beaten. which I have had to do myself on a number of occasions.
Oh, and to the poster who said that I'm being rude and violating the rules of the safe haven board, I'd like to say this. First of all, someone vehemently disagreeing with you isn't rude. Get over yourself and this idea that because I didn't raise my pinkies and say please and thank you, I'm being rude. I'm being honest, brutally honest perhaps, but honest. It is my personal opinion that our society has been so watered down that we can't handle brutal honesty anymore. You expect everyone to just be nice to each other. Well sometimes the truth isn't nice, get over it. Oh, and take a look at what board you're on. This isn't the safe haven board. And I wouldn't care even if it was. I'm not going to pull punches just because a heading on a board says I have to. If posters don't want to be questioned, they can post on an all christians board. This isn't one of them.
I stand corrected, which is weird, because I don't remember posting this in the safe haven board. However, it would be silly of me to expect it to be treated as one. I fully invite brutal honesty in return, and I appologize for my mistake.
SO then, if nobody's worthy of respect by default, what does one need to do to deserve respect, lightning?
it's called proving yourself, BG. for instance, when you get hired at a new job, it isn't a given that people automatically trust in what you've brought to the table through your resume or outspokenness. you have to earn their trust/respect by following through, giving your best all the time, and maybe even going above and beyond your job description.
so, as respect/trust relates to religion, one reason we atheists think what you've brought to the table is silly is cause you haven't done your best, presented actual evidence, or admitted you could be wrong. you can claim you have all you want, but claiming and actually doing are far from the same thing.
Well, he has technically admited that he could, in theory, be wrong, but judging by the way he presents the rest of his written material, I would venture the guess that he's almost, if not absolutely sure he isn't. Kind of the, "Well, I could be wrong, but I know I'm not", type of deal. Again, just what I observe from what I've read so far.
BG, if you work for someone, lets say you lay brick. if you lay brick for someone, you expect to be paid; this is not an irrational expectation. You did the work, now that person is going to pay you. That does not mean you deserve to be paid, it means you have earned payment.
Now, if the bricks that you layed cave in because you didn't lay them correctly, the person who paid you deserves to be paid back. They didn't earn being paid back, they didn't do anything but sit there and watch bricks cave in, but they deserve it nonetheless.
Therein lies the difference. You earned payment, they deserve to be paid back.
Get the difference?
I don't share your perspective with regards to people, but I do see your point. Yet I do still respect most of you. There-in lies the difference between us. I respect everyone until given a reason not to.
I'm not really sure how I'm any worse than any of you. Whenever I've asked for physical evidence to validate what you've been saying, I don't usually get it, yet all of you, like me seem to be certain you're right. So how can we all be right? I must admit it's difficult to produce evidence, proof or even information contrary to yours. When I've done so in the past, I usually get the "well you can't trust that source; it's bias because it comes from a church" answer. In the past, many things I've expressed have been refuted, not with actual physical evidence, but through twisting my words, or utterly discarding them. It makes wanting to spend longer gathering physical evidence for you guys not seem worth-while. Because despite your animated participation in these topics, I really don't get the impression you care what I, or any other Christian has to say. Perhaps you feel the same way I do, I don't really know. In the end, I consider the debate somewhat redundant because it's gone on for far too long on too many topics, and it would seem nobody involved is even remotely interested in having their perspectives altered. I first joined into these debates to provide another perspective to people who might be reading this and hadn't yet made up their minds. I wasn't trying to convert people, or prove beyond a shadow of a doubt my way is right. Instead I've drawn the ire of people who, it would seem are quite set in their ways, as I am.
But you know? Despite my seeming certainty, I have a great many questions and concerns about my religion. Lightning you're not wrong about the old testament having some truly disturbing stories in it. On the surface, the old Testament God doesn't seem at all like a nice person or someone I'd want to serve. While I've yet to come across the god-inspired atrocities you specifically mentioned, and which I'm still waiting to find, I have come across some very ... special moments. I can't deny the stories, but I think it's safe to say that I look at them with a much different perspective and understanding. Because of this the context of the stories changes somewhat for me. Furthermore, I also look at my particular church as it is today, as a whole greater than the sum of its parts. The old testament isn't the only book of scripture in our church. And often times when I look up a particular old testament passage, the footnotes, translation corrections and cross-references to other scriptures paint an entirely different picture than what's on the surface. Scriptures aren't meant to be read and automatically understood, they are to be read, pondered, prayed about - yes, prayed about - and studied with sincere intent. This is why we spend so much time learning about, talking about and reading our scriptures. Christianity, like many other religions has been fractured into various belief factions. That doesn't really work in our favor it's true. That's why I never believed in it until I found the LDS church. Its roots spoke to me in a way no other did, because Joseph Smith was in a very similar position to many of us. He wanted to know which church out of the many his family members attended was the actual church Jesus set up. I've read much of the anti-"mormon" literature, and so I see how easy it can be to consider it just another man-made church. But when I consider how it's organized , the good it does, the perspective of scriptural knowledge and understanding it brings, the fact everything is unpaid, I can't deny its appeal on a logical level. And on a spiritual level, which I understand many of you may not have experienced, it speaks to me. It feels right in my heart on top of how I feel about it in my mind. Furthermore I find its leaders trustworthy and inspiring. Of all the leaders in the world, the President of our Church, and the quarum of the twelve apostles are the only ones I have complete confidence in. And that is something few churches can say. Living prophets are not a popular sentiment among most of Christianity. Nonetheless I myself cannot deny the results. You all I'm sure could find fault with these leaders, and that's fine. But my faith in them does not stem from blind following, but from experience doing so. I've never been given a reason to question what they say, because I see the good that comes from all of it. Sure there are things they say that I don't yet do, but I still know them to be right. my church teaches nothing that goes against the basic concepts of human right and wrong. Nobody will ever run into trouble by following what my particular church believes in. And if our president (prophet) were to contradict the church and serve his own ends as so many leaders do, he would very swiftly not be prophet. That is why I don't care if I'm wrong or right. I feel like I'm absolutely right, but as I've said before, if I'm wrong, it won't matter to me. I'll still have lived a fulfilling and good life. Sometimes it's hard to live this way I'll admit. it goes against the "natural" man, and against worldly practices. But I need only look at the state of the world and how people are treating each other to come to the conclusion that this is right for me. God does exist. he's not a ferrytale. He loved us so much that he sent his Son to this world in order to atone for the sins we could not atone for ourselves, and to bridge the gap between life, and death. Jesus knew how we humans would treat him, and yet he came anyway because he believed in his father's plan for humanity, and because he loved us. God knew it too, and he allowed it. I believe this to be true based on my heart,, spirit and study. I'm not here to convince you otherwise. But wrong or right, true or false, the LDS church and its restored gospel is not an evil in this world. We're here to help people, spiritually, emotionally and physically. And so I will defend my church as much as I can. And if ever I come across issues that give me pause, I will research to discover the answer. And every time I've done that in the past, the answers always satisfy me.
Fine, all well and good. I see several flause in that post, but I' not going to point them out because they are your life and not mine.
I will express some amazement that you can't find some of the stories I've mentioned. The flood and the garden of eden are well documented stories. Most five year olds know them. What other stories do you have trouble finding?
I will say this though. You sound so resigned in this post, and if that is true, and you believe you can't change our position, stop posting.
Yes, but we can’t prove that God does not exist, nor can we explain completely how we came to be here.
A little faith has taken me far. When I seep outside my door, I have faith that I am going to get to the place I want to go without harm, or getting lost.
Now that faith can be seen as foolish, because if you logically think about it, you’ll find that there can and are many pit falls between point a and point b, but you go anyway, because “I don’t believe anything will happen to me.” It didn’t happen the last 99 times right?
So faith is of the things not seen, and walking to that point b you can perceive the things that might and can honestly happen to you before you get there. You also can’t see that your trip is going to be a safe trip, but faith takes you anyway.
Again faith has done me know harm, and much good. It is want keeps me interested, striving, and living.
BG don’t back down on your belief, you are just as right as they are, and in this world we can all have our opinions. That is a blessing.
Not this stupid shit again.
yes indeed; that's all they can come up with.
But is valid. You have faith that you'll get to where you're going. You have faith that you'll wake tomorrow morning, you have faith that next year you'll..., but you don't know, because you can't see in to the future.
One thing is for sure. It would seem as though those who are Atheist are rather rude and inconsiderate people. Or at least that is how it comes across on this message board. I understand that you believe that a person’s religious beliefs should be questioned, and I will agree with you on this point. But do you seriously have to be so righteously condescending about it? If Atheist believe everyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe, then why not be so kind as to let others actually believe whatever it is that they want to believe? Perhaps your way is not the right way either.
Here's my question. The Atheists, especially Cody and Chelsea, both say that they people who have different beliefs than them have gotten respect from them. So if that's the case, then why is it that you have to be so defensive and hostile toward us Christians? There is a difference between an opinion and just being hostile and rude toward people who don't believe like you do. In my view, it seems that you're doing the latter. You can't expect not to get some kind of reaction with that level of vitriol that you guys are displaying right now, especially when it comes to this kind of topic. We believe in God, and you guys don't, which is fine. You do realize that I'm not being as vitriolic and hostile as you guys, do you not? With that being said, we do expect the same level of respect in return.
Very well said to the last two posters. :)
I can present two points to this idea. First, why should I be kind and respectful of your beliefs? Christians fight to have their beliefs taught as science to children, they fight to have groups like gays and women persecuted, they support preaching to aids victims that they shouldn't use comdums, they hide the crimes of priests who rape children who have been entrusted to them, they indoctrinate people with the idea that everything they do is wrong and that they need to seek forgiveness for being who they are, they deny medication to people in agony so that those people might come closer to the sufferings of Jesus christ. Yet you claim that A. because they also run a few soup kitchens and hospitals, they should be forgiven all this, and B. that because you are quiet and just live your nice little life, and just happen to believe in God, you should be left alone. I don't accept that. And anyone who agrees with their philosophy, even slightly, should be disrespected until they see the error of their ways, and find a way to fix it.
Until christians stop preaching hate and bigotry, I will continue to disrespect all of them. I invite you to speak out as vehemently as I do against these groups, but the most you can manage is a few pathetic sentences on a board that only us members read.
Besides that, your quiet little belief in God, especially if you choose to do nothing about those christians who preach hate, only allows it to flourish. You do nothing, and by your doing nothing, you allow those that use christianity for evil purposes to flourish, and you get pissed off when I judge you harshly. Well guess what, you deserve it.
I love it when people judge my beliefs. I don't like it when I'm called a devil worshipper, or told that I'm possessed by demons because I'm an atheist, but I love it when people try to present evidence against atheism. When I defeat that attack on my beliefs, my beliefs are strengthened. You, when I belittle and attack your beliefs, whine and say I'm being harsh. Well what do you call telling a child that if they don't do exactly as you say, they will be thrown into a lake of fire for eternity? I don't call that love, how can you?
My second point is this. For you to sit back and say, "well I don't agree with you, but I'll pray for you", is just as patronizing and rude as what we do. You may think that by sitting back and not coming straight out and saying, "your wrong, and your beliefs are insane" that you're being kind. you're not, you're just being snyde. You're saying that your beliefs are so much better than mine, that you can just sit back and pray that one day I won't be so much of an idiot.
Personally, I'd rather have someone come straight out and tell me they think I'm an idiot, than to have someone look down their nose at me and sniff while they say, "You're not good enough for me to engage in a debate with. I'm just going to pray that one day you'll agree with me". That is what you're saying when you sit back and say you'll pray for us.
I'll end by asking you a question. Why do you have beliefs, if you're going to shrink away from anyone questioning them? What good do they serve you if any time someone asks you about them, you cry and whine about how they're judging you. After all the judging, and killing, and persecuting christians have done, its about time people started stomping on your beliefs.
Christians have it so good in this country. You claim you're beliefs are being persecuted, well what do you think you're doing to our beliefs?
P.S. forereel, I' not going to keep being you're damn dictionary. Find one, look up the word faith, read the definition, and find out for yourself how walking somewhere doesn't require any faith. You might also discover how stupid you look by making that claim.
I absolutely refuse to live my life quietly (as Michael and others are advocating) just cause people disagree with or challenge my views. I've lived that way before, and let me tell you, I was the unhappiest I've ever been cause everyone constantly walked over me and I never stood up for myself/things I wholeheartedly believed in. so, now that I'm outspoken (much to most of society's extreme dislike) I honestly couldn't be happier/more fulfilled.
the day everyone likes me and what I bring to the table, is the day I'll immediately reevaluate what I'm doing. like Cody, nothing gives me greater joy than having my beliefs challenged, asking questions, and doing all I can to be a better person through and through.
whether you're christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist or of any other belief system out there, if you can't handle your beliefs being challenged, and dare I say belittled, you may want to rethink your reasons for believing. For anyone who is upset because their beliefs are being attacked, on this category or any other, just be thankful that your property isn't being destroyed, and/or your loved ones as an act of hatred. You are voluntarily allowing for these comments, especially knowing that there are many topics like this, and the end result is the same, every time.
Apparently, acts of kindness are not a part of the life of an atheist, or at least it does not appear to be that way from the messages posted on this message board. If you do not wish for others to preach their religion to you, then perhaps you might want to think about not preaching your atheism to others. Sometimes common courtesy can go a long way.
This obviously isn't a fruitful conversation. That being said, I think we all should stop posting here. The debates are doing nothing more than going around in circles and they aren't getting us anywhere. I'm a Christian, and I will stand for my beliefs, even if it means I'm going to lose a few friends on here. That doesn't matter to me - after all, this is only a chat room, right?
If simply posting an opinion is preaching, then we're all preaching. If we start showing up at your churches, burning your bibles, knocking on your doors and disturbing your family meals, then I'll completely understand your complaints.
Crazy cat, what's with the double standards?
Can you do me the favour of comparing your posts 204 and 210?
You are carrying out the same acts you get up on a soapbox and complain about. At the least, its counter productive, at the most, your comments display a vitriolic sense of hypocrisy. But apairently its completely ok.
You see no problems with being passive aggressive, much less using such to bitch about the same in others posts.
For the most part, not much on this topic strikes me as rude, or what have you.
Much of what the faction not in favor of christianity has written is alittle harsh, or brutally honest.
Though, Its by no means really rude. In all honesty, you have it pritty easy, you're of the majority, and thus are not subject to living on the fringe so to speak. Stnading and fighting for a cause you believe in is so foreign you take any opposition as a threat,and call it rude, to shut it down. you could say some here could stand to be more polite, and i'd agree, but that clearly is not going to happen, when you are clearly unwilling to do the same.
Don't even think of justifying your actions by pointing out that you're only acting like all the others around here. You as a christian should know, that stooping to such levels is in many ways against your own beliefs.
Another thing i've noticed, on all these boards, its usually the christians that get bent out of shape, everyone else is calm about the hole deal, or at the most extreme they just see it as a debate, nothing more. I've spoken to many here, and believe you me, none of us get imotionallly charged, bent out of shape, or really offended.
If anything, odds are I'm thinking "wow, illogic at its best" or some other snark.
Pro tip: relax, we will never all agree, nore will we sit quietly, and get swept aside.
Most of our history books got it wrong. This country was not founded as a christian haven, or completely on christian principles. The vast majority of the founding fathers were agnostic, or didn't believe in any form of a god at all.
Over time, of corse religious beliefs mingled, people put forward views, and as a majority of some areas were christian, things changed in favor of the majority.
Though this doesn't mean that the majority is all that matters, either.If people don't speak up for themselves, no one else will, because most people can't stand discomfort.
James is right; if people didn't get so bent out of shape about the things being said here and on related topics, Cody and I wouldn't need to come across so strongly.
Well, I don't know about that Chelsea. I don't really know any other way to present my argument than strongly. I mean, if you're not going to drive the nail home, why even bring out a hammer; if you catch my drift.
I would also correct that most of the founding fathers were deists. Agnosticism was not created until 1889, and it refers to intellect, not to faith. Most of the founding fathers, and certainly not all, were deists. Meaning they believed there was a creator, but he then sat back and took no further part in the world after creating it. Its a theory I can almost buy, and one I'll never fight against.
Oh, and Crazy Cat, what in the world makes you think that acts of kindness aren't possible for us? Do you honestly believe that because I verbally evicerate the christian belief system, and I am deaf to your cries of "enough", that I don't perform acts of kindness? You honestly believe that atheists, simply because they don't believe in a god, would let a child starve, or would walk past someone who was bleeding on a sidewalk? Do you truly believe that?
In all honesty, if there was a man bleeding on a sidewalk, considering the fact that the vast majority of criminals are religious, he was most likely put there by a religious person. The chance that an Atheist criminal did it is very very slim, according to prison surveys at least.
Please don't insult me, or yourself, by holding such an opinion that because I dislike and mistrust your belief systems, that I am incapable of performing an act of kindness. I am more than willing to be kind, and I don't need an invisible hand or the threat of a lake of fire to make me be so. I simply need the knowledge that we are all part of a society, and we are all interdependent. You, on the other hand, or at least christians, need an invisible watcher and a threat of eternal punishment to make you be good. And if you don't, then why do you have that invisible watcher and threat of eternal punishment at all?
Cody, I'm not trying to suggest I wouldn't still present things in a strong way. perhaps how I should've phrased my words is by saying that if people truly gave us the respect they're commanding we give them without question, we wouldn't need to keep repeating ourselves.
for the record, the way I present myself here is no different than how I act in person. I embrace every aspect of myself, and won't "tone it down" just cause others feel being blunt isn't the answer. it is for me, and that's all the comfort I need.
I think it's fine to be blunt. There's no reason to hold back, especially when you can do it in an intelligent manner. But I think belittling others' beliefs is unnecessary. It makes one seem petty, and rather diminishes their arguments. That's true whether you're Christian or Atheist. I can't deny we Christians have some bad apples in the barrel. I've touched on bad Christians and good atheists already and I don't feel the need to repeat my point. The reason I become frustrated with some of you isn't because you don't believe the way I do. Nor is it because you come up with points to counteract my own. It is that throughout these debates many of the things you have all said seem to lump all of us Christians into one defining catagory. Nearly all of what you accused us Christians of doing Lightning I do not condone in the least. Not only that but I will actively fight against such evil, both because I believe it to be wrong, and in order to paint my religion in a more posative light. Not every Christian believes the same way. Not every Christian even really believes. You can't blame me as a Mormon for the atrocities committed by the Catholics during the Inquisition anymore than you can blame a Catholic from this generation. We are not all the same. We read from the same books , but we all take something different from them and carry ourselves differently. I admit so many differing beliefs in the same material probably doesn't inspire confidence. That's one of the reasons I find my particular church to be a breath of fresh air. Yet I know it is not for everyone because our additional beliefs don't sit well with some Christians. Some embrace the peace, freedom and compassion taught by Jesus, while others follow a much darker form of Christianity such as the West Burrough Baptist Church. Be an atheist. Be an antitheist if it makes you happy. But please do not assume we're all the same, and please do not assume we think you are all the same. Random acts of kindness are just as possible for us as they are for you. I myself do not do good deeds because an invisible hand guides me to do so. I was striving to be a good person long before I joined this church. The only difference now is that I have something to work towards.
True, I can't hold you accountable as a morman for the crusades or the inquisition, but I can hold you accountable for the morman massacres in ohio and missouri. Why can I do this you ask, because you believe in mormanism. You can nitpick all you like and say, "well they believe in that, and I believe in this, but we're all mormans, its just they believe in that, and I believe in this." I don't care. If you call yourself a morman, you a furthering the exact same cause that massacred people in the united states in the 1800's. Its a part of your history.
For example, I have to admit that the south, which I consider myself a part of, condoned slavery. I don't like it, and I strive to educate people that few people in the south owned slaves, but I still admit it.
everything I've seen so far is not christians copping to the evil acts commited, but trying they're hardest to avoid mentioning them. I don't like that.
I don't liek that either. But no you can not hold me responsible for the slaughter, because that was generations ago. I neither had any part in it, nor do I condone it. I do wonder how much you know about that particular part of the LDS history. Do you know how the LDS were driven out of their homes? How the American government sanctioned our deaths, the bounties on our heads? But even had the mountain meddows slaughter happened the some people think, I still would not condone it. I don't believe in slaughtering people, though I do whole-heartedly agree in defending myself.
I do not believe I have said a single word about what I believe or do not believe in regards to my own religious beliefs, so how exactly am I trying to preach to others? It seems as though many people have rather different opinions regarding this message board, and I happen to think that the comments made by those who are Atheists are rather rude and condescending towards others. Therefore, I wonder whether or not Atheists believe in the concept of human kindness. I am not stating this is indeed true, but it definitely comes across this way on this message board.
So wait, let me see if I'm understanding what you're trying to say here CC. You think we're being rude and condescending on this board. You also think we are belittling people's beliefs. And that, that one simple thing, just the fact that we're being rude, leads you to conclude that we are incapable of any kindness whatsoever?
You're saying that, simply because we're rude on here, that we steal candy from babies, kick puppies, starve children, and a whole host of other horrible things? you honestly think that simply because we've produced an argument that you disagree with, and presented it in a way you dislike, that we are incapable of human kindness?
And you say that I'm the one who is being presumptuous?
Exactly. that's quite an extreme conclusion to make Crazy Cat. Most people who have spent days, weeks or even months talking to someone one on one won't make a conclusion as extreme as that, for better or for worse. and here you are, saying you think we might be *incapable of human kindness*, after talking to us personally for, uh, o, that's right; Never. and even if you have talked to us personally outside of this board, I'm pretty sure it hasn't been for long, or that you haven't met any of us in person.
Also, might I point out that you didn't so much as acknowledge the questions james, AKA Stormwing asked of you in his previous post?
I am simply saying that the views and opinions posted on this message board by those who claim to be Atheists do not appear to portray Atheists in a positive light. However, if I am free to believe whatever it is that I want to believe, and you are free to believe whatever it is that you want to believe, then what reason is there to continue this argument? Arguing simply for the sake of arguing gets old after a while regardless of what the issue may be.
totally Agree, crazy_cat.
And you still haven't pointed out how your behavior was any more acceptable.IMO
then again, if you didn't look in the mirror last time around, no reason to think you'll give it a go now.
I agree with james. Perhaps that's why you suggest we shouldn't continue this argument.
I'm trying to work out where the connection is supposed to be between being kind and/or otherwise doing good things and whether you believe in a higher power or not. It does not compute. I think one is independent of the other, and in fact, if you are a believer and have enough imagination and time on your hands and fanaticism for the cause, you can do some pretty horrid things, including genocide, and believe you were absolutely and completely in the right because you were convinced you were called to be used as an instrument to rid the world of evil. So, who agrees with me and who thinks I've been smoking my dirty socks?
Historically, the most horrid things you think of when you think of horrid things, were done in the name of a god, or in the name of a religion. Crusades, witch hunts, fladgulations, inquisition, genecides, racism, countless wars, and I could go on and on. All of these were either done by or supported by churches, mosques, not so much sinagogs, but they used to be.
I challenge you to name a well-known historical event where Atheists killed each other over who was more atheistic than the other atheists. Or even where horrid acts like those listed above were done in the name of Atheism.
even if we were to accept that Hitler was an Atheist, which he wasn't, and that stalin did his horrible acts in the name of atheism, which he didn't, it still wouldn't compare. And, just to clarify, Hitler was very much christian and had contracts with the catholic church and the Pope, (who actually came up with the idea of the final solution, not Hitler), and Stalin did his horrible acts in the name of communism. He happened to be atheistic, but it wasn't in the name of atheism.
So, I agree with godzilla. However, that does not mean you aren't smoking your dirty socks. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I would also like to hear crazy cat's response to the question at hand. I guess even atheists like me can wish for impossible things. Next thing I know I'll be mumbling into thin air for my favorite football team to when the next game.
I actually have to agree with the Atheists on the last few posts, yes, even you for your last one, Lightning. Bet you never expected that.:)
Terrible terrible things have been done in the name of religion over the centuries. I can not deny that truth, but nor can I condone it. The fact these events transpired is a blight on Christianity; a blight which will likely never be forgotten. It saddens me every time I think how horrible we are to one another in the name of our ideals. But Such is the folly of humanity, not the divine. The responsibility and the consequences of the acts perpetrated by these individuals, these groups? They are on the heads of those who caused them. People are at fault for twisting the words of the scriptures, or misinterpreting them. We are responsible for our own actions. It's true some churches are far more corrupt than others. But that does not make the gospel of Jesus Christ evil, nor does it make it less true. I won't say which churhc is true and which isn't. I have my own ideas on this, but they don't matter at this time. I will say because religions - many religions - are so faith-based it does lead sometimes to misinterpretation and vile tainting of what they teach. That's unfortunate, and something undeniable. But as we can not blame all Arab people for the attacks on the Twin Towers, nor can we condemn all religions for the acts committed by the few. ANd I am quite certain the evil perpetrated in religion is far outweighed by the good. The problem is the evil stands out more.
Crazy Cat, I do agree with you to a point, but I caution you to tred carefully in your condemning of others, lest you inadvertently taint your point by adding fuel to their fire of indignation.
Let me just point out that if we were posting all of our opinions to try to get you to be atheist, we'd have given up a long time ago.
I am by no means trying to condemn anyone. I believe Atheists are perfectly free to practice Atheism. I would say that I respect their right to practice Atheism, but as it has already been pointed out, respect is something that should be earned rather than given out freely. So many times I here the Atheists on here cry out for their desire to freely practice Atheism without others trying to persuade them to convert to some other form of religion. However, it seems as though those who are Atheists are not willing to give this same consideration to others. Since this cannot be labeled as mutual respect for each other, I labeled it as human kindness, as I do not believe anyone should have to do anything to earn the right to be treated with common courtesy. I do not believe I have personally attacked anyone with my remarks, however, if you feel this is indeed the case, please accept my sincerest apology. Something tells me we will most likely never agree, so perhaps it would be best to simply agree to disagree.
Yes indeed.:0
well said, crazy_cat. :) I have no problem with those who practice atheism, it's your life and your choice, but what I do have a problem with is those on this board or anywhere else who have been outright disrespectful and mean for no other reason than the fact that they disagree with someone else's views on religion. If you want to be free to practice atheism that's fine, but the same also applies to those who choose to follow any other religion. If you want your beliefs to be respected as they should be, then be respectful of others. In other words, treat others as you would like to be treated.
Crazy Cat, no. You have not personally attacked anyone here, in my opinion. However, that's far from the point, in this case. You finally made some amount of effort to address the question that was asked of you, but I still fail to see how these board posts should make you come to the conclusion that atheists are incapable of human kindness. There's a fine line between speaking a strong opinion and being rude. Clearly, we all draw that line in different places. Your beliefs have been challenged here rather harshly, but I, personally, don't perceive that as being rude, inconsiderate, or disrespectful. If you do find it disrespectful, you may want to consider subscribing to christian mailing lists, or signing up for Christian forems where you're a lot less likely to face criticism of this nature.
Totally agree with ya there, Jess.
Funny how our perception often makes all the difference.
Well said to Happy Heart in post 208, and to the_blind_guardian in posts 218 and 230. Not that I’m saying I live this way Happy Heart, but I need to, or else what is the point right?
God does love unconditionally. This doesn’t mean He has told us in love, “okay kid, go do whatever you want.” But He will still love us when we do whatever we want. He tells us exactly what to do, in love. If we don’t follow it, then we are like a firemen, who for some reason, starts ripping off her protective gear in the midst of a housefire. But of course, we’re human, we screw up. We’re famous for getting ourselves hurt. So God sends Jesus, Who does not screw up, to live in us and help us. We don’t have to say yes to Him, though. So God loves us, He sent His Son, His very essence to die on a cross for us, that we could have a relationship, not a religion with Him, He has held out His hand. He calls us, He shouts for us, but He does not force us. Hell is what we throw ourselves into, hell is simply being absent from God.
I don’t have all the answers. There is a website:
www.lifechurch.tv
I believe they are helping to fight against the hate that Christians like www.godhatesfags.com spread. Jesus is here to love, not to hate. Go to the LifeChurch website if you like, and see if you can find someone to talk to about your questions. I know that they won’t have all the answers, but I’m sure they’ll have more than I do, and I know from experience that this is a church of people who do not shoot down or become hateful towards believers or nonbelievers just because of their extremely hard questions. Why should they. Questions are how we learn, if we are really going to seek the answer after asking.
I don’t understand how the old testament law is to stone disobedient children either. I have heard from a preacher that the Bible is not talking here about young children, nor is it talking about a disobedience like talking back or taking mom or dad’s corvet out for a spin at 1:00 a.m., or getting drunk for the first time at John’s party and then coming home and puking on your mattress. It’s talking about something like, I don’t know, murder. And even still I don’t understand how God, Who is Love Himself gave this law. I know that the law was to show us that we need something more than law and ritual and self reliance, that we need God, Love, the LORD Who made us and knows us and Loves us even to His Own death so that we don’t have to die. Because God is holy, no need for an absolutely, or a completely here to describe it, He just is, holy. So He does not tolerate sin. And God is Love, again, lose the adverbs, He just is, Love. These two things don’t contradict or war with one another, they are one in the One LORD: Father Son and Spirit. And so God came to save us, and not only to save us, but also to make us holy, too. So maybe the law was to show us His Holiness, and Jesus coming was to give us His Holiness and His Love. Because Jesus came to fulfill the law, but you don’t see Him ever telling us to stone anyone, because He kept the law that we could never keep, and then took our punishment for not keeping it so that we wouldn’t have to. You do see Him telling us to love, because He loves us with the love that is Love Himself, and wants to see us living and happy and healthy in a relationship with one another and with Him and even with ourselves, like the relationship that He and the Father and the Holy Spirit have with One Another. He has invited us into this very relationship.
I don’t know. I need to read the Bible more, and even when I do I still may not know. But I have faith in God, that He knows and that He loves. And I will keep looking for the answer with His help. I know that this makes know difference to you. You don’t have faith in Him, and so why should you be soothed by other’s faith in Him? But just the fact that you are seeking answers is good. My only advice, and it is to myself as much as to you, is to keep doing it, keep seeking, and keep your ears open to something, or Someone, that you may not be expecting.
Thanks for reading my ramble, and God bless you.
It was a nice ramble, and I for one agree with it. I just wanted you to know that before the rest pounce on it.
Actually, you do see jesus saying to stone children, when facing the hebrew priests who accuse him of doing work on the sabbath.
Also, can someone please answer me this. Why don't you have all the answers? You have a book which perfectly lays out the wishes of god, you have a god who loves you and wants you to come join him in heaven, this same god can literally do anything, nothing can stand in his way. Why, if all this is true, do you not have all the answers? You should, all the answers should be at your fingertips, you should grasp them, and if you can't, god should make you grasp them. then, and only then, can you claim that hell is a place you throw yourself.
Think of it this way. Lets say there is a kid named billy. Billy wants to jump into this pool of water. Now his mother comes along and says, "No billy, don't jump into that pool, its full of snakes". Now Billy asks his mom what a snake is. His mom just says, "you've got to figure it out Billy, ask the right questions and you'll figure out what a snake is". Is it then Billy's fault for not knowing what a snake is, or by extention, jumping into the pool?
That is exactly what god is doing. You have to know what he wants you to do to escape hell. But he doesn't tell you what he wants. If he did, which I'm sure some of you are about to claim, why don't you know it?
given that the bible is supposed to be the inerrant word of god, why is it so difficult for you all to give us the answers we seek? why do you have to point us to websites, instead of articulating these beliefs you claim to be so strong in yourself?
and, what a selfish thing to say, "he died for us". do you guys not realize how seriously arrogant a statement that is?
When I was mainly the only person in the counter experiment side of this debate, I was called many names and such, so if you read back Crazy Cat and the others have a point.
I am not a Christian, nor did I call any of the other side names, try to make them look badly, but stated my points and even added a smile.
I personally don't need to scream in writing to make a point, and my adding that smile was to show this is a debate.
If I am accountable for all the wrongs that have been done in the name of religion, so are you others accountable for all the wrongs done against religion, right?
That to me doesn't make sense, because you personally did not belong to the group that caused the harm. If you had personally belonged to that group, or spoke out saying "yes what they did was correct and just" then and only then can I say you are accountable for it.
Post 207 I personally don't say all the things such as being cast in to a lake of fire, because you are bad. The God I believe in, and I have stated this as well is not cruel.
I can debate, and state my opinions strongly, and do often on these boards, but calling someone stupid, dumb, crazy, and generally disrespecting them has no place in a calm, and intelligent debate. These are in my *strong* opinion childish ways to feel you are winning or getting your point across.
Last, I am happy to see some Christians join here. I was, and stated, wondering where you were?
Feeling strongly about a point and stating it is how I live, but being rude doesn't make me right, it only makes me look rude no matter how it is done, writing or spoken.
It has been said and used the statement "Martin Luther King was angry." Sure he was, but point out to me one time when he was rude, disrespectful, and called on his followers, or people who agreed with him to go out and be so to the opposing side?
He stood and preached peaceful means to the end, not war. From that example you can see it got done, and even in death, even though he was not a perfect person by "Christian" standards, he has great respect.
Ok, if you are not a christian, please tell me what god you do believe in, so that I can debate you on those grounds. You certainly would not be considered under the same blanket as the christians since you're not one, that would be unfair.
As for whether we are held accountable for the evils done in the name of atheism, not that there are a lot of them done in the name of atheism, I will accept that responsibility when and if you can present to me a set of rules for atheists to follow which orders us to do evil acts. The christians have one, so it is not wrong to say their religion is evil. If the rules upon which your religion is based are evil for the most part, then you're religion is evil. Its the fruit of the poison tree idea.
You, however, are not christian apparently, so tell me what god you believe in, and we'll debate that. You say he's good, is he also omnipotent, what book represents him, does he have a name?
How is "he died for us" arrogant? It's not like we're saying "Jesus died for all of us who believe in him." He died for capital ALL of us. Though it was not his death that atoned for our sins, but his experience in the garden of Gethsamane wherein he suffered unimaginable torment for us. The crusifiction is really just the icing on a really bitter cake, which bridged the gap between life, and death.
Why I choose to point you to quotes and sources rather than state everything myself (though I've done that) is for three reasons. First, so you realize it's not just me spouting off something that nobody else has looked into, answered or thought of. I don't want this to be the gospel according to Remy Chartier, and when it is, I usually try to make it known that it is my own personal belief. The other reason is because I don't always have time to write out everything pertaining to the topic in as clear and articulate a way as I feel it deserves. And third, most of the articles I point to usually have sitations and scriptural references of their own, and I know how important it is to provide sources, which is something that is important to you, too. I'm not parritting back something someone else has thought, I quote it and site it because I agree with it.
As for why we don't have all the answers, that's a good question Lightning. Certainly it would be a lot simpler if we did, wouldn't it? The thing is, we can't be forced into believing. If everything we had faith in was 100% provable on a grand scale, we'd be even more accountable for our own actions than we are already! Further more, free will would have been somewhat illusionary. I honestly wish there were only one church, one belief, one unquestionable perceived truth. In our church belief, that's exactly what Lucifer (Satan) wanted. I'll be happy to elaborate on that, but only if anyone cares to hear it because it's a bit of a story.
how is it arrogant to say someone died for us? simple, BG. it's incredibly selfish to think that a higher power did something for *you*/the world as a whole. that's misguided, not to mention one of the most idiotic things I've heard in awhile.
You have debated me many times, so if you think about it will know why I say I’m not a Christian. Believing in God doesn’t mean one much belong to a group or have a title.
My views on life are not as a Christian would like, but I am a strong believer in God, love, peace, and nature. This is God.
I believe in both the Bible and Koran teachings, but understand that some of these books have been altered to suit the times, so only stand on the base belief system.
Last, when I have pointed out wrongs done in the name of Atheist you refuse to except them and say the people that committed them are not Atheist. That makes you not responsible for them.
However, you want to rant against a person and make them responsible for any and everything done in the name of religion even though they say exactly the same thing you do, the people that committed that crime weren’t believers in the true Christian way.
A person that calls themselves an Atheist in my mind is an Atheist just like in your mind a Christian is a Christian. I personally choose to take a person as they are and not as their title says she should be.
We could get back to that devil worship thing and people that practice it saying they are Atheist, but in my mind that is unfair to say you are a devil worshiper because you are Atheist.
Give that some thought.
Oh I'm not saying they weren't atheists. Stalin, for example, was certainly an atheist, a christian educated atheist, but an atheist. He did terrible things, but he did them in the name of communism/stalinism, not atheism. Stalin also had a funny mustache, are you going to say all people with funny mustaches are stalinists?
Your argument is based on causality. You are saying, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the evil things done in the name of atheism make us all responsible for them because we are atheists. Just as we accuse the christians of being guilty of the evils done by there church.
There are a few problems with this. First, Atheists are not a religion. You can't have a religion based on a negative, nor one which doesn't have a deity. That's the dictionary definition of a religion, and atheism just doesn't fit it. Second, as I said, Atheism doesn't have a rule book. We are responsible for our own actions. That means if I go out and stone someone to death, I'm just a murdrer, but if a christian does it, they can factually claim that the bible told them to do it because that person was cheating on their wife or husband. They would be right in saying that, the bible tells you to do that. The rule book, the foundation of the religion is flawed and evil, that makes the entire thing evil. If the foundation you build a house on is weak, the entire house is weak.
Atheism, contrary to popular belief, is not based on anything but reasonable thought. We have no book telling us to believe this, don't believe that, kill that person, love that person, love that person but kill him anyway, kill that person but do it lovingly, none of that. Do you see the difference?
Oh, and which teachings do you believe in? Cuz I believe in some bible verses. Like, the one about loving your neighbor, I sometimes believe that one, its a bit restrictive but its not a bad sentament. The one about love being pure and so on, I love that verse, no pun intended. But that doesn't mean I believe in the bible, just that I find a few passages moving. You could do that with practically any book, hell I'm a libertarian and I find some parts of the communist manifesto moving and well thought out. So do you believe in the bible, or do you like the bible? Is the god you believe in real, or just something you want to believe in to make yourself feel better? Are you simply unwilling to believe that there isn't a god, so you put in a plasebo god that you can't really support with anything in the way of evidence?
Well if that's your reason, I'm just a big idiot. That's okay though.
Forereal, I was going to say all that about how you don't need to believe in one religion to be spiritual, or even believe in God, but I didn't want to speak for you. It's just more labeling and perception. And really that's what I see the most here. Even the person on the zone who does worship satan appears to be quite a decent person. Go figure.
Thank you, BlindGuardian.
Cody, can you tell me in what verses Jesus says to stone children? I don’t mean this sarcastically, I really don’t remember it occurring and would like to know.
We do have a book, and we have prayer, which is to say, God does talk to us. That is why I point you to other people instead of answering you myself. Some people have been listening for much longer, or much harder than I have. This doesn’t say much for me I know.
But God does give us the answer of how to avoid hell.
Ephesians 1:3 3 May blessing (praise, laudation, and eulogy) be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (the Messiah) Who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual (given by the Holy Spirit) blessing in the heavenly realm!
4 Even as [in His love] He chose us [actually picked us out for Himself as His own] in Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy (consecrated and set apart for Him) and blameless in His sight, even above reproach, before Him in love.
5 For He foreordained us (destined us, planned in love for us) to be adopted (revealed) as His own children through Jesus Christ, in accordance with the purpose of His will [because it pleased Him and was His kind intent]—
6 [So that we might be] to the praise and the commendation of His glorious grace (favor and mercy), which He so freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
3:14 For this reason [seeing the greatness of this plan by which you are built together in Christ], I bow my knees before the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 For Whom every family in heaven and on earth is named [that Father from Whom all fatherhood takes its title and derives its name].
16 May He grant you out of the rich treasury of His glory to be strengthened and reinforced with mighty power in the inner man by the [Holy] Spirit [Himself indwelling your innermost being and personality].
17 May Christ through your faith [actually] dwell (settle down, abide, make His permanent home) in your hearts! May you be rooted deep in love and founded securely on love,
18 That you may have the power and be strong to apprehend and grasp with all the saints [God’s devoted people, the experience of that love] what is the breadth and length and height and depth [of it];
19 [That you may really come] to know [practically, through experience for yourselves] the love of Christ, which far surpasses mere knowledge [without experience]; that you may be filled [through all your being] unto all the fullness of God [may have the richest measure of the divine Presence, and become a body wholly filled and flooded with God Himself]!
Granted God is talking about His church, His bride, His kingdom here, but He calls everyone into His church. How do we answer Him?
Matthew 11: 28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy-laden and overburdened, and I will cause you to rest. [I will ease and relieve and refresh your souls.]
29 Take My yoke upon you and learn of Me, for I am gentle (meek) and humble (lowly) in heart, and you will find rest (relief and ease and refreshment and) recreation and blessed quiet) for your souls.
30 For My yoke is wholesome (useful, good—not harsh, hard, sharp, or pressing, but comfortable, gracious, and pleasant), and My burden is light and easy to be borne.
John 5: 24 I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, the person whose ears are open to My words [who listens to My message] and believes and trusts in and clings to and relies on Him Who sent Me has (possesses now) eternal life. And he does not come into judgment [does not incur sentence of judgment, will not come under condemnation], but he has already passed over out of death into life.
38 And you have not His word (His thought) living in your hearts, because you do not believe and adhere to and trust in and rely on Him Whom He has sent. [That is why you do not keep His message living in you, because you do not believe in the Messenger Whom He has sent.]
39 You search and investigate and pore over the Scriptures diligently, because you suppose and trust that you have eternal life through them. And these [very Scriptures] testify about Me!
40 And still you are not willing [but refuse] to come to Me, so that you might have life. 41 I receive not glory from men [I crave no human honor, I look for no mortal fame],
42 But I know you and recognize and understand that you have not the love of God in you.
6 Jesus said to him, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me.
7 If you had known Me [had learned to recognize Me], you would also have known My Father. From now on, you know Him and have seen Him.
8 Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father [cause us to see the Father—that is all we ask]; then we shall be satisfied.
9 Jesus replied, Have I been with all of you for so long a time, and do you not recognize and know Me yet, Philip? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say then, Show us the Father?
10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in Me? What I am telling you I do not say on My own authority and of My own accord; but the Father Who lives continually in Me does the (His) works (His own miracles, deeds of power).
11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me; or else believe Me for the sake of the [very] works themselves. [If you cannot trust Me, at least let these works that I do in My Father’s name convince you.]
12 I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, if anyone steadfastly believes in Me, he will himself be able to do the things that I do; and he will do even greater things than these, because I go to the Father.
Acts 16: 31 And they answered, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ [give yourself up to Him, take yourself out of your own keeping and entrust yourself into His keeping] and you will be saved, [and this applies both to] you and your household as well.
Romans 10: 8 But what does it say? The Word (God’s message in Christ) is near you, on your lips and in your heart; that is, the Word (the message, the basis and object) of faith which we preach,
9 Because if you acknowledge and confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and in your heart believe (adhere to, trust in, and rely on the truth) that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart a person believes (adheres to, trusts in, and relies on Christ) and so is justified (declared righteous, acceptable to God), and with the mouth he confesses (declares openly and speaks out freely his faith) and confirms [his] salvation.
John 3:16 For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.
17 For God did not send the Son into the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, but that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.
All of these verses have been taken from the Amplified version of the Bible.
Happy Heart, when I say, “He died for us,” I’m including myself. I have no reason or right to be arrogant, and if I come across that way, I apologize.
Ok, this is taken from the book of mathew. I'm afraid it isn't from the amplified version of the bible, I believe it is from the king james, though I am not really sure. Either way, we're in mathew chapter fifteen if you'd like to follow along:
15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Now, lets go back to the question of the punishments for breaking those ten commandments everyone wants put up in courthouses across the country.
Commandment one, thou shalt have no other gods before me. For this, according to Deuteronomy 2:33-34, Numbers 21:34-35, 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Joshua 6:21. Joshua 10:40) the punishment is complete genocide and destruction of cities. However in some cases you can keep the girls alive for raping, though only in some cases.
Commandment two, thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. For the punishment, same thing complete genocide and destruction of cities. For examples see the examples for commandment one.
Commandment three, thou shalt not take the lord' thy god's name in vain. The punishment for this one is execution according to
Leviticus 24:16, Deuteronomy 18:20, Mark 3:28-29). Oh look, mark is in the new testament, not the old one before God supposedly went to anger management. Who woulda thunk that one. Anyway lets move on.
Commandment four, remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. The punishment for this one, as I'm sure you've already guessed, is execution according to Exodus 31:14, Exodus 31:15, Exodus 35:2Numbers 15:32)
Commandment five, honor thy father and thy mother. Say it with me now everybody, the punishment for this one is execution. That would be according to Exodus 21:15, Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9), and Matthew, as shown above.
Commandment six, we're into the last half here everybody, stay with me now. Thou shalt not kill. Now the punishment for this one is a little tricky. Sometimes its execution, sometimes its not. For example according to Genesis 4:15) you can kill abel and be fine, but kill cain and you're executed. Now, of course, in the case of God, the punishment for killing is having to smell burning meat for a while, but according to the noah story that smell is pleasing to you, so you just get to basque in the worship of those you didn't kill. Number six is tricky that way I guess. Lets just move on, no one pays attention to that commandment anyway, I mean can you say crusades?
Number seven, this one has got to be better, right? Seven is do not commit adultery. What's the punishment for this one, anyone wanna guess? Well if you said execution, pat yourself on the back, you're right according to Leviticus 20:10). Oh and remember, at the end of the fourteenth chapter of Matthew, Jesus made it clear that just having unclean thoughts about someone else was committing adultery. So all of you who fantasized about Megan Fox, go find her, cuz you've both gotta be killed. Come on, I couldn't have been the only one.
Lets see what number eight gives us, shall we? Thou shalt not steal. This is another tricky one, not because of the law, but because of its punishment. Usually the punishment is enslavement or excessive fines as seen in Exodus 22:1-3), but if you steal a slave, its capitol punishment as seen in Exodus 21:16). Now if you just suck at stealing, and you get caught as a thief, you get killed, for details I refer you to Exodus 22:1-3). And who said god doesn't have a sense of humor, come on, gettin' caught is funny, right?
We're almost done now. Nine is thou shall not bear faulse witness against thy neighbor, or basically don't lie, which I swear I'm not. I don't want to get despised and scorned, as outlined in proverbs 12:8. God must have whimped out on that one, no killing.
Maybe ten will bring us back to killing. Ten is thou shalt not covet. Really, what does god have against capitalism, the friggin' commy. Well at any rate, if you covet, you empirialist running dog you, your consolation prize from god is a heaping helping of despisement and scorn again, as seen in Romans 7:7-8). Welll, God lets us down in the last two, but at least you're scorned.
Now, you really wanna follow these to the letter? Cuz I've got some rocks in my backyard that ain't doin' nothin' but layin' around.
You know, most of the commandments bother me in some form. But one that really bothers me is Commandment 1: thou shalt have no other gods before me. if God is so loving, and so powerful, why is he so jealous that that particular commandment needs to go on the list at all, much less the very top? Why not just show your followers they need not put any gods before him? Yes, I know. You're supposed to have faith, but when you're in a relationship with a human, you're also supposed to have faith in him or her. that doesn't mean you set rules that say you can't put anyone else first. that's not what love is. Any person who loves you also has the freedom not to love you, but through your actions, and their faith in you based on these actions, they will stay and love you because they want to, unless of course your actions prove otherwise. But that's just it: if god answers prayers, and we can all feel his love and presence, why does he need a rule like this? Between my own experience, and many of the posts here, I believe I already know the answer, but I'll give someone else the floor to answer. Don't be shy.
I too am an idiot! I will continue my strong belief in God dumb as it may seem to some, but to me quite productive, and fulfilling.
The question of why the Atheist community on this site seems, or as far as I can tell from the post made by them, are so bitter, has not been addressed.
I am not only talking about when they are in a debate such as this one, but on other things as well. If standing up for what one believes, and being a non-religious idiot would cause me to be rude, bitter, and general non feeling about others opinions I’m not interested. Convincing me that I’m wrong in my thinking will not be accomplished by this manner.
Now being fair I can’t say that the poster is as he or she seems on this sight in person, but the statement has been made, and I’ve made it myself that “I am the same here as in life, “ so what would I conclude?
As to the commandments and the punishment. If you were God and had the power to create a society, adding in free will, but setting rules these punishments are not as harsh as they seem. Yes, that is an odd concept, so I’ll explain my thinking.
I have the power to build or destroy what I have built and restore it again, even giving the people I destroyed back there life, I could use such measures as a teaching mode.
Because I am not God, nor have this kind of power, I do not and cannot condone others using, or saying these punishments are just like myself. Judge not, less you be judged, and live and let live are some of the guidelines given to us I choose to follow.
Now this doesn’t mean I don’t have an opinion, I am human after all, but I’ll not be persecuting others that don’t agree with me. If we are following human rights laws and rules I see no reason for people not to believe as they choose. Debate me, try to change my mine is fine, but don’t persecute me.
As to that second commandment, it is how you intrepid it. Wanting to love, and needing or having to love your neighbor seems important. If most of us chose to choose when to love we’d be in a worse condition then we are. I honestly believe it is why we are in some conditions.
If I see you standing on a corner hungry and I take the attitude I don’t have to give that person any love, well you’d starve and die. I pass you by, the next person passes you by, and the third person passes you by until you die, because well, we don’t have to love anyone we don’t want to, right?
Maybe because I stopped and gave you some love you live. You are a seriously productive person after you were given a chance and you do something or create something that helps all humanity.
Not loving is why these people spoken about are dying of aids for lack of love. “They don’t agree with us, so we don’t have to love these sinners.” I believe in love not because I have to love, but because it is in my heart, and being due to the teaching of that concept. A spiritual child needs rules to follow until that spirit becomes mature be it Atheist or Christian.
I have heard it said that Atheism is not a religion, and we have no books to follow. You actually have many books you follow, and even preachers. This whole topic was based on a book and a preaching or teaching of an Atheist concept.
You are not born Atheist, or religious, but thought it.
Here in Colorado we even have Atheist temples, churches, meeting groups. They get together to strengthen each other in the Atheist way of life just like Christians do.
You personally may not belong to such a church or temple as I myself don’t, but you read and listen to preaching’s or teachings, or have at some point in your life. I would go so far as to dub Cody an Atheist preacher. I say that, because of his statement “I am posting or saying these things in hopes of helping someone change their minds and see things clearly.” Now where have I heard that? From these Christian preachers many times. He even has boasted about having followers.
that's where you're wrong, Wayne. the fact you claim to have heard from christian preachers what us atheists do or don't have, is not only misguided, but utterly ridiculous.
as has been said multiple times, and will continue to be, atheism, is, not, a, religion. I repeat. atheism, is, not, a, religion! got it? I'm sure you don't, but maybe *someone* will understand.
secondly, atheists don't go to church. considering, as I just said, it isn't a religion, we simply live our lives as we see fit, focusing on the here and now, and making the most of the only life that exists.
contrary to this continued perception that we're rather bitter individuals, I'll state again, for the umpteenth time, that that couldn't be further from the truth.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that atheists are so bitter. But I have no interest in converting you, nor do I have any interest to advertise/promote atheism all over the net. After all, there would be no benefit to me in doing so. No matter who turns out to be right, I have no need to fear for you. If you're right, you'll be warm and safe in heaven; and if I'm right, we'll all simply be dead. There is no real emotional comfort and security by being an atheist, but that's all right, because we don't need that. We find comfort in other ways, most of which should, in theory, come from within ourselves. Even the act of being antitheistic, which I am not by the way, doesn't make someone bitter. They are just strongly opposed to the belief in God. some are only strongly against organized religion. To put it another way, I am very much opposed to the existence of child pornography. does that make me a bitter person? No, of course it doesn't.
As of right now, this post isn’t going to be a very long one. I do want to look in depth at all the scriptures you gave, Cody, study them and then come back to you on them, but I’m not going to do that just yet.
I do just want to say: Yes God is a jealous God.
Exodus 20:3 You shall have no other gods before or besides Me.
4 You shall not make yourself any graven image [to worship it] or any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
5 You shall not bow down yourself to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me,
6 But showing mercy and steadfast love to a thousand generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments.
God is love. And all of these commandments, any commandment that God gives, is about trying to get us to love Him and to love one another. In the Old Testament He is speaking to the Israelites, who know Him. He’s not speaking to a nation who has no knowledge of Him. No, He doesn’t bring those nations in until Jesus comes, Who came partly to end the stoning and the execution, because He took all that punishment on Himself. God loves us, and would rather die for us, than have us die, would rather be stoned than have us stoned
I could be wrong, but maybe God is jealous for us because He is love. He’s jealous for us because He wants to give us love itself. He wants us to experience love, and gulp it down and then vomit it into Him and into our neighbor and into our enemy and into ourselves. To continue being filled and to continue filling. We can’t love without love. I’m not saying that an atheist can’t love. God is everywhere..
Deuteronomy 6: 4 Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord [the only Lord].
5 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your [mind and] heart and with your entire being and with all your might.
Liviticus 19:18You shall not take revenge or bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.
Mark 12: 28 Then one of the scribes came up and listened to them disputing with one another, and, noticing that Jesus answered them fitly and admirably, he asked Him, Which commandment is first and most important of all [[h]in its nature]?
29 Jesus answered, The first and principal one of all commands is: Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord;
30 And you shall love the Lord your God out of and with your whole heart and out of and with all your soul (your life) and out of and with all your mind (with your faculty of thought and your moral understanding) and out of and with all your strength. This is the first and principal commandment.
31 The second is like it and is this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.
32 And the scribe said to Him, Excellently and fitly and admirably answered, Teacher! You have said truly that He is One, and there is no other but Him;
33 And to love Him out of and with all the heart and with all the understanding [with the faculty of quick apprehension and intelligence and keenness of discernment] and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Matthew 5:43 You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy;
44 But I tell you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45To show that you are the children of your Father Who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the wicked and on the good, and makes the rain fall upon the upright and the wrongdoers [alike].
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward can you have? Do not even the tax collectors do that?
47 And if you greet only your brethren, what more than others are you doing? Do not even the Gentiles (the heathen) do that?
48 You, therefore, must be perfect [growing into complete maturity of godliness in mind and character, having reached the proper height of virtue and integrity], as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Amplified Bible
Jess brought up something which I forgot to earlier. the difference between atheists, and those who are religious, is that those who believe in god seek to convert others to their way of thinking, despite what they frequently claim. atheists never set out to convert anyone.
also, we atheists do good deeds for people when we so desire, without the influence of a higher power over our heads damning us to eternity in a firey pit if we don't. we do so cause it's the right thing, and we have this thing called compassion.
Fine Happy Hart you don't have to believe your Atheist practice is a religion, but you can't refute the fact that here in Colorado, and in my city we have Atheist churches, temples, and such things. Yes, I have heard this to, well their not Atheist. They claim they are, it is printed on their boshires, and signs on the church/temple.
Ocean, you are not bitter as far as I see, and I'll not name names here, but many of the Atheist are. I can go back even iin this topic alone and cut and paste out passages where I find the ciscussion leading to name calling and bitter writing, or seemingly.
Last, I never said that you Atheist weren't at peace with not having an after life, nor do I live for an after life. It is written live for today, tomorrow is not promised to you. I do this and enjoy my life as much and a offten as I can. I personally am not waiiting for the after life to live. I think that is a mis condeption that Christians are, however some do say these things.
While I'm here, and if there is an after life, Heaven, or whatever, I intend to live the best, and lovingness I can regardless of others opinions.
Also in stating my opinion I don't require nastiness to get my point over.
Wayne, you just said in your last post that the people in certain churches in your state aren't actually atheist, which I'd agree with.
but, for the record, you also contradicted yourself. thanks for proving a point I and others often make.
call me, Cody, and whoever else you'd like bitter. that's your opinion; doesn't mean it's true.
there's no need to copy and paste stuff, as none of us are denying/have ever denyed the way we come across. as has been said, people's perceptions are their perceptions.
Wait; hold on. Atheist churches? that doesn't even make any sense, unless they mean church in a metaphorical sense, in which case, I applaud their sense of humor and use of metaphors.
God is jealous for us? if this is the case, then why are all these verses about loving him, and nobody before him? If I wanted someone to worship me, which believe me, I most certainly do not, I certainly wouldn't accomplish this by setting forth rules that say you shall worship me, and only me. I'd think that would turn people away from me. OK, so there is your point that this is all intended for those who already know and supposedly love god, but what about new believers? Wouldn't you want to make people who have just discovered this faith feel comfortable; loved; welcome; cared for? I do admit, there are some parts of this religion that seem very warm and comforting, but this most certainly is not one of them. Even if this wasn't the first thing you showed me, the fact that God feels the need to include this in the terms of this relationship, if you will, disturbs me. I don't want to be disturbed by someone with whom I intend to enter a relationship, regardless of nature.
No I didn't say there were Atheist in churches I said there are Atheist churches, or temples. Do a search and see what I mean.
There is one on about 25th and Colorado that has a building, cooks great BBQ, but they do not believe in God. The sale the food to raise money to keep the temple going.
"come to the Atheist meeting at... on... at the temple of..."
Now I don't know about you, but when I think of a church I think of a group of people getting together to practice a belief. These Atheist do this. We even have some that practice rituals, but I'll not go there.
I don't know what goes on in your city, but maybe educate yourself and learn if you have these groups or places. Now you might not agree that they are real Atheist, but they say they are.
Some call their leaders preast or if female preastesses.
I'd like to get a question answered. Why is it that Christians are all Christians no matter what if they say so, but Atheist are not if they don't practice it as you think it should be practiced?
just cause someone calls themselves something, Wayne, doesn't mean it's true. so, I still say there's no such thing as atheist churches, despite what you incorrectly think to be the case.
and, for the record, there are no such "churches" (in quotes) in my city.
Well let's see here. Atheism is a set of beliefs, is it not? Yes, it is. Is it a set of morals? Of course it is. It's all based on what you think is right. Do Atheists have a God? Believe it or not, they do. Your God could be money, the universe, or anything that you put your faith in. So, is Atheism a religion? Yes, it is, whether or not you want to believe it. You can debate that all you want, and you can even deny it, but in the end, the truth is that Atheism is a religion.
In the case of the above post, I was more or less with you, until you said atheists have a god, again, not true. As that would well, invalidate what it is to be an atheist.
To loves definition is god. Jesus sinned thus he is not perfect, by extension neither is god, because jesus, the holy ghost and god, make up the Trinity that is god...
There are a lot of valid points brought up here. Lightning, thank you for providing so many passages. I too plan to do a little studying and return here. You've got me thinking.
Ocean, I really had a problem with the whole "no other gods before me, and jealous god. But this is how I understand that. In order to return back into the presence of God after the fall of Adam and Eve, we required an atonement. That atonement was Jesus Christ, and he essentially bridged the gap between life and death, as well as atoned for the sins of mankind. He Paid the price, which was incredibly high. One of the reasons there is such a difference between the old and new testaments is because until Christ, there was no savior. When Christ came, he fulfilled the requirements for our salvation. No longer were humans to offer animal sacrifice or burnt offerings (not human sacrifices, which were never to my knowledge asked for). Instead, we are to offer our love, time, talents, faith, and a broken heart and contrite spirit. The penalty for sin is no longer death, because Jesus Christ paid that price for us. The laws were a lot harsher back then, for those people, at that time. But if we turn away from Christ, if we hear of him and choose to reject him, we will not be saved in a manner that we will be able to return "home". There's a lot to the afterlife in the LDS beliefs of CHristianity, and that's why I've always said it's more complicated than just good go to heaven, bad go to hell. Granted, not all of Christianity believes that.
Anyway, I digress. There are many "gods". Gods in this case can refer to anything; money, power, "things", hatred. All of them can be considered "gods". They don't in this case refer to beings. The whole point is, if we put our faith and trust in the world, in stone idles (graven images) or in gods who do not exist, we are led further and further away from the one means to our salvation. Our father, God, and Jesus Christ love us. They love us in a manner that I myself can hardly comprehend. And to see even one of us lost is a tragedy. So when God says to love him, to put no other gods before him, and to abide by his commandments, he's doing so in order to return as many of us to him as possible. He is indeed a jealous God. In the scriptures, the word jealous has two meanings: (1) to be fervent and to have sensitive and deep feelings about someone or something, and (2) to be envious of someone or suspicious that another will gain some advantage. In this case, I believe this second likely refers to Satan, who works tirelessly to subtly lead as many of us away from God as possible.
Then, God is not all powerful. If he was, he could simply forgive us and not have to go through this atonement nonsense.
I know you're just jibing, but perhaps you're right, Impricator. But I rather think that's the cosmic equivalent to keeping your child sheltered away from the world, never teaching them how to do anything, allowing them to experience life, or even allowing them to fail sometimes. The whole point of us living on earth is to progress and grow as individual children of our God. And God's children need to learn, and to fail, just like our own children here on earth. Plus, God may be all powerful in as much as we are concerned, but even he is bound by a set of laws. Everything is. I'm not positive where I've heard that off the top of my head, but I definately do know that the universe was created and organized, rather than just poofed into being. The scriptures tell us that much. "In the beginning was matter unorganized." Nor is it the only one.
If he is bound by laws, that implies that an all-powerful being has limitations. Doesn't make sense.
I messed up on my post before doing to many things at once.
Priestesses is what the females are called.
• Now there is an Atheist leader, or free thinking philosopher that wishes to build a temple for Atheist to gather.
• Alain De Botton Calls For Atheist Temple, Prompting Spat With ...This person has written several books, and “preaches” free thinking. Wants to base one of these temples right here.
• Denver « Metro State Atheists
• This is a traveling preacher based here in my lovely city.
• Home | United Coalition of Reason
Yes another one in my woods.
• Boulder Atheists - Home Page
And if I dig some more I could add to that list.
Yes, Happy Hart, these people are Atheist simply because they call themselves so. Just as you can think you are, why can’t they?
That leader person has a large following, and maybe even you have read the books?
Yes, I've read some of those writings, and I read enough to realize that he is using the word temple metaphorically. Just because something is called a temple, doesn't mean it is a religious temple. The word cathedral, church, temple, are all ambiguous. Hell, I have cathedral ceilings, doesn't mean my living room is a church from medieval europe.
I love when people point out the "I am a jealous god" verse, because it allows me to point out another fun punishment. Really, I love doing this people, its fun. In this case we're talking about meeding out punishment unto the fourth generation. Lets think about that for a second.
Lets say you're great grandfather was a murderer. Now you never met your great grandfather, or the person he killed, he was executed long before you came to exist. But God kills your grandfather, because your great grandfather killed someone. He also kills your father, and then he kills you. That's the fourth generation.
LDIG, when your husband/boyfriend whatever it is you have makes you upset, do you beat your children for it? Of course not, so why are you ok with the person you worship doing it?
I will never understand why people are so willing to accept the god they worship doing awful things that even hitler would blush at. Why is he held to these grand exhaulted criteria? Where does it ever say that God is not governed by the logic of men?
Next, the idea of an omnipotent god being governed by laws harkens back to the four way question of why evil exists. It goes basically like this. If god is always good or omnibenevolent, and able to do all things or omnipotent, why does evil exist? The possible answers are, either god can destroy evil but doesn't want to, which is not omnibenevolent, can't destroy evil but wants to, which is not omnipotent, or neither can he or does he wish to destroy evil, in which case why call him god at all? It is a question I have never heard a good explanation for other than, "You've just gotta have faith", maybe one of you can change that.
Next, objects are not god unless they are sanctified. A carved image that you worship and think actually interferes in your life is a god. A five dollar bill is not. Tools are not gods. Look up the definition of the word god sometime and you'll realize its more than just something you put your faith in. Besides, if your claim was true, you yourself would have many gods, thus making you polytheists, thus making you break the first commandment, thus cursing yourself to hell by your own admission. Sure you wanna go down that road? I think I'm more willling to admit that I worship money than you are to admit you're a polytheist and that you've been wrong about worshipping the one true god all this time. I'll leave it up to you whether you wanna go down that path of debate.
Next, let me explain something. A profit and a leader are different things. Jesus was a profit, he came down from heaven at the direction of god, and delivered a message from god telling people what god wanted. If you didn't follow a profit, bad things happened, just look at the old testament for examples. Christopher hitchins, who I revere greatly, is not a profit. He was born perfectly normally to an english navy family, grew up, did some reading, had some thoughts, wrote down those thoughts. You know what happens if you disagree with Christopher hitchins, which I have and continue to do on certain subjects, absolutely nothing.
Just because I follow the writings of someone, doesn't make them a profit or a preacher. Just because I speak out against religion doesn't make me an atheist preacher. Now, I do preach my own atheism in the sense of the word preach as a verb, but rappers preach, they aren't preachers. A preacher devotes his life to spreading the word of the gospil, whichever one he subscribes too. Sorry, but I don't have the time to devote that much to this. This is just entertainment mixed with a bit of a hope that I can show some other atheists that its ok to not be afraid. And please don't go calling me an atheist moses because I said that, I'm not that either.
Just because you deliver a message, does not make you a preacher, or a religion. There is a set definition for both those terms, and atheists do not fit it. If you'd like to continue the debate of whether atheism is a religion, please name me the atheist god by name. I can name yours, though he has a boring name, his name is God, or Yahweh, or Jehova. He's got a few names. Can you name me a god of atheism? A god, not a writer, or a thinker or a celebrated speaker.
Wayne, not once did I ever imply that the people in the so-called church you mentioned were not atheist. I simply pointed out a few possibilities as to why they were calling this building a church. My guess, as Cody pointed out as well, is that they were intending the name to be a metaphor. I don't know much else about them, and thus, I can't claim they are, or are not atheists.
Michael, I do agree with you that atheism is a set of morals and beliefs, but you totally lost me when you brought all the things that could be a god into your post. I don't worship money, hatred, love, other people, other emotions, other objects, or myself. I do not worship anything. If I did, we might be able to have a conversation about who or what might be considered a god in my life. I'm not saying there are no people who might worship these things as though they were gods, but believe it or not, it is possible to live life without this.
guess you were right, after all, Jess. evidently, the phrase religious temple was used as a metaphor. glad that finally came out, since the whole idea seemed quite stupid as it was.
Michael, you're incorrect about us atheists worshiping anything. we worship *nothing*. not the ground we walk on, not ourselves, not someone else, not a higher power, not multiple ones, not money, nor some other inatamant object. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
we do have morals and beliefs, based on what we know to be right, rather than simply atheism itself.
so, next time you feel you wanna come on here and spout a huge mistake, maybe try talking to one of us first to get your question answered accurately.
I think the concept of worshiping nothing is so foreign to him, that he has to rely on completely broken, logically flawed arguments full of fallacy to relate his ideals to ours.
come to think of it, it's really not unlike sighted people who can't imagine life in darkness, so they make assumptions based on what they would do in our shoes. After all, I have heard atheists and agnostics referred to as "faith impaired". Not often, but I found that quite amusing.
I think you're right, James.
Jess, wow; faith impaired? that's a new one on me.
yep. I read this in an Email forward awhile back. One of those stupid little things that tell you to forward this inspirational message along to your friends to get good luck, so I can't honestly say I'm surprised, but there you have it.
doesn't surprise me, either; I've just never heard it till now.
I hate these emails, cchain letters, whatever. "If you don't forward this you'll have bad luck forever." My loving mom had a breakdown over these nonsense once. Hate them. When I get one I hit delete twice.
I simply do not practice that sort of belief system, so I'm odd. Next, and this is strange, I don't do any worshiping, just believing in the concept, or power, ways, and direction.
This is why I say I am glad to see other Christians here, because I don't make a good one at all. God is with me, the things around me, the reason I am as I am, but not anything or a power to be feared. Jesus tried to get that point over, so did others.
Love, or a loving understanding God is were I live.
Now maybe he used the word temple as you say, but why does he have specific rules to how this building should be constructed? He wants to build them in many cities. Bricks, wood, whatever, not a concept at all.
We have these brick, wood buildings the Atheist go to for meetings, and the speakers preach free thinking. That to me is religion.
Atheist moses ? That I love. You don't have to commit your whole life to preaching, just do it offten as all, and you are the word of Atheist thought. You do it offten here and you start topics specificly for the purpose of spreading your beliefs, so if that is not preaching tell me how come?
Now, myself, I am a great believer in health and keeping fit. If I start posting topics to get others to start thinking as I do I become a health preacher. Yes, I'm religious about it. Lol
We're starting debates on forems; forems which you are, by no means, required to read and post to. here's the difference. You're not forced to spend long hours at work, reading or listening to my atheist ramblings about how you will find liberation in these beliefs. I don't think anyone here, no matter how extreme with their opinion, is guilty of preaching on this board. Do you know why? Because if I don't like what I'm reading, or if you don't like what you're reading, there are plenty of links that will navigate you away from this topic. No harm done. Now, if you start flooding my email inbox with messages about how I need to be saved, you are now preaching, because this is time out of my day I have to spend filtering this out of my inbox. Not much time, I'll admit, but time I could be spending taking a few extra sips of coffee. Point is, I haven't asked to receive these Emails, but I voluntarily choose to frequent these forems. I honestly didn't think this was rocket science.
Besides the fact that, if you don't listen to me, absolutely nothing happens. Its the opposite side of paskal's wager. If you don't believe me, nothing happens.
You are mistaking the verb preach, with the noun preacher. One who preaches is not necessarily a preacher. You can deliver a message, and do it vehemently, but not be a preacher.
Think of it this way. You can add two plus two, but that doesn't mean you are a mathematician, you are just doing math. A mathematician is a step above that. See the difference?
Now, as for the building argument, I urge you to look up the definition of religion, and try applying your premise to other situations. For example, you can go to a building built for the purpose and discuss republicanism, or liberalism. Would you say those are religions? You can go to buildings and discuss medical subjects, would you call that a religion? You can go to school and discuss education, is education now a religion? You can go to gun stores and discuss guns, are guns a religion? You can go to banks and discuss money, is money a religion? You can go to a dock and discuss boating, is boating a religion? I go to sandwich shops and discuss the merits of turkey versus ham, is dellie meat a religion?
Your words actually have meaning already, you can't force them into a hole they don't fit into. A religion has to have a god, it has to, otherwise it isn't a religion. A car has to have an engine, it has to or its not a car. Atheism is literally having no god, thus, not a religion.
These temples are built to emulate religious places, yes, I will grant you that, but there is a reason for it. Atheists do not have the same community as religious people do. We can't go to church and see our neighbors, ask for help, socialize, all of that which is commonly done at church. So we create, or try to create, that same type of atmosphere where we can go and discuss our lack of belief in a god in peace. A place where we don't have to worry about someone calling us a devil worshipper or a heathen. I do the same thing with gunstores. I go there to discuss guns, in a place where I won't be called crazy because I feel a need to have a loaded gun in the drawer of my nightstand. Same exact logic.
I'm still curious where you get your beliefs from though. Why is it that you are arbitrarily allowed to believe parts of the bible, and not others? Jesus didn't only have that one verse that said to love your neighbor, he had a lot of violent ones. Where do you get the authority to dismiss some and follow others? From where do you derive your system of beliefs?
On religion.
I think anything you live by, or decide to believe in the ralm or God, or not God is a religion.
Now as to you, I can't say you are religious, but I do say that some Atheist practice it as a religion. They do exactly the same things that Christians do.
They read books, or a manual. They have a main speaker, or preacher. They attend a set meeting, and just like Christians are always going about trying to concince others about what they believe.
I posted the thing about the guy that travels around here speaking about his Atheist beliefs and trying to sway others to see it his way. Is he not a traveling preacher, and is he not spreading his religion?
Sure it is a loose term as I'm using it, I'll grant you that, but it has the same base.
Now on the reading of boards. Sure you can not read a board, and navigate away from it. You can do exactly the same with churches, don't go, or these emails. You don't have to read them.
Clicking through the channels on the radio or television, pass the Christian programs by.
These prayer letters I stopped people from sending them to me a long time ago by pointing out the messages at the bottoms. You usually don't get these out of the blue. People you know send them to you, so you can pass them on.
If you are getting lots of them I'd suspect someone you know is trying to push Christian belief on you.
I'll get back to the part about the believing some parts of the Bible and not others, because I want to gather my thoughts and tell you exactly why. I don't discount them, however, depending on what Bible you are reading from, just like any written book, they are altered to suit the group.
I know some churches that won't allow the study of the King James version, but have a Bible written, or books, study guides, written specificly to suit the adgenda they wish to push.
I'll get back to that as I say.
Ok, then this willl be a short entry. You may think that any belief you hold is a religion, but the dictionary says you're wrong. That's not me talking, that's the dictionary. You're wrong,, and its provable with easily-found evidence. It kind of scares me that you continue to maintain a belief that can easily be shown as wrong by a simple glance at a dictionary.
You're basically saying, I love sandwiches, but I count pies as sandwiches too. I believe anything you consume that can be bought at a sandwich store is a sandwich. So cupcakes are sandwiches, cookies are sandwiches, coffee is a sandwich, juices are sandwiches, and of course sandwiches are sandwiches.
Words have meaning, you can't just take a word and apply it to whatever you want just because it fits you're ajenda. You want atheism to be a religion because you think it demeans our argument, but that doesn't mean that you can say, "Well I think its a religion, so that makes it a religion". The world just doesn't work that way.
And no, just because he travels around, talking about his atheism, doesn't make him a preacher. Obama travels around talking about his liberalism, that doesn't make him a preacher either.
I am not stating that your Atheist belief is a religion, only that some people feel theirs is. Sorry, should have said so. You are correct about the meaning of religion, but not the concept others believe.
The guy that travels says he's a teacher, or Atheist preacher, that is what he thinks, and I agree.
You ask me a personal question Cody, and I promised to answer.
What authority do I have to discount or not believe in parts of the Bible, but believe in others?
I believe in the Bible and Karan as a whole and do not discount any of it. These are the 2 life guide books I have studied, so I can’t say about the others that are available.
Both have a main thesis, and the main, or base concept or life mapping has been laid out plainly to follow; that is what I do.
When the New Testament was created due to Jesus dying for our sins or washing us clean, as it is written, with his blood, it also stated that this did not do away with the old, but made it easier for mankind with free will to be saved. The Jewish don’t believe Jesus was the reason, but have a new testament sort of, so the rule applies. When I think of saved, I think of being a spiritual child and being saved from totally wrong doings as far as human decency goes. As a spiritual child you can go many directions, and in the world if you are not sheltered you will be exposed too much. Even in sheltered life things get in.
I identify with Jesus, Paul, David, Mohammad. They were not blameless, not free of manly, or personal sin, however, they loved, were decent, and in God’s sight holy. They weren’t holy because they were correct in all things, but because they were humble in all things and understood there was something bigger than themselves. They were chosen by God to bring concepts of living to us. They understood that all mankind was God’s and required respect. That is how I try to live. I am a traveler.
This topic was written to discount prayer, and for you this works. For me prayer works however as I have stated before.
You have never read me calling you wrong in your thinking, but saying you are narrow minded in it because you will not except the fact that there are other ways to be. You won’t even accept there is other Atheist thinking, or practices.
What works for you or doesn’t work is not the same for me. At the end of the day I will not be accountable for you nor your me. We will be judged, or in your case turned to dust, alone. We will not stand in for the other, and when your life ends it will not be my life.
I do understand why some people want others to follow them and stop believing in that foolishness either way, however, I am not one of them.
My life model is live and let live as long as living doesn’t get in the way of human rights. Atheist, Christians, Jewish, and any other groups all agree on this.
Ok, just a few points. First, what is karan? I'm not familiar with that. Did you mean quran?
Secondly, you still haven't answered how you can dismiss certain parts of the bible, and not others. You say you believe jesus was a nice guy, paraphrased, but you say nothing of how you came to that conclusion after reading him say that you must hate your family in order to follow him, that he has come to tear families apart, that he has come with a sword, and I could go on. You still haven't answered that, can you?
You act as if the effectiveness of prayer is an arbitrary thing which can be seen to exist only by believing it does. It isn't. Prayer is a tool, and it is easy to see whether or not it is an effective one.
By doing the experiment I outlined, you can statistically prove that prayer does not work. For another example, and one which is much better written than mine, I refer you to www.whywontgodhealamputees.com, which is the website of the wy won't god heal amputees project. There is also www.godisimaginary.com, which has a few proofs on it.
Prayer is, as I've said, a tool, it is like a jack. If you put a jack under a car and pump the handle, you can see that the car is lifting, it is easy to observe that the jack is being effective. If you pump the handle and nothing happens, it is easy to see that the jack is not being effective. It is the same with prayer. If you pray for an amputee to regrow his leg, and he doesn't, prayer is ineffective.
The bible, as I pointed out, says that prayer will always be effective. It gives no reprisals on that. It says, "ask and ye shall receive", not, "ask and you might receive". It is a definitive statement. The fact that the amputee has not regrown his leg shows that the verse in the bible that says prayer will always work is not true, or that prayer is ineffective, or both.
Thus, the only choices we are left with are A. prayer is ineffective, which is the premise of the experiment, B. the bible is lying, which means that it is not a perfect book and thus should not be called the infalible word of god when it can be categorically proven faulse, or C. both are true and prayer does not work and the bible is wrong. Those are your only three choices. The fact that you believe otherwise does not mean anything. Your beliefs do not actually have an effect on reality.
I could, for example, believe you yourself were a blue flying octopus, but no matter how hard I believe that, it is not true. You are not a blue flying octopus, no matter what I believe.
It is the same premise as you applying words to meanings they don't fit. Whethher you believe it or not, does not make it true. Being and not being, or meaning and not meaning, are not dependent on your belief. Whether you believe two plus two equals four or not, it still does. You simply aren't, to be blunt, important enough or powerful enough to believe something into existence. You have to prove it, and in that department, you and all other religions have completely and entirely failed.
Parenthetically, I know dozens of Atheists, and have internet connections with thousands of them through various sites, I have never once heard them refer to atheism as a religion. IN fact many of them will consider that an insult, myself included. If this man you know refers to it as a religion, he is a fool, and I welcome you to tell him so.
yes, it's very insulting. did you even consider that, Wayne?
I agree, but isn't there a verse in the book of James about praying with the wrong motives or something like that?
Yes, there is a verse that says you haven't received because you prayed with the wrong motives. But that simply proves that the verse in matthew was wrong, ergo the bible is not perfect, ergo it is not infalible, ergo it is not the infalible word of God. Also, it merely opens the door for people claiming prayer worked, when in fact it was several other circumstances which did the working. For example, if you have cancer, and you have surgery in addition to someone praying for you, the surgery saved you, the prayer just wasted someone's time while they could have been making soup or something.
For examples of this, look up faith healing, if you have a strong stomach. There is a story out of Washington state I believe, where a girl had a tumor on her shoulder that got so big, she was forced to tilt her head in the other direction. She bled on everything constantly from the tumor, and it could have been removed relatively simply. However, she was treated, and I use that term extremely loosely, with faith healing. Which did absolutely nothing, and in fact that tumor got worse and worse. I believe she died from it, but don't quote me on that.
I don't think this is the same story I read about, but it is very similar, http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91171&page=1
There's this preacher dude here in Colorado who claimed he raised his own son from the dead after he had been lying there on the slab with a tag on his toe for hours and had turned black. Ugh.
People will claim all manner of things. Some are fiction; some are true. As far as faith healing goes, it does work, though I have every reason to believe that those who make a big production out of it, who are doing it to get recognition probably won't find much success. Those who wield the powers of heaven to get gain will be left wanting, because by recieving that recognition and attention, they have their reward. But there are times where faith and prayer alone without medical treatment will result in healing. Mostly I've heard of this happening in dire circumstances, either where there was no time to seek medical attention, or no ability. But often prayer is used in conjunction with medicine. Certainly you can say that it was always the medical treatment that does all the work. But sometimes something completely unexpected happens that modern medicine simply can't explain. I've met doctors who have noticed a clear corrolation between those who have been prayed for and who have believed in the power of prayer, and those who have not, or do not. I have witnessed this first hand in an insident that happened with my wife, and that story was already explained, and rejected some time ago. One doctor I met didn't understand. he said "I don't know why, but my patients who believe in the power of prayer seem to recover faster." Certainly one could argue that the power of prayer could merely be a plasebo effect. But even if that is the case, I see no harm in it (though I'm sure some of you will, because that's what you do). I myself don't think it a good idea to give ourselves over entirely to prayer. God has blessed us with the ability to utilize the world around us to creat means by which we may be healed. If we don't utilize those resources, ... well, it's like that old joke about the guy who was in the midst of a flood, and who prayed for god to save him. Someone on a boat, and then a helecopter tried to rescue him, but he rejected him with the faith God would save him. When he dies, he asks god why he was not rescued. "I sent you a boat, and a helecopter," God replies. "What more do you want?" God does not have to work by sheer displays of power or unexplained miracles. Often his answers are subtle, and rather mundain; easy to explain. Convenient? Certainly. But given the uptern in my own life when I do excersize my faith, I can't argue with the results.
But God will not be mocked. And that's where your experiment fails, Lightning. You can't statistically prove that prayer does, or does not work. God's own plans, the intents of our hearts, our faith, and our obedience are factors to consider which you, given your antitheist beliefs will likely find it difficult to acknowledge. People forget that sometimes, the answer god gives us will be "no". Again, in order to come to terms with that, one must consider the eternal perspective. And that is not always an easy thing to do. God has given us the opportunity to test him, but not for the sake of mockery.
As for the bible being flaud, personally I believe that to be true to a point. It's been interpreted by so many people for so many reasons, and translated so many times that you're bound to lose a lot of its original meaning. I think that's why so many people take it figuratively, rather than literally. There's even much debate about which stories "really" happened, and which were written as parables. And I don't know which are which in this case. That is why I personally believe modern-day revelation is so essential in our understanding of the Bible - and of all the scriptures. And yes, it takes a great deal of faith not only to believe that Jesus was everything the scriptures say, but also to believe that there are still actually people on the earth gifted with the power of revelation, discernment and even prophecy. And most of Christianity does not officially believe that, although many are quick to follow the doom-seers and apokalyptic proclaimers.
BG, the intents of atheists such as myself don't need faith to put good into the world, or overcome hardships. there's this thing called compassion, as has been said before, along with the knowledge that if we believe in ourselves, everything will turn out.
despite what you and the majority of the world believe, prayer is never needed to give us hope that that's the case.
as for prayer not being provable, your example of people thinking it'd work/it supposedly doing so when they do, doesn't hold weight. all it means is that the people/person in question believed something long enough, and eventually convinced themselves it was effective. kinda like how you were conditioned to think a certain way, and refuse to break away from it.
as for the instance of your wife's miscarriage being unexplained, that, too, is explainable; you simply refuse to believe anything other than what you always have, cause it doesn't "feel right", as you say.
news flash, BG: atheism doesn't "feel right", and we don't feel a strong notion that we should be atheists, or else. we simply know it to be true based on research we've done which includes admitting, embracing, and acknowledging what's real, rather than sticking with beliefs, that, as a child, we were made to think were unquestionable, and the only correct way to live.
If faith healing works BG, prove it. Give me essays in medical journals. Cuz I can show studies that have been peer reviewed that show it doesn't do buttkiss.
As for God saying no, I refer you back to the passage I just pointed out a couple posts ago about definitive statements. It doesn't say you might receive, it says you will. God can't say no, the bible says so.
On a personal note, I found an article you will enjoy BG, or at least that I enjoyed and you will probably dislike a little because it crushes your faith, but still, take a look. http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/the-same-god-twelve-beliefs-mormons-might-not-want-you-to-know-about/
I'll read that in just a moment. But for now I have two things to say. First, the miscarriage is not what I was referring to. Secondly, I have said time and time again that faith in God is not needed to do good. So, Happy, I would thank you to not bring the idea that I think otherwise up again. There are tons of real honest and compassionate atheists, and tons of vile and hartless Christians.
Lightning, recieving an answer to prayer doesn't mean that whatever we ask for, we will immediately get, or even get at all. We must have real intent, and we must be willing to accept the answer we recieve, even if sometimes it's not the answer we want. God does not work acording to our schedules. Sometimes it may take a while to recieve the answer, and sometimes we may need to ask more than once. You can't base prayer's effectiveness off of experiments meant to prove your own point, because the very nature of those experiments are a mockery of the subject matter. That said, we also can't really experiment to say that prayer works. The best we can hope for is that some massive study that manages to embody all of the right facets of both a carefully controlled experiment, and the spiritual aspects of prayer will decide thigns for us. And honestly, I think that's pretty much impossible.
I really am going to read your article - right now, in fact. But before I do, I'd like to draw your attention to my own dubious article. I think it rather sums up my feelings on this subject, as well as why such studies are rather impossible. The whole strangers praying for strangers thing, maybe it works; I don't know. But there's a personal aspect to prayer, for being prayed for by people we trust, and for believing not only in God, but our own faith, and that of the ones praying. You could pray for someone, lightning, just for fun. But because you don't really believe what you're doing, it's probably not going to work. And all of these factors seem to be ignored by such studies.
Studying the power of prayer
BG, how do you define real intent, then? considering what's real to you, isn't always so to others, how can you be convinced that's a legit argument? I mean, come on! your responses are getting more stupid as they continue.
oh, and, "feeling it in your heart" isn't an answer. so, let's see if you can actually come up with a justified response.
When you make a statement like this why can’t Christians feel the same?
News flash, BG: atheism doesn't "feel right", and we don't feel a strong notion that we should be atheists, or else. We simply know it to be true based on research we've done which includes admitting, embracing, and acknowledging what's real, rather than sticking with beliefs, that, as a child, we were made to think were unquestionable, and the only correct way to live.
Suppose you were raised Atheist, but decided some other belief was right for you?
Quran Koran Karan, sorry I spelled it the way I did, but you perfectly understood what I meant, so picking at that is interesting.
I have stated that I personally believe in the base teaching of the Bible, and that I believed it to have been altered. I have no other way to explain this. The (Quran) is another guide I use for my life bide and both are different, but almost 80% same. In the base they are 100% same.
I have seen prayer work for some people and I have stated earlier how I personally use prayer, so no matter how you feel about prayer, and it not working for you it does for me in the way I use it. It is my tool to peace. Sometimes I use this tool to marshal my thinking, and other times I actually feel I receive guidance. Example, I’m a beer drinker, and I like the taste of beer and can tell quality for bad, so drink the types that are pleasing to me. You on the other hand might not like beer at all, no matter what I say is quality, it taste to you bad. Man I to say you are totally wrong, beer taste good, and you just need to learn the correct mental state to enjoy it?
You all say you dislike Christianity because it persecutes people, but you, or some of you anyway seem to go to great lengths to change a Christian’s mind set. Why? Is this not mental persecution?
Why is it difficult to except that others have beliefs not like yours as long as these people aren’t jumping you?
For myself, you have not seen me post any postings on my beliefs to change a person. I don’t mind others doing so, don’t get me wrong, but if you are going to post you are going to be opposed, and no manner of name calling, down grading, and such for the strong minded, will change them.
Insulting? I am not here to insult anyone. I didn’t personally insult you I am only pointing out facts as I find them from my experiences. I have not called anyone any names here. It is not my personal fault that other that claims to be Atheist doesn’t thinks or speaks as you’d like them to. If you are insulted get with your fellow Atheist and tell them they are insulting you by making these statements, I have not.
I can not come up with a justified response for you. I can not prove anything to anyone. That proof comes from your own experiences, and it is not something I, nor anyone else can give you.
I wrote a long post about this article, and then for some unknown reason, I lost it. So I'll give you the reader's digest version.
This is a compelling and illuminating article; well-written despite its type-os and spelling errors. It does a great job with what I can only assume to be real sources (though most are merely quotes) of attempting to dismantle the doctrines and origins of a very young, very misunderstood and in many instances mis-represented religion. There is just enough truth throughout this article to make it credible and believable. And there is just enough falacy and half-truths sprinkled throughout to make me question the motives and agendas of those who wrote it. The political commontary at its opening doesn't increase its credibility.
I have one more thing to say about my religion, and indeed, all religions. I will address all of you here, and the community as a whole in a future post.
I don't care how ridiculours I sound as I post this, but this is something that's been laid on my heart. There's so much bitterness in your hearts that it's not even funny. Some of you have had hard childhoods, and even hard lives in general, but there is someone who can heal you from that. Some might take it, and some might not, but it's all up to you. I'm not going to make you believe what I believe. But God loves every one of us, and wants to change your life for the better. Does that mean everything's going to be hunky dory and like a bowl of cherries? No, of course not. We all have our hardships and we go through mountains and valleys. I don't know about you, but I'd rather live a hard life and build up spiritual endurance, rather than not have to have any difficulties and be more vulnerable. I wish I could convince you all about God's love. He's done so much for me ever since I've come to Him, and he can do the same for anybody else.
If he wants to, why doesn't he?
Michael, do you think atheism itself causes people to become bitter? Or do you think it's the people themselves? I can only speak for myself here, but I'm a very happy person most of the time. I go through rough moments, as does anyone, but I certainly am not bitter about it, and I most certainly don't expect, or want anybody to feel sorry for me. I made my bed, I'm sleeping in it, and I'm happy with this bed. There may be others who are not so happy, but not all of these people are atheist. My question to you now, is this: If nothing anybody ever says about how liberating atheism can be isn't going to sway your beliefs, what do you honestly hope to get out of telling us that God has so much for us? if I haven't realized this by now, one more post isn't going to change that. And to be honest, even if God were to prove his existence, I still don't think I would worship him. worshipping is just not my style; especially when it involves a god who loves everybody unconditionally, yet requires two people in love to sign a little piece of paper stating they are married before they can make love, and who doesn't approve of two people of the same gender doing the same.
You might actually be surprised to know that the more confident I become with my atheism, the more accepting I am that there are other beliefs, and that there's nothing wrong with said beliefs. I also find myself feeling less of a need to try to convince others of my point of view. the way i see it is, I came to this conclusion, so if you ever decide you want to, it will happen. and if not, well, as long as you're genuinely happy, who am i to try to tell you how this happiness should be achieved? By the same token, this increased comfort also means I am less likely to be convinced that another religion is the way to go.
Now, having said all that, I honestly don't believe others such as Chelsea and Cody are bitter about their atheism, either. Are they bitter about their christian families who used fear and shame to mold them into the perfect christian child? I wouldn't be surprised, nor could I blame them. But this is very different from being a bitter atheist. But let's just say, hypothetically, that all of us were bitter atheists. We would probably be even less likely to turn to God because of your post. don't forget, a bitter Christian parent is far from the only reason to become atheist. it may have played a role in that decision for some people, but I would go so far as to say that those who chose to become atheist simply because of a Christian they took issue with aren't truly atheist, just as those who become Christian simply because they were told to by their parents aren't truly Christian.
no, I'm not a bitter person, in any regard. not personally, and certainly not due to other's choices as to how they raised me. what's done is done, and I'm a better, healthier, happier, more full of life young woman cause of it.
Michael, going through hardships doesn't, in any way, make me even think for a second about worshipping a higher power.
first, I'm sure, to one extent or another, everyone has had a hard life.
so, using those of us who've had crappy parents, doesn't make your words pretty, despite the fact you'd wish they were so.
not just that, it irks me to the core that all you can say is, "you should come to god, guys; he'll make your life great", rather than accepting us as we are, as we do those of you who are religious, and realizing that our life is already great.
secondly, I'm strong on my own, get through life's hardships on my own, do what I can to make things better when possible, and there's nothing more I could want (contrary to what you'll likely assume, that isn't me being rebellious).
thirdly, I do all those things willingly, eagerly, and, believe it or not, happily.
cause, although you won't believe these words, the time I was most unhappy in life, was when I was forced to believe I was religious, and that if I ever so much as questioned how things were, I'd get in deeper trouble than you could begin to imagine.
not just in an afterlife, but in real life, by people that were supposed to love me.
so, no, "coming to him", as you say, is not an option for me, nor will it ever be. I'm sure others will agree.
the difference between atheists and you who are religious, is that we aren't painting a pretty picture that isn't there. we're painting one that we live, love, and wholeheartedly delight in every day through nature, humankind, and the values we uphold.
not for the sake of others seeing things our way, telling them to stop being christian/insert another religion here, and experience atheism's beauty. rather, we're painting this picture to help educate those who are misinformed, prove we won't back down, that nothing gives us more happiness/freedom than being atheists, and, perhaps, encourage people to truly think.
I also agree with Jess. becoming more confident in atheism has allowed me, and continues to allow me to accept differing beliefs much easier.
does this mean I won't attack them when I see fit, or otherwise speak up to defend my position/help and encourage others to do the same? absolutely not.
for you christians (I'm using you cause you make up the majority of the world) this simply means that I don't have to like or even think your beliefs are logical, to accept the fact that they exist.
no, I don't respect them; I simply know they're part of the world, just as you know my atheism is so.
just something I've noticed: If those of you who call yourselves Christians were so confident in your beliefs, you wouldn't feel the need to bicker back and forth like a child who's not getting his way with those who disagree with you and don't believe the way you do. I mean, if you were 100% sure that your beliefs were true, why does it matter if someone disagrees with them or doesn't respect them? Why waste your time at every opportunity to try to convince others that your beliefs are correct when whether they choose to believe in them or not is going to have no impact what so ever on how you live your life? You say atheists are bitter unhappy people, but if you were truly happy and confident with what you believed, you wouldn't feel the need to criticize others and constantly try to persuade them to think the way you do. You would just live your life and let others live theirs as they choose. Am I right or wrong? Now I'm neither a Christian nor Atheist so I'm not saying that one set of beliefs is better than the other, because I really don't know. But from my experience the less unsure and confident about a particular issue someone is, the more they try to convince themselves and others that it's truth. I agree with other posters that the more confident you are, the more you can accept that others have differing beliefs.
You're partially right I think. I would add, and you can take this however you wish, that the less happy or confident someone is in their beliefs, the more they cling to anicdotal evidence. That is to say, when you are confident in a belief, you are able to say, "Here's my evidence, and here are my sitations, and here is a cup of coffee while you read it all". But when you're not comfortable, or confident in your beliefs, you turn to such arguments as, "Well I just feel this way", "well you just have to experience it", "Its true, I swear", and the ever popular, "well you're doing the same thing I am, how can you be so sure of your beliefs". I'll let you figure out which group is which on your own.
you're right about that, too, Cody.
I in recent months have had serious concerns about what I dub the nether regions of Christian or any monotheistic texts. I do understand for family concerns how people will stay with something nominally to support the family system as it is, typically, the She of the household determines spiritual types of things.
My current assessment is that Joshua of the old testament, whether figurative or literal, is the Genghis Khan of the Old Testament. For those raised in Christian schools or homeschooled, you may wish to step outside your circle to read up on the damage Genghis Khan did to Europe. History has its Khan apologists just as the Christians have theirs for the genocides done against peoples.
Again, I understand for the historically literate that in all probability none of the events actually happened as modern archeology tends to place the Israeli population as coming from mountain tribes. However, any such genocides were they real, would have been atrocious. Some here would damn me to hell if they knew whose side of that atrocity I would be on, and proudly, no cries or persecution or pleas for understanding. It's the same side people are on who oppose terrorist regimes today.
Many Christian apologists - the ones I have cared to read on the Internet anyway - will cry for absolutes in rationalism. This, as a rational thinker myself, I can understand: They speak of absolutes, and indeed there are some, though they may well regret using that argument, and wish to return to the Bunny Warrens of Philosophy instead.
Some things that are absolutely wrong, and have been?
- Slavery
- Stoning people to death
- Forcing a rape victim to marry the rapist
- engaging in sex trafficking (selling so-called female slaves as subordinate wives).
Quite a bit more, actually, and it can all be found in the nether regions of the texts supported by the Big Three monotheistic faiths. All of them suppose their deity to legislate this. And at least among the Christian apologists, they speak of rationalism and absolutes, some things that transcend culture, and I would agree. The above list, plus bombing world trade centers and other buildings, or tearing the hearts out of living victims are all things people have done for various faiths. What's interesting is the apologists would agree with me regarding the Trade Center and cutting out beating hearts, but then head for the bunny warren and make up some mumbo jumbo when challenged regarding the above.
Cody has already cited more than enough examples of the texts in question, and I'll be honest he's had the verses to hand more readily than I have. In the apologists' own words, there are things that are clearly wrong, that transcend cultural differences but are simply wrong.
Only they place their manhood in a shoebox and go running for the bunny warren when it comes to the things in their own texts.
I have a challenge for any of you who could make one of these defenses: Be a man {or woman} and do not shrink back, but go on Youtube and surf for live stoning videos, and watch the carnivals that they are. Look up lapidation on Wikipedia as just an intro - Wikipedia isn't a great source but works for a starting point. Look at it all, absorb it, read it, tell me that it's ever anything other than evil. And don't say it's because they didn't have metal: If any of the events did occur, much of it was authorized towards the end of the Bronze Age. There were certainly more humane execution methods then.
Frankly, the whole stoning thing is a hard core fetish still practiced by peoples today, and it shows no strength, no honor, no valor. It's the coward's schoolboy way of ganging up like little more than a troupe of baboons.
Oh and if you look in these nether regions of the monotheistic texts? Honor killing. That's right: family members being the ones to execute the alleged wrongdoer in order to purify or cleanse the evil. Ask those who have been arrested in the U.S. for doing this, and see how our law enforcement takes to this.
The original mumbo jumbo experiment isn't of great consequence, but terrorism and genocide are. Spirituality and faith and things are really nothing more than mental concepts when it all comes down to it, but brutalizing and destruction are.
As to the 'love' bit?
Here:
I have been 'lovingly' beat as a child, I have bested foes in fights (quite a few years younger than I am now), and have been bested by worthy opponents in other fights. I would much rather be bested by a worthy opponent, than be beaten to a pulp where every stroke is claimed to be love.
Those who have to do these evil things and call them good are not just weak, but without honor. I find the term honor killing - a Western term - to be totally inaccurate: It's killing of the vulnerable by the dishonorable, and your texts legislate it, and your apologists who claim there are absolutes that transcend culture go running to the bunny warren when these things are brought up.
If you have the balls to watch and read up on stonings, remember this: the people today who carry out these acts? Your country if you live in the U.S., UK, Australia and other Western nations, fights these people. And for good reason. Whose side would the defenders of your freedom be on, if a Joshua / Moses / Genghis Khan marched into your village and wanted to claim all teenage girls as their brides, and burn everything else?
Oh, and by the way, it's precisely because I agree with the apologists about there being absolutes that transcend cultures, and have always thought this, that after taking a good look at the Nether Regions of monotheistic texts, I can no more accept it than I can accept Incan religions that tore out hearts, or Hitler's Mein Kompf.
I'll say it again: I would much prefer to be bested by a valiant foe, than to be beaten to a pulp where every stroke was claimed to be done in love. If I'm honest, there have always been things that profoundly bothered me from religion, particularly the most popular one, and I'm not a fluff bunny who doesn't understand justice. An eye for an eye is fine, except that killing for adultery is not an eye for an eye, and neither are all the other punishments. Stone a chick who skipped church, I don't think so: what an unmanly very peevish choleric and dare I borrow a young person's expression, Emo? disposition. There's even a reference I can't remember where, where the ark was being returned to what they thought was the rightful place. A man reached out to steady it as it nearly fell off the cart, and an Emo in the sky threw a hissy and burned him to death. Eye for an eye? Really? I've heard the same fluffy types try to make up some kind of explanation even O.J. Simson's Dream Team couldn't pull off in court, as to why that tantrum was okay.
So no, my contentions are not because I think everything is sweetness and light. No, quite the contrary. People are out there in uniform precisely because there are real evils from which we have to defend ourselves.
All of the capital crimes mentioned in this entire thread, are all completely dishonorable. There's no honor in killing a chick who as the text says "Did not scream" when raped in the street. You're going to say that an omniscient being doesn't know what amateur crime followers today know? That the first line of offense is to silence a victim? Try the "She didn't scream" defense in court and just see what happens.
There's even a trial by ordeal in the text! Something we laugh at as superstitious from the middle ages, but the text itself has it, one of the early books, for women suspected of cheating. Any western-raised man, stand up, look in the mirror, and ask yourself if there is honor in any of this. It's so dishonorable that if were all discovered today it would be looked at in a whole different light.
Again, better to be bested by honorable foe than be beaten to a pulp where every stroke is claimed to be "love".
I didn't cite sources precisely because Cody already did a better job of providing chapter and verse than I will ever do.
Again, you can float along and overlook most this stuff until it becomes real, where you know people who are fighting on the front in that area of the world now, where those activities are still in progress.
Again, taking a bit of liberality here since we can gauge that probably the Israeli population was more likely a hill people who came down into the valleys, but for sake of argument, using the text:
Someone wrote about the Genghis Khan destruction, that nobody weeps for people who died 500 years ago. Certainly nobody weeps for people who died 4000 years ago. But read those nether parts, the ass end of the religion if you will, and imagine that these conquered peoples were people, had families, had livelihoods, etc.
Again, I'm not anti-war, not at all. And of course in the ancient world one group conquering another was commonplace. But to claim it as 'good' or 'right' or the divine inspiration of a deity? Sound anything to you like, oh, I don't know: maybe someone that Seal Team Six valiantly deposed and who now rests at the bottom of the ocean? Bin Laden had such desires for the western world, you know. He could have been the new cranky deity, whose thunderbolts from the sky were aircraft dashing into the Twin Towers, who saw your houses and land as his promised land, and you the decadent evildoers who were to be wiped out. He could have, but for his dishonorable effort he was deposed. The parallels are pretty staggering.
And read your history: For every conquest, there are always allegations that the conquered were cannibals, savages, killed their own babies, and so on. It's how people justify taking other people's things: it's part of the dehumanization process.
Are you white? Of western European descent? Because your ancestors were conquered by the Romans who brought eastern religions to them, and wrote that the Barbarians (your ancestors) were cannibals, performed human sacrifice, and a whole list of offenses that archeology just cannot support.
Go east (young man?) and find all the archeological evidence you want for human sacrifices en mase among other things. That isn't to say any people group doesn't have its faults. But you have to remember that any time there is a hostile takeover the victor writes the history, and often does so to make themselves look better.
The difference between the Monotheistic texts and the Romans was the Romans simply conquered, bested their foe, as it were, while the monotheistic texts claim a deity and dishonorably justify their actions.
Again, whose side would you be on if such an entity's followers came to your town, ravaged your possessions, stoned those who didn't comply and raped your teenage girls? There is no pretty way to put this, no matter how the fluffy types may struggle to do so after a sad appeal to rational absolutes. Some who do this even think themselves objectivists, of which I have been one for decades though didn't know the word for it until recently.
Another disturbing trend if you have been around American Christianity very long: they love brokenness and broken things. The idea is to keep you broken and needy so you always need and come crawling back like a slave for more.
Cody, your experiment? If someone asked for their parent to get better, then the parent got 50% worse, then 2% better, because of the broken and bent state their religion craves, they would shout and dance for two hours claiming this is a miracle. In other words, a deity such as that would have a performance record so atrocious I have never even heard of such a thing in the working world.
Lose $40,000 to unforeseen expenses, then pray for help, find a penny and dance and squeal for two hours, post things on your timelines about how great it is. It doesn't add up, and if your apologists were one tenth the rational thinkers they claim to be they would acknowledge this. Of course, we know this is more about power and control of people, give them enough good feeling (for a while) to keep them sated until you are prepared to, as it were, maybe test their loyalty.
Except in the real world, tests of real loyalty are honorable. Since I've made up my mind to not be a relationship traitor, to commit a form of treason against my household, then a test to betray the Wife's trust may be met by my personal honor, and likely she might never hear of it. Counter that to the fear that one will fall, the wasting away and heaviness that comes with fear of Thoughtcrime - see Cody's prior post on adultery and the New Testament - only we don't live in George Orwell's 1984 and so I am not buying it. The idea that you commit adultery because you think a chick is hot is as stupid as the new agers who think they're helping the environment by sitting around and ohming and saying they're thinking happy thoughts about the earth, instead of being constructive.
The Eastern Religions are designed to yoke and enslave, to keep people broken and ineffective. Is it any wonder now that the same preachers / priests who propse we be broken are now also claiming that men are somehow less, just as the feminists do? Or that women cannot of their own skill attain positions, just as the middle eastern types do? Or that whites are somehow worse then the rest?
This recent gay situation is known in technology and factories as crisis diversion. One creates a crisis in one place - a small fire, a few printers in the building that won't stop, etc., to hide the real troubles that are going on. They talk of tolerance as though it was the province of the weak or fluffy bunnies / new agers. However, like others have said on here in nicer words than I, the so-called intolerant, those who get cranky about others' beliefs, are cowardly pampers-wearing babies who've yet to realize the world doesn't owe them a living, spiritual or otherwise. They are the supermajority, and may continue to be for some time. So, my advice, act it then: don't act like whiny little career victims whenever a new group shows up. Persecuted? You mean you have to live with others? That is the worst case of welfare mentality that I have ever even heard of. People talk about the Nanny State, and they are right to shed themselves of that yoke in my opinion. The second nanny is the Nanny Church, whose followers cry if they don't get absolute status, when they don't have their every little belief validated and their head patted to tell them we all agree with them. They want to go after small groups like the gays? Great: they're like the kids I went to school who shoved firecrackers up cats' asses. Good luck with that. I'm sure none of those kids ever amounted to anything. If you really want to be pushed around, beaten, broken, fixed to a point so you can be broken again, demeaned, told you're not good enough, all that mishmash, ask yourself: What society, what group of strong people ever subscribed to that thinking and thrived?
Hold your heads high, I say, take responsibility for yourselves and your actions with no excuses, and take no blame from the past or what someone allegedly did in a garden at some point.
The experiment at the beginning of this thread fails because it was never intended to succeed. It's just like the psychics or anyone else who claims similar things, with the insurance policy of always being able to claim it was the asker's fault or wrong motive or higher purpose or some other mumbo jumbo, with a real dose of Bin Laden-style cranky thrown in there.
The Fundamentalists in America do have a fixation with Hell, and don't we all? You hear about a serial killer and if you're honest you think about what you'd like to do to him or her, especially if it rubs a sore spot like women or children. Socrates, who came hundreds of years before Christ, spoke about using the underworld as a fear tactic to keep the masses in line. That has certainly borne out. Certainly if there is an afterlife, we humans and the gods we come up with would certainly be more likely to construct a hell than a heaven, I think, but to pretend that it is justice is a mockery of justice. Eternity in torment for the crimes - most petty - for 80 years. The justifications for it sound an awful lot like the types of lawsuits where people sue for millions of dollars in damages over a cup of hot coffee. To put it bluntly, restitution is tit for tat, not tit for endless tats rationalized by some mushy gushy explanation the tit made the deity just SOOO upset he just couldn't stand it so it's forever. Again, these aren't the actions of a pround honorable being: they're the actions of a timid, weak, bullying schoolboy who needs to be brought down a notch or two, and maybe given a lesson on what honor and noble character actually are. Their concept of hell is one that would leave Lady Justice a woman scorned, for all the real meaning it has. The shame of Abu Ghraib, and the scourge of Guantanamo Bay are not their need to detain potential terrorists: it's the escessive and fetishistic use of torture that exceeds all modern human imagination. What say you about their idea of the Afterdeath?
This need to be broken, to be unworthy, to be small and to be nothing without God is exactly why I left Christianity. I realized it was adding absolutely nothing to my life, and taking away my personality, my accomplishments, my pride, and my natural virtue. I realized that not every good thing I did had to come from some higher power--that I might actually be worth something in my own right, rather than because some divine being changed me into something else entirely.
I would highly suggest that you read "Letters From The Earth" by Mark Twain. Its available on audible for ten dollars, and is wonderful. You'll love it, and it is one of the best summeries of Christianity I have ever read.
To say nothing of the cloak and chains, the expectations, and the endless heaviness while everyone around claims that they are lightened. This is especially true if you are a parent in that situation. I cannot blame them: I chose to remain there, for my own reasons, and not all of those were bad. It is honorable to do best by the family and home if you have it, and beliefs always ranked far lower in my priorities than the welfare of the wife and daughter, for whom it is important. But it's also completely dishonest to claim things that simply are not so, and never have really been so, for me at least. If others want it or need it, it's their lookout and it's a free nation so I wouldn't get in their way. But for me, cumbersome is the best description of it, carrying an oddly-shaped and heavy load that doesn't fit properly, and even can restrict your movements where you might better manage worthwhile things without it.
In every other situation in life when people start to justify things that don't seem right, try and provide explanations that are more fluff-bunny rationalizations and distortions of terms (justice in Christianity's case), then I cut and run. The fact that I didn't do this is no priest's fault, no preacher's fault, no god's fault, no devil's fault, it rests with me and me alone. It always has, only when you're in you pretend that it doesn't. Only the evidence bears out what I've always known.
This is not a sad state, as some would have you believe, but an unbroken and honorable state, with the head held high and the mind clear. I guess what would scare religious types is that I never questioned for questioning sake, and I didn't seek for seeking's sake, or to identify as a seeker. I questioned to get answers, and I sought for resolutions to conflicting sources. The best thing I ever did was to step back and examine it as though I never knew of this before, and see if I thought any of it plausible.
We do this as a peer review effort in engineering all the time. It rings out the worst in code so it can be corrected. And I don't do that just with faith, but any number of things: it makes you sharper, and lets what you think pass the acid test, or fail. I gave Christianity the "freedom to fail," to coin a popular expression by Fox News and the conservatives. I've given businesses I owned this same freedom, by the way, and it has saved me from going into debt in the past, when those businesses were mine. The same freedom to fail is the freedom to succeed, no presuppositions, no attachments, no preconceived notions.
I won't be shouting anything from any rooftops, nor have I. In this I am quite different than some on here. My lot is a more pensive confidence undergirded by a stalwart disposition and my own personal sense of honor. In other words, externally, nothing has really changed. I am as I always was, only I'm not deluding myself or rationalizing anymore. I think there are those who can benefit from Christianity or other religions, provided if they're Christians they don't read about modern stonings and old testament-style terrorist acts, or if they're Wiccans they avoid reading about the Wicker Man. I'm incapable of truly talking myself into things, making myself believe something. So perhaps this giving it the freedom to fail comes easier for me than for some.
I want to reply to post 306 as regards being broken. Oh yeah, that's a great sales pitch for the gullible. Here, look at you, you're damaged goods in a damaged world, we're the church and you need us, that kind of thing. Come to think of it, though, the last thing, let's say, somebody from the LGBT camp would want to hear is that they're damaged goods, but the church at least some of it, already has it in for them anyhow. One thing I've heard some Christians say is we live in a broken world. OK, broken compared to what and when? Are you trying to compare reality to a wish? I don't think that ever works, although people seem to love doing that. OK, granted, it ain't all utopia here but it's not all bad either.
As for the Christian persecution complex, I agree, Leo, that it makes people look pathetic when they trot that out. Here they are, one of the most privileged, dare I show that card, groups of people at least in America for I have no clue how long in the country's history and they claim persecution just because somebody dared not pander to their wants or to up and tell them they're delusional? That's not persecution, not by a million miles. Now, if I torched your house for being Christian, yeah, that's persecution, but I expect reasonable people who believed differently just want to be left alone and not go to such lengths.
Ah, but just like Atheist people are always trying to convince Christians, or anyone else to think and believe as they are, Christians are not any worse than anyone else in that regard.
Yes, I know this is impossible for people to live as they see fit, believe as they are comfortable believing, and do as they wish as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else not in the group, but that is how I stand, and why I take the other side of this debate.
Atheist are quick to point out all the wrongs, the reasoning, and over that cup of coffee argue their point. And you know what? Just like the Christians, they hope to win that argument and have that person drinking that cup of coffee they purchased kindly for them to agree with them.
Why? Because the world would be a better place. Smile.
You Atheist are just as bad as or worse than the devout religious. You can’t live and let live.
Again for the record, I am not Christian, nor am I Atheist, but this debate will exist as long as people have minds and can think and reason. Nothing wrong with that, but you Atheist are not 100% correct. Face that and you’ll be happier.
I'm not sure if I agree with you entirely, Wayne, but your general philosophy of live and let live is the one I tend to favour. I can tell you exactly why I'm no longer a Christian (or indeed a member of any organized religion) but probably only if you ask or seem interested. And I certainly don't go around telling anyone else what they ought to believe (or not to believe) unless, again, they invite me to challenge their arguments. The fundamentalist atheist is no better than the fundamentalist Christian.
I did not feel like reading every single post of this topic, but the general idea and the experiment itself were fascinating to me. As a matter of fact, this is exactly the reason why I chose to remove Christianity from my life. None of my prayers were ever answered. I did not get the same answers from people I asked when it came to this. Some told me that I needed to be patient, and God would answer me when he could. Others told me that God is not obligated to answer prayers. Others told me that I was trying too hard and for the wrong reasons, and that I wasn't being loyal to God. So I decided that there was no point in pursuing this any further.
I hear this a lot, that atheists are just as guilty as fundamentalist Christians, and on the surface I guess we are. If you are simply saying that atheists are just as vocal as fundamentalists then I can't really disagree with you. But I think there is a detail that you are overlooking.
Fundamentalist Christian arguments are harmful to society. If you want to know what I mean, look at the purity culture, the debates over teaching creationism in school, the idea that in 2013 it is considered an argument for rape that a girl was wearing a short skirt, the fact that we now can look at the news and see a story of a priest raping a little boy and realize that it must be a day of the week, the fact that we now are more concerned about what church a politician attends rather than what stance they take on economic issues, that people are being denied rights on the basis of them not conforming to the so-called morals laid out in a bronze age text, the fact that people are dying for wearing the wrong clothing in a public setting, the fact that people are being killed or jailed or flogged or all three for having sex before marriage, and I could go on and on and on. In fact, Greta Christina literally wrote an entire book on this subject which I highly recommend. Its called "why are you atheists so angry: ninety-nine things that piss off the godless". And in opposition to that, what do the atheists call for? The opposite of everything I just read.
so yes, we are just as loud as the fundamentalist Christians, but would you rather we weren't? Can you honestly tell me that you'd rather live in a world where an eight-year-old girl can die from internal bleeding from the consummation of her marriage? (in case you didn't get that euphemism, an eight year old child was fucked to death about three weeks ago) Would you like to live in a world where no one was willing to stand up and say "what the actual fuck?? If yes, I don't know what to say to you. If no, then either sit back and let us handle it without complaint, or join the battle.
Because yes, it is a battle. When governments look the other way and allow eight year olds to get fucked to death, we're in a battle. Personally, its not a world I want to live in. So I will shout and scream and kick my feet and throw punches until it stops.
Were you and the Christians get lost is why you are angry. It isn't an atheists, nor a Christian thing, and not all Christians, nor atheists, are wrong doers.
All Christians do not agree, nor condone an 8 year old girl dying from such practices, nor as I've pointed out are all atheists’ devils, and practice such things.
Some are on both sides wrong.
Live and let live means we fight for right, not because it is a Christian problem, or an atheists problem, but a society issue.
You, and I mean you Cody, not atheists, wish to blame all that is wrong on Christians as a whole, not the group that allows such things to happen to 8 year old girls.
If you say to me, I am angry with X group, I have no issue, but to say all Christian religion is of no use, and no worth means you are narrow minded, or you've had bad experiences, and you personally are angry without reasonable thought.
Yes, I see rape of children, yes, I see 8 year old girls dying. I see crime on Halloween nights against the innocent child and adult, I see ritual practices where people are stoned, sexually abused to death during these (holy) or (priestly) services, and I too have a list I could go on about.
The different is I see it as a society issue, not a religion issue.
All religion/atheists, are not bad and of no worth.
I fondly call you the atheist’s preacher, and that term stick well to you my friend.
I don’t mind it, because it is good debate however.
Let’s go back to the 8 year old girl. Let’s make her 16 or 18 and of sound mind. If she had died because she bleed to death during a (holy) or (ritual) practice she willing went in to, it is not my place to blame religion/atheistic, on her fate.
Now, my next statement will not be received well, but here goes.
If the 8 year old girl was brought up to believe as she did, do you relies she might have welcomed her marriage, and there for her fate in her heart, even though you and I disagreed with it?
That is heavy, but unless we are sure she was wronged, we can’t say she died wrongly. If she wasn’t aware she was wronged, she may have been comfortable in her life.
This was proven with a punch of atheists do good people took girls away from a compound in Texas, because they felt it wasn’t right. The girls that could returned home, and were happy as they were, and missed their families, husbands, life.
Last, I say education of the people is a healthy thing, but not at the expense or saying all they do, and all they believe is wrong. If people are educated they can choose, and that is where I say live, and let live.
I have to agree with Wayne on this point, that we have to deal with the issues and the perpetrators, not the generalized people groups.
Wayne, just as I can't stand with a deity that says stone a girl who couldn't scream and was perhaps sexually overpowered, or even with one who says stone her for premarital sex, I can't stand with any entity that would marry off an eight-year-old. Ironically, the Christian apologists have dug their own religion's grave as they've said, correctly, that there are things that transcend cultural morality, things that are just right or wrong. Their own texts are full of wrongs supposedly orchestrated by their own deity. This will be the end of them ultimately. This doublethink cannot last.
But the same applies to ritualized abuses or the eight-year-old who was raped to death.
Study the phenomenon Stockholm syndrome, and tell me if in a heavily constricted religious climate, anybody actually ever chooses. Especially a climate that continues to keep people broken, feeling inadequate, always with a standard beyond reach. They will tell you they chose, go through rituals of choice, but did they choose? And with what information? Poorly-informed choice is what the weak manipulators and the dishonorable, those who have no right to call themselves men, would count upon. And that is what their leaders are.
I'm not the spitfire Cody is. But a slow boil is a boil nonetheless. We only need harness the energy against the specific perpetrative groups, not the larger philosophies.
I've offered, for instance, to show videos of stonings to several Christians, some who call themselves apologists. And they have all refused, the men among them quailing in weak-kneed dishonor while they defend the practice in their text, and use the doublethink to claim there are things that are universally wrong. Which there are, and stoning women to death is merely one of them that can be found in their texts.
I definitely think that such weak-kneed and dishonorables could be led to defend these practices against the 8-year-old, and try and doublethink convince you and others that this girl wanted it that way. Those people are dangerous people. But not Christians in general. I think the Christians in general would agree these things are wrong, the doublethink is deceptive, if it was presented rationally and nonconfrontationally, and if they were prepared to do as I did: add two and two and ignoring all fluff bunny double speak get four as a result.
The torture victim, after a time, will grow to love the torturer, and people will return to what is familiar even if that familiarity will kill them.
You know the deal with frog soup: put a frog in a pan of water, slowly turn up the heat, and it would rather stay in the water as it warms than to flee and get to safety. Before it knows it, it's too late and the water's hot. Frog soup can't be counted upon for rational answers, the frogs would rather stay oftentimes, in the compounds or religious community where they are perpetually broken and judged often, or any other similar environment.
And what eight-year-old, who hasn't yet even come into her own sexuality, could even truly comprehend what this means for before it happened? The religious need a hell and a paddle and other instruments of torture to keep their faithful afraid to say no, afraid to look anywhere but straight ahead, afraid to do anything but fight in, or pay for, their wars of the gods.
how could any of us trust the opinion of such a person? We don't even trust this in countries where people are injured or killed for voting the wrong way in the voting booth.
Yes, if an eighteen year old person goes to a religious ceremony and is killed, we can proclaim it as wrong. WE can proclaim it as wrong to deny a child health care because your faith thinks it makes the baby jesus wet his diaper. we can condemn it as wrong when you punish victimless crimes with flogging, imprisonment and death. Those are all wrong things. Its horrifying that you could even contemplate there being ambiguity to that.
As for your point that not all religion is bad or pointless, I also have to disagree. Religion, even if we were to throw out all the horrible things like slavery and rape and child abuse and so on, gives absolutely nothing to society. Christopher Hitchens said it best in his many debates when he asked his opponents the question I now pose to you. First, name a positive act which can be done only by the religious and not by secularists or atheist; just one thing. Now name a horrible act which can only be performed by the religious. Now tell us which one you thought of faster. Or rather, admit that you can't find one for the first question.
Yes, Cody, you bring up a good point. I was referring only to how vocal some atheists (like yourself) are, which puts you up there with the very very vocal Christians. Basically I was addressing a pretty narrow issue, or a facet of an issue, by saying that atheists who bitch that Christians shove religion down other peoples' throats are being hypocritical if they themselves shove atheism down peoples' throats as well. Make more sense?
As to the issue of choice...yeah, that's iffy. Indoctrination is a powerful thing, and if you're not given the tools to think critically (which a lot of religious people are not, sadly) it's hard to say whether you're truly equipped to make sound decisions. And...I dunno, I'm pretty sure raping an eight-year-old to death is wrong no matter which lens you look at it with. Though atheists rape as well, do they not?
I’ll answer your questions, both of them.
1. A positive act that can only be done by the religious is to save someone, and bring them to God/Jesus/Buddha, and any other name you choose to use. How is this so, because the person that got saved was already in the secular world, and wasn’t helped. Through the power of his or her belief they are cleaned up, saved.
2. The worst act is the rape of a child for religious purposes. The reason that comes to mind is it is here before me, not that it is the worst. Now, that rape of a child wasn’t caused by Christians as a whole, but some misguided groups titling themselves Christians. Just like I’ve pointed out before, and you’ve refused to associate with, some groups practice witch craft, devil worship, burnings of women for sins committed against the priestess, and these groups title themselves Atheist. You can holler all you like these people aren’t Atheist, and disassociate yourself with them, but you can’t Denbigh they exist, just like Christians must accept groups they’d not wish to associate with.
3. Now for your third question, or point, because it was not posed as a question, and I was waiting for it. What purpose, or use does religion serve?
Religion serve people well, because they have something they can believe in. They have a group they can belong to, someone to tell their troubles to, and a spiritual feeling of hope, guidance, and structure. You might say people don’t need these things, but if this were so, religion would not exist, because everyone would not seek it out, nor need the hope, to pray.
All the bad religion has done was not done by all relation, and there has been much good, far better than bad done by religious groups.
If it is wrong for people to need hope, believe in a God, creator, follow a set group of rules, in how they should live and be among mankind, it is also wrong for Atheist to say this is false, and push their belief system on the world.
One belief is not better than another.
Why should you take away a person’s hope because you have no hope? Why should you tear down their Heaven, because you don’t believe in one? Are you not doing the exact thing religion has done to people, deciding how they should live out their lives here on earth for the years they’ve been granted?
Do you understand that without hope some people would be depressed, mentally sick, because they don’t have the ability to not have anything to look forward to?
That is what religion does for people the secular world can not, and it is obvious it is good for many.
So basically, you're saying religion is a happy lie. Don't take that happy lie away from people, because they are too mentally unfit to live with out the cloak of a lie. and as I see it, Cody cries out about those people not being atheist for a reason. According to the definition of atheist that actually makes sense, they are not. Just because some ignorant little shit says devil worship is atheist, doesn't mean it is. this would be like me saying their are no white people in the world, they're all blue, or happiness means the exercising of your sorrow by killing others. neither of these things are true, and neither is what many falsely believe atheism to be, yet because its part of someones "Religious belief?" some happy go lucky politically correct people started the practice of never challenging someones beliefs, because to them, their sacred.
which honestly is bullshit.
religious killings over time are the biggest loss of human life. You can't say that out ways the value of some emotionally insecure person having a security blanket.
what about holding science back for years because it didn't agree with the bible... again, not as valuable as giving people a security blanket.
what about the fools on the texas board of education attempting to force creationism in to text books. Again, more harmful than letting people cling to a security blanket.
I don't understand how one can be christian, yet not condone the horrors advocated in the bible. To truly be a christian, you must live by gods law. I don't know how many times i've heard a preacher say that. they then go on to say, not just the convenient parts, but the hole thing...
considering most people these days can't abide by slavery, stoning, animal sacrifice etc, they're not christians according to the bible. Or is this where the we're all unworthy and sinners thing kicks in... Is this how christians justify this?I don't believe in all of gods laws, but i'm trying... Please save me."
You really need to talk to more atheists. Everything about your last post proves you know nothing of what the word means, or what the life is like. We have no hope? We have more hope than anyone who puts faith in an invisible sky daddy could possibly imagine, because we have to.
Do you know why its so hard to be happy as an atheist in this country though? Its because religious people hate you all the time. You're called devil worshipper and sinner and a whole host of other things that you simply aren't. You get rid of religion, and secularism will take its place. And secularism, in the absence of all the bigotry from religion, will be just as happy and hopeful and uplifting as the puppet master in the sky people now mumble empty words to.
Do you think that the scientists who design new drugs, discover new species, explore new worlds and create new technologies aren't amazed at what they discover? Do you think our world has no wonder in it, no mystery, no beauty? You honestly think that without a dictator in the clouds we aren't perfectly happy. I hope you don't actually think that. I'd hate to think you have so little cognitive reasoning.
As for your answer to my question, the first one isn't an action. When a christian quote-unquote saves someone, they aren't actually saving them from anything, or changing anything about them. Religion, as has been said so many times, offers you the antidote to the poison it tells you you swallowed. It gives you a cure to a disease it insists you have.
You're not unsaved as an atheist. In order for a religious person to save you, you'd have to be in danger. Does being saved prevent you from getting sick, prevent you from being injured, or losing your job? No, of course it doesn't.
Now, you could argue that being saved would spare you from the prejudices of religion, but that's like saying that not being black would save you from the lynch mob. You know what else would spare an atheist from bigotry, not being a fucking bigot against atheists.
So you failed, which I knew you would. Try again if you enjoy the feeling of failing.
Now, meglet, you're point. First of all, its impossible for an atheist to force religion down someone's throat because atheism isn't a religion. The same way bald is not a hair color, abstenance is not a sex position, and off is not a TV channel. So your terminology is lacking.
As for your point, look at what is being proffered by each side. Christians offer sin, self-hatred, and adherence to a bronze age collection of myths. Atheists offer progress, human interaction, kindness toward others, acceptance of other's life choices and circumstances, and a life based on knowledge and reason.
Now I realize, and I don't mean to be insulting, you live in Canada, its a nice place. You don't have a lot of bigotry to deal with there. Sure, there is some. A church recently made headlines in eastern Canada with some anti-gay biggotry, but its not much. Imagine you lived in an arab country, where you were treated as chattle for your husband or father. Where you would be killed for drinking, having sex before marriage, or even dressing inappropriately or dancing in the rain. Would you still wish for everyone to just sit back and play nice and let others live the life they want?
Its easy for us to say that we should be quiet and live and let live. That's easy for us to say because we don't lose anything by saying it. I've seen what happens when you lose a lot by saying it. I hope that you never have to experience it. I would not wish what I and others have gone through on my worst enemy, which you certainly are not.
Cody, please read my post if you're going to attack my terminology; I said that you are hypocritical if you shove "atheism" down a person's throat, not religion. You're right, atheism is not a religion, so if I'd said religion, I'd be wrong. But I didn't say religion, I said atheism. Atheism may not be a belief system but it's still shovable, since you're crying out and telling people religion is a lie. Just because I agree with you, doesn't mean I'm comfortable preaching about it. And, yes, you can argue that living in Canada means I just don't feel the need, and you'd be right. I promise you: if I ever feel like preaching is necessary, I'll do so, but you won't catch me criticizing Christians for doing that selfsame thing.
You're right, I'm sorry, I misread your post.
However, I do have to correct you in return. I don't condemn religious people for preaching. In fact, of all the things they do, I think preaching is the most understandable. If I thought you were about to walk off a cliff, I'd certainly scream at the top of my lungs to stop you, and that is what the religious are doing by preaching. They think we're about to walk off a cliff.
What I have a problem with is what they tell you once they've gotten their hooks into you. I object to them going to Africa and handing out bibles beside the food, or saying that starving children can get food if they come to church. I object to them telling them not to use condums because it violates their own Christian beliefs. I object to them trying to pass off creationism as science to children. I object to them holding purity balls, (google that if you dare). I object to them trying to tell one group they can't have equal rights.
I have no problem with them preaching, I have a problem with the results of what they preach. Does that make any sense?
Some, I suppose. I see what you're saying anyway, and for the most part I actually agree.
Wayne, your view of atheism is the most ignorant one I've ever heard from you.
if you talked to more atheists, and I mean actually listen to what they say, and fully absorb it, you'd realize that many of the things people think can only be gotten from religion, we can, indeed, also get from having no religion in our lives.
we do have hope, we have a love for life and humanity, we give to our communities...and not cause some higher power tells us that if we don't do these things, we'll be damned, but cause we're good people who care about the world and what progress it makes.
take, for instance, the fact that I currently have an injury. I don't pray that some invisible sky daddy will make it better, but instead, I trust the medical professionals who are on my team that have a wealth of knowledge, experience, and tons of methods to try, till we get to the one that works.
My opinion of what Atheism is, and what society’s view of what it is are not one in the same.
I am able to open my mind to the wider view of both Atheist and Religion.
My answer is correct, because if a person believe they are saved, just like you believe there is no God, to that person it is the truth!
Saved is not being saved from harm, troubles, and physical things, but saved in soul, heart, and the promise of an afterlife.
Some are saved from harming themselves by using drugs, saved from a life of crime, saved from depression, because for whatever reasons the secular, medical, and scientific systems were not enough. Perhaps, it is the sense they now belong to something, or a group, or have guidance from a more powerful source than can be found in this world, but it works for many.
When you preach, as I say I don’t mind it, and we’ve now agreed that you also don’t mind the Christians preaching, but the results of their preaching. But what you don’t see, or understand is stripping a person of their faith, belief, and hope is just as damaging as giving them what you believe to be false hope.
What are you replacing heaven with? Death, and no after life. Have you set down and thought about how mentally harmful for some people that have no grounding in religion, than in turn have nothing else to hold them to earth and life might be?
Sure, the strong minded survive both, but many do not.
Religion for some is not a falsehood, nor unreliable, it is the truth, and their hearts or souls reason for being.
You talk about all the wrongs Christians have done, and you talk about Christians not living by God word, or how God says they should, but you have forgotten about the new testament,. You have also forgotten about other types of religious belief, such as Judaism.
You are also mixing up Christian beliefs with radical Muslim beliefs I’ve noticed,
If Atheist, and I mean the true society, group, club, and yes religion, or Atheism, can be clean, why can you not accept that all Christian groups, clubs, societies, and yes religions do not have the same type systems?
If a black man robbed you last night, are all black men robbers?
I say you and others have had bad experience with “Christians” or people titling themselves as such, have closed your mind to the good it can and does do for many.
Being a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, in the true sense is not just a religion, but a complete birth right and way of life.
These are complete and sound communities that have not harmed anyone by telling them not to use condoms, killing them for drinking, condoning premarital sex, and whatever.
Do you not agree that titled Atheist groups have backwards thinking, and do exactly the same things?
Have you not heard of girls being drowned because they were born girls, given to the high priest at birth, and when she become physically able taken to him as his sexual sacrifice? How about the blood of the young and pure being drank to give the old powerful youth?
These groups practicing these things were not calling themselves Christians, but Atheist.
Harm is done by social beliefs, practices, and doesn’t have to be religious motivated.
Where you say Atheism is not a religion, is it not a way of life just like many religions? Definition is the problem here. If we take the word religion away and the word Atheist away, we are left with life practices, or ways of life.
I personally have had wonderful experience with both types, and I also have had bad, seen bad, witnessed much I’d prefer not to have, but I haven’t closed my mind. I have not lumped the Christians all together, and have not decided all Atheist are devil worshipers. I judge each group, persons on their actions, and fight for right not because I’m an Atheist, or a good Christian, but a human with much love for his fellow sisters and brothers in this life.
I live and let live when there is no true injustice being done.
Why must you insist on making arguments about atheism based on a flawed, incorrect, and bias definition? Many things you advocate are not and will never, ever, ever, ever be atheism. I don't care how you try and rationalize it. they just don't fit any rational definition proposed by atheists. Honestly, I think you're using this argument not because its truly correct, but because it fits your agenda in this argument. Why normally rational people justify anything in the name of peoples faith I simply don't understand. We wouldn't let people call horses houses just because its not harming anyone. they are two completely different things, and not calling something by its name, or using the wrong name for it only deliberately muddies the waters.
As for believing being ok, because it protects the week... we've already been over this. Protecting the religious from themselves is and has never been worth the damage inflicted on the world by some branches of these practices.
this sums it up best.
--------------------
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
Anatole France
I've met a lot of generally good people who happened to be christian. I know a lot of them didn't know the bible advocated all these horrible things, and it shook their faith. They started making excuses. You argue that different sects of christianity don't do or believe X, Y, or Z... But, how is it possible to be a true real christian when you just omit what ever parts of the bible you can't agree with? that sounds like a cop out. Just like the people that believe in a god, on the off chance that their is a hell. Their is no more singularly pathetic reason to believe, IMO. this doesn't make these people bad, in my eyes, it just makes them scared out of their rational minds.
Oh, one more question. If you're so annoyed we group most forms of christianity together, because they have a common set of beliefs... why do you try and group sets of people together that have completely different beliefs as atheist? this looks a bit hypocritical.
I'm sick to death of this idiotic attitude of, "the reason people are atheists, is cause they've had bad experiences with religious people." that's simply not true, just as we aren't atheists cause we wanna be cool, as Wayne has also said before.
as Cody, myself, and others have said time and time again, we're atheists cause there's no proof that god exists.
the "proof" note the quotes, please, that people who are religious often use about evidence for god's existence being in our everyday lives, is incorrect. cause, guess what? those same beautiful things, goodhearted people, kindnesses, and what have you, can, and are, also found by us atheists.
To be fair, Wayne has declared openly that he is not Christian and only takes what he wishes from the texts. This you or I may not understand, being rational objectivists who cannot do this, but he has openly stated that is what he does.
I agree with you on definitions. We look to the dictionary definition of atheism to see what it is. And we look to Christian leaders / its text to see what it is.
You said:
First of all, your opinion of what atheism is does not change what atheism is. I'm sick to death of people thinking that they can use whatever definition they want to for a word so that it fits their argument. The word atheism has a set definition, just like the word tire has a set definition. You can't have someone ask you to hand them a book, and hand them a fish, claiming that your opinion of what a book is makes it a fish. That's idiotic. So I don't give a tinker's damn about what your opinion of what atheism is. You're not important enough to have an opinion on what atheism is that actually makes a difference.
Second, believing that something is true does not make it true. I could believe I'm getting the world's best blow job from the head cheerleader of the dallas cowboys while playboy bunnies feed me chocolate covered strawberries from between their breasts. No matter how fervently I believe it, its never going to be true. You can believe you've saved someone all you want, they're still not saved.
To illustrate this further, I'm now going to believe that I turned your hair a lovely shade of neon pink. You let me know when that comes true, ok poindexter?
Now then, on to your feeble little argument of "well it makes people happy. It helps people come away from drugs and sex and all these other things, and you're just a depressing meany head." Let me point out a few things to you. First of all, the twelve step program, which is what you're referring to when you talk about religion saving people from drugs, was made up in the 1930's out of thin air. A psychiatrist pulled it out of his ass. The success rate for it is hovering right around five percent. Yeah, great straw you're grasping at there.
I admit, some people don't like realizing that their's no happy place you go to when you die. You don't get to see grandma again, and rover won't be waiting to lick your hand as you enter the pearly gates. But wait a minute, here's something you might not have realized. You don't have to be a theist to believe in the afterlife. I know lots of atheists who believe there is life after death. If you'd take the time to actually figure out what the words you're using mean, you might have been able to piece that one together.
Now then, I have a question for you. What the fuck are you talking about? There's no such thing as atheist high priests. Atheists don't have priests. What crazy cult are you talking about that is drinking blood while calling themselves atheist? Give me a website link. I don't want to hear "well I heard about it once on the fox news network". I want something that starts with HTTP, nothing else.
Now then, you go think up ways to fail again, and I'l be over here waiting for your hair to turn pink and getting that cheerleader blow job. Ok sunny jim?
Oh, one more question. If you're so annoyed we group most forms of Christianity together, because they have a common set of beliefs... why do you try and group sets of people together that have completely different beliefs as atheist? This looks a bit hypocritical.
I am not upset with people lumping other groups together, I am pointing out the fact it happens even for Atheist, and it pisses you off.
You dislike hearing me say others are claiming to be Atheist, and you hit me with the dictionary to prove that you are not these people, because well the dictionary, a book written by men, says so.
How about Christians? Can they not say the exact same thing? What makes is right for Atheist to lump Christians all together just because a group that has committed sins in the name of Christianity calls themselves Christians??
You don’t want, nor like being associated with devil worshippers, these high priest you challenge me to present as true Atheist, but you don’t mind giving Christians the child rapist, women burners, and such.
If a group can claim to be Christians, and intrepid the Bible as they see fit, why can’t another group claim to be Atheist, and intrepid Atheism as they see fit?
What gives you Atheist the right to even intrepid the Bible and call it a bad book, because of the way you see it, or read it? Could it not be that the things, as pointed out, a written historical record mixed with teachings that have nothing to do with the things surrounding them?
If you wish to find fault in something, and you do, you’ll find fault.
People wanted to own slaves, so they grabbed the Bible and found a passage in there that made it right, when that wasn’t actually the reason that passage was there at all.
You Atheist are also flatly ignoring other sects, or groups of religion, and yes, I said it, because of bad experiences with Christians, or things you’ve read, or learned in your Atheist Bibles about these horrible religious people.
I could bring you the high priest, and the blood drinkers, but the next thing I’ll read is “Well they aren’t Atheist. Atheist are, and yadda yadda yadda!”
Your definition group Atheist, are not without sin. Maybe your sect of Atheist are, but not the group as a whole.
Faith is the substance of things not seen, and when I say if a person believes in something it makes it true to them. I am not talking tangible things, but spiritual belief.
Just because you can’t prove an existents of God doesn’t make God not exist, because you’d have to examine how God is viewed, felt, and thought of for the individual person. God is very real to millions, and millions of people aren’t all fools.
There are even other millions of people that do not call themselves Christians who believe there is a God, so you’ve got even more people that aren’t fools.
"I know lots of atheists who believe there is life after death."
But you are an Atheist Cody, and you happen to not believe in the after life.
I was specificly talking about after life because you have time and time again preached the belief in it is worthless.
If I were being taught by you, and your teachings, am I now to believe I can have hope and still be a true Atheist?
This is exactly what I mean by groups being devided, and Christians are no different.
I don't get annoyed that you're lumping me in with things you see as atheist, because IMO, they are not. You can not make a logical case for them being atheist based on any standard definition. You can't even back up what you're saying... All you've demonstrated the power to do is cherry pic your arguments to fit your points, while ignoring just about anything you either don't agree with, or that harms your case. this isn't debate, this isn't rational... I don't understand how you've made these leaps at all. that, is what annoys me.
You quoted my question right back at all of us, while missing the fundamental distinction I made, thus taking the debate back in a circle. All of your arguments rely on some kind of logical fallacy to operate, and thus, they do not, can not, and will not stand on their own. I don't understand what you're trying to achieve, how you're trying to do it, how you've logically reached any of these conclusions, or why I'm supposed to take any of this seriously. You're just stirring up the pot, and making incomprehensible arguments. I think this is why so many people are annoyed.
anyway...
Leo, I agree with much of what you've written. thanks for your insight.
You haven't presented anything here. You just keep making claims without actually backing them up with any substance. Get some substance, then we'll talk. By the way, is your hair pink yet?
Please tell me the name of an Atheistic Bible. I do not believe that there is no god because of an anti-biblical book I have read, and though I don't often speak for other people, I can guarantee you that no one that has posted here either. These blood drinkers and Devil warshipers you keep mentioning can not be referred to as Atheists, because as far as I see it and the others see it, that is some sort of religion too. I'm honestly not very educated about this blood warship stuff, and I'm not grossed out easily so feel free to educate me some more about this. Learning from wrong doings and bizzarre behaviors is something that has taught me the right way to live, believe it or not, and that has been my guidance.
Agreed. I'm not sure I consider myself an Atheist, tough my views certainly lean in that direction. I tried the religion thing when I was younger andit just didn't work for me. I've observed that religion does not encourage critical thinking. ANd I agree with the question of how one can be a true Christian and yet not follow the Buy-Bull to the letter, right down to the stoning, slavery and oppression of women. Of course the answer they give is that god sacrificed his son and that automatically abolished all that had gone before. ButI've had this same debate with an x girlfriend over the last fourteen years. She can't understand my stance and is so desperate to try to convert me that she posted this drabble on Facebook about the rules of Christianity in video gamer language. In her words, god is the final boss of the game. Ok? The final boss is the one you're supposed to defeat. So by her logic I'm supposed to defeat god. LOL.
Cody, when you say some atheists believe there is an afterlife, I assume you're meaning the eternal perspective of man's creativity? Are you speaking of the legacy we leave to future generations, the name, the creative works of art? If so, I would agree with you.
It is a phony and religious idea that atheists aren't concerned about subsequent generations. In fact more of them are concerned about how we leave the state of things, than not.
If you were referring to the things I mentioned here, then I would concede with you. Michelangelo's afterlife is in his works that still exist, and the inspiration other artists have drawn from his works.
Please clarify, though, if this is not what you meant by atheists believing in an afterlife.
There are no Atheist Bibles Ryan.
What I am referring to is the books, that Cody, and others recommend as good reading. The Bible is a book, and has several editions, types, so why not these writings on Atheism being called Bibles?
Yes, if you wish to believe my hair is pink.
What I am doing is exactly what you all are doing, placing my opinions, feelings, thoughts, according to what I believe.
What have I ignored?
You say I am mad about people placing Christians in a lump, when in fact I am not a Christian, so how could I be?
You say if you it is false to believe you can believe my hair pink, when I have stated the belief I am talking about is not tangible things, but spiritual things?
What I am doing here is attacking you with the same logic you are attacking Christians with.
You say my beliefs are not facts, because I have not proved them. What facts have you proven?
If I bring to you a person, place, website, or any other proof, you will down grade it due to the source, the language, the definition, and anything else you can find to make it wrong according to your belief system.
Are you not as bad as the Christians you rail against?
I never stated anything about a drug clinic, group that was saving people, but Cody, you talk about a group started in the 30’s that is Christian I wasn’t referring to at all.
One of your preachers, let me get his name correct here, because the article I’ll refer to was in the Playboy magazine, so might not be a legitimate source to you,
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science
www.richarddawkins.net
Doesn’t believe in the afterlife? Oops, he’s not a preacher, right?
How is it that Atheist can believe in the afterlife?
That isn’t a question I need answered, but a question due to Atheist, or some saying there is no after. When you die, that is it.
Are these that believe actually Atheist?
I understand exactly why, and how this can be the case, but you don’t want to understand how Christianity isn’t all bad, nor has been responsible for all the ills in the world.
If you will accept devil worshippers as real Atheist because they say they are, I will accept the Latter Day Scientist, as real Christians. At that point we can agree that sociology is the root of our problems/people, not Atheism, or Religion.
That article with Dakin was a good read in my girlie book, and the man seems to be of sound mind and strong conviction. Did I agree with him? Sure, on a few points? Did I agree with him totally? No. He doesn’t believe there is and can be a God, and I do.
Attack the groups you have a quarrel with and I’m with you. Attack Christians as a whole, and ignore all the other religious groups, communities, and yes, Christian groups that have made much good in the world and continue to do so, I am going to enjoy a debate with you.
Do you really expect me to roll over just because you toss out a few things you feel are facts, and agree that religion has no place in society, and is bad for mankind?
I personally am not arrogant enough to say I understand how the world truly works, and that my opinions, beliefs, and feelings are the right ones for everyone else. I try to keep an open mind, and learn from all that comes to me, good and bad.
Add on, yes Leo. Because you see I took his statement to mean that they believe in the afterlife as to them living after death in some other world or body, or something like that.
you like to keep an open mind, Wayne, huh? is that what you call refusing to even think about what's being presented, and idiotically saying that we're the closed minded ones? if that's your definition of open minded, I want no part in it.
as James and Cody so rightly pointed out to you, milions of people believing something, doesn't make it true. how is that so hard a concept to grasp?
also, to address an earlier comment you made, Wayne, about it being hard, in your mind, for people to live happily without religion, that simply isn't true.
you know how I know this? cause, people such as yourself won't even spend time pondering what life would be like, if you didn't believe in a god. you'd rather stick to what you've always known, never questioning things, never wanting to know how wonderful life is, and could be for yourself...and that's truly sad.
I never said people couldn't be happywithout God. I said some people seem to need a God in their lives and that makes them happy, sane, at peace.
Can you prove that is not so? Can you prove 100% they'd be better without?
As you say just because millions of people believe something doesn't make it right, what about the number of Atheist who believe as they do, why are they right?
100% is a heavy number to claim rightness with, and to me keeping an open mind means seeing all sides of something, not getting dead set on my standing.
I know for a fact a slap hurts me, but I can not swear to 100% every healthy person feels pain when they are slapped, even though, physically, scientificly, many people feel pain.
Again, I am not closed minded to Atheist, and Atheist thought, what I am doing is taking the other side, and pointing out that you Atheist are not the end and the do, and the last word on life. Life is a mystery even to science. I respect this.
You really need to slow down and construct your sentences more carefully so they're understandable. Let me see if I can pick out a few things from the morass of words you just vomited onto the boards here.
No, your hair is not pink simply because I believe it so. Belief does not change reality. For centuries people believed the sun went around the earth. That didn't change the reality of the solar system, but billions of people still believed it over the course of centuries. Belief has no impact on reality, spiritual or otherwise.
Believing that someone is saved does not actually save them, no matter if you're talking spiritually or otherwise. If it did, the morman practice of baptism after death would make everyone morman. No one thinks everyone is morman, or at least no rational person does. Do you think everyone is morman simply because the mormans baptize people after they die? Do you think the jews killed in the holocaust are mormans now? They've all been baptized by the morman church.
No, Richard dawkins is not a preacher. He's a speaker, a scientist, and a leader. That's it. He's no more a preacher than George Bush was a preacher because he led America. I never understand why people automatically think that if you talk about faith, you must be a preacher. The word preacher has its own meaning too. You can't pigeonhole everything you want to fit into that definition, much as you'd like to.
No, the atheistic books I refer to are not bibles. They're not holy books. First of all, not all holy books are bibles. The iliad is not a bible, the odyssey is not a bible, the Norse myths are not bibles. That's like saying all chevys are fords because they're both cars. The logic doesn't work. Bible is a proper noun, not an improper noun.
Secondly, in order for these atheistic books to be a bible, or even a holy book, they'd have to present moral teaching set out by a god. They don't. They present science, or philosophy, or rhetoric or something of that nature. That's it. They don't do anything more than that. They are books of evidence, not books of moral direction.
That's about all the sense I was able to make from your posts. If you want me to respond to more, slow down and make your sentences make more sense. Paragraphs, they are your friend.
And Leo, I was referring to more than just the eternality of legacy. There are also atheists who genuinely believe in an afterlife. Some belief in reincarnation, others believe in energy loops. That is where the energy from your body can be caught in a loop of time, sort of like ghosts. I don't personally get it, or agree, but they believe it. It doesn't hurt anyone, so I have no problem with it.
I'm just as confused as I was before...
Yes, I know some people have actually done good who happened to be christian, I know some people have done good, well, that a lot of people have done good things, because they happen to be of a religious mindset. I've also known a lot of religious people to do good things, to get gods attention, or go to heaven or something of the kind. I think those interior motives make the act more neutral than good. Kinda like those people I know who work at a homeless shelter, or other community project, so they can post about how good they were on Facebook or twitter. Humble bragging is bad, in any context.
On definitions and sources.... We were asking you for any sourced definition, any at all that remotely supports your strange interpretation of atheist. Rather than give us anything, to show an intellectual group of people supports that stance at all, you just make the excuse that we'll except nothing at all. When that isn't true. We're not looking for something backed up by a cult, but we are looking for a definition you could get away with in an educational institution that supports your views. Again, just saying something is, doesn't make it so. If you'd like, we can provide a definition of atheist that has some baring in fact.
Equivocation: The fallacy of deliberately failing to define one's terms, or deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand. (E.g., Bill Clinton stating that he did not have sex with "that woman," meaning no sexual penetration, knowing full well that the audience will understand his statement as "I had no sexual contact of any sort with that woman.") This is a corruption of the argument from logos, and a tactic often used in American jurisprudence.
Just to clarify one more thing. I've met a lot of bad religious people but I don't believe that all religious people are bad.
Yes, I'd like to hitch my post to that one if I may. I've met a lot of bad religious people and good religious people. I don't think all religious people are bad, I think all religion is bad.
Its like venomous snakes. They're good to have around, keeps the rodent population down, keep the ecosystem under control, does a lot of good things. I don't want to deal with the venom. The venom is bad, not all the fruits of it are bad. Does that make any sense?
I think that's what Wayne is missing, though. we aren't saying people who are religious are automatically bad, but that religion itself, is bad. there's a major difference.
Yep, that's what we're basically saying. religion while having some positive aspects is a net negative for society.
First off, let's cut the attacking. There's been some insulting going on, it's not needed, and that's true no matter how ridiculous you may think an argument is.
Now I'm going to weigh in a little.
Wayne, mostly I see where you're coming from in a lot of ways, but in this one I feel like a couple of good points are getting trampled in the melee. When a generally accepted definition is challenged, you've got to give reasons as to how it stands up. When people once believed that the sun went round the earth, scientists had to prove it didn't work that way, and they did. Same goes, I'm afraid. If you can demonstrate that the working definition of atheism is flawed, then go for it, but until that's done, you're sort of stuck by its confines, the same way I am if I want to describe something blue or large or smoky. Those terms are connotations of an object or person or state, and they have concrete meanings.
Right, so here's the meat of my stance. I personally think a hell of a lot of bad is done by people in the name of religion. I also think a hell of a lot of bad is done by people, period, never mind their faith. To claim that religion is a babdthing for society kind of skips the bit where we accept that it is people, not religion itself, that is guilty of horrific acts. Whether or not you believe God entitled you, it was still you, a person, who did a horrible thing in the end. Fault not the venom in a serpent's fangs when you are poisoned; instead, be wise and rightfully blame the snake. Without his bite, you would not suffer. People will still do horrible things in a godless world.
Something else to think about though. I know there are probably a lot of nonreligious soup kitchens, shelters and other forms of help for the needy, but it bears mentioning that a great lot of aid for the poor and hungry has its roots in religion. Religion has a sort of double-edged protocol which makes you feel far more answerable to others, and this often results in an increased awareness of the suffering of others. This is not a foolproof attempt at an argument for religion, only food for thought. When they put a Bible next to the food they give, that's bad. But we should never forget that they are still giving of themselves to offer that food; without it, starvation and death may occur. It's double-edged, this awareness of others, because it entitles many religious people to the idea that they can convert you to their faith. They think you are in need of help you do not want as well as help for which you're asking.
Just remember that it is not religion that stones people, even if it was in the Bible or Quran that it was made lawful. It is not God or faith that rapes an eight-year-old girl. It's people, pure and simple.
here we go again, with the, "quit the attacking, cause it isn't necessary," shpiel.
you know what isn't necessary? coming here to say something you don't like is unnecessary. yet, no matter how many times myself and others point out that stupidity, Greg will continue using that phrase over, and over, and over again.
back to the topic, though. got any sources, Wayne? real sources, I mean, other than your word.
I thought of a sort of addendum to my last post.
Okay. So it's clear that if a snake is less harmful without its venom, then taking its venom away might be a workable response. I can't deny that there is some merit to that. If people will do bad things whether or not God is involved, but the likelihood rises a bit when religion is tossed into it - I'm not convinced of this, it's still people at its root - then removing religion might lower the sum of all evil in the world. This is tenuous, but bear with me.
Are you people who might be willing to espouse this philosophy willing to accept a few other things? Here are just a few:
1. Slaughtering innocent animals for food is horrible, inhumane and a terrible ecological burden. We can live without eating meat, so that's what we ought to do.
2. Cars are responsible for many deaths and tons of pollusion. They speed up our daily commute, but they contribute to a lot of problems and cost a lot of money. Thus, we should all get around on bicycles, on foot, or using other motorless exhaust-less forms of transport.
3. Guns are deadly weapons. Their sole aim is to wound or kill what they shoot, and people are able to use them to great effect. Humankind has had firearms for a comparatively short time, and owing to this and other factors, the death toll of humans has skyrocketed. If no one had guns, then there would be fewer killings. Thus, guns should be outlawed and destroyed.
Sure, there are problems, small ones anyway, with at least a couple of those platforms, but they all operate under the same principle: "A lot of harm can result from it, so we should get rid of it". Never mind the good people can do if they feel motivated, or empowered, or what have you. It's not one-sided, that's for certain.
On the basis of arguments like these, a mindset like this one, I can't in good conscience say, "Well, religion has directly or indirectly caused a lot of misery, so the world would be better off without it". The world might be better off without electricity, buses and nuclear power too.
The problem with your theory, which was rather well thought out SW, was that you were talking about end results. We're not talking about end results, we're talking about driving forces. Religion is not an end result. It is not, "people are starving thus religion". Its, "People are not being given the condums that would protect them from aids because of religion". Note the difference there.
Lets use one of your examples. You've heard, I'm sure, guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns. Well its true, guns are inanimate objects. I could kill you, with less effort actually, with other tools.
Religion is not an inanimate object being used, it is a driving force which drives in the wrong direction. Its like a road which leads over spike strips, then into deep mud, and finally off the edge of a cliff. I don't think anyone would say that that's a good road to drive down. Now what if I said, "But there are some breath taking views on that road. Its gorgeous." Its still not a good road to go down.
Now, lets take issue with a few other things. First, cherity is not a product of religion, its a product of society. In fact, in today's day and age, cherity is done in spite of the church, not by the church. The biggest churches in the United States give the least amount of taxes which could be used to help the poor, buy the biggest facilities for their own use, buy the nicest things for their leadership, and host the most technologically advanced sermons. Do some research on it. There are preachers from megachurches who own jets and helicopters and high-end sportscars. All of those are not taxable by the government. They pay no taxes on it.
If I remember the numbers correctly, just the property tax on the holding of churches in America would be over seven billion dollars. That's just the property tax. Why aren't they paying that if they want to be so cheritable? Why do they have a price for their cherity? IF you're charging for your services, its not cherity. Thus, churches are not cheritable at all. At the very least, they're not very cheritable. I'm sure there are some very cheritable churches scattered somewhere.
All that aside though, it goes back to my question that still hasn't been answered. Can secular organizations give cheritable donations? Yes, in fact the largest organization in the world are secular; doctors without borders to name but one. So if we were to completely do away with religion, there would still be cherity.
what would end is all the people being driven to do horrible things by religion, and that leads me to the last thing that I want to take issue with. You said people stone children, and flog rape victims, so on and so forth. I disagree. I do not think you could find enough people to have it be a law that women are not allowed to drive if it wasn't mandated that women be inferior by a religious edict. That's why the first people to be in an uproar when those things are threatened, are religious people.
So I'm afraid, while you have a well thought out argument, its not very logical or rwel reasoned. Perhaps if we were living several hundred years ago it would be more logical, but we're not. This is the 21st century, religion has far outlived its usefulness.
sure, sometimes drunk drivers get in to a car and kill people, but the difference is, the car isn't telling you to get drunk and kill people as part of the law of being a true user of the car. where as many religious texts tell you to do horrible things in the name of god, because they are part of gods law.
Again I ask, if you're doing something good, because god tells you to, and you want to go to the after life,are you still doing something good? Does your selfishness which is against the word of most religions counter acting the good you do?
Through my last post on this topic I have not been trying to prove anything at all.
I have stated I’m not a Christian.
I have used sarcasm to drive points home, and to get under your skins. This has worked, because you have gotten angry with me.
My logic was not sound purposely
I called Atheist readings Bibles, associated you with devil worshipers.
I have call Cody, and Dakin preachers, and that I still mean.
You have been trying to get something from my post that simply is not there, reason.
The only points I am trying to make are.
First, all religion is not bad. You have finally stated this without me asking you to do so.
Next, that spiritual belief is not tangible belief, so can’t be seen as something you can prove, or disprove. It is simply a feeling, belief and is only relevant to the person that believes it.
I believe in God, and you can’t disprove my God doesn’t exist.
I have challenged your attack on Christianity as a whole. The reason for this was due to your statement that all Christians were wrong doers.
You helped me prove my point by saying some Atheist believe in the afterlife, while others don’t, and because of that, shown that even Atheist are divided. If Atheist can be divided in their belief structure, why not Christians?
I am not trying to convince you of anything else at all.
To cap my post I’ll go back to the beginning of this post.
This topic was started because prayer doesn’t work according to the poster and Atheist belief.
Prayer works for me. Not in the way of this example, but in a spiritual form. I explained why.
Does this require proof? No, because it is personal, and may, or may not work for others.
Agreed Shepherdwolf's argument is well thought out.
I have something to add to what Cody and James just said, though.
Using your example of the snake / venom, though:
Assuming the snake part is the ideas of love and justice, honor and courage, honesty and fidelity, things like that which religion and other things support. The venom would be the stoning / raping / unjust delivery into an eternity of torment as the price for one single lifetime's errors.
The difference is, religion demands that you love, cherish and value the venom as much as the snake. That the author of one is the author of the other, and religion has the profane boldness to call the venom good. An eternity of destruction as the price for one lifetime's errors, most of which are not capital offenses, is nothing like the retributive eye-for-an-eye justice most of us the world over can relate to.
Neither is stoning for some minor indiscretions, or the genocides declared to be authored by deities.
Now, if religion were an honest affair, declared those things in its own texts that were wrong, to in fact be wrong, and quit justifying evil things, then we could see it behaving like the snake, where people are told beware of the fangs.
As long as we're told to love and cherish the venom as something right and good, and to appreciate that venom being injected into us and weakening us, then there is something terribly wrong with religion that we would never accept anywhere else.
Imagine I told you the following:
Here's the application I've created for you to use. Now, in order to test your free will and discipline, I'm going to crash every once in awhile and wipe out your data. Not just yours, but your family's, friends', and relatives'. Now to avoid this you can go through the ritual of backups so you can get restored after said crashes. I may even code the program so that the odds are the first time or two that you get frustrated and call out to me, my program will respond and rectify itself. Now you can trust the author of the program.
Now, you use this application throughout your life. This is the author's bidding, after all. So you incorporate this crash-prone application into business, social engagements, even relationships and maybe you incorporate it into changing your marriage. Now, those technicians who help you with the application teach you that the crashes are done for your benefit. In fact, if you would only back up your data, you wouldn't suffer the consequences of the crash.
So, voila, you learn to back up your data most of the time. But, but, but, the technicians again tell you you can't actually take credit for backing up your data. The application is what helps you back up the data by intermittently crashing. (the Application is watching you, and sees everything you do).
The further along you progress from installation to full use of the application, the more you are taught to love and appreciate the crashes.
Oh, and this intermittent crashing, is pretty much all the application actually does. Of course, say the technicians, you have to use all the other applications to actually do anything. Only give mastery to this Application at all times. Put this Application first. It starts up before any others do. Any conflicts between the two are to be resolved by whatever this Application wants, even though it's the other applications who actually get any work done.
Also this application will order multiple systems to assault and disable servers and other networks who are incompatible with it. At least this is in the release notes from early versions of the Application. Maybe it doesn't happen all that often now, so you hear, but part of being a user of this application, a sublicensee, you are required to see these random destructions as beneficial to this application's progress, and never to obstruct its efforts should it set out to do so again.
Anyone in the market for such a program? Anyone? Anyone?
An odd analogy, but I really like it. Thanks Leo.
Bear in mind a few things here, please.
First, I stated rather plainly that my second post, with the analogies about cars and guns and eating meat, was more food for thought than argument. Debunk away if you wish, but I still think it possesses its merit as what it was intended to be, because try as you might, there are some similarities that can't just be pushed aside.
Second, we must remember that religion itself (not God, not Jesus, not Allah, but the construct through which we view them) is manmade. Religion, in this guise, has bad elements that it cannot reconcile. Not every religious person or organization will try and make a newcomer believe that horrible things are just, and not every newcomer will bow to that in any case. There is no excuse for these bad elements when the religion would very likely prosper just as well, if not better, without them. They are, in many cases, a product of backward thinking that is no longer remotely applicable, if it ever was. Personally I don't see stoning or rape as applicable, not ever, and I bet most here would agree. So here's my point. Maybe religion contains these elements, and maybe some people take them up, but there are probably more horrified Christians out there than accepting Christians solely on the basis of stoning and rape. I'd suppose that many of them just...don't want to think about it, and some of them (the less studied, the more informal) may not even have known. Thus, the assertion that you must love the venom as much as the snake...well, I can't eny that it's true some of the time, and that when it's true it's abhorrent, but I don't believe it's quite the absolute truth it's being made out as. And, as such, if it is not absolute, then it cannot be used to condemn a religion absolutely as a bad thing...no more than the good elements of said religion (which are equally nonabsolute, I might add) can justify religion as a purely good thing. Thus, I'm standing by my previously held, if not baldly stated, conclusion: religion has bad elements that ought not exist, many of which receive attempted justification, but the religion itself is not as bad as it looks.
Lastly, I'm going to hit a little harder on one of the examples I gave where it pertains to religion and eating meat. Slaughtering animals and devouring their flesh is quite frankly barbaric, the way it's done now. Calves are often put in pens so small that they literally can't turn around. Ever wonder why veal's so soft most of the time? It's because the muscles of those calves have begun to atrophy due to lack of use. Pigs are often so closely confined that they go insane. There are all sorts of horror stories, and never mind that we are bringing animals into the world only to kill them, carve them up and eat them. Put that way, it's awfully horrible...and for what? So we can eat something tasty? So we can round out a meal? Seriously, what are the benefits besides the immediate availability of certain proteins (which, I might add, are pretty easily available in vitamin supplements, harmless pills, in most areas of the developed world)? What I'm saying, in essence, is that there are millions of perfectly good people who eat meat and never think of all the horrible things happening as a result of that industry. Most of them are perfectly good human beings who would be shocked or repulsed to hear of these brutalities...yet many, myself included, will go on eating animals and either justifying or ignoring what we don't like about the process. At least religion offers things like spiritual balm and answers to scary questions; they may be silly answers to many of us, but if you put the horrible acts aside, at least most Christians, in particular, are trying to be good people, for whatever reason. What are we trying to do by eating animals?
Short version: if you are the sort of person who would say that religion should be abolished, then you should stop eatingmeat at the same time. All that suffering and viciousness for your taste buds...that's pretty hard to wiggle away from.
Again, I haven't read one of these books before, but I'm sure they are not like the Bible. Firstly, they are centered around the same idea, but they are intended completely for the opposite reasons. It's not as though you can write a book filled with stories about how God does not exist. Furthermore, Atheism is not centered around the non-existence of Christianity alone. So if there was some sort of anti-Biblical book that you are mentioning here, it must not address the existence of Gods from other religions, because not all religions are based on the Bible. For those of you who agree feel free to add what I might be missing, but I feel like you can understand where I'm coming from.
I'm sorry for a typo I said. Not the non-existence of christianity, I meant to say the non-existence of God.
SW, I get where you're going up to a point, though I think Leo's analogy ties this all back together. As a christian, according to the bible, one is required to love the loving side of god, as much as the one who takes up the sword, because they are one in the same.
Making the excuse that all we have to look upon these religions is man made constructs just creates more problems. Why would a "perfect" god leave things like the interpretation of his instructions up to the will of men writing them down? Now that you've conceded they're all conveyed and created by men, what proof do we have in the first place we've even got the correct info, or that someone didn't just insert stuff in to the text, to see how gullible we are?
Considering how many different versions of the jesus on the cross story their are, some confusion exists, for sure. I'm not trying to pick at you for the sake of picking at you... Please believe that much.
If we can't even verify that a religion is 100 percent gods word, I just don't see the point. For all we know some selfish dick changed just enough to condemn everyone who believes to hell. Much less all the people who split off the trunk of the tree as it were. you've got over 3000 denominations of christianity, so its in theory a 1 in 3000 shot. those are not odds i'd bet on.
then, if someone is christian, with out beliefs that are expressly ground in the bibles teachings,what assures they're saved? again, the variables of error just keep increasing.
the more factors you add, the greater the chance becomes you devoted your life to buying the wrong numbers at the lottery time, after time, after time....
Leo, I really liked your two analogies.
FR: I honestly thought you were making a good faith effort to express your views and make a case for another way of looking at the world/situation we find ourselves in. now I learn you were intentionally setting everything up to make no logical sense. thanks, for wasting my time. You've got my points wrong again, by the way.
I argued that most religions are a net negative, not net positive. and, that I don't understand how one could be a true christian, while picking and choosing what to believe out of a book that demands complete belief. Again, I feel like everything i've written or attempted to communicate was deliberately twisted to make a point that honestly isn't all that legible. this all boiled down to straw man arguments, red harings and you trying to shift the burden of proof. this alone isn't enough to make any kind of sound progress, drive a point home, or come to any logical conclusions...
basically once we get rid of all the bs, we're left with this.
""The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false (or that it must be true). E.g., “Scientists are never going to be able to positively prove their theory that humans evolved from other creatures because we weren't there to see it! So, that proves the Genesis six-day creation account is literally true!” Sometimes this also includes “Either-Or Reasoning:” E.g., “The vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that my neighbor poisoned him! There’s no other logical explanation!” A corrupted argument from logos. A fallacy commonly found in American judicial and forensic reasoning.""
again, not sufficient to prove any point, win any argument, or draw any conclusion. Its a cop out, and its worthless as a stance on any issue.
Nice post, James, I wrote mine and it logged me out but fortunately I copied to clipboard.
Shepherdwolf, while I don't contest your sentiments about eating meat, the science is not definite about us as a meat-free species. Chimpanzees were thought to be herbivorous until Jane Goodall's extensive work. She has two books you can read on chimps. They eat quite a bit of meat.
I agree that switching to grassfed or free-range meats are an alternative to the factory farmed meats. Though I am not an animal rights person, anyone concerned with animal welfare (most people to some extent) understand these are real problems. But even to eat a truly vegan diet is cost-prohibitive to quite a few Americans.
Perhaps you're right about religion and Christianity in particular. But in America, at least, it is seen primarily as a one-off acceptance of not only the whole thing but any act proscribed by the deity to be just and right. Never do they question whether the deity was wrong, or maybe the text is wrong at some point.
They assert that if you say the text is wrong in one place, that invalidates the entire text. Except that this is only true of religion. Manuals are wrong and need updating. Maps are wrong and need updating. Manuals are even right with a few errors, and the errors do not invalidate the whole manual's integrity. Imagine a scenario where I send you an electronic gadget of some kind, and its manual has errors in the instructions. You would still use that manual, and avoid the instructions which you know to be in error. The entirety of the manual was not rendered null and void because of some errors in the text. I know many manuals circulating today with errors in the instructions someplace. Except that outside of religion one can exercise common sense with the texts you're working with, excluding things you know to be in error. The Christians claim the entirety of the Bible as an instruction manual.
If you have negotiated contracts, you know there are often adendums that change a contract's meaning over time. Nobody says the entire contract is valid as is. the term "as amended" is what we use. The Christians will also refer to the Bible as a contract between God and man, and yet although it definitely appears amended, making the injustices understandable (if not tolerable), they want to break with contract norms and not state as amended, but take in whole from start to end. This isn't Cody or me just drumming this stuff up, it's all over their literature and media.
It is this logically fallacious conclusion that causes many to part ways.
And they never tell this to the newcomer. As the perfect deception would have it, this is stuff reserved for, as they might say, more mature followers. This is decidedly propagandist and terrible, even in and of itself. Where there's something to hide, they know something is horribly wrong.
By definition, you are having rational discourse. Emotion, surely, because we are all humans and so have empathy. But rational discourse is outside the religious realm. And where they claim to have rational discourse, it is generally souped up straw man arguments with lawyerly exposés and implied groupthink: applying a heavy dose of foregone conclusion.
Perhaps it is true that Christianity elsewhere in the world has evolved to a point of understanding and overcoming some of the fallacious tendencies to remain hidebound, not out of mental softness but actually out of pragmatism and mental toughness. This I don't know. I don't even know how it would be conciliated since as James pointed out the text itself reiterates the one-off nature of its entirety. By Entirety most of us mean not only post-Constantine edits in the 4th century CE, but edits after the Protestant Reformation.
So, you are to accept a very edited text with translation errors that would have had me fired from the federal government as a translator, to be an implicit one-off document. Where else do we do such a thing? We even amend our Constitution, which many outside the U.S. feel we hold sacred. Its sacredness is in part the Founders' wisdom in understanding there would need to be amendments.
What you're hearing from over here is at least the American model, piped worldwide by a media empire that probably net worths in the billions of dollars.
I would agree the back and forth between religious and irreligious is probably not that useful. But in order to make religion anything useful, it ought to be vivisected under the cold light of pragmatism and without supportive bias, the way that a virus may be dissected or a chemical phenomenon understood, all dispassionately with the only aim of producing the sum of its parts and the working knowledge of how those parts actually fit. Also acquiring the types of data that could show it to be beneficial, malevolent or innocuous would help.
The reason people take on Christianity is it is the super monopoly. For all its cries of persecution and quails about being a minority, it owns more property and structures than any other institution, more than many countries. It has the highest number of followers in the world, its media empire is expansive, and its political influences are astounding. If Christianity were a nation state, it would only be fitting and right to examine it, if all its nationalists were spread among every other nation in the world. It is also extremely ambitious about enlargement of its assets.
The Eastern religions can't be said to be ambitious, save Islam, who ranks second in the world. And religions like Wicca are insignificant in terms of the types of power and influence wielded by the Big Three, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, all of which share elements of a very common deity with very common temperament characteristics. And Christianity and Islam are both extremely ambitious on the one end, while religions like Wicca or Tibetan Buddhism are politically weak, unambitious and inconsequential on the other hand, whatever their dogmas may entail.
None of this is personal to an individual, though some fervent and naturally insecure followers of any of these will take it so. It's the structures, the power and the influence. It is only logical to pragmatically dissect and understand those forces that are powerful and influential. How many books, for instance, have been written about multinational corporations, global markets, and how they work? Nobody but a few idealists thinks these conglomerates are being picked on. They'll continue to make vast sums of money, books or no books. But understanding motivation of the Empires of the Big Three, in particular the largest one, is very relevant, because their influence for good or ill affects all parts of every society worldwide. And since a religion can't sell you a vacation home or a new car, it's only salable item is in the abstract, this hope that some have talked about. The money they get from followers is inconsequential: In reality the hope is more of a drug, pushed by a dealer, where the price you pay is the idea that you just may fail or not reach the end game. It's the perpetual carrot on a stick. And that is where their bloody barbaric acts touted as love come into play. An illusion of hope with a tangible fear, because barbaric acts, even if dressed up as loving, are barbaric acts nonetheless. No honorable person can see them for anything less.
Again, this isn't personal, it's simply an important aspect of the infrastructure's modus operandi for survival. You're not buying, you are renting. The apartment you rent is the potential hope, and the rent you pay is the fear and bent-kneed brokenness that will assist the structure in getting you to do its bidding, mobilize for political campaigns, any number of things. And my bet is that most participants are unaware, including those in rather high-ranking positions. Who knows what the original Pre-Constantine intent was, but us pragmatists will always work with what we've got now.
For my own part, I have no particular dislike of the sword, if it is the sword of defense or sword of justice. All are necessary elements to any structure's survival. The sword we find so loathsome is that awful character quality of throwing temper tantrums over minutia, wanton wasting of life, torture, even the concept of an eternity of punishment and torment for one lifetime of errors. One could fairly argue that an eternity of bliss in exchange for one lifetime's devotion to the savior isn't technically fair either, fair in the purely judicial sense. However, when we look at entities who dream up fetishistic tortures as outlined in the New Testament Hell, not even the Old, we're looking at what we understand as psychopathy.
What the god of the new testament would do to those in judgment, makes the Manson children's acts look positively angelic. Hell is at least as important as heaven is to a Christian foundation, since we can far more easily imagine the macabre than we can the paradise. Any of you old enough to have listened to talk shows after they found Susan Smith guilty of murder know what I'm talking about: people devising tortures, in their mind, over the radio, for what they would like to do to her. Her acts were monstrous, unlike something simple as theft of a stick of gum which would send you to hell. Her act caused wanton and terrible suffering. Yet it wasn't long before people were creating far worse for her than she had done to her children.
People are in love with hell, the idea of it for others anyway. and Christians are no exception, only their text provides a unique window into the macabre. A word search on BibleGateway will show far more instances of the word Hell than Heaven, and the further you get into the text the more macabre it gets. It's a bit like a meth addiction: starts pretty minor in references to the pit or the grave, and increases when that isn't good enough anymore, and by the final book there it explodes in a true addict's paroxisms of near foaming at the mouth description.
And we're all like that. We all want to exact the worst possible revenge on someone who has wronged us. It's only in our nobler and more honorable selves that we rise above it to a more just position where the punishment fits the crime. Fits, not exceeds and then some.
I'm an American, and support the judicious use of capital punishment. But I would not have the condemned tortured, nor would I have them hellishly resuscitated again in order to live out revenge. In a nobler and more honorable state of mind, you know that cycle would never end. It is base, bestial, worse than even the animals would inflict. And animals can be extremely cruel to one another by human terms.
Your religious leaders are in love with this stuff. Watch as they go ecstatic before you on a TV screen or if you visit somewhere, panting, working themselves to fever pitch over this, it's pretty macabre. What they describe is not justice.
It may seem we're being hard on religion, but religion brought this on itself by the deception. If, instead of calling it justice, they just claimed the deity gets off, which in fact he must, they would at least be honest.
They'll tell you also, that he didn't send you there, but you chose to go, because that place was never designed for you. Really? As an engineer, if things go where they're not designed to go, that is called a bug, and that is my responsibility not the data's. You cannot logically have an infinitely capable being with limitations placed on it. Surely even the most elementary and imaginative could construct a place to put the dissonant ones without the macabre. This clearly shows an unwholesome appetite, probably on the part of the document's creators. Possibly a beg borrow from the Greek mythology which had some of its own macabre gruesome events like Prometheus having his liver eaten out of him every morning.
If macabre is what they have created, and use as a fear factor, then it's also fair to judge the characters of those creating this type of macabre as a model.
If a nation with the same number of assets and citizens were to construct such documents, wouldn't we judge this in its entirety for what it is?
Put it this way: Someday, somebody is going to write the positive spin of history on the Holocaust, writing that because of it Israel is now a nation state. That sounds pretty macabre to us, because of how we view the Holocaust and all that it implies. Somebody will do that, though, and it won't change the character of Adolph Hitler who constructed the Holocaust. It won't make any of his indecent and dishonorable acts anything less than what they were. And even when such an apologist comes up with this angle, people will still judge the Reich for what it is.
We appear to be firing about 85% on the same trajectory here, Leo.
Please remember that I am not saying that religion should be left as is. It should indeed be dissected in more stark terms, but I think this dissection needs to be done by hands as unbiased as possible. If a person's belief in God or an afterlife or specific stories from the past hurts no one, let him have those things. It is only when the construct to which those things are tethered hurts society that those harmful bits must be excised. I'm in complete agreement over that. I only mean to say that we should not say religion is bad, in and of itself, purely because some of its elements are.
As for eating meat...well, I might have my facts wrong on that, but I have two vegan cousins, one of whom has two vegan children. They're all healthy, so the lifestyle is at least potentially viable. Going vegan, in particular, is more expensive, I'll give ya that one uncontested. I still draw that parallel though, and add to it by saying that eating meat won't help you fear death any less, and it won't give you a sense of belonging in an unfriendly world. Ephemeral as those things are for some of us, there are others who feel that those things are tied fairly tightly to their religion, and what of that? If an atheist or an agnostic can make the bold statement that religion should be done away with, then that person should also be able to accept that things like cigarettes, eating meat, guns and alcohol could and probably should suffer the same fate on similar grounds.
I like your analogies about software and manuals and such. They really do make sense. You're preaching to the converted though; I believe religion is best when you are able to admit that 1. it might not be best for everyone else and 2. sometimes, people just plain get it wrong, whether that's a Bible interpretation or a heinous act resulting therefrom.
Let me, if I may, borrow one of Leo's analogies for my own purposes.
If a piece of technology has a manual which has errors in it, those errors are usually withdrawn. A new manual will be issued sans errors. That's called progress.
If a science textbook is proven to contain out of date data, the textbook is done away with. The same is true of history textbooks, biology textbooks, maps, sea charts, and a number of other documents. They are all improved when found to be obsolete.
Now, I hear people claim all the time that there are Christians who do not aspouse the verses in the bible which promote horrific acts. They disavow the slaughtering of millions, or of infants, or of entire populations. They sprint headlong away from the verses about slavery and child abuse and rape victims marrying their rapist. But do you know what they almost never do? In fact, I can't think of any time I've ever heard of it happening. They never make a new frickin' book.
They run away from the parts of the bible they don't like, but they still call the bible their holy book. Well, if the bible is what gives you the recipe for Christianity, and you don't follow it, are you a Christian? I think not. I think you are something entirely different, and are too afraid to admit that you've changed faiths.
I suppose that depends on one's definition of a Christian. I completely agree that outdated or simply erroneous information needs changing, and that refusal to acknowledge or change it is problematic.
But using that self-same analogy, if I, a regular citizen - and that's where conflict of interest must begin, at the level of your citizenry - refuse to accept parts of a book whose general principles I happen to partake of, do you expect me, that same humble citizen, to go write a new book for myself?
The problem here is a simple one. Christians have not gathered en masse, spoken up against the things they dislike and gotten things changed. Some believe that to do so would be sacrilege. Some feel powerless. None of this, however, argues for the world being a better place without religion; it simply shows that people ought to be more accountable for what they do or do not believe in.
I agree with Shepherdwolf in that we can't really change or modify society to restrict religion as there are people, I'm married to one, who rely on faith quite a bit. We need to keep faith separate from science and other curricula, everything in its place, as it were.
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
Proverbs 26:19.
My next words are not directed at anyone specifically, I am speaking to you all that are opposing me.
Am not surprised you feel I have wasted your time.
I used sarcasm, and instead of noticing this, you wanted to find reason.
To make my hair pink is actually simple. Change the definition of black, get a bunch of people to agree with you. Write this in a book, and call it the dictionary.
The concepts in the dictionary are things that have been passed down to us. Are these concepts actually what they are? We can’t honestly say. They harm no one. We accept them and use them without question.
I bring that point up, due to when you argue, you say, “the dictionary says.”
You cannot stop groups who practice witch craft, and devil worship from believing and stating they are Atheist with a definition.
Definition is also why we have so many groups of Christians, division in Religion, and Atheism is no different.
Mankind has a tendency to become stuck in the mud. We close our minds to concepts that are not what we believe to be true.
Think about this, if you will. You close the door on prayer, you close the door on God, you close the door on faith, and you pass a law stating Christianity/religion can not be practiced.
Pretty soon leaders have to enforce the law, so they do what?
Start removing the religious people by killing them, putting them in prison camps, using any method they can to exterminate the foolishness.
Your argument about the world being flat is correct. Here is the problem with it.
People did their experiments, test, proved their theories, wrote it in textbooks, and scientific journals.
One day somebody sailed off the end of the world. They stay gone awhile, and returned.
That logic can be turned around the other direction as well.
In my life, I prefer to not deal in absolutes, 100%’s, arrogance.
Injustice is injustice, and should be stopped, but blaming it on a group or society as a whole is misguided as I see it.
Stating flatly that something is false unless you have a concrete object is foolishness to me as well.
I can touch and smell a rose. I cannot state flatly that rose can not be transported to you through the power of my mind.
My lovely world is full of mysteries, and today is today. Tomorrow will be new.
God bless you all.
Wayne, I agree in part with what you're saying. Language is symbols for abstract concepts.
I certainly agree it would be barbaric to outlaw religion and place everyone in concentration camps. In fact this is not theory, it was reality in parts of Poland and certainly the Soviet Union.
Many cemeteries, links people had with their ancestors, were bulldozed, the religion taken away, as a way to create a vacuum and cause people to be disconnected from what they know. I personally think some people are biochemically more adjusted to experiencing what we call spiritual experiences, only the current power dynamics have placed a premium on using it, and so we have the largest capitalized religions with more assets than most countries, and without the natural responsibilities of national sovereignty. In other words, we have a spoiled rich kid with a lot of big guns.
Wayne can seem to look past that, my own wife can seem to look past that, and I'll admit to the occasional, if vicarious, glimpses past that when with her.
But if people who argue for religion, I mean activists and the like, really supported it they would work to dismantle the existing power structure, that "boot stamping on a human face forever," to quote O'Brien from 1984. Until it's properly dismantled, I'm afraid many of us results-oriented earthbound pragmatists will never really be able to see beyond it and its effects.
This is true no matter what brand of woo it is. Imagine the astrologers demanding their star charts be taught in your child's eighth-grade science class, or worse, your astronomy courses in college. They haven't yet, their system doesn't seek to do this for some reason. But if they did, they would run into the same static the Christians do when they wish to take their mythology into the sciences.
Imagine if the Space Program were to try to run itself on the out-of-date astrologers' charts.
This is where we have to grant faith a place for those who want it, out of the way of the working person, the scientist and the engineer.
Perhaps Wayne is touching on a dimension that is beyond most of us, certainly not the province of the 1984-style system operated by Christendom as we know it now.
Moonpie Woodstock bill zombie George. The helicopter fill dumptruck magpie pony pony. Whiplash, shoebox vermin squirrel pill sugar bought flypaper with Christmas of the battle.
Yeah, tell me what I was trying to say in those sentences and you'll realize how fucking stupid it is to say that words are fluid concepts. Words aren't concepts, they're conduits. They can be changed, discarded, improved and added to, but they're not concepts.
Oh, and part of using sarcasm is knowing how to make it clear you're using it. Sarcasm is a tool, not an excuse. Its all well and good to go back after the fact and say that you were just using sarcasm, but if you don't have enough talent to make it appear sarcastic you're just an idiot. That's the difference between quality satire and bad writing. A good satirst knows how to make his point clear. You don't.
honestly, I had no idea you were being sarcastic, at all. It didn't come across to me in writing, at all. If i'd have known, i'd have probably responded completely differently, but well, I didn't.. It never would have crossed my mind, at all, based on how you wrote. as far as I see it, all my points still more or less stand though. I just don't see why you played so deceptively, if you've got nothing to hide.
I think it would be a lot easier for me to just except that people are religious, and have these views, if, they were not attempting to dictate their views in to government law, or policy. I know a lot of christians, particularly from the south that have prattled on and on about the separation of church and state,while simultaneously telling us that we must except that evolution must be taught side by side with creationism, or that christian philosophy about sex education is the only one proper for school, or that under god belongs in the pledges, etc. I've made my share of christian teachers angry by not saying under god. I've even lost participation points in classes because I "refused to say under god." At least where I grew up, it was the philosophy that the good christian people should dictate to the government, not the other way around. I'd gladly "Put down the sword" if I could be assured others following in my footsteps wouldn't have to deal with the same BS as I, or when christian apologists are not dictating the terms of textbooks that influence how students all across this country are taught. Because Texas is one of the largest consumers of text books in the country, the texas additions are the most popular country wide,because this is all the textbook manufacturers are able to produce affordably. People casually say things about atheists they'd never say about any other groups of people, for no other reasons than they believe in no god. If the family of my girlfriend knew I was atheist, well, i'd be all but driven away. they think people that don't believe in god are devils, are demons. they think that only godless people become murderers, or take part in serious crime. they've made comments that imply atheists are not fully human, that we don't feel, or think or cherish things like christians and other religious people do.People that say atheists should just quietly deal must never have known discrimination like that. When they find out, i'll be a demon.., everything that goes wrong in her life will be my fault... Is it irrational, yes... does it make sense, not really.Do I think i'll mellow out in age? Probably. Surveys show people would rather work for a homosexual than an atheist. they'd rather their children are gay than they be atheist... Seven in 10 people would rather their child marry outside their race than marry an atheist. Many would rather knowingly hire criminals than atheists.
Do I think all christians are like this? hell no. Particularly not in my age bracket. But i've met enough that are to know their is a fundamental problem of perception.
You are right that not all Christians are like this. But it's important for atheists to diary these types of things, as since most of us have not received this type of treatment directly, it's unknown. It is a particular problem related to the American South, I think, and plagues anyone in a severe minority to one extent or another. Frankly that deserves its own topic because the rest of us do need to be informed. You're right, it's awfully easy to armchair-quarterback what you should or shouldn't do when we haven't been there. I also think ethnicity has a part to play, some have a higher concentration of atheists than others. No offense, I've never met a black atheist, but know a lot of white and Asian. I have also never met a Native American atheist either. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but I do wonder about numbers. The demonization of course can be explained outside of spirituality, though they probably imagine they are being quite spiritual in doing so. It's a childish eewww reaction to the unknown. Childish reactions in grown adults have rather dastardly consequences, though. Ever see that movie, "Honey I blew up the kid?" You have a huge toddler-giant running around, chewing on full-sized cars, throwing huge cinder blocks and all sorts of things. This is what you're experiencing, adults ewwing about something new and unfamiliar, without the rational adult ability and behavior to manage their reactions.
On an earlier post, Shepherdwolf said not all Christians view the old testament activities in the same way, which caused me to do a bit more sniffing on the web.
What I came up with was this article: Is Yahweh A moral Monster?
It's written by an apologist and so it does tend to the concentric of groupthink in the echo chamber. However, parts of it were worth some consideration, the idea of progress and it not having been the best model from the outset.
He failed on one major count at least, however: The current apologists are, like most of us, not cultural relativists. Meaning most of us don't think child brides are okay just because the culture in which it exists says it is. Yet he takes a very cultural relativist, almost new-age-style tolerant view, toward the Ancient Near East. Sort of a "That's okay because it's better than the cultures around them," and espouses an anti-cultural-invasion anthropological view common to the mid twentieth century anthropology when he states that to upset their barbarous way too much would ruin any chance of improvement.
To that end, he's wildly wrong. For all the bad things that have happened due to cultural invasions done wrong by exploitation, there have been, and still are, cultures who are brought up to speed technologically and morally (former headhunters in New Guinea and the South Pacific) without the often-cited agricultural and industrial exploitation we now see.
It paints those from that time as inferior and weak, and wholly incapable of the types of improvements and changes that we've seen peoples go through in the 20th century.
So while he talks about progress, he's justifying some of the barbarous acts, couched in groupthink bias, by catering to the appeal to tolerance of the Ancient Near East and the romantic warm fuzzy of avoiding too much cultural invasion.
Remind you of anyone? The feminists, perhaps, when challenged about their absentee attitude towards the plight of women in the current Middle East? Their response was something like his, to an extent: It's their culture (wrong but for another topic), we can't disrupt their society too much (again improvable), and so on.
I found it ironic because to my understanding, his quarter allegedly eschews tolerance for the sake of culture and supports cultural invasions all over the place: not just acknowledges their existence and sometimes their benefit, but supports it. Any study of the ideological Right of America will tell you that.
So, while he doesn't see the situation over there as static in that time, and does acknowledge progress, there's a lot that got left out, especially in light of the ideology who are his likely followers.
His contension is that while 20th-century secular society could come into contact with tribes, and they forsake some pretty noxious practices and evolve, the God of the Old Testament could not but take a few steps while still maintaining a ton of rather gruesome penalties. I'm unflinchingly critical of cultural game preserve thinking in modern times by fellow humans, one area I actually agree with his cohorts at the Wall Street Journal and the National Review.
One cannot, though, as a group oppose tolerance and support culturally invasive practices, while on the other hand support cultural tolerance and oppose cultural invasion in the case of long-dead civilizations, using the term civilization rather loosely. Ironically, just like a left-wing rag pamphlet from a college commie newspaper, he says we can't pass moral judgment from our era on that time.
Except that, we can, we do, we always have and always will.
The tough Germannic historians wrote about the Roman elite as soft.
People a couple hundred years ago wrote about General Genghis Khan as a horrible figure. Modern historians, at least some of them, in the interest of modern Christo-capitalist thinking, call Khan the agent of creative destruction, and write about how his slaughter ushered in a brand new era of reforms in Europe. His slaughter, by the way, far exceeded anything Hitler did. And many of these historians are post-World-War-II.
It isn't like I haven't read this sort of stuff before, but like I said, rather odd coming from a quarter who claims itself to be so intolerant and unyielding. Except, I guess, in the case of dead ancient Near East cultures. About as credible as the privileged white Feminists of America claiming we shouldn't interfere for the rights of women in the modern Middle East, as that would disrupt their culture.
I didn't buy the latter, so I find it hard to buy the former.
The article is not without merit, at least for those willing to dog-sniff out the data he presents, and navigate around the groupthink / echo chamber and the banter with a couple atheist writers who he is trying to answer. Out of it, though,it was odd and surreal to get that the best one could hope for in understanding the motives of an omnipotent deity from that time period, is best expressed by parroting 1980s-style left-wing tolerance propaganda. It makes that deity look rather weak, in contrast to *successful* cultural integrations of the 20th century where headhunting and foot-binding were done away with. Not just reduced because of the culture and times, and progressively over a thousand years done away with, as his time frame would have it in the Old Testament. And all this by a secular society.
I think he missed this one, or was pitching at a different audience.
Cody, I don't know if you know, but other languages have no words or concepts for some English words. This is why words are concepts as I see it.
Leo, I know plenty black Atheist. They are so due to different reasons, but they are here.
James, it is sad people don't respect different views.
No, that means words are conduits. The concept still exists in other places. The word doesn't.
Lets say that in greek there is no word for chewing food in the left side of your mouth; just as an example. That doesn't mean greek people can only chew on the right side, it just means that they have no word to outline instantly the concept of chewing on the left side. The word is not the concept, the action or thought or idea or feeling or thing is the concept. See the difference there?
Yes and no.
You can change the word for chew to step.
You must live an interesting life. You see things in A or B, and you don't allow for anything else it seems.
That is not a put down, only an observation.
Do you put your left shoe on first in the moring, instead of your right?
Sarcasm.
Oh I allow for a lot of grey areas, its just that few people have made board post about those grey areas that I'm interested in posting too. That's why I laugh when people judge me based on my board posts alone. That's like assuming the only thing the sports commentator on TV does is talk about football. Just because that's all you see him doing, doesn't mean its all he does.
I haven't judged you at all. I only observe what I see here.
The thing is, I'm exactly what you read, and I say exactly what I believe. Are you board post fake preacher?
You secretly a Christian? Smile.
No, I'm exactly what you read, but I don't think you've read my opinion on Shakespearean literature, or whether its hot for girls to call their boyfriends daddy during sex, or whether new balance shoes are better than nike shoes, or whether it should be called billiards or pool, or thousands of other things I have opinions on. I'm exactly how I appear here, but here is a very small area in the grand scheme of things.
Good to know. I'd not want to think you were faking it.
Perhaps some are not faking it but still searching things out.
I have learned a couple things in recent days, nothing that exhonerates stoning of people or anything, but at any rate I don't think one can consider the matter truly closed.
Nothing is ever closed in my opinion, because things have different variables, so much depends on the case.
I just want to say I had all but forgotten about this topic. I am glad leo revived it, as it was an enjoyable read, back then and now. And lest anyone think I haven't anything worthwile to contribute--fiction, or that I have too much free time--fact, here is some recommended reading: Mogworld by Yahtzee Croshaw. While a comedy, it does present some food for thought in relation to this topic. Don't want to give anything away, so here's a link to it on Amazon. I should say that if you like audio books, I'd especially suggest listening to it that way, as the author reads it, and this somehow adds a whole degree of funny. Enjoy.
http://www.amazon.com/Mogworld/dp/B009ECLFEA/ref=tmm_aud_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=
Another book to check out is Off Armageddon Reef, another spin on religion from a science fiction series.
There is a similar sci fi series on religion by Sharon Shinn. Interesting themes on who or what causes this in us.
,Here's an interesting question I've been thinking of this morning. Are people who believe in Charles Darwin's philosophy about natural selection classified as followers of a religion? Why is it that we refer to his beliefs as Darwinism? When I hear a phrase that ends in ism, for some reason religion comes to mind. In this case I don't believe it to be a religion, because from what I understand and comprehend, his beliefs are centered around nature and science. I am not aware if Darwin had anything in mind that stemmed from a particular religion, but I want to learn more about this.
I don't think you see Darwinism written about in the scientific community. Darwin put forward evolutionary theory, just as Isaac Newton put forth gravitational theory. I think Darwinism only applies to his concept of natural selection, as opposed to some more modern understandings of species fitness over individual fitness, among other things.
But no, it is not a religion. That is a false flag raised by people who are religious and so think everyone else is being religious. Science has no disciples or converts like religions do, because science addresses very different problems and using tools and techniques instead of dogmas and beliefs.
Ryan, by saying that things with ism attached to them makes you think of religions, that means you'd in turn classify atheism as a religion, which it isn't.
The -ism suffix is related to a lot of nonreligious things. Mechanism, socialism, blindism, sexual dimorphism, idealism.
I've always thought of that suffix as rather wishy-washy, but perhaps there's more to it that I'm just not putting together. Closest I can come is that an -ism is sort of...a condition or state...but even that's a huge stretch.
Also, evolution is not a philosophy or a belief. No one believes in evolution any more than you believe in gravity or helio-centrism. Evolution is a proven fact. Its even used to make medicines. Its a predictable and observable principle in our world.
I believe that evolution exists in a way. I can say that I am 23 years old right now, and I am what I am because I have evolved into that person. That is a proven fact. Also, most of you have said that religion is basically a big fat lie. What would you say if it was proven that Atheism is a lie? I'm not saying it is or it isn't, I'm just asking the question.
That would be nice if that were what the word Evolution (capital E) means. It isn't.
If atheism were proven to be wrong, and someone proved a god exists, I would move on to the idea of worshipping that god. I'd have to decide whether that god was worth worshipping or not, and what I was going to do about it in my life. I'd find a new truth; nothing more than that.
Basically what cody said. I'd need to evaluate water the god was worth worshiping. If he's a tyrannical bastard who "Hates fags" Gives us guidelines for slavery, murders populations just because they don't agree with him, and all that. Well, then he'd not be worth worshiping at all.
If I die, and find there is a god, and he is angry I didn't conform, at least i'll be able to say I lived a more or less moral and good life, with out needing to be told to do so by a book. no one had to put the fear of god in me, as it were.
To a religious person, I ask a serious question. what's more disgusting, the fact that we evolved from apes, or the theory we're all byproducts of adam and eves children fucking, IRGO INCEST?
I'm mostly with the other atheists here, when I say that if some sort of god was proven to exist, I wouldn't continue to deny it. Proof is a strong thing that's currently not in good supply though, that's the issue. I may not worship this god, if it was proven to exist, but at the least I would accept its reality.
I'm with the last few posters. If somedayy a god were proven to exist I'd decide first whether or not he was worth worshipping before I decided whether or not to do so. But so far the god of the Bible, whether or nothe actually exists, is most certainly not.
The funny thing about proof is it is, to a point, subjective. I can say I have found proof that God exists, but that's only proof to me as my individual self. yet it's enough. On the other hand, something like evolution has physical, analytical proof that is undeniable. yet people continue to debate over evolution as an origin of we, as we exist today. As I've said numerous times, divinity and science can coexist. Personally I don't consider evolution a means by which higher entities can be denied. I believe there will come a day where such are proven to exist. Until then, I will continue to believe, and to seek knowledge, and find the proof I desire.
You have fun with that.
If its subjective it is, by definition, not proof. I have yet to meet a Christian who can even tell me the definition of proof and what constitutes it, let alone actually present some for the existence of god.
Just an observation.
“If I learned that God existed I’d decide where he was worth my time or worship.”
If you learned that God did in fact exist, depending on how you see God.
Next, God would be all powerful right?
Would you really have the audacity to decide what you would or would not do?
Assuming this god did not mess with free will (and if he exists he hasn't yet) I think we would indeed have the "audacity" to decide what we would and wouldn't do. If he decided to use his all powerful status to mess with what we do, then it's no longer us doing it, right? So that argument is kind of weak.
Personally, I'm past the point where I believe I could worship anyone or anything. Respect? Sure. Even follow? Maybe. But worship? I don't really think so.
Thank you, meglet said what I was going to much nicer than I was going to.
I completely agree with the last two posts.
Its a lot like a dad demanding his kids love him, or they get whipped. You can't truly love someone out of fear, particularly not enough to worship them. that isn't true love.
You'd have free will, sure, but if you believe in the Christian type of God, if you refuse to at least belive he, and in some cases, she exist, you receive no after life.
You could do that, but wouldn't admitting he or she exist be better than total death?
A loving God doesn't require worshipping daily, just belief.
But the whole cornerstone of the Christian faith is that we believe in God despite a glaring lack of evidence to support our faith. So if God shows himself, he's rendered the entire Christian faith moot. Saying "Well, now that you've shown yourself I now believe in you" still won't get you an afterlife. Besides: I'd like to think I have a little more honour than to say "I've fought against everything you stand for all my life, at least passively if not actively, and I hate what you've allowed this earth to become, but now that a wonderful heavenly afterlife is being offered, I will now drop all my personal values and champion your cause and pretend to adore you". No thanks.
lol, so basically he's an abusive boyfriend. Love him, treat him well, and he buys you things. if you do everything he says... If you don't, because he's so much beggar, and stronger than you, he makes your life a living hell, until you escape. Again, what a shitty reason to believe in a god.
You're basically making a derivative of Pascal's wager, and anyone who believes in that line of reasoning is a coward, not a Christian. I'm sorry, because I know that sounds offensive, but i just can't put it any more nicely, or less bluntly. I can't respect that argument or point of view at all. Its basically a justification for Stockholm syndrome. That lack of reasoning and critical thinking really, really, is horrifying. How damn easy it is to manipulate people.
Actually, I've often ranted about how the Christian god and His relationship with His people is essentially a textbook abusive relationship. Just ask Shepherdwolf, he'll tell you that I can go on and on about it if you get me started. I'll spare you all here, though.
Sure, I can see your points, but that depends on how you see God.
If God gives free will, than all the bad things were free will, not God's doing, or guiding.
It is like setting the rules, so to speak, than letting your children decide to be good or bad people. Free will.
Where the punishment is given is to what type of life they actually live, and if you are talking the Christian God, what rewards they receive after life.
I suspect your honor and all you stand for are exactly what God would have, if you are a good person.
So if you knew God existed, than you could also rely on God to be understanding, and you'd live your life more according to the rules.
Just wondering is all.
Ah, wouldn't we all love that if it were so? Thing is, the Christian Bible repeatedly tells us that if we believe in God, and follow his commandments, we will go to heaven. End of story. There is no verse that says: "If you've been a good, honourable person then you get a pass". There isn't even a verse that says: "If you follow my general rules to the letter but still don't believe in something you've never seen and will never see, then you get a pass". Nope. It's damnation for everyone and anyone who doesn't believe in the Christian god. Unless he's planning to change his mind at the last minute, I doubt that there would be any understanding for those of us who have tried to live well and honourably, independently of faith. How you see God is all very well, Wayne, because you're basically throwing the door wide open and suggesting that God is whatever He needs to be to suit your arguments. If we're talking about the Christian god, though, you can't go making things up. You cannot fabricate understanding where there is proof of none.
Meglet's right, and this is one thing they announce from their pulpits constantly, that being nice and good and civilized is not enough. That hell will be full of otherwise good and honorable people.
Also the depth of one's character can be judged by how one punishes his enemies. The Christian god declares everyone his enemy who has not accepted the way. And the depth of his character can be seen in the punishment he has planned for such. It is called Hell, a mixture of Greek mythology and newer teachings. It's pretty macabre, worse than Vlad the Impaler and Abu Ghraib combined. It is the sole creation of the creator, not reserved for the likes of Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler but for anyone who doesn't accept Christ.
I was once told by a Christian teacher how wonderful it was that someone like Ted Bundy could get saved. I asked her what about his victims? You say your god is a just god. Justice is very important to Christians, which makes their religion so popular. Pro-death-penalty and pro-second-amendment, both things of which I understand and am in favor of.
So what about Bundy's victims? Does he get into heaven and they, if they hadn't accepted Christ, are served the injustice of eternal torments?
She was kind of horrified at the thought to be honest, but for understandable reasons, had no answers.
Let's say, for sake of argument, that the Christians' teaching is correct: you get one shot, one life, and that is it. You decide to accept or reject Christ, and with this they say every person has ample opportunity to make the right decision. Failure to do so means you're out.
Now, they also say this deity seeks to gain glory and honor to himself. So much so, in fact, that in the Revelation you can read where it's practically like a science fiction avatar: some beings are constantly throwing themselves in front of him to affirm his praise and bolster him up.
If honor is this important, why would he do the cosmic equivalent of what a foolish boy does to a pile of ants with a magnifying glass, forever? Why not simply exterminate? Forgetting us for a moment, considering we are mere pawns in this cosmic scheme of his to prove himself better than the dark side, why not dispose of those who reject using an honorable method?
Again, the height of one's character can be seen in how one punishes his enemies. If that is true, then the height of this deity's character, as they proclaim him to be, can be found in the depths of hell.
Wow thank you, thank you Cody, meglet and sir Leo! Seriously if the christian teachings were correct, and their god was loving he would have impeded all these horrific occurrences.
I have seen hardworking husbands who treated their families well be nagged and rejected by the wives, with full applause from the church, because he was not spiritual enough, had not done enough things for the church or didn't buy certain party line constraints. Failure to spiritually comply is now called marital infidelity when it comes to divorce in churches, because it's called spiritual adultery and the man gets the boot. Though his spiritually adulterous income is of course forfeit.
It's a weird, patriarchal charade. One I never really lived up to or down to as the case may be. But I knew plenty who got their cue from her as to how and when to do the family devotion and things, what to say and how to present it, and secretly us guys who would get together would confide none of us really bought most of the political and other jargon that was a part of this. And even had serious questions about many things.
Go into any Christian church, get the guys alone, apart from one another is safest, and especially away from the head people or any of the alphas, and you'll find more often than not he's there because she wants him to be there. There is the history of the oppressive things we have all grown up hearing about. But now, it's quite another story. It is one thing that while I was there, I did try to figure out what the advantage to women in this situation was. The best I could come up with was many are probably quite insecure there and this is one way to keep a short leash on the guy and hope he'll turn on and off robotically be strong for this, gentle for that a second later, etc., and create this stable environment for the kids. It's often like a bad sit-com, where the man is always painted as dolting and unthinking and insensitive, and she is always more spiritual and enlightened.
We dads who were there, got up and got the kids ready and helped out around the house were to sit and be grateful for the fathers' day messages about how men are not manning up enough and how we really aren't enough at all, and we're responsible for all the fatherlessness in our country. They even had the audacity to tell us that if we weren't mentoring some other young man we were failing. Yes there is the "head of the household" ideas they teach, but it is not as you were told in your college textbooks. Not that you would want what's in those textbooks to be happening either, but this alternate version is no better: anything that goes wrong is the man's fault. It's never mutual or the partnership's fault, or nobody's fault at all, or even simple misinformation. It is the man's fault because if he only had spent more time taking situation x to the Lord Y would not have happened. It's in their literature, in their teaching. Not a particular woman or women or even male preacher it's part of the current culture.
Usually, you think of needing to take a shower before you go out. But in this case you feel like you need to take a shower afterwards. Of course, you're supposed to pray to Jesus and make it all okay so that you can go through the same ritual all over again next time, and say how we current men are responsible for all the deeds done against women and children forever and for all time. The thought police are en force also, not just against the thoughtcrime they call lust but many other thoughtcrimes as well. Very 1984-esque, if you ask me. And lust is often compared to rape in Christian men groups. After all, they say, you are submitting her against her will to your sexual desire. What? Really? I get not dwelling on some woman or reducing her to only a sex object, but biology is what it is, and a man is not a rapist because he got a woody. Sorry delicate ears. I know real rape victims, and this idea is a horrible insult to what they experienced. It's as loopy as the new-agers who used to say some of us radiated negative energy and made bad things happen.
I don't know if they're trying to make up for injustices done to women, or what, but perhaps if that is it, they should start by rectifying actual injustices against actual people. I am all for paying back and admitting fully when I personally am wrong. But I'm rather sick of paying for everybody else's, and being expected that working hard, living honorably staying faithful and helping out is not even bare minimum. Right or wrong, that is just how it often works, at least in America. And I didn't suffer many of the in-home indignities of my fellows, I believe because she is more secure than most of them.
Most the men I've known who were like me and went along with this, once the kids have grown up have backed off from religious involvements, sort of having done their duty to the family as it were.
I'm not saying there aren't injustices against women there, of course there are. If a group is infantilized to the point of never being held responsible for anything that has to be bad. And the restrictions placed on them especially in fomer times cannot be good. I've only written from a perspective I have never seen anyone else be so bold on the Internet as to write.
Gone is the hellish load of endless demands that are never done. I've figured out that is by design. If they ever could be done, you could not be sufficiently cowed and controlled with your balls in a vice. Oh sure there is the picture of manliness now, especially as it pertains to outsiders, but generally you are to be a weak-kneed subservient who knows he is always wrong and grateful to be corrected. Does this sound like a slave relationships, like what you read about on the Internet? It's sick, is what it is.
Perhaps that means a whole boatload of us who were like this are destined for hell. I don't know.
I'm an egalitarian: I thrive as She thrives. So if Christianity says men are supposed to die, as it were, I am unchristian. I'm not a sad sack grateful to be corrected, constantly wrong, having exchanged the doctrine of testosterone poisoning taught by feminists for the doctrine of pride poisoning taught by Christians. I will say I was a lot more useless when I was like that, though. How useful or effective can you actually be when you are afraid for every decision you make that you could break this tenuous and very delicate balance? This is not a strong religion but a very weak one that needs a ton of upholding and bolstering.
I made some really terrible decisions by listening to these people. I don't blame them, I'll say it like it is: I was the one who listened to them. Like your father might have said, "So who's fault was that?" Since I've admitted I was wrong, I certainly haven't listened to them anymore. The difference between me and them is my version of admitting when I'm wrong has always been to fix it and move on, not continually talk about why I'm still and forever wrong. I did need to amend some things, of course, and I do wonder about long-term effects of other things.
It's a bit of irony that they are quite invested in everyone saying how they have been wrong, and yet here I am, openly stating I was wrong to listen to much of what they said.
In a single lifetime, we perhaps can know more about what deity-controlled systems are really like, what with the Christian Right of the West and the terrorist outfits of the East. Both quite similar in a lot of very basic ways and means. So far, your megachurch goers are not yet blowing up buildings, but they don't have to. They have only to go cry to public officials, throw a little fit and they can get their way.
And it's no easy road either for those who join Al Qaeda. They also are constantly being questioned and tested for their loyalty to their cause. Their sexual status and marital laws are barbaric compared to the West, but I bet an egalitarian male over there would face the same criticism as he would in the church here, only for different reasons. Also both groups keep their women infantilized but using different means.
The battle of the gods.
What happened to believing every word that the Bible says? I know Cody has said at some point something along the lines that you can't half-ass believe in the Bible and expect Atheists, or true Christians to take you seriously.
However the problem comes down to this. There are so many denominations of Christianity who believe they are right, yet they all use the Bible as a means of the foundation. So is the Bible in fact open to interpretation? Or is it something that only means one thing? I'm kind of tworn on this, hoping that what I'm trying to say is making some sense. I can't recall the specific denomination of Christianity but I have heard there is at least one out there that believes the way to heaven is through good deeds. Perhaps what I am referring to is not modern now but I know I've studied it at some point. But in short, my point is There is too much confusion and many denominations to take Christianity seriously while it is centered around the Bible.
And what part is inspired? Is the original writing inspired? Was the Council of Naicea inspired, which created the Catholic Bible and decided against some texts? Was the protestant editing of the Bible inspired when they removed some books found in the Catholic Bible?
And when you think about it, none of us actually takes it all literally. The letter, fictitious or not, written to Dr. Laura about the old testament laws was an interesting read, especially in light of certain movements like dominionism and reconstructionism, which have their thinking sprinkled throughout the contemporary Christendom within the U.S., in particular the political evangelicals.
To be perfectly fair to non-U.S. residents, I wonder how much of what people like Cody or I have written about Christianity here in the U.S. resonates with you guys outside the U.S.? Are these the sorts of things you have found over there? It is very difficult to separate what is the religion and what is the politic over here. It's laughable to many people that I know, and unbelievable to some of them, that the Christians I have known have actually branded me a "liberal". For them, liberal and worldly are the catch-all terms you throw at someone whose views you disagree with over here. That and secular humanist, another dead group like the new-agers.
I know some real world liberals who would be insulted to have someone with my views on things like gun control, the constitutionality of the militia, the death penalty and a strong defense, to be placed in their camp. Or maybe it's my wholesale rejection of corporate sovereignty trumping national sovereignty, and their open electoral finance policies which would allow any foreign corporation or government to buy votes here.
I'm left to wonder how much of what we reject is Christian or the Christian Right. Again, only perspectives from outside the U.S. could really answer much of this. For all their talk of purity to the kids, I find everything hopelessly diluted.
I wonder about the patricidal alienation also, if that is just a U.S. thing or a worldwide Christendom thing: the stuff I mentioned regarding dads and men in general a couple posts ago.
All this I wonder, is it U.S. and U.S.-inspired or Christendom in general? This also may be diluted, because the U.S. is the firm seat of power for Christianity, at least protestant evangelical Christianity. It's the primary financier and distributor of materials. Again, not a criticism but an observation. All institutions have seats of power, and if it weren't here it would be somewhere. So I don't know if it's really possible to know. But I am curious.
I can't say, as I grew up Catholic, and our church was very sedate, very quiet, ritualistic and not passionate at all. I became involved with seventh-day advantists for awhile--plenty of fire and brimstone there--but I still can't say that I understand what it's like in the US.
Don't take Christianity seriously at all. Just don't do it. Its too silly and frankly stupid a notion to be taken seriously. Take the Christians seriously, but not the beliefs. Dismiss the beliefs like the idiotic ramblings they are.
The Chathlic church is the same in most cases as you describe here Meglet.
Think about this for a second. Say I'm God, for all intent and purpose right now. Christians think I made them in my image, right? As absurd as that sounds by itself, and leaving out the general consensus that most other religions think that anyway, and leaving preposterous ideas like justice and mercy at the door--you are in my house now after all, and those are human constructs--I've got a universe to run. Even if it's just earth we're talking about, I've been doing this for millions of years--long before you humans dominated this planet, and I will continue to have that responsibility long after you have faded. Now I need to impress upon you the full scope of what that means. It's up to me to see to it that the basic laws that make it possible for you to thrive continue to work as they should--can you wrap your head around that? I've got to keep gravity going--it gets a little messy without that. I've got to regulate all the chemical reactions that make the air breathable, and believe me you're making it a real pain in my divine backside, but whatever, it's got to be done. I could go on and on about that, but you're getting the idea I'm sure, in as much as you humans can. Anyway the point I'm making is this. I've got a full plate. Do you honestly think I can be bothered to take an interest in your little petty affairs? Most of you will be dead in 100 years. I ask you, would that be responsible in a deity? I trust you can sort it out, whatever it is. If you can't, the world still turns. You want compassion in a deity? You got it. But understand it's the compassion appropriate to my trade--a sharp edge. Thanks Terry Pratchett for that one by the way. Well, as much as I've enjoyed this little chat, coffee breaks over. Back to work for me.
Yes, but you're not working alone. Acording to your inspired word, which you couldn't write yourself, you've got miriads of angels at your order. Which by the way if I recall correctly, you've used to excicute people who didn't obey your commandments that you haven't exemplified. Talking about compassion, huh? If you didn't keep things in order, say, gravity, there would be no reasoning beings who you can talk into believing in you. So, don't forget there is lots of disorder in this world, why? You have no excuse, you're the all powerful god after all, right? I mean I'm not supposed to doubt you, and pardon me for sinning that way, but we human beings ask ourselves these kinds of questions. And we try to solve our problems. I know you have a lot on your plate, but there's so much confusion that you've yet got to disclose, if you've got the time for it. But do think that at least we human beings try to make a change, when all we've read about you is compassion for those who believe in you, death for good people such as your supposed profets and people who disagreed with you. You do remember those good people you killed like Moses for saying he'd bring the water instead of you served you for all his life, right? Please find explain.
I meant find the time to explain. Oh and by the way, christians think we're made in your image because that's what you've inspired in the book of Genesis. I do agree that's absurd, yes!, I wholeheartedly agree, let me explain why. We have feelings, we make mistakes, we are pozessive, we kill and confuse other people. Except that us human beings, at least some of us mundane nonbelievers, admit when we're wrong, answer any question we can among other things. Whereas you, just claim to be the all powerful and that because you're god we are to obey. So please, please, find time to explain this all? We're not supposed to sware on your name invain, but shouldn't you be able to defend yourself? Just sayin, I'm human. Oh, and before I forget, we have to be responsable to survive, because if we don't, you won't do anything for us. Work to eat and stuff... Ok thank you
Oh, sorry Your Majesty, I can't help it but I just thought of something. Now that I think about it, wait, what image of you, if it was more than 40 min who wrote your word? Yeah!, no one has ever sceen you, and what we read about are the good and wrong actions of human beings. Some things in it are charming, but an image of you? I don't think so, who are you?
I've had this conversation with Christians before; I guess the general argument is that, if God is all-powerful enough to literally be the be-all end-all of the universe, then He can easily handle everything that needs doing, while still taking the time to care about us. The problem is that you're thinking like a human, with human resources and faculties and strength. Imagine if you had the capacity of, say, six billion humans? You could do a lot more, right? So then God, being all-powerful, can easily micromanage everything while still keeping the big stuff in mind.
I wonder why it is so bad not to have an afterlife. OK, here I am, living my life, then I die because my body wears out or something happens or I'm just done with everything, and now I not only have to live this other life, but this one never ends. I can never just be at rest and be done, I have to live again. Won't I get bored with paradise? Paradise might be nice for a day or a week or maybe a month, but wouldn't it get mightily boring after that, and you couldn't escape!
Right, being perfect, living in a totally perfect world forever sounds pretty boring. I mean no one wants to die, but nothing is even a guarantee that we'll live the afterlife, so I see nothing wrong with living for this life and not one we've never even seen. Forget that Jesus came to give a demonstration of what it might be like, that's plain foolish.
Ah but most are really more worried about spending an eternity in everlasting torment.
If you told people they were either going to get paradise or be exterminated, it would be a lot harder to control people. I don't think it's the fear of death so much as it is the Fear of the Flame, even by those who prophess they don't believe in hell. Sort of a just-in-case situation.
After all, giving birth is the second most painful experience to the human body. The first? Being burned alive.
This sounds like the work of a terrorist. Consider 9/11 and the tools used to kill a lot of people in the Twin Towers, then consider the origin of the deity for the Big Three.
Oh and by the way, this sentence to eternal torments is pre-birth. I think that is what you're dealing with, even for people who have not seen the macabre likes of what I saw in FL or who grew up with the fire and brimstone talk. It's in our culture, we all read about it in the history books, it's woven throughout our society. People are fascinated and terrified by the macabre, something like if you have ever fed a snake live prey. Which I have, I know that's now considered unpopular but when I had a snake they didn't have frozen food, you fed them live things. And the live things are as taken with the ssnake, sitting there staring at it, as your average person is with rubbernecking at an accident or anything else.
This is merely my opinion though.
Actually, GOT brings up a good point: living forever, no matter what your life was like, would be hugely tiring. Just talk to someone whose lived to a hundred--even someone whose lived a full, wonderful life--and they'll tell you that they're getting tired. Imagine existing for millions, billions of years...now imagine living for eternity...it makes me weary just thinking about it. Plus, with a perfect life, there's no real conflict or obstacle to deal with, so...boring much?
I have found that, in my own experience at least, even being really joyfully happy for too long makes me crash suddenly. Too much happiness makes me tired. I can't imagine myself thriving in paradise.
Yes, you'd have no reason to innovate. No reason to create, no reason to do anything of value if everything was perfect contentment ever lasting.
I certainly have no particular desire to live forever.
Me either, especially if I had to share living space with some of the users of this site.
LOL, or my x girlfriend who even thirteen years later is still threatening me with damnation if I don't come around to her way of thinking. And that right there is probably my biggest problem with most of the major religions. Not only are youexcluded from the supposed promised land for not believing in teir particular god, but you supposedly also get sent to a place of eternal punishment and suffering even if in all other ways that matter you led a decent, honorable life. But I would imagine immortality would eventually destroy your sanity or something.
I'm afraid any mythology that includes keeping your nerves sharp enough to feel pain despite constant burning could also keep your mind sharp despite constant torture. This is one of the highest forms of sadism we can think of.
Remember Ariel Castro? Or the man in Austria who kep his daughter a sexual prisoner for decades? The shocking aspect to these brutes' crimes was the duration, just how sadistic they were in keeping the victim imprisoned despite her pleas for escape and respite, keeping their victim in a hell while he enjoyed a heaven if you will and everyone else walked by not even knowing what was going on down there.
In both these cases, the courts' findings were exceptional because of the torment involved in the duration of the torture. What does this tell us of a deity who would design a hell to torment souls forever? I used to see Hell as a design failure, a cosmic accident if you will, but recent cases that come to light of long-term tormentors shows that these people do diligence in designing their places of torment. In the Austrian case, the forensics experts were shocked at the level of detail you or I would not suspect from a torturer, a deranged soul, someone bent on some kind of gratification.
Modern events cast a lot of new light into the minds of the creators of these myths. The height of one's character is what we do when we're angry, so there you go. Justice might demand destruction, even total and complete annihilation, as has been done to torture sites around the world which were utterly destroyed, or to murderers who are given the death penalty. But that is very different from the ongoing torments of a deity, or a Ariel Castro, or like the case in Austria.
Hell, look at Philip Garrido and what he did to Jaycee Dugard. Almost twenty years of her life stolen from her forever. And his wife not only knew about it but participated.
So I found a very interesting article on hell, and it comes from within Christendom. I am an independent and so am always willing to look at their sources.
This is not an external refutation, and in fact uses their own Scriptures to back this up. I have not checked all their references, but this may interest the wandering or the curious. They even acknowledge openly what many of us know, that Hell was a political and pre-Christian / pagan view. Though they also claim Judaism did not have it and a whole other things that I have formerly not seen.
what?