The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: tonka on July 22, 2009, 10:22:11 AM
-
Florida Christians protest atheist billboard, wait till you see the sign
(http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/atheist-sign.jpg)
An atheist billboard in Florida has resulted in community protests and a call for the sign to be banned, but wait until you see what?s on (or as is the case isn?t on) the sign.
Unlike campaigns in Europe which included the slogan ?there probably isn?t a god,? the Florida campaign says ?Being a good person doesn?t require God. Don?t believe in God, you?re not alone.? According to the Christians in the area, saying that non-believers can be good people discriminates against Christians.
Here?s where it gets even weirder: the residents object because (and I?m not making this up) African-Americans live in the area, and a shop owned by a born again Christian is nearby.
Local media reported that Team of Life community activist Essie ?Big Mama? Reed brought her students out to protest it Wednesday afternoon.
?Nothing else matters, but that sign needs to come down. In the name of Jesus,? Big Mama chanted, as she led her students in protest.
She said the sign affects something much deeper than business. ?I don?t know the reason for putting this sign up,? said Big Mama. ?It says ?Do not believe in God.? How are we going to make it? Look at our schools, everyday. Everyday there?s something going on. Kids are out here killing each other, kids are here using drugs. Who else are they going to believe in??
The atheist group behind the sign rightly pointed out the hypocrisy in the protestors, saying that they would like the community to show them the same tolerance they fought for during the civil rights era. ?The women and blacks in this neighborhood, they?ve been discriminated before, in the recent past, as early as 30, 40 years ago,? a spokesman said ?and yet, they have no problem discriminating against another group, whether it be gays or atheists.?
Atheists = your new African Americans.
your thoughts?
-
Lol...wtf. That is epic. You don't hear anyone protesting all the damned Jesus bilboards anywhere. So suddenly it's wrong to advertise what you don't believe in?
Not that I'm surprised. It just annoys me to see these things.
-
Do these people realize they are hurting Christianity more than helping it?
-
Do these people realize they are hurting Christianity more than helping it?
They're retarted, I doubt they realise anything beyond "OH NOES BIG BAD ATHIESTS ARE PUTTING UP SIGNS"
-
Although its not only the Christians that get stupidly offended by stuff. Over here the Finnish Church is planning to start a campaign (I don't think there's any articles about it in English yet, sorry) taking a commonly used graffitti image of a penguin and using it as the Church Boat image (some traditional thing here) and the Freethinkers Association over here has got outraged about it which seems a tad hypocritical to me....
-
Although its not only the Christians that get stupidly offended by stuff. Over here the Finnish Church is planning to start a campaign (I don't think there's any articles about it in English yet, sorry) taking a commonly used graffitti image of a penguin and using it as the Church Boat image (some traditional thing here) and the Freethinkers Association over here has got outraged about it which seems a tad hypocritical to me....
...I'm not quite certain what to think of that. :-\
-
Although its not only the Christians that get stupidly offended by stuff. Over here the Finnish Church is planning to start a campaign (I don't think there's any articles about it in English yet, sorry) taking a commonly used graffitti image of a penguin and using it as the Church Boat image (some traditional thing here) and the Freethinkers Association over here has got outraged about it which seems a tad hypocritical to me....
...I'm not quite certain what to think of that. :-\
I think its pretty hilarious. I'll see if I can find the picture again.
Edit: here
(http://img.mtv3.fi/mn_kuvat/mtv3/etusivu/2009/06/743796.jpg)
-
Lol, that's just not right.
-
Its nice to see they have a sense of humour
-
I bet bible thumping Christians and Catholics (( not about to deny our assholery)) fail every Rorschach test.
I see a sign where Atheists are giving support and trying to help out other Atheists...apparently Florida Christians see " Give your children to Black Gay Alla Worshipping Satan to RAPE!" or something like that.
-
Atheists are sometimes idiots. Why would you put up a billboard espousing a lack of belief in something?
I'm going to put up a billboard that says "I don't believe in purple unicorns and that doesn't make me a bad person." Does their overwhelming need to belong to a group have to turn them into retards?
-
Atheists are sometimes idiots. Why would you put up a billboard espousing a lack of belief in something?
I'm going to put up a billboard that says "I don't believe in purple unicorns and that doesn't make me a bad person." Does their overwhelming need to belong to a group have to turn them into retards?
They are encouraging other people to accept the idea that they don't have to believe in a deity.
-
Atheists are sometimes idiots. Why would you put up a billboard espousing a lack of belief in something?
I'm going to put up a billboard that says "I don't believe in purple unicorns and that doesn't make me a bad person." Does their overwhelming need to belong to a group have to turn them into retards?
They are encouraging other people to accept the idea that they don't have to believe in a deity.
Why does it matter to them at all? I have never in my life cared whether someone believed in something or not. It in no way effects me, and if they are intelligent to decide something like that for themselves, they are probably intelligent enough to be religious in a reasonable manner.
Atheism has turned into a belief system.
-
Why does it matter to them at all? I have never in my life cared whether someone believed in something or not.
You are not them.
It in no way effects me, and if they are intelligent to decide something like that for themselves, they are probably intelligent enough to be religious in a reasonable manner.
Possibly.
Atheism has turned into a belief system.
...How so?
-
Why does it matter to them at all? I have never in my life cared whether someone believed in something or not.
You are not them.
It in no way effects me, and if they are intelligent to decide something like that for themselves, they are probably intelligent enough to be religious in a reasonable manner.
Possibly.
Atheism has turned into a belief system.
...How so?
They are now forming groups based on their belief.
-
They are now forming groups based on their belief.
Ah, so you're talking about common interests (instead of religion), when you say belief system.
-
this could be construed as attempts to convert people, like people in belief systems do
-
this could be construed as attempts to convert people, like people in belief systems do
I just can't help thinking it sounds a little misrepresentative since "conversion" actually means "removing a belief" in this case. To call atheism a belief system unnecessarily groups it together with religion, which in turn gives it a religious connotation.
-
They are now forming groups based on their belief.
Ah, so you're talking about common interests (instead of religion), when you say belief system.
So not believing in God is now a common interest? Their organization only has 1 common denominator, their belief in no God.
If it was truthfully based on common interests it would contain theists and atheists.
-
Not being an Atheist or a resident of Florida I don't know exactly what they have to deal with but to me it still looks nothing like a " retarded" outcry of disbelief or an attempt at conversion.
I see " are you an atheist or just plain tired of religion but stuck in a community that hates you and feel alone? Call us and be part of a community"
I know being an Atheist means not believing in God but I assume there is nothing against believing in yourself or people and I don't think there's anything wrong with not wanting to stand alone against others, true groups are much quicker to mislead people but still.
I am not the Atheist people of Florida so I am not about to think they are retarded for trying to give hope or inspiration to people who might be stranded in their beliefs.
-
I'm pretty sure some atheists enjoy the feeling of prosecution just as some religious fanatics try to claim that they are hated.
It's a sad way to make yourself look right and like the "bigger person"
-
Their organization only has 1 common denominator, their belief in no God.
If it was truthfully based on common interests it would contain theists and atheists.
First, atheism is not about believing there is no god, it's about lacking a belief in god's existence. Sure there are some strong atheists out there too, but to take that extreme position doesn't allow them to represent the majority of atheists. I know that absolutely none of my 8 atheist friends are strong atheists.
Second, that one common denominator is mutually exclusive with the people that aren't attending. Let's say there was a literature club for school that has a common denominator of enjoying reading. I wouldn't say that it wasn't based on that interest, if absolutely none of the members were illiterate.
I'm pretty sure some atheists enjoy the feeling of prosecution just as some religious fanatics try to claim that they are hated.
It's a sad way to make yourself look right and like the "bigger person"
Probably yes, they are statistically likely to exist. That doesn't mean anything or make that infinitesimal percentage reflect the rest of them.
-
Their organization only has 1 common denominator, their belief in no God.
If it was truthfully based on common interests it would contain theists and atheists.
First, atheism is not about believing there is no god, it's about lacking a belief in god's existence. Sure there are some strong atheists out there too, but to take that extreme position doesn't allow them to represent the majority of atheists. I know that absolutely none of my 8 atheist friends are strong atheists.
Second, that one common denominator is mutually exclusive with the people that aren't attending. Let's say there was a literature club for school that has a common denominator of enjoying reading. I wouldn't say that it wasn't based on that interest, if absolutely none of the members were illiterate.
If they simply did not believe in something then they do not share a common belief, the fact that they formed an organization around their "lack of belief" hints more that it IS a belief in the lack of a god.
One does not make an organization around a lack of belief.
As for your bookclub reference, it is more like they formed a club for people that do not read books.
-
If they simply did not believe in something then they do not share a common belief, the fact that they formed an organization around their "lack of belief" hints more that it IS a belief in the lack of a god.
Interest does not mean belief.
...Atheism, as a lack of belief, can be an interest.
As for your bookclub reference, it is more like they formed a club for people that do not read books.
What?
-
The fact that you compared an atheist organization to a book club is odd. A book club has a common interest, reading books. Atheists only common interest is not believing in a deity.
This is not comparable.
-
I'm inclined to agree with Raist there. It would be sort of like a 'Not Interested in Books Club'.
-
Well yeah, the interest is promoting a disbelief instead of a belief. That's one of the reasons I thought it was inaccurate to call it "a belief system".
-
Well yeah, the interest is promoting a disbelief instead of a belief. That's one of the reasons I thought it was inaccurate to call it "a belief system".
So they are promoting a belief that there is no deity?
An intelligent atheist says there is no evidence either way and it is a pointless discussion. An unintelligent atheist decides to evangelize their disbelief.
-
Well yeah, the interest is promoting a disbelief instead of a belief. That's one of the reasons I thought it was inaccurate to call it "a belief system".
So they are promoting a belief that there is no deity?
Seriously?
An intelligent atheist says there is no evidence either way and it is a pointless discussion. An unintelligent atheist decides to evangelize their disbelief.
So people who try to make religious people question their blind faith are stupid now?
-
So what is a disbelief? A belief in a negative? Seriously, you there is no distinction between the two.
Yes, people that want to force a disbelief on someone else is stupid, and has issues. If someone else's belief bothers you, then you have issues.
-
So what is a disbelief? A belief in a negative?
No, it's a lack of a belief. ::)
When approaching something scientifically a lack of belief is default. A belief requires evidence. See the difference now? There is no evidence needed to be skeptical. As an atheist I don't say "god doesn't exist", because that would also require evidence.
Skepticism = 0
Belief = 1
Belief in opposite = -1
Yes, people that want to force a disbelief on someone else are stupid, and has issues.
Nobody said they were forcing anything. You're intentionally misrepresenting the argument. Also fixed because people is a plural word.
If someone else's belief bothers you, then you have issues.
Who says it does?
-
So what is a disbelief? A belief in a negative?
No, it's a lack of a belief. ::)
When approaching something scientifically a lack of belief is default. A belief requires evidence. See the difference now? There is no evidence needed to be skeptical. As an atheist I don't say "god doesn't exist", because that would also require evidence.
Skepticism = 0
Belief = 1
Belief in opposite = -1
So they are forming a group for people that do not know whether or not there is a god? So I assume these groups would be doing work to see whether or not there is a god.
What you have described are people that believe there is no God.
-
So they are forming a group for people that do not know whether or not there is a god? So I assume these groups would be doing work to see whether or not there is a god.
What you have described are people that believe there is no God.
No, you're jumping to conclusions because you're not seeing the alternatives. It has more to do with promoting skepticism, than actually knowing the unknowable.
-
So they are forming a group for people that do not know whether or not there is a god? So I assume these groups would be doing work to see whether or not there is a god.
What you have described are people that believe there is no God.
No, you're jumping to conclusions because you're not seeing the alternatives. It has more to do with promoting skepticism, than actually knowing the unknowable.
Yup, I see idiotic groups as being idiotic. If they seriously were a group promoting skepticism they wouldn't be an "atheist" group. Forming a group of people that share only a disbelief in god is completely pointless. How long can you talk about not believing in god before you need a new topic?
-
The slogan seems to be advertising more of a support group than anything. Kind of like "being a homosexual doesn't make you a bad person" (it does, but that's besides the point). Same deal.
-
If they are a support group then again it is another group catering to people that want to feel prosecuted. People need to grow a pair and stop trying to make de facto friends using their beliefs.
-
Yup, I see idiotic groups as being idiotic. If they seriously were a group promoting skepticism they wouldn't be an "atheist" group.
Why not? Religion is the first and foremost contradicting force acting against science.
Forming a group of people that share only a disbelief in god is completely pointless.
The billboard isn't asking for meetings or get togethers. It is notifying people that it is alright to not believe.
Edit: These people will never meet, nor do they likely have any interest in meeting.
How long can you talk about not believing in god before you need a new topic?
If you think this is a derailment, feel free to split the thread into two topics.
-
If they are a support group then again it is another group catering to people that want to feel prosecuted. People need to grow a pair and stop trying to make de facto friends using their beliefs.
Exactly what I tell suicidal queers.
-
If they are a support group then again it is another group catering to people that want to feel prosecuted. People need to grow a pair and stop trying to make de facto friends using their beliefs.
Exactly what I tell suicidal queers.
Settle down unless you want a ban proleg. That post crosses the line.
-
Why does it matter to them at all? I have never in my life cared whether someone believed in something or not. It in no way effects me, and if they are intelligent to decide something like that for themselves, they are probably intelligent enough to be religious in a reasonable manner.
Atheism has turned into a belief system.
Do you not care in the slightest that islamic extremists want to kill you? Would you walk willingly into their company with the cavalier attitude of "I don't care what you believe, it in no way affects I me"? I hope you get the opportunity to demonstrate this view for us in the near future.
A rudimentary understanding of sociology would show you the importance of groups and an individual's need for acceptance. You ignorance on the issue appears to be vast.
I would be willing to listen to your arguments of why you think atheism is a belief system, because by strict definition it applies. However, I think that you are using it to imply that atheists hold some sort of "faith" in their beliefs. Which, if true, strikes me as a very odd argument.
I don't see why having a meeting of atheists is pointless. Like, I can't even think of a reason why anyone would find this distasteful unless they were working under feeble-minded prejudices. What exactly scares you about a social gathering of people that agree on the same topic? Is it because it's a tangible threat to your God-club? If it's okay for people to have elitist, suppressive, brainwashing, lying, and socializing groups that believe in God, then I say it should be okay for people to have elitist, suppressive, brainwashing, lying, and socializing groups that do not believe in God.
You're letting your small brain be clouded by your preconceptions of atheism. If you took a random sampling of atheists you would find many different degrees of them, from ones that know there are no gods to ones that think you can't prove it one way or the other. The purpose of the billboard wasn't to gather a set of exactly like-minded people to sit around and believe a disbelief or try and disprove the existence of God (which is impossible), but to let people know that it's okay to not believe.
Quit wasting your God-given brain and use it before posting ignorant trite.
-
Why does it matter to them at all? I have never in my life cared whether someone believed in something or not. It in no way effects me, and if they are intelligent to decide something like that for themselves, they are probably intelligent enough to be religious in a reasonable manner.
Atheism has turned into a belief system.
Do you not care in the slightest that islamic extremists want to kill you? Would you walk willingly into their company with the cavalier attitude of "I don't care what you believe, it in no way affects I me"? I hope you get the opportunity to demonstrate this view for us in the near future.
A rudimentary understanding of sociology would show you the importance of groups and an individual's need for acceptance. You ignorance on the issue appears to be vast.
I understand this completely. Hence me pointing out that need in my post.
I would be willing to listen to your arguments of why you think atheism is a belief system, because by strict definition it applies. However, I think that you are using it to imply that atheists hold some sort of "faith" in their beliefs. Which, if true, strikes me as a very odd argument.
Of course not, I just think it's retarded to form a belief system around the single group that has no belief system. Belief systems cause a group to become unchangeable
I don't see why having a meeting of atheists is pointless. It's like a meeting for people that don't really like bananas. They have NOTHING in common except for the fact that they aren't religious. If the constant subject of their conversation is their lack of religion and how it affects their life it really is the most pathetic thing on Earth because they are letting religion control their lives and they aren't even religious. Do you not see the irony of a group that quits religion then forms a group to talk about how they no longer form groups to talk about religion? Like, I can't even think of a reason why anyone would find this distasteful unless they were working under feeble-minded prejudices. What exactly scares you about a social gathering of people that agree on the same topic? Is it because it's a tangible threat to your God-club? If it's okay for people to have elitist, suppressive, brainwashing, lying, and socializing groups that believe in God, then I say it should be okay for people to have elitist, suppressive, brainwashing, lying, and socializing groups that do not believe in God.
You're letting your small brain be clouded by your preconceptions of atheism. If you took a random sampling of atheists you would find many different degrees of them, from ones that know there are no gods to ones that think you can't prove it one way or the other. The purpose of the billboard wasn't to gather a set of exactly like-minded people to sit around and believe a disbelief or try and disprove the existence of God (which is impossible), but to let people know that it's okay to not believe.
Quit wasting your God-given brain and use it before posting ignorant trite.
Now let me just put this out there, and listen to this.
If you quit a religion, become an atheist, why would you join a group to get together, to talk about how you are no longer religious and how its ok. It's the same bullshit most religious groups do, getting together to talk about how persecuted they are. So yes, I am small minded about groups that get together to have little BAWWW parties about how society doesn't accept them but they are right and they are the only one's that know it.
I'm not small minded about atheists or agnostic people, but I do question people that say there "is not a god" and claim they are on the scientifically backed side of the issue.
-
Why does it matter to them at all? I have never in my life cared whether someone believed in something or not. It in no way effects me, and if they are intelligent to decide something like that for themselves, they are probably intelligent enough to be religious in a reasonable manner.
Atheism has turned into a belief system.
Do you not care in the slightest that islamic extremists want to kill you? Would you walk willingly into their company with the cavalier attitude of "I don't care what you believe, it in no way affects I me"? I hope you get the opportunity to demonstrate this view for us in the near future.
A rudimentary understanding of sociology would show you the importance of groups and an individual's need for acceptance. You ignorance on the issue appears to be vast.
I understand this completely. Hence me pointing out that need in my post.
I would be willing to listen to your arguments of why you think atheism is a belief system, because by strict definition it applies. However, I think that you are using it to imply that atheists hold some sort of "faith" in their beliefs. Which, if true, strikes me as a very odd argument.
Of course not, I just think it's fucking retarded to form a belief system around the single group that has no belief system. Belief systems cause a group to become unchangeable
I don't see why having a meeting of atheists is pointless. It's like a meeting for people that don't really like bananas. They have NOTHING in common except for the fact that they aren't religious. If the constant subject of their conversation is their lack of religion and how it affects their life it really is the most pathetic thing on Earth because they are letting religion control their lives and they aren't even religious. Do you not see the irony of a group that quits religion then forms a group to talk about how they no longer form groups to talk about religion? Like, I can't even think of a reason why anyone would find this distasteful unless they were working under feeble-minded prejudices. What exactly scares you about a social gathering of people that agree on the same topic? Is it because it's a tangible threat to your God-club? If it's okay for people to have elitist, suppressive, brainwashing, lying, and socializing groups that believe in God, then I say it should be okay for people to have elitist, suppressive, brainwashing, lying, and socializing groups that do not believe in God.
You're letting your small brain be clouded by your preconceptions of atheism. If you took a random sampling of atheists you would find many different degrees of them, from ones that know there are no gods to ones that think you can't prove it one way or the other. The purpose of the billboard wasn't to gather a set of exactly like-minded people to sit around and believe a disbelief or try and disprove the existence of God (which is impossible), but to let people know that it's okay to not believe.
Quit wasting your God-given brain and use it before posting ignorant trite.
Now let me just put this out there, and listen to this.
If you quit a religion, become an atheist, why would you join a group to get together, to talk about how you are no longer religious and how its ok. It's the same bullshit most religious groups do, getting together to talk about how persecuted they are. So yes, I am small minded about groups that get together to have little BAWWW parties about how society doesn't accept them but they are right and they are the only one's that know it.
I'm not small minded about atheists or agnostic people, but I do question people that say there "is not a god" and claim they are on the scientifically backed side of the issue.
OK, you're missing the whole point, Raist. Atheists and freethinkers are having meetings and putting ads on buses in London and billboards all over because religion and religious people and organizations are screwing up our planet. ID morons are trying to get their BS taught to our children in American schools. The pope is telling starving people in third world countries they'll burn in hell if they wear condoms to stop spreading AIDS and making more children they can't feed. Islamic fundamentalists are blowing people up all over the world, beheading apostates, and 'circumcising' women.
Most importantly, people everywhere are closing their eyes to truth, and refusing to accept the actual answers to some pretty important questions. If you get rid of all the silly higher power nonsense, it's pretty hard to convince people that killing innocent civilians is OK. Indoctrinate them into a religion, and it's a piece of cake.
Religion is a cancer, and those who recognize it are trying to help free the world of its influence.
If atheism is a belief system, clear is a color.
-
Most importantly, people everywhere are closing their eyes to truth, and refusing to accept the actual answers to some pretty important questions. If you get rid of all the silly higher power nonsense, it's pretty hard to convince people that killing innocent civilians is OK. Indoctrinate them into a religion, and it's a piece of cake.
I see what you're saying here but I think it's kind of a nonsensical argument to use against religion in general. You're equating the sweet grandma who has faith in God and goes to church every Sunday with radical terrorists and that's not fair. Besides that, history has shown us that it simply isn't true. There have been plenty of wars where innocent people have died that religion didn't even play a part in. It can be a scapegoat, but sometimes that's all it is. The Holocaust, one of the greatest exterminations of innocent civilians in history, was about national pride, not religion. It doesn't take indoctrination into a religion to convince people to do crazy, twisted things, it simply takes a leader with an enormous amount of charisma. You could eradicate religion from the face of the Earth and these people would still be running the world, and convincing people to do insane things. They would find a way.
To say that religion is evil in and of itself because Islamic terrorists blow themselves up on a public bus is silly and absurd.
Religion is a cancer, and those who recognize it are trying to help free the world of its influence.
This is how modern atheism has become a belief system. Under its most radical (and I might add charismatic) proponents it's gone well past simple non-belief and into the strong and radical belief that religion itself is evil and must be stopped. Religion is attacked simply for existing. Not only is that disgustingly intolerant, it's also rather politically retarded, and socially short-sighted. In the end this brand of militant atheism is only creating a rift in society between believers and non-believers in which each side feels smugly superior to the other. It's not helping anything.
Religion is flawed. But so is capitalism. So is socialism. So is democracy. Any large social construct of this kind is going to have its benefits and its flaws. Religion is no different. So if you're going to argue that religion itself is inherently evil and completely worthless you're going to have to demonstrate that it doesn't benefit society in any way. I know a lot of sensible people who happen to be religious and aren't militant in any way who would disagree with that perspective.
As human beings we have the inherent right to believe what we want to believe, and relate to the world how we want to relate to it. The militant atheists would like nothing better than to take that away. Civilization in general has been moving to the point where different social groups who would have been at war with each other in the past are learning to live with each other, and it's almost like the militant atheists would like to destroy that progress, in the name of rationality. It doesn't seem very rational to me.
As for my opinion of the billboard itself, it was put there to stir waves and cause trouble. That much seems fairly obvious to me. As much as I think it's a positive message in and of itself it still represents everything I hate about modern atheism.
-
I stopped reading your post and was compelled to ask you if you really just said the Holocaust wasn't about religion?
-
I stopped reading your post and was compelled to ask you if you really just said the Holocaust wasn't about religion?
Yes. It wasn't about religion, it was about race.
-
I think Roundy puts this all quite well. And the Holocaust definitly wasn't about religion, Jews were spoiling the racial purity in Nazi Germany. If it was about religion the Nazis wouldn't have fought alongside Finnish Jews and given them Iron Crosses.
-
Why does it matter to them at all? I have never in my life cared whether someone believed in something or not. It in no way effects me, and if they are intelligent to decide something like that for themselves, they are probably intelligent enough to be religious in a reasonable manner.
Atheism has turned into a belief system.
Do you not care in the slightest that islamic extremists want to kill you? Would you walk willingly into their company with the cavalier attitude of "I don't care what you believe, it in no way affects I me"? I hope you get the opportunity to demonstrate this view for us in the near future.
A rudimentary understanding of sociology would show you the importance of groups and an individual's need for acceptance. You ignorance on the issue appears to be vast.
I understand this completely. Hence me pointing out that need in my post.
I would be willing to listen to your arguments of why you think atheism is a belief system, because by strict definition it applies. However, I think that you are using it to imply that atheists hold some sort of "faith" in their beliefs. Which, if true, strikes me as a very odd argument.
Of course not, I just think it's fucking retarded to form a belief system around the single group that has no belief system. Belief systems cause a group to become unchangeable
I don't see why having a meeting of atheists is pointless. It's like a meeting for people that don't really like bananas. They have NOTHING in common except for the fact that they aren't religious. If the constant subject of their conversation is their lack of religion and how it affects their life it really is the most pathetic thing on Earth because they are letting religion control their lives and they aren't even religious. Do you not see the irony of a group that quits religion then forms a group to talk about how they no longer form groups to talk about religion? Like, I can't even think of a reason why anyone would find this distasteful unless they were working under feeble-minded prejudices. What exactly scares you about a social gathering of people that agree on the same topic? Is it because it's a tangible threat to your God-club? If it's okay for people to have elitist, suppressive, brainwashing, lying, and socializing groups that believe in God, then I say it should be okay for people to have elitist, suppressive, brainwashing, lying, and socializing groups that do not believe in God.
You're letting your small brain be clouded by your preconceptions of atheism. If you took a random sampling of atheists you would find many different degrees of them, from ones that know there are no gods to ones that think you can't prove it one way or the other. The purpose of the billboard wasn't to gather a set of exactly like-minded people to sit around and believe a disbelief or try and disprove the existence of God (which is impossible), but to let people know that it's okay to not believe.
Quit wasting your God-given brain and use it before posting ignorant trite.
Now let me just put this out there, and listen to this.
If you quit a religion, become an atheist, why in the flying fuck would you join a group to get together, to talk about how you are no longer religious and how its ok. It's the same bullshit most religious groups do, getting together to talk about how persecuted they are. So yes, I am small minded about groups that get together to have little BAWWW parties about how society doesn't accept them but they are right and they are the only one's that know it.
I'm not small minded about atheists or agnostic people, but I do question people that say there "is not a god" and claim they are on the scientifically backed side of the issue.
OK, you're missing the whole point, Raist. Atheists and freethinkers are having meetings and putting ads on buses in London and billboards all over because religion and religious people and organizations are fucking up our planet. ID morons are trying to get their BS taught to our children in American schools. The pope is telling starving people in third world countries they'll burn in hell if they wear condoms to stop spreading AIDS and making more children they can't feed. Islamic fundamentalists are blowing people up all over the world, beheading apostates, and 'circumcising' women.
Most importantly, people everywhere are closing their eyes to truth, and refusing to accept the actual answers to some pretty important questions. If you get rid of all the silly higher power nonsense, it's pretty hard to convince people that killing innocent civilians is OK. Indoctrinate them into a religion, and it's a piece of cake.
Religion is a cancer, and those who recognize it are trying to help free the world of its influence.
If atheism is a belief system, clear is a color.
That pretty much proves my "atheism is a belief system statement"
As for your "religious people are destroying the planet." That is incorrect. Politicians have worked to manipulate religious groups into taking stupid positions, just like politicians have manipulated everyone else into taking positions. If you really want to start a group based on saving the world, base it on something other than lack of religion.
The second you base it off of atheism you lose every intelligent christian and every intelligent religious person on Earth. It was thinking like yours that drove Einstein out of nazi germany and into america. Any group whose mission is to save the world, should not base itself on a divisive issue. Especially one that has literally nothing to do with their objective.
These groups will literally accomplish nothing because they can not unite people, they can only divide them, that is why I call them a retarded idea. You might as well start a global peace group around the KKK. Let us say you'll "offend a few potential members"
-
These groups will literally accomplish nothing because they can not unite people, they can only divide them, that is why I call them a fucking retarded idea.
Amen.
-
Most importantly, people everywhere are closing their eyes to truth, and refusing to accept the actual answers to some pretty important questions. If you get rid of all the silly higher power nonsense, it's pretty hard to convince people that killing innocent civilians is OK. Indoctrinate them into a religion, and it's a piece of cake.
I see what you're saying here but I think it's kind of a nonsensical argument to use against religion in general. You're equating the sweet grandma who has faith in God and goes to church every Sunday with radical terrorists and that's not fair. Besides that, history has shown us that it simply isn't true. There have been plenty of wars where innocent people have died that religion didn't even play a part in. It can be a scapegoat, but sometimes that's all it is. The Holocaust, one of the greatest exterminations of innocent civilians in history, was about national pride, not religion. It doesn't take indoctrination into a religion to convince people to do crazy, twisted things, it simply takes a leader with an enormous amount of charisma. You could eradicate religion from the face of the Earth and these people would still be running the world, and convincing people to do insane things. They would find a way.
To say that religion is evil in and of itself because Islamic terrorists blow themselves up on a public bus is silly and absurd.
Actually, what I'm saying is beyond that. The sweet grandma, through her very sweetness and almost certain voting, gives both emotional and electoral legitimacy to the entire religious farce. She, and the 'mainstream' members of religion provide the front organization for the corrupt, evil nonsense perpetrated by the 'extremists'. The point is, without religion, there can be no religious extremists, and the choice is a no-brainer to me.
LOL at the argument that not ALL conflicts and atrocities have had religion at their root - even if it were true, which it isn't, who cares? Even if just one of the disgusting, horrific conflicts over whose imaginary friend is cooler could have been avoided, it would outweigh the sum of religion's positive contributions to society. And the unavoidable truth is that without christianity and islam, there are no Crusades (20 million people killed in the first one alone, all in the name of god, on both sides). Without christianity, there would have been no Inquisition (12 million plus killed, most for being intellectuals).
And if you think Holocaust wasn't religious, you don't know jack about WWII or Hitler. Despite what christians try to claim based on a couple of quotes, Hitler wasn't just religious, he was a religious nut obsessed with both judeo-christian and occult texts and relics. Let's not forget, he was eradicating catholics, too. Was that about race?
Religion is a cancer, and those who recognize it are trying to help free the world of its influence.
This is how modern atheism has become a belief system. Under its most radical (and I might add charismatic) proponents it's gone well past simple non-belief and into the strong and radical belief that religion itself is evil and must be stopped. Religion is attacked simply for existing. Not only is that disgustingly intolerant, it's also rather politically retarded, and socially short-sighted. In the end this brand of militant atheism is only creating a rift in society between believers and non-believers in which each side feels smugly superior to the other. It's not helping anything.
Religion is flawed. But so is capitalism. So is socialism. So is democracy. Any large social construct of this kind is going to have its benefits and its flaws. Religion is no different. So if you're going to argue that religion itself is inherently evil and completely worthless you're going to have to demonstrate that it doesn't benefit society in any way. I know a lot of sensible people who happen to be religious and aren't militant in any way who would disagree with that perspective.
As human beings we have the inherent right to believe what we want to believe, and relate to the world how we want to relate to it. The militant atheists would like nothing better than to take that away. Civilization in general has been moving to the point where different social groups who would have been at war with each other in the past are learning to live with each other, and it's almost like the militant atheists would like to destroy that progress, in the name of rationality. It doesn't seem very rational to me.
As for my opinion of the billboard itself, it was put there to stir waves and cause trouble. That much seems fairly obvious to me. As much as I think it's a positive message in and of itself it still represents everything I hate about modern atheism.
Again, if atheism is a belief system, clear is a color.
I don't believe religion has been and is a force of domination, prejudice, subjugation, and taxation for the past 5,000 years, I know this fact from studying history. This isn't some leap of atheistic 'faith', it's just the only conclusion that can be drawn from an examination of the histories of the world's major religions if one's judgment is not clouded by beliefs. I don't attack religion for existing, or even for what I think it might do; I attack it for what it has done, is doing, and proudly promises to keep doing until all of us heathens are saved. Evangelistic religions have declared war on rational thought and independent examination of one's spiritual options all over the world because by their very nature, they are discriminatory, divisive, and oppressive.
It's not a matter of whether religion benefits society in ANY way. Cancer kills child molesters, which clearly benefits society, are you going to advocate for the abolition of cancer research? Religion has poisoned the minds of billions of people for thousands of years - it has retarded progress both socially and technologically. It has divided families, destroyed nations, killed millions upon millions, and made a very few very rich and very powerful. If you ever are able to take the 'god is real' goggles off long enough to get true clarity on the subject, you will feel guilty for having even once spoken out in its defense.
I would have no problem letting religious morons have their silly rituals and pay their silly tithes, except they won't stop trying to take over the world and ruin it for people who actually think about the reality of our existence. Tell you what, as soon as there are no more islamic terrorists, fundamentalist presidents keeping us from moving forward on stem cell research, attempts to promote ID as some sort of scientific concept to children, and nuns telling AIDS patients they claim to want to help they shouldn't wear condoms - and all the other disgusting, revolting, horrific crap done in the name of god or gods on the planet... when all that has been completely eradicated, I'll stop advocating for the forced sterilization of the devout.
That pretty much proves my "atheism is a belief system statement"
As for your "religious people are destroying the planet." That is incorrect. Politicians have worked to manipulate religious groups into taking stupid positions, just like politicians have manipulated everyone else into taking positions. If you really want to start a group based on saving the world, base it on something other than lack of religion.
LOLWUT? Half of religious nutcases I'm afraid of ARE the politicians. Are you talking about the Pope? You don't really think he believes any of this bible bullshit, do you? He's a politician, even more so than Dubyah and Palin.
The second you base it off of atheism you lose every intelligent christian and every intelligent religious person on Earth. It was thinking like yours that drove Einstein out of nazi germany and into america. Any group whose mission is to save the world, should not base itself on a divisive issue. Especially one that has literally nothing to do with their objective.
OK, so a couple of dozen smart people get left behind. So what? That's like worrying about there being a good lawyer in heaven! I'll take 1 moderately intelligent atheist on my side fighting for reason and progress for 10 'intelligent christians' praying against me. Make it a thousand pray-ers. you have seen the statistics, right? There is an easily plotted, inversely proportional relationship between IQ and depth of religious belief. If we have 10% of the population, we've got at least 75% of the IQ points. Sorry if that seems arrogant or whatever, it's just statistical probability.
These groups will literally accomplish nothing because they can not unite people, they can only divide them, that is why I call them a retarded idea. You might as well start a global peace group around the KKK. Let us say you'll "offend a few potential members"
Hmmm. This makes no sense to me at all. The only people we're looking to unite are ourselves, and we're doing that at a pretty amazing rate. The money the 'Atheist Bus Campaign' hoped to raise in six months, it raised in 24 hours, and the largest of the atheist organizations I belong to has over 3 million members, and has sponsored summer camps for kids, marches on Washington, and my local affiliate is working to have the 'invocations' abolished at the council meetings of several cities near me. It is estimated that more atheists voted in the critical swing states than the margin between McCain and Obama in those states, and how many atheists do you really think voted for Palin to be one heart attack away from 'the button'?
It seems to me that we're starting to accomplish things all over, and with a new atheism-inspired book on the bestseller list every 8-10 months, more freethinkers keep finding something to get passionate about every day.
Our founders knew that religion was an antiquated concept when they wrote the Constitution, that's why there's no mention of god or gods anywhere in it, and why the first is the first and not the fourth or seventh - they knew how important that shit was. It's even more antiquated now, but we keep allowing children to be abused through indoctrination, doomed to a life full of lies, silly superstitious beliefs, and fear of a made-up hell. I'm over it, and trying to do what I can to get people to take the blinders off, for the good of us all, and before it's too late, and one of these pissing matches gets out of hand.
-
I only skimmed that, but you have some serious deep seated issues with religion.
As for the rest, believe what you will, but it has become a belief system.
Extremism in all forms is evil, from the religious extremists that cause the wrongs you paint all religious people with, to the eco terrorists that blow up buildings and kill people for no other reason than "it's 'right.'" Your extremism is just as bad as the people praying for the death of soldiers, it is the misguided black and white hate that we see in every republican.
-
If you ever are able to take the 'god is real' goggles off long enough to get true clarity on the subject, you will feel guilty for having even once spoken out in its defense.
Er Roundy isn't wearing any god is real goggles...
-
Actually, what I'm saying is beyond that. The sweet grandma, through her very sweetness and almost certain voting, gives both emotional and electoral legitimacy to the entire religious farce. She, and the 'mainstream' members of religion provide the front organization for the corrupt, evil nonsense perpetrated by the 'extremists'. The point is, without religion, there can be no religious extremists, and the choice is a no-brainer to me.
The point is, even without religion there would still be dangerous extremists, and if they didn't have religion as a scapegoat they would find something else to hang their arguments on.
LOL at the argument that not ALL conflicts and atrocities have had religion at their root - even if it were true, which it isn't, who cares?
You've got to be kidding me. You really think that all conflicts have had religion at their root? Funny, and I thought war was mostly about exercising power. If anything religion is just a scapegoat in most conflicts.
Even if just one of the disgusting, horrific conflicts over whose imaginary friend is cooler could have been avoided, it would outweigh the sum of religion's positive contributions to society. And the unavoidable truth is that without christianity and islam, there are no Crusades (20 million people killed in the first one alone, all in the name of god, on both sides). Without christianity, there would have been no Inquisition (12 million plus killed, most for being intellectuals).
Without religion, the extremists at the front of these movements would have found another reason to exercise their despotism. It is naive to think that we wouldn't have had such dark periods in history if there had been no religion.
And if you think Holocaust wasn't religious, you don't know jack about WWII or Hitler. Despite what christians try to claim based on a couple of quotes, Hitler wasn't just religious, he was a religious nut obsessed with both judeo-christian and occult texts and relics. Let's not forget, he was eradicating catholics, too. Was that about race?
Whether Hitler was religious or not is irrelevant. The central goal of the Holocaust was the preservation of the Aryan race. Perhaps you should do some research into the subject if you believe otherwise.
Again, if atheism is a belief system, clear is a color.
You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I never said that lack of belief in God itself is a belief system. It's when you use it as an excuse to persecute those who disagree with you that it becomes dangerously dogmatic. Sadly, that's how people see atheism these days, thanks to charismatic speakers and writers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and people like you who spout their dogma as if it was absolute truth and not what it is: a subjective opinion.
I don't believe religion has been and is a force of domination, prejudice, subjugation, and taxation for the past 5,000 years, I know this fact from studying history. This isn't some leap of atheistic 'faith', it's just the only conclusion that can be drawn from an examination of the histories of the world's major religions if one's judgment is not clouded by beliefs. I don't attack religion for existing, or even for what I think it might do; I attack it for what it has done, is doing, and proudly promises to keep doing until all of us heathens are saved. Evangelistic religions have declared war on rational thought and independent examination of one's spiritual options all over the world because by their very nature, they are discriminatory, divisive, and oppressive.
Right, bad things have come from religion, as they have from every largely-held ideological position in human history. Good things have come from it too and that's what you seem to be ignoring. Somehow we've managed to get past slavery, for example, despite the majority of people being religious. You can't hold an entire group of belief systems accountable for the actions of a minority of practitioners.
It's not a matter of whether religion benefits society in ANY way. Cancer kills child molesters, which clearly benefits society, are you going to advocate for the abolition of cancer research?
That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
Religion has poisoned the minds of billions of people for thousands of years - it has retarded progress both socially and technologically. It has divided families, destroyed nations, killed millions upon millions, and made a very few very rich and very powerful. If you ever are able to take the 'god is real' goggles off long enough to get true clarity on the subject, you will feel guilty for having even once spoken out in its defense.
Um, first of all, I'm agnostic, and I was brought up by an atheist and an agnostic. Believe me, I'm not wearing any "God is real" goggles. ::)
I just wish you'd drop the "Dawkins is infallible" goggles. Ironic that you're trying to argue that atheism isn't a belief system and all you're really doing in defense of your position is spouting his rhetoric.
Religion, itself, did not do any of those things. People practicing religion have done them, and as I pointed out, such people are the minority. To say that religion in its entirety should be completely eradicated because of the actions of the minority is a bit like saying that all black people should be in jail because a lot of them shoot each other and deal drugs.
Your first line, "Religion has poisoned the minds of billions of people for thousands of years", really, sums up your position adequately. You think that simply the fact that people believe in God is a negative result of religion. It's rather outlandish. There are still things that science can't answer, and there are things that science will likely never be able to answer. If religion gives some people comfort over such issues, how can it be a bad thing in and of itself? Because it's not rational? Is it your opinion that a belief system must be rational to do good? I'd like to see that position supported.
Besides, maybe the fact that religion has retarded technological progress is a good thing. Just look at what technology has done to the world the past two centuries.
I would have no problem letting religious morons have their silly rituals and pay their silly tithes, except they won't stop trying to take over the world and ruin it for people who actually think about the reality of our existence. Tell you what, as soon as there are no more islamic terrorists, fundamentalist presidents keeping us from moving forward on stem cell research, attempts to promote ID as some sort of scientific concept to children, and nuns telling AIDS patients they claim to want to help they shouldn't wear condoms - and all the other disgusting, revolting, horrific crap done in the name of god or gods on the planet... when all that has been completely eradicated, I'll stop advocating for the forced sterilization of the devout.
This is the thing; not all religious people are trying to take over the world, and not all are forcing their dangerous opinions on others. If you want to go to war with religion, do it with the fundamentalists and extremists. Leave the poor people who are just trying to lead spiritual lives alone. There's nothing inherently wrong with it.
You can also blame the democratic system itself for some of these things as much as religion. Perhaps you should renounce your Canadian citizenship and go live in a cabin in Nunavit, lest you look like a hypocrite.
The final line in this part of your post is the reason why you're never going to make any progress. Like I said earlier, such an attitude is just politically retarded. You're not going to convince people they're wrong by alienating them. I would say that such a position does more damage to the atheist movement than help, and you're far from alone in your position.
-
If we are going to blatantly throw around Hitler references here's one, Hitler began excluding jews from his political party (the race not the religion, though either way he was not religious.) and then he started saying that they were inferior and their very existence was ruining society, and the cause of all of its ills. Please don't act like hitler the next time you are going to compare religion to him.
-
Roundy, you can't sidestep the evil that religion has manifested on this planet by saying that the acts of an institution would inevitably have been committed by some secular force - that's just nonsense. It's like saying America doesn't owe anything to the native population, because someone would have come along and destroyed them if we hadn't. The point that I made quite clearly was that it doesn't matter if there would have been SOME 'dark periods' as you called them (how many dead does it take before it warrants the title 'atrocity'? I guess more than 20 million.), there wouldn't have been THOSE 'dark periods'. How can you possibly try to argue that religion has done enough good to offset the senseless, violent deaths of 200 million people, only about 5-7% of which were military combatants?
Of what good, precisely, are you speaking? The lead-joined aqueducts the Holy Roman Empire brought to Europe, which scientists believe caused mild brain damage to millions for a thousand years? Or was it the invention of the Rack, the trial by ordeal, and the Star Chamber? Maybe it was that deity-sanctioned slavery? Seriously, what good has religion brought to this world?
Also, I'm pretty sure I've got a bit more research into WWII and the Holocaust than you. The preservation of the Aryan race was the primary justification used in propaganda to bring the population on board with the initial separation of the jews into the ghettos and eventually into the camps. Anti-semitism was prevalent in Germany at the time and convenient to the NAZI party. Goebbels and Hitler blamed all of Europe's problems of the time (which were actually caused by the US and UK) on the Jews, and convinced the German people to do the same. They blamed the war itself on the Jews, as if they were the ones driving tanks into Poland.
The point is this: He chose as the symbol of his party the swastika, which he became fascinated with as part of the coat of arms of the monastery school he attended, and he wanted more than anything in the world to be a priest. He believed wholeheartedly in the jewish myths, the occult, and god. He fought the Jews, in his own words, "fighting for the work of the Lord." His hatred may have been inspired by sociology and politics, but his belief that he could exterminate innocent civilians already subjected to the most cruel slavery and torture the world has ever seen came straight from his belief in his imaginary friend.
Oh, and sorry to lump you in with the delusional, that was my mistake.
If we are going to blatantly throw around Hitler references here's one, Hitler began excluding jews from his political party (the race not the religion, though either way he was not religious.) and then he started saying that they were inferior and their very existence was ruining society, and the cause of all of its ills. Please don't act like hitler the next time you are going to compare religion to him.
What? I didn't bring up Hitler, and I certainly didn't compare him to anyone as an argument. Also, what the hell are you talking about? Hitler started hating on Jews in Vienna in the early '20s, at the latest, long before he had anything to do with any political party.
-
I often wonder what the future may hold as far as religion is concerned. Everyday, more and more advancements in scientific research are made. It's ever changing and evolving and expanding. Religion cannot, in my eyes, possibly keep up. Most texts were written thousands of years ago, and never originally planned for the things we now have in our lives to exist (although some may claim the texts supposedly predict such things, but I don't buy into it).
One can only wonder if religion will become dead as a whole in the future just as Roman, Egyptian and Greek mythology has become.
-
Roundy, you can't sidestep the evil that religion has manifested on this planet by saying that the acts of an institution would inevitably have been committed by some secular force - that's just nonsense. It's like saying America doesn't owe anything to the native population, because someone would have come along and destroyed them if we hadn't. The point that I made quite clearly was that it doesn't matter if there would have been SOME 'dark periods' as you called them (how many dead does it take before it warrants the title 'atrocity'? I guess more than 20 million.), there wouldn't have been THOSE 'dark periods'. How can you possibly try to argue that religion has done enough good to offset the senseless, violent deaths of 200 million people, only about 5-7% of which were military combatants?
Of what good, precisely, are you speaking? The lead-joined aqueducts the Holy Roman Empire brought to Europe, which scientists believe caused mild brain damage to millions for a thousand years? Or was it the invention of the Rack, the trial by ordeal, and the Star Chamber? Maybe it was that deity-sanctioned slavery? Seriously, what good has religion brought to this world?
Well, in general, religion provides comfort for many who need it, provides many with a sense of purpose, and helps people get over their fear of death. In my opinion, those are good things, and they've literally affected billions of people. Christianity helped catalyze the civil rights movement (remember Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr?) and is responsible for many hospitals (they won't give you an abortion but they won't turn you away for not taking Christ into your bosom) and charitable institutions, worldwide. The medieval Muslims were very scholarly people, who gave us significant advances in science, mathematics, medicine, and astronomy; they were key in developing the scientific method and revolutionized optics, and gave the world hospitals and libraries. For that matter, many of the significant scientific advances during the Enlightenment period were made by devout Christians.
Also, I'm pretty sure I've got a bit more research into WWII and the Holocaust than you.
How arrogant of you to say. I'm sure you make that assumption about everything you argue, with whomever you're arguing.
The preservation of the Aryan race was the primary justification used in propaganda to bring the population on board with the initial separation of the jews into the ghettos and eventually into the camps. Anti-semitism was prevalent in Germany at the time and convenient to the NAZI party. Goebbels and Hitler blamed all of Europe's problems of the time (which were actually caused by the US and UK) on the Jews, and convinced the German people to do the same. They blamed the war itself on the Jews, as if they were the ones driving tanks into Poland.
The point is this: He chose as the symbol of his party the swastika, which he became fascinated with as part of the coat of arms of the monastery school he attended, and he wanted more than anything in the world to be a priest. He believed wholeheartedly in the jewish myths, the occult, and god. He fought the Jews, in his own words, "fighting for the work of the Lord." His hatred may have been inspired by sociology and politics, but his belief that he could exterminate innocent civilians already subjected to the most cruel slavery and torture the world has ever seen came straight from his belief in his imaginary friend.
Well however you want to spin it you can blame nationalism for the atrocities committed during the Holocaust more than religion. Clearly you agree that it was racial motives that galvanized the Germans to support Hitler over anything else, which was what gave him the power he had to do what he did. Psychosis isn't peculiar to the religious so the idea that he wouldn't have felt justified, in his own mind, for exterminating the Jews is doubtful, in my opinion, and at any rate only something about which we can speculate since we don't know how Hitler would have turned out if he hadn't been influenced in his thinking by religion.
I agree that the religious have been behind many atrocities throughout history, and that they justified their acts with religion, but being power-mad despots, I have a feeling they would have committed their atrocities whether they were religious or not, assuming they would have been able to gain power without religion. It's been a tool used by those who were (and are) evil, to be sure. But in the end, I'm pretty sure that's all it is, a tool. I don't remember ever reading a chapter in the Bible that advocated the extermination of non-believers (if you know of one, please tell me, it would be interesting to see), at least by humans (God, evidently, can do whatever he wants). I think it's ultimately not religion itself that is at the root of evil, but rather perversion of it, and at any rate the primary motive is generally political.
Oh, and sorry to lump you in with the delusional, that was my mistake.
No problem, but seriously, lurk moar. ;D
-
Well, in general, religion provides comfort for many who need it, provides many with a sense of purpose, and helps people get over their fear of death. In my opinion, those are good things, and they've literally affected billions of people. Christianity helped catalyze the civil rights movement (remember Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr?) and is responsible for many hospitals (they won't give you an abortion but they won't turn you away for not taking Christ into your bosom) and charitable institutions, worldwide. The medieval Muslims were very scholarly people, who gave us significant advances in science, mathematics, medicine, and astronomy; they were key in developing the scientific method and revolutionized optics, and gave the world hospitals and libraries. For that matter, many of the significant scientific advances during the Enlightenment period were made by devout Christians.
What I see is that the comfort comes at the cost of a lifetime of guilt for the actions of a character in a 5000 year old fairy tale, and for not following rules designed to control. While it did help spread the message during the civil rights movement, it was also the primary justification for the enslavement of the African people, and the colonization and subsequent redivision and rape of their continent. Most of the hospitals are funded by the church, but those funds are swindled from the pockets of the congregation to begin with. Wherever you look, you find any small positives that come from the religion itself outweighed by the negatives, often the very ones attached by dogma to the good deeds, like Mother Theresa withholding pain medication from terminally ill homosexuals in India to help them 'make the right choice' and denounce their evil ways. The best minds of the time are going to advance science, whether consumed by belief or playing along, there just won't be as much advancement as there would be were they unrestricted by dogma - they don't need to be afraid to find an equal number of ribs on men and women, or that the sun does not, in fact, orbit the earth.
Also, I'm pretty sure I've got a bit more research into WWII and the Holocaust than you.
How arrogant of you to say. I'm sure you make that assumption about everything you argue, with whomever you're arguing.
No, just when I've studied a subject that doesn't get studied a whole lot, and fairly exhaustively. I'm a Jew adopted by catholics, and was encouraged to explore my genetic roots. I've met and talked with holocaust survivors, watches all 9 hours or whatever it is of Shoah, did a huge paper on that, Took a two part course in college, The Great World Wars, put on by the History and Political Science departments... If I might be wrong, and you want to compare Holocaust research schlong lengths, we should probably do it in PM, my list of references is a couple of pages long.
And you know damn well I've only played that card about this subject and comparative religions, as that was my major. You lurk plenty.
Well however you want to spin it you can blame nationalism for the atrocities committed during the Holocaust more than religion. Clearly you agree that it was racial motives that galvanized the Germans to support Hitler over anything else, which was what gave him the power he had to do what he did. Psychosis isn't peculiar to the religious so the idea that he wouldn't have felt justified, in his own mind, for exterminating the Jews is doubtful, in my opinion, and at any rate only something about which we can speculate since we don't know how Hitler would have turned out if he hadn't been influenced in his thinking by religion.
I agree that the religious have been behind many atrocities throughout history, and that they justified their acts with religion, but being power-mad despots, I have a feeling they would have committed their atrocities whether they were religious or not, assuming they would have been able to gain power without religion. It's been a tool used by those who were (and are) evil, to be sure. But in the end, I'm pretty sure that's all it is, a tool. I don't remember ever reading a chapter in the Bible that advocated the extermination of non-believers (if you know of one, please tell me, it would be interesting to see), at least by humans (God, evidently, can do whatever he wants). I think it's ultimately not religion itself that is at the root of evil, but rather perversion of it, and at any rate the primary motive is generally political.
OK, let me come at this a different way: Religion tells its believers that they have the answers, and that any answers they don't have, they need only to read the bible, or the koran, or talk to this wise man or that oracle, and you will know what you need to know. It teaches you at a very young age that actual thought about what you are being force fed is not beneficial to your eternal soul at all - it has to, the story it asks us to swallow is a funny pill, indeed. It teaches people to ignore ludicrous contradictions like the bible tracing Jesus' lineage to King David through Joseph. If you can ignore that your infallible book, written by god himself, says that either Mary wasn't a virgin, or that Jesus isn't related to David (and therefore not the prophesied messiah), and still believe in Christ the savior and the virgin Mary, you're willing to suspend reason.
Also consider Penn's child killer/atheist (or heretic, at least) gambit. If god tells a religious person to kill their baby, they either choose not to, which means they don't really believe all that 'god is perfect and all-loving' stuff, or they choose to obey, which means they're insane and dangerous and need to get the hell away from me.
As for the bible advocating genocide:
Deuteronomy 7:2 says, "And when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them."
God gave a whole boatload of tribal nations over to his chosen marauding, pillaging people.
Joshua 10:40 states, "So Joshua smote the whole land; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded."
I can't remember the one where he tells the Jews to sew salt into the enemy's land AFTER they kill all the men and children, and rape all the women to completely mix the next generation. Deuteronomy and Numbers are full of lovely commands by god to, "March on Christian So-o-o-ol-dier..." and just how much violence they were to inflict on the goyim for having the audacity to be living in the promised land, or even nearby.
-
I don't remember ever reading a chapter in the Bible that advocated the extermination of non-believers (if you know of one, please tell me, it would be interesting to see), at least by humans (God, evidently, can do whatever he wants).
Samuel 15:2-3
"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"
Yes, this refers to the extermination of a specific people from the Old Testament (and it is supposed to be spoken by God himself). I'm sure many could construe this to justify genocide in whatever situation suited them. However, there is no text which outright calls for the extermination of all nonbelievers (excluding mention of hell of course.)
-
The bible is full of commandments to kill people. Here is my favorite.
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
The reason that you don't remember ever reading them is because no one reads the bible (though I have very rarely met a christian that does not swear that they have) and because the people that teach you about such things conveniently glaze over those parts.
-
This is how modern atheism has become a belief system. Under its most radical (and I might add charismatic) proponents it's gone well past simple non-belief and into the strong and radical belief that religion itself is evil and must be stopped. Religion is attacked simply for existing. Not only is that disgustingly intolerant, it's also rather politically retarded, and socially short-sighted. In the end this brand of militant atheism is only creating a rift in society between believers and non-believers in which each side feels smugly superior to the other. It's not helping anything.
What you describe there is anti-theism, not athiesm.
-
The reason that you don't remember ever reading them is because no one reads the bible (though I have very rarely met a christian that does not swear that they have) and because the people that teach you about such things conveniently glaze over those parts.
I've read most of the bible (of course skimming the someone begat someone begat someone shit). I studied it for quite a few years (because long story short, that earnt me monies)
Oh and Crotchy, as I mentioned earlier, if the extermination of the Jews was about religion why did the Nazis have no problem fighting alongside Finnish Jews (who continued to practice their religion with field synagogues) and award them iron crosses? Is is possibly because they did not threaten the purity of the Ayran race, not because their religion offended Hitler?
-
Yup, I see idiotic groups as being idiotic. If they seriously were a group promoting skepticism they wouldn't be an "atheist" group.
Why not? Religion is the first and foremost contradicting force acting against science.
Forming a group of people that share only a disbelief in god is completely pointless.
The billboard isn't asking for meetings or get togethers. It is notifying people that it is alright to not believe.
Edit: These people will never meet, nor do they likely have any interest in meeting.
How long can you talk about not believing in god before you need a new topic?
If you think this is a derailment, feel free to split the thread into two topics.
Did this get missed, or just ignored?
-
What I see is that the comfort comes at the cost of a lifetime of guilt for the actions of a character in a 5000 year old fairy tale, and for not following rules designed to control. While it did help spread the message during the civil rights movement, it was also the primary justification for the enslavement of the African people, and the colonization and subsequent redivision and rape of their continent. Most of the hospitals are funded by the church, but those funds are swindled from the pockets of the congregation to begin with. Wherever you look, you find any small positives that come from the religion itself outweighed by the negatives, often the very ones attached by dogma to the good deeds, like Mother Theresa withholding pain medication from terminally ill homosexuals in India to help them 'make the right choice' and denounce their evil ways. The best minds of the time are going to advance science, whether consumed by belief or playing along, there just won't be as much advancement as there would be were they unrestricted by dogma - they don't need to be afraid to find an equal number of ribs on men and women, or that the sun does not, in fact, orbit the earth.
You can also say that the worst minds of the times are going to find ways to commit their atrocities whether consumed by belief or playing along as well. And yes, there are negative aspects of the things I brought up as well, but as I tried to point out before, all large social constructs have such positives and negatives. We don't know how society would have turned out without religion, because it was in our nature early in civilization to have religion; it was part of our development as a society. The argument that life would be better now if religion had never existed is entirely speculative and not really a fair one to make, since we didn't really have a choice.
No, just when I've studied a subject that doesn't get studied a whole lot, and fairly exhaustively. I'm a Jew adopted by catholics, and was encouraged to explore my genetic roots. I've met and talked with holocaust survivors, watches all 9 hours or whatever it is of Shoah, did a huge paper on that, Took a two part course in college, The Great World Wars, put on by the History and Political Science departments... If I might be wrong, and you want to compare Holocaust research schlong lengths, we should probably do it in PM, my list of references is a couple of pages long. And you know damn well I've only played that card about this subject and comparative religions, as that was my major. You lurk plenty.
I know, just busting your balls. I don't doubt that you've researched the topic more than I have.
OK, let me come at this a different way: Religion tells its believers that they have the answers, and that any answers they don't have, they need only to read the bible, or the koran, or talk to this wise man or that oracle, and you will know what you need to know. It teaches you at a very young age that actual thought about what you are being force fed is not beneficial to your eternal soul at all - it has to, the story it asks us to swallow is a funny pill, indeed. It teaches people to ignore ludicrous contradictions like the bible tracing Jesus' lineage to King David through Joseph. If you can ignore that your infallible book, written by god himself, says that either Mary wasn't a virgin, or that Jesus isn't related to David (and therefore not the prophesied messiah), and still believe in Christ the savior and the virgin Mary, you're willing to suspend reason.
I didn't realize there was a contradiction in Jesus' lineage being traced to David through Joseph. I know that there are two opposing lineages given for Jesus in the Gospels (and the explanation that has been come up for it is absolutely ludicrous) but this is new to me; what's the contradiction, exactly?
At any rate, I don't see anything inherently wrong with someone putting their faith in a religious work, even if that work is essentially a fairy tale.
Also consider Penn's child killer/atheist (or heretic, at least) gambit. If god tells a religious person to kill their baby, they either choose not to, which means they don't really believe all that 'god is perfect and all-loving' stuff, or they choose to obey, which means they're insane and dangerous and need to get the hell away from me.
If God doesn't exist, how can he tell a religious person to kill their baby?
As for the bible advocating genocide:
Deuteronomy 7:2 says, "And when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them."
The bible is full of commandments to kill people. Here is my favorite.
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
I don't remember ever reading a chapter in the Bible that advocated the extermination of non-believers (if you know of one, please tell me, it would be interesting to see), at least by humans (God, evidently, can do whatever he wants).
Samuel 15:2-3
"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"
Yes, this refers to the extermination of a specific people from the Old Testament (and it is supposed to be spoken by God himself). I'm sure many could construe this to justify genocide in whatever situation suited them. However, there is no text which outright calls for the extermination of all nonbelievers (excluding mention of hell of course.)
Joshua 10:40 states, "So Joshua smote the whole land; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded."
Well...
God gave a whole boatload of tribal nations over to his chosen marauding, pillaging people.
Like most other peoples of the time, the ancient Hebrews were a barbaric, warlike people. These were all intended as justifications after the fact for deeds already done. None of them actually command the reader to follow the example, and all were told directly by God to do it. Except Pongo's; that's absolutely repugnant and I can't even begin to justify it. At least Christ was wise enough to alter that one (I think?); anyway I've never tried to argue that everything about religion was good. ;D
But my point here is that surely such activity is more a symptom of contemporary politics and civilization than of religion. You couldn't spit back then without hitting some nation trying to conquer another nation.
-
I didn't realize there was a contradiction in Jesus' lineage being traced to David through Joseph. I know that there are two opposing lineages given for Jesus in the Gospels (and the explanation that has been come up for it is absolutely ludicrous) but this is new to me; what's the contradiction, exactly?
At any rate, I don't see anything inherently wrong with someone putting their faith in a religious work, even if that work is essentially a fairy tale.
Well, yes, Luke has one and Mark the other IIRC, but one of them takes his link to David through Joseph, which makes 0 sense in light of the virgin birth story. In reality, the virginity of the birth is nothing more than a mistranslation, but there are many contradictions that make considering the book the words of an ultimate being sort of silly, which means it was written by normal, mistake- and exaggeration- and egotism-prone men, which means it's just a story.
I have a bunch of problems with people putting their faith in fairy tales, especially when they include a supposed instruction manual for how to live. One big one is that a lot of them spend a bunch of time and money praying and churching that would be much better spent thinking and doing.
Think about this: approximately 90% of the population of the US claims a religious belief. Let's be really conservative and say that only half of them tithe to their various superstition taxmen. Let's be conservative again and say the average tithe is only about 5%. The Catholics want at least 10%, the Mormons get 15%, and I've heard as high as 25% from some of the crazier fire and brimstone denominations in the bible belt. Wiki puts the average income at about 50k
So, we'll call it 300 million people, times 90%=270mil, times 50%=135,000,000, times 5% of 50,000 (2500)=$337,500,000,000.
$337,500,000,000 Every year!
Can you imagine how much good a secular organization could do around the world with half of that, with no popes or parsons or vaticans or temples or bible schools to pay for?
Also consider Penn's child killer/atheist (or heretic, at least) gambit. If god tells a religious person to kill their baby, they either choose not to, which means they don't really believe all that 'god is perfect and all-loving' stuff, or they choose to obey, which means they're insane and dangerous and need to get the hell away from me.
If God doesn't exist, how can he tell a religious person to kill their baby?
Sorry, poorly constructed, the gambit is, you give the person the hypothetical god tells you to kill your baby. Their answer determines whether they are full of shit or dangerous.
Like most other peoples of the time, the ancient Hebrews were a barbaric, warlike people. These were all intended as justifications after the fact for deeds already done. None of them actually command the reader to follow the example, and all were told directly by God to do it. Except Pongo's; that's absolutely repugnant and I can't even begin to justify it. At least Christ was wise enough to alter that one (I think?); anyway I've never tried to argue that everything about religion was good. ;D
But my point here is that surely such activity is more a symptom of contemporary politics and civilization than of religion. You couldn't spit back then without hitting some nation trying to conquer another nation.
This is absolutely true, and goes perfectly with one of my arguments for why religion is BS. Even then, times were changing, and genocide was already starting to leave a bad taste in people's mouths. The Torah and the rest of the Tanakh were constructs well designed to serve those in power at the time.
-
... You don't hear anyone protesting all the damned Jesus bilboards anywhere. ...
I beg to differ, well, no I don't recall billboards but atheists protest just about everything else Christians do....
-
... You don't hear anyone protesting all the damned Jesus bilboards anywhere. ...
I beg to differ, well, no I don't recall billboards but atheists protest just about everything else Christians do....
Allow me to jog your memory:
(http://thinkgodnow.com/images/Jesus%20billboard.jpg)
(http://ozatheist.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/jesus_billboard.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2226/1992802926_77655f2b1a.jpg?v=0)
This one is surreal
(http://www.webanalyticsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/thealgoritmjesus1.gif)
(http://lifeboards.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/LatestDownload_0012.jpg)
(http://www.christadelphians.net/norfolk/billboard.jpg)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/13/91989939_a3282269f2.jpg?v=0)
Forgive me if I'm labouring the point.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RkQnU8sPjpM/Rg0QneIGLYI/AAAAAAAAAAM/wBa-xPVBtnQ/s320/ill-be-back.jpg)
(http://www.ericbryant.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/jesus-judge-billboard.jpg[.img]
[img]http://www.youngyoungenglish.com/data/file/billboard/1259354578_63553e2a_jesus-beer-billboard5B15D.jpg)
-
First of all, two of the billboards were computer generated and not real, second, I was referring to protests of....use your brain.....
-
Irrelevant, there are thousands of real ones.
Generally atheists 'protest' not with picket lines and placards but complaints to (In Britain) the Advertising Standards Authority or irate blog posts, or with our own billboards and posters on the sides of busses.
-
I have nothing against atheist having billboards in most situations, I respect your beliefs like I think you should respect ours.
-
I have nothing against atheist having billboards in most situations, I respect your beliefs like I think you should respect ours.
If atheists started passing laws that hindered education, how long would you willingly tolerate their beliefs? If atheists demanded that the cure for certain ailments not be researched because the methods for finding those cures was against ours (and only our) beliefs, would you still grant them unyielding respect? What if someone you know had said ailment? If atheists started using their hypothetical political power to influence and pass laws that have no context in the world except for in relation to atheist "beliefs", would you just silently sit by and tell them that you respect them for that?
-
I have nothing against atheist having billboards in most situations, I respect your beliefs like I think you should respect ours.
People deserve respect, ideas do not. Ideas should be open to critisism, argument and complaint. Ideas do not have 'rights'
-
I have nothing against atheist having billboards in most situations, I respect your beliefs like I think you should respect ours.
People deserve respect, ideas do not. Ideas should be open to critisism, argument and complaint. Ideas do not have 'rights'
People deserve respect once they have earned it - atheist or a believer in God. If someone has not earned my respect I'm still not going to sink down into the gutter with them, because 2 wrongs don't make a right, and I don't have to lower myself just because THEY show no respect. I may make a comment to them that they are being disrespectful or I may ignore them, but quietly to myself I'm thinking what a disrespectful person, and that person does not deserve my attention. I may give them more than one chance, but at some point I disassociate myself with them. That is true of Christians too, for I know many so-called Christians that are -ssholes.
You may have an opinion about something, but others have one too. It is the entitlement of all who live in free America under the freedom of speech. Surely people are entitled to their opinion, but don't expect not to get called on it. However it still depends on how you handle it. If for example you know of some gays, and let's say you don't like gays- that does not give you the right to harass, stalk, vandalize their car, or any other hateful thing just because YOU don't like them and YOU don't agree with them. That is disrespectful regardless what side of the fence you are on - Atheist or not. You are still responsible for your actions.
I may respect them in the sense that I respect their decision is final, even if it's not what I want or what I agree with; -it is their decision, but that is more acceptance than it is respect. I will respect them in the sense of not wishing ill on them, not bringing harm to them, not being ugly to them, and trying to keep a civil tongue in my head, but that's just kindness - not really respect either. I can respect their privacy and I can respect they have their own vote, but that is more of NOT denying them their right, so freedom is also not respect.. I do not have to like them, but I do try and get along with them, when I have to be in their company, but that is tolerance and again not respect. No I do not have to respect the person.
-
I have nothing against atheist having billboards in most situations, I respect your beliefs like I think you should respect ours.
If atheists started passing laws that hindered education, how long would you willingly tolerate their beliefs? If atheists demanded that the cure for certain ailments not be researched because the methods for finding those cures was against ours (and only our) beliefs, would you still grant them unyielding respect? What if someone you know had said ailment? If atheists started using their hypothetical political power to influence and pass laws that have no context in the world except for in relation to atheist "beliefs", would you just silently sit by and tell them that you respect them for that?
*claps*
-
I didn't realize there was a contradiction in Jesus' lineage being traced to David through Joseph. I know that there are two opposing lineages given for Jesus in the Gospels (and the explanation that has been come up for it is absolutely ludicrous) but this is new to me; what's the contradiction, exactly?
At any rate, I don't see anything inherently wrong with someone putting their faith in a religious work, even if that work is essentially a fairy tale.
Well, yes, Luke has one and Mark the other IIRC, but one of them takes his link to David through Joseph, which makes 0 sense in light of the virgin birth story. In reality, the virginity of the birth is nothing more than a mistranslation, but there are many contradictions that make considering the book the words of an ultimate being sort of silly, which means it was written by normal, mistake- and exaggeration- and egotism-prone men, which means it's just a story.
I have a bunch of problems with people putting their faith in fairy tales, especially when they include a supposed instruction manual for how to live. One big one is that a lot of them spend a bunch of time and money praying and churching that would be much better spent thinking and doing.
Think about this: approximately 90% of the population of the US claims a religious belief. Let's be really conservative and say that only half of them tithe to their various superstition taxmen. Let's be conservative again and say the average tithe is only about 5%. The Catholics want at least 10%, the Mormons get 15%, and I've heard as high as 25% from some of the crazier fire and brimstone denominations in the bible belt. Wiki puts the average income at about 50k
So, we'll call it 300 million people, times 90%=270mil, times 50%=135,000,000, times 5% of 50,000 (2500)=$337,500,000,000.
$337,500,000,000 Every year!
Wow! I'm really not hung up on how other people spend their money. It's really none of my business.
Can you imagine how much good a secular organization could do around the world with half of that, with no popes or parsons or vaticans or temples or bible schools to pay for?
I wonder how much money is spent yearly on marijuana so people can just get high without contributing anything to society? Imagine how much good a charitable organization could do with all that wasted money!
Also consider Penn's child killer/atheist (or heretic, at least) gambit. If god tells a religious person to kill their baby, they either choose not to, which means they don't really believe all that 'god is perfect and all-loving' stuff, or they choose to obey, which means they're insane and dangerous and need to get the hell away from me.
If God doesn't exist, how can he tell a religious person to kill their baby?
Sorry, poorly constructed, the gambit is, you give the person the hypothetical god tells you to kill your baby. Their answer determines whether they are full of shit or dangerous.
The wise theist would probably answer that God has never told them to kill their baby, so until it actually happens it's a meaningless hypothetical. Really, there's not much of a trick to answering this rationally without renouncing God or coming off as crazy!
Like most other peoples of the time, the ancient Hebrews were a barbaric, warlike people. These were all intended as justifications after the fact for deeds already done. None of them actually command the reader to follow the example, and all were told directly by God to do it. Except Pongo's; that's absolutely repugnant and I can't even begin to justify it. At least Christ was wise enough to alter that one (I think?); anyway I've never tried to argue that everything about religion was good. ;D
But my point here is that surely such activity is more a symptom of contemporary politics and civilization than of religion. You couldn't spit back then without hitting some nation trying to conquer another nation.
This is absolutely true, and goes perfectly with one of my arguments for why religion is BS. Even then, times were changing, and genocide was already starting to leave a bad taste in people's mouths. The Torah and the rest of the Tanakh were constructs well designed to serve those in power at the time.
Then again your complaint is political in nature, not religious. It was just all tied together at the time. Politics have evolved to the point where such conquest for the sake of conquest is considered unethical so I don't see how this has any bearing on the modern practice of religion, at least in the western world. If anything this is proof that religion can evolve and tends to reflect the times, just like all other aspects of society.
-
Also consider Penn's child killer/atheist (or heretic, at least) gambit. If god tells a religious person to kill their baby, they either choose not to, which means they don't really believe all that 'god is perfect and all-loving' stuff, or they choose to obey, which means they're insane and dangerous and need to get the hell away from me.
If God doesn't exist, how can he tell a religious person to kill their baby?
Sorry, poorly constructed, the gambit is, you give the person the hypothetical god tells you to kill your baby. Their answer determines whether they are full of shit or dangerous.
The wise theist would probably answer that God has never told them to kill their baby, so until it actually happens it's a meaningless hypothetical. Really, there's not much of a trick to answering this rationally without renouncing God or coming off as crazy!
That's not an answer, it's avoiding the question. When people ask me if I have accepted God in my life, can I respond, "God has never reveled itself to me so until it does it's a meaningless hypothetical." I would not think that answer wise.
-
Also consider Penn's child killer/atheist (or heretic, at least) gambit. If god tells a religious person to kill their baby, they either choose not to, which means they don't really believe all that 'god is perfect and all-loving' stuff, or they choose to obey, which means they're insane and dangerous and need to get the hell away from me.
If God doesn't exist, how can he tell a religious person to kill their baby?
Sorry, poorly constructed, the gambit is, you give the person the hypothetical god tells you to kill your baby. Their answer determines whether they are full of shit or dangerous.
The wise theist would probably answer that God has never told them to kill their baby, so until it actually happens it's a meaningless hypothetical. Really, there's not much of a trick to answering this rationally without renouncing God or coming off as crazy!
That's not an answer, it's avoiding the question.
Right, but that's really not a problem since the question has no relevance to the real world.
-
I didn't realize there was a contradiction in Jesus' lineage being traced to David through Joseph. I know that there are two opposing lineages given for Jesus in the Gospels (and the explanation that has been come up for it is absolutely ludicrous) but this is new to me; what's the contradiction, exactly?
At any rate, I don't see anything inherently wrong with someone putting their faith in a religious work, even if that work is essentially a fairy tale.
Well, yes, Luke has one and Mark the other IIRC, but one of them takes his link to David through Joseph, which makes 0 sense in light of the virgin birth story. In reality, the virginity of the birth is nothing more than a mistranslation....
My response to Roundy & mostly J Crotch: Crotch you have misinterpreted the scriptures. The two accounts of Joseph's lineage thru David's line is not a contradiction. One is thru his wife Mary's line, and one is thru Joseph's line, both of which trace back to David and both trace back to Abraham but thru 2 different branches. The scriptures (in words only) credit both lines to Joseph, but that is because in those days credit was given to the man regardless of who they marry. You must understand something about history of that time, so you don't misinterpret the scriptures, and take things out of context. You'll notice one account says Joseph, son of Heli, and the other account says Jacob became the father to Joseph the husband of Mary. They are different, but not the reason you attribute to it. Those scriptures in reference to the 2 lines are: Lu 3:23 - to end of chapter, and Mt 1: 1-16.
As far as your remark that it makes 0 (zero) sense because she was the Virgin Mary - you are just playing with words now. The bible is not saying by the genealogical account that she is somehow not a virgin. Joseph is Jesus's earthly father, but truly HE was immaculately conceived. The promised seed (Jesus) had to come from the line of David, the line of Abraham as per the promise in the scriptures, so that they would know the prophecy had been fulfilled. However an earthly man that already had original sin because of Adam and Eve could not have made that promise happen, so a perfect man had to be born from her. The bible sometimes speaks figuratively.
-
Right, but that's really not a problem since the question has no relevance to the real world.
Then all hypothetical questions are irreverent and can be ignored on the same argument. So if you were in a job interview and the interviewer asks you what you would do if you saw another employee stealing from the company, you can soundly reply, "I'm sorry Sir/Mam, but that question has no relevance in the real world."
-
Right, but that's really not a problem since the question has no relevance to the real world.
Then all hypothetical questions are irreverent and can be ignored on the same argument. So if you were in a job interview and the interviewer asks you what you would do if you saw another employee stealing from the company, you can soundly reply, "I'm sorry Sir/Mam, but that question has no relevance in the real world."
No, that is something that could conceivably actually happen, hence it has relevance to the real world.
-
But religious people truly believe in God, they truly believe that God asked Abraham to kill his kid, and they truly believe that God tests people everyday. For a religious person, God testing them by asking them to kill their child is totally conceivable.
-
But religious people truly believe in God, they truly believe that God asked Abraham to kill his kid, and they truly believe that God tests people everyday. For a religious person, God testing them by asking them to kill their child is totally conceivable.
My response: Incorrect. Only SOME religious people believe that God tests people everyday. Adam and Eve were NOT tested by God, but by Satan in the garden of Eden; Jesus was NOT tested by God, but tested by Satan 3 times; Job was NOT tested by God, for he was tested by Satan, and God only allowed it to prove a point. He said no matter what you do to Job he is a faithful servant of mine, I know this. (Paraphrasing of course) But Satan brought ills on Job, God did not.
-
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%202:3-4;&version=31;
-
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%202:3-4;&version=31;
I'll say it again..... see below. I do not care what other so-called Christians believe- I do NOT believe all the crap they do. I have not clicked on the link you show here, and even if that link was to say most- I am not arguing as to what most do- I am telling you what I believe.
But religious people truly believe in God, they truly believe that God asked Abraham to kill his kid, and they truly believe that God tests people everyday. For a religious person, God testing them by asking them to kill their child is totally conceivable.
My response: Incorrect. Only SOME religious people believe that God tests people everyday. Adam and Eve were NOT tested by God, but by Satan in the garden of Eden; Jesus was NOT tested by God, but tested by Satan 3 times; Job was NOT tested by God, for he was tested by Satan, and God only allowed it to prove a point. He said no matter what you do to Job he is a faithful servant of mine, I know this. (Paraphrasing of course) But Satan brought ills on Job, God did not.
-
It's just that you submit your opinions as uncontested facts that confuses me and makes me want to argue your points.
Also, it's for the best that you don't click that link. It's really a virus that has scourged many a person. It has caused incalculable damage to personal property and has angered and enraged countless people. Now that I think about it, I truly regret contributing to spreading it. :'(
Please forgive me.
-
I do not care what other so-called Christians believe- I do NOT believe all the crap they do.
So what, you're not a Christian?
-
I do not care what other so-called Christians believe- I do NOT believe all the crap they do.
So what, you're not a Christian?
No, babsinva, seems to be defining himself/herself as a true Christian....don't you pay attention...
-
No, babsinva, seems to be defining himself/herself as a true Christian....don't you pay attention...
As opposed to a false Christian? ???
-
No, babsinva, seems to be defining himself/herself as a true Christian....don't you pay attention...
As opposed to a false Christian? ???
Exactly. Some people call themselves Christians but do not act like Christians should, like the KKK....
-
Who decides whether a person or group are true christians?
-
Who decides whether a person or group are true christians?
The true Christians, obviously.
-
Who decides whether a person or group are true christians?
No one specifically, but their actions decide.....
-
Who decides whether a person or group are true christians?
No one specifically, but their actions decide.....
Who decides though based on the person's actions?
-
I'd imagine that theologically, nobody short of Jam Master Jesus would have the authority to do so.
-
Technically you could just use the definition of the term considering words have absolutely no meaning without an agreed upon definition.
-
I can't even see how anyone would find that billboard offensive. If it said "Christians are morons" I could understand, but it just says that being a good person doesn't require God. Christians can believe that atheists can still be good people.
-
Who decides whether a person or group are true christians?
No one specifically, but their actions decide.....
Who decides though based on the person's actions?
I'd imagine that theologically, nobody short of Jam Master Jesus would have the authority to do so.
No, God.
I can't even see how anyone would find that billboard offensive. If it said "Christians are morons" I could understand, but it just says that being a good person doesn't require God. Christians can believe that atheists can still be good people.
Your right, the billboard you described isn't offensive, and atheist can be good people...but so far I haven't found one on this site...
-
Ooo you're mean
-
No, God.
Jesus isn't 'god'? Would Jesus have been incapable of knowing if someone was truly christian or not? He is known as 'christ' after all.
-
Who decides whether a person or group are true christians?
No one specifically, but their actions decide.....
Who decides though based on the person's actions?
I'd imagine that theologically, nobody short of Jam Master Jesus would have the authority to do so.
No, God.
I can't even see how anyone would find that billboard offensive. If it said "Christians are morons" I could understand, but it just says that being a good person doesn't require God. Christians can believe that atheists can still be good people.
Your right, the billboard you described isn't offensive, and atheist can be good people...but so far I haven't found one on this site...
And atheists are described as the 'strident' or 'rude' ones...
-
Who decides whether a person or group are true christians?
No one specifically, but their actions decide.....
Who decides though based on the person's actions?
I'd imagine that theologically, nobody short of Jam Master Jesus would have the authority to do so.
No, God.
I can't even see how anyone would find that billboard offensive. If it said "Christians are morons" I could understand, but it just says that being a good person doesn't require God. Christians can believe that atheists can still be good people.
Your right, the billboard you described isn't offensive, and atheist can be good people...but so far I haven't found one on this site...
And atheists are described as the 'strident' or 'rude' ones...
Ooo you're mean
I wasn't doing that to be mean, it's the truth I haven't found one atheist on here that's kind towards me, I'm sorry but sometimes the truth hurts...
-
I think them not being kind to you is less to do with your religious beliefs and more to do with your retartedness
-
I think them not being kind to you is less to do with your religious beliefs and more to do with your retartedness
This is what I'm talking about, me not agreeing with your "views" on life, politic, and religion doesn't make me retarded....
-
I think them not being kind to you is less to do with your religious beliefs and more to do with your retartedness
This is what I'm talking about, me not agreeing with your "views" on life, politic, and religion doesn't make me retarded....
Its not you disagreeing. Its you ignoring any evidence that goes against your own beliefs.
-
I think them not being kind to you is less to do with your religious beliefs and more to do with your retartedness
This is what I'm talking about, me not agreeing with your "views" on life, politic, and religion doesn't make me retarded....
Its not you disagreeing. Its you ignoring any evidence that goes against your own beliefs.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Savage)
-
I think them not being kind to you is less to do with your religious beliefs and more to do with your retartedness
This is what I'm talking about, me not agreeing with your "views" on life, politic, and religion doesn't make me retarded....
Its not you disagreeing. Its you ignoring any evidence that goes against your own beliefs.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Savage)
Do you fancy being relevant at all?
-
I think them not being kind to you is less to do with your religious beliefs and more to do with your retartedness
This is what I'm talking about, me not agreeing with your "views" on life, politic, and religion doesn't make me retarded....
Its not you disagreeing. Its you ignoring any evidence that goes against your own beliefs.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Savage)
Do you fancy being relevant at all?
"Do you have a sense of humor?" is the better question...
-
I think them not being kind to you is less to do with your religious beliefs and more to do with your retartedness
This is what I'm talking about, me not agreeing with your "views" on life, politic, and religion doesn't make me retarded....
Its not you disagreeing. Its you ignoring any evidence that goes against your own beliefs.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Savage)
Do you fancy being relevant at all?
"Do you have a sense of humor?" is the better question...
I see my work here is done ::)
-
I think them not being kind to you is less to do with your religious beliefs and more to do with your retartedness
This is what I'm talking about, me not agreeing with your "views" on life, politic, and religion doesn't make me retarded....
Its not you disagreeing. Its you ignoring any evidence that goes against your own beliefs.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Savage)
Do you fancy being relevant at all?
"Do you have a sense of humor?" is the better question...
I see my work here is done ::)
Seriously what is y'alls problem with me other than not falling in line with you like some mindless robot?
-
I think them not being kind to you is less to do with your religious beliefs and more to do with your retartedness
This is what I'm talking about, me not agreeing with your "views" on life, politic, and religion doesn't make me retarded....
Its not you disagreeing. Its you ignoring any evidence that goes against your own beliefs.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Savage)
Do you fancy being relevant at all?
"Do you have a sense of humor?" is the better question...
I see my work here is done ::)
Seriously what is y'alls problem with me other than not falling in line with you like some mindless robot?
Are you not paying attention? I posted it right up there
-
I think them not being kind to you is less to do with your religious beliefs and more to do with your retartedness
This is what I'm talking about, me not agreeing with your "views" on life, politic, and religion doesn't make me retarded....
Its not you disagreeing. Its you ignoring any evidence that goes against your own beliefs.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Savage)
Do you fancy being relevant at all?
"Do you have a sense of humor?" is the better question...
I see my work here is done ::)
Seriously what is y'alls problem with me other than not falling in line with you like some mindless robot?
Are you not paying attention? I posted it right up there
Are you not paying attention, I said besides that?
-
I think them not being kind to you is less to do with your religious beliefs and more to do with your retartedness
This is what I'm talking about, me not agreeing with your "views" on life, politic, and religion doesn't make me retarded....
Its not you disagreeing. Its you ignoring any evidence that goes against your own beliefs.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Savage)
Do you fancy being relevant at all?
"Do you have a sense of humor?" is the better question...
I see my work here is done ::)
Seriously what is y'alls problem with me other than not falling in line with you like some mindless robot?
Are you not paying attention? I posted it right up there
Are you not paying attention, I said besides that?
So ignoring evidence is fine by you? If you keep sticking to that people most likely will keep sticking to their dislike of you.
-
Your right, the billboard you described isn't offensive, and atheist can be good people...but so far I haven't found one on this site...
I don't understand... are you saying that I'm a bad person?
-
Your right, the billboard you described isn't offensive, and atheist can be good people...but so far I haven't found one on this site...
I have to ask what you base that on. all you know about me is what I talk about on this forum. how much community service have you done, by yourself without anyone telling you you should. how much time have you spent with a disabled child trying to help them fit in to society. How much times have you donated blood, because it could save lives, what have you done that allows you to look down on me from a "moral" high ground.
I have called you an idiot and such because you ignore the majority of evidence because you it disagrees with your faith. if I called someone an idiot because they still believe Zeus lives on Mount Olympus even if I showed them no one was there would that make me immoral?
Edited just for quote formatting.
-
Your right, the billboard you described isn't offensive, and atheist can be good people...but so far I haven't found one on this site...
I have to ask what you base that on. all you know about me is what I talk about on this forum. how much community service have you done, by yourself without anyone telling you you should.
I have worked in a homeless shelter, donated clothes, donated money, and advocated for causes that are important to me. I'm no Mother Theresa but I'm pretty sure that's more than most do.
how much time have you spent with a disabled child trying to help them fit in to society.
None, but if they oppurtunity arose I would.
How much times have you donated blood, because it could save lives,
I have not donated blood. :(
what have you done that allows you to look down on me from a "moral" high ground.
I have called you an idiot and such because you ignore the majority of evidence because you it disagrees with your faith. if I called someone an idiot because they still believe Zeus lives on Mount Olympus even if I showed them no one was there would that make me immoral?
Edited just for quote formatting.
I would think it was rude to call that person an idiot... let them believe Zeus lives there. It makes no difference.
-
I would think it was rude to call that person an idiot... let them believe Zeus lives there. It makes no difference.
rude but accurate. and if that is all it takes for you to define someone as not a good person then the only good people are people that can't communicate at all.
-
To be fair I did a whole lot more 'community work' in my Christian days
-
Your right, the billboard you described isn't offensive, and atheist can be good people...but so far I haven't found one on this site...
then perhaps you have not looked hard enough.
-
then perhaps you have not looked hard enough.
Or more likely, he is seeing what he wants to see, as he does with everything else.
-
then perhaps you have not looked hard enough.
Or more likely, he is seeing what he wants to see, as he does with everything else.
I could say the same thing about you all and my responses at times, or the same thing about politics,,,,
-
then perhaps you have not looked hard enough.
Or more likely, he is seeing what he wants to see, as he does with everything else.
I could say the same thing about you all and my responses at times, or the same thing about politics,,,,
You could say that, but you'd be wrong.
-
then perhaps you have not looked hard enough.
Or more likely, he is seeing what he wants to see, as he does with everything else.
I could say the same thing about you all and my responses at times, or the same thing about politics,,,,
You could say that, but you'd be wrong.
Bullcrap...
-
I would think it was rude to call that person an idiot... let them believe Zeus lives there. It makes no difference.
rude but accurate. and if that is all it takes for you to define someone as not a good person then the only good people are people that can't communicate at all.
I didn't say that that would make him not a good person. But I do think that that particular act of his would be pretty rude.
-
Wait....did the OP actually compare being an atheist to the social inequalities that African Americans have faced over the years? :o
Wow...just....wow. Someone spray that man with a fire hose and then chain him up in a field harvesting crops or something....good gravy.
-
Wait....did the OP actually compare being an atheist to the social inequalities that African Americans have faced over the years? :o
Wow...just....wow. Someone spray that man with a fire hose and then chain him up in a field harvesting crops or something....good gravy.
Actually, historically speaking atheists haven't exactly been treated well.
-
Wait....did the OP actually compare being an atheist to the social inequalities that African Americans have faced over the years? :o
Wow...just....wow. Someone spray that man with a fire hose and then chain him up in a field harvesting crops or something....good gravy.
Actually, historically speaking atheists haven't exactly been treated well.
Yeah. "In God We Trust" is not religious freedom.
-
Wait....did the OP actually compare being an atheist to the social inequalities that African Americans have faced over the years? :o
Wow...just....wow. Someone spray that man with a fire hose and then chain him up in a field harvesting crops or something....good gravy.
Or we could torture them for being heretics. lrn2spanishinquistion. But you're right, atheists have never suffered at all, especially not today in countries like Iran where it is against the law not to believe in god and they can be imprisoned and tortured based on an ideology.
Explain the difference to me.
Some basic history is fine too.
-
You can hide your religious views though.
-
You can hide your religious views though.
Like the Jews in the Holocaust? Or the witches?
-
Not that many witches actually got burned at the stake, relatively speaking.
If somebody persecutes Jews it's generally seen as racism rather than religious intolerance. Or is it? I don't know really.
-
Not that many witches actually got burned at the stake, relatively speaking.
If somebody persecutes Jews it's generally seen as racism rather than religious intolerance. Or is it? I don't know really.
No, very few were. They were tortured, drowned and hanged in their thousands, however.
Last I heard, Judaism was a religion, you can convert to it without surgery or anything (Well, only a little and only if you're a guy)
-
The Jews are an ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated
There you see, the Jews are an ethnoreligious group.
If you're talking numbers, persecution due to race is a greater risk than persecution due to religion.
-
The Jews are an ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated
There you see, the Jews are an ethnoreligious group.
If you're talking numbers, persecution due to race is a greater risk than persecution due to religion.
What exactly does that have to do with the persecution of athiests?
-
Merely that the persecution of atheists in this day and age isn't really all that bad. Probably not as bad as racism which the OP seemed to imply.
-
Wait....did the OP actually compare being an atheist to the social inequalities that African Americans have faced over the years? :o
Wow...just....wow. Someone spray that man with a fire hose and then chain him up in a field harvesting crops or something....good gravy.
Or we could torture them for being heretics. lrn2spanishinquistion. But you're right, atheists have never suffered at all, especially not today in countries like Iran where it is against the law not to believe in god and they can be imprisoned and tortured based on an ideology.
Explain the difference to me.
Some basic history is fine too.
People can't look at you and tell that you're an aetheist. Religious persecution is vastly different from racial persecution. Yes, they're both discrimination, and no, one requires an interrogation and some cool furniture to "prove", and even then it's all assumptions and heresay. So, unless you wear a giant "You know what I believe in? Nothing!" T-shirt and people refuse you service in a restaurant, then no, being atheist is nothing like the persecution African-Americans and others have faced.
Hell, it's not even like being Irish was.
-
Wait....did the OP actually compare being an atheist to the social inequalities that African Americans have faced over the years? :o
Wow...just....wow. Someone spray that man with a fire hose and then chain him up in a field harvesting crops or something....good gravy.
Or we could torture them for being heretics. lrn2spanishinquistion. But you're right, atheists have never suffered at all, especially not today in countries like Iran where it is against the law not to believe in god and they can be imprisoned and tortured based on an ideology.
Explain the difference to me.
Some basic history is fine too.
People can't look at you and tell that you're an aetheist. Religious persecution is vastly different from racial persecution. Yes, they're both discrimination, and no, one requires an interrogation and some cool furniture to "prove", and even then it's all assumptions and heresay. So, unless you wear a giant "You know what I believe in? Nothing!" T-shirt and people refuse you service in a restaurant, then no, being atheist is nothing like the persecution African-Americans and others have faced.
Hell, it's not even like being Irish was.
I have to QFT this. There's really no comparison.
-
People can't look at you and tell that you're an aetheist. Religious persecution is vastly different from racial persecution. Yes, they're both discrimination, and no, one requires an interrogation and some cool furniture to "prove", and even then it's all assumptions and heresay. So, unless you wear a giant "You know what I believe in? Nothing!" T-shirt and people refuse you service in a restaurant, then no, being atheist is nothing like the persecution African-Americans and others have faced.
Hell, it's not even like being Irish was.
The OP was referring to the discriminated blacks and the discriminated atheists. While it is easier to hide your views than your physical features, the billboard is inherently declaring atheist views as loudly as skin color, and the discrimination is a direct comparison to its arrival. They shouldn't have to conceal their views to avoid discrimination like many early atheists probably had to, just like they shouldn't have to take down the billboard now.
As you say, they're both discrimination.
-
I agree that discrimination of any kind is wrong, but don't you think that comparing the plight of atheists (today, and in America, as that's where the billboard was put up) to the historical plight of African-Americans, as the OP did, a bit... hyperbolic? Hell, in many parts of the South African-Americans are still generally treated as inferior. And I've never heard of anybody in this country being lynched for being an atheist (though I'd like to point out, before people start throwing up links to news stories, that it wouldn't surprise me, but it unquestionably doesn't happen to the degree it happened to blacks). I myself have never faced any sort of discrimination for my lack of belief.
-
I'm not trying to say that the severity isn't different (especially when we restrict our scope to our country and only the most recent of times :P), but I was trying to bring to light what the original point was: that they are being denied a right to speech as the blacks were and as women were/are. There are differences, but I think the OP was underlining that it's the same concept, regardless of the treatment. I don't think he meant to imply anything about abuse or violence at all.
I didn't mean to come off as if I disagreed with the differences listed above, but I thought it was a misinterpretation on Galileo's part when he saw the mention of comparisons between the two.
-
I'm not trying to say that the severity isn't different (especially when we restrict our scope to our country and only the most recent of times :P), but I was trying to bring to light what the original point was: that they are being denied a right to speech as the blacks were and as women were/are. There are differences, but I think the OP was underlining that it's the same concept, regardless of the treatment. I don't think he meant to imply anything about abuse or violence at all.
I didn't mean to come off as if I disagreed with the differences listed above, but I thought it was a misinterpretation on Galileo's part when he saw the mention of comparisons between the two.
It's not just free speech that African-Americans have been historically denied, though. They've been denied all sorts of basic human rights. What rights are you personally denied for being an atheist? It's an absolutely ludicrous comparison.
-
It's not just free speech that African-Americans have been historically denied, though. They've been denied all sorts of basic human rights. What rights are you personally denied for being an atheist? It's an absolutely ludicrous comparison.
My point is that I don't think the OP was ever making that comparison to begin with. I was thinking he only brought it up as a parallel of free speech, not for the other human rights violations.
If we compared all of the differences to modern atheists, then yes, I agree it is absurd.
-
The phrase "atheists = the new African-Americans" is pure hyperbole. That's all I'm trying to say, and it's why I still think Galileo's point was sound.
Besides, everybody knows that gays are the new African-Americans.
-
The phrase "atheists = the new African-Americans" is pure hyperbole. That's all I'm trying to say.
Ah, then it seems we're in agreement after all. I was remembering a different part of his post entirely, and must have dismissed the differences that I didn't think he meant to make. For instance, "the atheists cannot be the new African Americans because they aren't black", and "the atheists cannot be the new African Americans because they aren't lynched" were both things I would have dismissed from his intended meaning of that equality. I saw it as new African Americans in respect to their violations of freedom of speech because he used it at the end of a freedom of speech violation topic. I saw black as irrelevant to his comparison as much as violence, but looking it over I can see how it can go both ways.
If he really intended to compare physical abuse too, I completely missed it first time around. Maybe he'll come back and tell us what he meant. :)
-
The phrase "atheists = the new African-Americans" is pure hyperbole. That's all I'm trying to say, and it's why I still think Galileo's point was sound.
Besides, everybody knows that gays are the new African-Americans.
I've always found "the new blacks" to be more punchy, but otherwise I agree.
-
I'm going to put up a billboard that says "I don't believe in purple unicorns and that doesn't make me a bad person." Does their overwhelming need to belong to a group have to turn them into retards?
Organized religion is essentially a bunch of people wanting to join a group. Some Christians' overwhelming need to belong to a group has turned them into retards.
-
I'm going to put up a billboard that says "I don't believe in purple unicorns and that doesn't make me a bad person." Does their overwhelming need to belong to a group have to turn them into retards?
Organized religion is essentially a bunch of people wanting to join a group. Some Christians' overwhelming need to belong to a group has turned them into retards.
Did I say any different? I just think it is hypocritical to form a persecution complex just to feel like you are in a group. It's sad.
If you really want to join a group find something you are passionate about and go from there. It's kind of pitiful if your only common interest is not believing in a deity.
-
I'm going to put up a billboard that says "I don't believe in purple unicorns and that doesn't make me a bad person." Does their overwhelming need to belong to a group have to turn them into retards?
Organized religion is essentially a bunch of people wanting to join a group. Some Christians' overwhelming need to belong to a group has turned them into retards.
Did I say any different? I just think it is hypocritical to form a persecution complex just to feel like you are in a group. It's sad.
If you really want to join a group find something you are passionate about and go from there. It's kind of pitiful if your only common interest is not believing in a deity.
Opposed to forming a group with the only common interest is believing in a deity?
-
I'm going to put up a billboard that says "I don't believe in purple unicorns and that doesn't make me a bad person." Does their overwhelming need to belong to a group have to turn them into retards?
Organized religion is essentially a bunch of people wanting to join a group. Some Christians' overwhelming need to belong to a group has turned them into retards.
Did I say any different? I just think it is hypocritical to form a persecution complex just to feel like you are in a group. It's sad.
If you really want to join a group find something you are passionate about and go from there. It's kind of pitiful if your only common interest is not believing in a deity.
Opposed to forming a group with the only common interest is believing in a deity?
Never heard of a group that you join simply for believing in a deity. It's usually people who believe in the same deity and have the same set of customs surrounding their worship of it. That's quite a bit in common.
-
I'm going to put up a billboard that says "I don't believe in purple unicorns and that doesn't make me a bad person." Does their overwhelming need to belong to a group have to turn them into retards?
Organized religion is essentially a bunch of people wanting to join a group. Some Christians' overwhelming need to belong to a group has turned them into retards.
Did I say any different? I just think it is hypocritical to form a persecution complex just to feel like you are in a group. It's sad.
If you really want to join a group find something you are passionate about and go from there. It's kind of pitiful if your only common interest is not believing in a deity.
Opposed to forming a group with the only common interest is believing in a deity?
Never heard of a group that you join simply for believing in a deity. It's usually people who believe in the same deity and have the same set of customs surrounding their worship of it. That's quite a bit in common.
So atheists don't have the ability to have anything else in common? This can go on forever. Atheists are not any different then theists. I don't totally agree with T.P. Crockmier.
-
Christian extremists use fear and pressure as motivators to try to convince people to join their church. They believe that anyone not associated with their church will burn in hell. Family members have been ostracized due to their wanting to be different.
Buddhism, the only organized religion I am partial to, does not ostracize people for wanting to be different. Buddhists embrace the sanctity of all sentient life forms, regardless of sexuality, religion, or species.
I am absolutely not insinuating that all Christians are assholes.
-
I'm going to put up a billboard that says "I don't believe in purple unicorns and that doesn't make me a bad person." Does their overwhelming need to belong to a group have to turn them into retards?
Organized religion is essentially a bunch of people wanting to join a group. Some Christians' overwhelming need to belong to a group has turned them into retards.
Did I say any different? I just think it is hypocritical to form a persecution complex just to feel like you are in a group. It's sad.
If you really want to join a group find something you are passionate about and go from there. It's kind of pitiful if your only common interest is not believing in a deity.
Opposed to forming a group with the only common interest is believing in a deity?
Never heard of a group that you join simply for believing in a deity. It's usually people who believe in the same deity and have the same set of customs surrounding their worship of it. That's quite a bit in common.
So atheists don't have the ability to have anything else in common? This can go on forever. Atheists are not any different then theists. I don't totally agree with T.P. Crockmier.
No they aren't. I still think forming a group around atheism is a ridiculous idea. They may have something in common, but this organization is just really odd.
-
I'm going to put up a billboard that says "I don't believe in purple unicorns and that doesn't make me a bad person." Does their overwhelming need to belong to a group have to turn them into retards?
Organized religion is essentially a bunch of people wanting to join a group. Some Christians' overwhelming need to belong to a group has turned them into retards.
Did I say any different? I just think it is hypocritical to form a persecution complex just to feel like you are in a group. It's sad.
If you really want to join a group find something you are passionate about and go from there. It's kind of pitiful if your only common interest is not believing in a deity.
Opposed to forming a group with the only common interest is believing in a deity?
Never heard of a group that you join simply for believing in a deity. It's usually people who believe in the same deity and have the same set of customs surrounding their worship of it. That's quite a bit in common.
So atheists don't have the ability to have anything else in common? This can go on forever. Atheists are not any different then theists. I don't totally agree with T.P. Crockmier.
No they aren't. I still think forming a group around atheism is a ridiculous idea. They may have something in common, but this organization is just really odd.
That is because of your mindset and nothing else. I personally would not form a group around the Honda Civic because it is so fucking slow, but you know people do it. You have your opinion, I have mine, and he has his.
-
That is a belief. You can group together and talk about honda civics. What do atheists talk about?
"So I was sitting around not believing in God and I feel I am better for it"
There is literally no point to it. That is like forming a group for people that don't think NASCAR is cool. What would they talk about, not watching nascar?
-
As an atheist, I do feel that atheist groups are rather pointless. I do not oppose religion, I oppose the effect that large groups have on individual, impressionable people. There are, however, individuals that are persecuted due to their atheism, either by their families or by their communities. However, an organized non-religion can be just as bad as an organized religion. I support the freedom of the individual, and a specific group for atheists infringes on that part of my person.
And I drive a Honda Civic. 1991 Civic DX to be exact. It is a fantastically slow car, but it treats me very well and I treat it very well in return. It makes up for its sluggishness by averaging 37 MPG. Mostly city driving. If I take it out on the highway, I'll get 45+
-
Uh, the billboard is not an atheist group nor an invitation to one. It does not invite people to get together or talk. It does not invite people to share their atheist based values. It just promotes skepticism.
I've never even heard of an atheist group short of facebook, which I've have only seen to serve as an alliance against religious arguments and movements. The members are almost completely unconcerned with each other. I've have never seen atheists group together to talk about "atheism and how it's okay".
-
That is a belief. You can group together and talk about honda civics. What do atheists talk about?
"So I was sitting around not believing in God and I feel I am better for it"
There is literally no point to it. That is like forming a group for people that don't think NASCAR is cool. What would they talk about, not watching nascar?
This is a terrible argument.
They could talk about whatever they want. They could also go door to door bothering people.
People that hate nascar could talk about other racing.
-
That is a belief. You can group together and talk about honda civics. What do atheists talk about?
"So I was sitting around not believing in God and I feel I am better for it"
There is literally no point to it. That is like forming a group for people that don't think NASCAR is cool. What would they talk about, not watching nascar?
This is a terrible argument.
They could talk about whatever they want. They could also go door to door bothering people.
People that hate nascar could talk about other racing.
Exactly. NASCAR blows. Rally racing FTW!
-
That is a belief. You can group together and talk about honda civics. What do atheists talk about?
"So I was sitting around not believing in God and I feel I am better for it"
There is literally no point to it. That is like forming a group for people that don't think NASCAR is cool. What would they talk about, not watching nascar?
This is a terrible argument.
They could talk about whatever they want. They could also go door to door bothering people.
People that hate nascar could talk about other racing.
It wasn't an argument. It was me stating why I find something retarded. I'm not going to convince you that your retarded, that would take a state administered IQ test.
-
I'm having difficulty seeing what it is that your drawing from Raist. :-\
I have yet to see evidence that atheist based support groups even exist, that the billboard is in any way connected to such groups, or that such groups would have to arise due to a persecution complex.
-
I'm having difficulty seeing what it is that your drawing from Raist. :-\
I have yet to see evidence that atheist based support groups even exist, that the billboard is in any way connected to such groups, or that such groups would have to arise due to a persecution complex.
So who put up the billboard?
-
So who put up the billboard?
Probably atheists.
-
So who put up the billboard?
Probably atheists.
A group of them? With a website? That put together funds to put up billboards? Sounds like a group.
-
So who put up the billboard?
Probably atheists.
A group of them? With a website? That put together funds to put up billboards? Sounds like a group.
Coming together for a project intended to spread skepticism does not have the same ramifications of a support group.
Edit: At mention of the website, I reviewed the picture to see the URL. Upon visiting the site, I saw this:
The purpose of the sign is 1. to advertise FLASH and let others know there is a group for them and 2. raise public awareness that they have been lied to about who atheists really are.
While I knew that the second reason seems legitimate enough, the first one does imply that these people may meet and talk rather regularly. All that I'm cloudy on now is the support group comparison and the prosecution complex. A group can have many meanings or goals or reasons for existence. For example, one might choose to belong to a group by seeking an identity. Same with buying a certain style of clothes or engaging in certain behavior.
-
Hey George it's Ben Franklin, would you like to help start up a group with me that is opposed to the crown?
No Ben, I think that only noobz form groups that their only common interest is that they are opposed to something.
Oh, that's too bad. The thing that we are opposed to happens to have a strangle hold on the governing bodies here, is costing me money, and is suppressing certain aspects of society. Though, I guess you are right, only an idiot would want to form up a group solely on the basis that we think something is wrong and want to speak out against it.
(Note: This is about as historical as National Treasure)
-
That is a belief. You can group together and talk about honda civics. What do atheists talk about?
"So I was sitting around not believing in God and I feel I am better for it"
There is literally no point to it. That is like forming a group for people that don't think NASCAR is cool. What would they talk about, not watching nascar?
This is a terrible argument.
They could talk about whatever they want. They could also go door to door bothering people.
People that hate nascar could talk about other racing.
It wasn't an argument. It was me stating why I find something retarded. I'm not going to convince you that your retarded, that would take a state administered IQ test.
You are stating your opinion as fact. Way to use personal attacks to draw the argument away so you don't have to actually debate.
-
That is a belief. You can group together and talk about honda civics. What do atheists talk about?
"So I was sitting around not believing in God and I feel I am better for it"
There is literally no point to it. That is like forming a group for people that don't think NASCAR is cool. What would they talk about, not watching nascar?
This is a terrible argument.
They could talk about whatever they want. They could also go door to door bothering people.
People that hate nascar could talk about other racing.
It wasn't an argument. It was me stating why I find something retarded. I'm not going to convince you that your retarded, that would take a state administered IQ test.
You are stating your opinion as fact. Way to use personal attacks to draw the argument away so you don't have to actually debate.
Again, not my job to prove your retarded.
-
That is a belief. You can group together and talk about honda civics. What do atheists talk about?
"So I was sitting around not believing in God and I feel I am better for it"
There is literally no point to it. That is like forming a group for people that don't think NASCAR is cool. What would they talk about, not watching nascar?
This is a terrible argument.
They could talk about whatever they want. They could also go door to door bothering people.
People that hate nascar could talk about other racing.
It wasn't an argument. It was me stating why I find something retarded. I'm not going to convince you that your retarded, that would take a state administered IQ test.
You are stating your opinion as fact. Way to use personal attacks to draw the argument away so you don't have to actually debate.
Again, not my job to prove your retarded.
You meant "you're".
-
That is a belief. You can group together and talk about honda civics. What do atheists talk about?
"So I was sitting around not believing in God and I feel I am better for it"
There is literally no point to it. That is like forming a group for people that don't think NASCAR is cool. What would they talk about, not watching nascar?
This is a terrible argument.
They could talk about whatever they want. They could also go door to door bothering people.
People that hate nascar could talk about other racing.
It wasn't an argument. It was me stating why I find something retarded. I'm not going to convince you that your retarded, that would take a state administered IQ test.
You are stating your opinion as fact. Way to use personal attacks to draw the argument away so you don't have to actually debate.
Again, not my job to prove your retarded.
You meant "you're".
Why are you so naive?
-
That is a belief. You can group together and talk about honda civics. What do atheists talk about?
"So I was sitting around not believing in God and I feel I am better for it"
There is literally no point to it. That is like forming a group for people that don't think NASCAR is cool. What would they talk about, not watching nascar?
This is a terrible argument.
They could talk about whatever they want. They could also go door to door bothering people.
People that hate nascar could talk about other racing.
It wasn't an argument. It was me stating why I find something retarded. I'm not going to convince you that your retarded, that would take a state administered IQ test.
You are stating your opinion as fact. Way to use personal attacks to draw the argument away so you don't have to actually debate.
Again, not my job to prove your retarded.
You meant "you're".
Why are you so naive?
Are you claiming i'm wrong?
-
That is a belief. You can group together and talk about honda civics. What do atheists talk about?
"So I was sitting around not believing in God and I feel I am better for it"
There is literally no point to it. That is like forming a group for people that don't think NASCAR is cool. What would they talk about, not watching nascar?
This is a terrible argument.
They could talk about whatever they want. They could also go door to door bothering people.
People that hate nascar could talk about other racing.
It wasn't an argument. It was me stating why I find something retarded. I'm not going to convince you that your retarded, that would take a state administered IQ test.
You are stating your opinion as fact. Way to use personal attacks to draw the argument away so you don't have to actually debate.
Again, not my job to prove your retarded.
You meant "you're".
No I do not. i would never call you retarded. I am saying it is up to you to prove your retarded correct.
Jesus christ you should learn some grammar.
-
That is a belief. You can group together and talk about honda civics. What do atheists talk about?
"So I was sitting around not believing in God and I feel I am better for it"
There is literally no point to it. That is like forming a group for people that don't think NASCAR is cool. What would they talk about, not watching nascar?
This is a terrible argument.
They could talk about whatever they want. They could also go door to door bothering people.
People that hate nascar could talk about other racing.
It wasn't an argument. It was me stating why I find something retarded. I'm not going to convince you that your retarded, that would take a state administered IQ test.
You are stating your opinion as fact. Way to use personal attacks to draw the argument away so you don't have to actually debate.
Again, not my job to prove your retarded.
You meant "you're".
No I do not. i would never call you retarded. I am saying it is up to you to prove your retarded correct.
Jesus christ you should learn some grammar.
That's not even close to what you meant. An IQ test would have nothing to do with that. Not to mention just reading what you said shows that you did not mean "my retarded".
Don't even talk about my grammar when you don't even capitalize the first letter of a sentence.
-
That is a belief. You can group together and talk about honda civics. What do atheists talk about?
"So I was sitting around not believing in God and I feel I am better for it"
There is literally no point to it. That is like forming a group for people that don't think NASCAR is cool. What would they talk about, not watching nascar?
This is a terrible argument.
They could talk about whatever they want. They could also go door to door bothering people.
People that hate nascar could talk about other racing.
It wasn't an argument. It was me stating why I find something retarded. I'm not going to convince you that your retarded, that would take a state administered IQ test.
You are stating your opinion as fact. Way to use personal attacks to draw the argument away so you don't have to actually debate.
Again, not my job to prove your retarded.
You meant "you're".
No I do not. i would never call you retarded. I am saying it is up to you to prove your retarded correct.
Jesus christ you should learn some grammar.
That's not even close to what you meant. An IQ test would have nothing to do with that. Not to mention just reading what you said shows that you did not mean "my retarded".
Don't even talk about my grammar when you don't even capitalize the first letter of a sentence.
i do not consider punctuation a part of grammar. if I had meant you're retarded i would have typed it that way. especially after you mentioned it in the very last post.
so please, do not try to tell me what my intent was.
aLSO I CAN TALK IN ALL CAPS, IT IS NOT GRAMMATICALLY INCORRECT EITHER. wHEN TALKING IN ALL CAPS i THINK WE SHOULD START MAKING THE FIRST LETTER LOWERCASE TO PRESERVE GRAMMAR.
-
It wasn't an argument. It was me stating why I find something retarded. I'm not going to convince you that your retarded, that would take a state administered IQ test.
How does what you claim make any sense here?
Give it up.
-
It wasn't an argument. It was me stating why I find something retarded. I'm not going to convince you that your retarded, that would take a state administered IQ test.
How does what you claim make any sense here?
Give it up.
Since when does what I write have to make sense? You've never seemed to hold that standard to yoruself.
-
It wasn't an argument. It was me stating why I find something retarded. I'm not going to convince you that your retarded, that would take a state administered IQ test.
How does what you claim make any sense here?
Give it up.
Since when does what I write have to make sense? You've never seemed to hold that standard to yoruself.
Keep digging.
-
I don't know why but I've actually found myself with a deep sort of affection for sokarul. He seems to have more intelligence than most of the other forum members and I get the sense that others are envious of him.
-
I don't know why but I've actually found myself with a deep sort of affection for sokarul. He seems to have more intelligence than most of the other forum members and I get the sense that others are envious of him.
(http://i28.tinypic.com/2ns16yw.jpg)
-
I don't know why but I've actually found myself with a deep sort of affection for sokarul. He seems to have more intelligence than most of the other forum members and I get the sense that others are envious of him.
(http://i28.tinypic.com/2ns16yw.jpg)
I had sex with my father? Or my mom had sex with her father to create me? Either way, it seems like an immature sort of insult.
-
I have no idea what you're talking about. That's a picture of a bunny.
-
Now, I can't be bothered to read 9 pages of what is, from what I can gather, essentially arguing over whether atheism is a system of belief or not. But I'm going to post about the billboard. Why would someone be angry about this? How is this any different from those billboards I see promoting Christianity? What, you can dish it out but you can't take it? What's up with that?
-
Now, I can't be bothered to read 9 pages of what is, from what I can gather, essentially arguing over whether atheism is a system of belief or not. But I'm going to post about the billboard. Why would someone be angry about this? How is this any different from those billboards I see promoting Christianity? What, you can dish it out but you can't take it? What's up with that?
From the perspective of a Christian, their billboards are saving people's souls and therefore inherently good; atheism billboards have the potential to damn souls, and are therefore inherently evil. So you see the difference is like the difference between white and black, between up and down, literally.
-
I think the difference would be one is an attempt to look like a victim while the other is trying to encourage a belief.
-
From the perspective of an atheist, the christian billboards have the real potential of retarding more people by converting drones. The Atheist ones have the possibility of freeing people from a life of needless servitude and fear.
-
From the perspective of an atheist, the christian billboards have the real potential of retarding more people by converting drones. The Atheist ones have the possibility of freeing people from a life of needless servitude and fear.
That's the norm though, and atheists are both fewer and more emotionally downtrodden than christians so it's unlikely that they'll complain as much, as violently or be listened to.
-
Atheists are emotionally downtrodden now?
I swear no one has a neutral stance on this issue. A billboard to convert people's beliefs is FUCKING RETARDED if you gain converts from a billboard then you better have a special seating section for helmets in your club.
-
As an atheist I find the idea of 'atheist groups' rather pointless - certainly in my circles. However, if I found that those who did not except the hypothesis that gods exist, were being discriminated against, I would certainly consider founding a group. However, that group would not be an atheist group as such, it would be a anti-discrimination group.
Atheism is not something to have in common with another as such imo. It makes sense to have a 'cyclists club' but not a 'non cyclists club'.
And on a side note. Atheism is not a belief - atheism is absence of belief. We are all born with no knowledge of gods and therefore we are all atheist by default - we have no belief in gods when we are born. It takes a few years of indoctrination by community and family to get a typical human child to believe in a particular god. The god that child believes in depends entirely on which group of individuals carried out the indoctrination. There are some adults of course who claim to have had a eureka moment and actually been spoken to by a god.
-
Atheists are emotionally downtrodden now?
I swear no one has a neutral stance on this issue. A billboard to convert people's beliefs is FUCKING RETARDED if you gain converts from a billboard then you better have a special seating section for helmets in your club.
of course billboards covert people. The same way that bumper sticks change how people were going to vote.
-
We are all born with no knowledge of gods and therefore we are all atheist by default - we have no belief in gods when we are born.
I've always found this particular fallacy irritating. We are not atheists by default any more than we're mentally challenged by default.
-
We are all born with no knowledge of gods and therefore we are all atheist by default - we have no belief in gods when we are born.
I've always found this particular fallacy irritating. We are not atheists by default any more than we're mentally challenged by default.
Do you propose then that we are theists by default?
-
Now this is a dumb debate if I've ever seen one...
-
We are all born with no knowledge of gods and therefore we are all atheist by default - we have no belief in gods when we are born.
I've always found this particular fallacy irritating. We are not atheists by default any more than we're mentally challenged by default.
Do you propose then that we are theists by default?
Read my sig.
-
Read my sig.
To be agnostic requires knowledge of the concept of gods, so we are not born agnostic. I would therefore argue against it being the default position.
If you are not aware of gods then you cannot believe in them.
-
To be agnostic requires knowledge of the concept of gods
No it doesn't. In fact, it is the only sensible stance to attribute to a person who is ignorant of the concept of a god.
-
I am with Parsifal on this one. Agnosticism is a stance of ignorance, rather than believing that there is no proof of God or something similar. Sure, you can be an agnostic and know of the concept of a God, but you don't need to know of it.
-
We are all born with no knowledge of gods and therefore we are all atheist by default - we have no belief in gods when we are born.
I've always found this particular fallacy irritating. We are not atheists by default any more than we're mentally challenged by default.
???
When we are born we do not believe in god. Do you disagree?
Well, weak atheism at least. Strong atheism requires a concept of god to actively reject.
-
When we are born we are mentally retarded. We have no ability to logic, and not even enough mental capacity to grasp concepts such as distance let alone god.
At most we are agnostics by default because we have no knowledge one way or another.
-
Agnosticism, whilst a useless word in my opinion, still falls under atheism. Atheism is very much the default stance.
-
When we are born we are mentally retarded. We have no ability to logic, and not even enough mental capacity to grasp concepts such as distance let alone god.
At most we are agnostics by default because we have no knowledge one way or another.
Can't Argue with that logic :)
-
When we are born we are mentally retarded. We have no ability to logic, and not even enough mental capacity to grasp concepts such as distance let alone god.
At most we are agnostics by default because we have no knowledge one way or another.
Can't Argue with that logic :)
Have you read the last page? That's what we've been doing.
-
When we are born we are mentally retarded. We have no ability to logic, and not even enough mental capacity to grasp concepts such as distance let alone god.
At most we are agnostics by default because we have no knowledge one way or another.
Can't Argue with that logic :)
Have you read the last page? That's what we've been doing.
Such a literalistic person...I was making a figure of speech...I meant I agree...
-
When we are born we are mentally retarded. We have no ability to logic, and not even enough mental capacity to grasp concepts such as distance let alone god.
At most we are agnostics by default because we have no knowledge one way or another.
Can't Argue with that logic :)
Have you read the last page? That's what we've been doing.
Such a literalistic person...I was making a figure of speech...I meant I agree...
Say what you mean then, and stop using ellipses instead of real punctuation.
-
When we are born we are mentally retarded. We have no ability to logic, and not even enough mental capacity to grasp concepts such as distance let alone god.
At most we are agnostics by default because we have no knowledge one way or another.
Can't Argue with that logic :)
Have you read the last page? That's what we've been doing.
Such a literalistic person...I was making a figure of speech...I meant I agree...
Say what you mean then, and stop using ellipses instead of real punctuation.
No, I will do what I please...
-
At most we are agnostics by default because we have no knowledge one way or another.
You don't need to know about god to not believe in him.
Prior reading this post, did you actively believe in Bubba? He's both a figment of my imagination and a fat ice cream man with a lisp.
-
At most we are agnostics by default because we have no knowledge one way or another.
You don't need to know about god to not believe in him.
Prior reading this post, did you actively believe in Bubba? He's both a figment of my imagination and a fat ice cream man with a lisp.
If I said yes, how much would your point be undermined?
-
Well I'm convinced, no way that's a coincidence! All hail Bubba!
-
If I said yes, how much would your point be undermined?
It was actually rhetorical, but I'd be more worried about you than my point.
-
When we are born we are mentally retarded. We have no ability to logic, and not even enough mental capacity to grasp concepts such as distance let alone god.
mental retardation means that you have a I.Q. below 80 i believe. I.Q. is decided based on your age group. so no all baby's can't be retarded. otherwise we would have everyone in that group in the bottom 50% of that group. trust me the math would not work.
-
We are all born with no knowledge of gods and therefore we are all atheist by default - we have no belief in gods when we are born.
I've always found this particular fallacy irritating. We are not atheists by default any more than we're mentally challenged by default.
???
When we are born we do not believe in god. Do you disagree?
As I alluded, no more than we are retarded when we are born. At that point we are a clean slate, we don't not believe in God anymore than we do believe in God. So when we are born, as Parsifal indicated, we are purely agnostic.
But I think this is a selective definition of the word "default". Evidence seems to support the assertion that early humans, once they started questioning the world around them, attributed existence to a supernatural agent. Such an assumption comes before the scientific understanding that leads some to become atheists. So I think it's more appropriate to say that we are deists by default, once we start questioning the world around us.
I'm really tired so I may not have expressed that as well as I intended. But yeah, I think that since the human mind, lacking the appropriate evidence, defaults to a supernatural explanation for existence, it's more appropriate to say that we are deists by default than that we are atheists by default.
-
it really depends on the semantics of how you define atheist.
if you define it as lack of belief in a god then yes they are all atheist at birth.
if you define it as belief there is no god then no they are not atheist.
-
it really depends on the semantics of how you define atheist.
if you define it as lack of belief in a god then yes they are all atheist at birth.
if you define it as belief there is no god then no they are not atheist.
This is the only kind of atheist I have ever met.
-
Okay, this isn't a person you've probably met, but have you heard of Theamazingatheist on youtube? He claims that there is no God.
-
it really depends on the semantics of how you define atheist.
if you define it as lack of belief in a god then yes they are all atheist at birth.
if you define it as belief there is no god then no they are not atheist.
This is the only kind of atheist I have ever met.
I believe that there is no God. That is what the word "atheist" means to me.
-
Can I just point out that it is funny when people demonize religion, claim atheism is the default, then later admit that the default is "no stance" which technically falls under atheism but is not their view.
If you truthfully think that the default position is correct then you should have no opinion either way because there is 0 evidence in your opinion pointing one way or another except retarded mental masturbation style "proofs" relying so heavily on linguistics and opinion that they would be laughed at in any other context.
-
Dude, I am an agnostic. My stance is the correct one to take for a logical, sane individual. You're the one who's at fault here.
-
Dude, I am an agnostic. My stance is the correct one to take for a logical, sane individual. You're the one who's at fault here.
Wasn't talking to you. Want a cookie?
-
No, I want world peace and a new generation of people who look to their commonalities before they look to their differences.
-
Can I just point out that it is funny when people demonize religion, claim atheism is the default, then later admit that the default is "no stance" which technically falls under atheism but is not their view.
If you truthfully think that the default position is correct then you should have no opinion either way because there is 0 evidence in your opinion pointing one way or another except retarded mental masturbation style "proofs" relying so heavily on linguistics and opinion that they would be laughed at in any other context.
I didn't say the default position was correct, I said it was default. See: http://www.rif.org/
What meaning does a position of agnosticism being correct even have? That there is actually half a God?
-
No, I want world peace and a new generation of people who look to their commonalities before they look to their differences.
Not gonna happen with Religion around. Radical Islam more specifically.
-
Not gonna happen with Religion around. Radical Islam more specifically.
I lol'd. See: Crusades.
-
Not gonna happen with Religion around. Radical Islam more specifically.
I lol'd. See: Crusades.
Right, because the Crusades are going on right now.
-
I think the point he's making is that it isn't just Islamic fundamentalism which is capable of commiting atrocities. It may seem like a cheap argument based on anecdotal evidence, but the fact of the matter is that any theistic religion can do something like that.
-
I think the point he's making is that it isn't just Islamic fundamentalism which is capable of commiting atrocities. It may seem like a cheap argument based on anecdotal evidence, but the fact of the matter is that any theistic religion can do something like that.
The fact of the matter is that Islamic radicals are blowing people up in the name of their religion, not Christians. Sure, any group of people is capable of committing atrocities. That goes without saying and is a point that doesn't need to be made. But, most Christians in today's world would not condone terrorism of any kind. Even the Catholic church was heavily against the US going into Iraq.
-
The fact of the matter is that Islamic radicals are blowing people up in the name of their religion, not Christians.
Wait...what?!?
-
The fact of the matter is that Islamic radicals are blowing people up in the name of their religion, not Christians.
Wait...what?!?
Just sayin'.
-
The fact of the matter is that Islamic radicals are blowing people up in the name of their religion, not Christians.
Wait...what?!?
Just sayin'.
Heard tell o' tha magical lands o' Ireland or the Balkans, where the Christians will blow you up as soon as look at you?
-
You seriously are bantha fodder, banthy. Stop being an idiot and read a book or two.
-
Can I just point out that it is funny when people demonize religion, claim atheism is the default, then later admit that the default is "no stance" which technically falls under atheism but is not their view.
If you truthfully think that the default position is correct then you should have no opinion either way because there is 0 evidence in your opinion pointing one way or another except retarded mental masturbation style "proofs" relying so heavily on linguistics and opinion that they would be laughed at in any other context.
If the default position is not accepting a claim that comes with no evidence or rational argument then yes, it is the correct position. That's why it's the default position. I'd like to know why someone would need evidence to deny a claim made by someone else. The default position on ANY claim is always non-belief until the evidence shows it to be satisfactory. Within that group of non-believers there may be people who go a step further and make a new claim but they still fall under non-believer, but they will then have a burden of proof. There is no burden of proof to not accepting a claim.
-
Can I just point out that it is funny when people demonize religion, claim atheism is the default, then later admit that the default is "no stance" which technically falls under atheism but is not their view.
If you truthfully think that the default position is correct then you should have no opinion either way because there is 0 evidence in your opinion pointing one way or another except retarded mental masturbation style "proofs" relying so heavily on linguistics and opinion that they would be laughed at in any other context.
If the default position is not accepting a claim that comes with no evidence or rational argument then yes, it is the correct position. That's why it's the default position. I'd like to know why someone would need evidence to deny a claim made by someone else. The default position on ANY claim is always non-belief until the evidence shows it to be satisfactory. Within that group of non-believers there may be people who go a step further and make a new claim but they still fall under non-believer, but they will then have a burden of proof. There is no burden of proof to not accepting a claim.
Yes, the default position is no opinion either way. Not an opinion of the negative outcome. If someone says there is a flying tree squirell, and you have not heard of such an animal, the default position would be you do not know whether it does, or does not exist. Believing that it does not exist would basically be a religious belief taken on faith.
-
Can I just point out that it is funny when people demonize religion, claim atheism is the default, then later admit that the default is "no stance" which technically falls under atheism but is not their view.
If you truthfully think that the default position is correct then you should have no opinion either way because there is 0 evidence in your opinion pointing one way or another except retarded mental masturbation style "proofs" relying so heavily on linguistics and opinion that they would be laughed at in any other context.
If the default position is not accepting a claim that comes with no evidence or rational argument then yes, it is the correct position. That's why it's the default position. I'd like to know why someone would need evidence to deny a claim made by someone else. The default position on ANY claim is always non-belief until the evidence shows it to be satisfactory. Within that group of non-believers there may be people who go a step further and make a new claim but they still fall under non-believer, but they will then have a burden of proof. There is no burden of proof to not accepting a claim.
Yes, the default position is no opinion either way. Not an opinion of the negative outcome. If someone says there is a flying tree squirell, and you have not heard of such an animal, the default position would be you do not know whether it does, or does not exist. Believing that it does not exist would basically be a religious belief taken on faith.
However, if nobody suggests there is a flying tree squirrel and you have not heard of such an animal then the default would be the assumption that it does not.
-
There are Christians extremists in the US killing people right now. KKK idealists still exist who hurt and kill black people, abortion clinics are getting bombed, et cetera. They are an extreme minority among Christians ...just like the violent Islams were an extreme minority. Media exaggerates an enemy larger than it is, and our invasion actually made people turn against us, just like Vietnam.
-
Can I just point out that it is funny when people demonize religion, claim atheism is the default, then later admit that the default is "no stance" which technically falls under atheism but is not their view.
If you truthfully think that the default position is correct then you should have no opinion either way because there is 0 evidence in your opinion pointing one way or another except retarded mental masturbation style "proofs" relying so heavily on linguistics and opinion that they would be laughed at in any other context.
If the default position is not accepting a claim that comes with no evidence or rational argument then yes, it is the correct position. That's why it's the default position. I'd like to know why someone would need evidence to deny a claim made by someone else. The default position on ANY claim is always non-belief until the evidence shows it to be satisfactory. Within that group of non-believers there may be people who go a step further and make a new claim but they still fall under non-believer, but they will then have a burden of proof. There is no burden of proof to not accepting a claim.
Yes, the default position is no opinion either way. Not an opinion of the negative outcome. If someone says there is a flying tree squirell, and you have not heard of such an animal, the default position would be you do not know whether it does, or does not exist. Believing that it does not exist would basically be a religious belief taken on faith.
However, if nobody suggests there is a flying tree squirrel and you have not heard of such an animal then the default would be the assumption that it does not.
Sorry, that is incorrect. There is no evidence towards its nonexistence.
-
Sorry, that is incorrect. There is no evidence towards its nonexistence.
I believe his premise is that a lack of evidence constitutes a valid reason for disbelief, not that a lack of evidence is evidence against it.
-
Sorry, that is incorrect. There is no evidence towards its nonexistence.
I believe his premise is that a lack of evidence constitutes a valid reason for disbelief, not that a lack of evidence is evidence against it.
Lack of evidence should not favor a belief or disbelief. You should remain neutral on an issue until evidence is presented.
When it comes to existence, while a negative belief is not provable, it is still technically a positive belief and not the default.
-
Lack of evidence should not favor a belief or disbelief. You should remain neutral on an issue until evidence is presented.
I agree completely. That is why I base my atheistic views on evidence.
-
Lack of evidence should not favor a belief or disbelief. You should remain neutral on an issue until evidence is presented.
I agree completely. That is why I base my atheistic views on evidence.
I'd love to hear any evidence that isn't a pseudo intellectual proof based on opinions and linguistics.
-
I'd love to hear any evidence that isn't a pseudo intellectual proof based on opinions and linguistics.
Second law of thermodynamics.
-
I'd love to hear any evidence that isn't a pseudo intellectual proof based on opinions and linguistics.
Second law of thermodynamics.
Which applies to beings outside of our universe starting when?
-
Which applies to beings outside of our universe starting when?
We have no reason to believe that it doesn't. If physical laws don't apply to God, then God cannot be observed or measured, and may as well not exist.
-
Which applies to beings outside of our universe starting when?
We have no reason to believe that it doesn't.
His existence would be a good indicator of that.
-
When it comes to existence, while a negative belief is not provable, it is still technically a positive belief and not the default.
I agree, which is why I am a weak atheist.
I'd love to hear any evidence that isn't a pseudo intellectual proof based on opinions and linguistics.
The proofs you consider to use linguistics work, the results just have linguistic meaning.
For instance, the argument from evil defines evil the same way it is used in the conclusion. If evil means willfully allowing genocide, than god is that definition of evil.
-
His existence would be a good indicator of that.
So your argument is that any predictions made by scientific theories are invalid, because if things were to be in such a way that invalidates them then they would be invalid?
-
When it comes to existence, while a negative belief is not provable, it is still technically a positive belief and not the default.
I agree, which is why I am a weak atheist.
I'd love to hear any evidence that isn't a pseudo intellectual proof based on opinions and linguistics.
The proofs you consider to use linguistics work, the results just have linguistic meaning.
For instance, the argument from evil defines evil the same way it is used in the conclusion. If evil means willfully allowing genocide, than god is that definition of evil.
And if that genocide prevented something worse? Or stopped a people from dominating the world and doing the same to other races?
One of the most thought provoking pictures I have ever seen (cue instant hatred at me for thinking this way) was of someone telling a teenage boy that he would end up the most hated person in the world and he would have to kill millions of people. He said he never would, and the person explained if he didn't then billions would die. It ends with him tearfully telling someone to burn the bodies.
This is obviously not what happened, and I am in no way suggesting Hitler's innocence (/covering my ass) but it makes you think, what is evil other than our momentary perspective on an event outside of time. Put back into context a moment can be the farthest from evil as can be.
-
And if that genocide prevented something worse? Or stopped a people from dominating the world and doing the same to other races?
You are appealing to a dilemma of comparative evil. If god was omnipotent he wouldn't have to choose to between evils.
-
And if that genocide prevented something worse? Or stopped a people from dominating the world and doing the same to other races?
You are appealing to a dilemma of comparative evil. If god was omnipotent he wouldn't have to choose to between evils.
What if experiencing evil in fact makes a person whole? I can safely say that until you experience an evil you have no perspective on it. If this world is simply preparation for the next, would that not trivialize the evils to the point that they do not matter?
-
What if experiencing evil in fact makes a person whole?
This assumes god cannot present a person with an experience of good (or not experience at all) to make them "whole".
I can safely say that until you experience an evil you have no perspective on it.
We don't have a lot of perspective on a lot of things. If evil didn't exist we wouldn't need any knowledge of it.
Also, the system of building knowledge from experience is natural, but allegedly a system designed by god. He creates the need to experience evil to know evil. Still his fault.
If this world is simply preparation for the next, would that not trivialize the evils to the point that they do not matter?
Are you assuming evil has to exist in the next world?
-
I'm assuming that no matter what we will call certain things evil. It is simply a comparative thing, whether it is being slowly burned alive for five years, or the delivery boy forgetting whether you wanted blue or black pens. From a strictly logical perspective I see no reason why things most people see as evil can not happen.
-
I'm assuming that no matter what we will call certain things evil. It is simply a comparative thing.
Is there evil in your version of heaven?
-
I'm assuming that no matter what we will call certain things evil. It is simply a comparative thing.
Is there evil in your version of heaven?
As much evil as a person brings with them.
-
As much evil as a person brings with them.
Examples?
-
As much evil as a person brings with them.
Examples?
?
-
As much evil as a person brings with them.
Examples?
?
Of how a person can bring evil into heaven in a way god could not prevent.
-
You seriously are bantha fodder, banthy. Stop being an idiot and read a book or two.
I've read plenty of books. Although, I don't see how that changes the fact that terrorists of Middle Eastern origin are blowing people up.
-
As much evil as a person brings with them.
Examples?
?
Of how a person can bring evil into heaven in a way god could not prevent.
They can't.
-
Can I just point out that it is funny when people demonize religion, claim atheism is the default, then later admit that the default is "no stance" which technically falls under atheism but is not their view.
If you truthfully think that the default position is correct then you should have no opinion either way because there is 0 evidence in your opinion pointing one way or another except retarded mental masturbation style "proofs" relying so heavily on linguistics and opinion that they would be laughed at in any other context.
If the default position is not accepting a claim that comes with no evidence or rational argument then yes, it is the correct position. That's why it's the default position. I'd like to know why someone would need evidence to deny a claim made by someone else. The default position on ANY claim is always non-belief until the evidence shows it to be satisfactory. Within that group of non-believers there may be people who go a step further and make a new claim but they still fall under non-believer, but they will then have a burden of proof. There is no burden of proof to not accepting a claim.
Yes, the default position is no opinion either way. Not an opinion of the negative outcome. If someone says there is a flying tree squirell, and you have not heard of such an animal, the default position would be you do not know whether it does, or does not exist. Believing that it does not exist would basically be a religious belief taken on faith.
You're confusing knowing with believing. In this analogy, the default position would be non-belief until the person can prove their claim well enough. Saying "I don't know" is meaningless. Not accepting a claim is not the same as believing the opposite to a claim. Atheism is not accepting a claim. Gnostic atheism is believing the opposite. Gnostic atheists are rare and as they should be because that stance is on very shaky ground.
-
As much evil as a person brings with them.
Examples?
?
Of how a person can bring evil into heaven in a way god could not prevent.
They can't.
So no evil in heaven, then?
-
As much evil as a person brings with them.
Examples?
?
Of how a person can bring evil into heaven in a way god could not prevent.
They can't.
So no evil in heaven, then?
So I take it you are assuming god lets no evil into heaven? You and your weird assumptions, you basically have your own religion that you believe christians must follow or something.
-
So I take it you are assuming god lets no evil into heaven? You and your weird assumptions, you basically have your own religion that you believe christians must follow or something.
I came to that conclusion based on the Christian's I know firsthand and from the fact that he is allegedly omnibenevolent. Allowing unnecessary and preventable evil in heaven is the same dilemma that you're trying to defend on Earth.
-
So I take it you are assuming god lets no evil into heaven? You and your weird assumptions, you basically have your own religion that you believe christians must follow or something.
I came to that conclusion based on the Christian's I know firsthand and from the fact that he is allegedly omnibenevolent. Allowing unnecessary and preventable evil in heaven is the same dilemma that you're trying to defend on Earth.
Well unnecessary evil is not allowed into heaven, those people tend to go to hell. The evil people bring with them is him allowing us freedom of choice. Do I think any "evil" acts happen in heaven? No.
-
I thought the ideas was that once in heaven we are made perfect again like Adam and Eve so will never sin....oh wait.
-
The evil people bring with them is him allowing us freedom of choice. Do I think any "evil" acts happen in heaven? No.
Are you telling me that there are no choices in heaven?
And by "evil" do you mean significant evil?
-
The evil people bring with them is him allowing us freedom of choice. Do I think any "evil" acts happen in heaven? No.
Are you telling me that there are no choices in heaven?
And by "evil" do you mean significant evil?
There are choices in heaven. And by evil I mean, you are using a subjective term and asking if it happens. Can I ask you if "cool" happens in nature?
-
So what happens if you try to commit an evil act in heaven? 404?
-
Hold on, isn't the whole point of Christianity that "good" and "evil" aren't subjective?
-
Hold on, isn't the whole point of Christianity that "good" and "evil" aren't subjective?
Only when it suits.
-
Atheists = your new African Americans.
I don't think Atheists have as much of a loving for watermelon, fried chicken and stealing TVs.
-
Atheists = your new African Americans.
I don't think Atheists have as much of a loving for watermelon, fried chicken and stealing TVs.
This isn't funny because it has no subtlety.
-
Atheists = your new African Americans.
I don't think Atheists have as much of a loving for watermelon, fried chicken and stealing TVs.
This isn't funny because it has no subtlety.
We do have one particular trait in common though.
-
You both fight "The Man".
-
I thought it was that they both transmit veneral diseases.
-
So what happens if you try to commit an evil act in heaven? 404?
You wouldn't or you wouldn't be in heaven?
Also, wtf is this "evil" you all speak of. I'm sorry but no action is an isolated event that can easily be categorized, let alone into 2 distinct categories.
*inserts donnie darko rant about the "fear/love" line*
-
[...]The full spectrum of human emotion[...]
-
[...]The full spectrum of human emotion[...]
Yes, that one, it reminded me of some classes.
Those self help books I can usually summarize from their title and state several examples they used and how they used them incorrectly.
My favorite was one about the bucket. My girlfriend thought I had read it because I was giving quotes from the book.
-
So what happens if you try to commit an evil act in heaven? 404?
You wouldn't or you wouldn't be in heaven?
Also, wtf is this "evil" you all speak of. I'm sorry but no action is an isolated event that can easily be categorized, let alone into 2 distinct categories.
*inserts donnie darko rant about the "fear/love" line*
Surely when we talk about "good" and "evil" in this context we mean the supposed objective morality spouted by theists. I think we all know what we're talking about so it's fair to use those words in a hypothetical debate on heaven.
-
Do I think any evil acts happen in heaven? No.
And by evil do you mean significant evil?
By evil I mean, you are using a subjective term and asking if it happens. Can I ask you if "cool" happens in nature?
"Evil" that god would punish you for, or what a vast majority of humans would agree on as evil. I'll just start calling that significant evil, since I doubt your god would send you to hell for cheating on a test in the third grade.
The point is that God allows 'significant evil' on Earth.
-
Do I think any evil acts happen in heaven? No.
And by evil do you mean significant evil?
By evil I mean, you are using a subjective term and asking if it happens. Can I ask you if "cool" happens in nature?
"Evil" that god would punish you for, or what a vast majority of humans would agree on as evil. I'll just start calling that significant evil, since I doubt your god would send you to hell for cheating on a test in the third grade.
The point is that God allows 'significant evil' on Earth.
Again, subjective bullshit is not proof of anything. "significant evil" is purely a subjective term, and there is no proof god would not allow it. In fact odds are he is fairly entertained by it, hence allowing it.
-
Again, subjective bullshit is not proof of anything. "significant evil" is purely a subjective term, and there is no proof god would not allow it. In fact odds are he is fairly entertained by it, hence allowing it.
I defined significant evil as evil that god does not allow. As Proleg already pointed out, it is one of god's purposes to give dictate objectivity.
Also, when god is the designator and the interpreter, the proof that god would not allow it is already definitional. God would not allow x, since x is something defined to be something god would not allow.
There's no point in having terms of good and evil/sin in biblical context if you digress that evil isn't a valid category. A divine definition of evil must exist for us to be sent to hell. You are just dodging examples of evil under the pretense that evil has no perfectly exact definition. If you want, I can rephrase my statement to say: "The god of the bible intentionally allows evil that the bible defines as evil."
-
Again, subjective bullshit is not proof of anything. "significant evil" is purely a subjective term, and there is no proof god would not allow it. In fact odds are he is fairly entertained by it, hence allowing it.
I defined significant evil as evil that god does not allow. As Proleg already pointed out, it is one of god's purposes to give dictate objectivity.
Also, when god is the designator and the interpreter, the proof that god would not allow it is already definitional. God would not allow x, since x is something defined to be something god would not allow.
There's no point in having terms of good and evil/sin in biblical context if you digress that evil isn't a valid category. A divine definition of evil must exist for us to be sent to hell. You are just dodging examples of evil under the pretense that evil has no perfectly exact definition. If you want, I can rephrase my statement to say: "The god of the bible intentionally allows evil that the bible defines as evil."
Again, you are using the word evil in your definition without defining evil. Subjective term is subjective.
As for something god would not allow, that would be outside of our experience because god has allowed all of our experiences to happen.
-
Not my definition.
As for something god would not allow, that would be outside of our experience because god has allowed all of our experiences to happen.
Not allow in heaven, because he deems it evil.
My comparison used heaven because much less is allowed/possible there, than here... at least according to the bible.
-
Not my definition.
As for something god would not allow, that would be outside of our experience because god has allowed all of our experiences to happen.
Not allow in heaven, because he deems it evil.
My comparison used heaven because much less is allowed/possible there, than here... at least according to the bible.
Where does the bible mention heaven or that you aren't allowed to do things there?
-
Where does the bible mention heaven or that you aren't allowed to do things there?
God punishes people who sin and commit evil with hell, and allows those who commit lesser sin to come to heaven right?
Isn't that allowing evil action on Earth where some of those same actions are not allowed or made impossible in heaven?
That means that he places us in a world more evil than it has to be. God made a nicer place. Mass starvation is a function of the Earth that god designed. Assuming you can't starve in heaven, Earth is poorly designed, or it is not intended to be as nice as it could easily be.
-
Where does the bible mention heaven or that you aren't allowed to do things there?
God punishes people who sin and commit evil with hell, and allows those who commit lesser sin to come to heaven right?
Isn't that allowing evil action on Earth where some of those same actions are not allowed or made impossible in heaven?
That means that he places us in a world more evil than it has to be. God made a nicer place. Mass starvation is a function of the Earth that god designed. Assuming you can't starve in heaven, Earth is poorly designed, or it is not intended to be as nice as it could easily be.
What actions does he not allow? Punishing someone for an action is not the same as not allowing it.
-
What actions does he not allow? Punishing someone for an action is not the same as not allowing it.
The inherent limits of heaven prevent billions of evil acts like torture, whereas reality was built with rules allowing torture.
-
What actions does he not allow? Punishing someone for an action is not the same as not allowing it.
The inherent limits of heaven prevent billions of evil acts like torture, whereas reality was built with rules allowing torture.
a) is torture evil?
b) who said you can't torture someone in heaven? That certainly wouldn't be heaven for sadists.
c) you can't do whatever you want in our reality either.
-
a) is torture evil?
I'd assume so if it was done without justification, but what really matters is your religion. Do you consider it to be a sin? As long as there is a distinction of sin, there is a distinction of evil. That's the point.
b) who said you can't torture someone in heaven? That certainly wouldn't be heaven for sadists.
That wouldn't be heaven for the victims.
c) you can't do whatever you want in reality either.
So?
-
But heaven is without sin. That doesn't mean that you can't do certain things, it means there is no sin.
What about sadists that spend their whole lives not hurting people? Shouldn't heaven be a reward for them? And also masochists would certainly enjoy receiving the sadists pain.
-
But heaven is without sin. That doesn't mean that you can't do certain things, it means there is no sin.
What about sadists that spend their whole lives not hurting people? Shouldn't heaven be a reward for them? And also masochists would certainly enjoy receiving the sadists pain.
So heaven is a Dionysian orgy of sex, drugs and horrific violence? Is that what you strive for? In that case the mere act of wanting to go there is a sin.
-
But heaven is without sin. That doesn't mean that you can't do certain things, it means there is no sin.
What about sadists that spend their whole lives not hurting people? Shouldn't heaven be a reward for them? And also masochists would certainly enjoy receiving the sadists pain.
So heaven is a Dionysian orgy of sex, drugs and horrific violence? Is that what you strive for? In that case the mere act of wanting to go there is a sin.
I've never been there. I was asking a question. And if your heaven is an orgy of sex drugs and violence, I doubt you made it to heaven in the first place. Though I do not know that and am just assuming.
-
But heaven is without sin. That doesn't mean that you can't do certain things, it means there is no sin.
What about sadists that spend their whole lives not hurting people? Shouldn't heaven be a reward for them? And also masochists would certainly enjoy receiving the sadists pain.
So heaven is a Dionysian orgy of sex, drugs and horrific violence? Is that what you strive for? In that case the mere act of wanting to go there is a sin.
I've never been there. I was asking a question. And if your heaven is an orgy of sex drugs and violence, I doubt you made it to heaven in the first place. Though I do not know that and am just assuming.
You claimed that sin as a concept did not exist there. Since "sin" is the religionword for "immoral act", that basically means heaven is without inherent immorality which to your bog-standard christian is any morality. I addressed that, and left it to Singy to answer the questions you asked him.
Whoa, whoa. Hang on a minute, I get a different heaven? I spend eternity without any moral or social limits, but totally alone? That's awful!
-
But heaven is without sin. That doesn't mean that you can't do certain things, it means there is no sin.
What about sadists that spend their whole lives not hurting people? Shouldn't heaven be a reward for them? And also masochists would certainly enjoy receiving the sadists pain.
So heaven is a Dionysian orgy of sex, drugs and horrific violence? Is that what you strive for? In that case the mere act of wanting to go there is a sin.
I've never been there. I was asking a question. And if your heaven is an orgy of sex drugs and violence, I doubt you made it to heaven in the first place. Though I do not know that and am just assuming.
You claimed that sin as a concept did not exist there. Since "sin" is the religionword for "immoral act", that basically means heaven is without inherent immorality which to your bog-standard christian is any morality. I addressed that, and left it to Singy to answer the questions you asked him.
Whoa, whoa. Hang on a minute, I get a different heaven? I spend eternity without any moral or social limits, but totally alone? That's awful!
No idea.
I didn't mean the acts that we consider sins are no longer there, I mean those events are not considered sin. Also, the bible never really talks about heaven until long after the death of anyone that was even reasonably connected to God.
-
...So wait. You're saying an action considered "bad" on Earth can get someone damned for all eternity, yet by going to heaven the same actions and behavior are not bad anymore?
-
...So wait. You're saying an action considered "bad" on Earth can get someone damned for all eternity, yet by going to heaven the same actions and behavior are not bad anymore?
If there is a world without pain, without suffering, without sadness, without hurt, how could anything you do there be bad?
-
If there is a world without pain, without suffering, without sadness, without hurt, how could anything you do there be bad?
So there isn't pain now? Poor masochists. :P
Well, this is actually convenient because my original point was defending the argument from evil by saying that God built the world with all of the "badness" you say doesn't extend to heaven. Therefore, we now know he could have built the world free of it for two reasons:
1. He's omnipotent.
2. He's made already made a better place.
These evils are unnecessary since he could have done better.
-
In your opinion better. Our experiences help make us who we are.
-
In your opinion better. Our experiences help make us who we are.
You know that "better" was just the word approximation approaching the condition that he is or is not omnibenevolent, which was the core issue.
Also, what are you trying to say in your second sentence? That we are somehow better because of our experienced of evil, then we would be without?
I'll be back tomorrow.
-
In your opinion better. Our experiences help make us who we are.
You know that "better" was just the word approximation approaching the condition that he is or is not omnibenevolent, which was the core issue.
Also, what are you trying to say in your second sentence? That we are somehow better because of our experienced of evil, then we would be without?
I'll be back tomorrow.
Yes, i'd say that. Hard experiences tend to make people better.
-
He already made a better place according to Christians, it was called Eden.
Think how short a time it took 2 humans to rebel against God. If even a million people go to Heaven how long does God think it will stay perfect?
-
He already made a better place according to Christians, it was called Eden.
Think how short a time it took 2 humans to rebel against God. If even a million people go to Heaven how long does God think it will stay perfect?
However long he wants.
-
He already made a better place according to Christians, it was called Eden.
Think how short a time it took 2 humans to rebel against God. If even a million people go to Heaven how long does God think it will stay perfect?
However long he wants.
So there's no such thing as free will?
-
He already made a better place according to Christians, it was called Eden.
Think how short a time it took 2 humans to rebel against God. If even a million people go to Heaven how long does God think it will stay perfect?
However long he wants.
So there's no such thing as free will?
What?
-
He already made a better place according to Christians, it was called Eden.
Think how short a time it took 2 humans to rebel against God. If even a million people go to Heaven how long does God think it will stay perfect?
However long he wants.
So there's no such thing as free will?
What?
If he can prevent humanity from sinning once they get to heaven he has taken away their free will.
-
He already made a better place according to Christians, it was called Eden.
Think how short a time it took 2 humans to rebel against God. If even a million people go to Heaven how long does God think it will stay perfect?
However long he wants.
So there's no such thing as free will?
What?
If he can prevent humanity from sinning once they get to heaven he has taken away their free will.
Sounds like a reasonable conclusion to me.
-
Maybe in heaven, everyone is in their own "Matrix" world, designed solely for them. There you can do all of the things that make you happy, without hurting anyone else. It would be like an extremely realistic video game.
Sure, you technically wouldn't be seeing your loved ones there. But you wouldn't know the difference anyway.
-
If he can prevent humanity from sinning once they get to heaven he has taken away their free will.
GD got it already so I won't bother.
Yes, i'd say that. Hard experiences tend to make people better.
Being subjected to hardships makes us better at coping with and overcoming hardships. It's an adaptation that is only as necessary as its precursors.
-
If he can prevent humanity from sinning once they get to heaven he has taken away their free will.
GD got it already so I won't bother.
Yes, i'd say that. Hard experiences tend to make people better.
Being subjected to hardships makes us better at coping with and overcoming hardships. It's an adaptation that is only as necessary as its precursors.
Not at dealing with hardships, but with doing what is necessary. You have a very jaded world view, you really need a few positive role models in your life.
-
It always depresses me when Raist fails. :(
-
It always depresses me when Raist fails. :(
How can I fail when I never cared?