Is there a general distain of Christianity on the forums?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . 17 NEXT
 

Polarity27:

I think I need to have canned copypasta for what I'm about to say, b/c I've said versions of it so many times. Here's my problem with the kind of thing you're talking about (and if I confuse you, I'm largely agreeing with you), having an argument with things religions espouse (like belief in things supernatural) and having an argument with things religions *do* (coercive politics and law-making, particularly) are two *different* arguments. I get so frustrated seeing atheists argue on here and basically run them together as if they're the same thing, when they're really, really not.

That second argument, about what a religion *does*, is something a lot of people-- including religious people-- have a problem with. This is where the worst harm is being done, this is where the effort should (IMO) be IRL. I don't have a problem with atheists also having a problem with what religions believe as well, but I do have a problem with the idea that bad process always follows the existence of some kind of belief. If a case can be made that belief, itself, is harmful it needs to be made without the process stuff that's not consistent between people with the same beliefs.

So basically judge people by their actions and hold them accountable? I'm totally on board with that! And I DO agree that religion has absolutely ZERO place in politics. That really pisses me off. As I mentioned earlier but think I didn't make clear, I have no problem letting people believe what they believe as long as its harmless. Once it becomes harmful to others that is where I have severe problems.

Polarity27:

No. Nobody "makes" someone a bigot, if you're going to be one, learn to own your BS instead of blaming it on other people. But then, that's the whole problem with you, you don't. I'm filth and vermin because I had the sheer audacity to call you out on saying something ridiculous-- and I love how I'm bigger filth and vermin than the *men* who called you on your shit. Oh, and just for you...

image

Goodnight, sweet Scarlett.

No, you can make somebody a bigot, you can drive them to such a point where they hate you and everyone like you with every ounce of your being.

And please, feel free to explain what I said that was so "stupid and ignorant"? Was it saying "I believe Anti-Theists can sometimes be worse than most zealous christians"? That's all I said, I never said they were as bad as "terrorists" nor did I say they did anything close to "De-Gaying Camps" but apparently I'm not allowed to clarify my point, only those freaks are allowed to do that for me. Well my belief in that has only been further and further strengthened. At first, I could tolerate them as just zealots "for the other side", well now I realize they're rats, they're pompous scumbags who hide their bigotry behind "tolerance" and freak out whenever someone says anything "mean" about them.

And the reason why you're the bigger filth Polarity? It has nothing to do with "men" or "sexism", it has to do with your character.

The other filth I could understand for their comments, after all most of them were Anti-Theistic or at the very least Atheistic, they had a reason and a cause for hating what I said. But you? You're neither of those things. Up until that point, I had absolutely no negative opinion of you. Hell I even considered you to be a bit of a "friend" on the forums, but when it came to that debate you showed your true colors. I had about four other people all telling me off for being "ignorant" (apparently having any disdain of Anti theists at all makes you a "bigot" of the worst caliber) there was no reason to add another person's voice to that conversation.

Yet, in my moment of weakness, you came along with a personal attack. You had no reason to, after all an Anti-Theist would consider your faith just as backwards and harmful as mine. I said absolutely nothing about your faith until that point, I never insulted you, and I never even mentioned you. Yet, when it seemed like that whole thread was "ganging up" on me, you jumped in like a vulture on dead animal and started to tear off a piece for yourself.

That, Polarity, is why of all the filth, you are the worst of all. The others had their personal reasons and their comments can be justified by them. But you? You were just a vermin who was jumping on the weakest thing it could find, you proved that despite all that talk of "tolerance" or "liberalism" at the very core of your being you were filth. You were what caused me to snap, the others I could handle, but you not only gave an attack on my person, but you betrayed what I considered a friendship. In my mind, anyone who betrays a friend is nothing but a pile of utter filth, worse than the others, a vermin who doesn't deserve even the slightest sliver of trust. You've read my posts before, you know that I usually try to find some "happy medium" between the Atheists and the Theists, I debated people before but you should have known that I never actually hated them. Until now, until you proved to me that attempting to be the "nice guy" at all isn't worth crap, because in the end you say one wrong thing and you have the entire forums as your enemy, and filth like you who feel the need to continue the "attack" by adding in their own comments.

Go whine and cry about how the "big bad Christian got angry at you" somewhere else, I've had enough of your moaning. In the end, my opinion of you has officially anchored at this: You. Disgust. Me.

Now, feel free to reply to this or not, I'd rather not keep this thread from going off the rails with our argument. In the end this conversation would solve nothing, I'd still see you as scum and you'd still see me as an idiot who's letting anger and bigotry cloud his judgement. We're ending this conversation now. We can go our separate ways and continue to hate each other in silence. No need to constantly keep this thread going by spewing hateful comments towards each other.

unabomberman:

Polarity27:

crazyarms33:

But you can't compare the two IMO. Not because science isn't worthwhile and great,(it totally is) but because belief in the supernatural/divine is a matter of faith. Faith and science for lack of better terms can't be measured on the same plane. Faith by its nature is subjective and different for each person. I am not claiming that religious people are outside of science, don't misunderstand me. But to try and tear down what someone believes in, whether its true or not, is silly to me provided they aren't hurting anyone. Those Westboro Baptist church folks and religious whackos like that, absolutely bash them and try and convince them because they do so much more harm than good. But for most people of faith, whether they be Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, whatever, don't bother anybody. If it makes them happy and doesn't hurt anyone, why get in a tizzy? I mean, the arguments DO have merit, but to me if someone is a true believer in whatever religion they choose to follow, an internet forum argument isn't going to persuade them.

I think I need to have canned copypasta for what I'm about to say, b/c I've said versions of it so many times. Here's my problem with the kind of thing you're talking about (and if I confuse you, I'm largely agreeing with you), having an argument with things religions espouse (like belief in things supernatural) and having an argument with things religions *do* (coercive politics and law-making, particularly) are two *different* arguments. I get so frustrated seeing atheists argue on here and basically run them together as if they're the same thing, when they're really, really not.

That second argument, about what a religion *does*, is something a lot of people-- including religious people-- have a problem with. This is where the worst harm is being done, this is where the effort should (IMO) be IRL. I don't have a problem with atheists also having a problem with what religions believe as well, but I do have a problem with the idea that bad process always follows the existence of some kind of belief. If a case can be made that belief, itself, is harmful it needs to be made without the process stuff that's not consistent between people with the same beliefs.

We are mostly in agreement. Though I should just want to point out that one viewpoint involves willful irrationality-which isn't bad so long as it doesn't hurt either you, third parties, or your social environment-and the other doesn't and, in fact, looks down on it as a waste of time.

I just can't see why people who make god claims can't just say "Yes, I am being irrational about that particular bit but that's just how I feel." If you really stop and think about it, we humans, as mammals, have a lot of in-built irrational tendencies like the appeal to authority, the desire to be wholly independent but at the same time hold a craving for group validation, etc., etc. The belief on a deity could be an extension of a natural drive of folk, irrational as it may be. Such position wouldn't be bad at all, and the self-understanding it would grant would be kind of commendable in a way.

Some people who make god claims do actually do that. Others say "I believe in this thing with this name, but its true nature isn't known and really can't be known by any means currently available to us" (agnostic theism, which is what I am)-- that doesn't, btw, obviate the idea that "true nature" is somewhere in your own brain, or in some kind of collective unconscious (we, humanity I mean, do tend to repeat archetypes across cultures), it just means "not knowable right now, or perhaps ever". Literalism of any kind makes me cringe, it's just so reductive.

The thing I'm trying to say with the two different arguments idea is the presumption that, for atheists, they amount to a desire to change something, and not to simply piss in the wind and argue on the interwebs. (I mean, I'm not one, and if I'm wrong, please jump up and correct me.) *If* change is sought, you kind of have to disentangle those two arguments, because the remedy for process issues isn't to change beliefs (well, sometimes it is, but often it isn't), but to look at religions-- particularly ones from the same stem-- and say "okay, what's going on with this sect over here that isn't going on with this sect over there, because the one here is getting all mixed up in politics and hurting people and the one over there isn't. So what needs to happen to encourage more like that one and less like this one?" If you've an interest in civil rights, you've got to go after that question a lot harder than the more philosophical, less easily answerable "does faith inherently cause harm". At the very least, they've got to be separate discussions, because process questions, like I said, have a lot of broad support, and are actually practical.

(And I tend to the belief that a lot of asking questions about process leads to more research (on the personal level) and more understanding of religious diversity, which may not get rid of that other question, but is going to make it a lot more nuanced. Which, in turn, helps everyone that's affected by sects with lousy process issues.)

Witty Name Here:

And please, feel free to explain what I said that was so "stupid and ignorant"? Was it saying "I believe Anti-Theists can sometimes be worse than most zealous christians"? That's all I said, I never said they were as bad as "terrorists" nor did I say they did anything close to "De-Gaying Camps" but apparently I'm not allowed to clarify my point, only those freaks are allowed to do that for me. Well my belief in that has only been further and further strengthened. At first, I could tolerate them as just zealots "for the other side", well now I realize they're rats, they're pompous scumbags who hide their bigotry behind "tolerance" and freak out whenever someone says anything "mean" about them.

I actually need to take this question, for the benefit of anyone watching, because it's *very* germane to the OP.

Please back up, with some examples, of instances where anti-theists are actually worse than the most zealous Christians. In fact, please back up how anti-theists have done, or have the power to do, anything other than be really unpleasant on message boards. At best, they're *annoyances* that might personally insult you. The "most zealous Christians" OTOH are actually hurting people IRL. A lot of people. A lot of people in groups I happen to belong to (women, LGBTQs, the disabled, non-Christians), so what the "most zealous Christians" are doing politically is very much a personal issue to me-- and to many people I know well. Do you want to know, for instance, how many gay people I've met who have been thrown out of their houses as teenagers by zealous Christian families? I mentioned de-gaying therapy because I know someone who went through it, who will very likely never be right because of it.

In my off-hours, I volunteer politically, and try to convince people not to be swayed by false equivalences. "Both sides do it, they're both as bad", say so many voters. When they're orders of magnitude different. So it frustrates me when people do it on here, and the one you did is the same kind of shit served on a slightly different-colored plate. I've never heard of an anti-theist terrorist. I've never heard of anti-theist legislation. I've never met someone thrown out of their house for believing in Christ when their parents are anti-theist. I've never, actually, heard of an anti-theist who did anything worse than troll people online. If you're thinking "trolls are assholes", I'm not actually going to disagree with you. But that's a far cry from being "worse" than what "the most zealous" Christians get up to, and what those Christians get up to actually affects me more than it does a lot of the atheists on here. So if you think it's not personal for me, you really have another think coming. (And tolerance of the intolerant? Neither required nor a terribly good idea.)

And to the OP: If there's disdain here for Christianity, the overwhelming majority of it is because we've seen the effects of unfettered Christianity with some really really problematic processes on at least one country's political structure, and it's not pretty (to say the least). The worst part is, other Christians are better positioned to stop that insanity than non-Christians are, but entirely too many can't get past their defensiveness (see: dude I'm replying to here) and desire to believe in the inherent goodness of Christians as a group to actually *do shit to change things*.

Cakes:

keinechance:
To repent?

For what?

And the Lord saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time.

Seems like some pretty serious flaws IMO.

And I'm guessing that includes all the plants and animals who are not sentient, and have no concept of good and evil?

And I guess that includes young children and babys and the unborn inside the womb who have no concept of good and evil yet?

I guess they are just "collateral damage" for the genocidal psychopath that you call God.

keinechance:
For being exactly like your omnipotent and omniscient God made them?

Cakes:
Good excuse, only works if you believe in predestination.

So, your God is not omnipotent and omniscient?

Helmholtz Watson:

keinechance:

Buretsu:
The problem is that most of the people who identify as Atheist see no irony in persecuting someone for their beliefs, while condemning others for doing just that. Because it's all right to insult someone for believing in God, but the second someone gets insulted for not believing in God, the shitstorm begins.

As soon as you provide evidence for your claim of the existence of your version of your God and the resulting belief in said version of your god, you will find that we atheists will stop making fun of your beliefs.

Prove an alternative to the Divine without telling me that something comes from nothing.

You are trying to shift "The Burden of Proof" here.

YOU make a positiv claim, i.e. God exists.

YOU have to provide evidence for the existence of your God.

Unless you can provide such evidence, there is no reason to give your baseless claim of a God any credibility.

Witty Name Here:
No, you can make somebody a bigot, you can drive them to such a point where they hate you and everyone like you with every ounce of your being.

So can you maybe begin to understand now why some atheists have a little bit of a hair-trigger response to Christianity, because they keep get shat on by them?

And please, feel free to explain what I said that was so "stupid and ignorant"? Was it saying "I believe Anti-Theists can sometimes be worse than most zealous christians"? That's all I said, I never said they were as bad as "terrorists" nor did I say they did anything close to "De-Gaying Camps"

But the worst Christians ARE those who commit acts of terrorism. Bombing abortion clinics etc.

The problem with saying "the worst" means that no-one knows that you only meant loudmouth fundies as people are generally aware of worse behaviour by Christians than that - and instead of acknowledging that you massively f'ed up the communication if that's NOT what you meant, you went on a massive drama queen rant.

but apparently I'm not allowed to clarify my point, only those freaks are allowed to do that for me. Well my belief in that has only been further and further strengthened. At first, I could tolerate them as just zealots "for the other side", well now I realize they're rats, they're pompous scumbags who hide their bigotry behind "tolerance" and freak out whenever someone says anything "mean" about them.

And you're doing....what, exactly?

And the reason why you're the bigger filth Polarity? It has nothing to do with "men" or "sexism", it has to do with your character.

The other filth I could understand for their comments, after all most of them were Anti-Theistic or at the very least Atheistic, they had a reason and a cause for hating what I said.

Not because of their position. People hated what you said because of, funnily enough, what you said, not because you're Christian so everything automatically fails.

But you? You're neither of those things. Up until that point, I had absolutely no negative opinion of you. Hell I even considered you to be a bit of a "friend" on the forums, but when it came to that debate you showed your true colors. I had about four other people all telling me off for being "ignorant" (apparently having any disdain of Anti theists at all makes you a "bigot" of the worst caliber) there was no reason to add another person's voice to that conversation.

No. Because it's false equivalency. Which is the same shit that a lot of atheists have to put with all the time. Merely making strident criticisms is enough to get you labelled militant.

I make this point a lot, but it bears repeating - in the UK (a place I previously thought was somewhat sane towards nonbelief) an atheist won a case that established a precedent where council prayers would have to be held off the clock, i.e. not on official council time. This spawned a week of daft headlines about MILITANT ATHEIST SECULARISM, most of which missed the point. We had a peer of the realm accuse us of being totalitarian, she then went sucking up to the pope who had previously explicitly equated us to the Nazis (and he would know, wouldn't he?!).

You know what else happened in the UK that week? A Christian couple were in the courts appealing their conviction for discrimination against a gay couple that they turned away from their hotel (and talk about rights all you want, it came out in court that they'd had no problem letting unmarried heterosexual couples stay there, so they're hardly being consistent), and also that week saw the end of the trial of Abu Qatada, a Muslim hate preacher.

But no, an atheist using the court to establish reform via precedent (i.e. properly)? Clearly this is the real problem here!

Oirish_Martin:
We had a peer of the realm accuse us of being totalitarian, she then went sucking up to the pope who had previously explicitly equated us to the Nazis (and he would know, wouldn't he?!).

As a german citizen, I apologize that the current head of the catholic sect ( You know, the guy who claimed that condoms make the African Aids crisis worse ) comes from my neck of the planet.

recruit00:

everythingbeeps:
snip

While the idea that religion comes up as the main thing for abortions I definitely agree with, you can't say that that is the only reason. I see it not as a religious thing but as a human morality issue and how we treat our own kind. I mean, it could be the catholic influence on me, but to me, it is not religion but morality.

Religion and morality are connected, a lot of what people consider "moral" is rooted in religion. It is the catholic influence on you, that influence is on a lot of people, many of whom aren't religious.

But that doesn't make it correct. We're still letting ourselves be dictated by rules invented by ultra-primitive people who thought slavery was keen and women were property.

As far as abortion, it comes down to when you think a shapeless clump of cells is a "human", and as I pointed out, everyone seems to have different criteria. For some, it's the development of a nervous system, or a heart, or a definable shape, or whatever. For some, it's the idea of "the soul", which apparently exists from conception. There's a reason that most people who are pro-choice draw a line at around three months.

keinechance:

Cakes:

keinechance:
To repent?

For what?

And the Lord saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time.

Seems like some pretty serious flaws IMO.

And I'm guessing that includes all the plants and animals who are not sentient, and have no concept of good and evil?

And I guess that includes young children and babys and the unborn inside the womb who have no concept of good and evil yet?

I guess they are just "collateral damage" for the genocidal psychopath that you call God.

keinechance:
For being exactly like your omnipotent and omniscient God made them?

Cakes:
Good excuse, only works if you believe in predestination.

So, your God is not omnipotent and omniscient?

What does that have to do with it? As long as people can pick their own path then someone being able to see that path doesn't change the fact that they have choice available to them.

Wolverine18:

keinechance:

Cakes:

Seems like some pretty serious flaws IMO.

And I'm guessing that includes all the plants and animals who are not sentient, and have no concept of good and evil?

And I guess that includes young children and babys and the unborn inside the womb who have no concept of good and evil yet?

I guess they are just "collateral damage" for the genocidal psychopath that you call God.

keinechance:
For being exactly like your omnipotent and omniscient God made them?

Cakes:
Good excuse, only works if you believe in predestination.

So, your God is not omnipotent and omniscient?

What does that have to do with it? As long as people can pick their own path then someone being able to see that path doesn't change the fact that they have choice available to them.

God, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, knows the choices his creations will make, but still creates them, knowing what they will do, and then punishes them for doing exactly what he knew they would do.

Does that not sound a little crazy to you?

keinechance:

Wolverine18:

keinechance:

And I'm guessing that includes all the plants and animals who are not sentient, and have no concept of good and evil?

And I guess that includes young children and babys and the unborn inside the womb who have no concept of good and evil yet?

I guess they are just "collateral damage" for the genocidal psychopath that you call God.

So, your God is not omnipotent and omniscient?

What does that have to do with it? As long as people can pick their own path then someone being able to see that path doesn't change the fact that they have choice available to them.

God, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, knows the choices his creations will make, but still creates them, knowing what they will do, and then punishes them for doing exactly what he knew they would do.

Does that not sound a little crazy to you?

Not if they had free will to make those choices or not.

The problem is humans have a hard time grasping time as anything except as an unbreakable linear line. If I could look back in time and see a drunk driver run someone over, does that mean the driver had no choice because I witnessed it? No, he had just as much choice before I looked as after. The same is true if I could look forward.

Like the other poster said, unless you believe EVERYTHING is predestined and you never have any choice at all, knowing the outcome doesn't change the choices you had to get you to that outcome.

Wolverine18:

keinechance:

Wolverine18:

What does that have to do with it? As long as people can pick their own path then someone being able to see that path doesn't change the fact that they have choice available to them.

God, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, knows the choices his creations will make, but still creates them, knowing what they will do, and then punishes them for doing exactly what he knew they would do.

Does that not sound a little crazy to you?

Not if they had free will to make those choices or not.

The problem is humans have a hard time grasping time as anything except as an unbreakable linear line. If I could look back in time and see a drunk driver run someone over, does that mean the driver had no choice because I witnessed it? No, he had just as much choice before I looked as after. The same is true if I could look forward.

Like the other poster said, unless you believe EVERYTHING is predestined and you never have any choice at all, knowing the outcome doesn't change the choices you had to get you to that outcome.

Doesn't change the fact that God creates people knowing the outcome of their free choice. If you can create people who freely choose good, and create people who freely choose sin - well....why even bother creating the latter if what you really want is the former? It's completely unnecessary.

Wolverine18:

keinechance:

Wolverine18:

What does that have to do with it? As long as people can pick their own path then someone being able to see that path doesn't change the fact that they have choice available to them.

God, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, knows the choices his creations will make, but still creates them, knowing what they will do, and then punishes them for doing exactly what he knew they would do.

Does that not sound a little crazy to you?

Not if they had free will to make those choices or not.

The problem is humans have a hard time grasping time as anything except as an unbreakable linear line. If I could look back in time and see a drunk driver run someone over, does that mean the driver had no choice because I witnessed it? No, he had just as much choice before I looked as after. The same is true if I could look forward.

Like the other poster said, unless you believe EVERYTHING is predestined and you never have any choice at all, knowing the outcome doesn't change the choices you had to get you to that outcome.

IF God is omnipotent and omniscient THEN everything is predestined, as God knows EVERYTHING.

So I ask again, is God omnipotent and omniscient?

Oirish_Martin:

Wolverine18:

keinechance:

God, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, knows the choices his creations will make, but still creates them, knowing what they will do, and then punishes them for doing exactly what he knew they would do.

Does that not sound a little crazy to you?

Not if they had free will to make those choices or not.

The problem is humans have a hard time grasping time as anything except as an unbreakable linear line. If I could look back in time and see a drunk driver run someone over, does that mean the driver had no choice because I witnessed it? No, he had just as much choice before I looked as after. The same is true if I could look forward.

Like the other poster said, unless you believe EVERYTHING is predestined and you never have any choice at all, knowing the outcome doesn't change the choices you had to get you to that outcome.

Doesn't change the fact that God creates people knowing the outcome of their free choice. If you can create people who freely choose good, and create people who freely choose sin - well....why even bother creating the latter if what you really want is the former? It's completely unnecessary.

Now you are assuming that god crafts each human by hand. Very few people believe any such thing. If individual humans are created through a natural process that god has no direct hand in the individual humans being born(and even most christians think god only created 3 humans directly) then he did not "create them knowing the outcome".

Gorrila_thinktank:
sorry, let me phone my friend out in the north-bush and tell him to fly home. his christan belifs are only an exucuse to rob people of their rights, so he shouldent be running summer reading and writing programs for the native amaricans our country (canada) totaly impovreished through systematic discrimantion. I guess I should also stop my plans to head out as a voulenter on a mercy ship. The risk of christainity contaminating the international poor is to great. I should also tell the doctors, nurses and dentist who voulenter that they should stop as well. we might accidently sway someone while in the operating theater.

while i'm at it I should tell that group of christans out in tieland to stop trying to brake up the child sex slave rings in their country. they might hurt somebody.

we should also get urban promise out of camdan, new jersey. I might need some help with this one, they rebuilt alot of infistructure in a couple of areas. and those christain run homeless centers? they have got to go.

Way to miss the point completely, and read in a completely different point. I said "christians use their religion as an excuse to be bigots". That doesn't mean that every christian uses it for bigotry, or that many christians use it solely for bigotry. There are many Christians who use their religion to do good things. It doesn't excuse the religion as a whole, though. Even if Christianity did absolutely no harm, I still would consider it a negative influence on our society, because it's giving people a false, ungrounded, irrational truth, and convincing them to stop looking for the real truth.

But here's the funny thing. Every single thing you just mentioned could be done just as well, if not better, by secular organizations. The secular organizations wouldn't have the baggage and falsehoods attached that Christianity brings with it. And here's the most interesting fact of all: Christians who were generally giving and heartfelt who deconvert more often than not stay giving and heartfelt (just like Christians who were generally dicks who deconvert more often than not stay dicks). The difference being, secularism carries no baggage. You aren't obliged by your secularism to waste time in church, or treat homosexuals as lesser people, or anything of the like.

Helmholtz Watson:
Prove an alternative to the Divine without telling me that something comes from nothing.

Prove an alternative to the Norse Mythos without a lack of evidence.

Why is "God did it" the default answer? Remember, you have no evidence that god did it beyond this faulty idea "it only could have been god". If you don't have proof that the divine is the only possible explanation (and no, saying "I can't think of anything else" isn't proof; it's simply evidence of your own ignorance), and you don't have evidence that the divine actually did it, then your explanation hold no merit whatsoever, and must be discarded by any rational human being as a non-answer, akin to "An alien farted it out over coffee one day" or "The universe suddenly poofed into existence from nothing". How do you know it was a god?

keinechance:

Wolverine18:

keinechance:

God, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, knows the choices his creations will make, but still creates them, knowing what they will do, and then punishes them for doing exactly what he knew they would do.

Does that not sound a little crazy to you?

Not if they had free will to make those choices or not.

The problem is humans have a hard time grasping time as anything except as an unbreakable linear line. If I could look back in time and see a drunk driver run someone over, does that mean the driver had no choice because I witnessed it? No, he had just as much choice before I looked as after. The same is true if I could look forward.

Like the other poster said, unless you believe EVERYTHING is predestined and you never have any choice at all, knowing the outcome doesn't change the choices you had to get you to that outcome.

IF God is omnipotent and omniscient THEN everything is predestined, as God knows EVERYTHING.

So I ask again, is God omnipotent and omniscient?

Already answered, it doesn't matter if he is. Like I said, some people can't see past a timeline.

Fighting intolerance with more intolerance - the anti-theist / atheist way, only on the escapist!

Wolverine18:
Now you are assuming that god crafts each human by hand. Very few people believe any such thing. If individual humans are created through a natural process that god has no direct hand in the individual humans being born(and even most christians think god only created 3 humans directly) then he did not "create them knowing the outcome".

Actually I assumed no such thing. Creating via a process has nothing to do with whether he had knowledge of the outcome or not - and given that the claim is omniscience, he would have. So this is a red herring.

Wolverine18:

keinechance:

Wolverine18:

Not if they had free will to make those choices or not.

The problem is humans have a hard time grasping time as anything except as an unbreakable linear line. If I could look back in time and see a drunk driver run someone over, does that mean the driver had no choice because I witnessed it? No, he had just as much choice before I looked as after. The same is true if I could look forward.

Like the other poster said, unless you believe EVERYTHING is predestined and you never have any choice at all, knowing the outcome doesn't change the choices you had to get you to that outcome.

IF God is omnipotent and omniscient THEN everything is predestined, as God knows EVERYTHING.

So I ask again, is God omnipotent and omniscient?

Already answered, it doesn't matter if he is. Like I said, some people can't see past a timeline.

Some people can't see past the fact that inserting "but it's FREE will!" doesn't resolve the dilemma a jot.

Wolverine18:

keinechance:

Wolverine18:

Not if they had free will to make those choices or not.

The problem is humans have a hard time grasping time as anything except as an unbreakable linear line. If I could look back in time and see a drunk driver run someone over, does that mean the driver had no choice because I witnessed it? No, he had just as much choice before I looked as after. The same is true if I could look forward.

Like the other poster said, unless you believe EVERYTHING is predestined and you never have any choice at all, knowing the outcome doesn't change the choices you had to get you to that outcome.

IF God is omnipotent and omniscient THEN everything is predestined, as God knows EVERYTHING.

So I ask again, is God omnipotent and omniscient?

Already answered, it doesn't matter if he is. Like I said, some people can't see past a timeline.

That is correct, as I am not omnipotent and omniscient.

And it seems the God you propose is not omnipotent and omniscient either.

The "God" you propose seems indistinguishable from non-sentient natural phenomena.

TheBelgianGuy:
Fighting intolerance with more intolerance - the anti-theist / atheist way, only on the escapist!

Unfortunately it isn't just the Escapist, but yeah. Expressing your disdain for assholes by making an asshole of yourself, and then claiming you don't deserve to be called an asshole for it. That's the sort of logic floating around here.

Yes, there is disdain for Christianity on this thread. In many cases, the disdain has been richly earned by the Christians.

Lilani:

TheBelgianGuy:
Fighting intolerance with more intolerance - the anti-theist / atheist way, only on the escapist!

Unfortunately it isn't just the Escapist, but yeah. Expressing your disdain for assholes by making an asshole of yourself, and then claiming you don't deserve to be called an asshole for it. That's the sort of logic floating around here.

If you really think, that the people advocating unreason and unthinking doctrine, have the same case as the people advocating reason and critical thinking, then good luck in the future.

Legendsmith:
Anyone who says that religion, specifically Christianity is a universal negative is flat out ignoring history. The early scientists were Christians, because they believed that due to the existence of a rational creator God, the universe must be rationally intelligible.
Without that, why would they try to test and understand the world around them?

Here we go again, taking the actions of individual people, stealing them and labeling them like a religious achievement... It's exactly what I warned for in my previous post.

Legendsmith:
If Christianity is as universally negative as you and others suppose, why is it that modern science and reason arose in a place where it was the dominant belief?

Because people's want for knowledge and relatively favourable position of Europe eventually grew more powerfull than the religious influences which held it back.

Legendsmith:
Other teaching can include teachings with atheistic bases. Look at the deaths under Stalin, the absolute dictatorship of North Korea where one man is practically worshiped.

There's a number of things wrong with that:

-What you cite originates from clerical hate propaganda against atheists that has no basis in reality. The 'Hitler was motivated by atheism' is another arm of that ugly monster of lies priests came up with.
-It is impossible to have atheistic policies. Impossible by definition. Atheism has no doctrine, so you can't make policies based on it.
-Stalin was a very religious man. He studied to become a priest at the seminary of Tiflis before he embarked on his career as a political activist under the alias Koba.
-The Soviet Union transformed Russian society. But one thing remained constant: the power of religion. The soviets never opposed religion, one or two of them may have wanted to reduce it because of what Marx wrote, but they mainly opposed the political power of the orthodox church. Once the church had to bow to the soviets politically, everything was okay and all friendly again.
-Worshipping a human leader isn't atheism. The moment someone gets deified to some degree you're talking about a form of theism.

keinechance:
If you really think, that the people advocating unreason and unthinking doctrine, have the same case as the people advocating reason and critical thinking, then good luck in the future.

See? Perfect example.

You really don't know a lot about Christianity, do you? All you know is the fundamentalists and Catholics. Because if you knew exactly how broad it is, I think your words wouldn't be quite so harsh.

Would you be surprised to learn I have no problem with gays? Because I don't. They're just fine. And the leadership of the church I attend agrees. I'm also pro-choice. I think it's rather interesting how so many Christians are willing to look at things written by Paul and in Leviticus, such as a woman shall not have authority over a man, slaves should obey their masters, and that unruly children should be taken and stoned to death, and we say "Oh, that wasn't literal," or "Oh, that is just the ignorance of the culture they lived in at the time." But then, when those same writers and same texts talk about homosexuality, suddenly they are the unquestionable authority on what is good in the eyes of God. It's silly, really. I think I've almost got my dad to realize this, but he'll need just a bit more time.

And recently I've been studying this guy, and I suggest you watch this video and the others with him on YouTube whenever you can. Even if you don't want to watch the whole thing, just give it two minutes. Or six if you want to see him begin to take apart the gospels in a scholarly manner (the man does have multiple degrees and at least one PhD. that I know of in religious and cultural studies). I think you'll be impressed.

What he says there I very much agree with. Call it unreason if you want, but never think for a moment all Christians are unthinking. You just need to open your lens a bit wider.

Seses209:

Yellowbeard:

Seses209:

Wow. I have NEVER seen a more ridiculously bigoted person than you. Nowhere in the religious books does it say you should blow yourself up anywhere. That is the work of demented individuals and harmful organizations that simply use religion as a medium for the unsuspecting masses. Hate on the people that misuse the religion; hypocritical Buddhists, pedophiliac Christians, whatever. But don't go around saying that it is their religion that forces them to do so. Dear Lord, man, you are one disgusting person! What, so people can have the right to gay marriages and voting, but NOT to whether they believe in God or not?

Oh, and the whole 6000 year old thing? That was made about 4000 years ago. Sure people cling to traditions, but then there are countries where women are treated as dirt, children are sold to slavery and other, even more disgusting things. Thank God, there are religions in the world, otherwise we'd actually have to deal with real issues in the world(!)

You're kidding, right?

...right?

Holy books and theological writings are full of endorsement for martyrdom, genocide, slavery, racism, religious intolerance and persecution, oppression of women. It's a testament to the goodness of ordinary people that most don't try to follow those teachings more literally.

Make all the excuses you want about interpretation, metaphor, or religion not forcing people's behaviour, but don't embarrass yourself by saying that it's not in the books.

Yellowbeard:

Seses209:

Wow. I have NEVER seen a more ridiculously bigoted person than you. Nowhere in the religious books does it say you should blow yourself up anywhere. That is the work of demented individuals and harmful organizations that simply use religion as a medium for the unsuspecting masses. Hate on the people that misuse the religion; hypocritical Buddhists, pedophiliac Christians, whatever. But don't go around saying that it is their religion that forces them to do so. Dear Lord, man, you are one disgusting person! What, so people can have the right to gay marriages and voting, but NOT to whether they believe in God or not?

Oh, and the whole 6000 year old thing? That was made about 4000 years ago. Sure people cling to traditions, but then there are countries where women are treated as dirt, children are sold to slavery and other, even more disgusting things. Thank God, there are religions in the world, otherwise we'd actually have to deal with real issues in the world(!)

You're kidding, right?

...right?

Holy books and theological writings are full of endorsement for martyrdom, genocide, slavery, racism, religious intolerance and persecution, oppression of women. It's a testament to the goodness of ordinary people that most don't try to follow those teachings more literally.

Make all the excuses you want about interpretation, metaphor, or religion not forcing people's behaviour, but don't embarrass yourself by saying that it's not in the books.

Show me one place where either the Bible or the Qur'an says that "Thou shalt blow thyself into smithereens so as to destroy thy enemies." Just one. One sentence. Please.

Judges 16:30

"And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life."

So, Samson killed a house full of Philistines, killing himself in the process. A suicide attack. Is that close enough?

If we look at Judges 16:27, it shows us how many were in the house:

"Now the house was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines were there; and there were upon the roof about three thousand men and women, that beheld while Samson made sport."

Not quite blowing himself to smithereens, but it's pretty near, and about the closest thing you could do at that time.

Lilani:

TheBelgianGuy:
Fighting intolerance with more intolerance - the anti-theist / atheist way, only on the escapist!

Unfortunately it isn't just the Escapist, but yeah. Expressing your disdain for assholes by making an asshole of yourself, and then claiming you don't deserve to be called an asshole for it. That's the sort of logic floating around here.

You can speak for any side without incurring unwanted wrath from the other, though sometimes even the most eloquent person will be beaten to death for saying the worst thing to say at that moment,

TheBelgianGuy:
Fighting intolerance with more intolerance - the anti-theist / atheist way, only on the escapist!

What intolerance? Intolerance against what? Do you think it's reasonable to complain that I am intolerant to intolerance? Or ignorance? Or poor logic and reasoning? Hell, could you even qualify my reactions here as "intolerance"?

Lilani:

keinechance:
If you really think, that the people advocating unreason and unthinking doctrine, have the same case as the people advocating reason and critical thinking, then good luck in the future.

See? Perfect example.

Of what? Nothing he said was wrong. Religion is virtually by definition the advocation of unthinking and unreason. If it doesn't contain supernatural and undemonstrable claims, guess what: it's not a religion. Clearly, you've failed to examine the claims rationally. If you had, you wouldn't be a christian.

Would you be surprised to learn I have no problem with gays? Because I don't. They're just fine. And the leadership of the church I attend agrees.

Then clearly, you don't take the bible at face value.

I think it's rather interesting how so many Christians are willing to look at things written by Paul and in Leviticus, such as a woman shall not have authority over a man, slaves should obey their masters, and that unruly children should be taken and stoned to death, and we say "Oh, that wasn't literal," or "Oh, that is just the ignorance of the culture they lived in at the time." But then, when those same writers and same texts talk about homosexuality, suddenly they are the unquestionable authority on what is good in the eyes of God. It's silly, really. I think I've almost got my dad to realize this, but he'll need just a bit more time.

You know what's funny about this, though? Those fundies? They're better Christians. They follow the clear doctrine left by Christ and his apostles closer than you do. This idea that one could be a christian and pro-women, or pro-gay, is absolutely absurd - it involves throwing away the only thing that christians have to cling to.

And recently I've been studying this guy, and I suggest you watch this video and the others with him on YouTube whenever you can. Even if you don't want to watch the whole thing, just give it two minutes. Or six if you want to see him begin to take apart the gospels in a scholarly manner (the man does have multiple degrees and at least one PhD. that I know of in religious and cultural studies). I think you'll be impressed.

What he says there I very much agree with. Call it unreason if you want, but never think for a moment all Christians are unthinking. You just need to open your lens a bit wider.

Spong is not a christian.

No, seriously. According to the very definition of the word "Christian", he is not one. Cast the net much wider, and Osama Bin Laden, Richard Dawkins, and I are all "Christians".

TheIronRuler:

Lilani:

TheBelgianGuy:
Fighting intolerance with more intolerance - the anti-theist / atheist way, only on the escapist!

Unfortunately it isn't just the Escapist, but yeah. Expressing your disdain for assholes by making an asshole of yourself, and then claiming you don't deserve to be called an asshole for it. That's the sort of logic floating around here.

You can speak for any side without incurring unwanted wrath from the other, though sometimes even the most eloquent person will be beaten to death for saying the worst thing to say at that moment,

This is very true. But I can't think of many moments when lumping a group of very different individuals together and saying "Well they're all just idiots incapable of reason" is the best or most eloquent way to put it. That's the problem I have here: Not that these people disagree with religion, but that the way they express that disagreement is through asinine and personal insults.

Stagnant:
Spong is not a christian.

No, seriously. According to the very definition of the word "Christian", he is not one. Cast the net much wider, and Osama Bin Laden, Richard Dawkins, and I are all "Christians".

How is he not a Christian? The word literally means "Follower of Christ." Not "Follower of the Bible" or "Attender of Church." If you read his books and listen to his lectures, the words he takes the most seriously from the Bible are first and foremost Jesus' words, and then the words of the prophets. And then the rest he knows and appreciates, but doesn't agree with and fully believes in debate and the studying of interpretation. He follows Jesus' teachings. What more do you want?

Lilani:

TheIronRuler:

Lilani:

Unfortunately it isn't just the Escapist, but yeah. Expressing your disdain for assholes by making an asshole of yourself, and then claiming you don't deserve to be called an asshole for it. That's the sort of logic floating around here.

You can speak for any side without incurring unwanted wrath from the other, though sometimes even the most eloquent person will be beaten to death for saying the worst thing to say at that moment,

This is very true. But I can't think of many moments when lumping a group of very different individuals together and saying "Well they're all just idiots incapable of reason" is the best or most eloquent way to put it. That's the problem I have here: Not that these people disagree with religion, but that the way they express that disagreement is through asinine and personal insults.

.
I try my best to no go around with generalization arguments, I find it generally useless in a discussion without a crowd.

I have no issue with Christians, only arseholes. If the two happen to coincide, then it's a shame, but little can be done about it.

But yes, Christians get quite a bad rap on this site.

Whoops, for some reason I missed the rest of your post.

Stagnant:
Then clearly, you don't take the bible at face value.

No. Why should I?

You know what's funny about this, though? Those fundies? They're better Christians. They follow the clear doctrine left by Christ and his apostles closer than you do. This idea that one could be a christian and pro-women, or pro-gay, is absolutely absurd - it involves throwing away the only thing that christians have to cling to.

Excuse me? I think if they followed the clear doctrine left by Christ, if they fulfilled their name as CHRIST followers, not APOSTLE followers, they would be doing a lot more loving of their enemies and a lot less worshiping a book neither written nor assembled nor approved by God nor Christ. Jesus never said a word about gay people. That was Paul. Jesus fraternized with people who were considered by the society and holy leadership to be unclean and unworthy of attention or mercy. That isn't at all the legacy the fundamentalists are carrying on. They're too busy singing and preaching about how awful outcasts and minorities are.

Spong is not a christian.

No, seriously. According to the very definition of the word "Christian", he is not one. Cast the net much wider, and Osama Bin Laden, Richard Dawkins, and I are all "Christians".

And I think I covered this in the other post.

Da Orky Man:

Judges 16:30

"And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life."

So, Samson killed a house full of Philistines, killing himself in the process. A suicide attack. Is that close enough?

If we look at Judges 16:27, it shows us how many were in the house:

"Now the house was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines were there; and there were upon the roof about three thousand men and women, that beheld while Samson made sport."

Not quite blowing himself to smithereens, but it's pretty near, and about the closest thing you could do at that time.

.
This is a bad example as it does not present martyrdom or suicide attacks-
The attack was made in desperation as he cried out for help from God, he didn't plan to be kidnapped and put in such a house.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked