Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You should know by now simple searches can yield almost anything you ask for. Some of it will even be true. Some con men can be preachers, even Presidents.
And you should know how simple it is to evaulate the actual soursss of the information. Not everything is part of a conspiracy or the so called fake news.
Preachers who have bought jet planes have been interviewed by reporters. Some of the news about religiins and churches is true whether you like it or not. The good and the bad, the charity work and the jet planes.
And you should know how simple it is to evaulate the actual soursss of the information. Not everything is part of a conspiracy or the so called fake news.
Preachers who have bought jet planes have been interviewed by reporters. Some of the news about religiins and churches is true whether you like it or not. The good and the bad, the charity work and the jet planes.
This is not even questionable, it has certainly happened, whether or not I have personally experienced it.
But I have.
I was church-shopping in the late 1970s and recall visiting an up-and-coming smallish church in the 'burbs and noticed the telltale signs: pastor wearing suits far too nice for a small congregation, wife glammed up, and on my way out I saw that he departed in a brand new Corvette. I did not continue to evaluate that church as a candidate.
In the 1990s a very popular church in the Phoenix area named Eagle's Nest was rapidly expanding and in the process of building a large new auditorium not far from my house when they were exposed as running a Ponzi investment scheme to finance it. It was bad enough that the pastor and several underlings did time over it and the unfinished auditorium was an eyesore for years before it was finally torn down as a hazard.
Beyond that, who can forget Jim and Tammy Faye, James Robison, Oral Roberts, Kenneth Copeland, and so many others who have misused the $ of the faithful? It is just delusional to pretend these things didn't happened or that they aren't religiously mediated and influenced in any way.
And youshould know how simple it is to evaulate the actual soursss of the information. Not everything is part of a conspiracy or the so called fake news.
Preachers who have bought jet planes have been interviewed by reporters. Some of the news about religiins and churches is true whether you like it or not. The good and the bad, the charity work and the jet planes.
What part of what i said do you not understand?
Quote:
You should know by now simple searches can yield almost anything you ask for. Some of it will even be true. Some con men can be preachers, even Presidents.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 06-14-2022 at 10:31 AM..
Reason: Fixed quote tag
This is a charge that is made weekly, if not almost daily, by some christian and even a warped atheist. So for the rest of us atheists, is that your goal -- to "stop" or "end" religion?
No, because religion is a demonstration of principles, and principles usually carry a positive connotation. Where it does become an issue is when principles become more important than people. That is not to say that principles should be put aside, but I think it is important to recognize when others can't relate or need support to make it work for them. That is because a single principle carries a foundation that cannot often be replicated. To give a more visual example, think of a tip of an iceberg which is the principle and then the hidden ice underneath the surface of the water, the foundation.
For this atheist, believing in God is viewed as a principled action. Following a religion is viewed as a principled action. When believers have an expectation for the rest of us to follow suit, their perspective is that they are placing God above all else (a.k.a. God first), but in my view as an atheist, they have placed their principles higher than everything else including their own God.
No, because religion is a demonstration of principles, and principles usually carry a positive connotation. Where it does become an issue is when principles become more important than people. That is not to say that principles should be put aside, but I think it is important to recognize when others can't relate or need support to make it work for them. That is because a single principle carries a foundation that cannot often be replicated. To give a more visual example, think of a tip of an iceberg which is the principle and then the hidden ice underneath the surface of the water, the foundation.
For this atheist, believing in God is viewed as a principled action. Following a religion is viewed as a principled action. When believers have an expectation for the rest of us to follow suit, their perspective is that they are placing God above all else (a.k.a. God first), but in my view as an atheist, they have placed their principles higher than everything else including their own God.
Good enough. I did not always believe religion had any meaning or even positive energy to it. The more i understand and study the principles contained in my own religion, the more i have come to see the value religion adds to my life. It is imperfect as it is organized by imperfect people. Yet within the imperfect system lies wisdom that exists because - of people. What inspired them to write down their observations, teach them, the meaning that attaches to it and rises in my consciousness, is the essence of Divinity.
My puzzle is this. If one does not need religion, one is free. As adults, who can read and write and argue in this forum, why should one be bothered by what others believe? Enlightened people believe all religions are equal, serve a purpose, and in a democracy there should be full freedom to practice it. Or not. And have made laws to separate religion from state. I see no role that atheism plays in this scheme or adds value.
My puzzle is this. If one does not need religion, one is free. As adults, who can read and write and argue in this forum, why should one be bothered by what others believe? Enlightened people believe all religions are equal, serve a purpose, and in a democracy there should be full freedom to practice it. Or not. And have made laws to separate religion from state.
You have answered your own question. Enlightened people are not the problem, as we have explained to you several times. It is the fundamentalists that are the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
I see no role that atheism plays in this scheme or adds value.
Yes, this pin hole vision is another of your short comings, despite us explaining this to you too many times. Full freedom of religion effects us too, and being on the outside of the religious fence allows us a clearer view of what is happening. That is why it amuses me that the less enlightened theists attack us for doing their job for them.
Good enough. I did not always believe religion had any meaning or even positive energy to it. The more i understand and study the principles contained in my own religion, the more i have come to see the value religion adds to my life. It is imperfect as it is organized by imperfect people. Yet within the imperfect system lies wisdom that exists because - of people. What inspired them to write down their observations, teach them, the meaning that attaches to it and rises in my consciousness, is the essence of Divinity.
My puzzle is this. If one does not need religion, one is free. As adults, who can read and write and argue in this forum, why should one be bothered by what others believe? Enlightened people believe all religions are equal, serve a purpose, and in a democracy there should be full freedom to practice it. Or not. And have made laws to separate religion from state. I see no role that atheism plays in this scheme or adds value.
Atheism simply defines theism; it places a limitation on it in order to know more about what theism might be. Sure, some see this limitation as a "stop" or "end" to God belief, but to me, it fits in the scheme of how a human mind works. That is, to define things in order to know them more. This emotional perception of "stopping" or "ending" religion is not due to atheism. It's because of human thinking.
It doesn't make sense to me to say atheists are free because they don't follow a religion, but on the other hand call religious followers enlightened, which often signifies freedom.
Atheism simply defines theism; it places a limitation on it in order to know more about what theism might be. Sure, some see this limitation as a "stop" or "end" to God belief, but to me, it fits in the scheme of how a human mind works. That is, to define things in order to know them more. This emotional perception of "stopping" or "ending" religion is not due to atheism. It's because of human thinking.
It doesn't make sense to me to say atheists are free because they don't follow a religion, but on the other hand call religious followers enlightened, which often signifies freedom.
You can explain until you are blue in the face why atheists are interested in and have views about religion and why they have the right to express those views, and some theists still keep asking the question as if it has never been answered. It has been answered repeatedly here. Over and over and over. And over.
It doesn't really matter. We exist, we have views, and we are expressing them, and we are not cowed by their disdain, mischaracterizations or bad-faith counterarguments. So their constant whining about us doing that is really not serving any purpose other than maybe in between their own ears.
All that said, I am not sure about atheism defining theism. I would say the inverse really. Atheism would not be a useful or relevant concept if theism didn't exist. Theists lack belief in all but one god (or if they are not monotheists, one pantheon). Atheists just add one more to the list. It really shouldn't be a complicated subject for anyone to understand, because theists are indifferent to thousands of gods they don't believe in; one more should not be a bridge too far. But every theist has special pleading for why their god is to be believed and worshipped, and so it is provocative and mind-boggling to them why we would not buy their specific deity also. If theism either didn't exist or wasn't so exclusive and exclusionary, atheism would not even be a topic of conversation.
You can explain until you are blue in the face why atheists are interested in and have views about religion and why they have the right to express those views, and some theists still keep asking the question as if it has never been answered. It has been answered repeatedly here. Over and over and over. And over.
It doesn't really matter. We exist, we have views, and we are expressing them, and we are not cowed by their disdain, mischaracterizations or bad-faith counterarguments. So their constant whining about us doing that is really not serving any purpose other than maybe in between their own ears.
All that said, I am not sure about atheism defining theism. I would say the inverse really. Atheism would not be a useful or relevant concept if theism didn't exist. Theists lack belief in all but one god (or if they are not monotheists, one pantheon). Atheists just add one more to the list. It really shouldn't be a complicated subject for anyone to understand, because theists are indifferent to thousands of gods they don't believe in; one more should not be a bridge too far. But every theist has special pleading for why their god is to be believed and worshipped, and so it is provocative and mind-boggling to them why we would not buy their specific deity also. If theism either didn't exist or wasn't so exclusive and exclusionary, atheism would not even be a topic of conversation.
I'm not using a dictionary definition of define. Instead, its orthographic denotation is being applied; dictionaries alone are not enough for me to understand words. I have heard it said to me, "God brought you into my life." My thought is "No, not God. Elyn." That alone can make a person an atheist, which is why I use the label. Otherwise, I wouldn't call myself one. So I agree that without theism, atheism would have no relevance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
