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.
What's the difference, though? Point is, Christian myths have precedence.
yes, but I think he was trying to say that Christianity is "unique" today to Eastern religions. He probably has reverance to Eastern morality and believes the only way to achieve it in the West is through Christianity. I believe he is mistaken as to how different from us Eastern societies are.
If some maniac walks up and says I need to believe in a talking snake, ignore laws of physics and worship an imaginary friend or I will go to Hell, no, I don't give them the same level of respect I give to the person proffering a different strategy in the middle east. If someone tells me I NEED to believe in anything, I tell them I DO NOT NEED to believe regardless of what it is whether it is religion, politics, etc. Because someone believes in a certain way does not loose my respect if that individual's actions do not interfere with my life and that of others. I have no problem respecting them even though their beliefs may not make sense, illogical, etc. We just differ on how we handle the situation I suppose.
Good People can do Good without Religion. Good People usually only perform evil in the name of religion, because otherwise it would be totally nonsensical. No argument there just as good people do good with religion. Also, in the name of political preference, including atheism, have done evil. I am sure you have read how communist/socialist supporters and leaders have tried to exterminate people for believing in God. Usint the same type of comment you just made as an excuse to kill thousands.
Indeed, which came first, religious intolerance, or atheism intolerance? Read your history books. According to every poll I find, Atheists are a more despised minority in this country than Muslims, and it has nothing to do with our manners. The difference between atheism intolerance in just about every instance I can find, is that we do not demand that our government be an atheist, too. That's not the same for Christians (or Muslims in the Middle East). It does not matter what came first. Intolerance does exist on both sides. MMM? Polls? Give me one please. It is a first to me. In these forums I tend to see atheist as being the most contemptous, condescending, etc. on religious people. At least that is my empirical observation. I have been thinking of doing a deep research in these religious forum to see if my observation is correct. Maybe I will do that sometime. I believe your last observation may have some validity. Why? Because the great majority of people are religious as far as I know. The majority on ANY group does have a tendency to establish a status quo and show contempt to the minority. However, atheists as much as you claim otherwise do try to impose your views on others the very same way but you happen to be the minority. At least that is why I observe. That is why the Founding Fathers created a Republic because they realized that a pure democracy could be tyranical to the minorities.
If you're asking me that religion is part of the make-up of the human mind, I agree. We are weak, feeble creatures who cling to such things like religion out of fear. But just because we know the human is the one wielding the dirty bomb doesn't mean I need to respect the dirty bomb, and his right to use it.
Now, you use an extreme and sensationalist example. I have not respect for someone who holds a dirty bomb to impose his views. I do not even have a problem to have him terminated for the safety of others. Religion is not the only part of the human mind. How to live life (philosophy), how to govern people (politics), etc. are also part of the human mind and those areas as many others have their low lives that give a bad rep to the rest of the ordinary people that simply live life, try to survive, etc. Sadly, often some screaming minority (extemist on any subject) tend to be the ones making the most waves whether they are theist or atheists. There are many intellectuals and highly educated people in this world that have concluded that God exists and do great things themselves in the name of their god. They do not show weakness as you claim and are not feeble creatures. Out of fear? MMM? Do they show fear when they rather die for the very same beliefs? That to me shows moral strenght also. So to classify many of them on those terms does not match. Many people from all walks of life whether they are illiterate to recognized experts in all types of fields do show the same characteristics. However, I do reiterate that there are extremist in any group, including atheists, take care.
I've debated with you before, and I have repeatedly asked you to confine your responses outside of the quote box. Is it possible you'll listen this time?
[/b]
Listen this time? Who in the world are you to demand anything on me? You need to refresh you request though. Quote outside the box? Expand. I will go along with your request and provide the example where I quoted outside the box. I am not going to read your mind as you tried the last time.
They don't need to use the word "need". That's implied with the dogma. And it's not just me they tell to believe it, it's the elected officials who create laws that APPLY to me who are subject to this. That scares me more, and it is the reason for the lack of respect. For instance, when congressmen say that global warming is a myth because Genesis said God wouldn't flood the world again, I see those religious beliefs as damaging, and unworthy of respect. In fact, I see them as being openly worthy of disdain, much the same way no one minds if we have disdain for racism, sexism and hatred. Implied? It is a nebulous term that can fall under assumtion. Have you heard what some have said about the word ASSUME? I have not respect for the specific individuals or organization that do try to impose on others but I do not stereotype all as many do just because they believe in certain ways.
I think you simplify the means by which Stalin and others killed their followers. It had nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with Stalin being a sociopath. If he had been religious, he would've done the same thing. Same with Pol Pot. It does show atheism and I now tell you that you also need to read history and quotes about God and Religion from those that tried to impose socialisma/communism. Are you now trying to disguise it just as religious types do try to disguise their Bible ideas in schools regarding the origin of man?
In any case, those WERE religious governments. The deity just happened to be the person in power, which is no different than worshipping Christ.
I disagree. We would not blame the Jews for retaliating and bombing Germany. They could attribute the reaction to the Holocaust. Similarly, heretics had been imprisoned, tortured, burned, and executed for CENTURIES prior to Pol Pot, Stalin, etc. To suddenly exclaim "Oh My! Where did these atheists come from, and why are they so angry?!" is to betray complete and utter ignorance of history. I see you do feel persecuted so it is OK to belittle anyone in these forum because they believe in God, the Bible even though they may have nothing to do with the actions you quote? We differ here then.
A Gallup poll puts the likelihood of an atheist being elected to office behind EVERY significant minority group, including homosexual, Mormon, or Hispanic.
Behind a hispanic? Men, I am going to become bitter and start attacking anyone that does not support me regardless of whether I know them or not and what type of individuals they are. I will just berate, degrade, those groups.
Again, it probably has more to do with the accepted proselytization by Christians and other religious people that has been allowed to flourish for centuries. Science-denial and backward views on social issues which are sourced to religion are also a cause of this. For instance, you used the phrase "empirical observation" incorrectly just now. You imply you have data, even though you know you do not. It's this kind of simple misunderstanding on the part of almost every theist I speak with that earns our contempt. Then you have the gall to lecture US. Empirical is defined as based on experience and observation. Is the expression redundant because the definition includes observation? OK, it does. However, the dictionary definition states experience and observation, not data. Lecturing you? Not at all. Do not imply stating something opposite to your views as lecturing.
Some atheists probably have a bit of an inferiority complex, too, since we're constantly asked to explain our beliefs, even though are beliefs are completely logical and self-evidence by any objective measure, i.e. there is zero evidence for God, so why believe? Well, sounds like a personal problem. I do not have the complex. So I believing in God may go what logic as you claim. OK, fine with me. It does not affect my wallet in the least. I do not feel I need to explain to you anything. So if a theist or atheist feels that way, it is their problem.
Indeed.
In my experience, only if they're confronted by friends or family with a religious view. Then all of a sudden, because we disagree strongly, we're viewed as being hostile. The same goes the other way. Again, it is my empirical observation that in these forums atheist tend to be the hostile group. You are giving me more incentive to do some research and get data so I can please you with your explanation that it implies data even though the dictionary does not say that. At least the one I just read.
Sorry, but your "accepted world view" is not accepted by us. If you find that hostile or contemptuous, that's your problem. It is not my problem. I simply state my observation. You do not like it, it is your problem? Accepted world view? When did I say that? What is the so called accepted world view I stated?
[/b]
Is it sensationalist? People use religion as an excuse to not give a crap about the environment, or nuclear war, as they believe they will be swooped up to Heaven by a Loving God who rewards their blind obedience. It's just as damaging as detonating the bomb themselves. Now you bring all these things up. Another sensationalist statement. Wow! You are good at it. There are many religious groups and individuals fighting for the environment. Actually I have heard some say this the home God provided and they feel it is important to protect it.
Yeah, I get it, there are bad people out there outside of religious circles. Doesn't really alter my point one bit, nor does it advance yours, though. The fact is, normally good people who have no wish to hurt others can far more easily use religion to justify murder, rape, subjugation, etc. The same cannot be so readily said for people who have a different political viewpoint.
Okay, again, I already admitted some religious people are good, and do good. That doesn't address the concept in any way.
Honestly, when you're talking about experts in the field of the study of life, most of them are atheists. In other words, people who have occasion or inclination to THINK about the subject a little deeper in practical terms, more often come to the conclusion that there is no evidence for God, thus no reason to uphold blind allegiance.
Again, as I said before you can hold the same zealot attitude on your views as the religiouse side has theirs. Actually, in some ways there may be something positive to have the zealots on each side to bring discussion and debate because in general many in the masses do not seem to bother with all these things. Why? Because they are just busy working in living their lives, raising families, etc. They do not have the time to be arguing whether God existence is logical or not. They are probably thinking more on terms of how much the pound of tomatoes costs. I like to come to these forums because I am retired and have a part time job so I have the time to be here and see how other people believe and share. I do get involved in political issues without berating those that differ from my views. A different approach I suppose.
Would God be a better parent if we were all mindless, soulless puppets?
Probably as isn't that what you become in heaven? All memories of "unsaved" loved ones wiped away, no more tears, worshiping 24/infinity et al.
What purpose does it serve if you are to learn something here only to have your alleged freewill revoked in heaven?
Tell me, if every knee is to bow down in the hereafter, what is free about that? Are we to suppose that we will be whacked behind our spiritual knees forcing us down or - oops we have no mortal bodies in heaven, we are sexless and like the angels, neither given or taken in marriage, guess sex in heaven is taboo so what is the point?
You see Theo, when you start asking logical questions, theists have no logical answers.
All memories of "unsaved" loved ones wiped away, no more tears, worshiping 24/infinity et al.
That sounds about right.
Quote:
What purpose does it serve if you are to learn something here only to have your alleged freewill revoked in heaven?
If freewill is nonexistent, it can't be revoked.
Quote:
Tell me, if every knee is to bow down in the hereafter, what is free about that?
First, you have to decide if freewill even exists.
Quote:
Are we to suppose that we will be whacked behind our spiritual knees forcing us down or - oops we have no mortal bodies in heaven, we are sexless and like the angels, neither given or taken in marriage, guess sex in heaven is taboo so what is the point?
There is no point for the atheist.
Quote:
You see Theo, when you start asking logical questions, theists have no logical answers.
Freewill is a myth and an invention of theists to explain away the stuff that does not agree with their dogma or beliefs and specifically to address the matter of folk like us abandoning the faith.
Furthermore, the inception of freewill in the GoE is fallacious as no laws were there apart from the do not eat. Odd that they had no knowledge of good and evil yet needed to partake to actually understand what good and evil meant. How was A&E to know how to obey IF they at the time had no free will?
You see, the predeterminist version fits better as the all knowing god knew they would disobey - it was a set up. God walks happily amongst his creation daily and then screws it up by introducing a tree in the garden they should not partake of. They partake due to some alleged flying, talking, walking snake tempting them. W/o the knowledge of good and evil, how was Eve tempted in the first place? How could she make a calculated decision?
It does not compute. Freewill is thus a myth.
FF to Job and you see god and lil' red playing chess with a righteous man. It is the same set up and a battle of the wits of good and evil. God decides to allow red to mess with Job who in all fairness did not deserve any of this.
Abraham is told to sacrifice his only son after being barren for umteen years and then when born is promised the world through his seed. I know the "hidden message" is supposed to point to jesus but this is Hebrew scrips we are talking of here.
The more you analyze it and ask why would a god do this, the more apparent it becomes that this god is man-made and only exists as a mythical figure and more importantly, only in the collective minds of men.
Were there to be a cataclysmic end to all humans tomorrow, your god will die too.
FREE WILL is often a rebuttal brought up by Christians to many atheist arguments. They say God blessed us with free will so that we are not soulless robots programmed to do good 24/7. It just so happens that a lot of humans choose to do bad and harm those who choose good. But God is still cool and stuff 'cause he gave us the choice in the first place.
Ok. Ignoring the fact that it's NOT free will when God, in the end, punishes you for not playing the life game the way he wants you to play it, here's my problem with "free will":
Continuing the metaphor of God being a parent-figure, this doctrine of free will is very much like me allowing my kids to play around in an ocean filled with hungry sharks. Some will be smart and choose to play in the sand, while the others will want to swim...and mostly be killed very painfully by a shark. Some died, some lived. Obviously, I'm a horrible parent, for I could have avoided this in the first place by making my kids play in the sand.
Long story short, I think the comparison I'm trying to make is obvious. I'd rather be a soulless robot programmed to feel joy all the time than be a free-will possessing human being who risks the dangers of burning for all eternity.... Am I right?
~Discuss
The basis of your analogy is flawed.
God is not in any way shape or form like a parent. He's a creator.
He's like a video game designer. He makes the program then lets it run. If he doesn't like how it works he either erases it completely and starts over or keeps the parts he like and goes on from there.
There are 2 types of characters in his program. Mindless AI,or Artificial Intelligence to non gamers and the main characters.
The main characters have a purpose and a goal.These are the Christians.
The AI characters wander around aimlessly. These are the atheist zombies.
The whole purpose of the program is to see what the main characters will do in certain situations.
The AI characters serve no purpose other than to get shot in the head in entertaining ways.
Freewill is a myth and an invention of theists to explain away the stuff that does not agree with their dogma or beliefs and specifically to address the matter of folk like us abandoning the faith.
Furthermore, the inception of freewill in the GoE is fallacious as no laws were there apart from the do not eat. Odd that they had no knowledge of good and evil yet needed to partake to actually understand what good and evil meant. How was A&E to know how to obey IF they at the time had no free will?
You see, the predeterminist version fits better as the all knowing god knew they would disobey - it was a set up. God walks happily amongst his creation daily and then screws it up by introducing a tree in the garden they should not partake of. They partake due to some alleged flying, talking, walking snake tempting them. W/o the knowledge of good and evil, how was Eve tempted in the first place? How could she make a calculated decision?
It does not compute. Freewill is thus a myth.
[...]
The more you analyze it and ask why would a god do this, the more apparent it becomes that this god is man-made and only exists as a mythical figure and more importantly, only in the collective minds of men.
Were there to be a cataclysmic end to all humans tomorrow, your god will die too.
The story can me seen as mere moralistic folklore, inspired by God: Adam and Eve did have free-will. They just didn't have a conscience, where they could understand the difference between good and evil. once they disobeyed God and got that, he didn't want them near him, likely because Satan had also decided that God was evil. its a wonderful mythology.
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.
