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.
The argument is whether the Bible is still relevant. Dawkins' arguments all fall flat on this particular issue. He never gets one inch off the ground.
So Dawkin's arguments "all fall flat", and yet there he is a doctoral graduate from the University of Oxford. The holder of over a dozen honorary doctorates. The winner of multiple awards for books he’s authored. The winner of over a dozen other well-recognized awards. Considered one of the top intellectuals in the world by several noted publications. Noted by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world and on the list of a British newspaper as one of the 100 greatest living geniuses.
I had coffee with phetaroi last month at Panara's...I liked him very much, don't know
if y'all knew that...and he smelled very good. I like that in a man, pressed, crisp clothes.
Hands like a 20 year old...that part I don't get. I was jealous.
I do believe he said at the end he expected more of a grandmother looking person...
that would not be me, btw. Not one gray hair.
A gentleman.
The church is the backbone of community for many MANY people. So anyone who criticizes the church or religion should expect a justifiable negative reaction or treatment. In other words, the atheist's statements are essentially seen as an effort to break down society, or to cause harm against people in some way.
This claim comes from fear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elyn02
That is just one conclusion.
It is possible that atheists criticize the church or religion because they are tired of that specific faith being imposed on them which could be the breakdown of their family structure and beliefs.
This claim comes from fear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
Then they need to find a way to teach their own family about what the church is. It is NOT the most extreme little detail, out of context, found in one of the church's many religious texts. Which makes the atheist a liar whenever he misrepresents what the church really is, even if it is done out of his own misunderstanding.
In my opinion, both need to find a way to teach their own family about family structure, values, and beliefs which would keep the teachings private and localized. But I believe the position you are taking is that the church takes on that role for the religious family. So there is a need to be more public with the teachings even if there are nonbelievers in the public.
The church is the backbone of community for many MANY people. So anyone who criticizes the church or religion should expect a justifiable negative reaction or treatment. In other words, the atheist's statements are essentially seen as an effort to break down society, or to cause harm against people in some way.
As I was watching the Kavanaugh hearings this week, I came to a firmer conclusion about a theory that I've been playing with in my mind for quite some time, but in the past I always confined it to political elections. However, I'm beginning to believe that it is true of all "organizations". And that is the concept of "over-reach". We see it in elections when one party has been in power too long, they over-reach in terms of policies they force on the public, and then they are voted out of office. But it isn't just in political elections. The Kavanaugh fiasco is another example of over-reach. But that's still politics. But in reality, the concept of over-reach occurs in many, perhaps most "organizations". I've certainly seen it in education. I see it in my community's HOA. I think we see it in television and movie programming. In many aspects of everyday life. We can probably even see it is our own behavior, and how over-reach sometimes comes crashing down on us. Think of the old saying, "The bigger they are, the harder they fall"; that's really about over-reach.
And your position on religion, which is representative of the position most religionists have, is another example of over-reach.
Take your sentence, "The church is the backbone of community for many MANY people". I think that's true. But the over-reach is that all too many christians (and I'm sure this can be said about people of other religions as well) is that they believe that should be an almost-mandatory "backbone-ness". And in that way it becomes a tool of exclusion. And I saw this happen in my own hometown when I was a kid. My town was noted for two things that were religious -- the birth of Mormonism and the 4 main churches on the four corners of the town's main intersection. And those four churches on the four corners played a heavy role in decided who was accepted (to varying degrees) in our community. If you didn't belong to one of those four churches -- Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Episcopal -- then you weren't considered to be quite normal. Dr. Iati's and Dr. Brandetsas' families were looked on as being oddball...even though they were actually nice people...because they were (gasp!) Jewish, and they had to go out of town to go to that "weird church"...a synagogue. Even we catholics were not seen as mainstream...after all, we were two blocks away from those four corners. And the Mormons...oh my goodness. The Mormons were out-and-out disliked, even though (or maybe because) their religion was founded in our town. And then there were the oddball churches (that's how they were looked at) -- the Assembly Of God, for example. Very much looked down on. And if you think I'm just imagining that, when I was in public elementary school, on Wednesdays the kids who went to those four churches on that one intersection were allowed to get out of school an hour early to go to religious school at those four churches, and ultimately the catholics put up such a fuss that they were included, too. But kids who belonged to the splinter religions...nope...stay in school...no religious instruction for you! That sort of backbone-ness is evil...and it's over-reach.
Go over in the politics and other controversies part of the forum. And see this same attitude on a national scale against people who are non-religious, or a different color, or who belong to a really different religion. And so much of that prejudice is based in religion. And that's where the over-reach comes in.
Now, are all religionists that way on the national scene? No. Mostly that's the vocal ones who are so apt to say things like, "Well, if you don't believe in the American way [which they see as christianity], the you ought to go live somewhere else. That's part of that backbone-ness of the community.
Meanwhile, I have a number of friends who are really into their Methodist church. But they don't push it on others. They go, they worship, and it stays with them, but does not become something to result in over-reach. They invite me to occasional events -- a christmas luncheon for seniors (for example) -- but never does a single person suggest I should become a Methodist.
And here's what I see as the difference. You're preaching that the christian faith should be the backbone of the community. What I see as acceptable is that the christian faith should only be seen as the backbone of an individual...an individual who allows other people of other beliefs (including atheism) to have their own moral backbones not dictated by you who feel you are in the majority. When people of a particular belief gang-up on people of people with minority beliefs, that has nothing to do with backbone, but everything to do with bullying.
I will sometimes hear atheists speak favorably of ancient myths like Thor or Pan with a sort fondness, as compared to the traditional Christian god.
Does this mean that one day in the future, even Jehova will find similar favor with atheists, after he inevitably transforms into a myth?
It's not the gods that are the problem, it's the believers. Religion is a contagious mental illness, and believers are sick. In many countries, the plague of belief has run its course, but it is still raging in America.
It's not the gods that are the problem, it's the believers. Religion is a contagious mental illness, and believers are sick. In many countries, the plague of belief has run its course, but it is still raging in America.
I agree.
It's not that we have fondness for "Thor or Pan", it's that we are pointing out that gods fall in and out of favor throughout history, meaning that they weren't really gods at all. That it's just part of human nature to want that "ultimate authority" as an excuse for what does or doesn't happen.
As I was watching the Kavanaugh hearings this week, I came to a firmer conclusion about a theory that I've been playing with in my mind for quite some time, but in the past I always confined it to political elections. However, I'm beginning to believe that it is true of all "organizations". And that is the concept of "over-reach". We see it in elections when one party has been in power too long, they over-reach in terms of policies they force on the public, and then they are voted out of office. But it isn't just in political elections. The Kavanaugh fiasco is another example of over-reach. But that's still politics. But in reality, the concept of over-reach occurs in many, perhaps most "organizations". I've certainly seen it in education. I see it in my community's HOA. I think we see it in television and movie programming. In many aspects of everyday life. We can probably even see it is our own behavior, and how over-reach sometimes comes crashing down on us. Think of the old saying, "The bigger they are, the harder they fall"; that's really about over-reach.
And your position on religion, which is representative of the position most religionists have, is another example of over-reach.
Take your sentence, "The church is the backbone of community for many MANY people". I think that's true. But the over-reach is that all too many christians (and I'm sure this can be said about people of other religions as well) is that they believe that should be an almost-mandatory "backbone-ness". And in that way it becomes a tool of exclusion. And I saw this happen in my own hometown when I was a kid. My town was noted for two things that were religious -- the birth of Mormonism and the 4 main churches on the four corners of the town's main intersection. And those four churches on the four corners played a heavy role in decided who was accepted (to varying degrees) in our community. If you didn't belong to one of those four churches -- Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Episcopal -- then you weren't considered to be quite normal. Dr. Iati's and Dr. Brandetsas' families were looked on as being oddball...even though they were actually nice people...because they were (gasp!) Jewish, and they had to go out of town to go to that "weird church"...a synagogue. Even we catholics were not seen as mainstream...after all, we were two blocks away from those four corners. And the Mormons...oh my goodness. The Mormons were out-and-out disliked, even though (or maybe because) their religion was founded in our town. And then there were the oddball churches (that's how they were looked at) -- the Assembly Of God, for example. Very much looked down on. And if you think I'm just imagining that, when I was in public elementary school, on Wednesdays the kids who went to those four churches on that one intersection were allowed to get out of school an hour early to go to religious school at those four churches, and ultimately the catholics put up such a fuss that they were included, too. But kids who belonged to the splinter religions...nope...stay in school...no religious instruction for you! That sort of backbone-ness is evil...and it's over-reach.
Go over in the politics and other controversies part of the forum. And see this same attitude on a national scale against people who are non-religious, or a different color, or who belong to a really different religion. And so much of that prejudice is based in religion. And that's where the over-reach comes in.
Now, are all religionists that way on the national scene? No. Mostly that's the vocal ones who are so apt to say things like, "Well, if you don't believe in the American way [which they see as christianity], the you ought to go live somewhere else. That's part of that backbone-ness of the community.
Meanwhile, I have a number of friends who are really into their Methodist church. But they don't push it on others. They go, they worship, and it stays with them, but does not become something to result in over-reach. They invite me to occasional events -- a christmas luncheon for seniors (for example) -- but never does a single person suggest I should become a Methodist.
And here's what I see as the difference. You're preaching that the christian faith should be the backbone of the community. What I see as acceptable is that the christian faith should only be seen as the backbone of an individual...an individual who allows other people of other beliefs (including atheism) to have their own moral backbones not dictated by you who feel you are in the majority. When people of a particular belief gang-up on people of people with minority beliefs, that has nothing to do with backbone, but everything to do with bullying.
No, I didn't take it that way. I thought he was trying to say that since atheists are OK with gods that most people no longer believe in as, say, characters, that one day the biblical god will fall into that same category. Like maybe Jehovah will become one of the Avengers or something.
The question implies, however, that you currently don't like a god that you don't believe in.
The OP asks if non believers will ever "find favor" with the Christian God at some point. Will Jehovah ever have his own comic book, and movie series? Will He be all ripped, wear a cool costume, and join the Avengers? I certainly hope not. I can hardly wait for the juvenile fascination with the current crop of superheros to die out. I may be old fashioned (or just plain old), but I remember a time when movie studios spent their money on movies that adults could enjoy. Movies like Chinatown, Amadeus... and Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.
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.
I like that in a man, pressed, crisp clothes.
I was jealous.
