It's not just that I don't believe in God, I think you are LYING when you say you do [Archive] - Page 2

Belz...

16th January 2009, 09:48 AM

You're an atheist. If you don't believe God exists why spend so much of your time learning about him/her/it?

Actually, because some of us want to help other people realise how crappy the entire idea of theism is.

You have repeatedly called some Christians LIARS for being inconsistent in regard to their stated beliefs (claiming they believe the Bible is God's word, yet not bothering to read it).

Personally, I call some christians confused because they don't believe as much as they'd like to (I suspect there are more than I can spot). In order to compensate they try to shield themselves from anything that may shake their faith: they avoid discussion about it or become aggressive when pressed, are incapable of allowing something for the sake of argument that runs counter what they believe, and are incapable of accepting humour directed at their beliefs. To me, and I admit it is an opinion, it indicates an already shaky faith. From what I can tell, those with solid beliefs don't do that.

I Ratant

16th January 2009, 09:57 AM

The "liars" in christianity or any religion are the ones up there at the pulpits or on the tv box with the 800 numbers for where to send the money.
The ordinary rank-and-file believers whether well-read or just drifting with the crowd haven't spent the time to winkle out the lies inherent in the cores of the religions.
Takes too much effort.
Just follow Pascal, can't hurt.

RobRoy

16th January 2009, 09:59 AM

Actually, because some of us want to help other people realise how crappy the entire idea of theism is.

Agreed. And as far as truethat's degree study goes, I wouldn't fault anyone for studying whatever takes their fancy. My brother clearly doesn't agree with the Medieval Catholic Church, the fuedal system, or the European politics and policies of the Middle Ages, and yet he has a doctorate in that field.

Study does not constitute contradiction, just as lack of study does not constitute deliverate deception.

plumjam

16th January 2009, 10:15 AM

Agreed. And as far as truethat's degree study goes, I wouldn't fault anyone for studying whatever takes their fancy. My brother clearly doesn't agree with the Medieval Catholic Church, the fuedal system, or the European politics and policies of the Middle Ages, and yet he has a doctorate in that field.
The difference is that presumably your brother believed that those things he studied actually existed.
To spend years of your life studying things you believe do not even exist is very strange, and suggests a strong inconsistency between your stated beliefs and your actions.

Rrose Selavy

16th January 2009, 10:52 AM

The difference is that presumably your brother believed that those things he studied actually existed.
To spend years of your life studying things you believe do not even exist is very strange, and suggests a strong inconsistency between your stated beliefs and your actions.

False comparison. Does a doctor studying a patient with schizophrenia for example have to believe that the voices they hear really are actually coming from Mars?

plumjam

16th January 2009, 11:08 AM

False comparison. Does a doctor studying a patient with schizophrenia for example have to believe that the voices they hear really are actually coming from Mars?

False comparison back atcha. The doctor believes the patient exists and that the illness exists. If the doctor did not believe the patient and the illness exist then the doctor spending his/her time trying to provide some remedy would be very strange, and inconsistent with his/her stated beliefs.

Rrose Selavy

16th January 2009, 11:26 AM

False comparison back atcha. The doctor believes the patient exists and that the illness exists. If the doctor did not believe the patient and the illness exist then the doctor spending his/her time trying to provide some remedy would be very strange, and inconsistent with his/her stated beliefs.

You really should try a bit harder than that. Does the atheist deny the physical existence of the Bible, Koran as collected texts etc, or the millions of people whose actions are affected by those who believe in them?
There is a phenomena that can (and should) be studied but it ain't the one you think it is.

RobRoy

16th January 2009, 11:54 AM

The difference is that presumably your brother believed that those things he studied actually existed.
To spend years of your life studying things you believe do not even exist is very strange, and suggests a strong inconsistency between your stated beliefs and your actions.

His thesis (and I don't recall if it was for his masters or his doctorate) was on zombies in Medieval Europe. I'm fairly certain he doesn't believe those exists. Yet he spent several months, at great expense, reading original documents throughout several European libraries.

So your conclusion is erroneous.

Belz...

16th January 2009, 12:13 PM

The difference is that presumably your brother believed that those things he studied actually existed.

Uh-huh. The atheist does not deny that religion exists, and that is precisely what is at issue, here. Atheists argue that god doesn't exist against theists. I rarely talk about it to other atheists... what would be the point ?

Foster Zygote

16th January 2009, 12:59 PM

So, making a profession of studying ancient literature would be silly unless one believes that all the stories describe real people and events? Now that's silly.

truethat

16th January 2009, 10:56 PM

that's not what it was at all, you're pretty defensive.

You're an atheist. If you don't believe God exists why spend so much of your time learning about him/her/it?
It would be like me devoting years of my only chance at life studying fairies who live at the bottom of people's gardens.

You have repeatedly called some Christians LIARS for being inconsistent in regard to their stated beliefs (claiming they believe the Bible is God's word, yet not bothering to read it).
In return I put it to you that in your own life you are being inconsistent in regard to your stated beliefs.
You claim you're an atheist.. yet you seem to be devoting a large chunk of your life to studying something you claim you do not believe even exists.
You're not being consistent to your atheism.
The difference is that I would never call you a LIAR for this.

The fact that you can't understand academic interest in the history of religious texts and analysis of the way it impacts society, doesn't really surprise me at all. Many uneducated people I know are God believers.

I do not claim that the bible, torah, qu'ran and other "sacred texts" do not exist. I see these books as written by mankind as a reflection of humanity. They are not spiritual books from God, they are yearning books of man.

I am also interested in MYTH and Mythic language. I'm sure you don't understand that in the slightest so I'm not going to discuss it much further.

However in case you missed it, the books DO exist, only a moron would claim the bible doesn't exist, just because I don't believe in God. To suggest that would suggest that God wrote the books and if God doesn't exist then the books don't. There's no way of saying that intelligently as obviously one thing has nothing to do with the other.

So plumjam, have you read the bible from cover to cover? Do you regularly read this book you so ardently defend?

truethat

16th January 2009, 10:59 PM

I understood from the OP that it was all Christians. I still don't know what TrueThat means. Christians who base their religious beliefs primarily on the Bible? Christians who accept the bible as divinely inspired? Christians who vote according to their bible-inspired beliefs?

I think I've shown that a Christian can have a belief in the divine inspiration of the bible and still not regard it as the prime inspiration for his faith.

We can tell. And neither does Rob Roy, so keep rereading the thread until you do. Its pretty obvious that you guys don't understand what I'm saying.

plumjam

17th January 2009, 02:29 AM

You really should try a bit harder than that. Does the atheist deny the physical existence of the Bible, Koran as collected texts etc, or the millions of people whose actions are affected by those who believe in them?
There is a phenomena that can (and should) be studied but it ain't the one you think it is.
You're missing the point. Atheists believe all those things exist, yet they do not believe God exists. Theology is the study of God.
Study of the things you mention would come under Religious Studies or Comparative Religion.

His thesis (and I don't recall if it was for his masters or his doctorate) was on zombies in Medieval Europe. I'm fairly certain he doesn't believe those exists. Yet he spent several months, at great expense, reading original documents throughout several European libraries.

So your conclusion is erroneous.
So he wasn't studying zombies themselves then. He was studying the cultural effects of beliefs in zombies from a historical perspective. He wasn't studying the zombies, he was studying the belief in zombies.

The fact that you can't understand academic interest in the history of religious texts and analysis of the way it impacts society, doesn't really surprise me at all.
That is not Theology. That is Religious Studies or Comparative Religion, or History of Religions etc..

Many uneducated people I know are God believers.
And?

I do not claim that the bible, torah, qu'ran and other "sacred texts" do not exist. I see these books as written by mankind as a reflection of humanity. They are not spiritual books from God, they are yearning books of man.
Theology is the study of God. To spend years studying Theology while not believing God exists makes about as much sense as someone spending years studying Chemistry while not believing that chemicals exist.

I am also interested in MYTH and Mythic language. I'm sure you don't understand that in the slightest so I'm not going to discuss it much further.

However in case you missed it, the books DO exist, only a moron would claim the bible doesn't exist, just because I don't believe in God. To suggest that would suggest that God wrote the books and if God doesn't exist then the books don't. There's no way of saying that intelligently as obviously one thing has nothing to do with the other.
Sounds like you'd be better off doing Religious Studies, Humanities, Cultural Anthropology or the like.. rather than Theology.

So plumjam, have you read the bible from cover to cover? Do you regularly read this book you so ardently defend?
How is your memory?
When have I ever defended the Bible?
In this very thread I explained (in a response to your question) that I am not a Christian.. and went on to explain my religious influences.

But just so you know, no, I haven't read the Bible cover to cover. I've read sizable chunks of it.. but the genealogies of ancient Jewish tribes, their familial happenings, the bizarre carry on which is the book of Revelation, etc etc.. just were of no interest to me.
As with Westprog, your insistence that self-labeled Christians know all that stuff before you stop calling them LIARS, strikes me as totalitarian thinking, and just another form of silly fundamentalism.

Patsy

17th January 2009, 06:30 AM

...Theology is the study of God...

Not necessarily.

theology

noun
1. the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences

westprog

17th January 2009, 08:37 AM

It's pretty obvious that you guys don't understand what I'm saying.

That's not an observation that necessarily stands to your credit. We'd like to understand - in particular, we'd like you to clarify to whom you are addressing your remarks. It could vary from every person calling himself a Christian down to just this one guy who annoyed you.

A degree of unclarity might stem from the use of the second person.

truethat

17th January 2009, 03:23 PM

Not necessarily.

theology

noun
1. the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences

No kidding.

that's not an observation that necessarily stands to your credit. We'd like to understand - in particular, we'd like you to clarify to whom you are addressing your remarks. It could vary from every person calling himself a Christian down to just this one guy who annoyed you.

A degree of unclarity might stem from the use of the second person.

Since several other people on here apparently have no problem understanding what I'm saying, and haven't from the get go.......perhaps you ought to concern yourself with your ability to understand instead of abdicating responsibility for your issues.

One can't normally understand when the intent is not to. And how interesting that the atheists don't seem to be baffled as much as the believers. Sadly not very surprising in that.

westprog

18th January 2009, 01:35 PM

No kidding.

Since several other people on here apparently have no problem understanding what I'm saying, and haven't from the get go.......perhaps you ought to concern yourself with your ability to understand instead of abdicating responsibility for your issues.

One can't normally understand when the intent is not to.

You've already spent far more time and trouble insisting that your position is obvious and clear than you need have spent explaining it clearly.

Unfortunately the people who've been supporting you have each supported something slightly different according to what you've selected from them.

And how interesting that the atheists don't seem to be baffled as much as the believers. Sadly not very surprising in that.

Yes, how astonishing. A thread contending that believers are LIARS and it gets more support from the atheists. I suppose if you had a thread saying right-handed people were stupid, and got the left-handers saying you were spot on, you'd use that for support as well.

truethat

19th January 2009, 05:24 AM

Since you still don't understand, lets try it this way.

If you are a believer westprog I'd like to know if you believe that the bible is divinely inspired by God? Do you accept it as his law and follow it? Do you believe that based on this book homosexuality is wrong and should not be supported in society because it is an abomination in the eyes of God?

Answer that and I'll show you what I'm saying. I see everyone else totally getting it and not attacking "believers" but those who say certain things as believers.....so one thing at a time. Answer the above questions if you don't mind?

westprog

19th January 2009, 07:54 AM

Since you still don't understand, lets try it this way.

If you are a believer westprog I'd like to know if you believe that the bible is divinely inspired by God? Do you accept it as his law and follow it? Do you believe that based on this book homosexuality is wrong and should not be supported in society because it is an abomination in the eyes of God?

Why do you need to know my beliefs before explaining yours?

Answer that and I'll show you what I'm saying. I see everyone else totally getting it and not attacking "believers" but those who say certain things as believers.....so one thing at a time. Answer the above questions if you don't mind?

If you are limiting your observations to people proposing specific anti-gay legislation, then that's a sufficient restriction for me.

normdoering

19th January 2009, 08:17 AM

The reason the believer tries so hard to convince the non believer is basically because they are trying to convince themselves. If they can win a point or convert the non believer then they have won some personal victory over their own skepticism.

That can be inverted. Maybe you argue against god-beliefs because you are trying to believe in God?
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2009/01/introducing-derren-brown.html

If you REALLY believed in God, you wouldn't behave the way you do.

Don't under estimate the level of psychosis that can be induced by scarring kids with threats of hell. The resulting behavior may not make logical sense:
http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/
http://regardingeternity.blogspot.com/
http://voxday.blogspot.com/

God doesn't ask Christians to create a world that reflects His views?

The New Testament does instruct believers to evangelize "don't hide your light under a bushel basket."

If you really believed that this text was from God, why haven't you read it?

They have probably tried but found it too confusing and thus come to rely on interpreters.

RobRoy

19th January 2009, 10:04 AM

So he wasn't studying zombies themselves then. He was studying the cultural effects of beliefs in zombies from a historical perspective. He wasn't studying the zombies, he was studying the belief in zombies.

I believe his studies were exhaustive on the subject, as most master/doctorate theses are wont to be. I see where you’re driving, and as much as I disagree with truethat, I’m afraid that your point still fails.

truethat

22nd January 2009, 12:28 PM

Why do you need to know my beliefs before explaining yours?

If you are limiting your observations to people proposing specific anti-gay legislation, then that's a sufficient restriction for me.

Why the defensive stance? You feign confusion and when presented with an opportunity to clearly understand you balk? Odd? But typical.:whistling

westprog

22nd January 2009, 01:39 PM

Why the defensive stance?

I'm not being defensive, I'm being uncooperative.

You feign confusion and when presented with an opportunity to clearly understand you balk? Odd? But typical.:whistling

I'm really not interested in bartering information. You put forward a viewpoint which I find ambiguous. I've asked you to explain it. If you can't explain it except in terms of my beliefs then it can't be clearly formulated in the first place.

I haven't been putting my beliefs forward here, so I don't intend to justify them.

truethat

22nd January 2009, 01:56 PM

Like I said, typical. This is why I don't believe people believe in God when they spend so much time defending a position and then when called on their actual faith, they balk and start coming up with excuses.

If you really believed in God, there would be no hesitation. This is my observation over the last few years. The hemming and hawwing I typically see is a sign to me of disingenuous faith. I don't know your personal beliefs per se. And I wasn't trying to trap you or any sort of thing like that. It's just odd to me that people who spend so much time defending the bible rarely take the time to actually read it.

One more thing, if you don't understand what I am saying but numerous people in the thread DO then the onus is on YOU not me to make an effort. Although you seem to suggest being "lazy" is some sort of excuse for not reading the bible, this same laziness is no excuse not to try to understand something.

Since two separate people rephrased what I have said, then for you to suggest that it is my flaw in argument is silly. Just read the other interpretations then and try to make sense of it.

That is if you really want to understand. My observation is people who don't want to understand something usually make a point not to, no matter how many alternatives are presented to them.

Darth Rotor

22nd January 2009, 09:05 PM

It is spelled Qur'an.
Bob Bob Bob
Bob Bob Qur'an

Went to the tent
Looking for a wench
Tripped on Bob Quran
Fell in camel poo -- the stench

Oh Bob Qur'an
Bob Bob, Bob Bob Qur'an
Oh Bob Qur'a a an

You got me fumblin and a stumblin'
All over the sand my Bob Qur'an
Bob Bob
Bob Bob Qur'an
Don't shoot me, I'm only the bazouki player ...

DR

Darth Rotor

22nd January 2009, 09:11 PM

Because I'm a lazy bastard who doesn't like people.
Your following attempts at points in the quote this is snipped up is excellent supporting evidence. The OP is deliberately insulting, it seems.

Just because people who do believe in God don't go about it in a way that you would does not make them non-believers.

If you can grasp what I just wrote, good. If not, no problem, you've had plenty of others to play with in the thread.

DR

westprog

23rd January 2009, 03:05 AM

Since two separate people rephrased what I have said, then for you to suggest that it is my flaw in argument is silly. Just read the other interpretations then and try to make sense of it.

Yes, several other people have rephrased the argument. All of them as something subtly different.

I wonder do you REALLY mean what you are saying. If you did, wouldn't you be EAGER to EXPLAIN it? Maybe the reason you won't say precisely what you BELIEVE is because you aren't really SURE.

RobRoy

23rd January 2009, 09:42 AM

Just because people who do believe in God don't go about it in a way that you would does not make them non-believers.

If you can grasp what I just wrote, good. If not, no problem, you've had plenty of others to play with in the thread.

:bigclap

I wonder do you REALLY mean what you are saying. If you did, wouldn't you be EAGER to EXPLAIN it? Maybe the reason you won't say precisely what you BELIEVE is because you aren't really SURE.

Agreed.

The piffle has changed from "you don't understand" to "typical". A non-argument at best. Sadly, I have the feeling that the next response will just be more of the same, without any thought to actually discussing the matter at hand.

truethat, you seem to have locked yourself in the closet, swallowed the key, and are now insisting that your view of the world through the keyhole is what everyone else should see. It seems that you're uninterested in discussion, but rather you're trying to force-feed your ill-conceived conclusions from what you think is a morally superior platform, and you're alternately shocked, angered, or frustrated that no one is eating.

Perhaps if you put more energy into actual discussion, rather than knee-jerk defense of what is an untenable position, you might find some enlightenment in your little room.

Good luck!

westprog

23rd January 2009, 11:14 AM

truethat, you seem to have locked yourself in the closet, swallowed the key, and are now insisting that your view of the world through the keyhole is what everyone else should see. It seems that you're uninterested in discussion, but rather you're trying to force-feed your ill-conceived conclusions from what you think is a morally superior platform, and you're alternately shocked, angered, or frustrated that no one is eating.

Perhaps if you put more energy into actual discussion, rather than knee-jerk defense of what is an untenable position, you might find some enlightenment in your little room.

Good luck!

I just scanned the last page, and it seems that there's a shortage of all the people who fully understand what Truethat is saying. Everyone else either has a problem with it, or is engaged in a quite seperate discussion with Plumjam.

I don't think it's common practice to refuse to explain a confusing position unless the explainee gives a full breakdown of his beliefs. Generally on a forum one just puts forward ideas and discusses them. If you want them to be accepted, you keep explaining until everyone understands. That's a first step to convincing other people. If you don't want to convince other people then why post anything at all?

It's highly ironic that Truethat condemns some as yet undefined subset of Christians for lacking the courage of their convictions, but won't state in twenty-five words exactly which Christians she's referring to.

RobRoy

23rd January 2009, 11:24 AM

I just scanned the last page, and it seems that there's a shortage of all the people who fully understand what Truethat is saying. Everyone else either has a problem with it, or is engaged in a quite seperate discussion with Plumjam.

I don't think it's common practice to refuse to explain a confusing position unless the explainee gives a full breakdown of his beliefs. Generally on a forum one just puts forward ideas and discusses them. If you want them to be accepted, you keep explaining until everyone understands. That's a first step to convincing other people. If you don't want to convince other people then why post anything at all?

It's highly ironic that Truethat condemns some as yet undefined subset of Christians for lacking the courage of their convictions, but won't state in twenty-five words exactly which Christians she's referring to.

Giving truethat the benefit of the doubt, I think that she had a general concept but that it wasn't well articulated. Perhaps she thought it was, but clearly it wasn't. Then, when questioned, pressed, and presented with the obvious flaws, she became embarassed and dug in her heels on the whole matter, refusing to yeild the point, as if admitting that she may have been wrong would somehow paint her as a person who was not worthy, or was somehow of lesser intelligence.

I've seen it many times on the internet, and, in my younger days, even been guilty of it myself. I don't think she'll yeild the point, and will likely take umbrage at me for making such assumptions. But given her pattern to this point, it seems pretty clear that's what's occured.

She simply didn't realize that on a skeptics forum, almost every notion and nuance is closely scrutinized. Some members, of course, are more beligerant than others in this, but others are good-intentioned and honestly want to understand.

westprog

23rd January 2009, 12:28 PM

Giving truethat the benefit of the doubt, I think that she had a general concept but that it wasn't well articulated. Perhaps she thought it was, but clearly it wasn't. Then, when questioned, pressed, and presented with the obvious flaws, she became embarassed and dug in her heels on the whole matter, refusing to yeild the point, as if admitting that she may have been wrong would somehow paint her as a person who was not worthy, or was somehow of lesser intelligence.

I've seen it many times on the internet, and, in my younger days, even been guilty of it myself. I don't think she'll yield the point, and will likely take umbrage at me for making such assumptions. But given her pattern to this point, it seems pretty clear that's what's occured.

She simply didn't realize that on a skeptics forum, almost every notion and nuance is closely scrutinized. Some members, of course, are more beligerant than others in this, but others are good-intentioned and honestly want to understand.

Saying "What precisely do you mean by that?" is not a threat or an insult, and it doesn't even mean that you weren't clear in the first place - it just means you said something and it didn't get across. It's to your opponents that you need to make your arguments clear - it's very easy to placate your supporters with a half-arsed argument.

An eerie thing just happened. While I was typing the above, I was listening to

You start a conversation you can't even finish it.
You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything.
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.

I've decided to not take it as referring to me.

RobRoy

23rd January 2009, 12:47 PM

Saying "What precisely do you mean by that?" is not a threat or an insult, and it doesn't even mean that you weren't clear in the first place - it just means you said something and it didn't get across. It's to your opponents that you need to make your arguments clear - it's very easy to placate your supporters with a half-arsed argument.

Oh, agreed. A call for clarity is not necessarily an attack or an insult. It's an attempt to understand so that a better discussion can take place, and better arguments can be made. Taking umbrage only results in kind . . . although sometimes that's the best dialogue we see on here!

I've decided to not take it as referring to me.

Probably a wise decision.

truethat

23rd January 2009, 05:05 PM

Once more yammering on from the peanut gallery that seem to share a brain cell. I guess all the other people who understood the point, are just "pretending" or wait, they are my sock puppet friends.

Darth Rotor

24th January 2009, 07:18 PM

What is ultimate truth?
The question asked by Ultimate Pilate. ;)

The OP is constructed as an insult. I ought not be surprised at the pages in responses it evoked.

DR

Darth Rotor

24th January 2009, 07:26 PM

I don't see how one could possible call themselves a Christian, and not take the bible as a sacred text.
Then the problem you brought up in the OP is yours. By that I mean you have a problem with empathy, perecption, and possibly an expectation for others to conform to your pigeonhole.

Do go on. It is most entertaining.

As to your description of the Bible: what the Bible can be called, without reservation, by anyone who is in one of hundreds of Christian sects is the foundational doctrinal reference. It is called more by some, or rather by many, but at the least this is agreeable as a lowest common denominator

That it is an anthology is part of its charm, part of its value, and part of its shortcoming. The Song of Solomon is in a completely different voice than the book of Kings, for example, or Paul's various letters. Psalms raises different concerns than does Revelation. The Gospel of Mark is of another kind than Exodus.

What you are demanding from Christians, be they Fundy, the Pope, or as noted above cultural christians (nicely put, Darat)/ casual Christians, is damned arrogant of you on them. What is ironic is that this seems to be your complaint vis a vis their expectations on you, as you perceive them, regarding how you ought to be.

Funny, in your conversation here, you appear to be doing as they are, they being those whom your OP holds in disdain.

"I, truethat, see it this way, thus you must ... (fill in the blank with your petulant demands here)"

Motes in the eye, and fence posts, believer or no.

DR

truethat

25th January 2009, 05:31 AM

No, I am saying, that I truethat am saying that if you wish ME and SOCIETY to accept this book as an authoritative book of rules from the Almighty God, then you need to have read it to convince me of your belief in this matter. Otherwise I don't believe that you really believe what you are saying but are merely using this book as justification for pet hatred projects.

Said it, several times. Others see it, a few don't. Curious.

Safe-Keeper

25th January 2009, 06:18 AM

westprog

25th January 2009, 07:47 AM

truethat

26th January 2009, 05:41 AM

OK, let me enter with my two cents.

This thread, from what I've read of it, reminds me of one of those many fundamentalist threads which basically go, "if you believe we evolved from apes, then {some strange arbitrary consequence here}". Example: "If atheists really believed there was no God, they'd be out there stealing and raping and murdering. In their hearts, they know He exists and will judge them on Judgment Day, and it's only because of their Sinful nature that they choose to exercise their Free Will by defying Him!".

Or, to turn it around: "If you really believed in God, you'd read the Bible from cover to cover. I think you're lying when you say that you follow an interpretation in which you can be your own moral compass, live life as you see fit with the Bible as a guideline, and still be welcomed into Paradise by a cheerful God".

I personally am a supporter of the democracy, freedoms and welfare system currently enjoyed by residents of Norway. I still haven't read the Constitution and our laws from A to Å, nor am I going to, perhaps unless I study law or get really, really bored.

Yes and no. A lot of people who live their lives have faith that the Bible tells them to do what they're doing, see for example all the poor souls who believe it's the cornerstone of modern democracies. So in that respect, yes, they do use the Bible as the basis for their morality, or at least think they do.

The original point of the thread which to some is clear and others not, is to readjust the paradigm. I believe that when a non believer is arguing with a believer and they start debating the contradictions in the bible, for example, that the surface conversation is just by way of habit.

I believe that when someone is debating the Christian it is not about whether the bible is true, or if God exists, but rather the Atheist is dubious of the Christian's claim that he actually believes the Bible is written by God.

As I said, which someone called arguing from creduality or something like that, it defies logic and reason that if a person truly believed this book was written by God that they would not read it.

The constitution is written by man. Therefore it's nothing new. If you want to read something by a man you can do it every day. But God? That's different.

Take God out of it and look at it this way. If a Dog suddenly had the capabilities to write a book, and it was not a hoax but the Dog typed the book or something, wouldn't you read it just out of curiosity?

RobRoy

26th January 2009, 10:01 AM

The original point of the thread which to some is clear and others not, is to readjust the paradigm. I believe that when a non believer is arguing with a believer and they start debating the contradictions in the bible, for example, that the surface conversation is just by way of habit.

I believe that when someone is debating the Christian it is not about whether the bible is true, or if God exists, but rather the Atheist is dubious of the Christian's claim that he actually believes the Bible is written by God.

So your argument is that atheists don't believe a Christian's claim? Yeah, you're completely wrong here. An atheist is dubious of the tenability of the Christian's claim based on a faulty argument: that there is a God. But almost all the atheists I've ever known or discussed topics with have never denied that the Christian believes what he/she believes. They just think the Christian is wrong.

The constitution is written by man. Therefore it's nothing new. If you want to read something by a man you can do it every day. But God? That's different.

This isn't what Safe-Keeper was saying, but rather reflecting the error of your logic. He's stating that he believes in democracy, to whatever extent, but that he hasn't read the Constitution or the laws that support that democracy. This is a direct parallel to your statement that the Christian who hasn't read the Bible must be lying about that belief.

Take God out of it and look at it this way. If a Dog suddenly had the capabilities to write a book, and it was not a hoax but the Dog typed the book or something, wouldn't you read it just out of curiosity?

Sure. But that doesn't mean that Fido's abilities as a story-teller would make everyone want to read the whole thing from cover to cover. Nor would it disclude people from reading reports by experts of canine ltierature, which would support the conclusion that Fido did, actually, write the book without them having to read it. Further, they could believe in Fido, based on the anecdotal evidence of friends, family, and generations of other Fido-ites, without ever cracking Fido's "original" work.

Belz...

26th January 2009, 12:00 PM

To be fair, though, Robroy, some theists believe less than they pretend to.

RobRoy

26th January 2009, 01:49 PM

To be fair, though, Robroy, some theists believe less than they pretend to.

Granted. At the same time, some atheist might believe more than they . . . no, wait, that doesn't really work, does it. :D

My point, however, is that just because some Christians might only be going through the motions, you can't extrapolate that out to all Christians, and from there to all theists everywhere, and make a claim that anyone who claims to believe in God is a liar. That's a bit silly.

Minarvia

26th January 2009, 08:41 PM

Just as a newer sceptic than most here, and a Jane Public, I understand what Truethat is saying. I agree with him that if Christians say they believe the bible is written by god and use it for their arguments than they should indeed have read it. I cannot take a person who has not read it and take their arguments seriously when I know more about their book (I read it cover to cover way back in college) than they do and all they would have to do is read the book they profess is so holy.

If a Christian says no such thing to me I have no problem. But as Truethat says, if one does, I do not believe them if they can't even read the book of their god. I mean no offense to anyone, but I just can't take them too seriously.

truethat

26th January 2009, 09:31 PM

truethat

26th January 2009, 10:05 PM

So your argument is that atheists don't believe a Christian's claim? Yeah, you're completely wrong here. An atheist is dubious of the tenability of the Christian's claim based on a faulty argument: that there is a God. But almost all the atheists I've ever known or discussed topics with have never denied that the Christian believes what he/she believes. They just think the Christian is wrong.

This is what I am asking the Atheists to examine. It is my belief that the arguments are not really about the faulty argument. I think this is by way of habit what is discussed. But you get to a point where people ought to just walk away and agree to disagree. However lately it seems this doesn't happen.

What I am suggesting to the atheists is that their continued debating is not frustration in the other persons faith or (as some have inanely argued) a unconscious yearning for faith, but rather that this Christian is not convincing in their statement that they actually believe in God.

This is clearly evidenced by them not actually reading the bible. Look at your answer for the dog book, you immediately said sure. Because of course you would read it. The same way I stated earlier that if God himself appeared in the sky and said he was emailing everyone tomorrow. Everyone on the planet would read that email. Skeptics and believers alike.

I find it quite interesting that many atheists are more well versed in the bible, having read the bible at some point. However numerous Christians who claim to believe that this book was sent to them by some awe inspiring shockingly magnificent creator of the universe.......have not bothered to read it.

It just is not believable to me that this could be true. Maybe a small fraction of people. But if one believed truly in this great creator his presence would trump everything else in a person's life.

So when you put bowling above God, I gotta say I don't think you really believe in him.

Patsy

27th January 2009, 06:31 AM

Thank you Minarvia, I fail to see why this is so confusing for RobRoy to understand.

RobRoy keeps insisting that I'm saying ALL CHRISTIANS and since I've gone to great extremes to explain to him this is NOT what I am saying I think he's playing dumb because he can't argue the point and it bothers him for some reason.

Hmmm wonder why? RobRoy are you a self proclaimed Christian who has not read the bible? I'm just curious?

I want to say that I also do not understand either, why some posters are finding your point so hard to understand, or why they are taking offense as if it applies to them personally. It breaks down like this to me:

You say believe in the all powerful God of the Christians
You say believe either that the Christian Bible is written by God or that the writers were inspired by God and it expresses his will
You say believe in an eternal soul, and that your soul will end up in heaven or hell based upon God's judgement after death
You use the bible to justify persecuting, annoying, or curtailing the rights of others, based upon the claim it is the word of God
You actually are not intimately familiar, front to back, with the entire Bible that you thump so heartily
If you meet all these criteria, like Truethat, I have to assume you fall somewhere on an arc between lying about your belief to suit your own agenda and self-deluded.

I cannot take seriously any argument that you wouldn't make sure you carefully study the instruction manual if you truly believed that the stakes involved were no more or less than the fate of your eternal soul, and the consequence of making a fatal error was eternal, unending torture.

Blackadder

27th January 2009, 07:46 AM

I also agree with Truethat. I have one thing to add. Maybe this illiterate yet bible based christianity is more common in the USA. (not because of any difference in literacy, just LOADS more people in Europe claim they are non religious) In Europe tradition is a little different and maybe that is why some people trouble understanding Truethat's thesis.

For example a close personal christian friend is (in my view) an example of the typical northen european christian. He reads his bible. Every day. He tries to live according to his beliefs, goes to church, gives about 10% of his income to charity and helps other people. He is a very good human being. He also goes to a weekly meeting with other christians outside the sunday service, In these meetings they debate theological things (and pray and do whatever they do, I have never been there). If he talks about that I see they are full of doubt, doubt about almost everything in their belief. There is large aspect of fear in their beliefs, fear that they don't understand god. Their kind of church is in the tradition of Calvin. (Reformed)

So this leads to a type of christians that instead of NOT reading their holy book, you could say that they read their holy book TOO much, and think about it too much.

My belief is that I can claim the same as Truethat, It leads to people that don't really belief what they are claiming. But for different reasons. Deep in their heart they come to the conclusion (by long traditions of study) that their holy book is a load of crap. But to admit that is very hard. However in this 21st century it is the logic thing to do.

NB outside the Reformed tradition in Europe we also have the roman catholic church of course, but they don't base their belief on the bible, but on the church itself, they call it the Church (one and only) and this leads to complete different viewpoints, but that is for another story....

Safe-Keeper

27th January 2009, 08:14 AM

I want to say that I also do not understand either, why some posters are finding your point so hard to understand, or why they are taking offense as if it applies to them personally.Because it's a gigantic non-sequitur.

Yes, it's a contradiction to believe in God and not bother to read the Bible.
It does not, however, follow that you don't believe in God.

People act in ways that I find contradicting (or is it contradictory?) all the time. Many people who are well aware of their lung cancer continue to smoke, even though they know it'll reduce or nullify their chances of surviving. Does this mean they don't believe in their lung cancer? Of course not.

I'm not disputing that it's strange to believe in God and not read his Holy Book. What I'm taking issue with is that you have this ludicrous claim that all these people, many of which attend church, talk about God, pray and spread the Good Word... don't believe in God, just because they don't read a certain book. That is what we find ludicrous.

My belief is that I can claim the same as Truethat, It leads to people that don't really belief what they are claiming. But for different reasons. Deep in their heart they come to the conclusion (by long traditions of study) that their holy book is a load of crap. But to admit that is very hard. However in this 21st century it is the logic thing to do.The same way we atheists are born Christians and know in our hearts from birth that God is real, but deny it in order to sin?

This is clearly evidenced by them not actually reading the bible. Look at your answer for the dog book, you immediately said sure. Because of course you would read it.No, I wouldn't 'of course' read it. I'd want a copy, sure, and I'd open the book out of curiosity, but if the contents were boring (Bible), made me too angry to continue reading it (Bible) or was both of the previous and also incredibly long, redundant and poorly edited (BibleBibleBible)... I would put it down.

1. You say believe in the all powerful God of the Christians
2. You say believe either that the Christian Bible is written by God or that the writers were inspired by God and it expresses his will
3. You say believe in an eternal soul, and that your soul will end up in heaven or hell based upon God's judgement after death
4. You use the bible to justify persecuting, annoying, or curtailing the rights of others, based upon the claim it is the word of God
5. You actually are not intimately familiar, front to back, with the entire Bible that you thump so heartilyIf this strawman is your premise, then it's no wonder you arrive at the conclusion you do.

#3: Very, very, very many Christians, in Europe at least, adhere to Sola Fide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide) (sp?) - 'faith alone'. Whether or not you end up in Heaven or Hell is based on your religion, not by 'God's judgment after death'. My Christian friends who don't read the Bible... many of them have pastors to interpret and preach it to them. Many view it as merely a set of guidelines. Many believe they already know what it says, and thus don't really feel like they need to read it (just like how truethat hasn't read the laws of the USA cover to cover because they're boring and hard to understand as hell and others have explained to him what they say... oh, wait, that's right, he doesn't believe the police and prisons exist). Many Christian denominations don't seem to consider the Bible all that important at all, nor do they necessarily believe it was written by God.

#4: Last time I checked, this was not part of the definition of 'Christian'. I wonder why this is even in here. Is this thread about only the Christians who do these things? If not, why is this point present in this list?

jmcvann

27th January 2009, 08:46 AM

jmcvann

27th January 2009, 08:49 AM

The same way we atheists are born Christians and know in our hearts from birth that God is real, but deny it in order to sin?

What?????

Minarvia

27th January 2009, 09:31 AM

Yeah, WHAT??? All babies are born Christians??? Since when? And for the first time I can say, "evidence?"

Fiona

27th January 2009, 10:56 AM

I think Safe-keeper is making the parallel with what some christians argue, as he said in an earlier post: it is perhaps the same kind of thinking. But I may be wrong as I have not paid close attention

Safe-Keeper

27th January 2009, 12:03 PM

Direct parallel? I don't think so. Maybe if someone claimed the Constitution was written by supernatural beings... Laws don't need to be written by supernatural beings. There's still rules in there you need to follow as otherwise you'll find yourself in jail for a very long time, or maybe even executed. Your very existence on this planet could be at stake! So read it!

That is, if you believe the police, prisons, etc. to be real, and if you don't read your nations' laws, which your life depends on, from cover to cover, I think you are lying when you say you do!

As for my other post, I thought it was quite clear (Fiona nailed it), but apparently not. To reiterate, to say that "theists know in their hearts that the Bible is BS" makes as much sense as theists saying that everyone knows in his heart that God exists, but denies it for some arbitrary reason. Neither statement has any backing in reality.

westprog

27th January 2009, 01:25 PM

Is this thread about only the Christians who do these things?

Yes. Or no. In any case, it should be perfectly obvious.

Patsy

27th January 2009, 03:36 PM

Safe-keeper, would you like to address my actual position rather than a straw man of it?

Everyone keeps repeating this strawman as if I am broadly brushing all of Christianity. This is not the actual position that is being taken. Every point in your post was aimed at a straw version of my position, rather than my actual position.

Why, why are certain posters unable to wrap their heads around the ACTUAL position taken and the actual arguments made.

I listed the actual behavior and claims of the specific subgroup I had in mind quite clearly and carefully, and still, it seems some just cannot grasp that their strawman does not represent what I have said.

Minarvia

27th January 2009, 05:42 PM

Laws don't need to be written by supernatural beings. There's still rules in there you need to follow as otherwise you'll find yourself in jail for a very long time, or maybe even executed. Your very existence on this planet could be at stake! So read it!

That is, if you believe the police, prisons, etc. to be real, and if you don't read your nations' laws, which your life depends on, from cover to cover, I think you are lying when you say you do!

As for my other post, I thought it was quite clear (Fiona nailed it), but apparently not. To reiterate, to say that "theists know in their hearts that the Bible is BS" makes as much sense as theists saying that everyone knows in his heart that God exists, but denies it for some arbitrary reason. Neither statement has any backing in reality.

Okay, I'll take a stab at this. Good point, in a way, but this discussion is about god and his written/inspired divine book. Secular laws aren't as important in such a context because they cannot condemn you to eternal torture. If I really, truly, believed in a god and his book was available to me you'd bet your ass I'd read it. Especially if such a being has complete and utter control over my eternal fate.

Fiona

27th January 2009, 05:53 PM

Minarvia

27th January 2009, 08:36 PM

There is a tradition against the laity reading the bible within catholicism: while that is not current ( so far as I know) I believe it was argued that it is a complex and apparently contradictory document: therefore interpretation should be undertaken by those who can afford to devote their whole time to its study and who are working within a context of dogma/authority. That is a simplistic paraphrase but it was the belief for a very long time and I do not think the mindset it reflects is wholly gone. Perhaps you are mostly talking out of a protestant culture? The personal and individual relationship with god is more important there and direct reading of the bible would seem to make more sense in that case?

As a former Catholic I know that bible reading was not only encouraged but expected. You are probably right about the past but I don't think that has been the case for quite some time. Even my mother was expected to read her bible and did. She said it was hard going but she plowed thru it. :)

Anyway, just being cynical of people in general in some ways, I personally believe most don't read it out of laziness, to be honest. It isn't great literature and it is not an overly enjoyable read. It is entertaining in parts, and horrific in many others. And sometimes it is just plain boring. I highly doubt that people today refuse to read it out of respect, tho I commend your attitude! I like to think the best of people but in some cases I just cannot. And I think many people are lazy in general when it comes to a big, fat book, coming from a god or not.

RobRoy

28th January 2009, 07:50 AM

RobRoy keeps insisting that I'm saying ALL CHRISTIANS and since I've gone to great extremes to explain to him this is NOT what I am saying I think he's playing dumb because he can't argue the point and it bothers him for some reason.

Hardly. I've requested several times that you clarify which Christians you're discussing, since not all are created equal. You've taken extreme umbrage at my requests.

Hmmm wonder why? RobRoy are you a self proclaimed Christian who has not read the bible? I'm just curious?

Hardly. I answered your question regarding my particular beliefs some pages ago. To reiterate: I'm not a Christian. I have read the Bible.

So when you put bowling above God, I gotta say I don't think you really believe in him.

And I would tend to agree, but I wouldn't generalize that sentiment. Nor would I draw the conclusion that such a person is blatantly trying to deceive you.

I dunno. A great deal of "belief in belief" goes on. People like the comfort that comes with belief, and will not go out of their way to disrupt that comfort.

Sorry, but you're taking me out of context here. This is not my argument, but rather a summarization of truethat's in an attempt to find some clarity in her position. I agree with you in this regard. There is not necessarily intentional deception on the part of the non-Bible-reading-Christian.

There may, however, be unrealized hypocrisy, but not the deception that truethat claims.

Direct parallel? I don't think so. Maybe if someone claimed the Constitution was written by supernatural beings...

The parallel is in regards to belief and deception. Not in regards to origin.

RobRoy

28th January 2009, 07:55 AM

There is a tradition against the laity reading the bible within catholicism: while that is not current ( so far as I know) I believe it was argued that it is a complex and apparently contradictory document: therefore interpretation should be undertaken by those who can afford to devote their whole time to its study and who are working within a context of dogma/authority. That is a simplistic paraphrase but it was the belief for a very long time and I do not think the mindset it reflects is wholly gone. Perhaps you are mostly talking out of a protestant culture? The personal and individual relationship with god is more important there and direct reading of the bible would seem to make more sense in that case?

As Minarvia points out (and as you stated) this isn't a current trend, although it is a current tradition. I had a Catholic friend who at one point started reading the Bible. When I asked her how it was going, she said she'd given up the enterprise because, as she stated, "If you attend mass for two years, they read the Bible to you, and then explain it." I have little doubt that she believed in God, very little doubt that she was honest in her belief, but given the option of putting in the time and effort, when it could be read to her and then "explained", her choice is very understandable.

truethat

29th January 2009, 03:04 PM

Because it's a gigantic non-sequitur.

Yes, it's a contradiction to believe in God and not bother to read the Bible.
It does not, however, follow that you don't believe in God.

People act in ways that I find contradicting (or is it contradictory?) all the time. Many people who are well aware of their lung cancer continue to smoke, even though they know it'll reduce or nullify their chances of surviving. Does this mean they don't believe in their lung cancer? Of course not.

This is a strawman * could we all stop with the bogus use of code words...sheesh"

The fact is, when it comes to BELIEF not statement of belief, that most smokers really did NOT believe that they would get lung cancer. So this is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about "Logic" I'm talking about heart of hearts. A smoker deep in his heart doesn't think its going to happen to them. When they do think so they usually quit.

Additionally this is a stupid comparison because smoking is an addictive habit, that is PHYSICALLY addicting, and not reading the bible, is not.

I'm not disputing that it's strange to believe in God and not read his Holy Book. What I'm taking issue with is that you have this ludicrous claim that all these people, many of which attend church, talk about God, pray and spread the Good Word... don't believe in God, just because they don't read a certain book. That is what we find ludicrous.

A certain book? You make it sound like I'm saying "If you don't read War and Peace then you don't believe in God, and those are the rules that I've just made up!"

It's not about it being a certain book, it's that it is supposed to be FROM GOD. You seem to be missing the detail there, bottom line to me, if you are not reading the book it is because you don't really believe it is from God. And if you don't believe it is from God then you ought not to be using it to instruct others how to live now should you? The fact that you cling to such an obvious lie makes me consider you a liar.

The same way we atheists are born Christians and know in our hearts from birth that God is real, but deny it in order to sin?

Ehhhhhhhh?

No, I wouldn't 'of course' read it. I'd want a copy, sure, and I'd open the book out of curiosity, but if the contents were boring (Bible), made me too angry to continue reading it (Bible) or was both of the previous and also incredibly long, redundant and poorly edited (BibleBibleBible)... I would put it down.

This statement is an oxymoron. AWE INSPIRING BOREDOM eh? Wow, that God, he really can do anything!

If this strawman is your premise, then it's no wonder you arrive at the conclusion you do.

#3: Very, very, very many Christians, in Europe at least, adhere to Sola Fide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide) (sp?) - 'faith alone'. Whether or not you end up in Heaven or Hell is based on your religion, not by 'God's judgment after death'. My Christian friends who don't read the Bible... many of them have pastors to interpret and preach it to them. Many view it as merely a set of guidelines. Many believe they already know what it says, and thus don't really feel like they need to read it (just like how truethat hasn't read the laws of the USA cover to cover because they're boring and hard to understand as hell and others have explained to him what they say... oh, wait, that's right, he doesn't believe the police and prisons exist). Many Christian denominations don't seem to consider the Bible all that important at all, nor do they necessarily believe it was written by God.

Yaaaaaaaaawn missing the point (I should train a parrot. I'm getting tired)

#4: Last time I checked, this was not part of the definition of 'Christian'. I wonder why this is even in here. Is this thread about only the Christians who do these things? If not, why is this point present in this list?

I'm not defining Christians. I'm talking about the behavior of people who lie.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4072816/

RobRoy

29th January 2009, 04:28 PM

I'm not defining Christians. I'm talking about the behavior of people who lie.

Oh, but you are. Your OP makes this quite clear, as have your subsequent statements. You are defining Christians who don't read the Bible as lying about their beliefs. Essentially, if A (a Christians who doesn't read the Bible), then B (lying about their belief), where A become a sub-set of B, or where CWDRTB are all part of the larger group LATB.

That doesn't work, since it's not a one to one ratio. It would be nice if the world were so black and white, but as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, that's not the case. The group CWDRTB is not a subset of the group Liars, but rather there is a cross-over between the two, where some CWDRTBs are LATBs, and some LATBs are CWDRTBs, but not all.

If I had any skill to build a Venn diagram, I would do so to illustrate the two points. Suffice to say that your conclusion is now, and remains, incorrect because it is too general and cannot be applied to all cases at all times.

Minarvia

29th January 2009, 05:42 PM

I don't know about others, but if someone claims to believe in god, the very god who has control over whether they have a pleasant eternity or an agonizingly painful one, and who has reasonable reading skills, would read said god's book. If they don't, and I know many who vigorously claim to believe, do not read it and have affairs and treat people like dirt. To me, they are lying. If they truly believed deep down in what they claimed, they wouldn't behave as they do. If they truly believed they could suffer eternal punishment, they would read the book and adhere to their religion's dogma.

If this was poorly stated, I'm sorry. I just basically agree with Truethat. Of course, some could say "believe" in the same sense as "I think I believe, but I'm not really sure, but I'll go along with Pascal's Wager," or "believe" in "I truly believe with all my heart, mind and soul."

Belz...

30th January 2009, 04:23 AM

I know a couple people who say they believe in the "good" book litterally, but haven't read it. :boggled:

truethat

30th January 2009, 04:54 AM

I do too. Except I know more than a few people. Minarvia it was not poorly stated. I think many people in the thread understand it perfectly and others are attempting to derail the conversation with a strawman.

I suggest that the conversation is FULL STOP with a Christian who is attempting to use the bible to justify some spectacular act of bigotry. If the Christian deep in their heart of hearts believed this book was what they claim to be they would read it.

I also find it telling that some of the believers on this thread are basically equating the bible with "laws of man" and "a book" as if there is no special significance to it whatsoever. This again indicates to me that they don't really believe that God influenced the writing of the bible. Because if one is quick to say they would read a book that a dog wrote but offer up a ton of excuses why it is reasonable not to read the bible, that is pretty telling in itself.

I am getting the impression that no one really regards the bible as a sacred text at all. In which case what is the basis for Christian God belief in the first place. Where else are you getting the basis of your faith if not from the bible? From your shared gossip of said book? There is then, no sense of authority to this faith whatsoever. It would be no different than saying that I really believed in Harry Potter, and then collectively forming a group of believers. Without the book being a sacred text, there's no authority.

Someone mentioned earlier that they HAVE read the bible, some people, or started to, and quickly realized it was a bunch of bullchips to suggest that it was divinely inspired. So in essence they reject this book as sacred.

So again, where are you getting your basis of faith from?

Flo

30th January 2009, 06:19 AM

I know a couple people who say they believe in the "good" book litterally, but haven't read it. :boggled:

I had someone who told me she believed the bible (OT) was to be taken litterally, every single letter of it was the word of god, particularly the bit about my health problems being sent by god to bring me back to religion (I'm still looking for that one ...).

She then admitted she had never read the thing, had converted very recently, and relied on what the bully at her church had told her to tell me. Boy was she surprised when I showed her what it said about her lifestyle (1 child out of wedlock with a then married man, then lived with another married man for some years, and "converted" when he ditched her for someone younger ...).

And a few months later, she stopped mentioning the bible and religion altogether when she found the next Mr Right ...

I can only conclude that her faith was less than solid, although I wouldn't go as far as saying she was deliberately lying about it.

truethat

30th January 2009, 08:11 AM

I don't think that people are aware that they are lying about their beliefs. Its like a habit to them to say what they say. It reminds me of a person in a relationship with someone who is always complaining about the person who thinks that they are friends. Once you point out that they are lying to themselves about it then it changes their perspective.

When I say lying I don't mean they are secretly pretending to believe in God, I mean that they are lying to themselves, because deep down inside they don't really believe.

Belz...

30th January 2009, 09:00 AM

They're not aware that they are lying ? Doesn't the verb "to lie" presuppose intent ?

RobRoy

30th January 2009, 09:27 AM

I also find it telling that some of the believers on this thread are basically equating the bible with "laws of man" and "a book" as if there is no special significance to it whatsoever. This again indicates to me that they don't really believe that God influenced the writing of the bible. Because if one is quick to say they would read a book that a dog wrote but offer up a ton of excuses why it is reasonable not to read the bible, that is pretty telling in itself.

Which believers were those? I recall safe-keeper offering such an example, but (IIRC) he's an atheist. I supported his analogy, and I'm also not a Christian believer.

I am getting the impression that no one really regards the bible as a sacred text at all. In which case what is the basis for Christian God belief in the first place.

This falsely presupposes that no one reads the Bible.

Where else are you getting the basis of your faith if not from the bible? From your shared gossip of said book?

From parents, peers, and church attendence where the Bible is often read in support of moral, ethical, and societal beliefs.

They're not aware that they are lying ? Doesn't the verb "to lie" presuppose intent ?

Generally, yes.

truethat

30th January 2009, 10:05 AM

They're not aware that they are lying ? Doesn't the verb "to lie" presuppose intent ?

Not necessarily. If you are lying to yourself are you doing it with intent? I mean a slight sort of intent in denial. But what I mean is that it doesn't need to be an awareness in the forefront of your mind. This is why I think atheists should begin to point this out in conversation.

RobRoy

30th January 2009, 10:34 AM

Not necessarily. If you are lying to yourself are you doing it with intent? I mean a slight sort of intent in denial. But what I mean is that it doesn't need to be an awareness in the forefront of your mind. This is why I think atheists should begin to point this out in conversation.

Out of curiosity, how do you see one of these conversations going? And to what end?

Belz...

30th January 2009, 11:19 AM

Not necessarily. If you are lying to yourself are you doing it with intent? I mean a slight sort of intent in denial. But what I mean is that it doesn't need to be an awareness in the forefront of your mind. This is why I think atheists should begin to point this out in conversation.

"Lying to yourself" is an expression. You aren't actually lying to yourself, as that would be impossible. If you contend that lying means "does not tell the truth" then even being mistaken on something can be construed as lying.

westprog

30th January 2009, 12:08 PM

I don't know about others, but if someone claims to believe in god, the very god who has control over whether they have a pleasant eternity or an agonizingly painful one, and who has reasonable reading skills, would read said god's book. If they don't, and I know many who vigorously claim to believe, do not read it and have affairs and treat people like dirt. To me, they are lying. If they truly believed deep down in what they claimed, they wouldn't behave as they do. If they truly believed they could suffer eternal punishment, they would read the book and adhere to their religion's dogma.

Reading the Bible has very little to do with being a Christian - that is, a follower of Christ. It's possible to be entirely illiterate and be a Christian. Being sinful is also an inherent part of being a Christian. Accepting sinfulness is part of the deal. However, doing bad things is in conflict with being a Christian.

If this was poorly stated, I'm sorry. I just basically agree with Truethat. Of course, some could say "believe" in the same sense as "I think I believe, but I'm not really sure, but I'll go along with Pascal's Wager," or "believe" in "I truly believe with all my heart, mind and soul."

a_unique_person

30th January 2009, 03:10 PM

Yours in Christ, Mags

How sad.

You can move to Australia, if you want. Plenty of atheists, and openly so. Most of the xians just go through the motions, and pretty badly at that, what I would call pagan xians.

IIRC, there are parts of the states where it's OK to be an atheist.

As to to topic, when I did try to be a xian, one of the recurring themes was faith, re-affirming your faith, getting through times of doubt in your faith, asking for help with your faith, proclaiming your faith, strengthening your faith, etc. Doubting your faith and god is actually something xians go through all the time. I wouldn't call it 'LYING', but it's self deception.

Darth Rotor

30th January 2009, 03:17 PM

No, I am saying, that I truethat am saying that if you wish ME and SOCIETY

Arrogant much?

I know from arrogant. You've done it nicely there.

DR

truethat

30th January 2009, 04:16 PM

"Lying to yourself" is an expression. You aren't actually lying to yourself, as that would be impossible. If you contend that lying means "does not tell the truth" then even being mistaken on something can be construed as lying.

I don't know if I agree with this statement. I know quite a few people who lie to themselves about things. For example the "sour grapes" attitude that some people have towards successful endeavors. Saying they don't want something anyway but the truth is that they are afraid of failure. I think you are just not accepting this point, and that's fair but I don't agree.

truethat

30th January 2009, 04:17 PM

Arrogant much?

I know from arrogant. You've done it nicely there.

DR

Really?

How so?

Please elaborate what is arrogant about saying ME and SOCIETY?

truethat

30th January 2009, 04:19 PM

How sad.

You can move to Australia, if you want. Plenty of atheists, and openly so. Most of the xians just go through the motions, and pretty badly at that, what I would call pagan xians.

IIRC, there are parts of the states where it's OK to be an atheist.

As to to topic, when I did try to be a xian, one of the recurring themes was faith, re-affirming your faith, getting through times of doubt in your faith, asking for help with your faith, proclaiming your faith, strengthening your faith, etc. Doubting your faith and god is actually something xians go through all the time. I wouldn't call it 'LYING', but it's self deception.

Well I put the word LYING in there to make it clear that I wasn't talking about confusion. I am also not talking about delusion. To me its clear.

My preferred term for these types of Christians is "Superstitious Atheists"

truethat

30th January 2009, 04:21 PM

Reading the Bible has very little to do with being a Christian - that is, a follower of Christ. It's possible to be entirely illiterate and be a Christian. Being sinful is also an inherent part of being a Christian. Accepting sinfulness is part of the deal. However, doing bad things is in conflict with being a Christian.

Why do you bring up points that have nothing to do with what we are discussing?

We are not discussing illiterate Christians. Why do you refuse to discuss the people we all are actually talking about? Could it be that you are one of them? Are you one of those Christians that suggest that the bible is a book of moral authority given to man by God by divine inspiration? Do you find this book a book that you use to instruct others as to what is right and wrong. Do you use this book to talk about what "God wants?" If so, have you read it?

Minarvia

30th January 2009, 06:19 PM

Breckmin

30th January 2009, 08:09 PM

Are you one of those Christians that suggest that the bible is a book of moral authority given to man by God by divine inspiration? Do you find this book a book that you use to instruct others as to what is right and wrong. Do you use this book to talk about what "God wants?" If so, have you read it?

My fascination with this thread is that it seems to be about the "behavior"
or "actions" of Christians (what they do and DON'T do) instead of what they
actually believe is objective truth. Basically this is accusing Christians of
being hypocritical. I do not know of one mature believer who will not admit
that all Christians at one time or another have been hypocrites. It is that
hypocrisy for which they ask forgiveness for as well as their sin.

When you understand their circumstances you will understand that they
are often "living in the flesh" as does everyone else in the world. It is not
that they do not believe the power of the scriptures, but rather they are
distracted do to a lack of knowledge about the eternal consequences for
which they could affecting in a different way.

As far as "the Bible" goes, you need to ask yourself how many years
Christians actually lived without it. I don't mean the councils of Yamnia and
Nicea, I mean the printing press. I do read the scriptures daily, but I didn't
used to when I was preoccupied with working and trying to constantly
support a family of six. It really depends on your circumstances AND what
you believe about the scriptures. If you believe in "sola scriputra" then
you will have a different approach to scripture than if you believe in say
the esoterica of "scriptura congruus" which believes that the Word of God
exists both in and independent of scripture but is a position of "consistent
with scripture."

Dawkin's delusion is that he doesn't understand spiritual warfare, nor does
he understand the complexity of the position he is disputing or making
observations about. Jesus did not spend every hour here on earth reading
the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint (but He DID indeed read it, study it
meditate on it, etc. as He was growing up). There is a time to read, a time
to spend with your kids, a time to pray, and a time to proclaim the truth
about what you have read.

I agree with you, however, that if a person truly believes that the Christian
faith is the only logical religion in the world, then they should desperately
be trying to tell others and reading the scriptures as much as time allows...

instead of playing golf.
M

Breckmin

30th January 2009, 08:28 PM

Richard Dawkins made an interesting point......This is one of them:

"If they were truly sincere, shouldn’t they all behave like the Abbot of Ampleforth? When Cardinal Basil Hume told him that he was dying, the abbot was delighted for him: “Congratulations! That’s brilliant news. I wish I was coming with you!” The abbot, it seems, really was a sincere believer. But it is precisely because it is so rare and unexpected that his story catches our attention," - Richard Dawkins

This is just one example of the lack of authenticity that is apparent among believers.

Dawkins has OBVIOUSLY not attended very many Christian memorial services
or he would know that they are "celebrations" for those who have gone to
be with the Lord. I can't remember a recent funeral that wasn't presented
as a celebration of a believer going to "eternal life" with the Lord. Based on
Dawkins lack of knowledge on this, it is logical for him to focus on the abbot
statement without an understanding of permanency. In other words, it depends
completely on the person's situation and who they are caring for. A young
mother or a young father who has children are going to be concerned about
their children and "who will care for them?" They may know that "they" are
going to be with the Lord, BUT will their children grow up in the saving knowledge
of Jesus Christ and end up meeting them in heaven some day? It is because
of the complexity of each person's service and each person's circumstances
that we do not congratulate them when we find out they are dying.

M

Friend

30th January 2009, 09:21 PM

truethat

31st January 2009, 04:22 PM

My fascination with this thread is that it seems to be about the "behavior"
or "actions" of Christians (what they do and DON'T do) instead of what they
actually believe is objective truth. Basically this is accusing Christians of
being hypocritical. I do not know of one mature believer who will not admit
that all Christians at one time or another have been hypocrites. It is that
hypocrisy for which they ask forgiveness for as well as their sin.

When you understand their circumstances you will understand that they
are often "living in the flesh" as does everyone else in the world. It is not
that they do not believe the power of the scriptures, but rather they are
distracted do to a lack of knowledge about the eternal consequences for
which they could affecting in a different way.

As far as "the Bible" goes, you need to ask yourself how many years
Christians actually lived without it. I don't mean the councils of Yamnia and
Nicea, I mean the printing press. I do read the scriptures daily, but I didn't
used to when I was preoccupied with working and trying to constantly
support a family of six. It really depends on your circumstances AND what
you believe about the scriptures. If you believe in "sola scriputra" then
you will have a different approach to scripture than if you believe in say
the esoterica of "scriptura congruus" which believes that the Word of God
exists both in and independent of scripture but is a position of "consistent
with scripture."

Dawkin's delusion is that he doesn't understand spiritual warfare, nor does
he understand the complexity of the position he is disputing or making
observations about. Jesus did not spend every hour here on earth reading
the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint (but He DID indeed read it, study it
meditate on it, etc. as He was growing up). There is a time to read, a time
to spend with your kids, a time to pray, and a time to proclaim the truth
about what you have read.

I agree with you, however, that if a person truly believes that the Christian
faith is the only logical religion in the world, then they should desperately
be trying to tell others and reading the scriptures as much as time allows...

instead of playing golf.
M

The topic is not Richard Dawkins and the God Delusion. The topic is Christians who say they believe that this book is really FROM GOD and then don't bother reading it.

Those people for whom it is not a priority.

I'm glad you agree with the general idea.

I would also like to address the hypocrisy statement. That too should be a priority of the Christian no? If the Christian believes in the bible as the word of God, then when they should spend their free time improving on themselves rather than trying to legislate how others behave.

I fail to see how a Christian in any way shape or form would concern themselves with others if they are not close to perfection themselves.

Breckmin

31st January 2009, 04:23 PM

There is only one way to know if God exists and I call it Bed Post Religion. <When you> Edited incivilitystop lying to yourself and grab hold of the bed post in your room and tell whoever you don't believe in that you will not leave that post till he reveal himself to you,

Ah....... What if you did something like this in a different way, say, 23 years
ago and God DID reveal Himself to you?

The reality is you would have to "lie to yourself" to NOT believe in God...

M

truethat

31st January 2009, 04:33 PM

Truethat, Do you pretend to know all Christians and what all Christians Believe? That is a pretty bold statement to think that "all" Christians are lying to themselves about their beliefs. You are attacking Christians and their beliefs in order to prove that God does not exist; are you really that shallow? There will be no one argued into eternity (in the heavenly realm), because this is not a mental thing. It is not whether or not you want to defend God's none existence by the Bible or by Christians that you feel lie to themselves about their beliefs. Scriptures say, "There is no wisdom, nor counsel, nor understanding against God." Do you believe that in your short lifeless life that you have all the answers to the cosmos. Alas, ignorance is bliss. Truly, someone said, "The distance between heaven and hell is about 12 inches; that's the distance from your brain to your heart. It is you who lie about your disbelief. You are afraid to look into your own heart much less let scripture search your heart. The scriptures are fully "fragmented" in order to keep people like you out of heaven. As Yahushua (Jesus) said, "Father, I thank you that you hid this from the wise and prudent and have revealed it to the babes." Now what does fragmented mean? Well, figure it out for yourself. There is only one way to know if God exists and I call it Bed Post Religion. <When you> Edited incivilitystop lying to yourself and grab hold of the bed post in your room and tell whoever you don't believe in that you will not leave that post till he reveal himself to you, then I assure you that once you pass the self convincing lies of your mental imaginations and your heart that longs to justify your shallow beliefs becomes tenderized with humility, you too will be able to discover that God is not as near as shallow as <you think> Edited incivility. Now, I hope I didn't offend you. This is a forum, isn't it? Friend
Please review the Forum Membership Agreement, especially the general warning for civility and rule 12. Do not make personal attacks.

Considering that I haven't said "All Christians" and so many people seem to be jumping on that band wagon, I can only surmise I have struck a nerve with certain people who seek protection in numbers.

You quote the bible there

I quote the bible here, or maybe you missed this part in not reading it.

Philippians 2:1
If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ,
if any comfort from his love,
if any fellowship with the Spirit,
if any tenderness and compassion,
then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Luke 6:27-36

[27] "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, [28] bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. [29] If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. [30] Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. [31] Do to others as you would have them do to you.

[32] "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. [33] And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. [34] And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. [35] But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. [36] Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Breckmin

31st January 2009, 05:04 PM

The topic is not Richard Dawkins and the God Delusion. The topic is Christians who say they believe that this book is really FROM GOD and then don't bother reading it.

Yes, but the Mazarin Bible (Latin Volgate) was printed by Gutenberg until
around 1455, if I'm correct, and the King James English version of the bible
{which was the one that was mass produced, yes Cromwell's bible by Coverdale sometimes called "the Great Bible" was available first, but that
wasn't until the middle of the 16th Century} wasn't published until 1611.

That is a lot of years for Christians to go without even HAVING a Bible.
Christians know this, and they know that it IS good for them to read the
scriptures. There "battle," however, according to the "bible" you talk about,
is not just against themselves, but it is also against distractions in this world
and also against spiritual forces which tempt them to do bad things, and bad habits. This is axiomatic
in Christian theology. Not "the devil made me do it," but rather unclean
wandering spirits or deceiving spirits who roam the earth looking to grab
on to strongholds via "lies" or false beliefs. Yes they are not seen by
visual eyes so if you don't believe in God, then you are not going to believe
in deceiving unclean spirits.

Those people for whom it is not a priority.
Sometimes, the priority after you have read the scriptures is to share the
scriptures. Not all Christian practice what they preach equally. Some are
living life as a fantasy, but eventually their pride breaks down and God uses
what they once read (or has them read more.)

I'm glad you agree with the general idea.

I would also like to address the hypocrisy statement. That too should be a priority of the Christian no?
It would depend on what the Christian felt called to do. If they were
blind and did not have a Braille copy, or a audio copy, it may be more
difficult for them. This is only meant to illistrate a point. It depends on
their situation, and each person is accountable to God and God alone (for
reading the scriptures).

If the Christian believes in the bible as the word of God, then when they should spend their free time improving on themselves rather than trying to legislate how others behave.
Perhaps they are worried that "others" will behave in such a way some day
as to legislate for the Bible to be censored. There are many many things
to divert off to here (life vs. choice to kill life, corrupting children by exposing
them to unnatural behavior, socialism which gives the government too much
power and the belief that since people are in government they should have
checks and balances and safety nets for their depravity, etc. too much to
address which leads to moral decay and possible future censorship of the
scriptures).

I fail to see how a Christian in any way shape or form would concern themselves with others if they are not close to perfection themselves.

No one but Christ was perfect in this regard. Perhaps you want Christians
in their rooms reading their bibles when the voting booths are open (now
some do it mostly by mail, someday we will probably do it online). Wanting
to regulate the moral climate of a particular society for the healthy upbringing
of children (and for the actual upbringing of some babies) is KNOWN to be a
losing battle. The scriptures teach us that society will morally degenerate.
M

truethat

31st January 2009, 05:08 PM

Yes, but the Mazarin Bible (Latin Volgate) was printed by Gutenberg until
around 1455, if I'm correct, and the King James English version of the bible
{which was the one that was mass produced, yes Cromwell's bible by Coverdale sometimes called "the Great Bible" was available first, but that
wasn't until the middle of the 16th Century} wasn't published until 1611.

That is a lot of years for Christians to go without even HAVING a Bible.
Christians know this, and they know that it IS good for them to read the
scriptures. There "battle," however, according to the "bible" you talk about,
is not just against themselves, but it is also against distractions in this world
and also against spiritual forces which tempt them to do bad things, and bad habits. This is axiomatic
in Christian theology. Not "the devil made me do it," but rather unclean
wandering spirits or deceiving spirits who roam the earth looking to grab
on to strongholds via "lies" or false beliefs. Yes they are not seen by
visual eyes so if you don't believe in God, then you are not going to believe
in deceiving unclean spirits.

Sometimes, the priority after you have read the scriptures is to share the
scriptures. Not all Christian practice what they preach equally. Some are
living life as a fantasy, but eventually their pride breaks down and God uses
what they once read (or has them read more.)

It would depend on what the Christian felt called to do. If they were
blind and did not have a Braille copy, or a audio copy, it may be more
difficult for them. This is only meant to illistrate a point. It depends on
their situation, and each person is accountable to God and God alone (for
reading the scriptures).

Perhaps they are worried that "others" will behave in such a way some day
as to legislate for the Bible to be censored. There are many many things
to divert off to here (life vs. choice to kill life, corrupting children by exposing
them to unnatural behavior, socialism which gives the government too much
power and the belief that since people are in government they should have
checks and balances and safety nets for their depravity, etc. too much to
address which leads to moral decay and possible future censorship of the
scriptures).

No one but Christ was perfect in this regard. Perhaps you want Christians
in their rooms reading their bibles when the voting booths are open (now
some do it mostly by mail, someday we will probably do it online). Wanting
to regulate the moral climate of a particular society for the healthy upbringing
of children (and for the actual upbringing of some babies) is KNOWN to be a
losing battle. The scriptures teach us that society will morally degenerate.
M

Again with the extreme arguments.

A. We're well past the printing press. I am not talking about people from 100 years or so ago. I'm talking TODAY

B. If they truly are concerned about the need to protect the bible from legislation of being swept away, you'd think they'd memorize the damn thing no?

Really freaking stupid to fight for the bible when you don't intend to read it?

One more thing

Can you show me where you are getting the information that supports the idea that Christians are supposed to be in voting booths?

No one but Christ was perfect in this regard. Perhaps you want Christians
in their rooms reading their bibles when the voting booths are open (now
some do it mostly by mail, someday we will probably do it online). Wanting
to regulate the moral climate of a particular society for the healthy upbringing
of children (and for the actual upbringing of some babies) is KNOWN to be a
losing battle. The scriptures teach us that society will morally degenerate.
M

westprog

1st February 2009, 07:49 AM

Why do you bring up points that have nothing to do with what we are discussing?

We are not discussing illiterate Christians. Why do you refuse to discuss the people we all are actually talking about? Could it be that you are one of them? Are you one of those Christians that suggest that the bible is a book of moral authority given to man by God by divine inspiration? Do you find this book a book that you use to instruct others as to what is right and wrong. Do you use this book to talk about what "God wants?" If so, have you read it?

I think it's quite telling that you seem to have no interest in what Christians actually believe about their faith, and seem more interested in what you think they should believe.

truethat

1st February 2009, 08:08 AM

I think it's quite telling that you seem to have no interest in what Christians actually believe about their faith, and seem more interested in what you think they should believe.

Actually it is quite telling that I have asked several "Christians" on here to explain their beliefs and all have backed away saying it has nothing to do with the issue. (Hmm remind anyone of Peter...)

And the topic of the thread is the topic of the thread. You keep trying to derail it into something else and argue semantics and extreme cases. This is because there is no argument for what I have stated because what I have stated is a fact.

If a person believed that this book was written by the almighty God and said God was this magestic awe inspiring deity that these Christians claim that he is, if that same God really manifested on the planet in human form and suffered for our sins and died to create the pathway to everlasting glory, if this was the book from that God and contained information about that story............they would read it.

Deep in these bible thumpers hearts they know the book is not inspired by God and this is why they don't bother to read it.

If they keep wielding the book as an authority, it is clear they are lying. Otherwise, read the book.

But westprog again I'll give you the opportunity to tell me what your beliefs are. I've asked you and others several times and you have refused to answer.

Like I said. Peter much?

westprog

1st February 2009, 08:24 AM

Actually it is quite telling that I have asked several "Christians" on here to explain their beliefs and all have backed away saying it has nothing to do with the issue. (Hmm remind anyone of Peter...)

And the topic of the thread is the topic of the thread.

And the topic turns on the word YOU and exactly what it means.

You keep trying to derail it into something else and argue semantics and extreme cases. This is because there is no argument for what I have stated because what I have stated is a fact.

If a person believed that this book was written by the almighty God and said God was this magestic awe inspiring deity that these Christians claim that he is, if that same God really manifested on the planet in human form and suffered for our sins and died to create the pathway to everlasting glory, if this was the book from that God and contained information about that story............they would read it.

Deep in these bible thumpers hearts they know the book is not inspired by God and this is why they don't bother to read it.

If they keep wielding the book as an authority, it is clear they are lying. Otherwise, read the book.

But westprog again I'll give you the opportunity to tell me what your beliefs are. I've asked you and others several times and you have refused to answer.

Like I said. Peter much?

And I repeat that I have no intention of giving my own beliefs because they can't possibly make any difference to the arguments.

plumjam

1st February 2009, 09:12 AM

Truethat, did you try taking this profound salutary message of yours to some specifically Christian forums?
There are hardly any Bible-thumping Christians here, and of those it seems like all have read the Bible.
Seems to me like you're rather wasting your time and energy with it here.

truethat

1st February 2009, 09:33 AM

Then as I said your accusation has no merit. If I'm asking people what they believe and they refuse to answer then how can you say it is quite telling that I am not considering what others believe? More of your ridiculous straw man games.

Further I AM considering what the Christian is saying that they believe. Although you have repeatedly ignored what I have explained, it is clear that others see it.

That is, I'm talking about a Christian that approaches others with their beliefs and encourages people to follow the book and accept Christ. If there is some other way that you can accept Christ and reject the bible, I'd like to hear it. I'd like to hear that called Christianity as well.

I'm seeing a growing desire among supposed Christians, to take the bible and make like Sizzler, picking and choosing what is valid and what is "parable" or not to be taken literally. Ironically Homosexual relationships are usually considered something that God "really meant" but things like wearing gold he was only joking about.

Again I state that if your definition of God is the almighty, awe inspiring creator of the universe, the beginning and the end, the Aloha and the Omega, knower of all things seen and unseen, master of all that is, source of all that is holy and spiritual,

it defies logic that you wouldn't read his book.

krazyKemist

1st February 2009, 09:54 AM

I'm coming late to this thread, but from what I've read, the argument seems to be that christians don't really believe since they fail to do what is their own self-interest (ie study the bible, if they think it was inspired/written by god).

Well, don't think it's a valid argument. People in general have short attention spans in regard to their far future. Witness how hard it is for doctors to bring their patients to stop smoking or lose weight.

I don't think most smokers really believe, deep down, that smoking is good (or harmless) for their health. Even worse, they may directly observe that they are less fit than a non-smoker. And see other smokers die, in a horrible way, from lung cancer. Still it isn't motivation enough for them to stop smoking, even though they just know they might end up like that. Instant gratification is just easier than long-term goals.

For most people, their own death (and afterlife) is something frightening that they keep far from their everyday thoughts. It's unknown, it's dark, whatever anybody may have told you about heaven. It's very human to just not bother about it and play golf (or post in forums:)), no matter what you really believe. Not everybody has the will and focus it takes to really research such matters. Doesn't mean they don't believe what they say they believe.

That's not to say that some people aren't actually deluding themselves and try to force other people into fitting their belief for the sole purpose of maintaining the illusion. But I don't think the lack of efforts to study holy books is a reliable indicator of that.

truethat

1st February 2009, 11:22 AM

I'm coming late to this thread, but from what I've read, the argument seems to be that christians don't really believe since they fail to do what is their own self-interest (ie study the bible, if they think it was inspired/written by god).

Nope. We have another person who doesn't understand the point.

It has nothing to do with self interest. It has everything to do with what people are claiming "God" to be.

If for example people said that God was this energy form that burst and produced life, that would be one thing.

However I fail to see how one would not read the book of this (as I have stated repeatedly) God is the almighty, awe inspiring creator of the universe, the beginning and the end, the Aloha and the Omega, knower of all things seen and unseen, master of all that is, source of all that is holy and spiritual, etc. etc. etc.

(snickers as she pastes the above realizing she wrote the aloha and omega, but leaves it because it is somehow fitting)

If you really believed God to be this, I fail to see how you could not read the bible.

It clearly demonstrates that you do not believe God is this. Or that you do not believe that God actually had a hand in the bible.

Also you are turning the reality of the smokers on its head to make it fit where it doesn't. The actual parallel is that smokers don't truly in their heart of hearts believe that they will get cancer. They think it will happen to someone else. All those horror stories and examples are really easy to dismiss when the smoker that is curling up into a scab of cancer is your "friend's parent." or "Bill from the office." You will notice that often the smoker WILL quit when it is their own parent that dies, because then the genetic marker is drawn on them as well.

Plum jam,

Your argument seems to be "go away" nice......LMAO!

plumjam

1st February 2009, 07:51 PM

Plum jam,

Your argument seems to be "go away" nice......LMAO!

More a case of the application of common sense.
In my experience the people you are aiming your attack against just do not exist on this forum. The logical step would be to take it to some specifically Christian forum where there may be the possibility that you could actually change some of the targeted people's views/behaviour in that regard.
The fact that you didn't answer the question would suggest that you haven't done that yet.
If you are genuinely concerned about the problem you should really have the courage of your convictions, and get started.
If not, you always have the right to air your concerns exclusively to the "home crowd", where you're pretty safe, relatively speaking, and spin out a specifically accusatory topic for 18 pages, none of which applies to anyone here.

truethat

1st February 2009, 08:40 PM

I've learned a while ago that just because someone doesn't post doesn't mean they haven't read.

Unfortunately most of the "believers" on this thread think this is a debate about Christian behavior.

As I have said, it is not, It is a challenge to readjust the paradigm in which most atheists debate with believers.

There is no "debate" in this thread because what I have stated is a fact.

Breckmin

2nd February 2009, 12:40 AM

Again with the extreme arguments.

Sometimes it is the extreme points that illustrate the impracticality of certain
assertions about what people's behavior "should be."

A. We're well past the printing press. I am not talking about people from 100 years or so ago. I'm talking TODAY

I read the scriptures at night, BUT I can't read the whole scriptures every
night. We have to live and work and talk to others ABOUT the scriptures.

However, I DO have two teenage boys that I wish you could talk some
sense into to read the scriptures instead of play video games. They don't
seem to want to listen to their father.

B. If they truly are concerned about the need to protect the bible from legislation of being swept away, you'd think they'd memorize the damn thing no?

The belief is headed toward the deletion of blogs and posts and files and
this sort of future censorship. Perhaps we are past the days of bible
burning. Either way, it is often the issue of freedom of speech and equal
access rather than the bible actually "being swept away." Some pastors
like John MacArthur DO attempt to memorize the whole New Testament.

The Old Testament is an awful big document to memorize.

Really freaking stupid to fight for the bible when you don't intend to read it?

The more I think about this, it depends on the maturity of the Christian.
Every Christian I know at our church who is a "mature" believer reads the
scriptures. There are of course kids and teenagers who don't read it
because they are distracted. The guys are are still struggling with living
in this present world and not keeping their eyes on Jesus also probably
don't read the scriptures (often enough).

They would probably admit their hypocrisy and ask forgiveness from God
for it.

Can you show me where you are getting the information that supports the idea that Christians are supposed to be in voting booths?

It is the concept of the democratic process in the states. We submit
to the governing authorities, but when the governing authorities encourage
us to "vote," then we do. Most Christians believe it is their responsibility
to vote and to make a wise decision when they do. It is just the concept
of stewardship. Besides, faith (prayer) without works (voting) is useless.
M

Belz...

2nd February 2009, 04:53 AM

I don't know if I agree with this statement. I know quite a few people who lie to themselves about things. For example the "sour grapes" attitude that some people have towards successful endeavors. Saying they don't want something anyway but the truth is that they are afraid of failure. I think you are just not accepting this point, and that's fair but I don't agree.

Fair enought. Let's agree to disagree on this, since I have no way to probe into their minds and make sure I'm right.

...but I AM right ;)

RobRoy

2nd February 2009, 12:29 PM

Unfortunately most of the "believers" on this thread think this is a debate about Christian behavior.

While not a believer, you are discussing behavior. Reading or not reading the Bible is a behavior. Lying about your belief is a behavior. Your claim is that you have the root cause of one behavior linked to another.

As I have said, it is not, It is a challenge to readjust the paradigm in which most atheists debate with believers.

I'll ask again, since you must have missed my question before: How do you see one of these "new" conversations between atheists and believers going?

There is no "debate" in this thread because what I have stated is a fact.

Right. Which is why atheists and believers within this thread continue debating your premise and pointing out the myriad of flaws and inaccuracies of your "fact".

Fair enought. Let's agree to disagree on this, since I have no way to probe into their minds and make sure I'm right.

...but I AM right ;)

Yes. Yes you are.

truethat

2nd February 2009, 08:18 PM

Last I checked it was through grace, not works that you were saved. However that is not the topic. The topic is your belief that the bible was written by God, or that God is this awe inspiring entity that send you this book. Of course some "Christians" like Rob Roy seem to think you can just make up your beliefs based on hear say and gossip and that's the same..........odd.........but becoming the new trend in Christians.

When confronted where they are getting the authority for their faith, they seem to get confused pretty quickly.

Flo

3rd February 2009, 02:55 AM

Last I checked it was through grace, not works that you were saved.

Varies greatly from one "sect" to the other.

However that is not the topic. The topic is your belief that the bible was written by God, or that God is this awe inspiring entity that send you this book. Of course some "Christians" like Rob Roy seem to think you can just make up your beliefs based on hear say and gossip and that's the same..........odd.........but becoming the new trend in Christians.

Nothing new or particular to the christian faith there. All religions practice this kind of gymnastics: whenever there's a conflict with whatever it is people (including the clergy) actually want to do, or think is right, the "holy writings" will be described as inessential, obsolete, or subject to interpretation on this particular point.

When confronted where they are getting the authority for their faith, they seem to get confused pretty quickly.

Not only that, but I'm fascinated at how some have taken your well delineated questions as a personal attack on their faith, their sincerity, their truthfulness, ...

RobRoy

3rd February 2009, 08:11 AM

Last I checked it was through grace, not works that you were saved.

Wrong. This is completely dependent upon which flavor of Christianity we're discussing. That is why, interestingly enough, many of us continue to ask you to define your terms. It just helps in avoiding this kind of confusion.

I'll lay even odds you are unwilling to define your terms, but that's been your standard procedure throughout this thread.

Of course some "Christians" like Rob Roy seem to think you can just make up your beliefs based on hear say and gossip and that's the same..........odd.........but becoming the new trend in Christians.

So, for the third time (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4334703&postcount=32), I am not a Christian. I don't feel there is anything inherently wrong with being Christian, but as I deny the basic tenents of Christianity, such as the divinity of Jesus, I can hardly be included in that category. I'm not certain why this is so confusing for you, since you seemed to grasp it the first time you asked me the question (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4334788&postcount=37).

Are you being dishonest on purpose, or is this just your inability to keep the facts straight?

Breckmin

3rd February 2009, 05:44 PM

If you really believed God to be this, I fail to see how you could not read the bible.

It clearly demonstrates that you do not believe God is this. Or that you do not believe that God actually had a hand in the bible.

No one in Christianity that observed the day to day hypocrisy of certain
Christians would deny this. In fact, it is often a theme in Homiletics to get
Christians to read their bible's more and fill their minds up with the Word of
God. Over my forty years as a Christian, I have heard more than one pastor
of a local congregation make this point, that IF you really believed the
scriptures were divine revelation given by the God of the Universe, THEN
you would make it a priority to read the Bible when ever possible.

There are actually men of God that DO do this. They are rare, because there
are distractions in the world, and there are also spiritual enemies in the world
which get footholds on people's lives and mess up their priorities.

I do not disagree with the point being made in the topic of this thread. It
is a valid one. There ARE however those who DO read the bible every day
and DO consider it to be the Word of God and walk the talk, read the book,
and live victorious lives without all the junk in their lives. So really, what this
comes down to is percentages and numbers and practicality.

Sometimes once you've read what you believe is divine revelation, the
time has come to share what you have learned with others.

I hope I have made you think a second time.
M

Belz...

4th February 2009, 04:10 AM

Ironically, many a Christian has lost his faith because he read the Bible.

westprog

4th February 2009, 04:27 AM

Wrong. This is completely dependent upon which flavor of Christianity we're discussing. That is why, interestingly enough, many of us continue to ask you to define your terms. It just helps in avoiding this kind of confusion.

I'll lay even odds you are unwilling to define your terms, but that's been your standard procedure throughout this thread.

So, for the third time (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4334703&postcount=32), I am not a Christian. I don't feel there is anything inherently wrong with being Christian, but as I deny the basic tenents of Christianity, such as the divinity of Jesus, I can hardly be included in that category. I'm not certain why this is so confusing for you, since you seemed to grasp it the first time you asked me the question (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4334788&postcount=37).

Are you being dishonest on purpose, or is this just your inability to keep the facts straight?

Buried inside the OP is some kind of reasonable argument, but it's nonsense like the above that makes it difficult to find. It's ironic that Truehat's been demanding to know what my beliefs are, when RobRoy has told her and she's forgotten.

RobRoy

4th February 2009, 08:24 AM

Ironically, many a Christian has lost his faith because he read the Bible.

Equally ironic is that some of those fluent in the Bible found there faith elsewhere.

Buried inside the OP is some kind of reasonable argument, but it's nonsense like the above that makes it difficult to find. It's ironic that Truehat's been demanding to know what my beliefs are, when RobRoy has told her and she's forgotten.

It could be, but she seems bent on taking umbrage to any questions regarding her contentions or conclusion, as if we are to take as gospel her "facts" without testing them to satisfaction.

Strange to come to a skeptics forum and make such demands.

RevDisturba

4th February 2009, 08:41 AM

I call BS on the God belief.

With all due respect I think that many atheists are being disingenuous when claiming they don’t believe in an afterlife or God. So I guess we are even :).

I was an atheist before I was a theist and have reams of college essays, papers and letters to editors etc to prove it. However as I blundered through the sciences classes I began to see a pattern. To make a long story short I changed my major to theology (comparative theology) and came to being a theist through science!

Most Christians came to God through faith, I came to it through Darwin, a 14” reflector, QFT, and physics.

; {>

RobRoy

4th February 2009, 09:37 AM

With all due respect I think that many atheists are being disingenuous when claiming they don’t believe in an afterlife or God. So I guess we are even :).

Sorry, but I'd have to disagree with you.

The same issue that I have with truethat's conclusion, in that she claims to know what someone believes, is the same issue that I have with your statement.

How can you prove belief where an atheist claims a lack? truethat has tried to show a lack of belief via not reading the Bible, but her conclusion fails as it does not take into consideration several other issues. I would hold that same to be true for claiming belief where the atheist states that none exists.

There's just no way, short of a psychic reading of the entire population.

Belz...

4th February 2009, 12:01 PM

With all due respect I think that many atheists are being disingenuous when claiming they don’t believe in an afterlife or God.

Why ? God is logically impossible, so it's not much of an effort to come to the conclusion that he doesn't exist.

truethat

4th February 2009, 03:28 PM

Varies greatly from one "sect" to the other.

Nothing new or particular to the christian faith there. All religions practice this kind of gymnastics: whenever there's a conflict with whatever it is people (including the clergy) actually want to do, or think is right, the "holy writings" will be described as inessential, obsolete, or subject to interpretation on this particular point.

Not only that, but I'm fascinated at how some have taken your well delineated questions as a personal attack on their faith, their sincerity, their truthfulness, ...

Me as well. Its as if people want attention and are throwing themselves in front of a train and then trying to say I pushed them there.

truethat

4th February 2009, 03:30 PM

sorry, but i'd have to disagree with you.

The same issue that i have with truethat's conclusion, in that she claims to know what someone believes, is the same issue that i have with your statement.

How can you prove belief where an atheist claims a lack? Truethat has tried to show a lack of belief via not reading the bible, but her conclusion fails as it does not take into consideration several other issues. I would hold that same to be true for claiming belief where the atheist states that none exists.

There's just no way, short of a psychic reading of the entire population.

how many times are we going to say we are not talking about the entire population before you get it

not all christians!!!!!!!!! Those that fit the parameters that have been stated by at least 4 different people in the thread?

RobRoy

4th February 2009, 03:43 PM

how many times are we going to say we are not talking about the entire population before you get it

not all christians!!!!!!!!! Those that fit the parameters that have been stated by at least 4 different people in the thread?

Feel better now?

When you calm down, go back and look at my post. The first thing you may note is that I wasn't addressing you or your arguments. Rather, I was disagreeing with RevDisturba's statements. While I used your arguments and conclusion as an example, they were to highlight a parallel issue. Further, my use of the term "entire population" was intended to be applied only to that segment which RevDisturba had indicated: atheists. :)

Although, it can equally be applied to the parameters of your argument. Outside of a psychic review of the entire population of Christians-who-claim-to-believe-but-haven't-read-the-Bible, there's no way of knowing if they are lying or not. ;)

I've stated that this is the population we are discussiong several times within my own arguments, but apparently you're choosing to ignore that. Just as you chosen to ignore my own stated beliefs, and continue to make erroneous statements about me. :cool:

In the future, a more careful reading, and less emotional response, will yield far better results. But thanks for playing! :D

Minarvia

4th February 2009, 06:01 PM

Although, it can equally be applied to the parameters of your argument. Outside of a psychic review of the entire population of Christians-who-claim-to-believe-but-haven't-read-the-Bible, there's no way of knowing if they are lying or not. ;)

It's possible they don't think they are lying, but then do they just think that by not reading the book of their god, who has control over whether they are eternally tortured or not, they are perfectly good and acceptable to said god as they are? I'm just wondering because such self-confidence seems unrealistic given the nature of the christians' self-admitted "jealous" god. If god is jealous and all the other horrible things he/she is as stated in the bible, then how can someone be so confident? I'm not emotional at all on this issue, but it leaves me with a sort of curiosity. It seems to me those people are indeed, lying.

And maybe Truethat is not being emotional in the red lettering, but more like a grammar school teacher trying one last time to get thru to a attention deficient class. :) That is a problem with forums. You can't speak face to face and have to rely on words. Much can get lost.

RevDisturba

5th February 2009, 03:21 AM

Sorry, but I'd have to disagree with you.
The same issue that I have with truethat's conclusion, in that she claims to know what someone believes, is the same issue that I have with your statement. How can you prove belief where an atheist claims a lack?

You didn’t read my post did you? The important word in my post was ‘many’. I said many atheists are being not so honest or outright lying. The reason I know was that I was an atheist and I lied about my doubts late in the throes of my atheist beliefs. I have also read the bios and life stories of atheists (especially when I was an atheist), where they confirm my statements.

truethat has tried to show a lack of belief via not reading the Bible, but her conclusion fails as it does not take into consideration several other issues. I would hold that same to be true for claiming belief where the atheist states that none exists.

As I said atheists run the gamut to having a 100% belief (or as close to 100% as humanly possible) to being closet agnostics.

There's just no way, short of a psychic reading of the entire population.

AGAIN I said ‘many’ atheists (are being disingenuous) , not all atheists! I am a new member and from what I see the situation is reversed as most atheists here stereotype all Christians into a laughable character that fairly does not exist in the real world ! Christians have a far greater ability to be diverse and still be Christian than atheists do.

Nevertheless, thanks for your reply I think your mistakes were not intentional.

; {>

RevDisturba

5th February 2009, 03:35 AM

Why ? God is logically impossible, so it's not much of an effort to come to the conclusion that he doesn't exist.

God is logically impossible eh? Oh Brother Belz ! I am I going to have a good time here! Maybe if I can give you a few logical arguments for the existence for the existence of God you will reject whatever falsehood that you beleive as true today?

Onward~

Can you please with sugar on top, explain what a cosmological argument is? Here allow me to give you a bit of assistance. A cosmological argument for the existence of God is a logical, reasonable argument from universal causation. They originated with Arab theologians, then the Greek philosophers, to the modern PhDs of today which include Craig and Koon, not to mention Kurt Godel who adopted a different argument than variations of the KCA that Craig and Koon uses. So that is one (of at least twenty) method of using LOGIC and REASON to determine that God does indeed exist.

And as always thanks for your reply brother.

: {>

Disclaimer; I use caps for emphasis only, not as indicating that I am shouting etc.

RevDisturba

5th February 2009, 03:41 AM

Originally Posted by Flo View Post
Varies greatly from one "sect" to the other.
Nothing new or particular to the christian faith there. All religions practice this kind of gymnastics: whenever there's a conflict with whatever it is people (including the clergy) actually want to do, or think is right, the "holy writings" will be described as inessential, obsolete, or subject to interpretation on this particular point.

I don't think that is true. At least in my experience! If you are going against the teachings of Jesus, it does not take a rocket scientist to determine that the person in question is charlatan. You must follow the bible to be a Christian. Of course the bible was written by men and complied by men who are fallible. Likewise its interpreted by men. However your post suggests deliberate deception by clergy etc. How do you arrive at that gem of non truth? Of course the bible does say there will be false prophets.

I suppose I have an issue with you suggesting that Christians in general are deceptive in interpreting the scripture. I would argue that a hell of a lot of sacrifice has been made because scripture cant be bent (and still serve God).

And last but not least, where is your proof?

; }>

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.

Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut

Belz...

5th February 2009, 04:20 AM

God is logically impossible eh? Oh Brother Belz ! I am I going to have a good time here! Maybe if I can give you a few logical arguments for the existence for the existence of God you will reject whatever falsehood that you beleive as true today?

An omnipotent god is logically impossible. This is shown with a mere thought experiment. Can such a god make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it ? Whether you answer "yes" or "no" makes no difference: you've just identified something he cannot do.

If you're going to argue a non-omnipotent god, then we might be going somewhere.

Here allow me to give you a bit of assistance. A cosmological argument for the existence of God is a logical, reasonable argument from universal causation. They originated with Arab theologians, then the Greek philosophers, to the modern PhDs of today which include Craig and Koon, not to mention Kurt Godel who adopted a different argument than variations of the KCA that Craig and Koon uses. So that is one (of at least twenty) method of using LOGIC and REASON to determine that God does indeed exist.

That doesn't answer the question, that merely defines it. And why would you ask ME for a cosmological argument ? I'm not arguing that God exists. In fact, I might be one of the very few here who claims that god is flat-out impossible, logically, physically, etc.

Disclaimer; I use caps for emphasis only, not as indicating that I am shouting etc.

Use italics, then. :)

Flo

5th February 2009, 05:49 AM

I don't think that is true. At least in my experience!

Then maybe your experience is limited.

If you are going against the teachings of Jesus, it does not take a rocket scientist to determine that the person in question is charlatan.

So tell me, what are, exactly, those teachings, how comes that the 4 versions of the gospel don't exactly agree on them (not to mention the dozens of versions that did not make it into the "official versions" of the bible), that every single christian churches and sects have been, and are still, fighting over them for centuries, and that we can see on a daily basis various denomination accusing the others of being heretics or worse ? Maybe they should have become rocket scientists after all ...

You must follow the bible to be a Christian.

and the coran to be muslim, and the heart sutra to be a buddhist, and the writings of Laozi to be a taoist, and Aunt Moira's book of porridge recipes to be a Scot. Trick is, there's a lot of things in those books, and most of them are either obscure or unpractical, and people have a tendency to rationalize their highly subjective choice of this or that passage that does or doesn't suit them.

Of course the bible was written by men and complied by men who are fallible. Likewise its interpreted by men. However your post suggests deliberate deception by clergy etc. How do you arrive at that gem of non truth?

What non truth ? Of course clergies, christian or not, have been and are still practicing deliberate deception, as in "do as I say, not as I do", and cherry picking passages of the scriptures when it suited them. Because you didn't experience it personnally doesn't make it less so.

Of course the bible does say there will be false prophets.

So what ? and how do you recognize one (and more importantly, how do you prove it to me, an atheist)

I suppose I have an issue with you suggesting that Christians in general are deceptive in interpreting the scripture. I would argue that a hell of a lot of sacrifice has been made because scripture cant be bent (and still serve God).

Where did I say "christians in general" ? I've met all kinds of christians, some who were obviously lying, some who were deluded, some who were merely stupid, some who were perfectly aware that they couldn't take their "basic manual" litterally and that whatever rule they derived from it was strictly personnal, some who were trying their best to live with an extremely unpractical book, etc.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.

Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut

Thanks for providing a quote that actually supports my point ...:rolleyes:

Belz...

5th February 2009, 07:02 AM

You must follow the bible to be a Christian.

Technically, in order to be a Christian you have to believe in Christ.

RobRoy

5th February 2009, 01:17 PM

It's possible they don't think they are lying, but then do they just think that by not reading the book of their god, who has control over whether they are eternally tortured or not, they are perfectly good and acceptable to said god as they are?

While I tend to agree with your position, this was not truethat's premise and not her stated conclusion, which is what I've been arguing. Stating that non-Bible-reading-Christians are liars is a foolish and unsupportable conclusion.

And maybe Truethat is not being emotional in the red lettering, but more like a grammar school teacher trying one last time to get thru to a attention deficient class. :) That is a problem with forums. You can't speak face to face and have to rely on words. Much can get lost.

If there is any deficiency in this "class" it is on the part of truethat. I won't speculate on her abilities to read or comprehend, but her willingness to engage in an open and honest dialogue appears limited at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

You didn’t read my post did you?

Yes, I did. You, however, apparently didn't read mine.

The important word in my post was ‘many’. I said many atheists are being not so honest or outright lying. The reason I know was that I was an atheist and I lied about my doubts late in the throes of my atheist beliefs. I have also read the bios and life stories of atheists (especially when I was an atheist), where they confirm my statements.

It doesn't matter if you said "many", "most", or "some". There is no way for you to know that "many", "most", or "some" atheists are being disingenuous when claiming they don’t believe in an afterlife or God. A sampling of professed atheists, lying or not, would logically show your statement to be false. This in itself wouldn't be a conclusion, as I would agree that "some" might actually be lying. The only way to know if they were actually "being disingenous" when making their atheistic claims, would be to have psychic powers, and check the "many" which you claimed.

This may be your opinion, and you may hold it near and dear to your heart, but that doesn't mean you can prove this position. You're welcome to try, however. Please provide your definitions, testing protocol, and supporting data. I'll lay any odds you like that you're either unable or unwilling to provide any of this, or any evidence at all that supports your conclusion, just as truethat is unable to do the same.

As I said atheists run the gamut to having a 100% belief (or as close to 100% as humanly possible) to being closet agnostics.

I believe "many" if not "all" of the atheists on these forums would firmly disagree with this. I also believe they would be a fair sample of all athetists in general.

Christians have a far greater ability to be diverse and still be Christian than atheists do.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. It appears a bit insulting toward atheists, but maybe I'm just not reading it correctly. Please explain.

Minarvia

5th February 2009, 03:13 PM

Perhaps I stand corrected, RobRoy, in that I also believe, to a certain extent that non-bible reading christians are liars. I don't think so, but maybe they aren't. I would like to hear from some of them. I don't think I am foolish in my opinion, but I am always open to the possibility of being wrong! :)

You know, this thread has gone on long enough that I think I may have indeed lost track of the exact original premise. I'll have to go back.

I meant no hostility, RobRoy. I am truly interested in this thread and want to learn from it. I think you and TrueThat are making good points and maybe I should make sure I read more carefully before jumping in. (Minarvia slaps herself in the head).
Trying to be a good skeptic is really hard for me sometimes. I can easily lose track of the finer points. :o

Carry on!
I

RobRoy

5th February 2009, 03:29 PM

Perhaps I stand corrected, RobRoy, in that I also believe, to a certain extent that non-bible reading christians are liars. I don't think so, but maybe they aren't.

Oh, that's fine. You're welcome to believe that. You're even welcome and encourages to explain your position. I would love to hear it. We can talk about it, and see what's what. But if it doesn't make sense to me, I'm going to point out where and why. :D

I would like to hear from some of them. I don't think I am foolish in my opinion, but I am always open to the possibility of being wrong! :)

I doubt you will hear from any non-Bible-reading-Christians. I doubt such folk come to these forums.

I meant no hostility, RobRoy.

I didn't infer any hostility from you, Minarvia.

Trying to be a good skeptic is really hard for me sometimes. I can easily lose track of the finer points. :o

I think the point to being a "good skeptic" is to keep trying, to state your opinion, and allow it to be challenged. Allow the dialogue to take place, and not assume you're correct just because you feel strongly about an issue.

Minarvia

5th February 2009, 04:42 PM

Well, bummer if non-reading christians don't come here. I thought they did and do. Well, at least ones who read the entire thing.
Point taken on opinion. For me, the current topic of lying isn't that I think I'm right because I feel strongly about it. I don't feel strongly about it in the sense that it makes me emotional, but because to me, for the reasons I stated in previous posts, I think it's logical. I think that anyone who truly believed and could read reasonably well and had a bible would take more than just a little trouble to read it or fear the god's wrath.

RevDisturba, I too, don't understand what you mean about christians being able to be more diverse than atheists. Please do explain that.

Prometheus

6th February 2009, 09:06 AM

Minarvia

6th February 2009, 10:12 AM

I'm wondering if truethat's argument was actually implicitly recognized by leaders of the Catholic Church. Catholics are taught not to read the Bible, but instead to receive the correct interpretation of it (The Catechism) indirectly from the Church's leaders. The argument is that, because of just the sorts of difficulties frequently pointed out by atheists, only highly trained clergy--with the insight they supposedly glean from prayer, as well as the assistance of more senior clergy--are capable of determining the Bible's true meaning. Nice. :rolleyes:

I used to be a Catholic and we were told and expected to read the bible. I wonder why other Catholics would be told otherwise. This is indeed odd. It seems that "sects" may have nothing to do with it, but that individuals decide whether they want to read it or not and leaders in a particular church decide what they want to tell their parishioners. :confused:

RobRoy

6th February 2009, 11:33 AM

I used to be a Catholic and we were told and expected to read the bible. I wonder why other Catholics would be told otherwise. This is indeed odd. It seems that "sects" may have nothing to do with it, but that individuals decide whether they want to read it or not and leaders in a particular church decide what they want to tell their parishioners. :confused:

I believe Prometheus was speaking more about pre-Vatican II and the couple of decades following, when this was definately the practice. Even currently, while the RCC has allowed the laity to form Bible study groups, these are still only supplemental to the Sunday mass readings and the priest's homily explaining those readings in regards to the RCC teachings and beliefs. Reliance on those explanations coming from the intermediary, the priest, are a core foundation of the RCC, one disputed by most protestant faiths.

Prometheus is quite right. Recall that for most of the RCCs history, the majority of adherents were illiterate and unlearned. This began to change, slowly, when the Bible was translated into modern languages. Still, one of the major precepts of the RCC was the requirement of the priest (and hierarcy) as intermediary. The majority of individuals were still woefully ignorant of arguments that were, frankly, beyond them. A peasent in the field does not often have time to read up on the latest Wyclif or Hus heresies. While modern adherents are better educated, there is still a world of difference between the education in theology of the priest and that of your average congregation.

truethat

6th February 2009, 02:41 PM

While I tend to agree with your position, this was not truethat's premise and not her stated conclusion, which is what I've been arguing. .

Yes it was you nimrod, this is what I have stated and others have pointed out to you ad nauseum in this thread.

You can't be this stupid, so I'm assuming you are playing games.

truethat

6th February 2009, 02:43 PM

I'm wondering if truethat's argument was actually implicitly recognized by leaders of the Catholic Church. Catholics are taught not to read the Bible, but instead to receive the correct interpretation of it (The Catechism) indirectly from the Church's leaders. The argument is that, because of just the sorts of difficulties frequently pointed out by atheists, only highly trained clergy--with the insight they supposedly glean from prayer, as well as the assistance of more senior clergy--are capable of determining the Bible's true meaning. Nice. :rolleyes:

That is a good point, but actually I'm talking about the "personal relationship with Jesus" types. Usually these people haven't read the bible, and will spend a lot of time trying convert others or convince others that this is the "WORD." I suppose some people have never encountered these people, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt.

But I do believe most people on here (who are not playing dumb games) know exactly what I'm talking about.

These people are definitely liars to me.

truethat

6th February 2009, 03:02 PM

RobRoy

6th February 2009, 03:04 PM

Yes it was you nimrod, this is what I have stated and others have pointed out to you ad nauseum in this thread.

You can't be this stupid, so I'm assuming you are playing games.

Thank you for proving my point. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4409846&postcount=371) I believe my work here is done. :D

truethat

6th February 2009, 03:14 PM

Lets see your point is......."I don't believe you!" Ok? So? Move on. You do not understand the point of this discussion AT ALL. I'm not about to waste any more time trying to explain it to you.

As I have stated from the beginning the point of this thread is to address ATHEISTS and to address their reasons for continuing to debate with Christians. As we can see in the last few posts by the newest posters, the argument has veered to the validity of God theory, the argument if God exists or logically can exist.

My point in this thread, which many seem to understand, is that I don't think it is the position of the atheist to try to convince the believer that they are wrong. There is no logical reason for attempting this. If a person chooses to remain deluded (thank you for proving MY Point btw) nothing you can do will convince them. No amount of logic will get through to someone who does not want to hear it. (again thank you for proving MY point)

It is my observation that these debates, set forth under the premise that it is about God, are in actuality about belief. That is; the atheist in his gut KNOWS that the believer doesn't really believe what he claims to believe.

This is because said believer has RARELY if EVER read the supposed authoritative text. As FLO has also stated, it is illogical for this to be so. The only way it could logically make sense is if the supposed believer is lying as to what he or she believes.

My approach in this thread is to urge Atheists to confront the believer with the logical fallacy of their own expressed beliefs. If they do believe that this book is a divinely inspired text given to man by almighty god (NOTICE THE FECKIGN "IF" THERE!!!!) then it doesn't make sense that they would not read it.

RevDisturba

6th February 2009, 11:46 PM

It doesn't matter if you said "many", "most", or "some". There is no way for you to know that "many", "most", or "some" atheists are being disingenuous when claiming they don’t believe in an afterlife or God. A sampling of professed atheists, lying or not, would logically show your statement to be false. This in itself wouldn't be a conclusion, as I would agree that "some" might actually be lying. The only way to know if they were actually "being disingenous" when making their atheistic claims, would be to have psychic powers, and check the "many" which you claimed.

I am standing by my words. The atheists I was speaking of demonstrate by their inability to defend their paradigm, and the inability share the burden of proof leaves me no choice but to hold that opinion. f it walks like a duck....

BTW, I did not say you were being dishonest.You said I would have no way of knowing if 'many' atheists were being dishonest. I would add that you do not know if I am correct either unless you are a mind reader. So, with all due respect, I simply don’t care if you agree or not. We all have opinions and that is my opinion which is supported by the evdience.

This may be your opinion, and you may hold it near and dear to your heart, but that doesn't mean you can prove this position. You're welcome to try, however. Please provide your definitions, testing protocol, and supporting data. I'll lay any odds you like that you're either unable or unwilling to provide any of this, or any evidence at all that supports your conclusion, just as truethat is unable to do the same.

Newsflash; I didn’t say I could prove anything like that. I do have evdience to support my claims.

Quote: Christians have a far greater ability to be diverse and still be Christian than atheists do. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. It appears a bit insulting toward atheists, but maybe I'm just not reading it correctly. Please explain.

Christians have many approved denominations and beliefs.We enjoy a very large diversity and that gives us the flexibility to hold many diverse beliefs and still be considered christian. Atheists are limited. I think a true atheist is someone that believes that its impossible for God to exist. And I believe all other atheists are agnostics rather than soft atheists etc. I feel they are being disingenuous when they claim otherwise. Again no insult meant its my opinion.

; }>

RevDisturba

6th February 2009, 11:51 PM

Technically, in order to be a Christian you have to believe in Christ.

Technically you must claim Jesus Christ as your lord and savior as well as repent. Then you must strive to apply the teachings of Jesus as per scripture. The Rev in my sc name is there for a reason.

; {>

RevDisturba

6th February 2009, 11:58 PM

An omnipotent god is logically impossible. This is shown with a mere thought experiment. Can such a god make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it ? Whether you answer "yes" or "no" makes no difference: you've just identified something he cannot do.

If you're going to argue a non-omnipotent god, then we might be going somewhere.

That doesn't answer the question, that merely defines it. And why would you ask ME for a cosmological argument ? I'm not arguing that God exists. In fact, I might be one of the very few here who claims that god is flat-out impossible, logically, physically, etc.
Use italics, then. :)

I am a open theist christian and feel that God is does not muck about too much in this universe nevertheless, he is omnipotent in his realm. His realm is eternal and outside time as per Dr Craigs papers on the KCA. When God manifests in our universe he does it with angels, material beings or things (the burning bush which btw is not an accurate translation) or by voices visions or dreams. I think this is because its difficult for God to manifest himself in our temporal universe because he rarely does it, very rarely.

If you feel that its impossible for God to exist I applaud you for being an honest atheist. However you have very little wiggle room, which gives me an advantage in debate. I use cosmological arguments for evdience for the existence of God. Nothing is 100% certain not even that God exists.

However by cosmological arguments which are reasonable logical arguments for the existence of God and by other methods and evdience I can make a better more logical case for the existence of God than you can against God.

; {>

RevDisturba

7th February 2009, 12:11 AM

Then maybe your experience is limited.

So tell me, what are, exactly, those teachings, how comes that the 4 versions of the gospel don't exactly agree on them (not to mention the dozens of versions that did not make it into the "official versions" of the bible), that every single christian churches and sects have been, and are still, fighting over them for centuries, and that we can see on a daily basis various denomination accusing the others of being heretics or worse ? Maybe they should have become rocket scientists after all ...

and the coran to be muslim, and the heart sutra to be a buddhist, and the writings of Laozi to be a taoist, and Aunt Moira's book of porridge recipes to be a Scot. Trick is, there's a lot of things in those books, and most of them are either obscure or unpractical, and people have a tendency to rationalize their highly subjective choice of this or that passage that does or doesn't suit them.

What non truth ? Of course clergies, christian or not, have been and are still practicing deliberate deception, as in "do as I say, not as I do", and cherry picking passages of the scriptures when it suited them. Because you didn't experience it personnally doesn't make it less so.

So what ? and how do you recognize one (and more importantly, how do you prove it to me, an atheist)

Where did I say "christians in general" ? I've met all kinds of christians, some who were obviously lying, some who were deluded, some who were merely stupid, some who were perfectly aware that they couldn't take their "basic manual" litterally and that whatever rule they derived from it was strictly personnal, some who were trying their best to live with an extremely unpractical book, etc.

Thanks for providing a quote that actually supports my point ...:rolleyes:

We all are of limited experience. The answer to your question of why we fight over the gospels or what the bible says is because its mans nature. Its sin. I read the bible and see no contradiction, of course I have a degree in comparative theology and am a christian apologist! I know little about those other religions and the Koran. However the bible is only a bunch of letters texts poems and songs written by many different authors over a long time period. We christians think they are the inspired word of God. That said the bible is parable and its those letters to the churches and its story telling and prophsey. Its history and its practical wisdom.

A true christian should read the bible, its very clear and is the word of God. You make too many vague accusations for me to address them if you would be specific I would be happy to spank you like a new baby in debate.

As for your last paragraph, with all due respect, its gibberish.

; {>

RevDisturba

7th February 2009, 12:17 AM

This is because said believer has RARELY if EVER read the supposed authoritative text.

I see so much of unsubstantiated bs like the above thrown about in this forum that it makes me wonder about the authors credibility.

Please provide a source or proof for that lie? I will apologize if said proof materializes. (hint; It won't).

; {>

Rrose Selavy

7th February 2009, 03:49 AM

This thread has been a bit heated at times and I don't wish to derail ( I was the first to reply to the OP) but I thought the thread title reminded me of something...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfTucTdhFuo

Lighthearted interlude over
Back to the discussion....

Flo

9th February 2009, 03:17 AM

We all are of limited experience. The answer to your question of why we fight over the gospels or what the bible says is because its mans nature. Its sin. I read the bible and see no contradiction, of course I have a degree in comparative theology and am a christian apologist!

Then you are severely deluded, or a poor theologian, or haven't really read the book, because I've never met a theologian (and I've met several) who didn't admit there were contradictions aplenty within the bible. Actually, being a christian apologist means spending a lot of time trying to justify, explain, and dismiss, those very contradictions (which accounts for a number of theologians having lost their faith after a while).

However the bible is only a bunch of letters texts poems and songs written by many different authors over a long time period. We christians think they are the inspired word of God. That said the bible is parable and its those letters to the churches and its story telling and prophsey. Its history and its practical wisdom.

"we christians" ? Who do you think you are to speak for all christians ?

A true christian should read the bible, its very clear and is the word of God.

No, it isn't clear at all, especially in view of the contradictory interpretations that various christians give for the same texts (not to mention the various definitions of "true christian" ).

You make too many vague accusations for me to address them if you would be specific I would be happy to spank you like a new baby in debate.

Translation: "I don't want to answer your questions so I'll dismiss them as vague, and add an insult to boot". Nothing that could impress me.

westprog

9th February 2009, 04:43 AM

Prometheus is quite right. Recall that for most of the RCCs history, the majority of adherents were illiterate and unlearned. This began to change, slowly, when the Bible was translated into modern languages. Still, one of the major precepts of the RCC was the requirement of the priest (and hierarcy) as intermediary.

That's one of the major issues of the reformation. Many protestants regarded the bible as being the direct connection between the believer and god, and that the priest wasn't necessary. That's not the Catholic viewpoint at all.

While Catholics do accept the bible as divinely inspired, they don't have it as central to their religious practice, for many reasons.

truethat

9th February 2009, 05:23 AM

I am standing by my words. The atheists I was speaking of demonstrate by their inability to defend their paradigm, and the inability share the burden of proof leaves me no choice but to hold that opinion. f it walks like a duck....

BTW, I did not say you were being dishonest.You said I would have no way of knowing if 'many' atheists were being dishonest. I would add that you do not know if I am correct either unless you are a mind reader. So, with all due respect, I simply don’t care if you agree or not. We all have opinions and that is my opinion which is supported by the evdience.

Newsflash; I didn’t say I could prove anything like that. I do have evdience to support my claims.

Christians have many approved denominations and beliefs.We enjoy a very large diversity and that gives us the flexibility to hold many diverse beliefs and still be considered christian. Atheists are limited. I think a true atheist is someone that believes that its impossible for God to exist. And I believe all other atheists are agnostics rather than soft atheists etc. I feel they are being disingenuous when they claim otherwise. Again no insult meant its my opinion.

; }>

To the bolded. Very well put. Very true.

While I might agree with you in your assessment of many atheists who argue against God, what I am putting for in this thread addresses another alternative.

For example if you go to a forum that has a skepticism debate regarding God you will often see the same participants fighting against "believers." Like you I have often felt that "methinks the lady doth protest too much." I've not understood the need to debate against God belief.

But as I have continued to observe this phenomenon the conclusion I have come to is the reason for the thread. I have witnessed in these debates typically, an atheist who is well read regarding the bible and discussing many of the contradictions that Flo has brought up. The supposed believer however will simply dismiss the conversation as being "up to God" or some such thing. As the debate continues what is clear to me is that the atheist is not really debating the God belief but rather the argument put forth by the person arguing so vehemently for God. At the heart of the conversation is skepticism. However it is misdirected.

I believe that the atheist is almost unaware of what he is really arguing against. This thread is an attempt to bring that to the surface.

I believe that the atheist doesn't believe that the believer believes half the things he says. The believer appears to be lying and tossing off to the "mystery of the unknown" or "ONLY GOD KNOWS" his lack of legitimate argument or reason or logic.

Its merely a dismissive tactic and is usually raised when held on point it is obvious that the supposed believer is unfamiliar with the passage because he doesn't read the bible.

If he doesn't read the bible it stands to reason that he doesn't really believe that God wrote the bible. If he doesn't believe this, then why does he argue for a sense of mystical authority of the book?

This is what I am trying to address. I do not believe that most Christians really in their heart of hearts believe that God wrote the bible. If they did, they'd read it.

Belz...

9th February 2009, 09:57 AM

Technically you must claim Jesus Christ as your lord and savior as well as repent. Then you must strive to apply the teachings of Jesus as per scripture. The Rev in my sc name is there for a reason.

Nope. You can be a Christian and not do these things. We're not talking about particular denominations, here.

Belz...

9th February 2009, 10:00 AM

I am a open theist christian and feel that God is does not muck about too much in this universe nevertheless, he is omnipotent in his realm.

Can he create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it ?

I think this is because its difficult for God to manifest himself in our temporal universe because he rarely does it, very rarely.

Doesn't sound like someone who follows scripture.

If you feel that its impossible for God to exist I applaud you for being an honest atheist.

People usually state their beliefs openly.

However you have very little wiggle room, which gives me an advantage in debate.

At most you'll get me to say "well, we don't know and we can't know." But that would assume we'd discuss absolutes. I have a much more pragmatic approach to it.

However by cosmological arguments which are reasonable logical arguments for the existence of God and by other methods and evdience I can make a better more logical case for the existence of God than you can against God.

There is no evidence for god. God is logically impossible. God is physically impossible. QED.

I read the bible and see no contradiction

Two or seven of each creature ?

truethat

9th February 2009, 10:04 AM

RobRoy

9th February 2009, 11:27 AM

I am standing by my words. The atheists I was speaking of demonstrate by their inability to defend their paradigm, and the inability share the burden of proof leaves me no choice but to hold that opinion. f it walks like a duck....

This has not been my experience. The atheists I know and have discussed the topic with have had quite an ability to prove their particular stance. If we’re going by experience alone, though, it definitely quacks like a duck! ;)

BTW, I did not say you were being dishonest.You said I would have no way of knowing if 'many' atheists were being dishonest.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you were impugning my character. There seems to be a miscommunication since that’s not at all what I was saying.

I would add that you do not know if I am correct either unless you are a mind reader. So, with all due respect, I simply don’t care if you agree or not. We all have opinions and that is my opinion which is supported by the evdience.

I’m sorry, what evidence have you offered so far? I am not being facetious in this request. I may have overlooked it. So if you could point it out, then I would be happy to review it and continue this discussion.

However, I will point out that without the aforementioned mind-reading abilities, the only evidence we have are the statements made by the folk in question. If we’re talking about atheists and their lack of belief in God, then lacking contradictory evidence, we have to take their statements on face value.

Newsflash; I didn’t say I could prove anything like that. I do have evdience to support my claims.

I didn’t say you could. I was requesting evidence that could then be used to support your claim. Since you state you have such evidence, kindly show it to us.

Christians have many approved denominations and beliefs.We enjoy a very large diversity and that gives us the flexibility to hold many diverse beliefs and still be considered christian. Atheists are limited.

Sorry, just to be clear, you’re saying that atheists are limited in their claims of belief as opposed to Christian belief? If that’s the case, then it’s pretty much a truism. Given that atheists don’t believe in God, they’ve immediately limited their faith-based beliefs in God to null.

I’m not certain how this proves the Christians better or worse than the atheists though.

I think a true atheist is someone that believes that its impossible for God to exist. And I believe all other atheists are agnostics rather than soft atheists etc. I feel they are being disingenuous when they claim otherwise. Again no insult meant its my opinion.

Sorry, what’s the difference between a “true atheist” and “all other atheists”? And why are you bringing in agnostics as part of the equation? Also, what’s a “soft atheist”?

That's one of the major issues of the reformation. Many protestants regarded the bible as being the direct connection between the believer and god, and that the priest wasn't necessary. That's not the Catholic viewpoint at all.

While Catholics do accept the bible as divinely inspired, they don't have it as central to their religious practice, for many reasons.

Exactly. This was one of the chief reasons Wyclif's bones were dug up and burned with Hus as heretics.

Prometheus

9th February 2009, 11:42 AM

The rock thing, um I don't think that's a legitimate question. Can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?

To say that the answer makes no sense is based on human comprehension which is limited. If one truly accepts that God is all knowing then it stands to reason God could do this in a way that is incomprehensible to man.

I agree. Plus it has a trivial response, which I've heard some theists use: "Sure. He creates the rock, and then if he wants to move it in any particular direction, he just moves everything else in the opposite direction."

Minarvia

9th February 2009, 04:04 PM

I agree. Plus it has a trivial response, which I've heard some theists use: "Sure. He creates the rock, and then if he wants to move it in any particular direction, he just moves everything else in the opposite direction."

(Over my head and hitting the wall behind me) They say THAT? Uh...and that is god MOVING the rock, how??? :confused:

RobRoy

9th February 2009, 04:29 PM

(Over my head and hitting the wall behind me) They say THAT? Uh...and that is god MOVING the rock, how??? :confused:

Well, it's not in the same position it was before, right? :D

Belz...

10th February 2009, 04:13 AM

The rock thing, um I don't think that's a legitimate question. Can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?

To say that the answer makes no sense is based on human comprehension which is limited. If one truly accepts that God is all knowing then it stands to reason God could do this in a way that is incomprehensible to man.

I disagree. We're not talking about what he knows, but what he can do. Can he lift the rock, or not ? Either way he's not omnipotent in the way most theists seem to use the word.

If "omnipotent" means that a god can do anything but is constrained by the laws of physics, then why call it a god ?

Ethan Thane Athen

10th February 2009, 04:40 AM

I think there is a strong element of "half belief" with montheism particularly. Like someone who doesn't consider themselves "superstitious" but avoids walking under a ladder (aside from practical reasons not to)
"just in case" and because there is still a strong irrational impulse (from upbringing usually) to do so.
Same may apply to those who fill in surveys about the "afterlife" .
Or part of the the so called "moderate"/political wing of the Theist Party rather then the fanatical/paramilitary.

Indeed. My mother would answer yes to believing in an after-life but this is based purely on an attitude of 'Well I wouldn't like to think death is the end so it's nice to think there may be something afterwards'. When pressed on the something, she has no idea other than that death just 'shouldn't' be the end as that 'didn't feel right'. She'd also describe herself loosely as a 'christian' but doesn't attend church, or read the bible or subscribe to any particular denomination...

On one occasion when I debated 'the afterlife' with her, she reluctantly admitted that I was probably right when I said there was no such thing but she'd rather not think about that. So, she'd answer yes but she doesn't really, really believe...more wishes it were so.

Minarvia

10th February 2009, 05:33 PM

Well, it's not in the same position it was before, right? :D

Heh, I guess I'll bow out now being dumb. :D But if I'm standing still and everyone else moves, I don't get how that makes ME in a different spot. :confused: I think I'll go and get some caffeine now. :)

Prometheus

10th February 2009, 10:19 PM

Heh, I guess I'll bow out now being dumb. :D But if I'm standing still and everyone else moves, I don't get how that makes ME in a different spot. :confused: I think I'll go and get some caffeine now. :)

Not just everyone else, everything else--including the spot you were standing on. ;)

Minarvia

10th February 2009, 11:17 PM

Not just everyone else, everything else--including the spot you were standing on. ;)

:o

RobRoy

11th February 2009, 12:24 PM

Not just everyone else, everything else--including the spot you were standing on. ;)

Beat me to it! :D

Minarvia, what's your particular flavor of caffeine?

Minarvia

11th February 2009, 01:25 PM

One of those lovely little yellow no-doze pills with a can of Diet Cherry Coke! Nope, no coffee lover, this gal.
Being on this forums sometimes makes me wonder if I shouldn't get a direct shot into my brain someday! :)

RobRoy

11th February 2009, 01:28 PM

One of those lovely little yellow no-doze pills with a can of Diet Cherry Coke! Nope, no coffee lover, this gal.

I prefer mine as Diet Dr Pepper. I can't do the pills anymore. But I'm with you on the coffee. It tastes like someone burnt something. Blech!

Being on this forums sometimes makes me wonder if I shouldn't get a direct shot into my brain someday! :)

You seem to hold you own. On the other hand, I'm sure there are a few people who think that I should be shot in the brain! ;)

Minarvia

11th February 2009, 03:16 PM

I prefer mine as Diet Dr Pepper. I can't do the pills anymore. But I'm with you on the coffee. It tastes like someone burnt something. Blech!

You seem to hold you own. On the other hand, I'm sure there are a few people who think that I should be shot in the brain! ;)

LOL! Thanks for making me laugh and feel better about my brain!
I also like Diet Dr. Pepper.:) Oh, and I don't think anyone thinks you should be shot in the brain. :p

Sorry for derail but I couldn't resist.

RevDisturba

12th February 2009, 05:13 AM

Then you are severely deluded, or a poor theologian, or haven't really read the book, because I've never met a theologian (and I've met several) who didn't admit there were contradictions aplenty within the bible. Actually, being a christian apologist means spending a lot of time trying to justify, explain, and dismiss, those very contradictions (which accounts for a number of theologians having lost their faith after a while).

With all due respect Flo I feel that those people you met were ‘severely deluded, or a poor theologians’. What seems a contradiction is usually scripture taken out of context or an any number of things. Let me ask you a question. Would you rather the bible be the word of God or something less than that?

"we christians" ? Who do you think you are to speak for all christians ?

I am a Christian. All Christians must accept Jesus as their lord and savior. When I say we Christians I mean precisely that.

No, it isn't clear at all, especially in view of the contradictory interpretations that various christians give for the same texts.

If a Christian has a question about the bible or God, that Christian should read and study the passage etc in question, then, after much study and praying and consulting learned academic sources and clergy, as a Christian its up to you and you alone to decide what is true and what is not. If you have to split with the church you are in then so be it! If you can defend what you beleive by scripture you are correct in the eyes of God, the others are wrong by degrees or in whole.

(not to mention the various definitions of "true christian" )

A true christian is simply someone that accepts Jesus as their lord and savior (and repents of their sins). Everything else is gravy.

Translation: "I don't want to answer your questions so I'll dismiss them as vague, and add an insult to boot". Nothing that could impress me.

No not at all. I will answer any vague questions that have merit. I do not insult unless insulted. BTW I am not here to impress you or even to be your friend. It would be nice if that happened but that’s up to you and your actions not me. I am here to educate you and to expose the falsehoods lies and deceitful comments about Christianity and Christians that run amuck on the internet.

; {>

RevDisturba

12th February 2009, 05:37 AM

To the bolded. Very well put. Very true.

While I might agree with you in your assessment of many atheists who argue against God, what I am putting for in this thread addresses another alternative.>>>>BREVITY SNIP <<<<<<<

If he doesn't read the bible it stands to reason that he doesn't really believe that God wrote the bible. If he doesn't believe this, then why does he argue for a sense of mystical authority of the book?

This is what I am trying to address. I do not believe that most Christians really in their heart of hearts believe that God wrote the bible. If they did, they'd read it.

Thanks for the agreement. However I do disagree with this statement " This is what I am trying to address. I do not believe that most Christians really in their heart of hearts believe that God wrote the bible. If they did, they'd read it."

First most Christians I know do read the bible. In fact I don't know one Christian that doesn't. That said I don't think that reading the bible would be a good 'Christian gauge' anyway. You are using your own criteria to decide who is and who is not a Christian. You are attempting to set a very bad precedent. The bible clearly defines what is necessary to be a Christian. That is to accept Jesus as your lord and savior.

What you personally think may be interesting for a debate thread, but it means nothing as to who you think may or may not believe the bible is the inspired words of God.

Lastly I entertain other evidences for who believes and who does not.

I am a child of the 60's and believe me most of Christians my age would rather still be doing drugs sex and rock and roll than being tee totaling Christians. We are Christians precisely because we believe that God is God and that Christianity is the most logical form or religion. I have devoted my life to God and helping others because I believe it.

There are several reasons that Christians seem to always standing on a soap box defending our God. One reason is that our bible tells us to do just that! Another reason is because of all the misinformation and falsehoods that are on the web and in the minds of the general population. That is a crime in our reality, even if its a 'civil' crime instead of a 'criminal' crime. There are other reasons not the least being the recent rise of evangelical atheism which seems to exist for the sole motive to destroy our religion.

Too bad we all cant take lie detector tests, this theist would pass with flyin' colors. I would like to strap a polygraph on an atheist or 100 and ask them >>> "why do you insist on avoiding the burden of proof?" Then stand back as the lie detector machine explodes...heheh

; }>

Lonewulf

12th February 2009, 05:40 AM

Too bad we all cant take lie detector tests, this theist would pass with flyin' colors. I would like to strap one on an atheist and ask him about an unrelated subject of why do you insist on avoiding the burden of proof? (yes I already know the stock reasons given and I reject them).

You can reject anything you want. For instance, you can reject that the earth goes around the sun.

Hard for me to respect someone that rejects something so obvious, though.

3point14

12th February 2009, 05:42 AM

A true christian is simply someone that accepts Jesus as their lord and savior (and repents of their sins). Everything else is gravy.

Just out of interest, what if they have no sins?

Lonewulf

12th February 2009, 05:47 AM

Just out of interest, what if they have no sins?

We were born sinful. Original Sin, don'tcha know?

Makes it easy to lay the blame.

Also, according to the bible, lying is a pretty bad sin. And who doesn't tell a lie all their life?

RevDisturba

12th February 2009, 05:53 AM

Nope. You can be a Christian and not do these things. We're not talking about particular denominations, here.

You can not be a christian if you don't accept Jesus Christ in any denomination.

; {>

RevDisturba

12th February 2009, 05:55 AM

You can reject anything you want. For instance, you can reject that the earth goes around the sun.

Hard for me to respect someone that rejects something so obvious, though.

Likewise.

; {>

RevDisturba

12th February 2009, 05:56 AM

Just out of interest, what if they have no sins?

Everyone has sin if they are human. If they have no sin then of course they would not have to repent.Most people don't have a clue of what actual repenting really means. The translation from Greek to English was lacking. It contained only the details needed to save a soul. In reality repenting is much more complex than just asking forgiveness.

; {>

Lonewulf

12th February 2009, 05:57 AM

Likewise.

; {>

Indeed.

\o/

>: o

;P

o.O O.o O.O o.o

o_o

RevDisturba

12th February 2009, 06:02 AM

We were born sinful. Original Sin, don'tcha know?
Makes it easy to lay the blame.Also, according to the bible, lying is a pretty bad sin. And who doesn't tell a lie all their life?

Before Jesus came back (God in the form of man) we had to follow old mosaic law much as the pagans do to this day (the use of ritual for example).

When Jesus returned he made it possible (by his own sacrifice of his blood and pain) that we could be saved by his grace. So we as a saved Christian we are more pure than an unsaved spirit. An unclean spirit does not have eternal life but rather the grave to look forward to.

God loves all of us, but its up to us to be worthy of that love. Its not much different than our system of law. Break the law and pay the price. Without any law there would be no peace.

; {>

Lonewulf

12th February 2009, 06:08 AM

Before Jesus came back (God in the form of man) we had to follow old mosaic law much as the pagans do to this day (the use of ritual for example).

When Jesus returned he made it possible (by his own sacrifice of his blood and pain) that we could be saved by his grace. So we as a saved Christian we are more pure than an unsaved spirit. An unclean spirit does not have eternal life but rather the grave to look forward to.

God loves all of us, but its up to us to be worthy of that love. Its not much different than our system of law. Break the law and pay the price. Without any law there would be no peace.

; {>

Right, God loves us all. Ergo, he punishes those of us that don't kneel to him with eternal horrible punishment, for a crime that is committed within a maximum of 100 years of action.

Sounds fair.

RevDisturba

12th February 2009, 06:08 AM

You can reject anything you want. For instance, you can reject that the earth goes around the sun.

Hard for me to respect someone that rejects something so obvious, though.

Tell me, how can you answer a question when you don't even know what it means? What for example are the stock answers that I spoke of?

; {>

RevDisturba

12th February 2009, 06:11 AM

Right, God loves us all. Ergo, he punishes those of us that don't kneel to him with eternal horrible punishment, for a crime that is committed within a maximum of 100 years of action.

Sounds fair.

Hell doesn't exist for humans. But the grave isn't much better.

('hell' means 'the grave' when its translated properly in most cases, yes that is a simplistic explanation, but I do not wish to derail this thread with basic Ancient Greek and Hebrew linguistics)

At least death and the grave is humane. BTW its your choice to make not Gods. The grave or an eternity with God. To grow up and learn to take responsibility for your actions is what God wishes for us. Sometimes the choices are life and death. Its your call.

; {>

Lonewulf

12th February 2009, 06:15 AM

Tell me, how can you answer a question when you don't even know what it means? What for example are the stock answers that I spoke of?

; {>

You say you rejected all the answers. I can only assume that you mean answers that are easily found here and in other locations similar to here.

By all means, I might be wrong. You left it purposefully vague so you could pull something like this, of course. I tire of Theist tactics.

Lonewulf

12th February 2009, 06:18 AM

Hell doesn't exist for humans. But the grave isn't much better.(the 'grave' is 'hell' is when its translated properly in most cases, yes that is a simplistic explanation, but I do not wish to derail this thread with basic Ancient Greek and Hebrew linguistics) At least its humane. BTW even the grave is your choice to make not Gods. Grow up and learn to take responsibility for your actions is what God wishes for us.

; {>

I have grown up. I do take responsibility for my actions. That's why I decide what I do based upon logic (moral philosophy) and reality (empirical evidence). I accept that I am ultimately responsible for my decisions, and the consequences of those actions, whether for good or ill. I don't need an invisible being that there's no evidence for, that others tell me decides what is and is not good for me. That's the antithesis of "growing up and taking responsibility"; it's delegating responsibility to a father figure, not to one's individual self.

You reject the majority of Christian beliefs in your statement up there. I guess the True Christians (tm) don't have it right even here.

RevDisturba

12th February 2009, 06:22 AM

You say you rejected all the answers. I can only assume that you mean answers that are easily found here and in other locations similar to here.By all means, I might be wrong. You left it purposefully vague so you could pull something like this, of course. I tire of Theist tactics.

You are wrong. You responded to my posts in a confrontational manner so you got that in return. If you had of been respectful I would of returned that postive energy to you. You could of simply of asked me instead of arrogantly assuming you knew my mind. There are no thiests taticts, only the truth of God .

; {>

RevDisturba

12th February 2009, 06:26 AM

I have grown up. I do take responsibility for my actions. That's why I decide what >>>snipped for mercy<<<even here.

Well good for you, and I wish the best for you. I do however reject your authority when you attempt to judge or ponder anything that has to do with theology. If you should ever want to consider recanting your athiestic paradigm please feel free to come to my church or missions, you will always be welcome here. Or even PM or e mail me. I extend that invitation to everyone.

; {>

3point14

12th February 2009, 06:30 AM

Everyone has sin if they are human. If they have no sin then of course they would not have to repent.Most people don't have a clue of what actual repenting really means. The translation from Greek to English was lacking. It contained only the details needed to save a soul. In reality repenting is much more complex than just asking forgiveness.

; {>

Nope, sorry, I have no original sin at all, and thus have no need to repent. I have no existential guilt driving me towards some fictional redeemer. I have no need to ask any fictional thing for forgiveness. If I wrong someone then I go straight to the source and apologise to those whom I have wronged. I need no proxy for forgiveness.

Do you honestly not believe that this place wouldn't be a better place if those of a religious persuasion would stop telling us that it all gets better in the next world. Maybe then we'd invest more effort in trying to fix this world and less worrying about the (fictional) next?

RevDisturba

12th February 2009, 06:49 AM

This has not been my experience. The atheists I know and have discussed the topic with have had quite an ability to prove their particular stance. If we’re going by experience alone, though, it definitely quacks like a duck!

Well maybe I am from Venus and you and your atheists friends are from Mars? Can you, or anyone, give me one logical reasonable argument that the atheists have that is on par with say the thesis friendly Kalam Cosmological Argument? I am asking for one argument that uses logic and reason to support the atheistic paradigm?

Quote: BTW, I did not say you were being dishonest.You said I would have no way of knowing if 'many' atheists were being dishonest. Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you were impugning my character. There seems to be a miscommunication since that’s not at all what I was saying.

Ok maybe it was a misunderstanding, I am usually hyper defensive by theistic license, sorry if I was out of line.

Sorry, what’s the difference between a “true atheist” and “all other atheists”? And why are you bringing in agnostics as part of the equation? Also, what’s a “soft atheist”?

Well that is fairly common knowledge you could of googled it. I find it impossible to debate with most atheists because they change the definition of atheist. If you really don't know what the difference is think of a soft atheist is an agnostic by any other name. Atheist has different definitions depending on who you are talking to and what the debate is about. If you would like I would be happy to paste a article where Dr Craig (a theist) describes how most atheists are being disingenuous in his experience as a professional theist (that debates famous atheists such as Dawkins).

note; I omitted a couple of paragraphs because am researching my reply).
; {>

westprog

12th February 2009, 06:54 AM

Do you honestly not believe that this place wouldn't be a better place if those of a religious persuasion would stop telling us that it all gets better in the next world.

Don't you believe that the world would be a better place if people didn't have baseless beliefs about how belief in the afterlife makes people behave worse?

Belz...

12th February 2009, 07:00 AM

You can not be a christian if you don't accept Jesus Christ in any denomination.

; {>

Thank you. That's what I was saying.

RevDisturba

12th February 2009, 07:00 AM

Nope, sorry, I have no original sin at all, and thus have no need to repent. I have no existential guilt driving me towards some fictional redeemer. I have no need to ask any fictional thing for forgiveness. If I wrong someone then I go straight to the source and apologise to those whom I have wronged. I need no proxy for forgiveness.

Indeed. The world would be in a worse cesspool than it is if everyone thought as you do. Thank God atheists are a tiny minority and will remain that for a very long time. I hope all atheists don't have that mindset.

Do you honestly not believe that this place wouldn't be a better place if those of a religious persuasion would stop telling us that it all gets better in the next world. Maybe then we'd invest more effort in trying to fix this world and less worrying about the (fictional) next?

That remark demonstrates your rank ignorance of theism and those with a identify with the Christian religion. We do work here to make the world a better place. Please show me a atheist mission to feed the worlds hungry or to help those that cant help themselves? There may be secular missions but NONE identify as ATHEIST. So no, in my opinion the world would be a true hell with people like you running it. I truly hope yours is not the opinion of all atheists.

I will apologize for being a little irritated and sounding meaner than I really am. Actually, I am saddened by all the mis information and hate out there in binary land for the Christian. Its the same kind of hate and misinformation that led to Jesus death on the cross. I know hardened atheists can recant, and be saved because I was a evangelical God hating atheist for many years, yes I am aware how livid that statement makes most atheists!

The only thing that saved me was God breaking both my legs, tearing out my spleen and just busting me up to get my attention. Heh...It was worth it. Note to God; One leg would of been enough.
(I wrecked my bike 12 years ago and flat lined, the NDE was the only thing that saved my eternal life; (end of sermon)

; {>

Belz...

12th February 2009, 07:02 AM

Everyone has sin if they are human.

Says who ? Sin is, by definition, an act against God. Of course, we'd have to actually establish that said being exists before we can make claims about sin.

When Jesus returned he made it possible (by his own sacrifice of his blood and pain) that we could be saved by his grace.

You're going to have to explain that to me, because I never managed to make any sense of it: how can someone dying make any sort of difference in the matter ?

In fact, not only was the dying party the SAME party who save people by grace, but the sod DIDN'T ACTUALLY DIE.

Belz...

12th February 2009, 07:05 AM

BTW its your choice to make not Gods. The grave or an eternity with God. To grow up and learn to take responsibility for your actions is what God wishes for us. Sometimes the choices are life and death. Its your call.

Sounds like a demanding father who forces you to make the same carreer choices he did.

I find it impossible to debate with most atheists because they change the definition of atheist.

Actually "atheist" means "lacks belief in gods". I've never seen another definition, myself.

Who are those hypothetical atheists of whom you speak ?

Lonewulf

12th February 2009, 07:05 AM

Well good for you, and I wish the best for you. I do however reject your authority when you attempt to judge or ponder anything that has to do with theology
And I, you, unless you can bring me empirical evidence for your claim.

I won't hold my breath.

If you should ever want to consider recanting your athiestic paradigm please feel free to come to my church or missions, you will always be welcome here. Or even PM or e mail me. I extend that invitation to everyone.

Why should I wish to follow something there is no evidence for? If anything, I'd convert to Shinto or Zoroastrianism -- both of which seem far better than any version of Christianity I have ever looked into. Daoism was pretty cool, too, before it got silly.

There's also the Aborigine beliefs of Australia, or the Native American/First Nation beliefs. Heck, there's also the beliefs of the ancient Egyptians (doubt I'd be allowed there; they believed outsiders didn't have souls).

All of which have about as much evidence as any version of Christianity. You're free to demonstrate where I'm wrong, of course, here, on an open forum.

And I apologize if I'm acting confrontational. It's that I cannot parse how anyone can call God "loving", given his quite colorful history in the Bible, even if you reject Catholic and Evangelistic claims on Hell.

Heck, even though I'm generally pacifistic, I'd take Norse mythology over Christianity any day. At least those gods knew how to party! (Not such a fan of the Greek gods, though)

3point14

12th February 2009, 07:05 AM

Don't you believe that the world would be a better place if people didn't have baseless beliefs about how belief in the afterlife makes people behave worse?

No.

RevDisturba

12th February 2009, 07:11 AM

Thank you. That's what I was saying.

Your welkie. Hey, do you have any beliefs?

; {>

RevDisturba

12th February 2009, 07:13 AM

Sounds like a demanding father who forces you to make the same carreer choices he did.

Good analogy, but its lacking a critical component. The father you speak of was/is the father that created the universe. So only a fool would reject his advice IMO.

ctually "atheist" means "lacks belief in gods". I've never seen another definition, myself.
Who are those hypothetical atheists of whom you speak ?

*cof* ..

Definitions of atheism on the Web:

* the doctrine or belief that there is no God
* a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. "Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.... ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

* atheist - related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* atheistic - rejecting any belief in gods
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Atheist are a technical death metal band from Florida, founded in 1984, whose music combined brutal riffs with subtle latin music arrangements and ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_(band)

* The Atheist is written by, Irish born playwright, Ronan Noone. His previous plays include The Lepers of Baile Baiste (Critics Pick, Boston Globe ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atheist_(play)

* The Atheist is a horror comic book originally released in April 2005 and is published by Image Comics. Phil Hester, of "The Wretch" and "Green Arrow," writes "The Atheist," while British John McCrea of "Hitman" does the black and white artwork.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atheist_(comics)

* atheist - A person who does not believe that deities exist; one who lacks belief in gods; A person who believes that no deities exist; one who denies the ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist

* Refers to the denial of any religious belief, the absence of belief in any deity or deities, or the position that religious belief is no different from any other superstitious or mythological belief.
en.citizendium.org/wiki/Religion

* A belief that there are no gods. Greek "a-theos": without-god. [see the 'Atheism' page for complete information]
www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm

* From Greek a- meaning without and theos, meaning God, atheists are those without a belief in God.
www.thezenofsouthpark.com/Glossary_of_Terms.html

* Denies the existence of any God, thought it is traditionally focused on the rejection of the Biblical God.
www.crossroad.to/glossary/religious.htm

* A Jew who becomes an atheist is still considered a Jew. Karl Marx, an atheist whose Jewish mother and father had converted to Christianity before he was born, was an Ashkenazi Jew. Hidden Identity. A Jew whose identity was hidden, who was raised in another religion, is still a Jew. ...
timothyministries.org/theologicaldictionary/references.aspx

* a (“without”) the (“deity”, or “god”). Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.
www.strongatheism.net/intro/lexicon/

* Paris, university Presses of France, “Which do I know? ”, n° 1291, 1998, ISBN 2-13-049301-7
www.speedylook.com/Jean_Vernette.html

* (Greek, a "without"; theo "god"): The religious doctrine that deities do not exist.
13thdruidofavalon.tripod.com/druidplanet/id88.html

* This word comes from two Greek words, athe - negator, and theos - God. Atheism teaches that there is no God of any kind, anywhere, anytime. Logically, an atheist would be an evolutionist. ...
www.geocities.com/changes1611/definitionscommonisms.html

* atheist - A person whose worldview embraces Atheism [noun] [OW]. The natural condition of all humans at birth and prior to indoctrination in or self ...
members.aol.com/porchnus/dict01.htm

* atheist - noun: one who believes that there is no deity or higher power
www.uuscouters.org/glossary.htm

* atheist - One who has no belief or faith in any god. The prefix "A" means non or no or none, so an a-theist is a non-theist, or one who recognizes ...
www.nobull.ws/dictionary.html

* atheist - the belief that God does not exist
www.iamuniversity.ch/moodle/mod/glossary/view.php

* atheist - ( A"the*ist ), n. [Gr. without god; 'a priv. + god: cf. F. athéiste.]
www.bibliomania.com/2/3/257/1192/21638/2.html

* atheist - The Greek for God was theos; when the j prefix a was placed before it, we get the origin j of "atheism," signifying a denial of the god, or gods. ...
www.njfreemason.net/masonic%20dictionary.htm

* atheist - Theism is a belief system incorporating a god or gods into the lives of humans. Atheism rejects god concepts. Atheists and theists are the individuals guided by those belief systems.
www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/docs_files/saint_files/terms.htm

; {>

Lonewulf

12th February 2009, 07:16 AM

3point14

12th February 2009, 07:16 AM

That remark demonstrates your rank ignorance of theism and those with a identify with the Christian religion. We do work here to make the world a better place. Please show me a atheist mission to feed the worlds hungry or to help those that cant help themselves? There may be secular missions but NONE identify as ATHEIST. So no, in my opinion the world would be a true hell with people like you running it. I truly hope yours is not the opinion of all atheists.

; {>

I have more than enough information about the christian religion, thank you. As much as I need anyway.
I don't doubt that some christians work to make the world a better place just as some hindus, muslims, zoro-astrians, agnostics and athiests do. I also think that some of all the above groups don't do any work to make the world a better place and in fact make it worse.

I wouldn't presume to speak for all athiests. I speak only for myself I'm afraid. Your statement "We do work here to make the world a better place." is, I hope, not presuming to speak for all christians in the world and is speaking ony for your particular church, sect, denomination or cult?

With regards to missions, well, there's a whole historical background that would need to be stated as to why religious missions are far more common than any other. I can probably supply links if you like?

Lonewulf

12th February 2009, 07:20 AM

RevDisturba

12th February 2009, 07:23 AM

I won't hold my breath.

circumstantial evdience is enough to convict you in a capital case, and we thiests have an overwhelming amount of that. Heck an atheist does not have even that to support his beliefs.

Oh please do hold your breath until I get back from the market, it will be about an hour before I return...

Just kidding this deterministic universe needs atheists as well as theists to function properly...

; }>

3point14

12th February 2009, 07:26 AM

circumstantial evdience is enough to convict you in a capital case, and we thiests have an overwhelming amount of that. Heck an atheist does not have even that to support his beliefs.

Oh please do hold your breath until I get back from the market, it will be about an hour before I return...

Just kidding this deterministic universe needs atheists as well as theists to function properly...

; }>

I strongly suspect that you're using an utterly different definition of the term 'circumstantial evidence' to the one I'm familiar with.

Lonewulf

12th February 2009, 07:31 AM

circumstantial evdience is enough to convict you in a capital case, and we thiests have an overwhelming amount of that.
Even if I were to accept this claim as true... so do all of the other religions in the world. I don't see why Christianity is so special, except that you were raised in a country that was arbitrarily friendly to it.

Heck an atheist does not have even that to support his beliefs.Why do I need to support my beliefs to not believe? You don't have to support your (lack of) beliefs, when it comes to the Roman or Greek gods, the Norse gods, aborigine beliefs of Australia, Native American/First Nation beliefs, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, etc.

Why would I have further requirements than you do?

Oh please do hold your breath until I get back from the market, it will be about an hour before I return...
Like I said, I wasn't planning on it.

Besides, I have cybernetic enhancements that let me hold my breath for days.

Just kidding this deterministic universe needs atheists as well as theists to function properly...
I'm glad you think so; after all, you're the sole authority here, right?

; }>
>: O

Flo

12th February 2009, 08:48 AM

With all due respect Flo I feel that those people you met were ‘severely deluded, or a poor theologians’.

I'll make sure to tell them, I'm all in favor of sharing a good joke ...

What seems a contradiction is usually scripture taken out of context or an any number of things.

You know, that poor line of argumentation has been around for ages, and has systematically failed to convince anybody who could see it for the bad excuse it is. You should leave it for politicians who have been caught with their foot in their mouth or their pants down ...

Let me ask you a question. Would you rather the bible be the word of God or something less than that?

What I want is neither here nor there. Fact is that there's not a bit of evidence for any godly intervention in its writing, especially in view of:

If a Christian has a question about the bible or God, that Christian should read and study the passage etc in question, then, after much study and praying and consulting learned academic sources and clergy, as a Christian its up to you and you alone to decide what is true and what is not.

Thanks for the party line, reverend. Like all woo, it is "don't doubt but if you do, don't anyway". Problem is, if consulting "learned academic sources and clergy" you still have to figure it yourself, the authors of the manual have done a p** poor job of writing it. Doesn't reflect well on god's ability to convey his instructions, don't you think ?

A true christian is simply someone that accepts Jesus as their lord and savior (and repents of their sins). Everything else is gravy.

Unfortunately, there are lots of self proclaimed christians who disagree. Why would I take your word above theirs ?

I am here to educate you and to expose the falsehoods lies and deceitful comments about Christianity and Christians that run amuck on the internet.

Thanks, but you're doing a very bad job of it.

Belz...

12th February 2009, 09:03 AM

Your welkie. Hey, do you have any beliefs?

As few as possible that aren't supported by evidence.

Belz...

12th February 2009, 09:07 AM

Good analogy, but its lacking a critical component. The father you speak of was/is the father that created the universe.

My father made half of me. It's not so far from the mark, actually.

So only a fool would reject his advice IMO.

No. I should have the ability to make my own decisions and my own consequences. The only reason why we are (according to myth) being "punished" by hell is that we disobeyed God, not that we did something wrong. Just because he made the universe is no reason why should always be right, and just because he's always right doesn't mean I should have no option than do what he tells me to do. I'm free to make mistakes, too.

*cof* ..

Definitions of atheism on the Web:

* the doctrine or belief that there is no God
* a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. "Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.... ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

* atheist - related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* atheistic - rejecting any belief in gods
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Atheist are a technical death metal band from Florida, founded in 1984, whose music combined brutal riffs with subtle latin music arrangements and ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_(band)

* The Atheist is written by, Irish born playwright, Ronan Noone. His previous plays include The Lepers of Baile Baiste (Critics Pick, Boston Globe ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atheist_(play)

* The Atheist is a horror comic book originally released in April 2005 and is published by Image Comics. Phil Hester, of "The Wretch" and "Green Arrow," writes "The Atheist," while British John McCrea of "Hitman" does the black and white artwork.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atheist_(comics)

* atheist - A person who does not believe that deities exist; one who lacks belief in gods; A person who believes that no deities exist; one who denies the ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist

* Refers to the denial of any religious belief, the absence of belief in any deity or deities, or the position that religious belief is no different from any other superstitious or mythological belief.
en.citizendium.org/wiki/Religion

* A belief that there are no gods. Greek "a-theos": without-god. [see the 'Atheism' page for complete information]
www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm

* From Greek a- meaning without and theos, meaning God, atheists are those without a belief in God.
www.thezenofsouthpark.com/Glossary_of_Terms.html

* Denies the existence of any God, thought it is traditionally focused on the rejection of the Biblical God.
www.crossroad.to/glossary/religious.htm

* A Jew who becomes an atheist is still considered a Jew. Karl Marx, an atheist whose Jewish mother and father had converted to Christianity before he was born, was an Ashkenazi Jew. Hidden Identity. A Jew whose identity was hidden, who was raised in another religion, is still a Jew. ...
timothyministries.org/theologicaldictionary/references.aspx

* a (“without”) the (“deity”, or “god”). Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.
www.strongatheism.net/intro/lexicon/

* Paris, university Presses of France, “Which do I know? ”, n° 1291, 1998, ISBN 2-13-049301-7
www.speedylook.com/Jean_Vernette.html

* (Greek, a "without"; theo "god"): The religious doctrine that deities do not exist.
13thdruidofavalon.tripod.com/druidplanet/id88.html

* This word comes from two Greek words, athe - negator, and theos - God. Atheism teaches that there is no God of any kind, anywhere, anytime. Logically, an atheist would be an evolutionist. ...
www.geocities.com/changes1611/definitionscommonisms.html

* atheist - A person whose worldview embraces Atheism [noun] [OW]. The natural condition of all humans at birth and prior to indoctrination in or self ...
members.aol.com/porchnus/dict01.htm

* atheist - noun: one who believes that there is no deity or higher power
www.uuscouters.org/glossary.htm

* atheist - One who has no belief or faith in any god. The prefix "A" means non or no or none, so an a-theist is a non-theist, or one who recognizes ...
www.nobull.ws/dictionary.html

* atheist - the belief that God does not exist
www.iamuniversity.ch/moodle/mod/glossary/view.php

* atheist - ( A"the*ist ), n. [Gr. without god; 'a priv. + god: cf. F. athéiste.]
www.bibliomania.com/2/3/257/1192/21638/2.html

* atheist - The Greek for God was theos; when the j prefix a was placed before it, we get the origin j of "atheism," signifying a denial of the god, or gods. ...
www.njfreemason.net/masonic%20dictionary.htm

* atheist - Theism is a belief system incorporating a god or gods into the lives of humans. Atheism rejects god concepts. Atheists and theists are the individuals guided by those belief systems.
www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/docs_files/saint_files/terms.htm

They all boil down to the one I mentioned, so I don't understand you confusion on the matter.

Belz...

12th February 2009, 09:09 AM

circumstantial evdience is enough to convict you in a capital case

Not in my country, it isn't.

in my opinion the world would be a true hell with people like you running it.

I'd rather trust people who are nice to one another because they feel that way than trust those who are because they're working to save their souls.

Lonewulf

12th February 2009, 09:11 AM

Thanks for the party line, reverend. Like all woo, it is "don't doubt but if you do, don't anyway". Problem is, if consulting "learned academic sources and clergy" you still have to figure it yourself, the authors of the manual have done a p** poor job of writing it. Doesn't reflect well on god's ability to convey his instructions, don't you think ?

Given the evidence, I'll have to say:

God has a thing for punishing people. Why else would he make it so difficult to figure out what "His Word" is, or just sending in the one person to save humanity after tens of thousands of years of human existence? And even then, **** the Asians and Africans.

...

God's a racist, through and through.

Lonewulf

12th February 2009, 09:12 AM

Not in my country, it isn't.

I'd rather trust people who are nice to one another because they feel that way than trust those who are because they're working to save their souls.

I'm joining Nordic mythology. Then I not only get to fight all day, but it's *holy* if I do! No going to Hel for me.

Ichneumonwasp

12th February 2009, 09:46 AM

Well maybe I am from Venus and you and your atheists friends are from Mars? Can you, or anyone, give me one logical reasonable argument that the atheists have that is on par with say the thesis friendly Kalam Cosmological Argument? I am asking for one argument that uses logic and reason to support the atheistic paradigm?

Dude, that is so, like, easy.

God is omnipotent, so He can do anything, right? And God is perfect, right?

Well, I can do things that God can't do, so that God can't exist.

For instance, I can bowl a 156. God can't. He's perfect, right? So, it's 300's right down the line. Must get kind of boring, really.

Why, the bowling argument must be up there with the tops in the philosophical hit parade. I'd be surprised if St. Augustine weren't turning in his grave right now. 'Course he didn't know doodly 'bout bowling or he'd a thought of it hisself.

RobRoy

12th February 2009, 10:07 AM

Well maybe I am from Venus and you and your atheists friends are from Mars?

Common mistake. I’m not an atheist. As far as I’m currently aware, I don’t have any atheists friends, and no one on this forum knows me well enough to consider me more than a name they recognize from time to time.

Can you, or anyone, give me one logical reasonable argument that the atheists have that is on par with say the thesis friendly Kalam Cosmological Argument? I am asking for one argument that uses logic and reason to support the atheistic paradigm?

Sorry, I’m not arguing in favor of atheism or Christianity. What I’m arguing is that you can’t state that you know what someone else believes. You can choose to believe that they are lying, or take their statements of belief at face value. Everything else is supposition on the shakiest of ground.

Well that is fairly common knowledge you could of googled it.

I didn’t want to know what the world had defined it as. I wanted know what you defined it as, so that we could proceed without misunderstanding.

I find it impossible to debate with most atheists because they change the definition of atheist. If you really don't know what the difference is think of a soft atheist is an agnostic by any other name. Atheist has different definitions depending on who you are talking to and what the debate is about.

Sorry, but this doesn’t make much sense. An atheist is a person who doesn’t believe in God. All the definitions you’ve supplied boil down to that. I’ve yet to meet someone who claimed to be an atheist who was “soft” on their stance regarding God’s existence.

I have met some who were very hard about listening to anything else. But that has nothing to do with whether or not they are lying about their stated beliefs.

If you would like I would be happy to paste a article where Dr Craig (a theist) describes how most atheists are being disingenuous in his experience as a professional theist (that debates famous atheists such as Dawkins).

Unless Dr. Craig is supplying hard facts and figures, rather than just personal anecdotes, I would be less than interested.

RevDisturba

13th February 2009, 02:25 AM

I tend to go with etymology.

I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe that there's gods, but I admit that we can never be true.

That comes from a-gnostic (no knowledge), and a-theist (not a theist). You, on the other hand, are a theist.

You could also be an agnostic theist (believe in gods, but admit that you can't be sure).

That's how I define myself. You can reject that definition if you like. Either way, when asked what my religion is, I write "atheist" or "agnostic atheist".

Thanks for clarifying. Using your definition I would be an agnostic theist, because we being human, living in a reality that is defined by the laws of classical and quantum physics, we by our very nature extrapolate our reality from chaos and uncertainty. The only thing that is 100% in this universe is that nothing in this universe is 100% certain. RevD said that and its true.

BTW I have been beat on by atheists for saying that artiest is a religion, or even a beleif system in some cases. I would go so far to say that the majority of atheists would say they have no religion or belief system. I would also like to take this opp to say that I have no vendetta against atheists or those that hold other beliefs. I do however have a vendetta against those that would attack or harm my religion or God, they might as well be harming me. In reality I would rather that I be harmed than my religion of my God.

; {>

Louisthe13th

13th February 2009, 02:57 AM

I would go so far to say that the majority of atheists would say they have no religion or belief system.
; {>

Wow. No religion yes. No belief system? That's just an ignorant statement. Of course I have a belief system. It's just that my belief systems includes what can be proven- has some evidence for: I believe that life has progressed through evolution and can provide solid evidence of same.

You're goofy.

Flo

13th February 2009, 03:10 AM

I do however have a vendetta against those that would attack or harm my religion or God, they might as well be harming me. In reality I would rather that I be harmed than my religion of my God.

; {>

Not much of a god, if it can be harmed ...

RevDisturba

13th February 2009, 03:20 AM

I have more than enough information about the christian religion, thank you. do.

The reason I question your knowledge about the Christian religion is all the falsehoods and worse that are bantered about.

As much as I need anyway. I don't doubt that some christians work to make the world a better place just as some hindus, muslims, zoro-astrians, agnostics and athiests

I know of no organized atheist humanitarian missions or charity groups.

I also think that some of all the above groups don't do any work to make the world a better place and in fact make it worse.

Where is your evidence or proof?

I wouldn't presume to speak for all athiests. I speak only for myself I'm afraid. Your statement "We do work here to make the world a better place." is, I hope, not presuming to speak for all Christians in the world and is speaking ony for your particular church, sect, denomination or cult?

I am a minister and a leader. We are called to the ministry by God and temporal desires just like any teacher has. Additionally, I was elected by the people that listen to my words. Additionally, Christians believe a common doctrine so we can all speak for each other in most cases. All Christians believe that to be a Christian we must accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior and repent of our past sins. Everything else is gravy and will not harm our entry into heaven as a clean spirit.

With regards to missions, well, there's a whole historical background that would need to be stated as to why religious missions are far more common than any other. I can probably supply links if you like?

No need, I learned all that material years ago. I was simply stating a fact. Thanks for your reply brother 3point

; {>

RevDisturba

13th February 2009, 03:35 AM

Even if I were to accept this claim as true... so do all of the other religions in the world. I don't see why Christianity is so special, except that you were raised in a country that was arbitrarily friendly to it.
Why do I need to support my beliefs to not believe? You don't have to support your (lack of) beliefs, when it comes to the Roman or Greek gods, the Norse gods, aborigine beliefs of Australia, Native American/First Nation beliefs, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, etc.

We were not speaking about that. I was saying that we have evidence for the existence of God. We don't have empirical proof, but some science doesn't have verifiable empirical proof, still its nearly accepted as fact.

Why would I have further requirements than you do?

You don't the atheist has an decidedly unfair advantage. If that advantage did not exist atheism would not even be considered as credible.

Like I said, I wasn't planning on it.Besides, I have cybernetic enhancements that let me hold my breath for days.

Drats! Foiled again! (Owed to MAD magazine Spy vs Spy)

I'm glad you think so; after all, you're the sole authority here, right?

Pssst' it was an opinion. There is a difference between making an statement of fact and an opinion. You can always object, if you have reason to. However I think the universe is deterministic kinda', well as much as it can be while running on probabilities.Yes, I am somewhat an authority on those things. You can object to that as well by pointing our my errors in the subject, but I doubt that you will find any. My hobby is amateur astronomy and I have some courses in astronomy and cosmology under my belt.

Hey aren't you an authority in anything?

; {>

RevDisturba

13th February 2009, 03:40 AM

You know its kinda difficult rebutting oh, five or six people at a time. I may begin just bunching similar questions together and submitting a 'bulk' answer.

What concerns me the most is that the majority of the concerns in this forum are more of a personal nature than of a technical nature.

; {>

RevDisturba

13th February 2009, 03:50 AM

Not in my country, it isn't.
I'd rather trust people who are nice to one another because they feel that way than trust those who are because they're working to save their souls.

What country would that be? Nevertheless, thats not the point. The point was that we have evdience that God exists if not proof. As far as being nice vs saving souls. If you understood or believed in eternal life you would not beleive as you do. I look at saving someones soul far more important than saving your flash in the pan life here on earth. On one hand you have maybe eighty years. Whats that eight with one zero after it (eighty years) compared to an eight with a never ending series of zeros after it? (eternity?) Its nothing at all. We work to save souls because its saving (the real) lives. That's why Jesus said ; "what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

He gains absolutely nothing brother. Zero.

; {>

3point14

13th February 2009, 03:55 AM

The reason I question your knowledge about the Christian religion is all the falsehoods and worse that are bantered about.

Can't I just check the bible? Or do I have to rely on the interpretation of the clergy? How do I know they're getting it right?

I know of no organized atheist humanitarian missions or charity groups.

Neither do I, but that's not to say that atheists or humanitarians don't act for the good of their fellow man, do good works, escort the blind and old ladies across the street, contribute to charity, smile during their day or any other of a number of things that can work to make the world a better place.

Where is your evidence or proof?

Westboro?

I am a minister and a leader. We are called to the ministry by God and temporal desires just like any teacher has. Additionally, I was elected by the people that listen to my words. Additionally, Christians believe a common doctrine so we can all speak for each other in most cases. All Christians believe that to be a Christian we must accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior and repent of our past sins. Everything else is gravy and will not harm our entry into heaven as a clean spirit.

But the christian religion is so fragmented, how can you presume to speak for anyone but yourself and (perhaps) your immidiate flock? Even the christian religion itself is a fragmentation of an earlier religion which is a compound of those before it. I presume only to speak for myself.

No need, I learned all that material years ago. I was simply stating a fact. Thanks for your reply brother 3point

; {>

You're welcome. Kudos to you for replying to everyone, compound replies are not a problem at all.

RevDisturba

13th February 2009, 04:08 AM

I'll make sure to tell them, I'm all in favor of sharing a good joke ...

I'm not joking, from what you have been saying about them they are clueless.

You know, that poor line of argumentation has been around for ages, and has systematically failed to convince anybody who could see it for the bad excuse it is. You should leave it for politicians who have been caught with their foot in their mouth or their pants down ...

I am happy that is only your opinion.

What I want is neither here nor there. Fact is that there's not a bit of evidence for any godly intervention in its writing, especially in view of:

Incorrect

Thanks for the party line, reverend. Like all woo, it is "don't doubt but if you do, don't anyway". Problem is, if consulting "learned academic sources and clergy" you still have to figure it yourself, the authors of the manual have done a p** poor job of writing it. Doesn't reflect well on god's ability to convey his instructions, don't you think ?

No I think its fairly easy to understand. Its a manual to save your soul. Thats its primary reason for existing. Everything else is gravy. But its interesting gravy IMO.

Unfortunately, there are lots of self proclaimed christians who disagree. Why would I take your word above theirs ?

You should only take your own word. Study and read the bible, form your own conclusions, if you need help ask someone that knows the bible. Treat it as any other source of information. However you don't even have to read the bible to be saved or be a christian! It didn't exist when Christ was alive.

I am a teacher to the Christian, I and people like myself (ministers teachers etc) exist only as a rudder to your ship. You steer it, ultimately its you who chooses the final destination.

Thanks, but you're doing a very bad job of it.

Another opinion! I will take your critique under consideration and attempt to improve. We are all a work in progress.

; {>

Belz...

13th February 2009, 04:16 AM

What country would that be?

Canada, but United States would've worked, too.

The point was that we have evdience that God exists if not proof.

Well, I've spend quite a few years of my life arguing against theists on that very point. So far, nothing.

As far as being nice vs saving souls. If you understood or believed in eternal life you would not beleive as you do. I look at saving someones soul far more important than saving your flash in the pan life here on earth.

Uh-huh, but are you doing it to save your own soul ? If so, then you are being nice at gunpoint. The threat of eternal damnation is the impetus for your actions. And, if it isn't, then you'd be nice even without the promise of eternal bliss, which means that on the one hand your generosity is hypocritical, and on the other it doesn't require faith in god anyway.

We work to save souls because its saving (the real) lives.

Doesn't it bother you that you are working towards something you don't even know exists ? And before you tell me that you can "feel it", or some nonsense, I'd remind you that members of any other religion also "feel" their own gods.

He gains absolutely nothing brother. Zero.

So far you haven't saved my soul. Knowing that God made me how he made me and that only evidence will make me accept your preaching, one would think you'd try to present some to me.

Lonewulf

13th February 2009, 04:19 AM

We were not speaking about that. I was saying that we have evidence for the existence of God. We don't have empirical proof, but some science doesn't have verifiable empirical proof, still its nearly accepted as fact.You have about as much evidence for the existence of God as the Norse had for theirs, the Shinto their Kami, and the Native American their beliefs.

I remain unimpressed.

Also, please explain what science is nearly accepted as fact that we have no empirical evidence for. String Theory is about the only one that I can think of, and a lot of the new particle accelerators are meant to test it (and several scientists reject it as just an excuse for funding).

If you're thinking evolution, well, you'd be dead wrong.

You don't the atheist has an decidedly unfair advantage.
It's only unfair because the default position is disbelief. If ten people come up to me telling me ten different invisible friends are really real, then I would require them to give me evidence. If all ten are equal in their inability to give me evidence, then I have reason to reject all ten outright.

If that advantage did not exist atheism would not even be considered as credible.Not true. The default position is to not believe. A prerequisite must be met before someone launches into belief.

Pssst' it was an opinion. There is a difference between making an statement of fact and an opinion. You can always object, if you have reason to. However I think the universe is deterministic kinda', well as much as it can be while running on probabilities.Yes, I am somewhat an authority on those things. You can object to that as well by pointing our my errors in the subject, but I doubt that you will find any. My hobby is amateur astronomy and I have some courses in astronomy and cosmology under my belt.

Hey aren't you an authority in anything?

I'm just a man. I'm also into amateur astronomy, and I also have some courses in the subject under my belt, taught at Del Mar College, Corpus Christi, Texas.

And no, I don't claim to be any more an authority than you are. I argue the facts. If you have evidence, then you can put it to light. You brought up the Kalam Cosmological Argument, for instance; if that's the best evidence that you've got, then it's rather weak, as that theory has been continually criticized for its conclusion not meeting its introduction; after all, if everything has a cause, what caused God? (The answer is usually "God was uncausable", in which case, "Why not remove God and keep the universe as uncausable?")

And even if you could "prove" a creator (which you can't), you'd STILL have to show why your interpretation is correct. What if I think that the Creators are incomprehensible, mad gods that gibber and drive humanity insane, Lovecraft-style? I still acknowledge a creator, I just changed his qualities to nearly the opposite of yours. How would you prove my interpretation wrong?

Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Fhtagn!

RevDisturba

13th February 2009, 04:20 AM

Given the evidence, I'll have to say:

God has a thing for punishing people. Why else would he make it so difficult to figure out what "His Word" is, or just sending in the one person to save humanity after tens of thousands of years of human existence? And even then, **** the Asians and Africans.God's a racist, through and through.

You are the 'problem' not God. I have told you that the only thing you have to do to be christian is to accept Jesus and to repent for your sins. Its that easy. How difficult is that?

Its not difficult eh? Now, if you want to be a student of the bible and of theology and to know all there is to know about the religion you will have to do what you have to do in any discipline. Study for years and apply yourself. I think many of you here are confusing being a scholar with being a christian. You can be a christian in a hour of first seeing a bible. If you wish to become a scholar its a life time of study, and depending on your field of study maybe a lifetime of sacrifice.

; {>

RevDisturba

13th February 2009, 04:25 AM

Wow. No religion yes. No belief system? That's just an ignorant statement. Of course I have a belief system. It's just that my belief systems includes what can be proven- has some evidence for: I believe that life has progressed through evolution and can provide solid evidence of same.

You're goofy.

I have debated professionally for over five years and I have debated atheists that claim that they do not have a beleif system. I am astounded that you don't know that yet. I too think those atheists are being disingenuous. But you calling me goofy demonstrates your rank igorance of the subject. The link below (one of hundreds of thousands) is an example of what I face every day from atheists.

; {>

Definition Of Atheism: Not A Belief by Steve Gillman
Feb 10, 2008 ... Atheism is simply the stance that "you have not proved your case, therefore I don't believe ... The burden of proof is properly on the person making a claim. ... Atheism is not a belief system. It isn't a system at all, ...
searchwarp.com/swa298160.htm

RevDisturba

13th February 2009, 04:29 AM

Not much of a god, if it can be harmed ...

God loves you. He (or it) can be harmed just as easily as you or I can by someone we love.

; {>

Lonewulf

13th February 2009, 04:38 AM

The reason I question your knowledge about the Christian religion is all the falsehoods and worse that are bantered about.Yeah, heaven forbid there's multiple interpretations...

Such as the Aryan Heresy. Of course, the way to have dealt with heresies... well... sword, fire, torture. Much like science!

I know of no organized atheist humanitarian missions or charity groups.Once again: Argument from Ignorance. "I don't know they exist, ergo, they don't, and this proves atheists are evil".

I used google. I searched for "Atheist charity groups".

http://www.alabamaatheist.org/al/2009/01/11/atheist-charity-opportunity-relay-for-life/

http://www.atheistcharity.org/

http://www.ocatheists.com/archives/000023.shtml (a charity walk being sponsored here)

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/atheist-charity.html

http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/10/atheist-charity-huge-success.html

In one single day a new atheist charity received donations of $80,000 from as many as 3,400 donors—and the donations keep rolling in (apparently from atheists). By day three they raised $113,000.

5 seconds with google. And that's just the first page. Perhaps the reason you are so ignorant, is because being willfully so is beneficial to your argument...? Otherwise, I'm not quite sure why you didn't take 5 seconds to search them out before arguing based on their nonexistence.

Of course, this is all just an Argument from Consequences, anyways, which is at its root a fallacy (not to mention all the other fallacies you used, such as Argument from Ignorance and arriving at a conclusion that none of the premises added up to). It doesn't matter what consequences there are in disbelieving -- what matters is whether or not there is enough evidence to justify belief. If there is not, then atheism should be the default position.

Where is your evidence or proof?
The crusades, westboro, inquisitions all throughout time, religious justification for slavery and bashing homosexuals, the attempted censorship of Galileo...

Either way, it's not self-evident that men are good under religion -- they just learn to justify their actions as being God's Command. Ignoring Christianity alone, if you go back throughout time to see the time periods where we were most religious -- kings that operated under Divine Rule, Pharoahs in Egypt (cool as I may find them, especially Hatshupset and Nefertiti!), religious Europe in the middle ages/Dark Ages, and so on, you do not see peaceful loving societies rising. They have almost always been warlike. Greece was warlike as well, but several philosophers that did not base their views of reality on religion (such as Aristotle), have been more beneficial than harmful -- but they require not using the Divine in your hypothesis.

The reason why things are so much peaceful today, is so many more are far more secular -- even the majority of the religious, tend towards secular reasons and scientific explanations of the environment than they do religious claims. God has become secondary, nay, tertiary in their view of the world.

RevDisturba

13th February 2009, 04:44 AM

Can't I just check the bible? Or do I have to rely on the interpretation of the clergy? How do I know they're getting it right?

Don't trust anyone explicitly. That means clergy professors etc. I would highly suggest that you check the bible and other sources when in doubt or if something doesn't sound right. If you have a gut feeling that the bible is wrong you should use one of the online translators, the library and other sources to check the english translation for yourself. I have found many cases where the original language was much more accurate and satisfying in the translated version.

Another good but risky way to understand the bible if you don’t trust the accepted swill, is to read popular books. I usually make sure the author of these books holds a MA or a PhD, not because degreed people are smarter, but it does add a bit of credibility to them. “ The science of God” by Gerald Schroeder is a good example. God is fair and loving. Even some of the brutal old testament passages are not as they seem. But thats another thread!

Neither do I, but that's not to say that atheists or humanitarians don't act for the good of their fellow man, do good works, escort the blind and old ladies across the street, contribute to charity, smile during their day or any other of a number of things that can work to make the world a better place.

I love and respect all atheists and those with other beleif systems. I was responding to someone that claimed that the Christian religion did more harm than good.

Westboro?

Slime balls and false prophets all. I am ashamed of them and their use of the christian name. Jesus Christ did not condemn homosexuality in the bible.

But the christian religion is so fragmented, how can you presume to speak for anyone but yourself and (perhaps) your immidiate flock? Even the christian religion itself is a fragmentation of an earlier religion which is a compound of those before it. I presume only to speak for myself.

Politics suck. I agree. I can only speak in specifics with supporters etc thats true. However If other christians are not going against bibical teachings, especially the teachings of Jesus Christ we have a lot more in common than not.

You're welcome. Kudos to you for replying to everyone, compound replies are not a problem at all.

Thanks and I hope we can remain civil. Even Paul said to be ready to defend Jesus and our religion, but with reverence ! I want communication above all else.

; {>

Flo

13th February 2009, 04:47 AM

I'm not joking, from what you have been saying about them they are clueless.

I am happy that is only your opinion.

No I think its fairly easy to understand.

as evidenced by all the infighting that has happened over the meaning and the pertinence of most of it for centuries ...

Its a manual to save your soul.

So are the coran, the vedas, the upanishads, the baghavad gita, the buddhist sutras, etc. described, with every bit as much evidence as you have provided ...

Thats its primary reason for existing.

I am happy that is only your opinion.

You should only take your own word. Study and read the bible, form your own conclusions, if you need help ask someone that knows the bible. Treat it as any other source of information.

Been there, done that. Of course, now we're back to your opinion about the "someones that know the bible" I've asked help from, but as I wrote before, why would I value it over theirs (or mine) ?

I am a teacher to the Christian, I and people like myself (ministers teachers etc) exist only as a rudder to your ship. You steer it, ultimately its you who chooses the final destination.

I am happy that is only your opinion. :D

Flo

13th February 2009, 04:48 AM

God loves you. He (or it) can be harmed just as easily as you or I can by someone we love.

; {>

I am happy that is only your opinion.

RevDisturba

13th February 2009, 04:57 AM

... I am happy that is only your opinion.

Yes thats true we all have one. However Christianity commands a huge population of like minded enough individuals to make a homogeneous body despite infighting about particulars.

Been there, done that. Of course, now we're back to your opinion about the "someones that know the bible" I've asked help from, but as I wrote before, why would I value it over theirs (or mine) ?

Again you shouldn't. Your opinion is all you can, in the end, go by. I just say my piece its up to you to accept or reject it. I am lucky to have many friends brothers and sisters that happen to agree with me.

I am happy that is only your opinion. :D

If you don't think that you are master of your own ship, again thats up to you.

; {>

Lonewulf

13th February 2009, 04:58 AM

Thanks for clarifying.No problem.

Using your definition I would be an agnostic theist, because we being human, living in a reality that is defined by the laws of classical and quantum physics, we by our very nature extrapolate our reality from chaos and uncertainty. The only thing that is 100% in this universe is that nothing in this universe is 100% certain. RevD said that and its true.Okay, but 100% is a bit too high. So it seems somewhat of weak agnosticism -- that "we can be somewhat sure, but not know 100%", unless I'm reading you wrong.

BTW I have been beat on by atheists for saying that artiest is a religion, or even a beleif system in some cases. I would go so far to say that the majority of atheists would say they have no religion or belief system.

I don't have a religion, no. Nor is atheism a religion -- no more than bald is a hair color, or not collecting stamps is a hobby.

As for a belief system, well, that's much harder to say, especially when you say I have no belief system. I do believe that science is a good tool to use, especially with its high success rate and rational philosophy.

I would also like to take this opp to say that I have no vendetta against atheists or those that hold other beliefs. I do however have a vendetta against those that would attack or harm my religion or God, they might as well be harming me. In reality I would rather that I be harmed than my religion of my God.

I can harm your God? I thought he was omnipotent, yet He has something to fear from me? Wow. Thanks for the compliment! I feel much better about myself now.

*Lonewulf is now known as Godslayer

Seriously, though. Yes, atheists refuse to believe in God without evidence. Some are hard-line about it and put their faces out to rail against religious indoctrination of children (such as forced prayer in schools, or attempting to get people to recite that they believe in God in the prayer they're forced to recite, or be punished). Some of them go right out and attack religion head-first. Those are minorities.

The fact of the matter is, I "attack" your religion through questions, just as I did when your pals attempted to indoctrinate me through Sunday school and constant trips to the church for mass and the like. These questions are reasonable questions, mainly, "Why should I believe?" and "Why are these inconsistencies here?" To which, I have yet to find a reasonable, worthy answer.

So, I rejected the indoctrination, and continue to ask those questions of those who wish to enforce their beliefs on me or others -- whether by passing Proposition 8, attempting to force children in public schools to engage in religious rituals, or whatever else.

The fact is, if religious people could keep their religion far away from me and never influence my life, or the lives of others through it, I'd have no problem with religion. I'd still say that ultimately you all are placing a lot of certainty behind a lot of ideas (Christianity isn't Deism, after all, and even Deism has too many assumptions to possibly be valid, given that all of our OTHER assumptions throughout time have more or less been shown wrong when science has shown the real explanations), and that I think that ultimately, all religions necessarily get it wrong. Even if there was a Creator, I highly doubt that a civilization 2000 years ago had in-depth knowledge as to their origins, when they couldn't even tell that the earth went around the sun!

I also think that, even if I were forced at gunpoint to pick a religion, Christianity would be my last choice. Zoroastrianism, by far, is far more merciful. And there are several others that, to my mind, are far more beautiful.

RevDisturba

13th February 2009, 05:05 AM

Yeah, heaven forbid there's multiple interpretations...

Such as the Aryan Heresy. Of course, the way to have dealt with heresies... well... sword, fire, torture. Much like science!

Once again: Argument from Ignorance. "I don't know they exist, ergo, they don't, and this proves atheists are evil".

I used google. I searched for "Atheist charity groups".

http://www.alabamaatheist.org/al/2009/01/11/atheist-charity-opportunity-relay-for-life/

http://www.atheistcharity.org/

http://www.ocatheists.com/archives/000023.shtml (a charity walk being sponsored here)

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/atheist-charity.html

http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/10/atheist-charity-huge-success.html

5 seconds with google. And that's just the first page. Perhaps the reason you are so ignorant, is because being willfully so is beneficial to your argument...? Otherwise, I'm not quite sure why you didn't take 5 seconds to search them out before arguing based on their nonexistence.

None of those groups are very large but I stand corrected. Again I never have said that atheism is evil etc it simply has no evdience to support its existence in the form of a logical reasonable argument.

The crusades, westboro, inquisitions all throughout time, religious justification for slavery and bashing homosexuals, the attempted censorship of Galileo...

The crusades eh? Do you know what the first crusade was fought over? No I didn't think so.It was fought over a Muslim occupation of the holy city. But that was a thousand years ago. BTW JESUS CHRIST NEVER CONDEMNED HOMOSEXUALITY IN HIS MINISTRY. Slavery was a SECULAR business venture. And if it were not for religion science would not even exist, despite the church trying to torch a couple of arrogant scientists. So try again

Greece was warlike as well, but several philosophers that did not base their views of reality on religion (such as Aristotle), have been more beneficial than harmful -- but they require not using the Divine in your hypothesis.

But many did, in fact that is where the first cause arguments were born.

The reason why things are so much peaceful today, is so many more are far more secular -- even the majority of the religious, tend towards secular reasons and scientific explanations of the environment than they do religious claims. God has become secondary, nay, tertiary in their view of the world.

More peaceful today? Iraq all the (millions) of killings in Africa, Nam, Korea, WWI, WW2, the killing fields...I could go on....

; {>

Lonewulf

13th February 2009, 05:09 AM

I love and respect all atheists and those with other beleif systems. I was responding to someone that claimed that the Christian religion did more harm than good.

Whenever civilizations were most devout in their beliefs, they have shown little compassion and love, except perhaps to the "chosen people", who almost always are themselves.

Christianity has a different message, if taking the new testament above the old testament, but it still has much demonstrable harm -- I can point to many ages throughout the Middle Ages to demonstrate such.

Either way, once again, it's all just an argument through consequences, and I don't really support the whole "religion is harmful". But THAT usually comes up because of the claim that religion is necessarily more beneficial than atheism, and a world of atheists would be a hellhole indeed.

Yet they live in a country that has the highest percentage of non-religious people throughout its history, and yet I have more to fear from people such as in Westboro, than I do any atheist!

RevDisturba

13th February 2009, 05:13 AM

Yet they live in a country that has the highest percentage of non-religious people throughout its history, and yet I have more to fear from people such as in Westboro, than I do any atheist!

Well seeing that Jesus didn't condemn homosexuality those people were not christians in my book, and as a veteran of the 101st and a christian minister, I would of defended the gay soldiers with civil disobedience if need be. Its a good thing I wasn't there I suppose.

~~

Hey thats enough font to splash before my first trip to starbucks aint it? Besides I have God stuff to do...

; {>

Lonewulf

13th February 2009, 05:18 AM

None of those groups are very large
Maybe it's because, I don't know, just an idea... atheists are a minority?

Of course the majority is going to have more resources behind it.

but I stand corrected.
You stand at your keyboard? :D

Again I never have said that atheism is evil etc it simply has no evdience to support its existence in the form of a logical reasonable argument.And you'd be wrong there, too.

The crusades eh? Do you know what the first crusade was fought over? No I didn't think so.

To conquer Jerusalem and the Holy Land, on call from Pope Urban II, to help the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I, thanks to the encroachment of various groups from the Muslim religion. The Catholic soldiers were all promised the reward of heaven if they fought in the crusades, no matter their actions during or before. Just going was a Get out of Hell Free card. And thus, it has become an eternal example of what you get when you can justify slaughter through the Divine.

Either way, what was fought over wasn't interesting. It was the cannibalism and mass genocide. Hell, they literally ate babies! Or at the least, children. Men, women, and children were slaughtered in droves in Antioch (after it surrendered!) and Jerusalem itself. Holy cities ran thick with rivers of blood. Both Jews and Muslims were attacked. In fact, Jews were attacked in the native countries of the crusaders before anyone even got anywhere!

I'm not sure what you can possibly say to defend it, except play the "Not a True Scotsman" card.

BTW JESUS CHRIST NEVER CONDEMNED HOMOSEXUALITY IN HIS MINISTRY. Right, it's in the Old Testament, which we're supposed to reject as the false word of God. He just... changed his mind. :D As omniscient beings often do! As Thomas Paine said -- as if there were TWO wills of God!

But many did, in fact that is where the first cause arguments were born.Yes, and those that did, often didn't contribute quite as much as Aristotle.

More peaceful today? Iraq all the (millions) of killings in Africa, Nam, Korea, WWI, WW2, the killing fields...I could go on....

WWI was fought by many countries that were religious during the time. In fact, some claimed to have fought side by side with angels! Britain was very religious, in mainstream, during the time. So was Germany and almost all the other participants. To be fair, though, the war was not religiously motivated; it was the Cult of the Offensive that was to blame. The idea that if everyone attacked hard enough and fast enough, they could limit the killing by a long shot. The problem is, as is often the case on the "Prisoner Dilemma" situations, when EVERYONE goes offensive, it tends to cause MORE punishment all throughout than if everyone was more defensive.

In WWII and WWI, Japan was highly religious; the Japanese Emperor was called a god that walked as a man (現人神, Arohitogami (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arahitogami)). They took folk shinto and established it into State Shinto (国家神道, or Kokka Shintō, although it was only classified as such after WWII, but it was definitely different than Folk Shinto), which essentially established the divinity of the Emperor.

Hitler kept proclaiming his belief and love for God even in Mein Kampf, although there's debate as to whether or not he stayed a Christian as he became more crazy. However, "Doctor Death" was advertised in his position was "Being a Good Christian".

Furthermore, many people in certain areas of Africa are superstitious, to the point where they lop off the limbs of suspected witches.

And in the past few decades, can you please name for me a large enough massacre that even comes close to WWI or WWII? We've had the most peaceful time in all the history of the human race. Iraq is small fry -- it's a small state in comparison with the Hegemon, the US, and the six most powerful states (US, China, Japan, etc.) In International Relations, it's widely accepted that warfare has been decreased by a staggering amount within the past few decades -- that economics, more than military might, is what's starting to matter more and more. As to why, that's a more complicated answer. It's not really that societies are growing less and less religious (although that may have some influence!). Some say that it's because more and more countries are growing democratic -- what's interesting is, democratic countries very rarely ever attack each other, according to the record. Some say that it's because of nuclear weapons; everyone's too scared to attack each other head on, as the consequences could be devastating. It's not an easy question to answer, and I wouldn't call religion the root of evil. However, I reject it as a peace-bringer, given the staggering record that works against it.

Although yes, there are genocides that still occur, and not always in predominantly religious countries. But nothing like in WWI or WWII, which I would not call very atheism-based. And like I said, today in the here and now, in developed countries, has the highest percentage of secular and non-religious people as has ever been seen in those countries.

RevDisturba

13th February 2009, 05:55 AM

You (LW) have a habit of baiting and switching arguments.

Yes I have three computers sometimes I do stand while typing.

Jesus did not condemn homosexuality if he did show where. We Christians should go by what Jesus said and what he taught. He came to modify the old testament etc.

The crusades were fought in a time where our standards of right and wrong do not apply. Both sides were brutal contrary to your (secular) brainwashing of a education.

Still the wars, killings and pestilence of the modern age over shadows anything in the history of man.

Now can I go to starbucks ?...pretty soon it will be time for applebees and a beer instead of coffee....

; {>

Lonewulf

13th February 2009, 05:56 AM

Well seeing that Jesus didn't condemn homosexuality those people were not christians in my book,

Unfortunately, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy does not inspire confidence.

and as a veteran of the 101st and a christian minister, I would of defended the gay soldiers with civil disobedience if need be. Its a good thing I wasn't there I suppose. I respect that, just to let you know. But it does not absolve Christianity of shame -- as the majority of self-proclaimed Christians are those that are supporting things such as Proposition 8.

Lonewulf

13th February 2009, 06:01 AM

You (LW) have a habit of baiting and switching arguments.I respond to what's said. When someone is wrong, I correct them, or show why I disagree. The more claims you throw out, the more I will respond. You threw out many claims; thus, I had lots to say. This is not bait and switching, this is me correcting you.

Yes I have three computers sometimes I do stand while typing. That was just a joke, you know.

Jesus did not condemn homosexuality if he did show where.The problem is, many Christians use the Old Testament still. And Jesus himself did not say outright "Don't believe the Old Testament", as far as I know.

So I'm not sure what your point is.

We christans go by what Jesus said and what he taught. He came to modify the old testament etc. Now you're projecting your beliefs onto others. If this were true, then the majority of Christians in the United States would not be against gay marriage, or would not use religious justification against it.

The crusades were fought in a time where our standards of right and wrong do not apply.

:boggled:

The standards of right and wrong always apply! Especially when it's based on the word of God!

You don't justify killing a child because somehow you're suddenly exempt of morality. At least, not if you're a decent human being. Those moments exist to TEST your morality, not have you give it up just because it's convenient!

In fact, your statement right here, has just demonstrated that I want to have nothing to do with you. You would justify the slaughtering of women and children as part of a Tu Quoque version of "eye for an eye". Hey, YOU were vicious, so ergo, I'll commit mass genocide on your numbers! I'll make agreements with you, and then stab you in the back first chance possible! I can't believe what I'm hearing -- THIS is the great Christian morality?

Let me assure you, I would not want to be your friend or ally, and want nothing to do with you.

Look at my signature. Miner Searle Bates was a great man, and I'm sure that he would greatly disagree with you as to what is or is not "exempt from morality". He was there in the Rape of Nanking, saving innocent Chinese men, women, and children, during an event about as horrid as the Crusades. He didn't care if their religion was the same as his. He didn't care that they were a completely different race from him. Religion and race were a non-factor; it was all about saving life because it's the right thing to do. Hell, western doctors in the Rape of Nanking would have treated by Japanese and Chinese injured -- they turned no one away, not even military men.

I'd take the words of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and similar folk to yours. Even though MLK was an absolutist (non-violence is ALWAYS the solution, according to him), his words were made of gold.

Both sides were brutal contrary to your brainwashing of a education. It's not "brainwashing", it's viewing the facts. The Catholics were not taking land outraged at the Muslims, they were headed by knights that were out to gain property for themselves and had the Pope to support their conquering. The main reason Pope Urban II sent them out wasn't because of outrage at the Muslims, but outrage at the knights who were too busy killing each other and trying to take land from one another in their home countries. He gave them an outlet for their aggression, which were non-Christians.

I do find it interesting how you view education as "brainwashing", though. Perhaps that's the real problem here...

Still the wars, killings and pestilence of the modern age over shadows anything in the history of man.

International Relations scholars would disagree with you.

Besides, that's mostly because of increased population sizes and technology allowing greater weapons to be used -- it's not because of atheism. And even THEN, I've already demonstrated how WWI and WWII -- the two greatest moments of all-out slaughter -- were headed by very religious countries, and leaders that proclaimed religion. Since then, the death tolls have dropped from tens to hundreds of millions to million, and within the past couple decades, a few hundred thousand (!!) -- which is FAR less than in the Crusades, when population sizes were much smaller than today. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Louisthe13th

13th February 2009, 06:13 AM

I have debated professionally for over five years and I have debated atheists that claim that they do not have a beleif system. I am astounded that you don't know that yet. I too think those atheists are being disingenuous. But you calling me goofy demonstrates your rank igorance of the subject. The link below (one of hundreds of thousands) is an example of what I face every day from atheists.

; {>

Definition Of Atheism: Not A Belief by Steve Gillman
Feb 10, 2008 ... Atheism is simply the stance that "you have not proved your case, therefore I don't believe ... The burden of proof is properly on the person making a claim. ... Atheism is not a belief system. It isn't a system at all, ...
searchwarp.com/swa298160.htm

That is a very nice quote- it tells me what Steve Gillman thinks. However, I was not responding to a quote you retrieved after the fact. I was merely responding directly to your statement that atheists have no belief system. I responded in a very personal way, stating MY point of view. Much of it goes to what you mean by "beliefs" I suppose. I understand the viewpoint when we specifically talk about religous belief sytems- I do not have a religous belief system. I was responding directly to your statement that atheists don't believe in anything and I think I made that quite clear when you look at the example I gave.

As to whether or not I should "know" that you have debated atheists that claim not to have a belief system, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

I am not sure how I could be ignorant of my own feelings/viewpoints- perhaps it is comments like that that prompt my view that you are goofy.

No harm, no foul.

Louisthe13th

13th February 2009, 06:18 AM

Besides I have God stuff to do...
; {>

Like I said...

Lonewulf

13th February 2009, 10:22 AM

The crusades were fought in a time where our standards of right and wrong do not apply. Both sides were brutal contrary to your brainwashing of a education.I had barely enough time to really respond to this this morning, and was in a rush for class. I've had time to mull it over.

You talk about what a True Christian is. You claim that True Christians, are those that follow the teachings of Christ. You cite that Christ did not say anything against homosexuals, ergo, anyone that is against homosexuals based on the Old Testament (and arguably out of the New Testament, even) are not True Christians.

Here, you have mentioned that the Muslims committed vicious acts -- enough to warrant nearly full-scale genocide, bathing streets in the blood of man, women, and child, even after the city surrendered. Here you state that, if one is vicious to you, that you become exempt of any kind of morality.

I'm going to have to assume that you are aware of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.

That's not "Do unto others AS they do unto you".

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV"

Or the Sermon on the Plain, in the Gospel of Luke:

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
—Luke 6:27-31. NIV"

True Christian, my left foot. As far as I'm concerned, anything you have to say about what makes a True Christian or not is hereinafter null and void. You wouldn't know what a True Christian is, if it bit you on the right cheek. Furthermore, I find your version of morality disgusting and contemptible, and I can only hope that none follow your example -- I can only imagine what kind of a world we'd live in, if we allowed ourselves to be become exempt of morality as soon as it became convenient.

EDIT: As for judging me or atheism -- Matthew 7:3 -- And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Lonewulf

13th February 2009, 12:32 PM

Toady

13th February 2009, 08:46 PM

I think that it is really because the discussion is not about do you or I believe. The reason the believer tries so hard to convince the non believer is basically because they are trying to convince themselves. If they can win a point or convert the non believer then they have won some personal victory over their own skepticism.

I don't think this is true in all cases. Many times, a believer feels such joyous emotion from their religion that it is proof enough of its reality for them. They genuinely believe and are trying to share their good emotional experience with you. Attacking their beliefs is attacking their personal experience, and nobody enjoys that.

However, you stated that we "have no belief systems at all". That's not entirely true. Many atheists are Humanists -- is not Secular Humanism a belief system? Science is technically a belief system as well; one centered on empirical evidence based on repeatable observations. It also is constructed of various philosophical points, such as Occam's Razor and the like.

I think that is an incorrect interpretation of what people mean when they say atheism isn't a belief system. The statement is obviously meant in reference to belief in a commanding deity. If you want to get technical, everything that composes your worldview is a belief system of some kind, including your senses, but that's just being pointlessly literal with the phrase "belief system."

Louisthe13th

13th February 2009, 10:45 PM

Thank-you Toady, well put.

Lonewulf

14th February 2009, 05:59 AM

I think that is an incorrect interpretation of what people mean when they say atheism isn't a belief system.

It was a response to "atheists not having a belief system at all", which was RevDisturbia's challenge, not "atheism isn't a belief system".

The statement is obviously meant in reference to belief in a commanding deity. If you want to get technical, everything that composes your worldview is a belief system of some kind, including your senses, but that's just being pointlessly literal with the phrase "belief system."

Then why not stick with "atheists don't believe in deities or the supernatural", instead of making "belief system" only refer to deities? I don't know of any definition of "belief system" that specializes it within beliefs in deities or the supernatural. Isn't "religion" or "religious beliefs" good enough for the job?

Belz...

16th February 2009, 04:10 AM

Canada, but United States would've worked, too.

Well, I've spend quite a few years of my life arguing against theists on that very point. So far, nothing.

Uh-huh, but are you doing it to save your own soul ? If so, then you are being nice at gunpoint. The threat of eternal damnation is the impetus for your actions. And, if it isn't, then you'd be nice even without the promise of eternal bliss, which means that on the one hand your generosity is hypocritical, and on the other it doesn't require faith in god anyway.

Doesn't it bother you that you are working towards something you don't even know exists ? And before you tell me that you can "feel it", or some nonsense, I'd remind you that members of any other religion also "feel" their own gods.

So far you haven't saved my soul. Knowing that God made me how he made me and that only evidence will make me accept your preaching, one would think you'd try to present some to me.

So, Revvy ?

Belz...

16th February 2009, 04:14 AM

You are the 'problem' not God. I have told you that the only thing you have to do to be christian is to accept Jesus and to repent for your sins. Its that easy.

I thought I had to sacrifice young virgins to the volcano god in order to be in Heaven's good graces. Tell me, how can I know for sure ?

Its not difficult eh? Now, if you want to be a student of the bible and of theology and to know all there is to know about the religion you will have to do what you have to do in any discipline. Study for years and apply yourself.

Don't forget the Koran and Torah and the other ones, if you want to know ALL there is to know...

You can be a christian in a hour of first seeing a bible.

You might've missed the part where I said many people LOST their faith in religion because they read the damn thing.

I too think those atheists are being disingenuous.

That's okay. I didn't expect you to know what "atheist" meant.

The link below (one of hundreds of thousands) is an example of what I face every day from atheists.

Well, it's actually right on the nose. Why is that so difficult for you to accept ? It wouldn't be because making atheism a belief allowed you to equate it to other beliefs in some foolish tu quoque, would it ?

God loves you.

Wait, wait. First we'd have to demonstrate that he exists.

Belz...

16th February 2009, 04:22 AM

Don't trust anyone explicitly.

Including bible authors ?

Politics suck.

What ? You prefer warfare ?

Yes thats true we all have [an opinion]. However Christianity commands a huge population of like minded enough individuals to make a homogeneous body despite infighting about particulars.

It's still their opinion, and opinions are worth squat.

Again you shouldn't. Your opinion is all you can, in the end, go by.

Don't tell that to scientists.

Again I never have said that atheism is evil etc it simply has no evdience to support its existence in the form of a logical reasonable argument.

Of course not. That would be attempting to prove a negative, which is why atheism is the default position. Pay attention.

The crusades eh? Do you know what the first crusade was fought over? No I didn't think so.It was fought over a Muslim occupation of the holy city.

Actually, we all know this. It's the very fact that the city was considered holy that made this war. If it was just another town it wouldn't have gone down the way it did. So you've just proven Lonewulf's point.

More peaceful today? Iraq all the (millions) of killings in Africa, Nam, Korea, WWI, WW2, the killing fields...I could go on....

Yes, but apparently you're not aware that, say, a few hundred years back, MOST countries were at war regularily.

Belz...

16th February 2009, 04:30 AM

The crusades were fought in a time where our standards of right and wrong do not apply.

Oh, please. The point is that the war was religiously-motivated. Now you're trying to weasel yourself out of it by adding new parameters to the discussion.

Still the wars, killings and pestilence of the modern age over shadows anything in the history of man.

Because of the weapons used and the publicity involved, not because of the nature of the wars or their numbers.

Belz...

16th February 2009, 04:33 AM

I can only imagine what kind of a world we'd live in, if we allowed ourselves to be become exempt of morality as soon as it became convenient.

Actually, considering how often almost everyone does this, we'd pretty much live in the exact same world we live in now.

Lonewulf

16th February 2009, 04:43 AM

Actually, considering how often almost everyone does this, we'd pretty much live in the exact same world we live in now.

Sadly.

I just never heard someone so blatantly defend it while claiming to have God's Law on their side.

Personally, I believe that someone should live up to their principles only until it becomes suicide to do so, and even then, to only do what is absolutely necessary. I don't quite see how massacring men, women, and children in great droves and to commit unnecessary genocide can be in any way justifiable.

Belz...

16th February 2009, 07:03 AM

Sadly.

I just never heard someone so blatantly defend it while claiming to have God's Law on their side.

Personally, I believe that someone should live up to their principles only until it becomes suicide to do so, and even then, to only do what is absolutely necessary. I don't quite see how massacring men, women, and children in great droves and to commit unnecessary genocide can be in any way justifiable.

Well, as I've been saying for a while, now, humans have two tendencies: first, they do whatever the hell they want, and second, they want to feel good about themselves so they justify their actions based on a, let's say, very flexible moral code.

RevDisturba

17th February 2009, 08:44 AM

Christianity has a different message, if taking the new testament above the old testament, but it still has much demonstrable harm -- I can point to many ages throughout the Middle Ages to demonstrate such.

Thats so dang silly. I can go back thousands of years or last year and demonstrate that secular concerns are harmful. When you have to reach back a thousand years or more, to a time where law, culture, and everything else was radically different to prove a point, you are proving no point at all other than you don't have a point. All you have shown that you have is a hand full of mirrors and huge bag of smoke bombs.

Name a modern time (in the last 50 years) where modern new testament (red letter Christians) have harmed anyone on a large scale? Then ask me to do the same thing for secular entities! Your argument is unfair deceptive and well, silly.

; {>

RevDisturba

17th February 2009, 09:00 AM

Dude, that is so, like, easy.
God is omnipotent, so He can do anything, right? And God is perfect, right?

No not in this universe. God exists outside of time and in his own realm. In this universe probabilities rule. God desinged this universe to run on natural law and so nothing can be perfect or 100% accurate. Why do you think he came in a mans imperfect body (Jesus). He cant come in his own form I suspect becasue it would be like mixing matter and anti matter. Some theologians think he has visted earth a couple of times in his own form some reject that idea.

Well, I can do things that God can't do, so that God can't exist.
For instance, I can bowl a 156. God can't. He's perfect, right? So, it's 300's right down the line. Must get kind of boring, really.

God could bowl a less than perfect score I am sure. If I were perfect I may let you win a game or two just because I am god. However in real life I would beat you a thousand games in a row with a perfect score. Heh..yeah I sure would.

Why, the bowling argument must be up there with the tops in the philosophical hit parade. I'd be surprised if St. Augustine weren't turning in his grave right now. 'Course he didn't know doodly 'bout bowling or he'd a thought of it hisself.

Dood....your argument is so easily defeated but it was fun, with all due respect.

: {>

Belz...

17th February 2009, 09:06 AM

Thats so dang silly. I can go back thousands of years or last year and demonstrate that secular concerns are harmful. When you have to reach back a thousand years or more, to a time where law, culture, and everything else was radically different to prove a point, you are proving no point at all other than you don't have a point. All you have shown that you have is a hand full of mirrors and huge bag of smoke bombs.

Name a modern time (in the last 50 years) where modern new testament (red letter Christians) have harmed anyone on a large scale? Then ask me to do the same thing for secular entities! Your argument is unfair deceptive and well, silly.

What in the blue hell are you arguing, here ? That the laws and moralities of those days weren't, in part, inspired by religious doctrine ? Are you trying to claim that today is the only time period which we can use to judge a particular religion ?

And how about this neat "large scale" criterion you've added ? Are you trying to make it impossible, from the get-go, to meet your standards ? Please.

The question is: does religion harm ? Yes. It's a belief system that leads people to do things in the name of their faith. The lack of such faith is not an impetus to do anything, and therefore you cannot say the same about, say, atheism.

RevDisturba

17th February 2009, 09:11 AM

Well, as I've been saying for a while, now, humans have two tendencies: first, they do whatever the hell they want, and second, they want to feel good about themselves so they justify their actions based on a, let's say, very flexible moral code.

You see the what can I respectfully call it if not igorance displayed here? Most bibical genocide was parable and hyperbola according to scholars. In other matters God gives everyone a chance to recant and be saved, but they reject God so yes they pay the righteous price. The people died because they were demonic, a good example is when they wanted to rape the angles, not too bright or moral.

Then you mention a moral code. If you are talking about christians the ten commandants are not flexible. If you are a christian you are expected to treat others as yourself and follow the ten commandants. Fail to do so and you risk breaking the covenant with God which means you may forfeit your eternal soul and go to Sheol (not hell which doesn't exist like western pagan mythology describes it). Sheol is literately the Grave.

; {>

RevDisturba

17th February 2009, 10:01 PM

oopse ..delete
; {>

Evolved Wookie

18th February 2009, 01:05 AM

Hmmm - I see this thread has almost managed to move on since I last was here.

I regret that I haven't had opportunity to catch up with the entirety of this discussion (although I get the impression that a great deal of it was all the same, redundant argument) so I apologise if I've misapprehended anything...

I would, however, briefly like to address the notion that ‘finding god’ is as simple as ‘letting him save me’. There is a contention that this is a simple act and utterly within reach of any of us atheists if we were just to let ourselves. On the contrary, to me at least, such an act is utterly impossible. Belief is not a matter of choice – if you chose to ‘believe’ something for which you are aware of overwhelming contrary evidence, then you’re not believing, you’re deluding yourself.

Perhaps if I were to delude myself into seeking god I could also delude myself into ‘belief’ in a sky-fairy, but it would be a delusion. I cannot ‘try to believe’ because I simply do not. The idea is ridiculous and I suspect many theists would realise this if they just allowed themselves to take the scary step of trusting their own reasoning skills.

There. I’ve returned and derailed slightly and, with that, I will return to lurking over here in the corner behind the cheese-plant.

Belz...

18th February 2009, 04:28 AM

You see the what can I respectfully call it if not igorance displayed here?

You mean you've never noticed that people tend to ignore their own moral "code", do whatever the hell they feel like doing, and then retroactively justify their actions either by re-interpreting their "code" or modifying it to fit said actions ? Gee, I see that all the time.

Most bibical genocide was parable and hyperbola according to scholars.

But not according to you ? Or is it ? There is no tenable position, in my opinion, other than saying that the bible is myth. Litteralism is downright impossible to hold, and any other interpretation appears, to outside viewers, as arbitrary. I mean, how do you tell what is parable and what is truth ?

In other matters God gives everyone a chance to recant and be saved, but they reject God so yes they pay the righteous price.

And you're saying that, now in the enlightened days of man, this no longer happens ? So your god no longer punishes people for rejecting him ? What's the point of Christianity, then ?

The people died because they were demonic, a good example is when they wanted to rape the angles, not too bright or moral.

I hate it when people rape angles. I prefer curved surfaces, myself.

Then you mention a moral code. If you are talking about christians the ten commandants are not flexible. If you are a christian you are expected to treat others as yourself and follow the ten commandants.

Gee, who's ignorant, now ? The ten commandments are in the OLD testament. Jesus offered a NEW covenant, and I'd like to point out that when he tries to name the commandments he doesn't even get them right.

Belz...

18th February 2009, 04:30 AM

No not in this universe. God exists outside of time and in his own realm. In this universe probabilities rule.

Isn't it fun to make up things as you go along ? Who said that God exists outside of time ? Why do you think that mentioning your opinion on this matter counts as anything more than baseless speculation ?

Lonewulf

18th February 2009, 04:46 AM

You see the what can I respectfully call it if not igorance displayed here?
Step 1: Claim that disagreement is necessarily based on ignorance.

Most bibical genocide was parable and hyperbola according to scholars.

Step 2: Write off the icky parts of the bible as parables and hyperbole.

In other matters God gives everyone a chance to recant and be saved, but they reject God so yes they pay the righteous price.

Step 3: Threaten those that disagree with punishment if they continue disagreeing.

The people died because they were demonic, a good example is when they wanted to rape the angles, not too bright or moral.

Step 4: Rape angles, you geophiles! The acute one had it coming... did you see what she was wearing?!

Step 5: ???

Step 6: Profit!

Then you mention a moral code. If you are talking about christians the ten commandants are not flexible.
You justified the Crusades, which broke the big ol' "Thou Shalt Not Kill" -- unless you're suggesting that the Muslim men, women, and children were less than human and thus not subject to God's Law?

Either way, I break the ten commandments just by not holding God holy, disrespecting his name (I've called him a genocidal selfish megalomaniac, and even that's being kind), so either way I'm screwed according to your faith. But hey, maybe I get off like the soldiers in the Crusades! Oh, and I'm not capable of controlling my thoughts to an nth of a degree, so I've probably coveted some person's wife and property. Oh well.

If you are a christian you are expected to treat others as yourself and follow the ten commandants.
Except against Muslims.

Fail to do so and you risk breaking the covenant with God which means you may forfeit your eternal soul and go to Sheol (not hell which doesn't exist like western pagan mythology describes it). Sheol is literately the Grave.Unless the Pope suggests otherwise?