I am Christian. Should I be atheist?

axarei lavan
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
I am Christian. Should I be atheist?

Hello everyone, I found this site through luck I imagine, after witnessing the Youtube video. First of all as this is my first post I thought it prudent to introduce myself, I’m Tom, I’m from England and yes I am a Christian. First of all I’m interested in people’s comments on my perception of belief and of Christianity itself, I should be revising for my university entry examinations but I can never let a good discussion go! I'm 18 and while my experience of the world is finite, I have the intelligence and the will to be opinionated, and to be able to express my opinions and choose them freely. God is a private matter for me; I don’t speak of it to people except rare occasions such as now, my point being that how can you possibly deny the emotions and the feelings I get from my beliefs? The freedoms and values enjoyed in your countries and my country today are largely based upon those early Christian principles. It is not God who kills people, it is not love, anger or hatred that kills and destroys, but it is man. The will of a man surmounts all religion and thus he uses it to his own ends, men do not do the will of God, they did the will of man in God’s name.

 

You may have gathered that I’m no fan of organised religion, I belong to no church, and, I give the allegiance of my soul to God and that of my body to my country. Furthermore I believe in evolution, though I am not pretentious enough to stipulate that god doesn’t exist through theories such as these. It simply deepens the mystery, creates layers of knowledge and design that we are only just starting to understand. I have met many physicists who believe in God, they have seen to the ends of the universe and what they found is belief, belief in themselves, in mankind, and in god. Superstition kept people in line, yes fear of God, abused by the powers of the church, but this is again not god, not Christ this is mankind. You may preach humanity, its ideals and principles, and say that they are Bourne out of physiological necessity; you may say that God was used to explain thing science couldn’t and still is. But I put this to you. Would a scientific explanation of Love, and perhaps the response to the loss of Love lessen its impact upon you? Could you understand love and thus deny its significance, what would we become if we understood everything? Mankind isn’t a great species; it’s evolved to be a self-obsessed and morally and intellectually inept in the majority of cases, what gives us the right, what gives you the right to denounce the work of a man who has touched so many people’s lives? Deny the impact of Christ on the world nay on the individual and you deny your own self. Here’s a quote:

 

Matt. 6:5

 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 

This reiterates my point of belief being private and not an organised affair to me. I believe because it makes me a better person, it makes me as an individual at peace with myself. Are you all perfect? Do you feel you can reach perfection in your lifetime? No none of us are, the thought of a power, a force that is drives me forward to better myself, to never think too highly of myself, to put myself forward in helping others. Jesus Christ is God within me, deny him to me and you take my humanity, and leave me but an animal.

 

Cheers guys i'd love some feedback!

Take care 

 

Tom 


vexed
vexed's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Should you be an atheist?

Should you be an atheist?

A better question is what proof outside of the Bible and testimonials do you have for a belief in god? I used to believe in Santa Clause when I was a child, and it made me feel good knowing that if I was "good" I would receive gifts on Winter Solstice (or you may call it X-Mas).

 

You need to remove sensationalism from logic, then things should make sense.

 

 

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
If I didn't believe in the

If I didn't believe in the tooth fairy I'd stop brushing my teeth and lose them. If I didn't believe in Santa I wouldn't behave as well. If I didn't believe in the boogeyman I wouldn't be afraid to stay out all night. Get the idea? There is no evidence Jesus ever existed or that a God exists.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


axarei lavan
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Sensationalism from logic?

Sensationalism from logic? Logic is hard, cold and rigid. It conforms and always does what you want it to do. There is comfort in logic, in knowing. Men who know or who think they know believe themselves superior to those who don't, we've all taken comfort in logic (I've thought it myself). I don't sensationalise what I say, emotions are not logical, they cannot be rationalised, humans cannot rationalise why I believe or what I believe in, nor can they explain why my belief makes me the person I am. Oil doesn’t mix with water, nor does love with logic. A major issue no doubt.


flatlanderdox
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the post, Tom. 

Thanks for the post, Tom.  I think you're touching on some valid issues here, and I think you're on track with some of it.  Keep digging. 

Should you become an athiest?  I would say no, not unless you have experienced enough cognitive, emotional, intuitive, and experiencial dissonance so that you cannot help but to become atheist.  I think you are right to acknowledge the validity of the feeling intellect.  The worldview you should own is one that resonates the best with all the epistemological tools (the ways of knowing) that you possess: not merely empirical evidence which many suggest. 

Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.


axarei lavan
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Hey thanks all for

Hey thanks all for responses, especially flatlanderdox, your reply summarised one of my key issues, much better then I could have hoped to do. (I ramble a lot) I loved ' epistemological' that has made my day, (I’m also a geek). But anyway! As flatlanderdox said, I believe that people cannot always look to logical solutions to situations where logic is removed. There is no logic in the love of men and women; there is no logic therefore in the love of God. (Why would he love a murderer in a logical world?) Let me use an allegory to try explain further, Dark matter for instance. Do you believe in it? Yes. Can you hold it, or see it? No. Infact it exists, how do we know it exists? Well by its influence on other spatial bodies. The same applies in essence with my theory on my own belief. I cannot see God, I cannot touch God nor can I ever hope to understand God. Yet I know he exists through the influence he has had on me, on my life and on the goodness I’ve done (and hope to do) and that of other people. A few bones or books doesn’t control my beliefs, my illogical soul does.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I disagree that logic

I disagree that logic doesn't apply in love - it should at least. For example, a woman who is beaten by her boyfriend should realize it doesn't make logical sense that he really loves her. And if someone is cheating that doesn't show love. Also, of course, you can't really logically love someone who doesn't exist. Again, as the Bible describes God (torturing those who displease him forever) any logic whatsoever would preclude any normal definition of "love."

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


axarei lavan
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Yes, perhaps logic should be

Yes, perhaps logic should be bourne into love. We should love according to what is logically best for us, suitable for us. It just doesn’t work like that. That’s the complexity behind the human mind that logic will never be able to understand. Logical love (if it even exists) is not spontaneous; it is not essentially 'true' love. Able men are given a choice in life to do as they please, good or bad. Gods love for me is absolute, i have no fear of God, I’m in his love, that’s my point if you give yourself to him and him to you won’t be tortured. An 80 year life of goodness and humility in exchange for eternity of paradise, Is that such a bad deal? I do all my belief alone by the way, my friend’s don’t even know I’m religious; I investigate both aspects of the argument. My mind is open to science (mans best triumph and his worst) yet in the confines of my head, my heart I have my love for God. Unexplainable and illogical, though love is love when you know it, undeniable in its element.

 


vexed
vexed's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
"The same applies in

"The same applies in essence with my theory on my own belief. I cannot see God, I cannot touch God nor can I ever hope to understand God. Yet I know he exists through the influence he has had on me, on my life and on the goodness I’ve done (and hope to do) and that of other people." - axarei lavan

 

Ya... I should have used sensualism: (philosophy) the ethical doctrine that feeling is the only criterion for what is good. You use sensualism to rationalize (employ logic or reason) your belief. (Hope that it's simpler to understand now.)

Thoughts on last part of quote:

Religious people are always giving 'god' credit for what they have done. Why can't you take credit for what you have done? It doesn't matter what has been done, good or bad, it's always attributed to 'god'. If that's the case, why would one need the 10 commandments, 'god' is just going to make things happen regardless, according to that logic.

Or do we believe in freewill now? And what influence does 'god' have on you? I used to be a christian (brainwashed at a young age), he never 'spoke' to me. I never felt 'his' presence. So are you saying that you have voices in your head that are influencing you, if so that is unhealthy mentally.

Final Point:

If your only reason for believing in 'god' is to feel good, then maybe heroin is for you.

 

 

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
You start by asking if you

You start by asking if you should be an atheist but then the only argument you give for why you have your beliefs is that you are not hurting anyone by having them. If that’s your only reason for believing then yes you should be an atheist. If the reason is that it makes you feel good then I would still say be an atheist. Whenever you accept things that are counter factual you are opening the door for trouble and getting a warm fuzzy feeling is not a good reason to do that.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I'm calling it. Most theists

I'm calling it. Most theists when they post something like this, you know what happens. So i'm calling it, hope i'm wrong for a change.

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
To answer your question.

To answer your question. Yes, I personally think you should be an atheist, however, that's only relevant to me, not you. What you should ask yourself is this: Did Jesus conquor death for your sins? Did Jesus get nailed to a cross and rise from the dead? Do you believe that he worked the miracles that he did? IF you do believe in these, then you are a "christ follower" or "christian". If you are skeptical, don't know the answer then perhaps Christian isn't the right label for you.

 

I do question, however, why you based God on feeling good. I went to church all the time i grew up with my parents. Head coverings and all, and yes, there were times i thought i was close to God but... in truth, the most compelling reason to have God was because you had someone who loved you. Read the bible a bit closer and it's not really a god of love and mercy, it's simply a construct in your mind. The fact you don't go to church but experience a closeness to God simply means you are searching for something to identify with and trust in, but you are a skeptic of the bible by nature.

 

Food for thought but questioning is a great way to enlightenment. I respect your courage in this instrospection. 

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Hi Drea and welcome to the

Hi Drea and welcome to the forums.

When you get a chance, we'd love it if you'd hop over to General Conversation, Introductions and Humor and introduce yourself. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


slumber77
slumber77's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Yes, perhaps logic

"Yes, perhaps logic should be bourne into love. We should love according to what is logically best for us, suitable for us. It just doesn’t work like that. That’s the complexity behind the human mind that logic will never be able to understand. Logical love (if it even exists) is not spontaneous; it is not essentially 'true' love. Able men are given a choice in life to do as they please, good or bad. Gods love for me is absolute, i have no fear of God, I’m in his love, that’s my point if you give yourself to him and him to you won’t be tortured. An 80 year life of goodness and humility in exchange for eternity of paradise, Is that such a bad deal? I do all my belief alone by the way, my friend’s don’t even know I’m religious; I investigate both aspects of the argument. My mind is open to science (mans best triumph and his worst) yet in the confines of my head, my heart I have my love for God. Unexplainable and illogical, though love is love when you know it, undeniable in its element."

 

i'm not here to deny the existance of god.. god may be out there, maybe not. I am just curious that why are you so sure that by believing that Jesus Christ, the son of god, will ensure you a ticket to heaven? Do you really strongly believe that jewish, muslim or buddihst will be burned in eternal hell fire after they die just because they are not christian?

my point is... why the christian holy bible?? when there is very high possibility that it was written by human being (and not words of god)? I am sure as a christian you have to believe that other religions are not the true religion from god. Why every religion (be it christianity or islam or whatever) has to deny other religions? based on what basis can you claim that your holy bible is the true "words" from god and not the muslim's quran or the jewish holy book?

If there is a god, do you really think he will let the good guy who happens to be non-christian go to hell? And don't you think it's a irony to god if he let a chirtsian serial killer go to heaven (just because he is a believer)?

I have to apologize first before i say this... but if god really needs us to acknowledge him as the omnipotent god in order to let us into the heaven, don't you think he is very insecure with himself? Don't you think If you want people to respect and believe in you, terrifying is not the solution??

In my opinion, if there is a god, non of the religions on earth that force people into believing him, are the true religion from god.


Slimm
Superfan
Slimm's picture
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
slumber77 wrote: i'm not

slumber77 wrote:
i'm not here to deny the existance of god..

Yes, perhaps logic should be bourne into love. We should love according to what is logically best for us, suitable for us. It just doesn’t work like that. That’s the complexity behind the human mind that logic will never be able to understand. Logical love (if it even exists) is not spontaneous; it is not essentially 'true' love. Able men are given a choice in life to do as they please, good or bad. Gods love for me is absolute, i have no fear of God, I’m in his love, that’s my point if you give yourself to him and him to you won’t be tortured. An 80 year life of goodness and humility in exchange for eternity of paradise, Is that such a bad deal? I do all my belief alone by the way, my friend’s don’t even know I’m religious; I investigate both aspects of the argument. My mind is open to science (mans best triumph and his worst) yet in the confines of my head, my heart I have my love for God. Unexplainable and illogical, though love is love when you know it, undeniable in its element.

Sun, 2007-06-03 20:19 reply | write to author | quote
god may be out there, maybe not. I am just curious that why are you so sure that by believing that Jesus Christ, the son of god, will ensure you a ticket to heaven? Do you really strongly believe that jewish, muslim or buddihst will be burned in eternal hell fire after they die just because they are not christian?

my point is... why the christian holy bible?? when there is very high possibility that it was written by human being (and not words of god)? I am sure as a christian you have to believe that other religions are not the true religion from god. Why every religion (be it christianity or islam or whatever) has to deny other religions? based on what basis can you claim that your holy bible is the true "words" from god and not the muslim's quran or the jewish holy book?

If there is a god, do you really think he will let the good guy who happens to be non-christian go to hell? And don't you think it's a irony to god if he let a chirtsian serial killer go to heaven (just because he is a believer)?

I have to apologize first before i say this... but if god really needs us to acknowledge him as the omnipotent god in order to let us into the heaven, don't you think he is very insecure with himself? Don't you think If you want people to respect and believe in you, terrifying is not the solution??

In my opinion, if there is a god, non of the religions on earth that force people into believing him, are the true religion from god.

Here! - Here!

Quote:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig,


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Then, Atheism is both a

axarei lavan

Then, Atheism is both a delusion and a religion. Secularists literally dominate Europe.

First off if you are a Christian, then read C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity. (Lewis being yet another great British Christian.) Just a note, Atheists surely would have never freed slaves. Remember, evolution promotes slavery. 

Lewis was a great thinker that went from agnostic/atheist to Christian. Second stop believing the lie told long enough that Atheism is a rational belief, and that Christians are ignorant.

 0 x 0 = Atheism.

Christians have a long history of great thinkers within the Christian Church movement, and yes, just like Atheists and Atheim, they have had a fair share of bad guys amongst them. Not as many as Atheism maybe, but some bad things were done by professing Christians throughout the ages.

I had an atheist over at DebatingChristianity.com come up with a figure of about one-million seven-hundred thousand victims of Christian promoted violence.

Lenin and Stalin with their Marxist Atheism driving their movement killed tens and tens and tens of millions of human beings that dissented of their belif-system. China's atheisys are not far behind. One can only imagine what has happened in other marxist (atheist) countries like Cuba, since as soon as the atheist takes over, we get no info allowed out on what is happening anymore.

Stay a questioning and thinking Christian, and join the long line of intelligent Christiana since the beginning of the Church culture.

And go to Church. You'll find one that suits your liking. One thing about modern-day Christianity, and unlike Atheism, it is wonderously free and diverse.

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
C.S. Lewis was a moron. And

C.S. Lewis was a moron. And equating atheism with communism:


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
slumber77, "In my opinion,

slumber77,

"In my opinion, if there is a god, non of the religions on earth that force people into believing him, are the true religion from god."

That was from you.

Could you please provide one statement in the New Testament writings - that are the current offerings of today - that "force" anyone into believing in God?

I have read that both Jesus and Paul said good things about non-believers.

I'll re-read again today (since it is a fats read) but I'm pretty sure that "forced belief" is not a Christian doctrine presented in the New Testament.

And, if a person doesn't believe in God or hell, the Christian belief-system shouldn't bother any skeptic or freethinker (who oddly, all think exactly the same) the way we see it does on college campuses, politics, or this website.

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:C.S.

MattShizzle wrote:

C.S. Lewis was a moron. And equating atheism with communism:

Couldn't have offered a better example of the 21st century "Freethinker" if I'd invented one. The bobbleheads never fail in entertaining.

Foshizzle.

Thanks Matt.

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Welcome Tom, my fellow

Welcome Tom, my fellow Englishman. I do not deny that religion has a lot of emotion attached, I would say you have to work out for yourself what you believe, criticise things, think about things, question yourself. If you remain religious so be it, but at least you will have tried. Which Uni are you going to?


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley

Jacob Cordingley wrote:
Welcome Tom, my fellow Englishman. I do not deny that religion has a lot of emotion attached, I would say you have to work out for yourself what you believe, criticise things, think about things, question yourself. If you remain religious so be it, but at least you will have tried. Which Uni are you going to?

Jacob,

The New Testament writers mention "working out your salavation" and "testing all things and holding fast to the truth."

A writer in the Tanakh (what we non-Judaiam folks call the Old Testament) writes that God said, "Come let us reason together."

Did you know that?

Since you were so good to me in curbing my emotional punch-backs (certainly not civil) could you help out your rather hysterical and incredibly emotional buds on the Freetrhinker/Atheist side?

Denigrating C.S. Lewis is not a good place to find a rational response.

Yours and Drea have been civil and rather mature in responses to the subject matter at hand. Would that it were more common in other non-godians.

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead wrote: And

nonbobblehead wrote:

And go to Church. You'll find one that suits your liking. One thing about modern-day Christianity, and unlike Atheism, it is wonderously free and diverse.

Is there any particular reason that you're making disingenuious blanket statements about atheism?

Do you have anything to back up this opinion of yours?

I fail to see how anyone could allude to the fact that atheism is anything but diverse - the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of a belief in god. We differ on many other key issues, ideas, life style choices. 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
One of the things I have

One of the things I have observed about the theist side is that the mere difference of theological opinion can drive people to paroxysms of hatred and disengenous absurdity.

nonbobblehead wrote:

Remember, evolution promotes slavery

I can feel large clumps of my neurons commiting PCD apoptosis in shock, I can feel my IQ dip after reading that. I have studied evolutionary theory for 10 years now, and in my whole time studying the nuances of molecular evolution, natural selection and population dynamics, I have never heard that. I presume you have some evidence to back up this utterly absurd claim? I presume you have some expertise, some scientific education, some training, some credentials? I should wish to see these before you offer these utterly absurd diatribes. This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever come across on the forum.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13606
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
axarei lavan wrote:Hello

axarei lavan wrote:

Hello everyone, I found this site through luck I imagine, after witnessing the Youtube video. First of all as this is my first post I thought it prudent to introduce myself, I’m Tom, I’m from England and yes I am a Christian. First of all I’m interested in people’s comments on my perception of belief and of Christianity itself, I should be revising for my university entry examinations but I can never let a good discussion go! I'm 18 and while my experience of the world is finite, I have the intelligence and the will to be opinionated, and to be able to express my opinions and choose them freely. God is a private matter for me; I don’t speak of it to people except rare occasions such as now, my point being that how can you possibly deny the emotions and the feelings I get from my beliefs? The freedoms and values enjoyed in your countries and my country today are largely based upon those early Christian principles. It is not God who kills people, it is not love, anger or hatred that kills and destroys, but it is man. The will of a man surmounts all religion and thus he uses it to his own ends, men do not do the will of God, they did the will of man in God’s name.

 

You may have gathered that I’m no fan of organised religion, I belong to no church, and, I give the allegiance of my soul to God and that of my body to my country. Furthermore I believe in evolution, though I am not pretentious enough to stipulate that god doesn’t exist through theories such as these. It simply deepens the mystery, creates layers of knowledge and design that we are only just starting to understand. I have met many physicists who believe in God, they have seen to the ends of the universe and what they found is belief, belief in themselves, in mankind, and in god. Superstition kept people in line, yes fear of God, abused by the powers of the church, but this is again not god, not Christ this is mankind. You may preach humanity, its ideals and principles, and say that they are Bourne out of physiological necessity; you may say that God was used to explain thing science couldn’t and still is. But I put this to you. Would a scientific explanation of Love, and perhaps the response to the loss of Love lessen its impact upon you? Could you understand love and thus deny its significance, what would we become if we understood everything? Mankind isn’t a great species; it’s evolved to be a self-obsessed and morally and intellectually inept in the majority of cases, what gives us the right, what gives you the right to denounce the work of a man who has touched so many people’s lives? Deny the impact of Christ on the world nay on the individual and you deny your own self. Here’s a quote:

 

Matt. 6:5

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

This reiterates my point of belief being private and not an organised affair to me. I believe because it makes me a better person, it makes me as an individual at peace with myself. Are you all perfect? Do you feel you can reach perfection in your lifetime? No none of us are, the thought of a power, a force that is drives me forward to better myself, to never think too highly of myself, to put myself forward in helping others. Jesus Christ is God within me, deny him to me and you take my humanity, and leave me but an animal.

 

Cheers guys i'd love some feedback!

Take care

 

Tom

I'm glad to hear that you dont follow cheerleading clubs out go gain members and political power.

However, the issue of any deity is simple, what evidence is there?

The Bible, or any holy book for that matter is not an objective book and certainly was not written as a biology textbook. The stories within discribe a hero who fights on behalf of a chosen people. The stories within contain fantastic claims that if you juxtipose next to Harry Potter you could see the "outside nature" or contrary to nature claims.

If it makes no sense that Peter Pan can litterally fly, why would believing that dirt "POOF" instantaniously turned into bone make any more sense? If you rightly reject that a deity named Thor made thunder and lighting why would your claims be immune to the same logical scrutiny?

It's not a matter of what you believe. Everyone here has heard all the claims before. The key is to ask yourself WHY you accept this and ask yourself WHY you reject the mythological claims of others.

When you understand why you reject, say for example, claims of multiple armed deities, you'll understand why we reject the claim of a disimbdodied being gettting a girl pregnant or human flesh surviving rigor mortis.

The only differeance between you and I is that I reject one more deity claim than you do. When you understand why you reject all those other claims you'll understand why we reject yours as well.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: One of

deludedgod wrote:

One of the things I have observed about the theist side is that the mere difference of theological opinion can drive people to paroxysms of hatred and disengenous absurdity.

nonbobblehead wrote:

Remember, evolution promotes slavery

I can feel large clumps of my neurons commiting PCD apoptosis in shock, I can feel my IQ dip after reading that. I have studied evolutionary theory for 10 years now, and in my whole time studying the nuances of molecular evolution, natural selection and population dynamics, I have never heard that. I presume you have some evidence to back up this utterly absurd claim? I presume you have some expertise, some scientific education, some training, some credentials? I should wish to see these before you offer these utterly absurd diatribes. This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever come across on the forum.

I believe Way of the Master promotes this. Weeell, I've only seen one of their videos, but they seem to love using appeals to emotion. They promote that Darwin was a racists and sexists to undermine his theory (lalala... logical fallacy). I don't think I have to add, that about all people back then were racists and sexists, since it was before the emancipation of women and slaves. The moral zeitgeist was completely different. Smiling

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


axarei lavan
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Hey everyone, first of all

Hey everyone, first of all I apologise for any incoherencies with my previous posts it was 3AM and I had an exam the next day, but now that’s over I believe I can think and type straight.

 

Jacob Cordingley hey, I’m headed to Manchester University to study business; hopefully it will do me some good!

 

In response to Brian37’s:

 “The Bible or any holy book for that matter is not an objective book and certainly was not written as a biology textbook.” 

You have highlighted the fundamental chasm between science and belief or religion; this gap will never in our lifetimes be bridged. The same gap exists between science and literature, the logical and the emotional. The thing is, just because you haven’t the evidence for something, or that you don’t believe it, does that mean you should reject any possibility of its existence? By closing your mind to religion, to the possibility of the miracles described in holy books and scripture, you limit your perceptions of the universe as a human. You may accuse theists of being closed minded, yes many are, however the atheism that some of you may adhere to is as closed minded and these theists. For a start I do not believe in the majority of the Old Testament as the literal interactions of God and Mankind, instead I take the word of Jesus in his benevolence and live by those ideals and his example. If the divinity of Jesus is ever disproved it will not be the end of my faith in that man, his example led billions across the world to find comfort. Having belief in nothing but yourself leaves the soul cold and empty I find. 

 

You make reference to Peter Pan, and yes you may find religion trivial, laughable and totally false. Yet the greatest thinkers of the 16th century knew the earth was flat, people were killed for saying the earth wasn’t the center of the universe! How could anything else be true? What a load of rubbish they’d say. They were proved wrong. I’m not saying God will ever be proved or disproved, I’m trying to say that blanket rejection of any theory, or religion or belief system closes your mind to the bigger issues that face humanity. You see Thor for example was the god of Thunder and Lightning or at least symbolised it as was Zeus of the Greek Pantheon; this has been scientifically explained and therefore credibility for those respective religions died out. But a God who stands for love, how can your logic possibly begin to understand that? Your logical way of needing logical evidence to give logical conclusion is based upon preconceptions, on flawed logic. Humans can never reach the pinnacle of existence that is attributed to god, they can never and will never understand as he is said to, and because of this the vain ambition of men to transcend their mortal coils drives them to deny things they cannot understand. You fear what you know not, yet you fear needlessly. I’m a person, a mere mortal I think, question and live as you do. Yet I am at peace with myself as I know I will never be perfect; my imperfections push me forward and through God and the example of Christ I will become a greater human then ever I could have been if I didn’t believe.

 

Cheers,              Tom


iconoclastic1
iconoclastic1's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-04-28
User is offlineOffline
axarei lavan wrote:

axarei lavan wrote:

Hello everyone, I found this site through luck I imagine, after witnessing the Youtube video. First of all as this is my first post I thought it prudent to introduce myself, I’m Tom, I’m from England and yes I am a Christian.

Hi, I'm new as well. I'm what you might call a fundamentalist agnostic. I don't know, I don't think anybody else knows either, and if you disagree with me you're a filthy infidel swine.

axarei lavan wrote:

First of all I’m interested in people’s comments on my perception of belief and of Christianity itself, I should be revising for my university entry examinations but I can never let a good discussion go! I'm 18 and while my experience of the world is finite, I have the intelligence and the will to be opinionated, and to be able to express my opinions and choose them freely. God is a private matter for me; I don’t speak of it to people except rare occasions such as now, my point being that how can you possibly deny the emotions and the feelings I get from my beliefs?

I don't deny any such thing. Why should I deny your emotions just because I don't believe in your God? Muslims often describe getting an extremely powerful feeling of heady euphoria from a ritual called the tawaf where they circumambulate the Ka'bah in Mecca seven times:

 

Are you denying their feelings just because you don't believe in Allah?

axarei lavan wrote:

The freedoms and values enjoyed in your countries and my country today are largely based upon those early Christian principles. It is not God who kills people, it is not love, anger or hatred that kills and destroys, but it is man. The will of a man surmounts all religion and thus he uses it to his own ends, men do not do the will of God, they did the will of man in God’s name.

The value I cherish the most is freedom. It's not at all a christian principle. In Luke 12, Jesus talks in a parable about how we should treat our slaves. Christians in this country seem to unilaterally oppose abortion, gay rights, and all manner of vice simply because it displeases the magic creator-deity that they pray to.

Besides all this, most of the moral platitudes of the bible that aren't absolutely repugnant to the moral intuition of a modern and civilized human being were actually concepts borrowed from other religions or philosophies. So those aren't Christian principles, those are Mithraic principles, those are Zoroastrian principles, those are Confucian principles.

axarei lavan wrote:
You may have gathered that I’m no fan of organised religion, I belong to no church, and, I give the allegiance of my soul to God and that of my body to my country. Furthermore I believe in evolution, though I am not pretentious enough to stipulate that god doesn’t exist through theories such as these.

That's not pretentious, that's parsimonious. The evolutionary process does not require the meddling of a magical being, therefore it is not included in the theory.

axarei lavan wrote:

It simply deepens the mystery, creates layers of knowledge and design that we are only just starting to understand.

It's a superfluous layer of mystery. It's an unwarranted hypothesis, shoehorned into one's worldview because people want it there, not because it's needed to make to make sense of it.

axarei lavan wrote:

I have met many physicists who believe in God, they have seen to the ends of the universe and what they found is belief, belief in themselves, in mankind, and in god.

A personal god? Many physicists such as Hawkins talk about God in an Einsteinian type way when describing cosmological concepts, but I'm not aware of a single theoretical physicist that admits to belief in a personal God that we can interact with.

axarei lavan wrote:

Superstition kept people in line, yes fear of God, abused by the powers of the church, but this is again not god, not Christ this is mankind. You may preach humanity, its ideals and principles, and say that they are Bourne out of physiological necessity; you may say that God was used to explain thing science couldn’t and still is. But I put this to you. Would a scientific explanation of Love, and perhaps the response to the loss of Love lessen its impact upon you? Could you understand love and thus deny its significance, what would we become if we understood everything?

The significance of love is that it's part of the genetic imperative, the strongest instinct we possess with the possible exception of self-preservation. It's a metabolically expensive state to maintain, which is one of the reasons it's designed through natural selection to keep a pair tolerating one another long enough to procreate and raise an offspring to the age where it's viable without the care of both parents. The chemicals involved at this stage change, which is why more than half of all marriages end in divorce, and many divorces occur around the five to seven year mark.

Just because I happen to know all this, it doesn't prevent me from experiencing the emotion as deeply as anyone else. Just because I know it's a chemical state, and I haven't deluded myself into thinking it has some cosmic or transcendental significance, doesn't mean I can't appreciate it as fully.

axarei lavan wrote:

Mankind isn’t a great species; it’s evolved to be a self-obsessed and morally and intellectually inept in the majority of cases, what gives us the right, what gives you the right to denounce the work of a man who has touched so many people’s lives?

I don't know... perhaps the fact that it's likely he never existed? Perhaps the fact that there were twenty or thirty other God-men like Appolonius of Tyana out there around the same time period preaching the exact same message?

axarei lavan wrote:

Here’s a quote:

Matt. 6:5

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

This reiterates my point of belief being private and not an organised affair to me. I believe because it makes me a better person, it makes me as an individual at peace with myself. Are you all perfect? Do you feel you can reach perfection in your lifetime? No none of us are, the thought of a power, a force that is drives me forward to better myself, to never think too highly of myself, to put myself forward in helping others. Jesus Christ is God within me, deny him to me and you take my humanity, and leave me but an animal.

All that is on you, kid. That you projecting your insecurities. If someone else denying your god-man superstition takes away your humanity, then perhaps it was just an illusory construct to begin with.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
I don't have anything

I don't have anything specfic about your posts i want to quote. I have a few comments on your general ideas though.
You say emotional reasons are good reasons to believe in things (paraphrased of coure). What if those things are dangerous to the person or others? For example, someone thinks they are Napelon and that the need to conquer some land because of that belief. Now this causes a postive emotion for this person, makes him feel important. Now would you say its ok for him to believe this? or would you want him to not believe this because he will hurt him? if you say that latter then what are you going to use for why he shouldn't hurt them? Emotional reasons again? why should he take your emotions for why not to believe when his emotions to believe are more postive?  
Second, if i remember reading this thread you say logic is cold and hard. First, logic is just a process. It isn't a "thing".  So to anthropomorphize a process is downright silly. Logic can't be "cold and hard" it is just a way of discovering the validity of an argument that is all and/or truth value (a logical argument is a valid argument if you put true statements in a valid argument you get a true conclusion).  Now if you want to say that emotions should be allowed into argumentation by the above how do you determine what is valid and/or true? What way do you have to decerning if something someone wants you to believe is true or not? The above gives an example of someone who is clearly irrational in his belief but emotional arguments (rhetoric) would not necessarily convince if it was possible for that. Logic may convince him if he knows logic and will except why his beliefs are invalid in a logical sense.
Lastly, I feel that you can believe in whatever you please. Its once you either a) act on that belief or b) try to convince me that your belief is justified and true (my def of knowledge is the traditional "true justified belief" seems ok to use that here with talking about all the different reasons why that is wrong). If you want to convince me of your belief you must provide logical argumention, which you would probably want for everyone else to do. It is the way we determine if a argument is valid or not. Otherwise why accept a argument as valid??
Sorry if i'm rambling. Also if this stuff has been covered before i apologize to the people who said it, I didn't read this stuff at least not this way. 
Zach


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Maragon

Maragon wrote:
nonbobblehead wrote:

And go to Church. You'll find one that suits your liking. One thing about modern-day Christianity, and unlike Atheism, it is wonderously free and diverse.

Is there any particular reason that you're making disingenuious blanket statements about atheism?

Do you have anything to back up this opinion of yours?

I fail to see how anyone could allude to the fact that atheism is anything but diverse - the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of a belief in god. We differ on many other key issues, ideas, life style choices. 

I realize the hysterical desire for you atheists to paint darwin into a (A) saintly figure of greatness and benvolence, but the history of those that agreed with survival of the fittest just fit hand in glove with the masters little belief system. Whatever happens in this Atheist versus Christians movement afoot, we had better keep a very serious eye on the violent nature of modern atheism. The 20th century was just a glimpse.

Here's a good example of my daddy Darwin was a sweet heart. And make sure to check out the website rationalrevolution.net. Like we didn't know what's up. And granted, I do realize that there are a few less rabid non-godians out there. It's fun though, to watch them rally around their prophet.

The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist.

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm

 

There is a growing effort among opponents of evolution to portray Charles Darwin as a racist, and evolutionary theory as morally reprehensible, even to claim that Darwinism "provided Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they came to power."

These accusations are not merely from fringe radicals, but have indeed been made by elected officials and published in books by university professors, as we shall see.

Most disturbing, however, is the lack of significant rebuttal to these charges. Many people in fact, including some evolutionary biologists, find it easy to believe that perhaps Darwin was a racist, and perhaps evolutionary theory did contribute to Nazi ideology.

In 2001 African American State Representative Sharon Broome of Louisiana sponsored a resolution to condemn "Darwinist ideology" as racist and liken it to Nazism.

WHEREAS, empirical science has documented an indisputable commonality among all people groups, or races, and has demonstrated that normal variations in the human gene pool account for our differences, of which racial differences are a trivial portion; and

WHEREAS, the writings of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, promoted the justification of racism, and his books On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life and The Descent of Man postulate a hierarchy of superior and inferior races; and

WHEREAS, Adolf Hitler and others have exploited the racist views of Darwin and those he influenced, such as German zoologist Ernst Haekel, to justify the annihilation of millions of purportedly racially inferior individuals.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby deplore all instances and ideologies of racism, does hereby reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others, and does hereby condemn the extent to which these philosophies have been used to justify and approve racist practices.

\\\\\

 Of course here we go. At "rational revolution . net.

Darwin was just a puppy to love.

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Hahaha, seems like I

Hahaha, seems like I somewhat predicted the future with my post earlier:

Mattness wrote:
deludedgod wrote:

One of the things I have observed about the theist side is that the mere difference of theological opinion can drive people to paroxysms of hatred and disengenous absurdity.

nonbobblehead wrote:

Remember, evolution promotes slavery

I can feel large clumps of my neurons commiting PCD apoptosis in shock, I can feel my IQ dip after reading that. I have studied evolutionary theory for 10 years now, and in my whole time studying the nuances of molecular evolution, natural selection and population dynamics, I have never heard that. I presume you have some evidence to back up this utterly absurd claim? I presume you have some expertise, some scientific education, some training, some credentials? I should wish to see these before you offer these utterly absurd diatribes. This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever come across on the forum.

I believe Way of the Master promotes this. Weeell, I've only seen one of their videos, but they seem to love using appeals to emotion. They promote that Darwin was a racists and sexists to undermine his theory (lalala... logical fallacy). I don't think I have to add, that about all people back then were racists and sexists, since it was before the emancipation of women and slaves. The moral zeitgeist was completely different. Smiling

 

You know, the truth is... I'm a prophet! So worship me!

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


axarei lavan
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
iconoclastic1 wrote:I don't

iconoclastic1 wrote:I don't deny any such thing. Why should I deny your emotions just because I don't believe in your God? Muslims often describe getting an extremely powerful feeling of heady euphoria from a ritual called the tawaf where they circumambulate the Ka'bah in Mecca seven times:

Are you denying their feelings just because you don't believe in Allah?

First of all no, I do not deny the power of God in any human being; It is the principles of this website (at least from the Youtube video) to deny God and thus Deny that any emotive response is not from being with God but rather a ‘Psychological’ disorder. While my faith is Christianity I do not refute the beliefs of Islam or any other religion, I respect them but choose to continue with my own beliefs.

iconoclastic1 wrote:The value I cherish the most is freedom. It's not at all a christian principle. In Luke 12, Jesus talks in a parable about how we should treat our slaves. Christians in this country seem to unilaterally oppose abortion, gay rights, and all manner of vice simply because it displeases the magic creator-deity that they pray to.Besides all this, most of the moral platitudes of the bible that aren't absolutely repugnant to the moral intuition of a modern and civilized human being were actually concepts borrowed from other religions or philosophies. So those aren't Christian principles, those are Mithraic principles, those are Zoroastrian principles, those are Confucian principles.

You talk about freedom yet you talk of fundamentalism in your own beliefs. Does this leave room to give your fellow man freedom to believe as he would like? I respect your agnostic way of belief and I am happy that people can think freely. But can a fundamentalist really advocate freedom when they so mightily believe in their way of thought? I support abortion when a mother is going to die, I don’t support it through infidelity or mistakes wanting to be corrected. We should live by our mistakes and survive the consequences, this roots out the weak willed and hypocrites. I also have many gay and lesbian friends and they are good people, what I think the flaw in your argument is that you stereotype Christians as one entity, as I said I am an individual. The world is not black and white, it is green now and it was blue a few thousand years ago. Times change and Jesus was probably socially conditioned as a child as much as we are today. Who knows in two thousands years eating meat might be a crime punishable by prison. You cannot judge the past by today’s morals. To do so leaves your argument flawed. As for Mithraism I have studied it for the past two years in depth. While yes certain religious symbols are similar and could have been adapted from this Roman cult those events do not symbolise the belief system. Christ is not defined by Christmas. I don’t understand why you insist on disproving the goodness found in the bible. Jesus wasn’t the first person in the world who was good, nor were these Zoroastrians, yet Jesus made a difference with the qualities he was given that touched billions. These cults are either dead, dying or are not as influential as Christ has been.

iconoclastic1 wrote:That's not pretentious, that's parsimonious. The evolutionary process does not require the meddling of a magical being, therefore it is not included in the theory. I can’t see how you can justifiably say that. Do you understand every principle of evolutionary biology? Can you provide a thesis whereby you entirely refute the case for intelligent design or that there was no meddling of a ‘magical being’. If not you assume much more then what you what you could possibly know, or infact what any man could hope to know.

iconoclastic1 wrote:It's a superfluous layer of mystery. It's an unwarranted hypothesis, shoehorned into one's worldview because people want it there, not because it's needed to make to make sense of it.

Not so, I think you misinterpret the nature of my argument. I said even with one discovery, with one question answered, there are another ten posed in its place. Mankind will never reach a level of infinite knowledge; we have too many flaws, too many differentiations for that to ever happen. People don’t put lack of understanding there; nature poses these questions to us.

iconoclastic1 wrote:A personal god? Many physicists such as Hawkins talk about God in an Einsteinian type way when describing cosmological concepts, but I'm not aware of a single theoretical physicist that admits to belief in a personal God that we can interact with.

Theories are being proved and then disproved every year, this is the nature of science, we think we understand only to revaluate decades later when our understanding increases. If our understanding increases in religion, if the possibility of an all mighty force becomes more likely, how do you know your theory of there being no God would still be the theory you hold dear to? Great scientists know they understand little of the world, science is not at odds with God; science is a tool of that primordial force that created the universe and everything in it.



iconoclastic1 wrote:The significance of love is that it's part of the genetic imperative, the strongest instinct we possess with the possible exception of self-preservation. It's a metabolically expensive state to maintain, which is one of the reasons it's designed through natural selection to keep a pair tolerating one another long enough to procreate and raise an offspring to the age where it's viable without the care of both parents. The chemicals involved at this stage change, which is why more than half of all marriages end in divorce, and many divorces occur around the five to seven year mark. Just because I happen to know all this, it doesn't prevent me from experiencing the emotion as deeply as anyone else. Just because I know it's a chemical state, and I haven't deluded myself into thinking it has some cosmic or transcendental significance, doesn't mean I can't appreciate it as fully.



Again you seem to group the entire the entire human species into a people who fit into your theories. How can you seriously appreciate the significance of involuntary emotion if you liken it to chemical imbalance and nothing else? Is a child just a product of genealogy and several proteins grouped together to form a mass that will form the continuation of your own genes. If that is how you see the world then I pity you. If everything is black and white, and you explain everything or require an explanation in order to be contented with a situation or emotion then it you who has the insecurities. The notion of not being in control of yourself I think scares many people. Chemical reactions occur in animals, humans and machines. What ever animalistic chemical reactions and responses occur in my brain does not remove the significance that belief in something bigger then me has. Why it is that animal don’t love or have faith, what is defined as intelligence? Your husband, wife, child or mother has been killed. But don’t worry your suffering from chemical imbalance, a psychological deficiency, nothing science cant handle no doubt.


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead

nonbobblehead wrote:
Maragon wrote:
nonbobblehead wrote:

And go to Church. You'll find one that suits your liking. One thing about modern-day Christianity, and unlike Atheism, it is wonderously free and diverse.

Is there any particular reason that you're making disingenuious blanket statements about atheism?

Do you have anything to back up this opinion of yours?

I fail to see how anyone could allude to the fact that atheism is anything but diverse - the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of a belief in god. We differ on many other key issues, ideas, life style choices.

I realize the hysterical desire for you atheists to paint darwin into a (A) saintly figure of greatness and benvolence, but the history of those that agreed with survival of the fittest just fit hand in glove with the masters little belief system. Whatever happens in this Atheist versus Christians movement afoot, we had better keep a very serious eye on the violent nature of modern atheism. The 20th century was just a glimpse.

Here's a good example of my daddy Darwin was a sweet heart. And make sure to check out the website rationalrevolution.net. Like we didn't know what's up. And granted, I do realize that there are a few less rabid non-godians out there. It's fun though, to watch them rally around their prophet.

The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist.

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm

 

There is a growing effort among opponents of evolution to portray Charles Darwin as a racist, and evolutionary theory as morally reprehensible, even to claim that Darwinism "provided Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they came to power."

These accusations are not merely from fringe radicals, but have indeed been made by elected officials and published in books by university professors, as we shall see.

Most disturbing, however, is the lack of significant rebuttal to these charges. Many people in fact, including some evolutionary biologists, find it easy to believe that perhaps Darwin was a racist, and perhaps evolutionary theory did contribute to Nazi ideology.

In 2001 African American State Representative Sharon Broome of Louisiana sponsored a resolution to condemn "Darwinist ideology" as racist and liken it to Nazism.

WHEREAS, empirical science has documented an indisputable commonality among all people groups, or races, and has demonstrated that normal variations in the human gene pool account for our differences, of which racial differences are a trivial portion; and

WHEREAS, the writings of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, promoted the justification of racism, and his books On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life and The Descent of Man postulate a hierarchy of superior and inferior races; and

WHEREAS, Adolf Hitler and others have exploited the racist views of Darwin and those he influenced, such as German zoologist Ernst Haekel, to justify the annihilation of millions of purportedly racially inferior individuals.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby deplore all instances and ideologies of racism, does hereby reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others, and does hereby condemn the extent to which these philosophies have been used to justify and approve racist practices.

\\\\\

Of course here we go. At "rational revolution . net.

Darwin was just a puppy to love.

 

Uh, sweetie pie?

You do realize that this is one gigantic ad hominem attacks, right?

 

Can I let you in on a little secret?

Darwin could have raped puppies and eaten babies and that STILL DOESN'T MAKE EVOLUTION WRONG.

 

Shockley, the inventor of the transistor was a huge racist, and guess what? The transistor STILL WORKS.

 

Personal politics and beliefs cannot invalidate scientific theory. 

 

I've got another secret for you, I couldn't give a fuck whether Darwin's work fuelled the Nazi regieme, or makes Christians cry or promotes baby-eating or whatever else you want to claim. I don't care if Darwin was a nice person, what he ate for breakfast, that he married a close relative or any other dirt you could drag up on him.

Know why? Because Atheists DO NOT worship Darwin. 


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead wrote: Just

nonbobblehead wrote:

Just a note, Atheists surely would have never freed slaves. Remember, evolution promotes slavery.

Ha!

Because atheists have very little in common, lets look at one group of people who are often atheists: anarchists. Anarchists oppose slavery, so given their desire for a free society, they would have worked to free slaves. (after all, they have been trying to abolish what they call wage slavery...)

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


iconoclastic1
iconoclastic1's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-04-28
User is offlineOffline
axarei lavan wrote: First

axarei lavan wrote:

First of all no, I do not deny the power of God in any human being; It is the principles of this website (at least from the Youtube video) to deny God and thus Deny that any emotive response is not from being with God but rather a ‘Psychological’ disorder. While my faith is Christianity I do not refute the beliefs of Islam or any other religion, I respect them but choose to continue with my own beliefs.

Christianity and Islam are mutually exclusive faiths. At maximum, only one can be correct. The fact that you believe in the Christian deity necessarily implies that you deny theirs.

Furthermore, you're putting words into the mouths of nonbelievers. Has anyone here called your emotions a psychological disorder? You simply ascribe those nice feelings with some kind of cosmic significance, and I don't. You think that the supernatural omnipotent progenitor of the universe and everything in it is giving you those warm fuzzies, and I think it's the power of suggestion and the sense of solidarity with like-minded worshippers. Not a disorder.

In fact, I recall reading about one study which suggests the propensity for belief in the supernatural is part of our genetics. So if anything it's atheists and naturalists like me that have the disorder. We're the ones that are "divergent from type" to use a psychological term.

axarei lavan wrote:

You talk about freedom yet you talk of fundamentalism in your own beliefs. Does this leave room to give your fellow man freedom to believe as he would like? I respect your agnostic way of belief and I am happy that people can think freely. But can a fundamentalist really advocate freedom when they so mightily believe in their way of thought?

I celebrate my fellow human's right to believe however which way he or she chooses. The thing about me being a fundamentalist agnostic was a joke. Probably an unfunny one if it got taken seriously. I'll try to make my quips more blatant in the future.

axarei lavan wrote:

I support abortion when a mother is going to die, I don’t support it through infidelity or mistakes wanting to be corrected. We should live by our mistakes and survive the consequences, this roots out the weak willed and hypocrites. I also have many gay and lesbian friends and they are good people, what I think the flaw in your argument is that you stereotype Christians as one entity, as I said I am an individual. The world is not black and white, it is green now and it was blue a few thousand years ago. Times change and Jesus was probably socially conditioned as a child as much as we are today. Who knows in two thousands years eating meat might be a crime punishable by prison. You cannot judge the past by today’s morals. To do so leaves your argument flawed. As for Mithraism I have studied it for the past two years in depth. While yes certain religious symbols are similar and could have been adapted from this Roman cult those events do not symbolise the belief system. Christ is not defined by Christmas. I don’t understand why you insist on disproving the goodness found in the bible. Jesus wasn’t the first person in the world who was good, nor were these Zoroastrians, yet Jesus made a difference with the qualities he was given that touched billions. These cults are either dead, dying or are not as influential as Christ has been.

I don't deny the good in the Bible, but I don't make excuses for the bad either. Pick any book in the Bible at random and I can find you four or five things at a minimum which are repulsive to my moral intuition.

The thing you might not realize is that your favorite god-man Jesus is popular today not because his words were doubleplusgood, but rather because he had good marketing. In fact, Constantine the Great three hundred years after Jesus' supposed death probably had more to do with it than Jesus.

axarei lavan wrote:

I can’t see how you can justifiably say that. Do you understand every principle of evolutionary biology? Can you provide a thesis whereby you entirely refute the case for intelligent design or that there was no meddling of a ‘magical being’. If not you assume much more then what you what you could possibly know, or infact what any man could hope to know.

Bullshit. If it were necessary to appeal to the intervention of the supernatural, then there wouldn't be a theory of evolution because it wouldn't work. You can appeal to the supernatural to solve literally any scientific question in existance. ALL bets are off when you start bringing God into the equation.

Why does it rain? God is making water fall from the sky

Why do people get sick? God is smiting them

Why does the sun come up? God makes the day and the night.

God can conceivably be the explanation for literally any question we could possibly ask. Yet we don't say God causes water to fall from the sky anymore because we already have a naturalistic explanation for rain that fits with the known facts. If you really wanted to, you could make a stink about that too and argue for "intelligent water falling" or somesuch nonsense. But it's not necessary, just like "intelligent design" isn't necessary.

axarei lavan wrote:

Not so, I think you misinterpret the nature of my argument. I said even with one discovery, with one question answered, there are another ten posed in its place. Mankind will never reach a level of infinite knowledge; we have too many flaws, too many differentiations for that to ever happen. People don’t put lack of understanding there; nature poses these questions to us.

That's true. The more we learn, the more we discover that we have a lot more left to learn. That doesn't mean God is a good answer to those questions, it just means we have a lot more left to learn and that's it. The proper answer to any question you don't know the answer to isn't "God", it's "I don't know." Here, let me give you an example:

"How did the universe originate?"

Me: I don't know!

You: God!

Which one of us is being pretentious? Which one of us is being more honest?

axarei lavan wrote:

Theories are being proved and then disproved every year, this is the nature of science, we think we understand only to revaluate decades later when our understanding increases. If our understanding increases in religion, if the possibility of an all mighty force becomes more likely, how do you know your theory of there being no God would still be the theory you hold dear to? Great scientists know they understand little of the world, science is not at odds with God; science is a tool of that primordial force that created the universe and everything in it.

Heh, actually, I agree with you. The problem is you don't seem to understand that your own words in this paragraph repudiate your belief and validate my stance. Yes, the theoretical facet of science is always changing to conform to new facts which come to light through discovery and experimentation. But a scientist's proper stance on all that which hasn't been discovered scientifically yet is withheld judgment.

If something is unsupported conjecture, i.e. GOD, you withhold judgment until that conjecture is validated. I have withheld judgment on the question of God(s). It's true that I think the possibility that the universe began as the pet project of some omnipotent timeless all knowing entity is infinitesimally small, but I think the exact same about the infinite number of other unsupported-yet-theoretically-possible propositions.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
alexi lavan wrote:

axarai lavan wrote:

Again you seem to group the entire the entire human species into a people who fit into your theories. How can you seriously appreciate the significance of involuntary emotion if you liken it to chemical imbalance and nothing else? Is a child just a product of genealogy and several proteins grouped together to form a mass that will form the continuation of your own genes. If that is how you see the world then I pity you. If everything is black and white, and you explain everything or require an explanation in order to be contented with a situation or emotion then it you who has the insecurities. The notion of not being in control of yourself I think scares many people. Chemical reactions occur in animals, humans and machines. What ever animalistic chemical reactions and responses occur in my brain does not remove the significance that belief in something bigger then me has. Why it is that animal don’t love or have faith, what is defined as intelligence? Your husband, wife, child or mother has been killed. But don’t worry your suffering from chemical imbalance, a psychological deficiency, nothing science cant handle no doubt.

This is little more than a well written fallacy of composition.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


iconoclastic1
iconoclastic1's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-04-28
User is offlineOffline
axarei lavan wrote: Again

axarei lavan wrote:

Again you seem to group the entire the entire human species into a people who fit into your theories. How can you seriously appreciate the significance of involuntary emotion if you liken it to chemical imbalance and nothing else? Is a child just a product of genealogy and several proteins grouped together to form a mass that will form the continuation of your own genes. If that is how you see the world then I pity you. If everything is black and white, and you explain everything or require an explanation in order to be contented with a situation or emotion then it you who has the insecurities. The notion of not being in control of yourself I think scares many people. Chemical reactions occur in animals, humans and machines. What ever animalistic chemical reactions and responses occur in my brain does not remove the significance that belief in something bigger then me has. Why it is that animal don’t love or have faith, what is defined as intelligence? Your husband, wife, child or mother has been killed. But don’t worry your suffering from chemical imbalance, a psychological deficiency, nothing science cant handle no doubt.

 Are you familiar with the composition fallacy?  Let me give you one example:

Major Premise: Cells are too small to see

Minor Premise: People are made of cells

Conclusion: People are too small to see.

 

Let me provide another example and see if it starts to look more familiar:

Major Premise: Atoms can't experience true feeling

Minor Premise: Humans are made of atoms

Conclusion: Humans can't experience true feeling

 

Hmm.  It's starting to sound familiar now.  By the way, save your pity, I don't need it.  Save it for one of the 25,000 people that died of prolonged starvation today.  They need it more than me. 


PillarMyArse
PillarMyArse's picture
Posts: 65
Joined: 2007-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead

nonbobblehead wrote:
Maragon wrote:
nonbobblehead wrote:

And go to Church. You'll find one that suits your liking. One thing about modern-day Christianity, and unlike Atheism, it is wonderously free and diverse.

Is there any particular reason that you're making disingenuious blanket statements about atheism?

Do you have anything to back up this opinion of yours?

I fail to see how anyone could allude to the fact that atheism is anything but diverse - the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of a belief in god. We differ on many other key issues, ideas, life style choices.

I realize the hysterical desire for you atheists to paint darwin into a (A) saintly figure of greatness and benvolence, but the history of those that agreed with survival of the fittest just fit hand in glove with the masters little belief system. Whatever happens in this Atheist versus Christians movement afoot, we had better keep a very serious eye on the violent nature of modern atheism. The 20th century was just a glimpse.

Here's a good example of my daddy Darwin was a sweet heart. And make sure to check out the website rationalrevolution.net. Like we didn't know what's up. And granted, I do realize that there are a few less rabid non-godians out there. It's fun though, to watch them rally around their prophet.

The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist.

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm

 

There is a growing effort among opponents of evolution to portray Charles Darwin as a racist, and evolutionary theory as morally reprehensible, even to claim that Darwinism "provided Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they came to power."

These accusations are not merely from fringe radicals, but have indeed been made by elected officials and published in books by university professors, as we shall see.

Most disturbing, however, is the lack of significant rebuttal to these charges. Many people in fact, including some evolutionary biologists, find it easy to believe that perhaps Darwin was a racist, and perhaps evolutionary theory did contribute to Nazi ideology.

In 2001 African American State Representative Sharon Broome of Louisiana sponsored a resolution to condemn "Darwinist ideology" as racist and liken it to Nazism.

WHEREAS, empirical science has documented an indisputable commonality among all people groups, or races, and has demonstrated that normal variations in the human gene pool account for our differences, of which racial differences are a trivial portion; and

WHEREAS, the writings of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, promoted the justification of racism, and his books On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life and The Descent of Man postulate a hierarchy of superior and inferior races; and

WHEREAS, Adolf Hitler and others have exploited the racist views of Darwin and those he influenced, such as German zoologist Ernst Haekel, to justify the annihilation of millions of purportedly racially inferior individuals.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby deplore all instances and ideologies of racism, does hereby reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others, and does hereby condemn the extent to which these philosophies have been used to justify and approve racist practices.

\\\\\

Of course here we go. At "rational revolution . net.

Darwin was just a puppy to love.

 

Hey yo mods.  Can we spin this one off into a separate thread?  I wan't to know what this utter fool felt about the rest of the linked article? 

Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.

Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Don't bother talking to

Don't bother talking to bubble-head, he'll just ignore then insult you for not giving him head.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
axarei lavan wrote: Hello

axarei lavan wrote:

Hello everyone, I found this site through luck I imagine, after witnessing the Youtube video. First of all as this is my first post I thought it prudent to introduce myself, I’m Tom, I’m from England and yes I am a Christian. First of all I’m interested in people’s comments on my perception of belief and of Christianity itself, I should be revising for my university entry examinations but I can never let a good discussion go!

You're my kind of person.

axarei lavan wrote:
I'm 18 and while my experience of the world is finite, I have the intelligence and the will to be opinionated, and to be able to express my opinions and choose them freely. God is a private matter for me; I don’t speak of it to people except rare occasions such as now, my point being that how can you possibly deny the emotions and the feelings I get from my beliefs?

Who ever would do such a stupid thing as to deny that someone we've never met didn't feel emotions over something that normally invokes emotions?

axarei lavan wrote:
The freedoms and values enjoyed in your countries and my country today are largely based upon those early Christian principles.
WRONG. I'm sorry, but that's 100% false. My country and yours are based on English commonlaw, which has no basis in religion, but on court decisions that establish good rules for society. Mine also has a strong multicultural background. Multiculturalism has no basis in christianity. The U.S.A. was founded on commonlaw and humanist principles-again, no christianity. Australia:pure English commonlaw. Ditto New Zealand. English Caribbean countries are a combination of English commonlaw, African traditions, and their own cultural innovations. I can't speak of non-english speaking countries, but I doubt that the involvement of religion in a majority of non-theocratic states' systems of governance is overstated.
axarei lavan wrote:
It is not God who kills people, it is not love, anger or hatred that kills and destroys, but it is man.
And it was not Hitler that executed the Jews when he ordered their deaths, but hundreds of soldiers and gas chamber engineers and such. Do you know how many deaths your god either caused in the bible, either by directly ordering it or doing it himself?
axarei lavan wrote:
The will of a man surmounts all religion and thus he uses it to his own ends, men do not do the will of God, they did the will of man in God’s name.
As it has always been.

axarei lavan wrote:
You may have gathered that I’m no fan of organised religion, I belong to no church, and, I give the allegiance of my soul to God and that of my body to my country. Furthermore I believe in evolution, though I am not pretentious enough to stipulate that god doesn’t exist through theories such as these.
Liking you more and more.
axarei lavan wrote:
It simply deepens the mystery, creates layers of knowledge and design that we are only just starting to understand. I have met many physicists who believe in God, they have seen to the ends of the universe and what they found is belief, belief in themselves, in mankind, and in god.
None of us have seen the ends of the universe.
axarei lavan wrote:
Superstition kept people in line, yes fear of God, abused by the powers of the church, but this is again not god, not Christ this is mankind.
How do you know that they existed at all, though? That they weren't simply created as vehicles for control?
axarei lavan wrote:
You may preach humanity, its ideals and principles, and say that they are Bourne out of physiological necessity; you may say that God was used to explain thing science couldn’t and still is.
Wait, who preaches anything? And what does a Matt Damon movie have to do with this?
axarei lavan wrote:
But I put this to you. Would a scientific explanation of Love, and perhaps the response to the loss of Love lessen its impact upon you? Could you understand love and thus deny its significance, what would we become if we understood everything?
We've already scientifically explained love. It doesn't lose its significance, and I don't have to believe in a deity because of it.
axarei lavan wrote:
Mankind isn’t a great species; it’s evolved to be a self-obsessed and morally and intellectually inept in the majority of cases, what gives us the right, what gives you the right to denounce the work of a man who has touched so many people’s lives?
I denounce none of his good works, I say he didn't exist (assuming you're talking about Jesus)
axarei lavan wrote:
Deny the impact of Christ on the world nay on the individual and you deny your own self.
Muh? How?
axarei lavan wrote:
Here’s a quote:

Matt. 6:5

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
I don't pray anywhere.

axarei lavan wrote:
This reiterates my point of belief being private and not an organised affair to me. I believe because it makes me a better person, it makes me as an individual at peace with myself.
Well that is great, but could you not keep that peace without belief in your god?
axarei lavan wrote:
Are you all perfect?
Y ys. I neveer maek misteaks.
axarei lavan wrote:
Do you feel you can reach perfection in your lifetime?
I wouldn't want to.
axarei lavan wrote:
No none of us are, the thought of a power, a force that is drives me forward to better myself, to never think too highly of myself, to put myself forward in helping others. Jesus Christ is God within me, deny him to me and you take my humanity, and leave me but an animal.
Not at all. You can choose to be a good person without Jesus, for the sake of yourself, your friends, family, city, country, race (as in human race...don't become a BNP voter or anything) and planet. Be good for the sake of being good, for the benefits of it, not because you are told to do it. Better yourself because it will make life more enjoyable for you and those around you, not because an invisible and undetectable being wills it.

 

axarei lavan wrote:

Cheers guys i'd love some feedback!

Take care

 

Tom

I will give you some more if you're OK with it. Click the links in my signature, especially the YouTube one.

MattShizzle wrote:
I disagree that logic doesn't apply in love - it should at least. For example, a woman who is beaten by her boyfriend should realize it doesn't make logical sense that he really loves her. And if someone is cheating that doesn't show love. Also, of course, you can't really logically love someone who doesn't exist. Again, as the Bible describes God (torturing those who displease him forever) any logic whatsoever would preclude any normal definition of "love."
Logic can enter into all emotions, really, as a moderating force.


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead

nonbobblehead wrote:

axarei lavan,

Then, Atheism is both a delusion and a religion. Secularists literally dominate Europe.

Right, which is why the CHRISTIAN Democrat party has such a strong showing in the European parliament. Source. Notice that the party with the most seats (277) is the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. Some secularism!

nonbobblehead wrote:
First off if you are a Christian, then read C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity. (Lewis being yet another great British Christian.) Just a note, Atheists surely would have never freed slaves. Remember, evolution promotes slavery.
Yeah...

nonbobblehead wrote:
Lewis was a great thinker that went from agnostic/atheist to Christian.
He was a freemason posing as a christian.
nonbobblehead wrote:
Second stop believing the lie told long enough that Atheism is a rational belief, and that Christians are ignorant.
Everyone is ignorant.

nonbobblehead wrote:
0 x 0 = Atheism.
That isn't a very good refutation of anything, quit using this. No one claims something came from nothing.

nonbobblehead wrote:
Christians have a long history of great thinkers within the Christian Church movement, and yes, just like Atheists and Atheim, they have had a fair share of bad guys amongst them. Not as many as Atheism maybe, but some bad things were done by professing Christians throughout the ages.

I had an atheist over at DebatingChristianity.com come up with a figure of about one-million seven-hundred thousand victims of Christian promoted violence.

Lenin and Stalin with their Marxist Atheism driving their movement killed tens and tens and tens of millions of human beings that dissented of their belif-system. China's atheisys are not far behind. One can only imagine what has happened in other marxist (atheist) countries like Cuba, since as soon as the atheist takes over, we get no info allowed out on what is happening anymore.

I'll allow the great CAPNOAWESOME to debunk this. TAKE IT AWAY, CAPN!

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
Stay a questioning and thinking Christian, and join the long line of intelligent Christiana since the beginning of the Church culture.

And go to Church. You'll find one that suits your liking. One thing about modern-day Christianity, and unlike Atheism, it is wonderously free and diverse.

Given that atheism has no real rules outside of "don't believe in any deity" we're pretty diverse too.

nonbobblehead wrote:

Could you please provide one statement in the New Testament writings - that are the current offerings of today - that "force" anyone into believing in God?

I don't know. Hell is a pretty good forcer.

nonbobblehead wrote:
I have read that both Jesus and Paul said good things about non-believers.
In the bible? What?

nonbobblehead wrote:
I'll re-read again today (since it is a fats read) but I'm pretty sure that "forced belief" is not a Christian doctrine presented in the New Testament.
Again, you're forced to believe in Jesus or suffer for eternity. I.E. you are FORCED into belief.

nonbobblehead wrote:
And, if a person doesn't believe in God or hell, the Christian belief-system shouldn't bother any skeptic or freethinker (who oddly, all think exactly the same) the way we see it does on college campuses, politics, or this website.

We all think the same ON ONE SUBJECT! And some of us disagree there too! ("soft atheists" vs. "hard atheists". So you know, I'm only a hard atheist in bed. Wink)

Besides, religious beliefs most certainly DO affect us when religious people try to rewrite lawbooks to wsuit their beliefs. The same way that Islam affects those who don't believe it when muslim terrorists commit an act of terror. 


PillarMyArse
PillarMyArse's picture
Posts: 65
Joined: 2007-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Capnawesome rocks!    

Capnawesome rocks!

 

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead wrote: I

nonbobblehead wrote:

I realize the hysterical desire for you atheists to paint darwin into a (A) saintly figure of greatness and benvolence,

You realize that? That's funny, because a rational person realizes that his character is moot. What matters is whether his theory holds up.

 

Quote:
 

but the history of those that agreed with survival of the fittest just fit hand in glove with the masters little belief system. Whatever happens in this Atheist versus Christians movement afoot, we had better keep a very serious eye on the violent nature of modern atheism. The 20th century was just a glimpse.

Atheism is a lack of belief in the claims of theists. That's it. You are conflating atheism with communist ideology. Why? Because you' don't know any better. You're ignorant. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
iconoclastic1 wrote: Major

iconoclastic1 wrote:

Major Premise: Cells are too small to see

Minor Premise: People are made of cells

Conclusion: People are too small to see.

 

This is endlessly funny to read.  Honestly...I'm giggling like a school girl.  I don't even know why.  The second one wasn't funny...but this one...priceless.

tee hee hee... small people. 


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Well, Tom... atheist is

Well, Tom... atheist is only one word that describes me - and, on that note, describes very little of me.

 

I do not care what you believe one way or another - I would never EXPECT you to believe anything other than what you desire to.

 

However, I found it pertinent to correct a historical error you made in saying that the "freedoms your country and mine enjoy are based on Christian principles." (paraphrased)...

 

This simply is NOT true. The freedoms that have evolved into our governments, over time, to what we have today have NOT come from Christianity - they have come from secularists and humanists standing AGAINST the oppression of various religions (including Christianity).

 

Take the overwhelming majority of secularists like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, etc. who were NOT Christians - but secularists. America was founded on secular doctrine. Britain's government, likewise, absorbed values of secularists.

 

In reality, the bible teaches its followers to be terrorists to their people. Verses such as "whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman" (2 Chronicles 15:13) ... or Luke 19:27 which says, from Jesus' own lips, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." - these verses are hardly reflective of a religion of peace and love, rather one of anger, hatred, and barbarity. I can give you countless more examples of biblical hatred toward mankind, should you fancy such.

 

I must stress - the only reason Christianity is "peaceful" today - is because it has absorbed these values from secularism and humanism. Christianity has been, historically, as terroristic (and worse) than Islam is today.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
NarcolepticSun

NarcolepticSun wrote:

However, I found it pertinent to correct a historical error you made in saying that the "freedoms your country and mine enjoy are based on Christian principles." (paraphrased)...

 

I totally agree. Historaclly Christianity has been one of the most oppressive relgions. Any decenters to it where either kill or locked away. No where in the bible (that i'm awhere of) does it say that people shall have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.

 

Also related to this thread, you shouldn't "force" yourself to be something that at least right now you are not.  I could give you reasons why I like being an atheist more then a theist but thats me and you might not agree. So it's entirely up to you if you become an atheist. 


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead wrote: Could

nonbobblehead wrote:

Could you please provide one statement in the New Testament writings - that are the current offerings of today - that "force" anyone into believing in God?

I have read that both Jesus and Paul said good things about non-believers.

 Turn with me to Luke - Chapter 19 - Verse 27:

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Or, perhaps, John 3:36: "he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

how about Luke 11:23, "He that is not with me is against me"

or Romans 16:17&18: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."

2 Corinthians 6:14-17:

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you."

Care for any more verses to choke on? 


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
You know i'm sure people

You know i'm sure people get tired of this word but it must be said.

 

Pwned 


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead wrote: Just a

nonbobblehead wrote:

Just a note, Atheists surely would have never freed slaves. Remember, evolution promotes slavery.


WTF? Since when has evolution ever promoted slavery??? Your ignorance does not excuse your shamless slander.

However, the bible wholy approves of slavery. Passages like Luke 12:46-47 liken God to being a slave owner who says those whom do not submit to him "shall be beaten with many stripes". I can give you a rundown of bible-supported slavery if you like Eye-wink

Quote:

0 x 0 = Atheism.


WTF? What is this? Is this some random bullshit you made up to pretend Atheism is nothing? What kind of reacion would you have if I said Christianity is the square root of negative two? Your immaturity here boggles the mind!

Quote:
Christians have a long history of great thinkers within the Christian Church movement, and yes, just like Atheists and Atheim, they have had a fair share of bad guys amongst them. Not as many as Atheism maybe, but some bad things were done by professing Christians throughout the ages.


My... you are quick to slander atheists on a wholesale level, aren't ya? Might you have an example of an atheist whom killed ANYONE in THE NAME OF ATHEISM? Marxism is Marxism - not Atheism.

Quote:

Lenin and Stalin with their Marxist Atheism driving their movement killed tens and tens and tens of millions of human beings that dissented of their belif-system. China's atheisys are not far behind. One can only imagine what has happened in other marxist (atheist) countries like Cuba, since as soon as the atheist takes over, we get no info allowed out on what is happening anymore.


Yes... these guys are some evil fuckers... however... would you care to point out where they are doing shit in the NAME OF ATHEISM??? Bush sent us to war with Iraq because of his belief in God - he literally sent us there in the name of what he worships!!! - Will you give an example of an atheist doing similar?

Quote:

One thing about modern-day Christianity, and unlike Atheism, it is wonderously free and diverse.


Thanks to Humanism.


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
You know i am no texactly

You know i am no texactly sure how you do something in the name of a lack of belief. I think he needs to explain how that is possible.

 

Also, social dariwinism has been totally debunked. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13606
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: not merely empirical

Quote:
not merely empirical evidence which many suggest.

So when I go in to work today to pick up my check, If my boss says "I cant pay you this period" should I use something other than the lack of an emperical check to quit? Or do I quit because I didnt get paid?

"We are not just robots" Yea, so? Just because we have emotions and react emotionaly doesnt mean that natural emotions cant fool us.

Read the following pattern based on your words.

"Allah can be found not just merely on emperical evidence"

"Yahwey can be found not just merely on emperical evidence"

"Jesus can be found not just merely on emperical evidence"

Do you see the fallacy you are commiting based on this pattern?

The reality is that  people do base their beliefs on things other than evidence but just because they think it is evidence is merely mistaking emotions as a replacement for evedence.

Dont get stuck on labels in that example, just look at the pattern and try to understand that other sects and other religious people do not question there warm fuzzy feelings and mistake them for evidence. You are not doing anything differently.

You like what you believe and that is all that is going on here. Human flesh does not magically POOF pop out of dirt. There is no such thing as invisiable godsperm and human flesh cannot survive rigor mortis.

If people dont need "emperical evidence" for those claims I find that sad and disturbing. Certainly you dont buy multiple armed deities or 72 virgins? Why not? 

You dont buy multiple armed deities or 72 virgins for the same reason I dont by godsperm or survival or rigor mortis. When you understand that you'll understand why I reject your deity claims as well.

"Allah will give you rivers of milk and wine in heaven". We know that milk, wine and rivers are real so therefore Allah is the one true god.

"Yahwey told the Hebrews they would have their own nation" Isreal is a nation and Jews live their so the Jewish god is the only real god.

"Apollo pulled the sun across the sky with a chariot". Ancient romans litterally believed this as passionately as Muslims believe in Allah today and as passionately as Christians believe in the birth and death of Jesus.

Since we see statues to Apollo and famous ancient Romans talked of him, Apollo was a real god?

Does it ever occure to people of any religion that they merely baught a myth and like believing that myth? If the ancient people cant buy fiction and falsely call it fact.....and if others outside your current deity claim can buy fiction and believe falsely that it is fact, what makes you think you are immune to human behaivor? 

 


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
I agree totally brian.

I agree totally brian. Nonbobblehead if you wish me to believe what you are saying you must provide one of two things (or both) a deductive argument (with no fallices) and/or an inductive argument based on evidence. If you want to believe in things on emotion that is your progative. It's when you want me to believe in it that i will ask you to leave emotion at the door. If you believed in things based on emotion how can you determine if something is true or false? It's not a way to knowledge (what i seek and why i need one of the 2 arguments above) a way to knowledge necessarily must have a way to distingish between something that is false and what is true (which emotion does not).

 

Also, if you want to use emotion how about this. I feel that Christanity is totally wrong, it is sick and promotes  ignorance. Now have i justed destroyed your entire worldview by saying this? or will you want arguments based on emperical evidence?