Fact vs. Fiction

jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Fact vs. Fiction

Let us answer these questions with all the honesty we can muster...

A yes or no - Fact or Fiction

Babys are born with sinful thought.

Babys are born Atheist.

(Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist) Wikipedia

The bible is made up of true life events.

Atheist are as a rule evil people.

Evolution is made up of fact based science.

Christian believe in god.

(The concept of belief presumes a subject (the believer) and an object of belief (the proposition).So, like other  propositional attitudes, belief implies the existence of mental states and intentionality, both of which are hotly debated topics in the philosophy of mind whose foundations and relation to brain states are still controversial) Wikipedia

I know there are a lot more where these came from, but lets start with these and see where we end up.

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

According to Nazi Germany's standards, it was not cruel and unusual to commit mass genocide.  Therefore, by your logic, the Nazis were not wrong.

 

I am confused.  Are you saying that we should allow genocide or you are trying to imply that Christianity is somehow against genocide? 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

I already know what the Bible says God did.  No need for you to copy and paste passages from atheist websites.  Just answer this:

How do you know that what God does is cruel?  What standard do you have to go on?

I consider choosing people before they are born to either be saved and thus destined for heaven which is supposedly great or not saved and destined to hell which is supposed to be horrible to be cruel.

I consider it cruel to damn people to hell for not believing in god when there is no evidence of his existence.

I consider it cruel to separate people from their loved ones by sending some to hell and others to heaven.

I consider it barbaric to send a loving great person to hell for not believing while allowing murderers and reprobates into heaven. 

Those are all things I am told by Christians their god does. So I draw the conclusion that he is cruel. Do you think those actions are loving? 

I didn't ask what you consider to be cruel.

I'm asking how you know that it is cruel.  What standard do you have to go on?

 

The standards of todays society deem the god of the bible to be cruel and unusual. We all go by societal standards like it or not the bible's standards are no longer useful, if they ever really were to begin with.

According to Nazi Germany's standards, it was not cruel and unusual to commit mass genocide.  Therefore, by your logic, the Nazis were not wrong.

At the time for them yes you are correct. Things we do today may be shockingly terrible to our future counterparts because societal rules "evolve" over time, your point is?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

According to Nazi Germany's standards, it was not cruel and unusual to commit mass genocide.  Therefore, by your logic, the Nazis were not wrong.

 

I am confused.  Are you saying that we should allow genocide or you are trying to imply that Christianity is somehow against genocide? 

yea he spoke before thinking. He also fails to mention it was not "society" that deemed mass genocide was "ok" it was the regime ruling the country or essentially one man. I'm not sure if a census was ever taken about who agreed with mass genocide in nazi germany, our own soldiers in the US have been a bit genocidal while following orders of other men, hardly the society as a whole. Think of vietnam and how many people did not want to be in the war at all. Pretending that all the germans were calculated genocidal killers is rather silly.

edit: btw I notice this is my 1337 post

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 So MOL, a few

 So MOL, a few questions,

(1) Do you agree the items I listed are a correct portrayal of your fictional god?

(2) Do you agree the items I listed are cruel? If not, why not?

 

Again, I am asking the question because I don't understand how Christians can worship a god I see as cruel. In the context I am using it cruel means 

1. disposed to inflict pain or suffering: devoid of humane feelings. 

I argue that each and every one of those items causes pain and suffering. If you want to argue the substance go ahead. But please stop trying to make my question more than it is. If you have some good reason why I should not see those things as cruel let me know. Or can you only cut and paste from theistic websites?

 

Morality, evil etc play no part. I don't believe a being is evil, they only commit evil actions. Cruel does not equal evil, see my shark example. Either god is disposed to inflicting pain and suffering or not. What do you believe? Or can you only critique the phrasing of my question? I will admit to not being a lawyer so my argument might not have been phrased perfectly but anyone with a little common sense should understand what I am asking.  

 

 

BTW the Puritan tradition is well known for believing that god was cruel. He was portrayed as vengeful and wrathful. I don't know how common that is in modern day christianity but I doubt it is non-existent. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
robj101

robj101 wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

I already know what the Bible says God did.  No need for you to copy and paste passages from atheist websites.  Just answer this:

How do you know that what God does is cruel?  What standard do you have to go on?

I consider choosing people before they are born to either be saved and thus destined for heaven which is supposedly great or not saved and destined to hell which is supposed to be horrible to be cruel.

I consider it cruel to damn people to hell for not believing in god when there is no evidence of his existence.

I consider it cruel to separate people from their loved ones by sending some to hell and others to heaven.

I consider it barbaric to send a loving great person to hell for not believing while allowing murderers and reprobates into heaven. 

Those are all things I am told by Christians their god does. So I draw the conclusion that he is cruel. Do you think those actions are loving? 

I didn't ask what you consider to be cruel.

I'm asking how you know that it is cruel.  What standard do you have to go on?

 

The standards of todays society deem the god of the bible to be cruel and unusual. We all go by societal standards like it or not the bible's standards are no longer useful, if they ever really were to begin with.

According to Nazi Germany's standards, it was not cruel and unusual to commit mass genocide.  Therefore, by your logic, the Nazis were not wrong.

At the time for them yes you are correct. Things we do today may be shockingly terrible to our future counterparts because societal rules "evolve" over time, your point is?

So, according to you, everything the Nazis did was okay.

Your worldview, not mine.

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
 Personally I think it is

 Personally I think it is cruel and i think its sick and twisted too but I'm not gonna argue your endless point with you. And what makes you want to brag cuz you think you won a debate. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not aware of a score card.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
To help you MOL Choosing

To help you MOL 

Choosing people before they are born to either be saved and thus destined for heaven which is supposedly great or not saved and destined to hell which is supposed to be horrible to be cruel. Because people have absolutely no choice. No matter what they do with their lives they are condemned to pain and suffering in hell. Therefore, choosing people before they are born to go to hell is disposed towards inflicting pain and suffering.

Damning people to hell for not believing in god when there is no evidence of his existence is cruel because the punishment far outweighs the crime. Especially since god apparently picks before we are born who will believe in him and who wont. That action is disposed towards inflicting pain and suffering.

Separating people from their loved ones by sending some to hell and others to heaven causes pain and suffering. In addition to whatever punishment awaits in hell being eternally separated from the ones you love is extremely painful even for the ones who go to heaven. That action is disposed towards inflicting pain and suffering.

Sending a great loving person to hell for not believing while allowing murderers and reprobates into heaven causes pain and suffering to someone who led a great life while rewarding those who cause pain on Earth. That action is disposed towards inflicting pain and suffering.

 

Since I am using the word cruel to mean disposed towards inflicting pain and suffering I would say my standard is pretty clear. Does a particular action consistently cause pain and suffering. In all of these cases I say yes. You are welcome to disagree. Would you say any of these actions don't? If so which ones and why? 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: So

Beyond Saving wrote:

 So MOL, a few questions,

(1) Do you agree the items I listed are a correct portrayal of your fictional god?

No because I have no fictional God.  I only believe in a real God.

No, your portrayal was not accurate.  You said that God condemns people for not believing in Him.  That is incorrect.  God never condemns people for not believing in Him, He condemns people for sinning.  We are naturally inclined to break God's laws, due to the imputed sin of Adam.  Because of this, you are automatically subject to God's condemnation, as you are born under separation from Him.  The only way to be exempt from his judgment is to put your faith and trust in Christ.  Once again, God is not punishing you for not believing in Him.  He is punishing you for your sins.   

You said there is no evidence for his existence.  You are incorrect, there is evidence.  There is just no evidence that you will accept.  We have the cosmological proofs, ontological proofs, fine tuning, specified complexity, moral absolutes, eternal truths of math and logic, biblical prophecy, and the historical evidence for Jesus and the Resurrection.  You've simply rejected all of this because you do not like the idea of God, but it is obvious that God exists.

You said that God separates people from their loved ones.  That is incorrect.  People separate themselves from their loved ones when they choose sin instead of following the path of their loved ones, who will be with God in Heaven.

You said that God sends loving great people to Heaven for not believing.  Once again, this is inaccurate.  God will never send a good person to Hell.  He only sends sinners to Hell.  And he never does it for not believing.

You said that God allows murderers into Heaven.  That is inaccurate.  God will allow into Heaven someone who once committed a murder but repented of his action.  This person is now regenerate and is no longer a murderer.

Quote:
(2) Do you agree the items I listed are cruel? If not, why not?

No, God is not cruel.  Being cruel is enjoying the suffering of others.  If God enjoyed our suffering, he would not have been merciful and provided a way for us to be saved.

Quote:
Morality, evil etc play no part. I don't believe a being is evil, they only commit evil actions. Cruel does not equal evil, see my shark example. Either god is disposed to inflicting pain and suffering or not. What do you believe? Or can you only critique the phrasing of my question? I will admit to not being a lawyer so my argument might not have been phrased perfectly but anyone with a little common sense should understand what I am asking.  

God does inflict pain and suffering, but only if it's deserved.  God has a particular standard and He is not going to meet us halfway. 

You are just trivializing the meaning of "cruel" by using the most generic definition you can find.  In the Oxford dictionary, it's defined as "showing a sadistic disregard for pain and suffering of others", this is what people mean by the term.  If you define it in a generic way, then all doctors are cruel when they give babies a shot, or they are cruel when they amputate the leg of someone who cannot be numbed due to allergic reactions.  Or a police officer is cruel when he tazes a criminal.  If you want to trivialize the term in that way, then yes, God is cruel.  But since it is not morally wrong, it really does not matter.

Quote:
BTW the Puritan tradition is well known for believing that god was cruel. He was portrayed as vengeful and wrathful. I don't know how common that is in modern day christianity but I doubt it is non-existent. 

Source?  Book?  Any quotations from a Puritan? 

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life wrote:So,

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
So, according to you, everything the Nazis did was okay.

Your worldview, not mine.

Here, I'll bite the bullet for you, as hard as possible.

There is no objective morality. All moral claims are merely preferences, like aesthetics, like what flavor of ice cream do you like. Therefore, nothing the Nazis did was absolutely wrong. Of course, likewise, nothing they did was right or okay either.  

Statements about cultural and societal standards can only be descriptive, not normative. I would not claim that people should follow their society's standards nor would I claim that everyone followed those standards all the time, only that people tend to conform.


 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

I already know what the Bible says God did.  No need for you to copy and paste passages from atheist websites.  Just answer this:

How do you know that what God does is cruel?  What standard do you have to go on?

I consider choosing people before they are born to either be saved and thus destined for heaven which is supposedly great or not saved and destined to hell which is supposed to be horrible to be cruel.

I consider it cruel to damn people to hell for not believing in god when there is no evidence of his existence.

I consider it cruel to separate people from their loved ones by sending some to hell and others to heaven.

I consider it barbaric to send a loving great person to hell for not believing while allowing murderers and reprobates into heaven. 

Those are all things I am told by Christians their god does. So I draw the conclusion that he is cruel. Do you think those actions are loving? 

I didn't ask what you consider to be cruel.

I'm asking how you know that it is cruel.  What standard do you have to go on?

 

The standards of todays society deem the god of the bible to be cruel and unusual. We all go by societal standards like it or not the bible's standards are no longer useful, if they ever really were to begin with.

According to Nazi Germany's standards, it was not cruel and unusual to commit mass genocide.  Therefore, by your logic, the Nazis were not wrong.

At the time for them yes you are correct. Things we do today may be shockingly terrible to our future counterparts because societal rules "evolve" over time, your point is?

So, according to you, everything the Nazis did was okay.

Your worldview, not mine.

Correct, what they did was wrong according to todays standards, but at the time and in that place they thought it was right.  In biblical days they did stone children to death, to them it was right, now it is abhorrent. It is the realistic worldview, you seem to be a here and now and always has been and will be kind of guy.  Consider ww2 internment camps here in the US, was it right? Today we would say no for certain, back then it was obviously acceptable.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
BTW if you would like to

BTW if you would like to pretend that you would hold the same moral values had you been born in another time that's unrealistic, much like religion

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Correct, what

robj101 wrote:

Correct, what they did was wrong according to todays standards, but at the time and in that place they thought it was right.  In biblical days they did stone children to death, to them it was right, now it is abhorrent. It is the realistic worldview, you seem to be a here and now and always has been and will be kind of guy.  Consider ww2 internment camps here in the US, was it right? Today we would say no for certain, back then it was obviously acceptable.

So, if our society decided that raping was okay, would you go out and rape someone?  If not, why?

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Correct, what they did was wrong according to todays standards, but at the time and in that place they thought it was right.  In biblical days they did stone children to death, to them it was right, now it is abhorrent. It is the realistic worldview, you seem to be a here and now and always has been and will be kind of guy.  Consider ww2 internment camps here in the US, was it right? Today we would say no for certain, back then it was obviously acceptable.

So, if our society decided that raping was okay, would you go out and rape someone?  If not, why?

I'm tempted to say no because it is not acceptable and with my current mindset it is simply NOT acceptable, however I do have the capacity to visualize a society that would propogate rape and in this case yes I can see that. I already mentioned the stoning children thing, how much further would you wish to go with this line of thought?

You are trying to rationalize your current beliefs and values with x y and z possibilities, it's just not realistic.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Another way to put it, with

Another way to put it, with your current "morals" you could be stoned, hanged burned alive etc by your own religious sect if you lived 500 years ago.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I'm tempted to

robj101 wrote:
I'm tempted to say no because it is not acceptable and with my current mindset it is simply NOT acceptable, however I do have the capacity to visualize a society that would propogate rape and in this case yes I can see that. I already mentioned the stoning children thing, how much further would you wish to go with this line of thought?

You are trying to rationalize your current beliefs and values with x y and z possibilities, it's just not realistic.

Huh?

You're just describing the influence of culture on what people consider moral. Right? You're not implying that we actually should do whatever our culture dictates. Right? If you lived in a society that found rape acceptable, you still wouldn't rape anyone because you don't want to rape anyone. Right?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I'm tempted to

robj101 wrote:

I'm tempted to say no because it is not acceptable and with my current mindset it is simply NOT acceptable, however I do have the capacity to visualize a society that would propogate rape and in this case yes I can see that. I already mentioned the stoning children thing, how much further would you wish to go with this line of thought?

I'm asking you:  If society decided tommorow that rape was okay, would you go out and rape someone?  If not, why?

Let's say that tommorow, you find out on the news that everyone in the entire country has decided that rape is a great thing and that we ought to go out and do it.   The president said that rape is allowed and that all males should go out and do it. When you look outside, women all over the place are being thrown on the ground, stripped, and forcibly raped.  The women do not like it, but they accept it as part of their society and close their eyes while they get raped. 

Are you going to go and find a woman for yourself?  Or are you going to do everything in your power to change society?  If so, why?

Quote:
You are trying to rationalize your current beliefs and values with x y and z possibilities, it's just not realistic.

That's not a legitimate rebuttal.  If it's not logically contradictory, then it is possible.  Please answer the question.

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:robj101

butterbattle wrote:

robj101 wrote:
I'm tempted to say no because it is not acceptable and with my current mindset it is simply NOT acceptable, however I do have the capacity to visualize a society that would propogate rape and in this case yes I can see that. I already mentioned the stoning children thing, how much further would you wish to go with this line of thought?

You are trying to rationalize your current beliefs and values with x y and z possibilities, it's just not realistic.

Huh?

You're just describing the influence of culture on what people consider moral. Right? You're not implying that we should do whatever our culture dictates. Right? If you were in a society that found rape to be acceptable, you still wouldn't rape people because you don't want to rape anyone. Right?

 

 I'm not saying it is written in stone that because society does and accepts certain behavior we would all be doing it, you can look at our little less than 10% and see that. But it is still more than plausible considering there is a "norm" and conformity is generally easier than non conformity.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:robj101

butterbattle wrote:

robj101 wrote:
I'm tempted to say no because it is not acceptable and with my current mindset it is simply NOT acceptable, however I do have the capacity to visualize a society that would propogate rape and in this case yes I can see that. I already mentioned the stoning children thing, how much further would you wish to go with this line of thought?

You are trying to rationalize your current beliefs and values with x y and z possibilities, it's just not realistic.

Huh?

You're just describing the influence of culture on what people consider moral. Right? You're not implying that we actually should do whatever our culture dictates. Right? If you lived in a society that found rape acceptable, you still wouldn't rape anyone because you don't want to rape anyone. Right?

LOL

Sorry that he couldn't obfuscate as well as you in order to make moral relativism appear tenable. 

"No no no!  Don't say that!  Then they will know that moral relativism doesn't actually work and that we just use obfuscatory tactics!"

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I'm tempted to say no because it is not acceptable and with my current mindset it is simply NOT acceptable, however I do have the capacity to visualize a society that would propogate rape and in this case yes I can see that. I already mentioned the stoning children thing, how much further would you wish to go with this line of thought?

I'm asking you:  If society decided tommorow that rape was okay, would you go out and rape someone?  If not, why?

Let's say that tommorow, you find out on the news that everyone in the entire country has decided that rape is a great thing and that we ought to go out and do it.   The president said that rape is allowed and that all males should go out and do it. When you look outside, women all over the place are being thrown on the ground, stripped, and forcibly raped.  The women do not like it, but they accept it as part of their society and close their eyes while they get raped. 

Are you going to go and find a woman for yourself?  Or are you going to do everything in your power to change society?  If so, why?

Quote:
You are trying to rationalize your current beliefs and values with x y and z possibilities, it's just not realistic.

That's not a legitimate rebuttal.  If it's not logically contradictory, then it is possible.  Please answer the question.

ah clarity, I would ask why this change has occured, now you will have to explain why it has occured for me to continue.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
robj101

robj101 wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I'm tempted to say no because it is not acceptable and with my current mindset it is simply NOT acceptable, however I do have the capacity to visualize a society that would propogate rape and in this case yes I can see that. I already mentioned the stoning children thing, how much further would you wish to go with this line of thought?

I'm asking you:  If society decided tommorow that rape was okay, would you go out and rape someone?  If not, why?

Let's say that tommorow, you find out on the news that everyone in the entire country has decided that rape is a great thing and that we ought to go out and do it.   The president said that rape is allowed and that all males should go out and do it. When you look outside, women all over the place are being thrown on the ground, stripped, and forcibly raped.  The women do not like it, but they accept it as part of their society and close their eyes while they get raped. 

Are you going to go and find a woman for yourself?  Or are you going to do everything in your power to change society?  If so, why?

Quote:
You are trying to rationalize your current beliefs and values with x y and z possibilities, it's just not realistic.

That's not a legitimate rebuttal.  If it's not logically contradictory, then it is possible.  Please answer the question.

ah clarity, I would ask why this change has occured, now you will have to explain why it has occured for me to continue.

It occurred because people decided, on a whim, that they want to rape.

Does it even matter?  The point is, it occurred.  Now what do you do about it?  Do you go out and rape someone, or do you try to convince people that rape is wrong and that they should not do it?  If so, how do you convince them that it is wrong?  do you just say, "Oh, it's my personal opinion.  I just don't like it"?

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:ah clarity, I

robj101 wrote:
ah clarity, I would ask why this change has occured, now you will have to explain why it has occured for me to continue.

Why the **** does he have to do that?

It's a hypothetical question. The change hasn't occurred. Do you want him to make up a hypothetical reason for why the hypothetical situation occurred?

 

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
More unrealistic carp.Fine

More unrealistic carp.

Fine I'll bite, yes I would stand up and shout from the fukin rooftops that everyone has gone fukin insane in the span of one day and I would open fire w/ my .380 on every rapist I crossed untill I myself was killed.

It is not what I was raised with and rape is not in my list of productive behavior.

Completely unrealistic question attempting to use emotionalism, a red herring and a strawman in the same paragraph.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:robj101

butterbattle wrote:

robj101 wrote:
ah clarity, I would ask why this change has occured, now you will have to explain why it has occured for me to continue.

Why the **** does he have to do that?

It's a hypothetical question. The change hasn't occurred. Do you want him to make up a hypothetical reason for why the hypothetical situation occurred?

 

 

 

Because it's wacky as hell ?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:More

robj101 wrote:

More unrealistic carp.

Fine I'll bite, yes I would stand up and shout from the fukin rooftops that everyone has gone fukin insane in the span of one day and I would open fire w/ my .380 on every rapist I crossed untill I myself was killed.

It is not what I was raised with and rape is not in my list of productive behavior.

Completely unrealistic question attempting to use emotionalism, a red herring and a strawman in the same paragraph.

Ah, so morals are not based on society, are they?

Are you now claiming that they are based on what our parents teach us?  Because I would just ask the same thing:  If your parents called you tommorow and told you that rape was okay, would you go out and rape someone?

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life wrote:Sorry

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
Sorry that he couldn't obfuscate as well as you in order to make moral relativism appear tenable. 

"No no no!  Don't say that!  Then they will know that moral relativism doesn't actually work and that we just use obfuscatory tactics!"

I really hope you're joking, but somehow, I doubt it.

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:More

robj101 wrote:

More unrealistic carp.

Fine I'll bite, yes I would stand up and shout from the fukin rooftops that everyone has gone fukin insane in the span of one day and I would open fire w/ my .380 on every rapist I crossed untill I myself was killed.

It is not what I was raised with and rape is not in my list of productive behavior.

Completely unrealistic question attempting to use emotionalism, a red herring and a strawman in the same paragraph.

Ah, so morals are not based on society, are they?

Are you now claiming that they are based on what our parents teach us?  Because I would just ask the same thing:  If your parents called you tommorow and told you that rape was okay, would you go out and rape someone?

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

robj101 wrote:

More unrealistic carp.

Fine I'll bite, yes I would stand up and shout from the fukin rooftops that everyone has gone fukin insane in the span of one day and I would open fire w/ my .380 on every rapist I crossed untill I myself was killed.

It is not what I was raised with and rape is not in my list of productive behavior.

Completely unrealistic question attempting to use emotionalism, a red herring and a strawman in the same paragraph.

Ah, so morals are not based on society, are they?

Are you now claiming that they are based on what our parents teach us?  Because I would just ask the same thing:  If your parents called you tommorow and told you that rape was okay, would you go out and rape someone?

The society I was raised in did not rape. Your argument is flawed. If your parents teach you to kill people in society you will be imprisoned or put to death yourself..by society. Therefore parents do not raise their children to break the rules set by society.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:
Sorry that he couldn't obfuscate as well as you in order to make moral relativism appear tenable. 

"No no no!  Don't say that!  Then they will know that moral relativism doesn't actually work and that we just use obfuscatory tactics!"

I really hope you're joking, but somehow, I doubt it.

 

 

He thinks he's onto some groundbreaking revelation or something

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:The society I

robj101 wrote:
The society I was raised in did not rape. Your argument is flawed. If your parents teach you to kill people in society you will be imprisoned or put to death yourself..by society. Therefore parents do not raise their children to break the rules set by society.

No. No. No.

No offense, rob, but you're making this a lot harder than it needs to be. This Christian posed the hypothetical situation about raping to you because he thought you were espousing a form of cultural relativism, where what is right is whatever the culture dictates. It's a very common strawman of what we believe, but I don't think he's completely at fault here because you kind of misled him. That's not what you believe, right? Right? 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/moral2.html 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:robj101

butterbattle wrote:

robj101 wrote:
The society I was raised in did not rape. Your argument is flawed. If your parents teach you to kill people in society you will be imprisoned or put to death yourself..by society. Therefore parents do not raise their children to break the rules set by society.

No. No. No.

No offense, rob, but you're making this a lot harder than it needs to be. This Christian posed the hypothetical situation about raping to you because he thought you were espousing a form of cultural relativism, where what is right is whatever the culture dictates. It's a very common strawman of what we believe, but I don't think he's completely at fault here because you kind of misled him. That's not what you believe, right? Right? 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/moral2.html 

 

I don't have to clik a link, if you have a better argument then step in. I believe mine is quite valid. He is insinuating that someone could be swayed *on a dime* by culture, society or parental teaching.

I believe we get our morals from society and parents are a part of society, it's a collective that evolves and productive and non productive behavior can change over time, not at the drop of a hat. I don't really give a shiz about what anyone else thinks.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Just checking in on my post.

Just checking in on my post. I am having some Internet issues at this hotel. I will try to post tomorrow to get back to the point I was attempting to make. I am not complaining my post was hijacked like some others have done, however I have not made my point yet. It is hard to do so on this I-phone.

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

robj101 wrote:

More unrealistic carp.

Fine I'll bite, yes I would stand up and shout from the fukin rooftops that everyone has gone fukin insane in the span of one day and I would open fire w/ my .380 on every rapist I crossed untill I myself was killed.

It is not what I was raised with and rape is not in my list of productive behavior.

Completely unrealistic question attempting to use emotionalism, a red herring and a strawman in the same paragraph.

Ah, so morals are not based on society, are they?

Are you now claiming that they are based on what our parents teach us?  Because I would just ask the same thing:  If your parents called you tommorow and told you that rape was okay, would you go out and rape someone?

 

Let's see if I can confuse everyone a little more.

MOL - have you heard a song, "Strange Fruit"?

Quote:

Strange Fruit

Southern trees bear strange fruit,

Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,

Black body swinging in the Southern breeze,

Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

Pastoral scene of the gallant South,

The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,

Scent of magnolia sweet and fresh,

Then the sudden smell of burning flesh!

Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,

For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,

For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,

Here is a strange and bitter crop.

 

This is a poem written in 1936.  Billie Holiday set it to music, sang it and recorded it.  So you tell me MOL, why was it okay to hang and burn black men in the previous century?  Lynchings didn't stop until the Civil Rights Movement got going - in the late 1960s.  When prosecutors were finally forced to prosecute the white guys responsible.  Unlike the poem, I know it wasn't just the South.  It happened in the northern mid west as well though not as late as 1960.

So why was it okay for these church going good old boys to lynch black men?  Yes, I'm being polite - or mealy mouthing if you prefer - as the white fellas didn't call them black or even colored. 

It's okay for you to tell me it was murder then just as it is murder now not right then as it is not right now.  I agree.  Why weren't these honkies strung up like their victims?

You can tell me that morals never change and I will continue to think up recent examples of how morals have changed in the U.S. in the last century.  Piece of cake for me, I lived a lot of it.  You can also try to do the let's change morals today shtick - and I will cheerfully point out that it doesn't work that way.  It took damn near a CENTURY before church going white people were consistently prosecuted for murder for killing black people.

Morals change.  Society dictates the changes.  The law has very little to do with morals, it often doesn't enforce the laws we have that might be related to morals.  You want to prove that morals are absolute - only in some fantasy land, dude.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

According to Nazi Germany's standards, it was not cruel and unusual to commit mass genocide.  Therefore, by your logic, the Nazis were not wrong.

Reductio Ad Hitlerum at work. Goodwin's Law says, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

How so true, how so true...

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
MoL, you are being obtuse

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

According to Nazi Germany's standards, it was not cruel and unusual to commit mass genocide.  Therefore, by your logic, the Nazis were not wrong.

 

 

This number here - 11,705,250 - is the number of allied soldiers who died to destroy Nazi Germany. Feel free to elaborate on the evil natures of these gallant men.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: You want to prove

cj wrote:

 You want to prove that morals are absolute - only in some fantasy land, dude.

This is what I have been working him over on. If he doesn't see it by now he is either retarded or in denial.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life wrote:No,

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

No, your portrayal was not accurate.  You said that God condemns people for not believing in Him.  That is incorrect.  God never condemns people for not believing in Him, He condemns people for sinning.  We are naturally inclined to break God's laws, due to the imputed sin of Adam.  Because of this, you are automatically subject to God's condemnation, as you are born under separation from Him.  The only way to be exempt from his judgment is to put your faith and trust in Christ.  Once again, God is not punishing you for not believing in Him.  He is punishing you for your sins.   

You said there is no evidence for his existence.  You are incorrect, there is evidence.  There is just no evidence that you will accept.  We have the cosmological proofs, ontological proofs, fine tuning, specified complexity, moral absolutes, eternal truths of math and logic, biblical prophecy, and the historical evidence for Jesus and the Resurrection.  You've simply rejected all of this because you do not like the idea of God, but it is obvious that God exists.

You said that God separates people from their loved ones.  That is incorrect.  People separate themselves from their loved ones when they choose sin instead of following the path of their loved ones, who will be with God in Heaven.

You said that God sends loving great people to Heaven for not believing.  Once again, this is inaccurate.  God will never send a good person to Hell.  He only sends sinners to Hell.  And he never does it for not believing.

You said that God allows murderers into Heaven.  That is inaccurate.  God will allow into Heaven someone who once committed a murder but repented of his action.  This person is now regenerate and is no longer a murderer.

Quote:
(2) Do you agree the items I listed are cruel? If not, why not?

No, God is not cruel.  Being cruel is enjoying the suffering of others.  If God enjoyed our suffering, he would not have been merciful and provided a way for us to be saved.

Quote:
Morality, evil etc play no part. I don't believe a being is evil, they only commit evil actions. Cruel does not equal evil, see my shark example. Either god is disposed to inflicting pain and suffering or not. What do you believe? Or can you only critique the phrasing of my question? I will admit to not being a lawyer so my argument might not have been phrased perfectly but anyone with a little common sense should understand what I am asking.  

God does inflict pain and suffering, but only if it's deserved.  God has a particular standard and He is not going to meet us halfway. 

You are just trivializing the meaning of "cruel" by using the most generic definition you can find.  In the Oxford dictionary, it's defined as "showing a sadistic disregard for pain and suffering of others", this is what people mean by the term.  If you define it in a generic way, then all doctors are cruel when they give babies a shot, or they are cruel when they amputate the leg of someone who cannot be numbed due to allergic reactions.  Or a police officer is cruel when he tazes a criminal.  If you want to trivialize the term in that way, then yes, God is cruel.  But since it is not morally wrong, it really does not matter.

Quote:
BTW the Puritan tradition is well known for believing that god was cruel. He was portrayed as vengeful and wrathful. I don't know how common that is in modern day christianity but I doubt it is non-existent. 

Source?  Book?  Any quotations from a Puritan? 

Very good MOL, you finally addressed my original question. As it turns out my question does not apply to you at all. My question was founded on two premises

(1) god does condemn people to hell solely for not believing in him

(2) god predetermines who will and who will not be saved prior to birth. 

Those were the two points that crossover made and hence led to my question. It appears that you do not agree with crossovers interpretation of the bible. If you don't believe those to points then you fall into the "kittens and rainbows" group (thanks cj) and the question is not aimed towards you because you obviously ignore portions of the bible. And apparently you have large struggles with the English language as well. 

 

And yes, sending people to burn in hell for eternity is sadistic. If I had the power to send people to hell for eternity I wouldn't send anyone there. Do you know how long eternity is? I wouldn't do that to any being. Can you picture what a person on fire for eternity looks and sounds like?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Very

Beyond Saving wrote:

Very good MOL, you finally addressed my original question. As it turns out my question does not apply to you at all. My question was founded on two premises

(1) god does condemn people to hell solely for not believing in him

(2) god predetermines who will and who will not be saved prior to birth. 

Those were the two points that crossover made and hence led to my question. It appears that you do not agree with crossovers interpretation of the bible. If you don't believe those to points then you fall into the "kittens and rainbows" group (thanks cj) and the question is not aimed towards you because you obviously ignore portions of the bible.

Apparently you are an expert in theology.  May I ask what degree you have?  What seminaries you've attended?  What theology courses you've taken?

What portions of the Bible say that God condemns you to Hell solely for not believing in Him? 

God's judgement is not based on your belief.  It is based on your ability to keep his law.  When Jesus died on the cross, he took God's judgment for us.  This is not an interpretation.  It is what the Bible says

Where you are getting confused is here:  We escape Hell by putting our faith and trust in Jesus.  This does not mean that we are saved based on our belief.  It means that our belief exempts us from God's judgment.  Read that bold part a few times before responding.  In other words, if we put our faith and trust in Jesus, then God's judgment falls upon Jesus instead of us.  God does not accept us into Heaven because we believe in Him.  He accepts us into Heaven because we are not subject to his judgment if we allow Christ to take it for us.  Judgment is based on LAW, not on BELIEF.

If you cannot grasp this, then there is no point in me continuing the discussion with you because you clearly have no understanding of Christian theology.

If you understand this but disagree, then please tell me what portions of the Bible contradict this.

Quote:
And yes, sending people to burn in hell for eternity is sadistic. If I had the power to send people to hell for eternity I wouldn't send anyone there. Do you know how long eternity is? I wouldn't do that to any being. Can you picture what a person on fire for eternity looks and sounds like?

I love how atheists make errors and continue to defend their errors.

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
John 3:18 He that believeth

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
 

Theres point one.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
 What's funny about this

 What's funny about this whole discussion is that the original question about being chosen before we were even born wasn't directed at mol but he jumps on the opportunity to try to make an [email protected]% out of someone. The whole "slam!" thing is really immature. I've never even a preacher get so bent out of shape over trying to get a nonbeliever to understand.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:And yes,

Beyond Saving wrote:

And yes, sending people to burn in hell for eternity is sadistic. If I had the power to send people to hell for eternity I wouldn't send anyone there. Do you know how long eternity is? I wouldn't do that to any being. Can you picture what a person on fire for eternity looks and sounds like?

 

Unless their vocal chords are magically regrown like Prometheus' liver, there wouldn't be any sound.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life wrote:Beyond

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Very good MOL, you finally addressed my original question. As it turns out my question does not apply to you at all. My question was founded on two premises

(1) god does condemn people to hell solely for not believing in him

(2) god predetermines who will and who will not be saved prior to birth. 

Those were the two points that crossover made and hence led to my question. It appears that you do not agree with crossovers interpretation of the bible. If you don't believe those to points then you fall into the "kittens and rainbows" group (thanks cj) and the question is not aimed towards you because you obviously ignore portions of the bible.

Apparently you are an expert in theology.  May I ask what degree you have?  What seminaries you've attended?  What theology courses you've taken?

What portions of the Bible say that God condemns you to Hell solely for not believing in Him? 

God's judgement is not based on your belief.  It is based on your ability to keep his law.  When Jesus died on the cross, he took God's judgment for us.  This is not an interpretation.  It is what the Bible says

Where you are getting confused is here:  We escape Hell by putting our faith and trust in Jesus.  This does not mean that we are saved based on our belief.  It means that our belief exempts us from God's judgment.  Read that bold part a few times before responding.  In other words, if we put our faith and trust in Jesus, then God's judgment falls upon Jesus instead of us.  God does not accept us into Heaven because we believe in Him.  He accepts us into Heaven because we are not subject to his judgment if we allow Christ to take it for us.  Judgment is based on LAW, not on BELIEF.

If you cannot grasp this, then there is no point in me continuing the discussion with you because you clearly have no understanding of Christian theology.

If you understand this but disagree, then please tell me what portions of the Bible contradict this.

Quote:
And yes, sending people to burn in hell for eternity is sadistic. If I had the power to send people to hell for eternity I wouldn't send anyone there. Do you know how long eternity is? I wouldn't do that to any being. Can you picture what a person on fire for eternity looks and sounds like?

I love how atheists make errors and continue to defend their errors.

 

The person you need to argue with over this is another christian, Crossover.  Leave Beyond alone, as he was also arguing with Crossover.  It's Crossover's christian belief, dumb ass.  How many times do you have to be told?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life wrote:Beyond

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Very good MOL, you finally addressed my original question. As it turns out my question does not apply to you at all. My question was founded on two premises

(1) god does condemn people to hell solely for not believing in him

(2) god predetermines who will and who will not be saved prior to birth. 

Those were the two points that crossover made and hence led to my question. It appears that you do not agree with crossovers interpretation of the bible. If you don't believe those to points then you fall into the "kittens and rainbows" group (thanks cj) and the question is not aimed towards you because you obviously ignore portions of the bible.

Apparently you are an expert in theology.  May I ask what degree you have?  What seminaries you've attended?  What theology courses you've taken?

What portions of the Bible say that God condemns you to Hell solely for not believing in Him? 

God's judgement is not based on your belief.  It is based on your ability to keep his law.  When Jesus died on the cross, he took God's judgment for us.  This is not an interpretation.  It is what the Bible says

Where you are getting confused is here:  We escape Hell by putting our faith and trust in Jesus.  This does not mean that we are saved based on our belief.  It means that our belief exempts us from God's judgment.  Read that bold part a few times before responding.  In other words, if we put our faith and trust in Jesus, then God's judgment falls upon Jesus instead of us.  God does not accept us into Heaven because we believe in Him.  He accepts us into Heaven because we are not subject to his judgment if we allow Christ to take it for us.  Judgment is based on LAW, not on BELIEF.

If you cannot grasp this, then there is no point in me continuing the discussion with you because you clearly have no understanding of Christian theology.

If you understand this but disagree, then please tell me what portions of the Bible contradict this.

Quote:
And yes, sending people to burn in hell for eternity is sadistic. If I had the power to send people to hell for eternity I wouldn't send anyone there. Do you know how long eternity is? I wouldn't do that to any being. Can you picture what a person on fire for eternity looks and sounds like?

I love how atheists make errors and continue to defend their errors.

I never claimed to be an expert in theology that is why I was asking Crossover a question about his beliefs not arguing that his beliefs are not consistent with the bible. I don't care if his beliefs are consistent with the bible or not. Perhaps you had better have your theological argument with crossover and several other theists who have expressed similar beliefs to me. I have better things to do with my time than to become an expert in every religion.

 

My degree is a BA in economics and political science. I don't know why you are so hung up on me not being an expert on your bible. I never pretended to be nor ever portrayed myself as one. 

 

As it turns out there was no point for you to enter the discussion in the first place because your beliefs are apparently not the same as Crossover's and I was asking a question specific to what he believes. I know you find it hard to understand that not all Christians agree with you 100%.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
rebecca.williamson

rebecca.williamson wrote:

 What's funny about this whole discussion is that the original question about being chosen before we were even born wasn't directed at mol but he jumps on the opportunity to try to make an [email protected]% out of someone. The whole "slam!" thing is really immature. I've never even a preacher get so bent out of shape over trying to get a nonbeliever to understand.

And he doesn't even do a good job of it. If you are going to randomly slam someone make it good. I hope Crossover bothers tho read the thread and answer my question and doesn't decide to abandon it because it got so long while he has been gone.

 

cj wrote:

Unless their vocal chords are magically regrown like Prometheus' liver, there wouldn't be any sound.

Good point. Although to burn for eternity the body would have to be magically regrown so I assume the vocal chords would as well. Maybe we need our theological expert MOL to tell us.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Getting back to my point:

I know that to some of you this point was so obvious that it slaps you in the face, but for those lost in translation... Here goes:

People have often told me that having a child brought them closer to god. How this could happen puzzles me. I by even MOL standards that the child is born predestined to either haven or hell. Why would this bring you closer to god, or bring you to god.

I child is born into this world with no religion. FACT. God did not create that child you did.

Now for every infant in the maternity ward there is someone, probably in that same hospital dying. Or a child born with problems.

To think that this is an intelligent design is absorbed.

No child is born predestined to spend eternity in hell. Because there is no hell, to say that we are predestined before birth to spend eternity in hell is also just plain stupid.

Next time you think that your "god" is good think about "your" rationale for this. Do me a favor and go down to your local maternity ward and tell those parents that you god has already chosen which one make it, and which ones don't, see how that works out for you. You are sick in the $#%^ head and there's not much more that can be said.

You should really think about your life chosen, this is the only life your going to have don't spend it in the sand box arguing with other about your imaginary friend...

As a parent of a child with problems from birth I can say that your rationale is EXTREMELY sick and twisted..ie..Fucked the fuck up

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:John 3:18 He

robj101 wrote:

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Theres point one.

It's not a point. I've already said: Belief is the escape from God's judgment.  God does not judge you based on your belief, you escape his judgement by believing

That is why it says that you do not believe, then you are already condemned; he judges you based on the law and you've already broken it.  If you do not believe, then you are already condemned because you are now not able to escape God's judgment in your unbelief.

Here's the passage in context:

14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.  16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

If judgment was based on belief, then it would not have said "condemned already".  It would have just said, "condemned."  "Condemned already" means that you are condemned prior to your decision to not believe.  If judgement was based solely on belief, then you would not be condemned until you've decided not to believe.

 

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Meaning_Of_Life wrote:No,

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

No, your portrayal was not accurate.  You said that God condemns people for not believing in Him.  That is incorrect.  God never condemns people for not believing in Him, He condemns people for sinning.  

Please read YOUR BIBLE.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God." (John 3:16-18)

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

Meaning_Of_Life wrote:

No, your portrayal was not accurate.  You said that God condemns people for not believing in Him.  That is incorrect.  God never condemns people for not believing in Him, He condemns people for sinning.  

Please read YOUR BIBLE.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God." (John 3:16-18)

 

 

100%, it has been established that MOL has a problem understanding english words, perhaps if you had the passage in hebrew? I think it is the word BECAUSE that is giving him difficulty.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

I never claimed to be an expert in theology that is why I was asking Crossover a question about his beliefs not arguing that his beliefs are not consistent with the bible. I don't care if his beliefs are consistent with the bible or not. Perhaps you had better have your theological argument with crossover and several other theists who have expressed similar beliefs to me. I have better things to do with my time than to become an expert in every religion.

You said earlier that I am ignoring parts of the Bible, so evidently you know what the Bible says and what the general tenets are of Christian theology.  Earlier, you discussed things in the Bible that came across to you as cruel and you could not even get them correct.  So yes, you are putting yourself out there as someone who knows and understands Christian theology and you do not. 

And that's what gets me.  Atheists constantly make assertions, ad hominem attacks, and diatribes about things that they know absolutely nothing about.  They simply believe whatever they read on atheist websites or in layman books such as The God Delusion or God Is Not Great. 

But what is more bothersome is when atheists refuse to be corrected.  Even when you try to teach them what the Bible actually says or what Christianity actually says, they just retort with snippets of Bible passages quoted out of context and pass them off as meaning something other than what they mean.  At the same time, atheists will then use the variety of interpretations of the Bible as evidence that Christianity is all just subjective opinion, while, at the same time, throwing passages in your face and telling you what they mean.  In essence, to the atheist, only the atheist's interpretation of the Bible is correct.

Look, there are people out there that make a living doing exegesis or studying doctrine.  There are plenty of great books out there you can buy that discuss these things.  If you truly want to understand what Christianity is about, then read those books.  Do not just read atheist websites or pick up the Bible with the sole intention of attacking it. 

I'm studying physics on my own.  I've been corrected by people on this website that know more about physics than I do and I did not sit there and refuse to be corrected.  I acknowledged that they know a little bit more about the topic than I do and I learned from them.  It really bothers me when atheists like yourself refuse to do the same.

Do you not think that Bible scholars are aware of those passages in John?  Do you honestly believe they have not read them?  Do you really believe that you are smarter than they are? 

Quote:
As it turns out there was no point for you to enter the discussion in the first place because your beliefs are apparently not the same as Crossover's and I was asking a question specific to what he believes. I know you find it hard to understand that not all Christians agree with you 100%.

You were making false statements about God and Christianity and you needed to be corrected.

 

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


Meaning_Of_Life
TheistTroll
Meaning_Of_Life's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2010-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:100%, it

Beyond Saving wrote:

100%, it has been established that MOL has a problem understanding english words, perhaps if you had the passage in hebrew? I think it is the word BECAUSE that is giving him difficulty.


 

*sigh*

You are aware that the New Testament was not written in Hebrew, right?

 

 

 

Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
 Heres a new topic. It's

 Heres a new topic. It's sunday, why is meaning of life not in church learning more about the bible?

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.