Thoughts on the state of "atheist vs. theist"

sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Thoughts on the state of "atheist vs. theist"

This is troubling me, and I think it is why I keep coming back here.  I am a Christian, therefore, my arguments come from that Christian worldview.  Oftentimes I have simply reiterated a Christian point, and then, to my surprise several people attack what I have said, called me a liar, arrogant, rude, prideful, etc.  And I’m left wondering, what on earth did I say that incited so much anger?  Truth is, I am a caring person who wants to improve and make a positive impact on the world.  I love animals, I respect the earth, I think we need to take better care of it.  If I’ve harmed someone, I want to make amends, etc.  So, I honestly do not understand where your anger comes from.  Is it simply because I don't agree with you?

Taking my Christianity out of the equation, I am a person, I have opinions, I feel strongly about my opinions because they have been formed from decades of searching, thinking, turning things over in my mind.  I am no different than you, in that respect.  It just so happens that you came to different conclusions than me.  But, I can tell, you feel equally strongly about your beliefs and feel I would be better off if I were atheist.  You know that I feel you would have a richer experience in this life if you believed in God, not necessarily even the Christian God.  So, tho our opinions are different, the way we are approach each other is really not so different.  In light of that, what I do not understand is why we cannot converse like adults, hear each other’s view points, accept that we are both attempting to influence the other side with those view points, and let go of all the meanness and personal put downs?

I don’t know who here is American, but what I see happening in this country and throughout the world is deeply troubling.  There is a divide growing between the secular and religious communities, and the two need to come back to the center and start communicating better in order to make some honest compromises.  We have to live in this world together.  You are never going to eradicate the worship of God, I am never going to get everyone to see the need to worship God.  Most likely, you are not going to deconvert me, nor am I going to convert you.  So, can we, instead start listening, and refrain from judging others ideas as stupid, baseless, juvenile?

Also, I do not feel the “delusional” label you have placed on theists is going to get us anywhere positive.  I can just as easily call you delusional.  The fact is, you are not in my brain, I am not in yours.  You have not had my experiences, I have not had yours.  So, you can no more honestly judge me delusional than I can judge you.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
This is troubling me, and I

This is troubling me, and I think it is why I keep coming back here. I am a Christian, therefore, my arguments come from that Christian worldview.

Christians don't all share the same world view. Some of you are vague and new-agey, others believe “god” punished New Orleans for sin and that before the world ends they'll fly into the sky bodily. The only commonality to the religious conceit is its confession of the priorities and insecurities of its bearer. Your views, for example, reflect middle state insulation, overpowering neediness and willful ignorance.

Oftentimes I have simply reiterated a Christian point, and then, to my surprise several people attack what I have said, called me a liar, arrogant, rude, prideful, etc.

I don't acknowledge there being a “Christian point.” Even the personality and attitudes of the central mythical figure are inconsistent across believers claiming the same label. From what I've seen the appeal of the idea of an overriding authority figure is it gives theists an authority to appeal to when their argument flounders in an intellectual or material arena.

I love animals, I respect the earth, I think we need to take better care of it.

Is that a Christian point of view?

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” -Genesis 1:26

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” -Genesis 1:28

“When the last tree is felled, Christ will return.“ -James G. Watt, Secretary of the Interior under President Reagan

If I’ve harmed someone, I want to make amends, etc. So, I honestly do not understand where your anger comes from. Is it simply because I don't agree with you?

You're playing the victim and attacking a straw-man. The first thread you started challenged atheists to “convert” you; in reply, you preached a lot of garbage to further your premise that atheism originates in a bad church experience. That was a cheap attempt to characterize the position as a knee-jerk response rather than one developed intellectually. Your second thread was much the same, but you started it with, “If god isn't real, why did I cry at church?” before proceeding to make the exact same insincere challenge (you never did reply in defense after I accused you of making the same stupid challenge twice).

Taking my Christianity out of the equation, I am a person, I have opinions, I feel strongly about my opinions because they have been formed from decades of searching, thinking, turning things over in my mind.

Your extensive exploration of “all religions,” before “logically” arriving at the religion you were brought up with, never included learning the role of one of the three primary figures in the world's third largest religion.

I am no different than you, in that respect.  It just so happens that you came to different conclusions than me.

I arrived at a conclusion, you arrived with one.

But, I can tell, you feel equally strongly about your beliefs and feel I would be better off if I were atheist.

I think I like you better on that side. You make the case for religious incoherence so I don't have to.

You know that I feel you would have a richer experience in this life if you believed in God, not necessarily even the Christian God.

That's heresy, but do go on.

So, tho our opinions are different, the way we are approach each other is really not so different. In light of that, what I do not understand is why we cannot converse like adults, hear each other’s view points, accept that we are both attempting to influence the other side with those view points, and let go of all the meanness and personal put downs?

I've already heard your point of view. What you've offered since has only been your insistence.

I don’t know who here is American, but what I see happening in this country and throughout the world is deeply troubling.  There is a divide growing between the secular and religious communities, and the two need to come back to the center and start communicating better in order to make some honest compromises.  We have to live in this world together.

I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.

You are never going to eradicate the worship of God, I am never going to get everyone to see the need to worship God.  Most likely, you are not going to deconvert me, nor am I going to convert you.  So, can we, instead start listening, and refrain from judging others ideas as stupid, baseless, juvenile?

All this hemming and hawing, for what? You've already stated your views, and restated them, and they're never going to be any better.

Also, I do not feel the “delusional” label you have placed on theists is going to get us anywhere positive.  I can just as easily call you delusional.

Good luck with that one.

The fact is, you are not in my brain, I am not in yours.

Thank Zeus for small favors.

You have not had my experiences, I have not had yours.  So, you can no more honestly judge me delusional than I can judge you.

Mealy mouthed bullshit. “Delusional” applies to anyone who insists on a belief that is contradictory to reality. “God” would have to be a demonstrable reality before an atheist could be called delusional. Not only do you believe in inessential ideas, you think Jesus listens to all your whining. Your particular “god” is like your non-threatening gay roommate.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I changed my avatar in honor

I changed my avatar in honor of this thread.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Heh heh! Somehow I can

Heh heh!

Somehow I can picture a cartoon of God : "Oh, fuck not her again! Why couldn't she have been a Buddhist or Atheist or something leave me the hell alone!"

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


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Splenda= .01% active

Splenda= .01% active ingredient 99.99% fluff, I see an analogy here.....


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Heh

MattShizzle wrote:

Heh heh!

Somehow I can picture a cartoon of God : "Oh, fuck not her again! Why couldn't she have been a Buddhist or Atheist or something leave me the hell alone!"

Hugs and kisses to you too MattShizzle.  I can feel the love...  Sticking out tongue


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux wrote: Splenda=

NinjaTux wrote:
Splenda= .01% active ingredient 99.99% fluff, I see an analogy here.....
I don't eat splenda either.  I'm a whole foodie don't eat that man-made chemical crap.  Yeah, that's another great analogy for these boards.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Hope you stay healthy.

Hope you stay healthy. Modern pharmaceuticals (sp) are "man made chemical crap"


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: sugarfree

Vastet wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
My problem with your viewpoint is that you put so much weight in science. You base everything you believe about this world on what you know to be true today.
Yes. But that doesn't mean we ignore possibilities for the future or present. The political forum is a perfect example of this.
sugarfree wrote:
What about 10 years from now, 15 years from now? What about some of the things you "know" now based on science, that science itself will debunk in the coming years?
What about them? I really don't have a problem with our knowledge growing and correcting itself. Do you?
sugarfree wrote:
I think science is a valuable tool for understanding this world, but I contend that science is not capable of guiding you in terms of morality because it is a perpetually changing and unfinished "work".
I would also contend science is not a valid tool with which to form morality. But not because it changes or is unfinished. Simply because science is only a process of understanding. It is incapable of providing morality. That comes from society. You can use science to conclude a moral question or scenario, but you can't get the morality itself from science.
  Where to you get your morality from Vastet?


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Hope you

MattShizzle wrote:
Hope you stay healthy. Modern pharmaceuticals (sp) are "man made chemical crap"
The goal is to get off the current pharm that is like a ball and chain around my neck.  I use them when I need them.  Splenda and pharms have nothing to do with each other.  Splenda is just a way for people to get their sugar fix without the consequences.  But there are still consequences.  That's a different discussion tho.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: I don't

magilum wrote:


I don't acknowledge there being a “Christian point.” Even the personality and attitudes of the central mythical figure are inconsistent across believers claiming the same label. From what I've seen the appeal of the idea of an overriding authority figure is it gives theists an authority to appeal to when their argument flounders in an intellectual or material arena.
Theists realize that human intellect is severely limited.  I was hoping you might come to the same understanding eventually, but I don't think that's gonna happen.

magilum wrote:

Is that a Christian point of view?
Just telling you a little about me, if you care. Probably not tho.

magilum wrote:

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” -Genesis 1:26

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” -Genesis 1:28

“When the last tree is felled, Christ will return.“ -James G. Watt, Secretary of the Interior under President Reagan

Point?

magilum wrote:

You're playing the victim and attacking a straw-man.
I wish you’d all get over yourselves thinking I’m playing “victim”. You are not that powerful.

magilum wrote:

The first thread you started challenged atheists to “convert” you; in reply, you preached a lot of garbage to further your premise that atheism originates in a bad church experience. That was a cheap attempt to characterize the position as a knee-jerk response rather than one developed intellectually. Your second thread was much the same, but you started it with, “If god isn't real, why did I cry at church?” before proceeding to make the exact same insincere challenge (you never did reply in defense after I accused you of making the same stupid challenge twice).
This thread was my attempt to clear the air and start over. I don’t think it’s going to work tho. Because I’m starting feel pretty annoyed and I’m sure the feeling is mutual.

magilum wrote:

That's heresy, but do go on.
You do not believe in God so heresy means nothing to you. Why should you care? I just think you would be better with some understanding, any understanding of God, rather than simply ignoring him, or worse, talking smack about him.

magilum wrote:

I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.
Sing, sing a song, make it simple to last your whole life long. Don’t worry that’s it’s not good enough, for anyone else to hear, just siiiiiiing. Sing a song. Okay, everybody now. La la la la la, la la la la la la, la la la la la la la laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

magilum wrote:

“Also, I do not feel the “delusional” label you have placed on theists is going to get us anywhere positive. I can just as easily call you delusional.”

Good luck with that one.
You … are… delusional. That wasn’t hard. Also, you twist truth and turn it into lies and lead people into darkness, and that…really…peeves…me…off…

magilum wrote:

Mealy mouthed bullshit. “Delusional” applies to anyone who insists on a belief that is contradictory to reality.
You flatter yourself. You think you have this little “reality” gig all figured out. None of us do.

magilum wrote:

Not only do you believe in inessential ideas, you think Jesus listens to all your whining. Your particular “god” is like your non-threatening gay roommate.
I don’t have a gay roommate.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: you are

deludedgod wrote:

you are essentially telling me that you need God to fill a phsycological void. Personally, anyone who argues with this absurd appeal to emotion is invoking abdication of human responsibility.

There is nothing wrong with needing. Being able to effectively name, express, and fulfill one's needs is a sign of maturity.

deludedgod wrote:
We have a responsibility for ourselves to decide what is right and wrong. Religious people are so terrified of this notion of an axiologt different from their own that they use a physcoanalytical projectionist technique to arrogantly invoke the notion that God is an inherent requisite for morality.
"Religious people" realize their own responsibilities and also recognize their weaknesses. They realize that in some situations in this life, their own power, intelligence, and self-sufficiency is not enough. It is strength to be able to admit when one is weak, and it is strength to be able to let go of pride and ask for help.

deludedgod wrote:

Well, obedience and morality are two different things. I am highly amused by how you refer to the religous texts as moral guides.

This morning at chuch, we used our moral guide to learn how to strengthen marriage. What do you use as a moral guide?

deludedgod wrote:
Again, an absurd non sequiter. Religious texts are not moral guides.
Have you ever read the NT? I'm sure you have. Were you unable to extract just one itsy bitsy moral truth from it?

deludedgod wrote:
Again, the theist preaches abdication of moral responsibility, reducing human reason to nothing, as if we are incapable of our own axiology!
False. Theists realize there are forces in this world which desire to lead one astray, and that we need assitance in keeping on the straight and narrow path. We realize that despite our best efforts, we will always make mistakes in our judgement and therefore require a higher moral authority to compare our actions to, to make sure we never "delude" ourselves into thinking we are doing better than we actually are. The higher moral authority allows us to pinpoint those areas of moral weakness in our lives that need strengthening, so that we can work on them and continually strengthen our moral framework.

deludedgod wrote:
And my morality is grounded in humanist philosophy, compassion based on reason and respect for humanity.
What about humans who aren't as intelligent as you, or because of immoral parents have no grounds for developing their own effective morality? Where do your humanist philosophies leave those folks? Where are they to go to learn?

deludedgod wrote:
It is because of their contradictory nature that religious guides cannot be moral guides ergo your argument collapses.
It is because you deny the spiritual realm that you are incapable of seeing the spiritual truths in the moral guides.

deludedgod wrote:
If someone cherry-picks their scripture, choosing the pieces they like and ignoring the parts they find unpalatable, what right do they have to criticize atheists for lack of absolutist morality?
This is the wrong way to read scripture. Any balanced church will teach people that. A balanced church is evidenced by the fruits of the spirit...whether the people in it possess those fruits...love, kindness, compassion, patience, etc.

deludedgod wrote:
Indeed, it begs another question. They (theists) must have another source of morality which guides them to select only scripture which does not command them to bludgeon their children with heavy stones. What this means is that religion is merely a litmus test for someone’s morality. If you are immoral and believe it is right to kill people by flying a plane into a building, well, your Holy Book can certainly iterate that for you, as evidenced by the nineteen men who did just that. If you are moral and believe in love and compassion, then if you scour enough, you can find that too. So, that means that there must be an external source of morality that guides someone to decide which passages are right, and which are not.
Theists need to be taught how to properly read their religious texts. That part of the necessary growth process. Currently Islam is having a crisis regarding that.

deludedgod wrote:
This in itself completely defeats the notion of morality from scripture. When society is violent, the interpretation of scripture is violent. When society is complacent, people fall for sappy Romantic-era insistence of theologians that the Bible doesn’t really warrant you to kill people, when in fact it does. Now matter how someone tries to construe it, absolutist morality from a Holy Book is a logical contradiction. Everyone’s interpretation is different. Don’t think so? Check how many distinct denominations of Christianity exist today. Those lunatics holding up signs saying Thank God for AIDS are just as much Christians as the run-of-the-mill peaceful churchgoer.
I wonder why you would rather blame the Bible for so many human ills, than look inside your own heart to see the potential for negativity that exists there. To admit that we are all capable of falling short does not mean we cannot still love ourselves. It just mean, we have a more honest picture of who we are and are thus, not as easily deceived by our own pride. I have stated before that the problem is in man's heart not in his institions. Man is capable of corrupting any good thing. We just have a talent for that. But we are also quite capable of rising above all that and committing great acts of love and kindness as well.

deludedgod wrote:
Ironically, any theist who says a violent Inquisition preist is not a true Christian is merely defeating his own argument by admitting that religion is subject to the forces of social and moral change which of course, is caused by secularism. The passages that people follow and interpret would merely reflect a litmus test of society as a whole. Since it is so open to interpretation because it doesn't really have any absolute message, the theists adovocation of absolutist morality from the Bible collapses on itself.
Many absolute messages can be extracted from the Bible. However, if you believed that to be true, you might be compelled to believe it holds some authority over your life. Admitting that would require you to give up the absolute authority that you currently hold over your life, and I realize, that's not necessarily a fun thing to do.

deludedgod wrote:
This brings me back to the issue of theists cherry-picking their scripture.
Again, it is stated quite frequently in my church that this is not the way to go.

deludedgod wrote:
Social progress has rendered certain codes of the ancient texts obsolete, thus they are ignored save by a few rather frightful fringe elements of religion. After all, any logical person will recognize that we have certainly become more humane and ethical as a society since the time of Christ.
Thanks greatly to Christ himself.

deludedgod wrote:

It is secular influence, like the Enlightenment era and non-religious judiciary, that is responsible for much of what we consider to be “social progress” in the West. Conservative taboos are broken down by revolutionaries, not revisionists and certainly not religion. Religion has been forced to be extremely malleable when it comes social progress, because it is not an institution that changes very well. This may explain what we see in Islamic countries, and also why an alarming number of the faithful seem to be attempting to reverse the Zeitgeist.

Christianity has been around for 2000 years. In that time, how many governments have risen and then toppled? Christianity remains relevant today because of the spiritual truths, which, because of the way you approach the book (sans belief in anything spiritual) you are unable to extract. There are plenty of us who are seeing them and are using them to make better lives for ourselves. As far as Islam, the religion is in crisis, I agree. I am hopeful that they will come to a better consensus on how to properly interpret their book.

deludedgod wrote:
Humans do not need a book to be moral, unless they are insane, childish, deluded or just stupid.
You flatter humanity. Humans are the ones killing each other and waging these wars. They would be doing it with or without the books. You are focusing on the symptoms of fallen man rather than blaming the cause, which is fallen man himself. That is what is meant by "fallen".


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Actually "fallen" refers to

Actually "fallen" refers to the ridiculous story of our many times great grandparents having eaten a Flying Spaghetti Monster-damned apple being such a crime that every human being ever born is punished for it. There's plenty of extremely immoral things in both books of the BuyBull by the way. Remembering another quote (believe it was Robert Ingersoll)

"Anyone who completely follows the Old Testament would be in prison, anyone who completely follows the New would be insane."

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


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori

Iruka Naminori wrote:

Hmmm. One of the reasons I've been alternately concerned about and furious with sugarfree is I can see in her a kindred spirit. According to the work of Dr. Elaine Aron, being what some people call "overly sensitive" is a natural and genetic condition for about 20% of any given population. That includes animals. Apparently, natural selection favors sensitivity in populations. The "sensitive" are more in tune with what is happening.

I've been "overly sensitive" from birth. Noises, smells, fabrics and emotions affect me more than they seem to affect other people. I was so tuned in to the world that at times it has overwhelmed me. Part of this led to the development of some wonderful creativity and talent; part of it led to my being easily hurt.

This oversensitivity is due in large part by low levels of serotonin and naturally low levels of beta endorphin. This is nothing wrong with being "sensitive". This world needs artists. However, one who is naturally predisposed to sensitivity can learn ways to eat and live that support the serotonin and beta endorphin systems. That is what I have been learning to do for the past year and a half. It involves this...balancing blood sugar. "Sensitive" people have a more marked response to "sweet". That would be sugar, overly sweet fruits, "Splenda", alcohol. We sense the rise and fall of our blood sugar much more sharply than other folks. That's why I can have, what the doctor terms as "normal" blood sugar levels and still be shaking like a leaf and feeling like I want to throw up. The second part of the equation is beta endorphin. Some of us, for whatever reason, are born with naturally low levels of BE. As a result, we have more BE receptors. When we eat foods or engage in behaviors that spike our natural BE, we get a greater high from the BE than most people do. We like that "high" and before we know it we are engaging in behaviors, sub-consiously, that spike our BE, and therefore, we fall into any number of addictive behaviors. The key to balancing the BE system is to eventually eliminate sugar from the diet and then eliminate behaviors which cause spiking. The third piece of the puzzle is low serotonin. Low serotonin is linked to poor impulse control, ocd behaviors, (i.e., you not being able to stop seeing demons behind every bush), depression, OVER-sensitivity to stimuli, etc. We can rebuild our serotonin naturally buy adopting a certain eating pattern. Basically it is, get enough protein at every meal so tryptophan is constantly circulating in the system. Then, once a day, three hours after a meal that includes adequate protein, eat a complex carb (i.e., potato or sweet potato). This causes an insulin rise which forces competing amino acids from the brain, allowing tryptophan to cross the blood-brain barrier so that serotonin can be produced. Genetically, you are right, I am sugar sensitive and you are as well. Check out the work done by Kathleen Desmaisons.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
So, in ways I really understand where sugarfree is coming from.
I don't think you do. Low levels of these brain chemicals really screw up your thinking. It is hard to know or learn anything about God when you can't even think straight. I am thinking straighter now than ever, and I still believe in God. He has led me to these answers regarding my health and has shown me that when we sin against the food sources he supplied us with to keep us healthy, we end up unhealthy.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Part of the problem is sensitivity converts readily to anger. Ewps. I think that's a problem for me and anyone else who is unlucky enough to be born sensitive in the current American culture. We fare much better in cultures like Sweden and China, where sensitivity is more valued.
Yes, you will find it difficult to control your anger if you are having low BS, low BE, and or low serotonin. For various reasons, problems in all three can lead to volatile displays of anger. There's nothing wrong with you being sensitive. God made you that way because he needed you to be for the purpose you are here to fulfill in your life. Perhaps the non-sensitives should listen to us sensitives more because we tend to be more attuned to the truths in our own hearts, and we tend to have a keen ability to sense God and his works.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
I've tried to work through some of my reactions to inner turmoil, but the sensitivity itself will not go away because I'm wired that way. When I read Dr. Aron's book, I got pissed off that sensitive people were labeled "priests." I hope that doesn't mean that we sensitive people are mostly destined to be gullible.
You are wired that way, but you can help yourself. Current culture is horrible for sugar sensitive people. We can't handle the refined carbs, all the stress. We feel like we are constantly treading water just to keep our heads above water and become easily overwhelmed. But it is not weakness, it is just our genetics. And when we learn to eat properly to support our own genetics, we become very strong, capable people, who still have an innate ability to see beauty in this world where others do not.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Dr. Aron seems to think so. She says sensitive people tend to be more "spiritual."
I think that is true and it is not a bad thing.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
I only believe in "spirituality" as a function of the brain.
Don't sell yourself short Iruka.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
At least in Eastern cultures, those who are sensitive and spiritual don't necessarily have to believe in a holy book and some sky daddy. I wonder what place there is for me here in America: a sensitive person who also tries to be logical?
What I have been trying to tell everyone here is that I am different, I'm not all into the logic. I listen to my emotions as well. I use BOTH. And I do not think it is wrong to do that. I think, as we all have strengths and weaknesses we should listen and learn from each other, rather than immediately disregarding others truths as "ridiculous". That to me is the epitome of close-mindedness.

Iruka Naminori wrote:

Seriously, I think we should applaud her for listening to alternative views at all. A lot of Christians would have headed for the hills. Yeah, she bitched and moaned about doing just that, but here she is, back for more.

Iruka, maybe I'm here because I needed to talk to you specifically. Seriously, check out Potatoes Not Prozac and the Sugar Addicts Recovery Program by Kathleen DesMaisons. She will describe you to a tee, I guarantee it. A little light-bulb will go off and you will say Thank...the spaghetti monster...someone finally understands me!!

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Yeah, I agree that she is demanding the wrong things from our community, but she's here. I pissed and moaned and yelled and screamed when my beliefs were being questioned. I yelled louder than sugarfree, but I think my tone was similar. Eventually, some of it got through. Think about that. Smiling

You can take my words or leave the Iruka...but I sincerely hope you will at least consider...


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
GlamourKat wrote: This is

GlamourKat wrote:

This is just the thing. It shouldn't be such an affront to you. We're not criticizing the bible to hurt you. We aren't BEING disrespectful to you. We aren't attacking you. It's NOT IMMORAL to disrespect a book. So many theists come here and take our criticisms of religion as a personal insult. Us saying "the bible is crap" doesn't make us horrible people. It's not immoral to call a book crap.

Actually, it makes me angry on God's behalf. He does so much for you everyday and then you slap him in the face? I don't even have words to describe how... That to me is so... Arghhhh is good a word as any, I guess.

GlamourKat wrote:
If you want to have productive flowing conversations here, you have GOT to stop taking it so personally
I do not take it personally. I love God. When someone insults a person you love, it upsets you, No?

GlamourKat wrote:
and realize that we aren't all suddenly going to start pussyfooting around your weird-ass beliefs. That's what we're trying to fight against! The apathy, the bland nonconfrontation, the "well, I don't believe, but i 'respect the belief'."
I really wish you would stop being so disrespectful to God, but that's obviously not going to happen. I realize he takes your punches in stride, so I must learn to do the same as well.

GlamourKat wrote:
I respect you. You're a pretty good person to have a discussion with. I respect your right to have your beliefs. The same way I respect my friend's right to believe that she has psychic powers. BUT.....I don't respect your beliefs.
All right. And if you want to diss God, that's your choice, but just know, it's gonna peeve me off everytime you do it.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: sugarfree

AiiA wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
I'm not playing victim. This is simply an exercise to see if we can actually be civil. I can take your shots. It's not about that.
Again, if you want civility (and no one has been uncivil, but I guess you need special civility), go to the Kill 'em with Kindness forum

Based on the moral code I follow, many of you have been quite uncivil.  I am not used to being treated in that manner, that's why it is so glaring to me.  It also makes me question your ability to "write your own moral codes."  I'm thinking you could use some outside help.  (Yes, I know I need help to, but I've already come to that conclusion for myself...) 


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Why does this remind me of

Why does this remind me of women who defend their abusive husbands, after they've beaten them...well, except for the fact that god can't physically abuse you...but hey, you can assume you omnipotent invisible friend needs you to defend them, just don't expect us not to ridicule you for not letting god defend himself.

No Gods, Know Peace.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: It's

zarathustra wrote:

It's about time you start getting the difference. I am not presupposing anything. I am just asking for evidence. As you have demonstrated, you presuppose that every other god out there doesn't exist, except the one you're batting eyelids at.
We've already covered this topic and disagreed about it enough, I think.

zarathustra wrote:
You still (STILL!) seem unable to comprehend that every other religion can claim "non-material proof" for its god.
Because they are all pointing to the same God, one in particular just has a lot better aim than the others.

zarathustra wrote:
A good exercise for you would be this: For any future arguments you wish to bring in defense of your faith, first consider whether it can be applied to any other religion. If so, perhaps you shouldn't present the argument to us; and you certainly shouldn't get indignant if the argument gets blown out of the water and crucified to the wall.
See above. The fact that other religions possess similarities does not discount God, it just points to our inability to always see him clearly.

zarathustra wrote:
Um, sugarpie, you are repeatedly reminding us of our anger, hate, and other such glowing attributes. You object to anyone pissing on your religion, but you are content to disparage the other religions ("bald men at the airport", "islamic fascism&quotEye-wink.
I don't think I ever said they were at the airport. And there is a such thing as Islamic fascism. I'm not afraid to say it. It is different than the religion of Islam, an unfortunate twisting of the religion. Okay, you can point out my pride and such (I reserve the right to disagree and tell you as much) and I'll keep pointing out your anger and sarcasm (you reserve the right to disagree and tell me as much) and stuff. Is that fair?

zarathustra wrote:
(For the record, I was not showing off, nor have I ever been angry, despite your insistence that I am.)
I already apologized for inferring that you were showing off, and anger shows thru in your posts whether you realize it or not. (That's where you get to disagree with me, if you want, but perhaps consider it for a moment first. I have considered your pride comments and stuff and seen hints of truths in them so thank you for helping me better myself--of course, I don't think I'm nearly as bad as you seem to think I am regarding the pride arrogance etc., but I fully admit that I fall victim to such nastiness.)

zarathustra wrote:

The title of your thread is "What moves atheists to tears". You relate the emotions you felt when hearing the Coltrane version of "Were you there?", then conclude with the sentence "And this Truth is so magnificent that everything you throw at me pales in comparison".

Bad title of thread, bad last sentence of thread. The rest, honest and heartfelt. Many of your responses: pretty brutal.

zarathustra wrote:
Precisely what was your technique and motive here? I had to wonder if your thread title implied that atheists were not as well moved to tears as you were.
I keep trying to get you guys to consider using your emotions occasionally to point you on the path to truth, but I have not yet succeeded because you seem to not like emotions or something. I haven't figured that part out yet about ya'll.
zarathustra wrote:
Without something to demonstrate that there was actually a jesus to cry over, I can't help but see this as a bout of tears over a fictional character.
Yes, I know, you not getting Jesus makes the tears seem stupid. I get that. But they weren't stupid tears. You do not know me enough to trust me when I say that. I respect that, at this time, you cannot put your full trust in this cyber-junkie.

zarathustra wrote:

Sugarfree, I'm sure you're a nice person, and you'll have to believe me when I say I am also. But if you're expecting a fluffy debate with a Barry Manilow soundtrack, I'm afraid no can do. At least not until you start "listening".
I'm sure we'd get along if we didn't talk religion or politics.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux wrote: Why does

NinjaTux wrote:
Why does this remind me of women who defend their abusive husbands, after they've beaten them...well, except for the fact that god can't physically abuse you...but hey, you can assume you omnipotent invisible friend needs you to defend them, just don't expect us not to ridicule you for not letting god defend himself.

 Wha???


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: What I

sugarfree wrote:
What I have been trying to tell everyone here is that I am different, I'm not all into the logic. I listen to my emotions as well. I use BOTH. And I do not think it is wrong to do that.

We understand that your approach is emotional, but it's invalid. Emotions are not tied to reality in the same way that logic is. And, furthermore, you have resisted every attempt I have ever seen anyone make to use logic, so I'd say you just want to use emotions. You'll believe in anything that 'feels' right to you. You'll happily ignore reality and indulge pure fantasy whenever it suits you, and expect that the fantasy will be on even intellectual ground with reality. If we granted emotions the same authority as logic to determine reality, there would be no limit to the things that we would have to assume correct.

When people point out the problems with your approach, you play the poor wounded victim, unjustly maligned for your faith. In fact, I think you like the roll of martyr, and you delude yourself to believe that you are one. You certainly talk about it a lot.

You complain that you are not treated with sensitivity ad nauseum, while refusing to recognize how offensive it is to atheists when you demand that we submit to the authority of your personal imaginary friend, a genocidal war criminal who only values those who are willing to completely surrender to him. The god that you worship is in your own head. This is evident from the fact that you discovered him with your emotions alone.

Unless you are willing to use proper reason to approach the question of god's existence, you are a lost cause, wandering in the darkness of your faith, guided by an ignorant book of dubious origin. As much fun as it would be to discuss the ontological status of the supernatural with you, I don't think you are up to the challenge intellectually.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Theists realize that human

Theists realize that human intellect is severely limited.

They have good reason to think so.

I was hoping you might come to the same understanding eventually, but I don't think that's gonna happen.

Appeal to wonder.

Just telling you a little about me, if you care. Probably not tho.

What do you think?

[in response to bible verses and quote from Christian Secretary of the Interior, James Watt]

Point?

That your point of view is just that. Only that. That your “Christianity” is nothing but a label to legitimize your hayseed perspectives.

I wish you’d all get over yourselves thinking I’m playing “victim”. You are not that powerful.

Then stop whining.

This thread was my attempt to clear the air and start over.

You've been chewing on the same old chestnut since you arrived. You've had ample opportunities not to sound like a buffoon. Starting over isn't going to revitalize your basic premise.

You do not believe in God so heresy means nothing to you. Why should you care? I just think you would be better with some understanding, any understanding of God, rather than simply ignoring him, or worse, talking smack about him.

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” -Exodus 20:3

Before you pop off about all “gods” being the same, not all religions are monotheistic, and they are definitely not in agreement about what the word “god” signifies. You're right that I don't care about heresy, but as a Christian you're supposed to. Your dismissal confirms your religious leaning is as shallow as brand loyalty.

Nothing to say in reply to my remark about your ignorance of Hinduism, I notice. Fancy that.

[Stupider reply to stupid joke.]

You … are… delusional. That wasn’t hard.

You are customer of the month at Wal-Mart.

Also, you twist truth and turn it into lies and lead people into darkness, and that…really…peeves…me…off…

Yeah? Support that statement.

You flatter yourself. You think you have this little “reality” gig all figured out. None of us do.

God of gaps argument.

I don’t have a gay roommate.

(Sigh) You insulated thing. Jesus is your gay roommate. He's the one guy in the world that has to listen to your bullshit no matter how insipid. Largely because he's imaginary.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Hello.  I am here because

Hello.  I am here because I am honestly deeply troubled by the inability for the secular and religious community to communicate.  All you have to do is look at American politicians and see it has become a serious problem.  They are so divided that they cannot get anything done, and they are more interested in pushing their side of the cause than in seeing any real problem get solved.

You mean like how Christian republicans use the “culture of life” argument against embryonic stem cell research, even though they probably know the frozen embryos in question are simply on their way to the trash? Or, how they argue against abortion one minute, then the next invoke images of lazy “welfare mothers” with a litter of kids? Or their consistent support of wars with no clear goal, from which they stand to profit through their investments in mercenaries and private contractors, that they know will result in the loss of people whose lives are already tied inextricably into the lives of others? People who aren't a maudlin abstraction, but a real father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, etc.

I think this is the great debate of our time, actually, and I think, if we do not learn to talk to each other, the consequences could be dire for both sides.  That's why I'm here.  I think it is important, no matter how difficult it may be sometimes.  Those of us in the trenches, common citizens, need to rise up and stop this insanity that is threatening to tear our world apart. 

I'm so fucking tired of war metaphors and corn pone religious imbeciles.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I don't eat splenda

I don't eat splenda either.  I'm a whole foodie don't eat that man-made chemical crap.  Yeah, that's another great analogy for these boards.

I'm critical of some human inventions as well. I don't think this “god” thing has worked out.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
As you have demonstrated, you presuppose that every other god out there doesn't exist, except the one you're batting eyelids at.
We've already covered this topic and disagreed about it enough, I think.

Until you realize the flaw in your logic rendered by that presupposition, the discussion remains at an impasse.

 

sugarfree wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
You still (STILL!) seem unable to comprehend that every other religion can claim "non-material proof" for its god.
Because they are all pointing to the same God...

I'm sure the members of those other religions would beg to differ.  And this doesn't quite jibe with an earlier quip of yours, that other religions were "False prophecies". 

 

sugarfree wrote:
one in particular just has a lot better aim than the others.

How so?  And which version of it?
 

sugarfree wrote:
See above. The fact that other religions possess similarities does not discount God, it just points to our inability to always see him clearly.

Yet as long as you concede that other religions demonstrate similarities such as rapid expansion or long-standing tradition, you cannot use such in singular support of your religion.  And our "inability to always see (god) clearly" points to his non-existence.

 

sugarfree wrote:

I don't think I ever said they were at the airport.

You didn't.  My apologies.

 

sugarfree wrote:
And there is a such thing as Islamic fascism.  I'm not afraid to say it.

And there is such a thing as christian fascism.  I'm not afraid to say it. 

sugarfree wrote:
Okay, you can point out my pride and such (I reserve the right to disagree and tell you as much) and I'll keep pointing out your anger and sarcasm (you reserve the right to disagree and tell me as much) and stuff. Is that fair?

I see nothing purposeful in ad hominem.  I only saw fit to point out your flaws since you are of the habit of pointing out mine.  The fact is, whether or not I'm angry has no bearing on the soundness of my argument.  If I shouted at you "2 + 2 = 4, bitch!", would you say my arithmetic was wrong because I'm so angry?  How about you lay off the accusations, and just address the argument.  Is that fair?

sugarfree wrote:
Bad title of thread, bad last sentence of thread. The rest, honest and heartfelt. Many of your responses: pretty brutal.

When you evade honest and heartfelt arguments, then throw in emotional red herrings, expect no less. 

sugarfree wrote:
I keep trying to get you guys to consider using your emotions occasionally to point you on the path to truth, but I have not yet succeeded because you seem to not like emotions or something. I haven't figured that part out yet about ya'll.

Tell you what.  Use emotion to prove gravity is real, or that Julius Caesar is a historical figure, and I might consider that emotion can point you to "the truth", y'all.

sugarfree wrote:
  Yes, I know, you not getting Jesus makes the tears seem stupid. I get that. But they weren't stupid tears. You do not know me enough to trust me when I say that. I respect that, at this time, you cannot put your full trust in this cyber-junkie.

Thank you for acknowledging this.  Perhaps you are ready to lay aside emotions and resume the debate about the lack of historical evidence for jesus.

sugarfree wrote:
 

I'm sure we'd get along if we didn't talk religion or politics.

I agree.  Once you give up jesus, we'll go out for pizza - my treat! 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Hi sugarfree...me

Hi sugarfree...me again! 

I have asked you before to provide a valid, verifiable reason why you believe and I realize now I may have been asking too much.  Perhaps I should start by asking what you believe?  This does not mean your particular branch of Christianity because everyone has different beliefs.  I am specifically asking what you believe about your God.  Here are a few choices to help you get started:

  1. God is with me all of the time.  He is right here now guiding my thoughts and actions.
  2. God is not with me all of the time but he watches over me and the world in general and intervenes when necessary.  He is the only one that decides when it is necessary.
  3. God is not watching over us on a regular basis.  He got the ball rolling with creation and then leaves it to us because he gave intelligence and expects us to use it.  He is, however, in heaven and waiting for me. 

Your beliefs may not fit into any of these choices so if you could provide one or two sentences similar to the ones above that describe what you believe, then it may be possible to determine why you believe it.  This is not an exercise in giving up your faith; just defining it so that we can have better dialog about it.

Thanks!! 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Perhaps I should

Quote:
Perhaps I should start by asking what you believe?

A question so many times overlooked in favor of assumptions about what a theist believes-- or "must" believe".

Strangely, theist are many times accused of doing the same thing.. except making assumptions about what atheists believe.. or "must believe".

Hmm.. I don't know why I'm traveling from thread to thread and just dropping my two cents everywhere. Perhaps I should actually stick with a thread-- but all the ones I've started have died for the moment.  So perhaps I'll get into the habit of jumping in unwelcomed again.. :/


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
Perhaps I should start by asking what you believe?

A question so many times overlooked in favor of assumptions about what a theist believes-- or "must" believe".

Strangely, theist are many times accused of doing the same thing.. except making assumptions about what atheists believe.. or "must believe".

Hmm.. I don't know why I'm traveling from thread to thread and just dropping my two cents everywhere. Perhaps I should actually stick with a thread-- but all the ones I've started have died for the moment. So perhaps I'll get into the habit of jumping in unwelcomed again.. :/

 

Asking for a definition of what a person believes is trying to avoid making the assumption about what they "have to" believe.  I always wonder why theists have such an issue with defining what exactly it is that they believe.   

No Gods, Know Peace.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Asking for a

Quote:

Asking for a definition of what a person believes is trying to avoid making the assumption about what they "have to" believe.  I always wonder why theists have such an issue with defining what exactly it is that they believe.  

Yah, I wouldn't understand it either.  People should be able to define what they believe.

And yes.. I know the what the purpose of the question was-- heh, I was just saying it's not a question that's asked to often.  At least I haven't seen it much..

Could be wrong.. it could be a very popular question. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Yah, I wouldn't understand

Yah, I wouldn't understand it either.  People should be able to define what they believe.

[...]

It's a question worth asking. Many of the theists on these forums have very eccentric views, yet they retreat to the ambiguity of the broader label to draw support from popularity or authority. The sentence, “I believe in god,” doesn't suggest anything about attitudes or behavior. Just as you can cherry pick from text, you can be selective about who you call yours peers.


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:

Asking for a definition of what a person believes is trying to avoid making the assumption about what they "have to" believe. I always wonder why theists have such an issue with defining what exactly it is that they believe.

Yah, I wouldn't understand it either. People should be able to define what they believe.

And yes.. I know the what the purpose of the question was-- heh, I was just saying it's not a question that's asked to often. At least I haven't seen it much..

Could be wrong.. it could be a very popular question.

Oops {quietly removes foot from mouth}...I try to ask it in most discussions, mainly from the stand point of knowing how to argue.  I wouldn't be able to argue the same things with a deist as opposed to a young earth creationist. 

No Gods, Know Peace.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It's a question

Quote:
It's a question worth asking. Many of the theists on these forums have very eccentric views, yet they retreat to the ambiguity of the broader label to draw support from popularity or authority. The sentence, “I believe in god,” doesn't suggest anything about attitudes or behavior. Just as you can cherry pick from text, you can be selective about who you call yours peers.

I suppose one "can" cherry pick from any text.

However, to be fair, sometimes "atheists" do attack the "broader label" by default, irregardless of explicitly stated beliefs to the contrary (or in the absence of definition). 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I wouldn't be able

Quote:
I wouldn't be able to argue the same things with a deist as opposed to a young earth creationist.

Heh.. indeed-- very different. Smiling 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I see you responded to one

I see you responded to one of my posts and ignored the other.

There is nothing wrong with needing. Being able to effectively name, express, and fulfill one's needs is a sign of maturity.

You totally failed to answer my point, which was that the physcological comfort of the notion has no affect on the truth value of the proposition. My point about the abdication of human responsibility remains unanswered.

"Religious people" realize their own responsibilities and also recognize their weaknesses. They realize that in some situations in this life, their own power, intelligence, and self-sufficiency is not enough.

This has no reflection of the truth value of the proposition. You are asking for help from something which is not there. Ultimately, you are not strong by admitting you are weak. You are weak for abdicating responsibility. If your self-sufficiency is not enough, that is your problem. It does not change the fact that there is nothing else except other people.

It is strength to be able to admit when one is weak, and it is strength to be able to let go of pride and ask for help.

You are playing the worlds smallest violin. And setting up an absurd dichotomy. If you are insufficient, turn to other people. Do not make physcological projectionist statements about the nature of morality. I can see through it in seconds.

This morning at chuch, we used our moral guide to learn how to strengthen marriage. What do you use as a moral guide?

What a stupid question. I am using scientific finding to challenge the notion that humans need a moral guide to be good. Scientists studying morality have pinpointed a mechanism known as plastic synapse genesis as the key. Morality is teh result of cumulative life experience. It does not come from a book. This is nonsense. If it did, there would be no such thing as Hermeneutics. I cannot go more than two minutes in my cognitive nueroscience class without talking about morality. The notion that it comes from a book is unscientific childish idiocy.

Have you ever read the NT? I'm sure you have. Were you unable to extract just one itsy bitsy moral truth from it?

But to extract the moral truths and avoid the nasty bits would require a Van Tillian presuppositionalist doctrinal approach to morality, which is contradictory to the nature of your argument. Inherently, hermeneutics defeats itself in this regard. A Holy Book cannot be used as a moral source unless your moral grounding is inherently pre-established. History has taught us that countless times.

False. Theists realize there are forces in this world which desire to lead one astray, and that we need assitance in keeping on the straight and narrow path

Do you even know what axiology is? There is no evidence that humans require such assistance, certinaly not from an ancient book. Your assertions are emotional and unscientific.

We realize that despite our best efforts, we will always make mistakes in our judgement and therefore require a higher moral authority to compare our actions to, to make sure we never "delude" ourselves into thinking we are doing better than we actually are.

Firstly, this is a direct nonsequiter, a shameless one considering that you dodged my point. You abdicate your responsibility to decide for yourself right and wrong. This is the fundamental physcology behind religion, namely that it is all about abdication of axiological responsibility.

I wonder why you would rather blame the Bible for so many human ills, than look inside your own heart to see the potential for negativity that exists there

You are twisting my words. I was just saying that judging by the spectrum of morality across a swath of people claiming all to get morality from the same book of ancient fables, all with totally different Hermeneutics, the claims of morality from scripture are nonsense.

 

Many absolute messages can be extracted from the Bible. However, if you believed that to be true, you might be compelled to believe it holds some authority over your life.

There is no evidence for the validity of the Bible that does not resort to one reasoning in a circle.

Admitting that would require you to give up the absolute authority that you currently hold over your life, and I realize, that's not necessarily a fun thing to do.

Nor is it necessary. Humans are not children. There is no evidence that men of God are more moral than men without. You are being ridiculous.

 


Thanks greatly to Christ himself.

No. You have never studied Western history? For 1700 years after Christ, societal jurisprudence was ghastly and unimaginable, thanks very largely to the iron grip Christendom exerted over free thought and human sanity. It was the Enlighentment that triggered the moral revolution, by destroying religion as a social structure which weilds political power. I am afraid that many believers are attempting to reverse this. We must stop it. You know that historically, whenever religion is in political power, the results are grave.

 


Christianity has been around for 2000 years. In that time, how many governments have risen and then toppled?

Countless. For most of history, all of them theocratic.

Christianity remains relevant today because of the spiritual truths, which, because of the way you approach the book (sans belief in anything spiritual) you are unable to extract.

You have no excuse to be so condescending because you lack the capacity to argue against me for the ontological coherency of your belief or the notion of vitalism. Therefore, please kindly shut up until you can actually defend your propositions. I extended my offer for you to do so in the other thread, and in an extremely dishonest fashion you dodged my arguments, whined and then resigned from the debate. Therefore, you have no right to make such statements.

Anyway, the test of time argument is irrelevant, and the notion that truth is based on this is a direct non sequiter with no coherency whatsoever. The argument from plurality stands in firm opposition to it, and I see that you have repeatedly failed to counter it. Ultimately, you have failed to provide rational ontology for your belief.

Spiritual truth is an incoherent concept. There are three essays I want you to read (should be on the forum somewhere) which deal with this. In the interest of rational debate please read them. Two of them were written by todangst. They are titled Supernatural is a broken concept and God is an incoherent term, and one by myself titled Ontological and Epistemilogical incoherencies and contradictions present in Classical Theology

Again, I point out that in light of your repeated argument from assertion (a standard logical fallacy) and thusly no attempt to justify the coherency of your propositions, you have no right to make such comments.


There are plenty of us who are seeing them and are using them to make better lives for ourselves. As far as Islam, the religion is in crisis, I agree. I am hopeful that they will come to a better consensus on how to properly interpret their book.

True.

 

You flatter humanity. Humans are the ones killing each other and waging these wars.

They would be doing it with or without the books.

Exactly! You just defeated your own argument

You are focusing on the symptoms of fallen man rather than blaming the cause, which is fallen man himself. That is what is meant by "fallen".

No. My argument was not against the books, but rather the notion of extracting morality from them, because ultimately the notion of Hermeneutics is incoherent. You should read another essay by todangst called The Self-refuting nature of Hermeneutics.

 

 

This is the wrong way to read scripture. Any balanced church will teach people that. A balanced church is evidenced by the fruits of the spirit...whether the people in it possess those fruits...love, kindness, compassion, patience, etc.

 


Theists need to be taught how to properly read their religious texts. That part of the necessary growth process. Currently Islam is having a crisis regarding that.

Hah. Now I've got you. You have fallen prey to one of the most basic errors in theology regarding Hermeneutics. It is clear from that statement that I understand the theology upon which your beliefs are based better than you do, because "correct way to read scripture" is a Van Tillian doctrine which has been thoroughly discredited by a century of discourse. again, I urge you to read todangst' essay, where he iterates that point, namely that correct Hermeneutics is a false doctrine which is a slippery but contradictory attempt to escape the contradictory nature of religious scripture. Nice try.  

 

"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


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I suppose one “can“

I suppose one “can“ cherry pick from any text.

True. I would then argue that people are especially motivated to do so from texts that serve a certain purpose; and some texts are vague enough to especially facilitate it. If two people are familiar with a writer, one can potentially recognize when the other pulls a quote out of context. The many religious denominations suggest this isn't so in holy books; that there isn't a clear context for many things. Anecdotally, the only internally consistent religious label I've come across has been Scientologist.

However, to be fair, sometimes “atheists“ do attack the “broader label“ by default, irregardless of explicitly stated beliefs to the contrary (or in the absence of definition).

(Irregardless?)

Anyway... I agree. I think this is a misconception that atheists have fallen prey to, and one which some theists nurture. Despite the contradictions between denominations, religions, characterizations of “god,” of any conflict with multiple “gods,” there seems to be a motivation to claim a unity based solely on belief versus a lack of it. As if all the religious disagreements of the past should now fall by the wayside because the atheist, I suppose, is seen as an enemy of all religions. As if the actual content of each belief system had been suspended in order to polarize everyone into one of two groups. If mainstream people do find appeal in this desperate ploy, I predict religions will be come more vague, less dogmatic, and adjust their message to something closer to describing a modern mainstream lifestyle. Gotta stay in business. Pope Ratzinger agrees.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Where to

sugarfree wrote:
Where to you get your morality from Vastet?

The foundation is instinct. The rest is what you are taught and come up with on your own. Most of my morality has come from myself(emotions and experiences). I don't do things to people that I wouldn't want done to me.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
http://dictionary.reference.c

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless

It's a word.  Smiling Heh..  sort of.

Quote:
True. I would then argue that people are especially motivated to do so from texts that serve a certain purpose; and some texts are vague enough to especially facilitate it. If two people are familiar with a writer, one can potentially recognize when the other pulls a quote out of context. The many religious denominations suggest this isn't so in holy books; that there isn't a clear context for many things. Anecdotally, the only internally consistent religious label I've come across has been Scientologist.

See.. heres the thing about "internally consistent".  A mathbook is "internally consistent"-- a literary work can or cannot be, depending upon how ones chooses to define the constraints of "consistency" and how one chooses to interpret the words within.

For instance, an example might be this:

A character study describes a "saint" who acts perfect throughout 199/200 pages, yet does something horrendous on one of those pages.

Now. Would that be inconsistent? Depends on the constraints (I'm using this word under my own terms since I can't pull from my limited vocabulary a clearer word) of "consistency".

If the book writes that the "saint" has one dog on page 10, two dogs on page 55, and no dogs on page 102-- even though it was all during the same time period-- one person might consider this internally inconsistent.  Yet, some might contend, saying:

If the purpose of the book is to be a character study-- how is a discrepency between the numbers of a dogs inconsistent with that purpose?

These people would consider the fact that the person acted conclusively "out of character" as an inconsistency.

A fairly liberal use of the concept.. indeed.

I, personally, do not find the Christian religious text to be inconsistent in purpose because, personally, I do not believe the purpose of the text to be necessarily a science book or a history book-- merely a character study.  As such, the constraints of inconsistency are a bit more liberal..

To give an example: If the bible is considered a character profile.. and throughout that "character profile" I am left with the impression that he is a "just God"-- then I would find it inconsistent to his character that such a place as hell exists (in the eternal torment type of deal) for it seems, from my perspective, unjust.

I would suggest that many people view it this way..

I'm not saying this is how I look at the bible.. merely that IF.

Anyways.. yes.. "cherry picking" can occur I suppose.  Definitely not "a rule", and the what constitutes "cherry picking" would perhaps be argued quite feverishly.. since it has such negative connotations on its back.

Quote:
Anyway... I agree. I think this is a misconception that atheists have fallen prey to, and one which some theists nurture.

I suppose some may.

Quote:
Despite the contradictions between denominations, religions, characterizations of “god,” of any conflict with multiple “gods,” there seems to be a motivation to claim a unity based solely on belief versus a lack of it. As if all the religious disagreements of the past should now fall by the wayside because the atheist, I suppose, is seen as an enemy of all religions.

If God is real and a religions purpose is to worship him-- then there should be no "enemy".  Atheism may be an "enemy" to religion.. but definitely shouldn't be the enemy of "religious people".  Understand the distinction? It's something I consider to be true...

Quote:
As if the actual content of each belief system had been suspended in order to polarize everyone into one of two groups. If mainstream people do find appeal in this desperate ploy, I predict religions will be come more vague, less dogmatic, and adjust their message to something closer to describing a modern mainstream lifestyle. Gotta stay in business. Pope Ratzinger agrees.

Heh. Perhaps.  Although.. as an evangelical.. I do not find the word of Pope Ratzinger to carry more weight any other person.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: sugarfree

rexlunae wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
What I have been trying to tell everyone here is that I am different, I'm not all into the logic. I listen to my emotions as well. I use BOTH. And I do not think it is wrong to do that.
We understand that your approach is emotional, but it's invalid. Emotions are not tied to reality in the same way that logic is. And, furthermore, you have resisted every attempt I have ever seen anyone make to use logic, so I'd say you just want to use emotions. You'll believe in anything that 'feels' right to you. You'll happily ignore reality and indulge pure fantasy whenever it suits you, and expect that the fantasy will be on even intellectual ground with reality. If we granted emotions the same authority as logic to determine reality, there would be no limit to the things that we would have to assume correct. When people point out the problems with your approach, you play the poor wounded victim, unjustly maligned for your faith. In fact, I think you like the roll of martyr, and you delude yourself to believe that you are one. You certainly talk about it a lot. You complain that you are not treated with sensitivity ad nauseum, while refusing to recognize how offensive it is to atheists when you demand that we submit to the authority of your personal imaginary friend, a genocidal war criminal who only values those who are willing to completely surrender to him. The god that you worship is in your own head. This is evident from the fact that you discovered him with your emotions alone. Unless you are willing to use proper reason to approach the question of god's existence, you are a lost cause, wandering in the darkness of your faith, guided by an ignorant book of dubious origin. As much fun as it would be to discuss the ontological status of the supernatural with you, I don't think you are up to the challenge intellectually.

How much do I owe you for that little psychoanalysis.  $2?  Tell you what, I'll give you a $3 tip to make it an even $5.

  Okay, again.  I'm saying, do not TOTALLY discount your emotions.  When you use logic IN CONJUCTION with emotion, creativity, general observation...ETC., you will come to different conclusions about this world.  I use all my faculties to come to conclusions about truth, not just logic.  How many times do I have to say that.  I am using emotion here because I am attempting to balance out your views and show you how to listen to and interpret emotions (because I'm getting the impression that you may have forgotten).


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: I'm

zarathustra wrote:

I'm sure the members of those other religions would beg to differ. And this doesn't quite jibe with an earlier quip of yours, that other religions were "False prophecies".

My personal opinion and opinion of many others in the Christian faith is that people like Muhammad and the Mormon founder would be considered false prophets. Jesus warned us about them. He also said the devil can appear as an angel of light, meaning he can offer some of God's truth but twist it just enough to deceive. So I am more wary of religions developed after Jesus, due to what Jesus has told me to be on the look out for.

zarathustra wrote:

How so? And which version of it?

I don't have to spell it out and the version where the person follows Jesus commands as layed out in the NT, and where, when they fall short, they humble themselves and apologize. Jesus said if you love me, you will obey my commands. If a person or church is not following his commands, they are suspect. He also said, he will not recognize everyone who says Lord Lord (because those type of people are using him for their own benefit rather than obeying his commands.

zarathustra wrote:

Yet as long as you concede that other religions demonstrate similarities such as rapid expansion or long-standing tradition, you cannot use such in singular support of your religion. And our "inability to always see (god) clearly" points to his non-existence.

It points to our fallenness.

zarathustra wrote:

And there is such a thing as christian fascism. I'm not afraid to say it.

Me neither. There are Christian fascists. They are not following Jesus's commands. When they stand before him on judgement day and say Lord Lord, he will probably say "I do not know you."

zarathustra wrote:

I see nothing purposeful in ad hominem. I only saw fit to point out your flaws since you are of the habit of pointing out mine. The fact is, whether or not I'm angry has no bearing on the soundness of my argument. If I shouted at you "2 + 2 = 4, bitch!", would you say my arithmetic was wrong because I'm so angry? How about you lay off the accusations, and just address the argument. Is that fair?

I would say, sorry I missed everything before the "bitch" part. C-ya. No, it is not fair because if I agreed, you would still continue to call me delusional, my beliefs delusional, etc. and assume you are better and smarter than me

zarathustra wrote:

Tell you what. Use emotion to prove gravity is real, or that Julius Caesar is a historical figure, and I might consider that emotion can point you to "the truth", y'all.

See, you use "y'all" to mock me. Sorry, but I have to point out, that is called bitterness. God makes himself known to you via relationship. If you push emotions out the window you simply, logically, CANNOT find him or know him.

zarathustra wrote:

Thank you for acknowledging this. Perhaps you are ready to lay aside emotions and resume the debate about the lack of historical evidence for jesus.

Is that a presupposition on your part? I believe I am sensing some bias...

zarathustra wrote:

I agree. Once you give up jesus, we'll go out for pizza - my treat!

No friendship allowed until I agree with you?


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: No, it is

sugarfree wrote:

No, it is not fair because if I agreed, you would still continue to call me delusional, my beliefs delusional, etc. and assume you are better and smarter than me
Zarathustra, I shouldn't have said the "assume you are better and smarter than me" part. That was just my anger talking. Me bad. Chuey chuey chomp.

The other part, the bitterness part, I just pointed out to show you what I read as anger in your posts, and why I don't buy it when you tell say "I've never been angry with you."


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: How much

sugarfree wrote:
How much do I owe you for that little psychoanalysis.  $2?  Tell you what, I'll give you a $3 tip to make it an even $5.
Rexlunae, I also owe you an apology. I should not have made this snide comment. I should have instead stated my thoughts in plain English. That is, I think your analysis of me is unfair, unfounded, and untrue. You do not know me nearly well enough to make such absolute statements about my psyche.

I must also say this. I'm getting a lot of crap on this thread about whining. My point with this thread is to see if we can communicate respectfully. Part of that is being able to discuss offenses, anger, feelings and the like out in the open, so that they are immediately resolved rather than festering. When they fester, both sides end up throwing rude zingers back and forth and nothing gets accomplished. I am not ashamed to say when I have been offended and I think bringing it up allows us to get beyond it and move into deeper more productive conversation.

Lastly, if you do not wish to join me in this endeavor, I will happily retreat to Trollville.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
My personal opinion and

My personal opinion and opinion of many others in the Christian faith is that people like Muhammad and the Mormon founder would be considered false prophets. Jesus warned us about them. He also said the devil can appear as an angel of light, meaning he can offer some of God's truth but twist it just enough to deceive. So I am more wary of religions developed after Jesus, due to what Jesus has told me to be on the look out for.

The fact that you cannot see the circular reasoning in that paragraph is very frightful.  

"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


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I must also say this. I'm

I must also say this. I'm getting a lot of crap on this thread about whining. My point with this thread is to see if we can communicate respectfully. Part of that is being able to discuss offenses, anger, feelings and the like out in the open, so that they are immediately resolved rather than festering. When they fester, both sides end up throwing rude zingers back and forth and nothing gets accomplished. I am not ashamed to say when I have been offended and I think bringing it up allows us to get beyond it and move into deeper more productive conversation.

I have tried to start arguments with you sugarfree. But whenever I point out that your God is a logical contradiction, and the difference between alogical and illogical, you metaphorically jam your fingers in your ears and scream LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA. 

If you deliberately incite anger (for refusing to debate or ignoring responses) then you cannot call people angry for being angry at you. 

"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


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: sugarfree

Vastet wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
Where to you get your morality from Vastet?

The foundation is instinct. The rest is what you are taught and come up with on your own. Most of my morality has come from myself(emotions and experiences). I don't do things to people that I wouldn't want done to me.

So, if I am remembering correctly, this would be utilitarianism? If I am also remembering correctly, the possible pitfall of this philosophy is the chance for a person or institution to justify evil acts because they help the greater humanity.

Just for comparison's sake, I look to Jesus for my morality. When he was asked "What is the greatest commandment" he gave a two part answer, 1) love God with all your heart, 2) love your neighbor as yourself. The second part is pretty much the golden rule, however, he entwines the golden rule with the commandment to love God. I believe this is to protect against the possible damage that can occur in the purely utilitarian approach. The idea is that one must understand the moral character of God so that when one goes on to make decisions the common good, they are in line with God's character (i.e., devoid of evil).

I think this can be applied to some of the misunderstandings/disagreements regarding stem cell research. A Christian is more likely to mull over a scientific advancement as he/she parses out the possible positives and negatives of that advancement. Given the pros and the cons, they ask themselves, tho this may help the greater good, is it acceptible to God, Is it evil? So, what you perceive as Christians dragging their feet is actually them trying to determine what is going to be best for humanity in the long run. Christians want to help humanity, but not at the risk of introducing a potentially greater evil into the world that could actually lead to greater human suffering.

Hopefully this clears up some misconceptions.


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
Just for comparison's sake, I look to Jesus for my morality. When he was asked "What is the greatest commandment" he gave a two part answer, 1) love God with all your heart, 2) love your neighbor as yourself.

Notice that love god of comes first though. He's telling people to love god more than other people. So, in a dispute in which god and a human are on different sides, god wins. Do you think that this can't be abused? Do you think that nothing evil has been done in the name of god? This is not the basis for a good moral frame work. This is the basis for mental subjegation. This is the "idea' that allows people to abdicate responsibility and consequence. Especially if your brand of faith requires some kind of belief that the church is the will of god...ho ho... now we have a human institution in charge of your moral responsibility.

Wouldn't it be easier just to decide for yourself?

Quote:
I think this can be applied to some of the misunderstandings/disagreements regarding stem cell research. A Christian is more likely to mull over a scientific advancement as he/she parses out the possible positives and negatives of that advancement. Given the pros and the cons, they ask themselves, tho this may help the greater good, is it acceptible to God, Is it evil? So, what you perceive as Christians dragging their feet is actually them trying to determine what is going to be best for humanity in the long run. Christians want to help humanity, but not at the risk of introducing a potentially greater evil into the world that could actually lead to greater human suffering.

um...no if you can explain to me the inner workings of "stem cell research" I'll buy you a car...I've discussed this issue with many xtians and until I explain what misconceptions most of them have about the research itself, they don't realize they were lead astray. Explain stem cell research....because after all you can't weigh the options without knowing what the options are.

[edited for typo] 

No Gods, Know Peace.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: So, if I

sugarfree wrote:
So, if I am remembering correctly, this would be utilitarianism? If I am also remembering correctly, the possible pitfall of this philosophy is the chance for a person or institution to justify evil acts because they help the greater humanity. Just for comparison's sake, I look to Jesus for my morality. When he was asked "What is the greatest commandment" he gave a two part answer, 1) love God with all your heart, 2) love your neighbor as yourself. The second part is pretty much the golden rule, however, he entwines the golden rule with the commandment to love God. I believe this is to protect against the possible damage that can occur in the purely utilitarian approach. The idea is that one must understand the moral character of God so that when one goes on to make decisions the common good, they are in line with God's character (i.e., devoid of evil). I think this can be applied to some of the misunderstandings/disagreements regarding stem cell research. A Christian is more likely to mull over a scientific advancement as he/she parses out the possible positives and negatives of that advancement. Given the pros and the cons, they ask themselves, tho this may help the greater good, is it acceptible to God, Is it evil? So, what you perceive as Christians dragging their feet is actually them trying to determine what is going to be best for humanity in the long run. Christians want to help humanity, but not at the risk of introducing a potentially greater evil into the world that could actually lead to greater human suffering. Hopefully this clears up some misconceptions.

Do you not understand morality is subjective? Give me ten christians and they will have ten different ideas of morality, ten different ideas of what jesus meant, and ten different ideas the most important parts of morality. Humans use empathy, altruism, society, and what they are taught in their formative years to develop what is "moral". If there was a universal morality, let's say in the bible, all christians would hold to the same moral code, which they do not.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
And of course if you

And of course if you strictly followed the BuyBull you'd be a very immoral person (stoning people to death for trivial offenses, discriminating against women, etc.)

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


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: Hi

jce wrote:

Hi sugarfree...me again!

I have asked you before to provide a valid, verifiable reason why you believe and I realize now I may have been asking too much. Perhaps I should start by asking what you believe? This does not mean your particular branch of Christianity because everyone has different beliefs. I am specifically asking what you believe about your God. Here are a few choices to help you get started:

  1. God is with me all of the time. He is right here now guiding my thoughts and actions.
  2. God is not with me all of the time but he watches over me and the world in general and intervenes when necessary. He is the only one that decides when it is necessary.
  3. God is not watching over us on a regular basis. He got the ball rolling with creation and then leaves it to us because he gave intelligence and expects us to use it. He is, however, in heaven and waiting for me.

Your beliefs may not fit into any of these choices so if you could provide one or two sentences similar to the ones above that describe what you believe, then it may be possible to determine why you believe it. This is not an exercise in giving up your faith; just defining it so that we can have better dialog about it.

Thanks!!

 

Sugar, I am trying to open up a dialog with you and I need your help to better understand where you are coming from....if you cannot answer this question, I can rephrase it if that helps.  Thanks! 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: I have

sugarfree wrote:
I have relied on facts AND emotions to get where I am regarding my beliefs. Why are you all against emotions? This seems to be a comment thread.

No one here is against emotion.  We are not cold-hearted people. You can't reason with emotion. You reason with facts.  Your emotions are subjective.

pariahjane wrote:
You started a thread with a post that said 'I'm listening' and did just the opposite.
That first post was a mistake. That was a snap action on my part, and I keep paying the price. I do not believe in holding grudges, however, I'm feeling many of you are holding grudges based on things I've said. This is an experiment with successes and failures, mostly failures...but the failures are teaching me a lot.

No one is holding a grudge.  I'm merely pointing out that original thread.  As I've said, I usually don't follow your threads so I have no idea how much this has been brought up.

pariahjane wrote:
You say theists get judged harshly? Be thankful then that you are only judged 'harshly' on this forum. Atheists are judged far more harshly in the real world, Sugarfree.
Please give examples. I'd like to know.

Look around, Sugarfree.  Are you saying we are not judged harshly?

pariahjane wrote:
You're upset that we're 'trashing your honored belief system'? We are discussing it and disagreeing with you. If you don't want someone to disagree vehemently with you about your honored belief system, then do not come here.
People pretty much seem to think it's okay here to call the Bible a piece of crap. That to me is so highly highly... Ugh. That's not disagreement. That's pure disrespect. Since you all do not have a standard moral guide, I am led to believe you think this is okay...that your morals tell you it's okay to be so totally disrespectful to another human being. So, I guess I'm asking, trying to figure out, if it is truly okay with you? Do you really think such behavior is acceptable, or are you just tripping on a stone in your moral path? (not you in particular...speaking specifically of those who just trash... why should I engage in an argument with someone who is trashing me?)

I suggest you tread very carefully when you jump to conclusions regarding morality and atheism.  This is a common misconception that has been refuted here countless times.  Therefore, I will not reiterate what has already been said. Incidentally, I think that the common belief that atheists are incapable of morality is a rather harsh judgment, don't you?  Yes, some atheists can be mean.  So can Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.

Sorry, I have no idea why the format is so screwed up.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
. pariahjane wrote: You


.

pariahjane wrote:
You say theists get judged harshly? Be thankful then that you are only judged 'harshly' on this forum. Atheists are judged far more harshly in the real world, Sugarfree.
Quote:
Please give examples. I'd like to know.

The best example I can think of, the constitution of the state of tennessee, until very recently, did not allow for atheists to hold public office.  On a personal level, I've been told many times that I'm going to hell.  Many of the xtians I know try to "open my heart".  Imagine if every day of your life a muslim came up to you and told you that you were going to hell, and tried to convert you islam.  That would probably piss you off (though you probably also won't admit it and say something along the lines of "i would accept his concern&quotEye-wink.  We are judged, and people attempt to make us feel inferior constantly.  We do the only thing we can, we argue and discuss.  We aren't going to force people to shut up, because we realize that the same free speech we enjoy also protects them.  We realize that to violate their rights, will lead to our rights being violated in the future.

No Gods, Know Peace.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux wrote: .

NinjaTux wrote:

.

pariahjane wrote:
You say theists get judged harshly? Be thankful then that you are only judged 'harshly' on this forum. Atheists are judged far more harshly in the real world, Sugarfree.
Quote:
Please give examples. I'd like to know.

The best example I can think of, the constitution of the state of tennessee, until very recently, did not allow for atheists to hold public office.  On a personal level, I've been told many times that I'm going to hell.  Many of the xtians I know try to "open my heart".  Imagine if every day of your life a muslim came up to you and told you that you were going to hell, and tried to convert you islam.  That would probably piss you off (though you probably also won't admit it and say something along the lines of "i would accept his concern&quotEye-wink.  We are judged, and people attempt to make us feel inferior constantly.  We do the only thing we can, we argue and discuss.  We aren't going to force people to shut up, because we realize that the same free speech we enjoy also protects them.  We realize that to violate their rights, will lead to our rights being violated in the future.

Thank you for filling me in.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: sugarfree

BGH wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
So, if I am remembering correctly, this would be utilitarianism? If I am also remembering correctly, the possible pitfall of this philosophy is the chance for a person or institution to justify evil acts because they help the greater humanity. Just for comparison's sake, I look to Jesus for my morality. When he was asked "What is the greatest commandment" he gave a two part answer, 1) love God with all your heart, 2) love your neighbor as yourself. The second part is pretty much the golden rule, however, he entwines the golden rule with the commandment to love God. I believe this is to protect against the possible damage that can occur in the purely utilitarian approach. The idea is that one must understand the moral character of God so that when one goes on to make decisions the common good, they are in line with God's character (i.e., devoid of evil). I think this can be applied to some of the misunderstandings/disagreements regarding stem cell research. A Christian is more likely to mull over a scientific advancement as he/she parses out the possible positives and negatives of that advancement. Given the pros and the cons, they ask themselves, tho this may help the greater good, is it acceptible to God, Is it evil? So, what you perceive as Christians dragging their feet is actually them trying to determine what is going to be best for humanity in the long run. Christians want to help humanity, but not at the risk of introducing a potentially greater evil into the world that could actually lead to greater human suffering. Hopefully this clears up some misconceptions.

Do you not understand morality is subjective? Give me ten christians and they will have ten different ideas of morality, ten different ideas of what jesus meant, and ten different ideas the most important parts of morality. Humans use empathy, altruism, society, and what they are taught in their formative years to develop what is "moral". If there was a universal morality, let's say in the bible, all christians would hold to the same moral code, which they do not.

Sugarfree, please resond to this.