I am sincerely curious as to why those who do not believe in the existence of God would spend time and energy to convince others to believe the same? I am asking this respectfully and am seeking true, valid answers--not attacks or arguments. I just want to understand the motives. Thank you!
Believers think non believer should be saved from hell
I say THOU SHALL NOT SHOULD, OR no shoulding please
No argument, not from me, it’s fun fun and serious fun
1. In self defense against those who are actively trying to convert them.
I've personally had a baptist preach at me for hours because I didn't believe exactly the same thing as she did. (I believe in Christ, but not her version of him) If I could have convinced her that God didn't exist I would have just to shut her up. Which brings us to point two.
2. As revenge against those who are actively trying to convert them.
If you know you can't shut them up and they are doing the conversational equivalent of rape then you can at least make them as miserable as they are making you. Not pretty, but there is a certain amount of human nature involved.
3. Because religion causes people to want the world to follow "God's law"
It is just peachy if someone wants to follow the morals of their religion themselves. However, it kinda sucks to have the rules of that religion forced on you if you aren't a follower. Imagine not being able to eat pork because it was against your president/dictator/prime minister/king's religion. Christianity in America is the driving force behind two major hot topics-Gay marriage and Abortion. It also used to be the driving force behind the laws preventing integration and those against interracial marriage. Effectively, people were suffering because of the religious drive of the fanatics making the laws (or voting for them)
4. Because religion makes people do things for obscure reasons.
"God told me to" or "Satan told me to" are common delusions that cause all manor of horrible decisions to be made. Those statements make it difficult to differentiate a psychotic from the devout until a kid gets tied up in the woods and left to die or a building gets an airplane flown into it. Likely the disturbed individual would have done those things with or without the influence of religion but their insanity might have been detected and treated earlier without the "acceptable" delusions that come with religion.
5. Just for piss and giggles.
Let's be honest, there are those who just like messing with other people. Attacking the faith of another person is the easiest way to get them fired up.
6. An honest desire to help other people.
There are people that believe that destroying someone's faith in God will make their lives better in some way. It's not a very nice way to think, but then again there are plenty of religious individuals who feel the same way about spreading the word of God to atheists. It's a little deluded and majorly egotistical on both sides of the fence to basically believe that if everyone believed like you that their lives would be wonderful, but these people actually feel like it is their duty to improve the world.
I think when I first joined hub pages, 1) i had the wrong impression of you, and 2) I gave an awful impression of myself.
Anyways, well said!
*grins* Stick around, I'm sure I'll piss you off again
And when I do and you tell me off for it, don't sweat it... I'm an Italian Unitarian... Arguing is pretty much my only form of communication
I was going to respond to this but I see you have already done so very nicely.
Suppose 90% of the human race believed in Big Foot. There is no evidence for Big Foot, no rational reason for believing in him, but still 90% of the world believed. Suppose further that most of those people used Big Foot as an explanation for various things they did not understand--from bad weather to bad luck. Suppose that Big Foot was the basis of moral systems and ethical codes across civilization. Suppose that Big Foot was the root of legal systems, political regimes, customs, rituals and cultural traditions that affected the lives of billions of people.
Suppose some even used Big Foot as a justification for killing, torturing, raping, persecuting, jailing or silencing other people.
Suppose when met with scientific theories that clashed with their assumptions, many people invoked Big Foot as the source of their superior knowledge. Suppose Big Foot was the thing that gave meaning, direction and purpose to the lives of millions of people. Sure, it might be a harmless fairy tale for them. But still.
Wouldn't you be just a little interested in advocating against the idea of Big Foot?
The moral of the story being that, If people believed in Big Foot and that belief did not change their decisions, actions and other beliefs, no one would have a problem with them.
Belief in a God (creator) is usually not a debatable subject.
Belief in God (monotheism) is a whole different kettle of fish, and when it leads to stoning, celibacy, homophobia, condom banning, racism, slavery, wars and conflict (all in the name of God), then people are going to have a problem with it.
That, and God gets in the way of science, which has been proven to help people
So all in all it's not so much a problem with God as it is a problem with religion. Religion being the very questionable interpretations of what this God wants with us.
OMG! people need to get a grip! Are you serious that this is all you can come up with on the subject of religion? This great cultural force that has been around in every part of the world for thousands of years, taking every possible colour and dimension, being the inspiration behind almost every piece of art, science (yes, science), desire for self-improvement, for unity, for philanthropy. Is all you can come up with a short list of negative points for the great history of humanity?
It is pathetic to suggest that something is good because it did something good in the past. There is a much better alternative to religion now, non-religion.
Today, religion serves no use.
That is why people argue against religious beliefs today.
It is 2012 now...
It is good right now, regardless of your dislike for it.
Oh really? Would you care to tell me how?
Though please don't stone, threaten, murder, sexually abuse or sexually mutilate me, discriminate against my sex, discriminate against my sexuality, sell my daughter as a sex slave OR wage a war on my country in the process.
Is that what goes on in America? or Europe?
We have freedom! We should celebrate it, not throw it away.
You mean is that what goes on in America and European countries, all secular countries?
No, because they do not derive any of of their decisions from religion. They are secular...
Thanks for backing my argument
You seem to be missing a large chunk of your education.
You seem to not know what a secular country is.
A secular country is one where religion and state are separate. However, in Great Britain the Queen is both head of state and head of the Church. In America, a president invariably gets voted in as a result of his professed Christianity. Spain is a socialist country with a huge population of Catholics. Italy is a Catholic country with a huge population of bad Catholics. France insists on never mentioning religion and has a surprising 54% Christian population. I don't think many of us can really imagine a truly secular state.
I'm sorry, you are confused.
A secular country is one that doesn't let religion influence its political and jurisprudential choices. Not one that doesn't have religious people in it...
For example, many Islamic countries base their laws and so morals on what is taught in the Qu'ran, they are not therefore, secular countries.
Thus your argument of "is this what goes on in America? Or Europe?" favors my side, because all laws and so all state induced morality is influenced by secular, non religious thought.
Our law is still heavily entrenched in Christian law which is why Aquinas is still studied in a law degree. The law surely has an effect on politics?
The UK's politics makes no reference to religion when deciding a decision and no referral to any holy scriptures. If Aquinas is taught it is only because he had great or terrible ideas that law students can learn from, nothing to do with the fact that priests are religious and must be learned about.
Yes, the law has an effect on politics. Politicians make laws. Religion has no effect on law however.
You just made that up as you went along. Aquinas' philosophy on natural law and ethics are central to our cultural understanding of law in general, after Aristotle. He may not be brought up on court or in Parliament today but the relationship to medieval Christian laws remain. The US Constitution sits on common law principles, but these in turn still rest upon classical principles many would say.
Perhaps Britain retains more of its Christian resonance than America because it doesn't have the influence of Hobbes' Humanism which favours individualistic self-interest over virtue.
I for one, appreciate the value of the continued legacy, (however faint in some respects) of natural law in Britain, and believe it contributes greatly to its being an essentially peaceful and just nation.
I did not make anything up as I went along!
Aquinas's philosophy was invented by Aquinas, he did not take it from the Bible. When he made an argument, he didn't base it on "That's what God would have wanted us to do" but on reason and logic, I presume.
If he based it on the bible, then he did not do anything at all special, he invented his own views and morals just like other humans do.
The US Constitution specifically states that it is impartial to religions, it's citizens have freedom of choice of religion, and that no religious ideas will interfere with political decisions.
You are using a fallacy. You are basically saying "yeah well Aquinas says don't kill people and that's what the law says too" and "because the Bible also says that we shouldn't kill people, our law and Aquinas' philosophy is based on the Bible" pish posh Mrs Boo. It's based on reason!
Britain is est.60% non believers now, most if not all politicians are non believers, are most of the scientists. Most members of considerable power are non believers too.
So when a law comes to be passed, no consideration is given to what Jesus would have done, or what the almighty God wishes us to do.
Abortion is legal whether God likes it or not.
Homosexuals are allowed to exist in peace whether God likes it or not.
If we were not secularly run then religious no no's like these things would be under threat.
The moral of the story is, the Bible (and any other scripture) has nothing to do with our politics today, and should stay that way, because as all things that are 4000 years old, the content is primitive and seemingly malicious by todays standards.
Lizzie, do you wear blinkers? I don't mind Christians who stick to Christian principles, but the holier than thou Christian right contort the bible to justify hatred, war, racism, homophobia, closed borders, the Patriot act, etc. If you think you have freedom, please explain why the USA has the world's largest prison population, full body scans and pat downs at airports, government wire tapping and email interception without warrants etc. This can't all be attributed to religious zealots fighting drugs and terrorists....or can it?
Religious sects have demonized alot of harmless things. An Alabama minister thought that marijuana should be illegalized do to "Negros getting high and raping white women". This is the type of trickery used by the church to keep people from thinking for themselve's. If there is a form of free thought, the church is there to squelch it, before it becomes a fad.
We have nothing like that in Britain. Its beginning to become clear why there are so many anti- religionists in America.
We have everything like that in Britain, or we are each living in our own version of Britain. Just this week, we have had the verdict regarding the Stephen Lawrence trial- Racially motivated murder, only took 18 years for a conviction and some of the guilty party remain to be convicted. War, this Government are chomping at the bit to go to war with Iran. Homophobia, my 19 year old gay son has received countless bashings because of his sexuality.
Britain is a secular nation and rapidly becoming an anti-religion nation also. Much more so than the US. Church and state are separated, thankfully. And I think you might find that "Hobbes' Humanism is embedded in UK society far more than you believe.
Very good points.
Americans feel free,because the media has them well trained but its the same with most other Western countries too.
What the Governments have instilled via propaganda etc is 'Their ethos of freedom' which most intelligent minds know doesnt match our personal idea of freedom. (The ones you mention are a great example)..
Ooops got off topic-um ok
Atheism is a form of religion ie, they have a message and they have a set of ideals to promote,so there will be always be conflict with the opposing side
LOL! Despite the fact that religion is defined as a strong belief in a supernatural power controlling human destinies and does not contain anything to do with a message or a set of ideals to promote, despite the fact atheism is merely a lack of that belief or denial of that belief, has no have a message or promotes a set of ideals, your post still managed to falsely and dishonesty portray them as equivalent in some way which has yet to be revealed.
What's worse is the fact you imply the "opposing side" are victims of the conflict, when the conflict would never exist if not for the fact your faith had a message and promoted a set of ideals as a result of the strong belief. The very same conflict we've observed from the followers of your religion for hundreds of years.
To top it off, you're essentially saying that as long as there are people who don't believe as you do, there will always be conflict.
Try to be objective in your arguement.
The problems of this world (and I dont propose to suggest they have one solution)are not directly related to what I think
Funny I had the same opinion as I read your posts,but your reaction seems to confirm my original statement -
Make up your mind you must be stereotyped ,its the law
I'm almost absolutely positive you would, that was the point.
Heres the thing I dont get (which is similar to the OP)
Whatever you think about God per se, doesnt directly affect me ,either your opinions or judgement. I think its ok for you to think and express opposing thoughts for example. If I think its not true or skewed ,I tend to roll my eyes or shake my head ,but it doesn't make me angry to the point of calling you names or standing on my soap box and spitting sarcastic remarks...back n forth about how ridiculous your religion is or prove it la la la..
Just let it be.. I say
Who would walk in Big foot shoes or even to be big foot like, the same for JC?
The results would be the same if we ever physically find big foot. The spiritual leader would translate to control masses and the translation would wrong even those the mystic of Big Foot or JC were true
By the way ( and this is not a lie) one of the channels, I think it is natGeo is starting a new series. It is about people who are looking for Big Foot. I am not kidding.
He actually went missing in the Bermuda triangle.
There have been plenty of shows about Big Foot, with none of them ever producing a shred of evidence while others are exposed for fraud.
Ok, it is on Animal Planet Sundays at 10pm
Shaquille O'Neal has size 23 feet and is/was worshiped by millions.
People who are driven primarily by emotions and a narrative are potentially dangerous when compared to a person who overcomes emotions with reasoning. No one choses theistic beliefs because he considers it the reasonable thing to do.
And no two persons or two countries ever had problems because each became too reasonable.
I chose theistic beliefs because, for me, it was the reasonable thing to do. Just saying.
For everyone else in this thread, lets be reasonable. Just because you hate religion doesn't mean that it doesn't have positives. Just because you are devout doesn't mean that religion hasn't caused problems.
It's very childish to stomp your foot and ignore history just because you don't like the way it makes your side of the argument look. Extreme views on both side of the fence are either purposeful lying or self-delusion.
You are an extreme minority as a reason-based theist. For the most part, I do not want people in our society holding positions of power who accept without demanding evidence that an angel provided seer stones to Joe so he could read golden tablets or some other ludicrous tale of myth and legend.
What would that person do if sold a narrative about Iraq - would he go to war unjustifiably because he didn't demand enough evidence? Would the nearly 200,000 Iraqis who died in the war and the 4000 US troops who died in an unjustified war of aggression want him to lead or would they prefer someone who demanded better evidence before acting?
See what I mean?
Mellissa Barrett, as Winston points out you seem a reasonable person.
That is why I am very interested in hearing what you believe the positives of religion in the modern world is?
Positives that could not have been reached in the hands of secularist rationality.
I can only really think of one, and that's conning Americans out of money for charity. I would suggest that religious charities offer a lot of otherwise unaccessible money. Targeting the "I'm afraid of eternal damnation and love heaven" demographic that secular charities just can't seem to reach out to.
I'm not sure if you are speaking historically or personally so I'll address both.
I'm not sure that there are any that couldn't be reached by secularist rationality... if it always existed. It didn't, however, and humans have the need for answers. It doesn't particularly matter if they are the right answers they just need to be believed to be the right answers. Hence religion. If you believe that lightning comes from the Gods, then you can go about your life doing your best not to piss God off. This is infinitely more productive then hiding under a tree waiting for it to strike. It's not the RIGHT answer but it does allow society to function a little better.
Basically, the belief in God is the first step to looking for answers. It's the simplest answer and the easiest to explain.
In addition, society has to have some basic laws and there must be a reason for those laws for them to be universally accepted. The begginning laws/norms were based on the "God thing" which everyone accepted... Once again enabling society as a whole to get on with other things. As new things were discovered they replaced "because God said so" (albeit slowly) and society evolved.
Secular from the beginning would not have worked because there simply wasn't enough science to run a working society.
Secular rationality is great, but it provided little in the way of emotional guidance for me. It's a very long personal story but I was basically put into a situation where there was no logical reason big enough for me to NOT do something that I very much wanted to do. I looked to the Bible and the teachings of Christ to provide me with a role model to change myself enough to not want to do the thing I wanted to do. Effectively, Jesus became an archtype and his teachings provided a path.
That being said, secular archtypes are extremely difficult to find. Even those who walk on earth presently or in recent history (MLK, Gandhi, Mother Theresa) come from religious backgrounds. When the secular society starts producing rolemodels that exhibit selflessness, charity, and devotion to humanity (which I am sure it eventually will) then my reasons will also be outdated. Until then, I work with what I've got.
They provide role-models.
Ahh I see, well I am very aware of religions benefits to mankind in the past, it certainly worked for us.
But I was more interested about its modern day benefits which in a way you addressed in your personal reason.
Allow me to summarise then:
-As as a theistic Christian you do not believe a large part of the bible (the old testament)?
-You do not believe that the events of the bible were meant to be taken literally (I hope)
-You see intrinsic value in the bible as a guideline for behaviour found (at least predominantly) in the stories of Jesus alone (not the Old Testament and its slavery and hatred).
So am I also right in concluding the following (addressing to the points in order):
- You believe that the bible should be re-written to contain only the moral and useful parts of the bible (not say, the mosaic laws) so that way there would be a not "TLDNR" version
- You believe that there should be a disclaimer at the beginning of the book reading "WARNING: content is fictional, any resemblance to reality is purely coincidental" or perhaps "based on a true story" if you so believe.
- Finally you believe that what the bible teaches is a better moral guideline then say a philosopher's book,
-An extra point, I take it you are not a church goer and prayer?
So to take your words and put my own conclusion on them:
The positive position of Christianity within our society is essentially what can be called "fairy tales for adults" wherein the story is believed to be fictional, though it carries a very important message. This is believed to be positive because some people pass the judgement that there is no existing alternative of adult based morals.
Allow me to pass this judgement about you however. It seems to me, that any adult who decides to turn to the bible for moral guidance is already a good and moral human being. The fact that you took the step to prevent whatever these "urges" might be shows that you knew it was wrong and wanted to find strength in something, which happened to be the bible. But what about a friend? Or any book about philosophy and morality in existence. These also feature stories of morality and support you through hard times. It seems to me that you value religion on the basis that it helped you to some degree.
I devalue religion because I believe that the one positive that it provides (moral guidance) is flawed from the start (it's deontology) and therefore should be replaced by an alternative.
You yourself have said that you must "work with what I've got" so If I were to ask you "should we try and replace religion" I can only assume that your answer would be "yes". That to me seems paired with the question "is religion good?" and the answer "no".
When there are working alternatives (atheists can be very moral people too, without having to read tomes containing lot's of gibberish), shouldn't we as rational human beings diverge the funds and donations, buildings, facilities etc. of religion to moral education ?
To put this into an extreme analogy, religion is much like a politician saying "killing 100,000 people in London has positive and negative points because although it will kill a lot of people and cause pain and confusion amongst the masses, it solves over-crowdedness in London". This would be a true statement if not for the fact that there are ready alternatives that with the same facilities as killing 100,000 people would produce the same or better results, without the downsides (contraception, state imposed child limit, emigrating 100,000 people instead of killing them).
With religion, it provides a questionable guidance of living. I would not say that the teachings of Jesus are immoral. But neither would I say it's complete.
The ten commandments, which most religious people seem to love, are all very questionable and interpretable. Killing can be the moral thing to do.
So in essence, I feel that religion should be replaced by secular education because from what I have seen, a secular person is more than capable of finding morals through general education.
Wow, Holy Crap where do I start? Okay...
Actually, I treat the Old and New Testaments equally. I am most inspired by the teachings of Christ, but the Old Testament has worthy lessons as well. Of course so do the holy books of all other religions as well. If something resonates with me or inspires me then I don't really care about the source.
I take them figuratively. I do believe that Christ (either as an individual or as a collection of stories about many teachers) existed. It doesn't really matter to me though, it's the lessons that I care about.
Answered above. I believe there is intrinsic value in every value system, religion, or school of thought. (Including Atheism) On the flip side, I also believe there are problems inherent in each one as well.
Not at all. That would be destroying an entire philosophy and a slew of culturally important information just to eliminate the parts that are deemed inappropriate. Throwing the baby out with the bath water never helps. Christianity will either evolve with time to fit society norms or it will die out completely. Besides, Thomas Jefferson already wrote the TLDNR version of the Bible.
Besides, what I find moral and useful is likely not what every other person on this earth would find moral and useful.
LOL! No. But maybe Warning: Not for thumping. You may or may not believe what is written in this book but those are your own personal beliefs and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of anyone else on earth but you. Please read responsibly.
Not at all. It provided guidance for me and served as inspiration, but so did a variety of philosophies. The image of Jesus just happened to have all the qualities I was trying to emulate. Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are great and everything but their thoughts would have likely made things worse for me.
I'm there almost every Sunday and I pray several times daily. My church is extremely open minded and accepting of all viewpoints. The prayer comes in the form of meditation and reaffirming messages. It is still directed at Christ though. To explain either my church or my view of prayer would take more space than tolerable.
Well, yes... sort of.
Not at all. It is positive because it offers another choice that might fit one's needs better than other alternatives. Choice is good.
Quick explanation... My abusive ex-husband caused the death of my 3 year old child. I very much wanted to kill him. Not the "I want to kill someone" that we all joke about, I mean the lay-in-wait and stab him multiple times kinda killing. I had no friends. Not a single one. I went directly from my son's funeral into a mental hospital where I received not one visitor or phone call for the three week stay. Wasn't really up for reading books on philosophy and morality either. I needed a role model for forgiveness pretty damn quick and Jesus on the Cross was what worked. So yes, my religion helped me and yes I value it for that. It kept me sane enough to find other sources and other methods to help.
And that is completely cool that you feel that way. Diversity is awesome.
My answer would obviously be no. Religion will adapt as it has always done. Trying to force the belief out of a world that is not ready to let go of it yet would be a disaster.
First, I know atheist can be very moral people. Secondly, "moral education" is a very tricky thing. The next question being "Who's morals?" If you aren't careful then you will create the same kind of mind control that your rail against religion for creating. Morals are unique to each individual/family/religion/culture. That's how it probably should stay. I prefer a million diverse religions to one universal code. Stagnation occurs without diversity.
You are right, that is an extreme analogy and not altogether apt. I'll save that argument for later though
No philosophy is complete. If it was there would be only one.
Which kinda illustrates what I am saying. I personally can not think of a situation where killing someone else is moral. Desirable, yes. Just, maybe. Necessary? No. As you said, there are always alternatives. Now, with that in mind, who's morals would win out with one uniform moral code?
And I don't feel it should be replaced because I see no reason to limit the sources of moral inspiration to one. In essence, that would be creating a godless religion with no room for individuality and growth.
Wow that's also a lot to take in but I could have only expected that asking so many questions myself.
I suppose my last question would be along the lines of:
What makes you think that religion is capable and willing to change and adapt it's morals?
The reason a religion is a religion is because it is supposed to be based on the word or beliefs of a higher power.
If that higher power is wrong about morality then the whole essence of religion falls apart and you are simply left with a moral belief system or philosophy.
The whole essence of THAT particular religion falls apart perhaps. Why ALL religion? An extremist argument.
It astonishes me just how oddly you take my statements.
My point was that religions are rigid because they have a set of beliefs based on a higher power. If one belief is wrong, then that religion falls apart.
If one belief of every religion is wrong, then they all fall apart.
I did not mean that if one belief of one religion is wrong then all religion is wrong.
"The reason a religion is a religion is because it is supposed to be based on the word or beliefs of a higher power.
"If that higher power is wrong about morality then the whole essence of religion falls apart and you are simply left with a moral belief system or philosophy."
"If that higher power" does not mean one higher power, it means every higher power of every religion.
You've been caught up by the english language no doubt. "That" is a demonstrative expression that refers to a something in particular. You've taken that to mean one singular thing however. This mistake arises because you haven't taken the sentence in context which is to say you didn't realise that the determiner was in reference to the previous sentence I had said which was "the reason a religion is a religion is because..." The point being that "that higher power" was a reference to the higher power of religion, as indicated by my saying "the reason a religion is a religion." Religion in itself is a collective term for all religions. Therefore "the higher power" of religion is a collective term for all higher powers of all religions.
Because religion has adapted and changed throughout history. New religions are born while others die out. In 1900 or so year Christianity has gone through so many changes that it is mind boggling. Starting from the many revisions and reinterpretations of the bible to the changing of Christian morals and beliefs with the absorption of each converted people.
I think you are using a fairly limited view of monotheistic religion to base your definition of religion. Specifically, it seems you are basing it on the Abrahamic religions so we'll go with that. Those religions themselves are an example of religious evolution. Islam from early Christianity, early Christianity from the Jewish faith. Each religion can be broken down into endless numbers of sects and denominations that vary from the original. Each split leads to slightly different theology and evolves the religion as a whole. Then as each denomination/sect splits again, more divergence.
If that's not evolution, it's a damn close thing.
With that said, not all religions are based on a higher power per-say. But I'll go that most are. The degree to which that higher power(s) is involved in the lives/morality of his/her/their subjects varies greatly. The big three that are currently the subject of debate do fail if that higher power is wrong. (Ironically, Judaism would be least likely to fail if the existence of God was disproven-which will never happen btw but that's another debate)
But, even if they failed completely the beliefs would exist, slightly modified, in the next religion. The only way the religion wouldn't be a reflection of humanity would be if an undisputed living God/King lived among humans.
As such, all religion is and always will be a moral system and philosophy. If you look closely though, most religions share most morals of the time. (arguing only over the smallest percentage of differences) Generally, those morals also align with currently known scientific data and laws. Go figure.
Mellissa, that's not really what I meant.
"Because religion has adapted and changed throughout history. New religions are born while others die out."
I mean, how does a specific religion adapt and change.
Not how historically they have gone extinct and been born. The religions didn't change, they were either created or destroyed repeatedly.
How can specific ones change?
The reason is important because people say for example "I am a catholic [sect specified]".
Their beliefs are then concrete, unyielding, because if the beliefs of that religion were to change, it would be a different one altogether.
Where is the room for adaptation there?
And even historically, given that scripture is not allowed to be edited. Are the moral beliefs not restricted within the parameters of those relatively short and ambiguous texts?
Not to be argumentative, but I think I answered that with the second part of my post. Religions change/adapt by the splitting into denominations and sects and the further division of those sects/denominations. Each division changes the faith as a whole.
If you are talking about change within a specific sect of a religion within a small period of time, it happens to. Within the Catholic religion(your example) new decisions about dogma are made pretty regularly by the Vatican.
In addition, you are still referencing the most dogmatic religions. Within my faith, for example, there is no prescribed set of beliefs that we all must follow. Therefore each individual's beliefs vary widely from anyone else. Debate is welcomed and I've never walked away from an intelligent debate without my beliefs being at least slightly affected. Therefore, it is possible for an individual within the religion to adapt/change within a day.
Finally, I'm not sure where you get the idea that scripture isn't subject to change. Again, I get the feeling that you are talking about the Christian Bible rather than religious texts in general. My family owns a couple hundred year old Bible... It looks completely different from my personal bible. There are so many editions of the Bible that they are almost innumerable. In addition, the scripture of individual sects often looks completely different from the "standard" bible that is in use. The Mormon and JW bibles, for example.
Worthy lessons from the Old Testament like some of my favorites - Death for the curious - like killing Lot's wife by turning her into a pile of sodium chloride for daring to look back or sending she-bears out of the dessert to maul 42 children who dared call someone "baldy".
*rolls eyes* Pick another story, there's plenty enough of them that you don't have to repeat specific objections that have been pointed out a million times. The atheism sites are wonderful for verses, but they do tend to repeat themselves.
Then, reread what I wrote. Comprehend my position. Then come back with a troll argument that would actually upset me.... or find an easier mark. The later would probably be your best bet.
There was that man, too, who refused to strike a prophet out of the kindness of his heart. God told the prophet to tell the man to strike him because it was God's will, when the man refused, and went away, God sent a lion to maul Him to death. What a loving God!
I don't believe that religion is the problem, never has been, human beings who take it upon them selves to interpret scriptures to, and for, their own ends are the problem. Some religious people have a lot to give, positively, to society. Whereas others, the self appointed Christ themselves type, can only offer judgements and discrimination. No wonder some run a mile from religion. BTW, Happy new year, Melissa.
It is a good question to atheists.
I think in their heart of their hearts; they are in doubt of their approach to non-belief.
How does one have an "approach" to non-belief. This no doubt refers to the false premise that atheism is somehow another form of religion. Atheists simply refuse to buy into the guilt cycle found in all religions and live with the knowledge that they alone are responsible for their lives.
Because it took years for us to form our deepest insights, to have them shattered, would take a lifetime to repair. People fear change and they fear that which they do not understand. Atheists don't understand God and they fear religious folks, because they fear seeing that which they see in you, within themselve's. They have been convinced that God is a crazy idea and they want no part of the craziness.
As I have stated a million times before, I am not an atheist, this is just a guess as to why you will find opposition.
Seek: You will never know the answer to this question, because those who respond are so immature and childish and self-centered, and self-opinionated, they will not answer it truthfully. The truth is they are scared that God is real but don't want to believe that they do not control their lives.
Why is it that religious people (not all, but many) have a bad habit of throwing people together in the same boat? There are plenty of non-religious people who have a good set of morals that they follow, who don't even have an "eternal place of rest, or heavenly treasures, and a pat on the back" that they are waiting for. They literally just do it because it's right, and they believe in the Golden Rule. Not everybody is quick to run to doing what's truly wrong because they are non-religious. And not everyone is secretly afraid that there is a God and that they will be punished. Everybody's not inherently bad because your religion teaches that we're wrecks without God. We're not. I know non-religious people that are way more moral than the religious when it comes to the treatment of others. But many religious (not all and mainly Christians) write off the good that people do because "salvation is not by works, but by faith alone" or whatever it is, and so I think that's really where a lot of the callousness comes from, as well as other places.
Religions are set up to indoctrinate children into believing mythical gods, hence they are abusing children by destroying their minds, and that needs to stop.
Wow, so you both are mocking a man because you think he was abused as a child? That' sick.
Also the expression is "you hit the nail on the head"
Why would anyone hit a hammer?
It actually doesn't matter to me if others believe in God. What does matter to me is what some others have mentioned and that is that belief in God/religion almost always gets imposed on others that do not believe that way. If I get judged by people who think I should believe the same way they do I might get defensive.
I dont ask people to believe me. That would be like flicking from one to the other. The whole point is not to believe in things without evidence.
I want people to open their mind and use rationality and logic to decide wether or not things are viable. Not to just believe someone blindly wether they are saying there is a god or saying that there isnt one.
It actually saddens me the people that argue against proven facts because these facts contradict their belief for which they have no proof. It saddens me that people will ostracise others and be willing to attack and kill for their beliefs.
As long as people are led to believe that it is normal to believe things without evidence, then there is no stopping fundamentalists who use this belief to make children grow up into dangerous murderers under the unfounded beleif that they are doing good.
I can't recall ever seeing someone trying to convert the 'converted'. It's not like Atheist go door to door. Atheist don't try to strong hold society and politics, influencing laws that affect people outside of their religion. Religion belongs only in the family.
I.E. Abortion: Christian's oppose abortion because they believe at the moment of conception, God puts a soul in the zygote. Since it's not a fact that this happens, a Christian's opinion is only relevant when it deals with his or her family.
So why would a Religious person think he or she has the right to dictate another human's life on the basis of a religion, a religion who has no more or less credibility than the other major religions.
It isn't the belief in man made religion. It's the intention's of it. This is why people who don't believe are passionate about the debate.
Abortion is a human rights issue. You think the desire to protect human life is an infringement of your human rights? Sorry Mr, but I'm going to continue to protect the innocent from people exactly like you.
"Atheists don't try to strong-hold society and politics"...try telling that to the Jews of the Holocaust. Please.
Really you should be fighting to protect the "innocent" from Jesus, being that 20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. (50% of all known and unknown end in miscarriage, also) Jesus is the ultimate abortionist.
It is impossible to know that 'Jesus' installs a soul at the moment of conception. If you think you know this for a fact, please seek psychiatric help! Being that this is just your belief, you have no right perusing it outside of you family. (I.E. mind you own business)
Obviously abortion is a tricky topic. I wish everyone was responsible enough so we didn't need it, but life is more complicated than that.
Please don't get me started on Hitler. Some extracurricular studies will without doubt show you Hitler wasn't an Atheist. (Atheism isn't a political stance, duh!)
Here, I will get you started on the right path-
A) Hitler thought only the white race came from God. (Atheism?)
B) What religion was his followers? (soldiers, supporters, ect...)
C) What religious symbol did Hitler's officers wear?
D) What religion helped the Nazi party by handing over Jewish family records? (in order to trace back bloodlines to exterminate the Jews)
(To be fair many Catholics did help hide Jewish people from persecution, but only after they were baptized)
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” –Adolf Hitler
(Does he sound kind of mad being that the 'Jews' killed Christ?)
Don't let your emotions cloud your mind. It is not impossible to know that a human life has been conceived. Does that human have rights?
Obviously there's life at conception. Is there a soul? If so how can we know? I think it's "impossible" to know. Which is my point, people shouldn't try to dictate another person's life on the basis of something that is unknown.
cranfordjs, do me a favour! Hitler only pretended to be Christian to get into power. He certainly didn't keep the pretence up long after that.
Hitler's officers wore scull and cross bones on their caps. Bit of a give-away wouldn't you say?
Catholics didn't wait for Jews to be baptised before they helped them either. That's just defamation.
As for the abortion issue, you don't need to believe in God to be against it. Even Christopher Hitchens said that in the case of abortion, the rights of the mother contravenes the rights of the unborn child.
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
Anyways, the Nazi officers had "Gott mit uns" ("God with us") on their belts. What does "scull and cross bones on their caps" have to do with Atheism? FYI, the scull and cross bone is a navy thing. America's navy uses it still today. (I.E. special ops)
Don't use Hitchens against me! He's on my team, regardless of this topic! lol (Even after death, as his work lives on.)
All in all, I agree abortion is bad for the most part, but my opinion is irrelevant being that I'm a male. (and its only relevant for a female when she, herself, is placed with the decision.)
Exactly. He was appealing to a desperate Christian nation. How wrong they were to be drawn in! You must also realise that allot of the Germans were horrified by these statements which go against Christianity completely. Jesus said love thy neighbour. Killing is a mortal sin. It is hideous to suggest that there is anything of Christ's teaching in Hitler's beliefs.
I'm a fan of Hitchens too, believe it or not. I disagreed with alot of what he said but admired his conviction and consistency and also his preservation of the English language.
Abortion concerns us all. It will never be a comfortable decision. Mothers need more support the world over. Men need to behave better towards women. Human life should be held as sacred. All these things would improve the plight of the unborn.
I have to comment on your abortion statement. Women need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions. Stop thinking that getting pregnant is a way to control and trap men. If the laws were changed so that they couldn't use pregnancy as a weapon you'd see a whole lot less unmarried girls getting pregnant.
hmmm, men need to grow up and quit trapping women into "if you love me you'll do it" guilt trip...then we would have alot less unwed, pregnant girls out there.
What made you think I see pregnancy as a way of trapping men?
That is about the only reason a woman doesn't think ahead and protect herself. I gag when some woman talks about being'surprised'. That it was an accident. Women aren't ignorant. They understand human reproduction quite well.
And becoming pregnant is their choice. Carrying a baby to term is their choice. Men who are given no choice at either of these stages should not be forced to kow tow to the selfish actions of another human being. They have no say in whether the child is carried to term or not. Yet women expect to be paid for the choices they make. They use children as weapons, all the while causing these children to suffer emotionally because the mothers themselves aren't mature enough to stand up and accept that they selfishly made choices that, let's be honest, had nothing to do with the welfare of the child from the moment of inception.
Women love to sing the song, talking about their maternal instincts, but a true maternal instinct would want the best for a child and wouldn't attempt to create a situation without mutual consent. That would involve both parties choosing. Not one, selfishly.
Except in the case of rape. If a woman wants to carry that child to term the man responsible should pay
I agree with you that to be surprised and unprepared for pregnancy after casual sex is an act of selfishness against the man and the unborn child. All the actions leading up to pregnancy are usually a choice. (After all, the chances of getting pregnant after rape is very small). I would say that there is selfishness on both sides though. Men and women should feel responsible for the consequences of their actions.
My first child was a surprise. The father had made no promises and wanted nothing to do with it. I took the responsibility by myself and never contacted him again. My daughter is 11 now and is the love of my life. I met a lovely man when she was 4, married him, and had 3 more children. It's true that you cannot hold a man to a promise he never made. He was free to go.
I'm sorry I posted so forcefully last night. I'm afraid I've had the misfortune of watching women use pregnancies to attempt to entrap men more than anything else. The men are cads, to be sure. But women shouldn't attempt to manipulate people.
I also had the misfortune of watching many of those children grow up. An absentee parent is a difficult thing for a child to come to grips with. More so when the mother is bitter that plans didn't come to fruition.
Women have the potential to be strong, successful and beautifully independent. I just hate to watch them throw it all away. Our expectations, as they stand, are at odds with what is best for children. Our society holds sex up as if it some great aspiration. Girls are expected to want to be desirable. But a sex symbol is not something anyone respects. Not in the long run. And unwanted pregnancies are the result of young girls trying to use lies and deceit to trap a man who has used lies and deceit to entice her back.
Why we can't drive that point home to our young girls is an ongoing mystery. Women such as yourself are far and few between. Your child is lucky. Many aren't.
(You must also realise that allot of the Germans were horrified by these statements which go against Christianity completely. Jesus said love thy neighbour. Killing is a mortal sin. It is hideous to suggest that there is anything of Christ's teaching in Hitler's beliefs.)
First off, I am not condoning Hitler or the Nazis, but to really understand the holocaust it is necessary to understand sociology and European history. As far back as Martin Luther, there were vile written attacks on Jews as anti-Christians. European sentiment was that the Jews were abominable and were blamed for all manner of horrors (see blood libel).
The German people were no different than anyone else in Europe, and Hitler only took advantage of an already existing bias against Jews within the German population.
The only Christian influence was a negative one, that Jews rejected Jesus and thus were "less than" believers.
Here is a sample about Martin Luther:
"Although Luther did not invent anti-Jewishness, he promoted it to a level never before seen in Europe. Luther bore the influence of his upbringing and from anti-Jewish theologians such as Lyra, Burgensis, (and John Chrysostom, before them). But Luther's 1543 book, "On the Jews and their lies" took Jewish hatred to a new level when he proposed to set fire to their synagogues and schools, to take away their homes, forbade them to pray or teach, or even to utter God's name. Luther wanted to "be rid of them" and requested that the government and ministers deal with the problem. He requested pastors and preachers to follow his example of issuing warnings against the Jews. He goes so far as to claim that "We are at fault in not slaying them" for avenging the death of Jesus Christ. Hitler's Nazi government in the 1930s and 40s fit Luther's desires to a tee."
Martin Luther's dirty little book: On the Jews and their lies A precursor to Nazism
by Jim Walker
The Nazi's first went for the foreigners and homosexuals before the Jews. Sound familiar? Who's the Nazi's today?
How about facts instead of a narrative that you want to believe?
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them, and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter." - Adolf Hitler, Speech, April 12, 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, Oxford University Press.)
Do you know what politicians are? They speak what they want their audience to believe!
Here's the proof Hitler was an occultist:
Take these quotes into consideration:
Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939:
"The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay.""
Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, noted:
"The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."
"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
(Adolf Hitler, quoted by Albert Speer, p. 96, Inside the Third Reich.)
Also, when the case against the Nazi leaders were being built for the trial at Nuremberg, 148 bound volumes wree gathered by the American OSS (World War 2 predecessor of the CIA). It reveals the Nazis plan to wipe out Christianity:
The first installment (the papers are being published in stages) includes a 108-page OSS outline, “The Persecution of the Christian Churches.” It’s not easy reading, but it’s an enlightening tale of how the Nazis — faced with a country where the overwhelming majority considered themselves Christians — built their power while plotting to undermine and eradicate the churches, and the people’s faith.
http://www.boundless.org/2001/regulars/ … 00541.html
I’m not sure if you are aware that the swastika is a rune, that is an occult, symbol.
Heinrich Himmler had been in contact with all esoteric knowledge, and he used it as dark as possible. He was especially interested in Rune-magic. It was Himmler who created the infamous SS and like the Swastika, he used another magic symbol, the two sig-runes, which looked like two flashes. Within the SS all the esoteric knowledge in the Third Reich finally was gathered. SS was ruled by a Black Magic, secret Order. Their rituals were borrowed from other similar orders, like the Jesuit Order and the Templar Order. The highest ranking “priests” of this order were the 13 members of the “Knight’s Great Council”, which was ruled by Grandmaster Heinrich Himmler. The Black Rituals were practiced in the old castle Wewelsberg in Westfalen. Here they obeyed Lucifer, Satan or Set, the consciousness which then inspired the Nazis, and today the Illuminati.
Hitler was a member of the German occult society, “The Vril Society”.
Historians have tended to downplay the occult foundations of Nazism for fear of trivialising its heinous war crimes, but a recent documentary on the Discovery Channel laid bare the untold story of the secretive religion at the heart of fascist Germany. And bizarrely, it is thought to have been based on a 19th Century science fiction novel that predicted flying saucers, an alien race at the centre of the earth, and a mysterious force known as Vril.
“Occult myths played a central role in Nazism,” says Professor Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, head of the Centre for the Study of Esotericism at Exeter University. “When we look at these ideas today, we think of them as crazy, but they were central to the early Nazi Party and through them played a critical role in 20th century history.”
“The Vril society was dedicated to evil,” says historian Michael Fitzgerald. “Through their control of the Nazi party they committed the greatest acts of evil in the 20th
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … JCOlJMiqec
Excellent documentary on the Nazi Occult Connection. I’m not sure if you are aware that Hitler believed in an Aryan race? The members of this society sought to learn about the mastery of the Aryan race.
Thanks for link to that Christian site. I noticed they spread lies, too. From the page you linked...
"But it’s not Christianity that’s injected evil into the world. In fact, the worst massacres in history have been committed by atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) and virtual pagans (Hitler). Christians have amassed their share of sins over the past 2,000 years, but the great murderers have been the church’s enemies, especially in the past century."
"Swastikas have also been used in other various ancient civilizations around the world. It remains widely used in Indian religions, specifically in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, primarily as a tantric symbol to evoke 'shakti' or the sacred symbol of good luck. The swastika is also a Chinese character used in East Asia representing eternity and Buddhism." wiki
The Illuminati News and Youtube are your sources?
No, it's a fact that the swastika is an occult rune symbol. You can't dispute that.
Believe that Hitler was truly a Christian despite him thinking Jesus was Aryan and hated the Jews and thought that killing them was serving Jesus. I'm sorry for you if this is rational thinking. Why anyone would take anything Hitler said as gospel when he was a psychopath who committed such atrocities is beyond me.
The left-handed swastika has been used for the occult, but you rarely ever see it. The right-handed swastika goes back thousands of years as a solar symbol.
No one said it was rational thinking.
You appear to not have looked at history to see what the Christian belief system has done to people. Based on your logic, many religious leaders in the past were psychopaths, just like Hitler.
So what if you really see it? It's still an occult symbol! The right-handed swastika also.
What don't you get, A Troubled Man? Hitler knew by professing to be a Christian he would get support. If he came out and said he was a Satanist, how much support to you think he would get? The one trait psychopaths have is being being highly manipulative. They know when they are lying.
The Devil, too, can claim to be a Christian but does that make him a true follower of Christ? So please use your brain and differentiate between the abuse of religion and a love for Jesus Christ.
Do you not have anything intelligent to say? Everything in life is a big joke to you. That is counter productive because if you think laughing at Christians is going to convert them to atheism, you are sorely mistaken. So you are wasting your own time and ours.
The lies you post.
Yes, it isn't too difficult to spot a liar.
Okay, so you don't think the swastika is a rune symbol; you don't think he professed to be a Christian with the intent to rally support from the Vatican and the public; you don't believe he was a Satanist and you think that you have the ability to convert Christians into atheists.
And you believe that energy is created.
It's not hard to find someone who is uneducated.
What's wrong with you? Don't you get the facts of the swastika? It's an occult symbol and no professed Christian would use that as their symbol. They would use a crucifix, no?
History will show corrupt men and governments greedy for power and money right up to the current day ,that's what history will show!
But its convenient to blame God or try to make a scapegoat of his believers.(That parts not new either)
Ah yes, the dishonest appear with their contradictory claims.
But, its convenient to praise God whenever something goes right. (That parts not new either)
The Bible says to give thanks (praise) for ALL things. I dont always ,but I think a grateful spirit is healthier than a complaining one
No condradiction, but it is a big man who can admitt when he doesnt understand wisdom.
"The world ever needs the fool and it is said that a fool that is left to his own folly, will eventualy become wise". Zen prose.
(Do you know what politicians are? They speak what they want their audience to believe!)
Everything you posted as evidence is second-hand, while I gave you the words the man himself spoke.
Your response? He lied.
Well, maybe he did, but until you can provide evidence from the man himself, either his writings or his speeches, then you are offering worthless evidence of your beliefs.
So you don't think the SS and swastika is a rune symbol? Shouldn't the Nazi symbol be a crucifix?
H"itler never directed his attacks on Jesus himself, whom Hitler regarded as an Aryan opponent of the Jews. Hitler viewed traditional Christianity as a corruption of the original ideas of Jesus by the Apostle Paul. In Mein Kampf Hitler writes that Jesus "made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross."
Clearly Hitler was deviated from what Christianity is all about. Jesus was not of an Aryan race. He did not have blonde hair and blue eyes. He lied and said Jesus hated Jews. Hitler was just a liar, period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitl … ious_views
Clearly professing to be a Christian was a political move to garner support.
I can also make up stuff about Islam and say I'm a Muslim but I believe Mohammed is the son of God. That doesn't make me a Muslim.
(In Mein Kampf Hitler writes that Jesus "made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross.")
Then you should also be aware that Martin Luther expressed these same anti-semetic viewpoints. I suppose Martin Luther was not "Christian" either?
And so? He thought Jesus was of the Aryan race and that He despised Jews. Is this the Christian faith?
Martin Luther was a Rosecrucian.
Excerpt from below website:
http://therosicrucianorder.com/Golden-D … sonry.html
Within the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite concordant body of Freemasonry, the Eighteenth Degree is specifically concerned with the rose cross and confers the title of "Knight Rose Croix". Of one version of the degree, Albert Pike (member of the Illuminati) wrote in 1871,
"The Degree of Rose Cross teaches three things;-the unity, immutability and goodness of God; the immortality of the Soul; and the ultimate defeat and extinction of evil and wrong and sorrow, by a Redeemer or Messiah, yet to come, if he has not already appeared." 
He goes on to give an explanation of what he believes to be the symbolism of the Rose Cross in that degree:
"But [the cross's] peculiar meaning in this Degree, is that given to it by the Ancient Egyptians. Thoth orPhtha is represented on the oldest monuments carrying in his hand the Crux Ansata, or Ankh, (a Tau cross, with a ring or circle over it). [...] It was the hieroglyphic for life, and with a triangle prefixed meant life-giving. To us therefore it is the symbol of Life-of that life that emanated from the Deity, and of that Eternal Life for which we all hope; through our faith in God's infinite goodness.
"The ROSE, was anciently sacred to Aurora and the Sun. It is a symbol of Dawn, of the resurrection of Light and the renewal of life, and therefore of the dawn of the first day, and more particularly of the resurrection: and the Cross and Rose together are therefore hieroglyphically to be read, the Dawn of Eternal Life which all Nations have hoped for by the advent of a Redeemer." 
The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Satanist Aleister Crowley was a member) made use of the rosy cross as well, including 'The Ritual of the Rose Cross," designed for spiritual protection and as preparation for meditation.
Definition of Rosicrucianism:
Rosicrucianism is a philosophical secret society, said to have been founded in late medieval Germany by Christian Rosenkreuz. It holds a doctrine or theology "built on esoteric truths of the ancient past", which, "concealed from the average man, provide insight into nature, the physical universe and the spiritual realm."Rosicrucianism is symbolized by the Rosy Cross.
So as you can see, Rosicrucianism is an occult secret society.
And this picture will show the Rosecrucian: osicrucian: Hermetic, Alchemical Cross symbol. Notice the pentagrams, the hexagram and alchemy symbols.
I.E. Abortion: Christian's oppose abortion because they believe at the moment of conception, God puts a soul in the zygote. Since it's not a fact that this happens, a Christian's opinion is only relevant when it deals with his or her family.
So why would a Religious person think he or she has the right to dictate another human's life on the basis of a religion, a religion who has no more or less credibility than the other major religions.
"A"...consider this...a human body is dead without its indwelling spirit, it simply cannot live without one. if a baby did not have that spirit upon its conception, it would not continue to live, it would die. so when a woman has an abortion, she and those who perform it are committing murder, regardless of how old the fetus is.
"B"...today, many people are being dictated to...people are being told they cannot eat what they want. mcdonlads was sued for serving the food it does despite the fact that kids eat that type of food and worse at home all the time. people are told they cannot smoke, even outside of certain places. it is supposedly for their own good, but in reality it is people desiring to control what others do, to gain power over the masses. it has nothing to do with religion. so what gives any person the right to dictate anyones life but their own? religious or secular. in truth atheists are no better than religious ppl.
A)..... How do you know there's a "spirit" in us?
B).....What food is illegal? I can eat anything I want with out government dictating my choice. Having what you do in "public" controlled is different. What you do in public affects other people. So smoking in public doesn't damper an individual's rights. If smoking was outright banned, that would be different story. Religion is used to control people and assert power. I.E. Every time you hear a politician talk about God, do you think it's sincere, or do you think there's an agenda behind it? I.E. Rick Santorum's speech last night after the Iowa caucus. His talk about God was so loaded that it made me sick. Maybe he's sincere with Religion, but I can assure you its relevancy last night was that of an agenda.
I don't think it's fair to say one group of people are better than the other. (I agree with you, Atheist are no better than religious people, for the most part, since we live in a secular world nowadays.)
(a human body is dead without its indwelling spirit, it simply cannot live without one.)
If an indwelling human spirit is a necessity for human life, then why is it that every other biological life form - based on the same carbon as are humans - survives without a "human spirit".
Truth now - you're just making this stuff up, aren't you?
(I can eat anything I want with out government dictating my choice.)
You may want to google U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Prepare yourself for a shock.
Because they just HAVE TO BE RIGHT!!!!! It's not about debating truth or belief or anything like that. What it usually comes down to is people not understanding what they do not know. A sort of philosophical tunnel vision. That's why those debates are usually run by atheists and fundamentalists. Most of the rational people don't waste time in fruitless back and for arguments about things that are not provable.
This is such a good question seek n find. I think the ones that don't want to or wish to believe in something *good* like the possiblty of a higher power, are those who have been so deeply effected with the trials we face in this world. Some folks dismiss that there is a God, b/c in part..they are blinded by the pain and bitterness that eats at their hearts. They search for something to stop their turmoil, but yet they do not look in the right places.
Nonsense. But, I can understand how that would make you feel superior to the rest of us who merely see your religion as a laughable myth.
That is a shame that you feel the way you do. I am far from *Superior*. I trust in the Supreme. I share my thoughts to help others see the light. I wish you all the best! Shalom.
Then, you shouldn't be saying things like this...
"Some folks dismiss that there is a God, b/c in part..they are blinded by the pain and bitterness that eats at their hearts. They search for something to stop their turmoil, but yet they do not look in the right places."
How does telling others that we are "blinded by pain and bitterness and in turmoil" help others see the light when that is an obvious lie?
Free will, own choices. I don't care what others believe so long as I work on me and believe that is all that matters.
You don't care what others believe? So you wouldn't mind if you lived in a world where everyone believed that murder was the way forward? Or that peaodophilia is a great diet scheme and should be taught in schools? Or that stoning is a necessary way to punish adulterers? Or that women don't deserve equal rights?
What people believe dictates how our world runs.
What you say sounds sick...
Come on. Why would you go to a ridiculous extreme like that. You know that isn't what she means. You are a really good writer. Doofy head games are below you.
WD Curry 111, (philo here)
Satire is sometimes all too necessary to expose just how ridiculous somebody's statement is.
As long as it is not building a strawman or using the fallacy of 'slippery slope' which here indeed it is not, then all is fair and well.
I am certain that I took more offense from her statement than she did mine.
To say that as long as you can "work on me" is to say, I don't care about what happens around me, as long as my own needs are satisfied. Absolute selfishness.
Beliefs stem from believing whether or not it's okay to put mayonnaise on your breakfast all the way to whether or not it is okay to teach things in schools, and all the way to whether or not stoning, banning condoms and trapped divorce is acceptable, and even further to whether it is okay to murder innocents.
I didn't say anything out of the parameters that were set. Not caring about other people's beliefs is a very dangerous and very serious belief to hold. This is my own belief of course.
And WD, the fact that you felt the need to chime in and comment on how you thought that my belief was a "ridiculous extreme" was a great example of how humans will step-in to defend someone or something from a supposed injustice.
Something all too important in the world.
philanthropy2012...my step dad has brain damage. he is unable to reason, and when someone says something as innocent as "i dont care my horse trailer was stolen, i would rather have peace than trouble, so lets just forget about it"...he says "oh, i suppose you would just let him come in and walk off with anything he wants then". i no longer trust this person who stole my horse trailer and am smart enough not to have them in my house or on my property. i simply dont want trouble and i would rather forgive the man and get on with my life then fret obsessively over it like he (step dad) does. besides, the only concern the police here have is drugs and homicides. my stepdad equates a desire to forgive and have peace to being stupid and gullible. he cant reason.....and you sound just like him.
With all due respect, it doesn't sound like your step dad is the one with brain damage.
If somebody takes everything you own, including your (for the moment, hypothetical) children, by your logic, you would rather "forget" that it ever happened and carry on living, than try and get them back.
Your stepdad however would try and rescue his children and his stolen property.
Brain damage does not equate to a total inability to reason. He seems to have done a much better job than you in this case.
(What people believe dictates how our world runs)
Exactly. The notion that everyone has the right to believe what he or she wants is not a right that is pervasive - that right stops where my nose starts.
Give me a society that demands objective evidence for their beliefs and I will show you a society that solves its own problems.
The answer to this question is as most questions are, can be found when we honestly look within ourselves. Why do we do these things of which we ask?
This is a great question. This is most likely a questions that individuals should ask themselves. I don't know that you will get a truthful answer.
If others DO believe in god, then why would they care if others DON'T?
I don't. I don't have time to waste on spending time on anything trying to persuade them on anything. However, I wrote a hub on atheism because there are so many religious people trying to convince me there's God that I got sick of defending myself. Now I just refer them to the hub and leave it at that. I truly don't want to have to defend my viewpoint that there is no God. I don't mind if they believe that there is a God so long as they don't 'witness' to me.
I think anyone can think whatever they wish and pray to whoever they wish. It is when I have to look at a bill and see God on it that I have a problem. Or when God is shoved down my throat by people knocking on my door ...
Spiritual and religious beliefs should be a personal thing and not smeared on every wall and sidewalk on the street.
Just my opinion.
I was actually an atheist for several years before I came to my senses. As a philosophy major in college, I thought I had every argument to defend my beliefs. Funny thing is, I never tried to sway a Christian or anyone else my way. I actually felt a little embarrassed to have the minority view and usually kept my mouth shut. This was the late 80s and early 90s, so none of this online communication where you can say whatever you want and hide behind an icon.
So, it never bothered me that others believed, but I did think I was smarter. Now I know I was just a fool. Not trying to sway anyone, though!
So, coming to ones sense and no longer being a fool means to begin believing in invisible gods and demons who encircle the air around us in a constant battle of good and evil?
as opposed to the universe and all the perfect laws of the universe which are absolutely essential for life just popping out of nothing? come on look at your own beliefs too
Those are very strange ideas about the universe. Did you make that up?
I know this is not my argument or whatever, as you have enough trouble as it is (ha!), but I can't help but notice that your obsession with religions has somehow made you religiously atheist, in a sort of sick way, actually. Have you ever thought about trying to understand life without a bias and take it in as a whole, as you'll never have an adequate basis for anything more than just an opinion(?) when trying to understand why other people think the way they do - especially with that little childish attitude of yours.
I don't know exactly what drives you to do such things, other than a rebellion against people who find meaning in their life. Dang, you sure found a good name for yourself; get an education or at least ease off some bad habits and get out of the haze a.s.a.p., unless you just enjoy looking like "happy boy" via cyber-space. LOL! Then again, you can always continue dwelling in the religious forums and keep pretending to be a man. Dang, I don't belong here! LMAO! As the old adage state: "Some people simply need to get a life." C-Ya! Reply back with your usual baloney, blah, blah... Who cares......
No a troubled man if you knew anything at all you would know it is true, you keep talking about religious people being deluded and yet you can't accept universal facts such as the laws of nature? Because it makes it painfully clear that something made those laws, I don't even know why u comment you just a derogatory person who doesn't make sense
(you can't accept universal facts such as the laws of nature?)
Nature has no "laws". Nature does what it does without need for explaining itself. "Natural laws" are relationships man has noticed and described.
The matter observed is eternal. The "laws" describing the relationship are not eternal.
Interesting AKA. Never thought about it that way.
Winston your implying that gravity is not a law but it is so don't complicate such a simple concept
You can try to make it sound more complicated to try and sugar coat it but the fact is we need laws in nature, or as you call them what we observe to be laws. We need gravity for life for example, if it was slightly heavier or lower than it is then there is no life I can't believe you would look at laws in such a philosophical and unscientific way
Another point is when it comes to laws in the universe they haven't changed since the big bang so change is not always an aspect of nature
That is entirely false, we base our knowledge of reality on the laws of nature.
Yes, they were a result of the Big Bang.
I concern myself this way because of self-interest: the U.S. (and the world, too) would be a safer and better place to live if the entire population required objective evidence for their beliefs.
Serious societal problems require serious attempts to overcome their affect, so that things like racial bias, poverty, healthcare, abortion, education, war, etc. can only be addressed by humans collectively attempting to resolve these intractable problems.
The sooner we understand that there is no "guy-N-the-sky" who will resolve these problems for us, the sooner mankind can attempt to find real workable solutions.
The thing is that some people just have the need for others to agree with them. They seek this kind of validation. This could happen with any issue in life including belief in God or lack thereof...
It doesn't matter to me - but it does to an awful lot of them and they make sure that you know all about it!!!
The quest for knowledge distinguishes a civilization from barbarism. Those who are civilized will ask rational questions; like it or not.
I think there is a certain amount of fear experienced by many no believers. I have serious doubts about the existence of God; even more so about all specific religions. I have no proof that God doesn't exist, so I can't say for sure.
The first step I take is a deconstructive approach. This is especially useful when examining the phenomena of Satan worshippers. The devil worship is the other side of the coin of Christianity usually, and I consider devil worship to be participation in Christianity.
So how does this relate to the vehemently anti-religious? I always think of I think the lady doth protest too much. By this I mean that with such aggressive assault comes an equal and opposite kernel of faith, impossible to be removed. Only through the rough and constant attacks on religious people are they fooling themsleves that they are fighting the religious impulse within themsleves. Some sort of genetic coding for preaching. They seek to achieve internal victory over the faith vaccum within, by externalizing their struggle.
There is no church or religion to hate. It is the people, or certain people within it, their behavior, ignorance from which people recoil.
I made a choice years ago, to try to honor the faiths of others, by not attempting to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of believers.
probably because their delusion has a big effect on my world. If it was just a case of them believing in something strange, and that was all, then there would be no problem. But such is the nature of their delusion that they seek to judge and control others because of it. The control in some cases even extends to dictating the clothes people should wear,and the food they can eat. Many believers want the government, law and education to be based on their delusion (the lunatics running the asylum?) many are willing to punish and even kill in the name of their delusion (How deluded must you be to fly aeroplanes full of men,women,and children into skyscrapers? - But it was ok because they were doing it for their "God", and he would reward them when they were dead). The strange thing is that most believers can recognise the delusion in others... If, for example, I said that I followed Zeus, or the sun god Ra, most believers would think that I had been standing in the sun too long, yet would continue to regard their own particular belief as perfectly sane. Although we try to convince believers otherwise, we are on a hiding to nothing - the psychiatric definition of a delusion is "a false belief that cannot be corrected by evidence or rational argument" - so it's never going to happen is it?
Spend enough time and the forums, even a religious nut will think that God probably gets tired of hearing about himself. And if you don't believe in God and to spend your time trying to prove he doesn't exist, I'm thinking God will have a good laugh with you when you try to get into heaven.
I would leave them all alone if I knew my family and friends would enjoy the same luxury.
- people will always attempt to shove religion down my childrens throats.
- Many will always accuse my gay friends of being immoral and will fight to prevent them the human right of marriage.
- Many will fight to prevent women having the freedom of choice with regards to
- Many will fight to get creationism taught alongside evolution in schools
- They brainwash and frighten their own children for fear of supernatural retribution
- many systematically mutilate their children's genitalia under guise of tradition
- many fight against contraceptive devices for third world countries, essentially encouraging the spread of aids
- many fought against the release of a vaccination for the HPV - using cervical cancer as a deterrent for pre-marital sex.
There are many more reasons, but Im probably better off writing a hub instead!
And are supposed to idly stand by this.
There's no issue when a non religious person does something bad, they're behaviour is punished and condemned, Ooh but when it is in the name of a God "it's their belief and deserves to be respected". Hah!
It isn't belief in God that draws me into a debate. It is the vision of what God is, and what God wants. Almost everyone assumes there is the possibility of some continuation of life, on some level; with the exception of an atheist.
And I don't have any problem accepting that there may be some consciousness we can't quantify that has been poorly defined. What I cannot accept is anyone using personal belief to justify any action that negates the value of another person.
If Christianity or Islam had truly defined the nature of this possible entity we'd see an array of lightening bolts, on a daily basis, smiting non believers. We'd see miraculous signs. We would suffer no doubt. What we see instead is war throughout the world. We see people using governments in an attempt to subjugate others to their beliefs. We don't see a god in their actions. We see petty human desire for power.
It is those behavior patterns I have a problem with. And anyone who advocates the idea that those who don't agree with them will suffer divine retribution is simply grasping at power.
If you want to love God, do it. But love your neighbor as yourself also. If you strive to truly give your neighbor the same respect you want for yourself, I don't think anyone would have a problem.
@ LizzieBoo - Even a short list of religion's "benefits" is far too long - for example:
The Genocide of the Cathars (Pope Innocent III)
The Jewish pogroms
The centuries of Islamic Jehad
The Borgias (more Popes)
The Irish massacres of Protestants etc.
The Twin Towers 9/11
Not to mention the untold religiously motivated bloodbaths reported in the bible - and this list hasn't even scratched the surface.
And you think if it weren't for religion we wouldn't have had any of those battles (which is what they are), in last 5000 years? People do terrible things for all sorts of reasons. The good things people do, and have done in the name of religion far out-weigh the bad. Think of schools, hospitals, housing for the poor for instance.
Schools, hospitals, housing for the poor were all great secularist ideas. As were equal rights for women, a very recent development that should have happened a very long time ago.
You can't possibly argue that religion does not profess inequality for women. Look at secularist countries and the rights they have for women, Look at religious countries, particularly Islam and the rights they have for women there.
Look at polygamy. Look at patriarchal ownership of women.
If people were smart enough to not believe in religion, then horrible things would not happen so often. Why? Because religion is the only reason that people would believe for things like invading Iraq, if it's what Jesus would do, then sure why not do it?
And If it was simply "let's kill Jews because they're bad" people wouldn't do it. If it is "let's kill Jews because otherwise God will burn you for eternity" then people start acting.
Religious good outweighs religious bad. Tell that to child rape victims, aids victims, gay people and women.
Who says kill all the Jews? Which religion condones rape? Those aren't religious views. That's just men behaving badly.
Who is helping aids victims? Largely Christian charities. Who are helping women in third-world countries? Largely Christian charities. Who are the members of the EU an G8? Largely Christian countries.
The pogroms were in the name of Christianity and God, it was fear of God's punishment that made them happen, if people were wise enough to realise it was BS then lot's of Jews would still be alive today.
("Which religion condones rape?")
"In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody!"
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)"
"Who is helping aids victims? Largely Christian charities. Who are helping women in third-world countries? Largely Christian charities. Who are the members of the EU an G8? Largely Christian countries."
You must be from the past.
The head of the largest Church, Pope Benedict XIV publicly condemned the use of condoms. As a result HIV spread like wild fire in all of the impoverished catholic countries.
And after widespread hatred and opposition for the pope and his condemnation of HIV preventing, he then went back on his decision and said they're perfectly fine. Great. Except millions of people got aids because of his decision based on an antiquated text. This happened in the last decade. Religion is worse than useless to society now. After condoms were allowed again, HIV rates declined.
"Largely Christian countries" Oh dear..
"The 2005 Eurobarometer poll discussed above found that on total average, of the EU25 population, 52% "believe in a God"
The trend in Europe is rapid decline of religion. If you look at the stats now, it will less than 50% God believers. In the UK, in the recent surveys, 60% were atheist.
In all of the modern, helpful countries, you will see that you have less than 50% God believers:
UK 38%, Germany 47%, France 34%, Denmark 31%, Finland 41%, Netherlands 34%,
Now look at what is left. The countries with unstable, undeveloped economies. Romania, Turkey, Ireland..
And even in those countries, when something good happens, it is a secularist idea of logic and rationality, not in the name of "god" or "religion",
And so I ask you, what benefit does religion bring that secularist charities can't?
You're quoting from the Old Testament. Who's living in the past? And if you mean Islam, say so. You are talking about completely different cultures.
Since when was Africa a Catholic country? The pope said no sex outside marriage, if you are right and they all listen to him so much, why are they still having all the sex? You can't blame the spread of Aids on the Church when the Pope doesn't have any say in the majority of Africa. A silly and defamatory argument.
There are secularist charities, but many more religious ones.
The Old Testament is in the Bible from which most religions derive their 'beliefs'.
Since when was Africa a country? It's a continent...
A continent which is now about 50% Christian, in fact, it's the continent that is making up Christianity's religious numbers. Without Africa, your rate of adherents would be negative. It makes up 20% of the total amount of Christians.
Catholicism in Africa make up 13% of all Catholic numbers.
"Since when was Africa a Catholic country? The pope said no sex outside marriage, if you are right and they all listen to him so much, why are they still having all the sex? You can't blame the spread of Aids on the Church when the Pope doesn't have any say in the majority of Africa."
In Africa, he has authority of 13 million people. He didn't just say that condoms were bad but actually banned them. This is what happens when a country is not secular.
Thanks to that kind action, millions of people died and will continue dying. Also, please think twice before calling my arguments " A silly and defamatory argument" without first considering the fact that people have sex when they are married... and that the legal age of marriage in many of the African countries are either considerably lower or non existent..
"There are secularist charities, but many more religious ones" Oh is that why the top charity in the world is founded by atheists Bill and Melinda Gates? And the top 5 richest charities are all founded by secular owners? Is that why in the USA Christian charities only make up 25% of the top 100 charities? And that most charities are indeed secular? Oh.. wait that doesn't add up.
Christians believe in contraception. Catholics don't. The pope only has moral the authority to say something is wrong. He can't ban things. Where is the army that would alow him to do so?
America has some of the richest people in it. Many of them give to charity, which is nice. However, although it hard for Americans to imagine this, the world has been doing an awful lot of stuff before America became a country of its own, and a whole word exists beyond America's 'Empire' in which care for the sick, elderly, disabled and vulnerable is seen a religious obligation.
Millions of people are dying from the spread of Aids in Africa because they have polygamy on a grand scale, prostitution, child rape which is sanctioned by witch doctors and a rape statistic in Cape Town of one in two.
That is to say, Catholic Christians don't believe in contraception. But also Orthodox Christians, orthodox Jews, devout Buddhists and other religions who believe that the natural law of fertility is sacred.
"Catholic Christians" also believe in celibate priests yet look at all the children being raped by "men of God" on a daily basis and the fact that the pope looks the other way and just transfers the culprit to a different parish, where the same things happen.
More blood has been spilled in the name of "God" than any other reason and "Christians" just can't deal with that reality.
No they don't "believe in celebrate priests" Nor do they believe in rape. Your last statement isn't true either, but thanks for the hate-mail.
Really, how many have died since the inception of religion, in the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Nazi death camps, how many more will have to die in G/gods name before you wake up?
Why don't you tell me how many have died in the crusades or the Spanish inquisition? I would like to know because I'm beginning to realise that people bandy about those two items of history without actually knowing or understanding a thing about them. They sound good in an argument but tellingly, we only ever hear about them from a Protestant point of view. Oh, wait, aren't the Protestants anti-Catholic?....
Nazi death camps were profoundly anti-Christian, anti-religion, anti-joy, anti-love, anti-everything, so lets not include them in the religion debate.
I'd like to know how many have died outside the Christian sphere since the dawn of humanity. Got any figures you'd lie to share?
Perhaps it's time you woke up to the cruel nature of mankind, with or without religion.
this conversation is painful LizzieBoo, I wish you would research these things before you say them.
Okay, ("Christians believe in contraception. Catholics don't.")
Catholics are christians.
There are 1.1 billion catholics.
Catholicism makes up more than half of all christians
Which means, if someone say "I am a christian" you can assume that they are catholic, since the majority of christians are catholic.
(The pope only has moral the authority to say something is wrong.He can't ban things.)
Not according to the 1.1 billion people that follow his church . To them, when the pope says "you can't do this because if you do you'll burn in hell for the rest of your life" they take it seriously . So the weight of this man's words for these poor people is much greater than that of the law or an army.
[Where is the army that would alow him to do so?]
Why even say things like this? Switzerland doesn't have an army. They still have laws. They still have bans.
"Millions of people are dying from the spread of Aids in Africa because they have polygamy on a grand scale, prostitution, child rape which is sanctioned by witch doctors and a rape statistic in Cape Town of one in two." Yes, and what is a way to stop all of these cases resulting in the spread of HIV? Condoms.
So you think we should just mask the problem of child rape by giving them condoms?
He just said that condoms prevent the spread of aids. What you said was not what he said nor implied.
Thank you Jesus, you're right.
And Lizzie, when you come to making blatantly false conclusions from my arguments, you know you're getting desperate. There is no shame in admitting that you were mistaken about something.
As a Catholic I know for a fact that the Pope has never said any such thing. It is you who is coming up with the false arguments. I am quite aware that Catholic IS Christian, which is why I said "that is to say Catholic Christian", as apposed to Protestant Christian.
The Pope has said that sex outside marriage is a sin, that rape is a sin, that the willful spread of disease, even within marriage, is a sin. Why aren't the people running in terror away from these activities the way you say they avoid condoms? I'll tell you why. Because what the pope says is just a vague voice in amongst a sea of voices from the arrogant west that treat all of Africa like it was a teenage ghetto.
The Church is not sanctioning the spread of Aids. The people who plow condoms as a solution into country which is suffering all manner of cultural tyrannies, are insulting the Africans and treating them like farm animals. Not daring to use a condom is not the problem in Africa. I have good African friends you would be amazed and offended that the west thought so.
Those who don't agree with the Church (as millions don't )are as able as anyone to get hold of condoms. And have you not heard of the common witch doctor advice that a man infected with Aids can cure himself by having sex with a very young virgin?
You are spouting popularist, anti-Catholic propaganda. The same old arguments which seeks to lay the blame of every ill in the world on something he already dislikes. The RC church is responsible for the care of 25% of the worlds Aids sufferers. It cannot go against its beliefs any more than the Dali Lama can tell people to eat animals. It would go against all he stood for in the same way.
You deny that the Pope banned condoms?
and "Why aren't the people running in terror away from these activities the way you say they avoid condoms?" because those people aren't catholics...
The catholics are the ones that abide by the strict rules of catholicism, and there are 1.1 billion of them.
That's like me saying "oh in the UK no one follows religions because 1 person had sex before marriage" it's a fallacy.
("Those who don't agree with the Church (as millions don't ) are as able as anyone to get hold of condoms.") No, because they didn't sell them in the impoverished catholic African countries because the door-knob of a dictator that they call "pope" religiously banned condoms. And even if they got hold of the condoms, eternal damnation awaited them for using them, so the 13 million catholics in Africa would not have used them...
I am not "spouting popularist, anti-Catholic propaganda" but I am spouting the truth about catholicism. You can't pass it off for the following reason.
"The RC church is responsible for the care of 25% of the worlds Aids sufferers." Oh is that why the pope banned conodms... then after realising what a doorknob move that was from the worldwide hatred for him, went against himself and his religion and lifted the ban, realising that he was spreading HIV.
Even now he only says "in exceptional cases"
HOW IS THAT MORAL?
If a couple wants to have sex and not have children, that is there right, whether they are married or not.
If a couple wants to have sex and not get AIDS, that is their right, whether they are married or not.
What do some formal papers have to do with love.
The percentage of Catholics in Africa is 12.57%. The Pope's voice out there is very small as is the authority of the RC church. Why would the Pope have any authority over non-Catholics? You are going to have to find a better reason for the spread of Aids.
In your VIEW everyone has the right to have inconsequential sex with whoever they choose. In the view of the Catholic church, it is this VIEW that is part of the problem. Why has RIGHT got anything to do with sex? The simple fact is that we are designed to have sex which in turn is designed to have consequences. If we try to pretend it doesn't we are bound to run into trouble. That is the uncomfortable truth.
There are 11 million devoted catholics in Africa. Are you disputing this?
Even if the Pope didn't have any authority at all over these 11 million (as well as the other 1 billion poor catholics around the world), it doesn't change the fact that the head of your church decided to publicly condemn condoms . This is an important point because it shows how religions are not good sources of morality
And you'd like to argue how banning condoms is a good idea? Well go ahead and argue with the head of your church then, because he went back on his word and realised he was being a fool .
"Why would the Pope have any authority over non-Catholics?" was exactly my point.
"In your VIEW everyone has the right to have inconsequential sex with whoever they choose." Yep.
"Why has RIGHT got anything to do with sex?" Humans aren't owned by other people. That would be slavery. That's why they have rights to do what they want with their bodies...
"The simple fact is that we are designed to have sex which in turn is designed to have consequences" What a ridiculous statement.
By that logic, humans should have unprotected sex at any given opportunity with anyone they can because they were, as you quoted "designed" to have sex. God made us with a stomach, we get hungry and we eat to satisfy that need. God made us with genitals. Therefore we must have sex at any time we want to satisfy that need.
Most humans have a natural desire to have sex. Condoms allow that desire to be filled without consequences.
Do you know what happens when you suppress human's sexual desire? Widespread paeodophilia and rape . Perfectly exemplified by catholic priests which you would call holy men.
And why did these all of these men decide to abuse their authority? Was it Satan... Or was it the rational answer...
"If we try to pretend it doesn't we are bound to run into trouble. That is the uncomfortable truth" Yep, if we pretend that you can make humans celibate without increasing peaodophilia we will run into trouble. I agree
And what troubles does consensual protected pre-marital sex cause? Happiness...
Something prohibited by the Catholic Church
There are 77 million Catholics in America and 8 million in Britain. Not all Catholics are poor, deprived or stupid as you would like to think. The Pope sends the same message to all Catholics about condoms. Why are all not suffering the same plight if your reasoning is right?
And let me just get this right: you think that unless humans are free to fulfill their sexual desires, they will become sexual perverts and rapists? Does it not occur to you that the very problem with complete sexual liberality is that it leads to a sense entitlement. The fact is , is that there's no such thing as complete sexual freedom, because one persons freedom is less freedom for someone else; usually women.
As far as celibacy being the cause of paedophilia, why is it still the case that by far the most cases of paedophilia are fathers, or step-fathers against daughters? That is to say, married men chasing children. How do you explain that?
And talking of sexual freedom versus paedophilia, are you aware that in the Netherlands the statistic of abuse against children since 1945 is one in 10. The statistic of abuse within institutions, regardless of them being religious or secular, is one in 5 children. That's in a country where prostitution is legal!!
I said about 1 Billion are poor and deprived. You gave me a number of 85 million. There are 1.1 billion christians.
Therefore, saying that does not reduce my argument that about 1 billion catholics are poor.
Not to mention that there are also poor people in the UK and USA.
"The Pope sends the same message to all Catholics about condoms. Why are all not suffering the same plight if your reasoning is right?" Are you trolling me ? Because there are other factors more prominent in African countries than other countries... like poverty...
But if you pretend like the fact that there are other factors means that "condoms therefore don't stop the prevention of AIDS" you would be wrong
"And let me just get this right: you think that unless humans are free to fulfill their sexual desires, they will become sexual perverts and rapists?" Catholic Priests.
"Does it not occur to you that the very problem with complete sexual liberality is that it leads to a sense entitlement" We are entitled to choose who we have sex with. That includes both the active choice of choosing, and the active choice of consenting or not . Having the right to have sex with who you want doesn't mean someone else hasn't got the right to stop you. That's a fallacy. That would stop the non wanting person from having sex with who they want. Thus the right is built on consent from all parties involved. Unlike Catholic priests when they molest children.
"The fact is , is that there's no such thing as complete sexual freedom, because one persons freedom is less freedom for someone else; usually women" Catholic priests. Catholic priests. Catholic priests .
"As far as celibacy being the cause of paedophilia, why is it still the case that by far the most cases of paedophilia are fathers, or step-fathers against daughters? That is to say, married men chasing children. How do you explain that? " Probably because those men are all catholic and are used to abusing small children?
Other factors include:
"researchers began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic (and hebephilic) men have lower IQs, poorer scores on memory tests, greater rates of non-right-handedness, greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences, lesser physical height, greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness, and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures. They report that their findings suggest that there are one or more neurological characteristics present at birth that cause or increase the likelihood of being pedophilic. Evidence of familial transmittability "suggests, but does not prove that genetic factors are responsible" for the development of pedophilia.
Another study, using structural MRI, shows that male pedophiles have a lower volume of white matter than a control group.
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has shown that child molesters diagnosed with pedophilia have reduced activation of the hypothalamus as compared with non-pedophilic persons when viewing sexually arousing pictures of adults. A 2008 functional neuroimaging study notes that central processing of sexual stimuli in heterosexual "paedophile forensic inpatients" may be altered by a disturbance in the prefrontal networks, which "may be associated with stimulus-controlled behaviours, such as sexual compulsive behaviours." The findings may also suggest "a dysfunction at the cognitive stage of sexual arousal processing."
Blanchard, Cantor, and Robichaud (2006) reviewed the research that attempted to identify hormonal aspects of pedophiles. They concluded that there is some evidence that pedophilic men have less testosterone than controls, but that the research is of poor quality and that it is difficult to draw any firm conclusion from it.
A study analyzing the sexual fantasies of 200 heterosexual men by using the Wilson Sex Fantasy Questionnaire exam, determined that males with a pronounced degree of paraphilic interest (including pedophilia) had a greater number of older brothers, a high 2D:4D digit ratio (which would indicate excessive prenatal estrogen exposure), and an elevated probability of being left-handed, suggesting that disturbed hemispheric brain lateralization may play a role in deviant attractions."
Also It would seem that 5% of all Catholic priests have been excused of Paedophilia:
And you make a fantastic point about the Netherlands.
Since in 1945, 50% of the dutch were ROMAN CATHOLIC
Pahahaha. Explains a lot doesn't it
Explains how the other non roman catholic countries didn't see this high amount of child abuse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_i … ristianity
And you think it's because of prostitution being legal? Why didn't you research this. It was legalised in January 1988. Paedophilia has decreased rapidly since 1945 to 2012. Brothels were legalised in 2000. if you look at the trend, brothels and prostitution are correlated to an alleviation of paeodophila in the Netherlands.
Thank you again for proving my point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostituti … etherlands
You didn't address the point that married men are more likely to be paedophiles than anyone else.
Actaully it has a higher average with widowed and single men. Though the statistics tend to mirror the opinion of writer. Therefor, I do not rely on statistics, though I think the actions of men can be quite disgusting.
"In the United States, about 50% of men arrested for pedophilia are married"
Read more: Pedophilia - children, causes, DSM, functioning, therapy, adults, person, people http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedo … z1ic6ztrlm
That's an unbiased website explaining mind disorders that says that. 50% in the USA, you can assume 50% elsewhere.
Please refer me to your valid source of information that states that marriage increases someone's chances of paedophilia.
Philip Jenkins, is not a source of information in himself.
I would like to see where anyone gets such a claim from, as I can only expect they used as sample of 3 people, two of which were convicted married peadophiles.
Hold on a minute! Do you actually think that celibacy CAUSES paedophilia? Like a person is perfectly normal before they decide to embark on a celibate life? So perhaps, by your reckoning, a really ugly person who can't get laid is bound to turn into a paedophile in his dispair? A very dodgy argument don't you think?
There are more ugly rapists than not ugly rapists, there's no doubt there.
As a rule of thumb, If people can get sex without resorting to crime then they will. If people can get food without resorting to crime then they will.
That's not a dodgy argument at all...
And LizzieBoo, to summarise this post from your original argument:
"And you think if it weren't for religion we wouldn't have had any of those battles (which is what they are), in last 5000 years? People do terrible things for all sorts of reasons. The good things people do, and have done in the name of religion far out-weigh the bad. Think of schools, hospitals, housing for the poor for instance."
1. " you think if it weren't for religion we wouldn't have had any of those battles "
I responded that there would have been less battles because there have been battles that were fought specifically over religious ideals (and that no one said that all battles would be gone like you suggested, which is a clear case of strawman fallacy).
You failed to argue this point, and deviated onto the topic of pogroms, which you then failed to argue, and then deviated onto the topic of Catholic AIDS, which you then failed to argue and deviated onto the topic of Celibacy.
2. Think of schools, hospitals, housing for the poor for instance"
I responded to the fact that most schools, hospitals and housing for the poor were established under the name of secularism, and not religion, which you stated. (For instance, the Welfare system, which in our country, amounts to the largest increase in all 3 of the things you said, was created under secularism. Nobody said "let's do this because God/Scripture would have wanted it!" they said "let's do this because it would help fellow human beings").
You failed to respond to this and deviated to pogroms.
With all due respect, I've proven you wrong on every single point you originally stated, after which you childishly then dropped and deviated onto another subject which you also wasn't planning on arguing, and changed to yet another subject.
No doubt you're going to throw up some sort of argument about "Religion is righteous and correct even if most of them, especially catholicism, are nothing but a bane on the existence of mankind" and then no doubt you're going to deviate onto yet another subject.
Would your above statements be the opinion that all religions can be a bane? Not so much that they are, just to carify.
In the sense that if we take all religious facilities (buildings), man power(adherents) and time (otherwise used for praying, church visits etc) delegated to such, and used them to the help the world based on facts, less people would die, morality would increase, and less conflicts would arise; yes they are a bane.
I agree with you. To say a religion is not a cult, one is missing the point of what a cult is. Cult: A gathering of people that share in the same idea. What usually happens when you put a group of people in a room and leave them to their own devices? Violence and or suicide, not always but a good majority of the time.
That says more about human nature than about religion OR cults.
This is true. But what can one say about the motives of so-called pious men? Was it not the goal of the Catholic church to stamp out the pagan menace? Was this not motivated by a cultish idea? I mean religion can be a tool for violence and to me, this negates the spirituality of it and it just becomes an excuse.
Money is just as strong a motivator for evil.
It's human nature, so, no need to single out religion, in particular.
I agree. Religion is more often the excuse than the motivator.
This is Why I say can instead of does. I usually try to talk about the here and now, but most people want to think of then and tomorrow. So in order to relate to you, I have to think like you. Religion believes that creation was a result of then. Maybe creation happens every second and we are thus being created every second and so on. As long as we can live for the now of things, then and tomorrow become meaningless. I am now, not the idea. The idea was then and this is now. God is a result of then. So why then, cannot God be a result of now? I can do this pertains to an undetermined past or future and can be applied to what has and what has not happened.
Sounds like a new movie plot.
How about God is NOW, and we are just a figment of His imagination.
Works for me!
PS< you can't think like me, 'cause you're NOT me.
sciencepholisophy/philanthrpy, whatever your name is. It difficult to respond to such verbose answers. The art of arguing is to be concise otherwise your opponent gets lost in a sea of unnecessary words. You cannot decide to have won an argument just because I failed to convince you. You are prejudiced towards religion, in particular Catholicism, so it isn't a balanced argument. I have argued my points, you simple haven't paid attention to them.
1. My point about hospital, schools and universities is true. They have been mostly founded by religious people. You don't believe this.
2. 82% Of Africans are not Catholic and do not think condoms are wrong, and yet you blame the spread of Aids on the Catholic church. I say, your argument falls down. You disagree.
3. Where are the figures showing battles which were triggered by religion and those which were not? I have said that it is in human nature to fight one another, regardless of faith. You choose to think that it is only in secularism that people will be peaceful. I think you are choosing to ignore human nature. You disagree.
4. I never disputed there were abusers and had been child abusers within the Catholic church. I have certain theories as to why this may have been the case. You state that celibacy actually causes paedophilia. I say that most paedophiles are married which nullifies your argument. You don't accept that.
You come from a country which was founded by Puritans, Lutherans, Calvinists, anti-Catholics in short. I accept that. I also accept that the US Constitution is founded on secular, Hobbsian philosophy and yet has 'In God we trust' written on its bank notes. Perhaps the contradictions in American culture and the separation from its European history are what contribute to America's inability to be moderate one way or another. So far I have come across either fanatical Christians or fanatical atheists for the most part. Both are pretty offputting.
I notice also, that you gave no reply to my reply about the Bible. Why was that?
Wouldn't it be nice if we could do things so we could help prevent suffering as opposed to seeking some reward in the afterlife?
p.s. most classical art is based on religion because the church had the finance and they would commission the work.
Well, you just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
It's easy to say "well, I don't believe that, so how can other people?" Why don't people just be honest and say "I don't understand religion" rather than make up what they think other people think?
Okay Lizzie Boo, "I don't understand religion". But I can assure you that neither do you. That's because it doesn't make sense to anybody.
Answer me this, if the Bible was written by God, then why does most of it not add up?
Where is the mention of dinosaurs? (God would have used the word "dinosaurs" because he knew what they were, and not the use of the word "dragon")
How did Noah build a 50,000+ capacity ship with just his two sons and round up every clean land animal on Earth and then nurture and look after them for several months?
And please do bear in mind. An answer such as "God did it" or "God helped Noah" won't suffice. I will ask "how did God do that?" to which you will have absolutely no reply.
Alternatively, you could argue that the bible was not written by God at all. But by people. At that point the Harry Potter books are just as valuable to dictate how I lead my life as the bible is. So why should I believe in the bible over any other scripture if God didn't write that one in particular?
I have a feeling that you won't have much of a response to this.
Ah now you see if you had argued with me, as others have done for months, you would know that the Bible is not the point I start from at all. There were Christians before the Bible was written, so clearly Christianity doesn't need a book in order to exist. And even when the Book was written, most people would have been illiterate so they wouldn't have read it anyway. And yet Christianity continued, despite being persecuted for nearly 300 years before Constantine decided to convert.
I am not phased in the slightest by Biblical criticism. The Old Testament is a history of the Jews, by the Jews. The New Testament is a compilation of letters and documents which Christians hold dear and revere as resonating with the truth.
No, God did not write the Bible, people did. But as to why people should have the Bible at the top of their reading lists after 2000 years of Christianity is an interesting question. Why are there Christians at all? It seems a rather burdensome way to lead ones life and is very annoying to witness if you don't want to live like Christ. Where is the sense in making our lives uncomfortable? You're right, it's a mystery.
Religions prosper when people allow themselves to give control of their lives to others.
Religious leaders would love not to have a book so that their followers would simple take their word for it.
All religions try to control basic natural instincts such as sexual desire and use it against their followers via a cycle of guilt.
(There were Christians before the Bible was written, so clearly Christianity doesn't need a book in order to exist.)
Christianity is very much a written religion. The letters of Paul are the earliest writings in the NT, and letter-writing was the mechanism of church administration at that time. Those letters were to be read (by the one or maybe two people who could read) to the entire congregation.
I agree totally with your stance that the bible is a compilation of human ideas about god, but to claim Christianity an oral tradition is incorrect.
That is a huge flaw in Christianity, in that there are so many errors, contradicitons, and inconsisencies in the pages of the book upon which the religion is built.
Followers of Christ wrote what we see in the NT did they not? It wasn't put together by non-believers but by Christians who believed in the divinity of Christ. The first Christians were the disciples who, after Christ had gone, evangelised far and wide without the use of a Bible.
Christianity IS an oral tradition, only changed after the Reformation where it became focused on Biblical text. That is what is remarkable about it. Europe still has that history as physical evidence, but America was founded by post-reformation Protestants whose focus was entirely on the Book.
The flaw in Christianity NOW is that it is focused on a book, rather than passed from person to person by action ie: the Apostolic tradition.
Yes, it's called "Chinese Whispers" in which we find the original messages were far distorted later on due to the fact it was all word of mouth.
So, it's a flaw to write things down as opposed to passing them word of mouth?
Which would you trust more? Ancient texts or a witness telling you face to face?
(It wasn't put together by non-believers but by Christians who believed in the divinity of Christ.)
You understanding of early Christianity is misguided. There were many opposing viewpoints of who and what Jesus was - not simply one "Christian" viewpoint - and not everyone who followed Jesus agreed with the divinity of Jesus. There was no consensus until Constantine forced one in the 4th century.
While you are correct that these were oral legends, that they were finally organized around texts is without dispute.
I would refer you to a someone like Bart Ehrman and his books for more information on this subject.
I agree there was not one Christian viewpoint. There were so many viewpoints or Gnosticisms that the council of Trent was formed to create one indisputable Creed in which certain truths and untruths were established. From some 17 Gospels, 4 were seen as God's truth and in perfect keeping with one another. Those who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus are not considered Christian. There was faithful Christianity for 300 years before Constantine. I think that is a remarkable indication of grace.
i dont mind when you tell lizzieboo she is wrong (she's catholic she has to be) but your talking nonsense when you say that most of the bible doesnt add up
im pretty sure for example that dinosaurs come under the same category as animals in fact modern science has shown that most dinosaurs are warm blooded "dragon" is satan...
noah had a lot of time to do it in, about 110 years so he had ample time that is if you believe humans lived longer in those days and uhm...god helped him look after the animals if he can create them he can keep em quiet for a few months
Because, believers have never learned to be honest. So, they will make up anything in order to defend their religion, regardless of how little they understand about the religion and especially about the world around them.
Go write a Hub about it. This is HubPages, not forum pages. Can you even write more than two or three sentences at a time? All you are accomplishing is advertising your neurosis. Christians are the object of displacement for your disorder. This is not how you will find relief for your suffering.
Really, it sure looks like a forum to me.
WD Curry 111, that is not the loving thing to do, by any modern standard of religious, or atheist morality
This man spends his time spreading his beliefs, I get Jehovah Witnesses doing the same at my door.
Other people spend their time praying in church or elsewhere.
Who are we to judge which is expenditure of time is right ?
Yes, I know you would like me to go away. Pointing out your hypocrisy and dishonesty must be getting frustrating.
You aren't pointing out anything except that you don't have anything of merit to add to the discussions. This is supposed to be a writers forum. Write something.
Well that can apply to you also judging by your comments you dont know much about science or religion so u make up your own conclusions
If you used logic and intelligence though ,you would see that their is no evidence that God did any of these things.
I can think of country leaders who have done evil things ,lied and cheated to do it, but do I detest the people who happen to have been born or may be related to him -No ,of course not.
Evil leader: George W. Bush was one, those his evil was a little more overt than others.
Yep, I agree, oh the list is long indeed of men and women who use their positions of power to promote their own corrupt agenda.
But Im married to an American, I love so much about America, and the people that I have interacted with are some of the most loving, generous and kind hearted people on this planet!
I also love the fresh clean energy of the country I originate from
,her beauty and tranquility pricelss, but ask me about our tax laws and I know its driven by pure greed at the top.
Its not everyday hard working people that are ever the problem ,usually its the evil of too much power and the misuse of money (IMO)..
LOL! Logic and intelligence though, would tell you that there is no evidence God exists.
As night follows day....evidence
Numerous stars dot the heavens....planets and creatures still being discovered
Our brains more intricate than the most impressive motherboard
Look at your thumb print ,why is their no other person in this world with one that matches?
Why is DNA different?
An intelligent mind should never settle for one set of truths that another human man declares as fact or is a complete truth.
Some people can not believe what they can not see that doen't mean that thay are wrong; It only means they are closed minded. You can not change the way others thank. Some people think they need others to believe the way they do to feel they are right in the way the believe. People are just programed that way.
A reward? Going to heaven isn't a reward. It's a spiritual destination to be with the one we love, God, the one who made us. In heaven, we will live with him for all eternity in peace. It is by grace we are saved, not through works so it doesn't matter how many good things we do because it's not about things. It's about the beauty of life that the eyes cannot see like love, kindness, compassion and mercy. I don't expect any rewards.
Doing something good in order to go to a desirable destination = doing something for a reward.
Come again? Okay, sure. Heaven is not a reward. It is a spiritual destination. I'm doing what I do because my heart desires to do what is right by the Lord. I'm not behaving in such a way to "get" something. It grieves the Holy Spirit when I don't follow him.
The destination is part of a journey to be with the one I love. It's not about the "getting". It's about love which gives nothing in return if I'm only in it to get something.
You make it sound like a very cold marketing purchase, which I disagree with.
Miss MelissaK, why then do you look to the bible or Jesus for moral guidelines?
Why can you not deduce for yourself what is moral and not moral?
Atheists after all are more moral people than religious people.
Before you protest and say otherwise, consider the religious teachings that lead people to believe that abortion is wrong and gay people will go to hell
Also consider the idea that atheists are less likely to go to prison.
Also consider the fact that atheists are also more likely to become scientists. Science being one of the most moral fields to pursue. Including medicine, of course.
Yes, we all know what is right and wrong, for it is written in our hearts. God created us. If God didn't create you, what is that "something" that stops you from killing your neighbor? Do you think it's soley from you? Where exactly do your morals come from and where do you draw the line? You know it's wrong to kill, but why do you know it's wrong? Where does your deduction come from? Simply from you. People murder every day so why aren't they able to deduce such great moral guidelines like yourself? Is it because they believe in God and that makes them killers? That's nuts.
I dated an atheist once and he told me he thought all his six exgirlfriends were sluts. How moral is that? It doesn't sound very moral to me. It sounds downright mean and judgmental. So I wouldn't exactly start putting halos around all the atheists out there.
Where is it written that Atheists are more moral? That is your opinion. That is not the truth.
As for religious teachings, I am to love others as he has loved me. It is God's place to judge, not mine.
Atheists less likely to go to prison? Is this an advertisement for satan and his minions? Just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't mean the Holy Spirit is active in their lives or that they've ever cracked open the Bible.
In the end, consider the fact that it doesn't matter what any of us say, you will argue the point until we die. We can come up with great answers, but it doesn't matter. You will always come up with some great counterpoint on your part. Neither of us wish to change.
If that was the case people wouldn't kill period.
And you know this how exactly?
According to you, G/god created everything, that means everyone and everything else. So, how can you then say "if G/god didn't creat you"? and on top of it- attach a ridiculous statement to it.
The human conscience is derived from our subconscious. Go learn something would you.
Morals are derived from understanding oneself(including your conscience) and learning to live in the world based on teaching from parents.
You like to hear yourself talk? Do you read your own posts before you post? The human conscience is the answer to that question.
And this matters why?
They can. They CHOOSE to ignore it.
No not solely, but many KILL people in the name of "G/god".
He could be right, did you ever bother to think of that?
Being a slut isn't any more immoral than it to be religious.
Of course you don't....you're sitting upon a righteous moral ground.
Actions are judge whether or not you like it. It's a requirement of human nature.
I wouldn't put a single halo around any religious person either. So get off your soapbox.
The ones who have been killing lately kill in the name of Allah, or haven't you noticed. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Sumerians, Romans and etc. didn't kill in the name of christian gods, and most who claimed to kill in the name of Christ were only using belief to manipulate to acheive their own ungodly ends.
If you had a conscience, you wouldn't be so rude. I will close off all conversation with you. This is it. I will not be partaking in the forums anymore nor will I look back for your response.
Oh, and so since it's called a conscience, God couldn't possibly have created it since man put a name to it, right? I see. I'm so sorry. Forgive me for thinking that God was actually ABOVE man. The horror of my stupidity must make your brain bleed.
So sluts and Christians are lumped together as immoral? Great. This world is going to hell in a handbasket.
I'm not sitting on a righteous throne anymore than your righteous "anti-God" throne.
We're all wretched sinners. None of us get halos.
If you think wiping out someone's belief in God is the answer to all the world's ills, you are sorely mistaken.
I don't think you should leave the forum because one person is being intentionally rude and insulting. You can ignore that person, you don't have to respond to any of it. Don't let them silence you. There are others with which you can have reasonable discussion.
Really, I was speaking truth. If you don't like it, then get over yourself.
(This is it. I will not be partaking in the forums anymore nor will I look back for your response.)
This is certainly an effective method to get in the last word.
"You know it's wrong to kill"
it is not wrong to kill in all cases. If a bear attacks a group of campers, I would not say it was wrong to wound or kill that bear. If a person attacks a group of campers with malicious intent I would say it was not wrong to wound or kill that bear.
If by killing one man I could save 7 billion people, I would kill that one man, even if it was myself.
Murder is not always morally wrong. It's a fallacy to say it is. The Bible and it's deontological views are sickening. Lying is also not always wrong -lie to save a life is moral, theft is not always wrong - theft to feed your family is moral, even coveting your neighbour's wife is not always wrong if you knew that everyone would be happier if you re-married with her.
utilitarianism is moral.
How do we know what is right and what is wrong? Our upbringing. How did our parents know what was right and what was wrong? Their upbringing. This goes up the family tree into history. Society, through trial and error learned what was right or wrong.
Do you know what is completely wrong with the argument "where does your morality come from?" - "it must be God"? It's wrong because we have so much proof that we call historical documents showing that humanity started off with barbaric, evil customs and then through trial and error learned what was right and what was wrong . Through positive and negative reinforcement learned what was right and what was wrong.
If God is the source of our morality. Then 1000 years ago there wouldn't have been widespread malicious murder, pillaging and rape. 2000 years ago there wouldn't have been widespread malicious murder, pillaging and rape. 5000 years ago [b], there wouldn't have been widespread malicious murder, pillaging and rape.
[b] Only recently has this barbaric behaviour stopped. Only 200 years ago we were still enslaving our own race , calling them a different race entirely.
If you look at the history of man, the further back in time you go, the more brutal we acted. If you suggest that God dictates our intrinsic morality, then you suggest that humans will always act the same, no more barbaric now then they were 5000 years ago, no more civil. After all, why would God's power over us falter? He is all powerful after all.
And what changed? What developed over history so that humans became more moral every century and millennia? Society.
With every tragedy, every horror, every war waged and fight fought, we built upon our society and their rules. Religions formed, and used fear in order to control people, making sure they didn't misbehave, telling them they would burn in hell and suffer all pains if they would. This worked. This really did work. Humans were able to control themselves using fear tactics. The reason "thou shall not kill" and all the other commandments were invented? Because humans could see that if none of these bad things were happening, then less bad things would happen to them. It is a selfish motive. It is our need to survive and reproduce that makes us moral.
Humans learn from mistakes, their own ones, and other people's. We were not born moral, we were born more or less as a blank slate. After that we learn. We learn how to behave in order to survive. We understand concepts, we understand that if everyone in a group doesn't commit crime, then no one, including yourself will be a victim of crime.
So where do I get my morality from? From my parents and the understanding that morality makes the world work better, and if not caring for every other human being, it at least improves my own situation and my own survival chances .
"Atheists less likely to go to prison? Is this an advertisement for satan and his minions?" it is a statistic, derive what you will from it
"Just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't mean the Holy Spirit is active in their lives or that they've ever cracked open the Bible. " that probably leaves Christianity to less than 1000 followers...
The exact same "something" that has evolved over many generations long before anyone every heard about your God; altruism and compassion, something God does not teach.
Yes, simply from me. Simply, because I wouldn't want anyone killing me so I don't go around killing others. It is not beneficial for ones happiness to kill people but instead quite the opposite. Are you saying you can't figure that out yourself?
Yes, that is nuts because only an extremely small portion of the population do those things, and often when we find the reason for those actions, they have nothing to do with stopping and thinking about morals and ethics.
That isn't anywhere near as mean and judgmental as your religion telling atheists they will burn for an eternity simply because they don't believe. How moral is that?
It isn't written anywhere just as it is not written anywhere that believers are more moral.
No, they are prison statistics, facts, data, hard evidence.
(Yes, we all know what is right and wrong, for it is written in our hearts. God created us)
"Typhoid" Mary caused the deaths of many innocent people because she was a carrier of a deadly disease (at her time). If her future could have been known, would it have been moral or immoral to kill her as a child?
Pretending that intractable problems have guy-N-the-sky solutions does not solve the problems. Only humans can determine if really hard decisions are right or wrong - and even then we never know for sure.
Suppose, for example, we all decide to kill baby "Typhoid" Mary in order to save the victims of her disease, we do so, and a month later Dr. Know-it-all discovers a cure for typhoid fever. Were we wrong to kill Mary?
The entire basis of guy-N-the-sky is our hope that nothing is impossible, and our belief allows us to hope intractable problems will be solved without our input.
Unfortunately, this is not so. We never will know what happens after death, so our hope for life eternal is only that: hope.
The answer I always get is because Christians dominate education and government and thus make everyone's lives a misery as if that automatically invalidates the religion.
The answer you should always get is because religions teach ignorance and immorality, not because they dominate anything.
I rarely see atheists attack paganism, Satanism, Islam, Judaism, etc. Surely they all preach ignorance? I don't know how Jesus taught immorality. If you are referring to the OT, then keep in mind they were Jewish laws.
Yes they do, I attack all of the above mentioned religions frequently.
Jesus did not "teach" morality so much as tell stories which we are supposed to deduce morality from.
His morality is questionable and open to interpretation.
How do I know this? There are 40,000 different sects of christianity and each have their own moral belief system. The bible is not a clear source of morality. Therefore it is not a good source of morality. It leads to homophobia, banning abortions, banning condoms etc. etc.
Is that moral? No. Where did the religious leaders get the ideas to do this from? The teachings of Jesus.
Can we conclude that the teachings of Jesus are not a good source of morals? Yes.
What teachings of Jesus do you think are immoral?
Forbidding divorce unless it was due to sexual infidelity
Matthew 19:9 states:
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
The Jewish law is more moral than that, saying that a man can freely divorce his wife.
You should be able to spend your life with whoever you choose and wants you. It's immoral to tell people that they get once chance at marriage. People make bad judgements. People change.
Then there's telling people that a natural -and harmless under most circumstances- urge, lust, is an immoral sin akin to adultery:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
A Jewish man could freely divorce his wife, without her consent, and doesn't have the same right herself. Nice.
I think it is you who is taking an immoral stance. You self righteously condemn Jesus yet you think it is more moral that a man can divorce his wife for just wearing her hair loose in the street. You obviously think that it is more moral to treat women like that.
Just because you don't agree with what Jesus' said, doesn't make Him immoral. I think it would be immoral of Jesus to say one must stay married even if sexual infidelity occurred.
If you look deeper into what Jesus said, you would notice that He is putting women on a equal par to men. They are one flesh. Therefore He finds a divorce of a woman because she spoilt her husband's food unacceptable. He does not consider the wife to be a subordinate.
I think Jesus was trying to make people think carefully before they married. People often marry out of convenience and with the wrong intentions. Marriage is to be taken seriously. People often divorce because they are tired of their marriage and Jesus does not think a marriage should be abandoned because of that. A perfect example is Kim Kardanshian. She treated marriage like dirt.
Finally, I know God not to be hard-hearted. He knows we are weak and fallible and do not make the right decisions all the time. I think that He would find no problem with a couple giving their marriage their best shot because they married for the right reasons. Sometimes it is best not to remain married because, for example, if you have children and you fight all the time, it would be best to divorce for their sake.
Things aren't black and white in this world. The answer if one is not sure of the scriptures, is to pray to God for guidance.
"Just because you don't agree with what Jesus' said, doesn't make Him immoral. "
The court of law does not agree with what Jesus said, and neither do I, because rationally, it is immoral.
("You self righteously condemn Jesus yet you think it is more moral that a man can divorce his wife for just wearing her hair loose in the street. You obviously think that it is more moral to treat women like that.")
Than enslave all of humanity? YES
The actual moral stance would be to enforce a law that states that divorce is allowed in the case of an irretrievable breakdown. The exact law that exists today.
"I think Jesus was trying to make people think carefully before they married" you can think all you want, and you'll never be right, because his actual words were that if you marry, you're trapped, regardless of how hard you thought about it.
"If you look deeper into what Jesus said, you would notice that He is putting women on a equal par to men. They are one flesh. Therefore He finds a divorce of a woman because she spoilt her husband's food unacceptable. He does not consider the wife to be a subordinate."
And what about when a woman murders her husband's children, abuses her husband, burns down his house, lies to him, insults him on a daily basis or attempts to kill or severely damage him?
[Bible Basher]: *hic* *hic* GOD SAYS THEY SHOULD BE TOGETHER 4 EVAZ
What a ridiculous idea.
"Things aren't black and white in this world. The answer if one is not sure of the scriptures, is to pray to God for guidance."
Oh are they not? Well you must not be a christian, because if you deviate from the word of God, then you are not truly devoted.
Are you questioning the word of the almighty? Our saviour? Our lord? Your creator? The holy one!?
Lol, since when is one immoral if the court of law doesn't agree with Him? They only deal with the legalities not the moral aspect.
Are you saying that Jesus enslaved humanity because of what He said? That's ridiculous.
"And what about when a woman murders her husband's children, abuses her husband, burns down his house, lies to him, insults him on a daily basis or attempts to kill or severely damage him?"
Oh, come on. Surely, it this is automatic grounds for divorce? Does Jesus even need to mention this in the "except" clause? Jesus was countering the Mosaic divorce laws on just divorcing over the stupidest things. The Pharisees pointed out the law that a husband could do this, but just marrying out of convenience, which many did (their wives were considered subordinates), the sanctity of marriage could not be appreciated.
I still maintain that Jesus said these things to makes us respect marriage. He was also stating the ideal. We all need ideals to strive for BUT Jesus knows we are human and are going to stray from the ideal at times. Why else die for our sins?
"Oh are they not? Well you must not be a christian, because if you deviate from the word of God, then you are not truly devoted."
Well, let us remember that the gospels were written some decades after Jesus' death and resurrection so the gospels are not going to state what He said verbatim most of the time. Many misunderstandings can take place and some may report what Jesus said but wrote it in such a way that they thought He meant but didn't. I'm speaking in general.
The Bible isn't perfect so the only way to truly know God is through a personal relationship. I am truly devoted to Christ but I don't make the Bible my god.
If you still have issue with this, take this up with Him when you die. I'm sure He'd be happy to assist.
That's more moral than a Jewish man having to live with someone he doesn't want to for 60+ years..
A woman should have the same right, so the Jewish idea isn't moral.
But at least in this case 1/2 of the population of humans have a right of freedom.
In Jesus' one, 0% of the population has a right to freedom.
That's full blown slavery. (and not moral..)
You can't dictate who you must live with.
The Jewish law dictates to 1/2 the population who they must live with.
Jesus dictates to the entire population who they must live with.
I forgot this part:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Jesus clearly said this because if you lust after another woman, it can clearly lead to something more and there is danger of infidelity. How fair is it on the wife for her husband to lust after another woman?
Common sense tells me that Jesus was not referring to appreciating a woman's sexiness and long as the thoughts aren't prolonged.
You know, if you simply look at the person Jesus was and everything he stood for you realize this was saying the same thing he had said on other occasions.. The letter of the law is pointless. You can live by the law and still do the wrong thing. You are supposed to put others needs and welfare above your own, no matter what the law allows.
Divorcing someone hurts that person. Especially in an ancient world where women were at the mercy of men. Lusting after another person would be hurtful to a spouse if they found out.
He was all about love and respect. The whole point focused around pious bs. Don't quote the law because you still hurt people when you follow the law. The law was not good enough because it gave people the sense of righteousness they had no right to claim.
The guy wasn't attempting to make laws. He was attempting to show that laws were not where you looked in order to know what is right.
"The guy wasn't attempting to make laws. He was attempting to show that laws were not where you looked in order to know what is right."
Pardon? Then why did he state when things were right and when things were wrong?
If he was encouraging a moral guideline, then he would have hedged. No hedging is seen. He made his own laws of morality. Questionable ones.
Not only did he do that, but he made the laws in such a way that they can be interpreted to mean malicious and immoral actions. (Not to mention 40,000 different interpretations at least )
Even our own law system is better than that.
And this is supposed to be the son of an omnipotent & omniscient God that we're talking about!
(You know, if you simply look at the person Jesus was and everything he stood for you realize this was saying the same thing he had said on other occasions.. The letter of the law is pointless)
This is not what Jesus said according to the author of the book of Mark. In Mark, Jesus teaches an apocraphyl message that included strict adherence to the Law.
I'm not a theologian. And you and I both know that if these words are the words of the apostles (doubtful) that everything written isn't necessarily what was said by the figure they are writing about. People infuse a bit of themselves in things.
I look at what I perceive as the unifying threads through the gospels in order to determine what I perceive to be the overall message. Because I can.
The figure was obviously not attempting to start a religion, imo. He was not attempting to create laws. imo. He was, by example, showing a better way to live and attempting to make people understand the reason for the laws. Laws are minimum standards of conduct and we are all capable of being better.
And also since 1 billion Christians follow these rules which are all deduced from Jesus' teachings:
Premarital sex is not immoral and should be encouraged for a healthy relationship.
Condoms are not evil and wearing them is not a sin.
Abortion is not always wrong.
Homosexuals do not deserve eternal punishment.
Yep, you can pretend like Jesus never taught these views, but 1.1 billion people seem to think that he did, so even if he didn't intend to teach these views, he did.
That's what you get when you base your morals on vague and possibly mal-translated version of an antiquated text.
If it's not clear and can be twisted, it's not a good source of morality...
You don't know many religious people do you?
No, of course we don't. We all live in atheist compounds and keep all the religious out, by force if necessary. We're even thinking of forming our country if we can find an island we can buy.
I personally have never met a religious person in my life. None of my family were religious - oh, unless you count my father and father, my two sisters and every single one of our relatives. There were no religious people in the schools I went to or the town I lived in - except for just about everybody. Finally, I never had a religious friend - except for every single one again until I met my wife.
So, yeah: we know NOTHING about religious folk.
I see. So you know many more religious people than I do. Mine are all related to me; 9 brothers and sisters, 26 first cousins, around 70 cousins once removed. I didn't go to religious schools, none of our neighbours where religious and one grows accustomed to there never being a mention of God in politics or the media in Britain. We were not what you might call, drowned in an overly religious culture.
There was never talk of evil particularly (except Disney). It was a much more philosophical approach to eternity, in as much as eternity is unknown and concerns the soul and not the body. So I find it strange when people are evermore talking about religion being thrust down their throats.
Yes, I know you find it strange as do all religiously indoctrinated. That's part of the problem.
Did the local Vicar run off with your girlfriend or something?
Perhaps you fell in love with the local Vicar. First cut is the deepest.
Christians interpreting what Jesus said and what He actually said can very often be completely different things.
So point out things in the GOSPELS that Jesus said that are immoral.
It's not my bad that you can't read.
I don't have time to dig in to reply to any responses at the moment--but thanks to all who have answered the question. You have indeed provided some insight into your understanding. I know each person may have a different answer, but I am seeing some common threads/themes and that is what I'm really after here. Thanks again for taking the time to respond!
they want a god just not the one being offered
disbelief based on the beliefs of others. its silly
Those who follow religion's doctrines to the letter, taking them literal and then imposing those on other people through other influences, make them extremely dangerous, not only to themselves but to other people.
Here is my theory on the forum question. Atheists, feeling mentally superior to "religious" barbarians are only trying to save you from yourself...which actually sounds very christian, but they can't be your messiah, as long as you believe that Jesus fellow is the messiah. That is why...oh! And they don't want you polluting everything with all that sinner talk too. It makes them feel guilty about what they been doin'! And those public displays at Christmas! Have you no shame? They don't want to face their own children's faces 'cause dad and mom were too SCROOGElike to give it up...just for the heck of it! And, of course, you know how christianity was responsible for war...or some such NONSENSE. They just simply can't help but poop on somebody else's parade...they don't have one of their own.
Most atheists do not care that there are religious believers in the world, although there are some militant atheists, who have as much zeal in their need to convert a believer, as a believer has for converting the atheist. There can be a lot of anger on both sides. It must be remembered that many atheists were once believers, and like ex-smokers can often be the most outspoken against their former practice.
The problems can arise when people of faith, believe that their faith should give them certain advantages, because of their moral superiority over people of different faiths and those of none at all. When the religious believe they have the right to dictate to others, it shouldn't come as a surprise that those others are going to disagree and argue. If religion were a private affair, which does not feel a need to impress itself upon others, then, the arguments would not arise.
As usual you are coming from the right position.
Religion is, by its nature, a community thing so its hard to live it in private. However, if all religious people nurtured the quality of love and charity, the private or the public would not matter.
If that were true, we wouldn't see Christians threatening everyone else with eternal hellfire who doesn't believe as they do. So, the only "community thing" we see there is one in which only certain narrow attributes are allowed within the community.
Threatening everyone else with hellfire?!! You need to get out of America more.
LizzieBoo unfortunately, when you get rid of the concept of hell, people stop going to church, look at Britain
I completely agree. Unless you are saying Britain is a kind of Hell which America freed itself from, in which case...I also agree.
I think the New World has a different religious attitude to the old. Puritans were never popular in Britain, and were made to feel unwelcome, with their fire and brimstone and the banning of Christmas and mince pies. So, they were sent packing, thousands of them making a home in the Americas. This left the British with their distrust of anything too religious or spiritual, and the Americas peopled by those who believed they were setting up God's kingdom on Earth. This attitude is evident even today, by the American president's use of "God Bless America!" Trying to imagine a Prime Minister using such language is very hard. Religion is a cause for embarrassment in Britain. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury seems reluctant to speak out in favour of Christianity. And 25% of Church of England clergy are atheists.
A society cannot exist without a sense and system of reward and punishment; hence the Creator God is Master of the Day of Judgement.
From my experience it's in reaction to those who DO "believe in God, who spend time and energy trying to convince others to believe the same"!
Evangelizing Christians want atheists to be what they perceive as virtuous, evangelizing atheists want Christians to be what they perceive as rational.
Both belief systems have a lot of followers who do not evangelize at all because they figure what people believe is their own business.
Philanthropy2012, what you are saying makes perfect sense, of course it does. And most rational people who possess the gift of logic would agree with you. But like Jesus was a hippo has said, a lot of people will just argue against the facts anyway. Their beliefs are so deeply ingrained, that they seem to block out the ability (or the desire) to process information logically.
REALLY! LIKE...GET YOUR OWN HOLIDAYS. CHRISTMAS IS FOR CHRIST FOLLOWERS...GET YOUR OWN COUNTRY. IN GOD WE TRUST. DUGH! HOW HARD IS THAT?
Best quote of the week
Personally, i don't care if others believe in God or not. Morality is not unique to either.
But somehow people seem to think that morality is different among each individual.
There are just obnoxious and messed up people on both sides. For some reason, certain dysfunctional folk have to control others. Maybe it is more about getting gratification from controlling others than it is about being either faithful or an atheist.
sometimes that does seem to be the case...
Yes but atheist dictators are revealed for who they are, evil and oppressive. Religious ones like the Pope are seen as holy figures that the world is supposed to adore and cherish. Pah!
If it wasn't for religion, we would not have the shroud of religion to hide evil doers
The world is not supposed to adore and cherish the Pope. Where do you get your ideas from? You mean Mao Zedong I think. Places like China have already tried out the ideas you seem to value. It was a complete and utter disaster and it will be generations before it recovers.
If you don't believe in God, why does it matter to you if others do?
That shows that the atheists are intolerant people
Intolerant to your religions intolerance, yes.
You're intolerant of my intolerance of your intolerance of my intolerance of your intolerance of religion. I can see this going somewhere.
If you keep your religion out of laws that affect me, your beliefs don't matter to me.
However, you'll often find me here in the religious forums. I'm not here for the religious - I know you need to believe and I know that it even helps some of you. I'm not here because of you.
I'm here for the person who cannot believe but is surrounded and isolated in a world that seems insane to them. I'm here to show them that there are other sane, rational people in the world, that they are not alone.
I've mentioned this before: my wife was brought up in a religious context. So was I. I rejected it as nonsense immediately and felt that my parents and everyone else obviously were mildly deranged, but my wife thought that something was wrong with her. She thought that maybe she was the crazy one who couldn't see what was so real to everyone around her.
Of course she eventually learned better, but it left scars. Today, she is much more critical and antagonistic toward religious belief than I am.
Her story is not unusual. It happens all over the world. I speak against religious belief for the millions who are as she was.
For those of you who believe, I say this: I support you. If anyone ever tries to interfere with your right to believe, to raise your children in your belief or to try to convince others of the values you hold, I will stand with you to defend you. I'll do that even when I am disgusted by some of the things you do, because I believe in religious freedom.
I won't respect your belief, though, and I will always speak against it for the reasons I give above.
Why do you want to help others?
-small question indeed.
Having empathy for others has nothing to do with belief in God, or religion, or anything other than being human.
I agree. But I am asking a simple question- "Why do human beings have empathy?"
Because we are pack/herd animals and empathy contributed to the survival of the species. It's a slightly more developed version of the herd circling to protect the young.
Such squishy emotions such as love and kindness also served the same purpose. They are also present in the animal kingdom.
1. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.
I'm guessing you are going to play the "Humans aren't animals" card?
Can you tell me what is 'biological life'?
-very small question.
You can define it yourself when/if you decide to make your point. I'll argue/debate as much as you like but I don't like theatrics.
What is a "question"?
-very small (???)
Biological life is life that forms in an environmental sphere capable of support and proliferation.
Asking questions about definitions isn't going to get out of the obvious mess you've created for yourself.
The dictionaries are the standard of definitions that all humans are to abide by, asking for a definition of a word takes less than 5 seconds to answer thanks to google
Coming to a discussion forum unprepared? Looking for others to do your homework for you?
Try answering a question with a thought for a change.
I asked a question, and you couldn't answer that. That's it.
Evolution, we are not the only ones:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 142017.htm
Because empathy helped us survive. There are many discussions of this you can easily find on the web.
Why was it made for us in such a beneficial way? It could have been something very opposite- We could've been naturally programmed to destroy each other. What made things that way?
It wasn't "made for us". That question indicates a basic misunderstanding on your part.
For you, let me rephrase the question- "Why was it made in such a beneficial way? It could have been something very opposite- We could've been naturally programmed to destroy each other. What made things that way?"
The ones that did devolve to destroy each other, didn't survive to reproduce and carry on the gene...
They were not the fittest to survive, so they didn't.
The altruistic ones who could make friends and socially bond did survive, so they did
I bet you didn't know that we're not the only animals with empathy
There is more to history and life than you know.
Oh, you mean answer with pointless cliches so I can hear myself talk?
I'll give you a good grade for stick-to-it-iveness, but slide easy greasy . . . you have a long way to go before you are hip like Chip. That cat has been hip since hip was hep. He can rap, tap, set a trap and talk crap. I was born on the crest of a wave and rocked in the cradle of the deep. Time and tide wait for no man. You don't need to worry about that. You are a woman. I can tell. You can't throw so good.
Have you done a hub yet?
He has a point WD Curry, It would have been more helpful for me if you had explained your statement afterwards. Without my reading your mind, I can't understand your point and neither of us have benefited from the whole ordeal
Read the whole thread. Troubled Man and I have been "communicating" since the day I got here. That lady has about four million forum posts with about six statements that she absorbed by osmosis from EarnestHub and no Hubs of her own. What's up with that? It is obviously a sock puppet account. What's the point? I came to this masquerade flea market as WD Curry 111. I am WD Curry 111. Who are you?
@Philanthropy2012- "The altruistic ones who could make friends and socially bond did survive, so they did."
Why does life want to survive?
You know, I think you think you are being profound. The rest of us realize that you are in over your head. You are typing but you aren't saying anything. Why bother? Please, back out gracefully. You are embarrassing yourself.
He's being as profound as an Intelligent Design advocate can be.
I don't mean that sarcastically. These folks can't take any thought any farther than "god did it". That fiat takes all the nuance out of everything. There are no remaining questions, there's nothing to think about, nothing to explore, it's done: a god did it.
Simple. Easy. Nothing to see here, folks, please move along.
These folks can't take any thought any farther than "god did it".
Did I ever utter the name of a god?
You don't have to. You've asked questions that indicate that you dismiss evolutionary theory. That implies Intelligent Design.
I think most people are intelligent enough to know what you are driving at. You haven't veiled it very heavily.
@Pcunix- You are free to answer my question, and save evolutionary theory.
@Pcunix- go here: http://hubpages.com/forum/post/1927653
You did not perhaps get it, let me make it clear- Why does life want to survive, and not destroy itself? Evolution gave life many forms, but what planted this deep sense of self-protection?
Evolution is a mere process, and thus indifferent to the inherent qualities of this thing called 'biological life'. What created this biological life, and planted this innate sense for creativity?
Evolution instilled a fight or flight mechanism, God instilled a deeper meaning to action. I guess that is if one chooses to believe such a theory. I personally am through with the religious side of the argument though. Can one not be spiritual and leave behind religion? All religions really do is twist the words of great men, to suit their own agendas. Of course I don't think that of the religion itself, so much as the foundation of the founders.
You know what I find most amusing about this?
We are already seeing evolution in action. We are seeing it happen right in front of us and at the same time we are learning more about the DNA changes that make it all possible.
We are also advancing our knowledge of how life began and are closer to artificial life than you can likely imagine.
In a thousand years, we'll know even more. In a million years, we will have seen so much traceable change and know so much about biology that schoolchildren will read arguments against evolution in their history lessons and will think "How stupid people were in the two thousands!".
That's amusing, but what really tickles me is that because of advances in understanding aging, some who are reading this now might still be around to laugh with those children and try to explain why some of us were so silly.
Again, the answer to "why does life want to survive?" is simple: if it did not, it would not. No magic needed.
..Quite simply and this concept has been before our eyes and under our noses for years is that all life is created /designed/existed to reproduce therefore its survival is inevitable (and predestined)
LOL! Has the word "extinct" ever crossed your lexicon?
I guess it would be safe to say you feel quite strongly about these things..
You make excellent fables. Your fables can rival some Christian and Chinese cosmologies. Nice theater there.
" if it did not, it would not." -Is evolution responsible for that?
It wasn't "made" in a beneficial way, it's how natural selection works. People adapt to survive. A group of people trying to destroy one another would soon die out, while a group empathising and getting along would be more likely to survive.
Evolution made us that way. As Melissa told you, those with empathy survived more often that those without.
If you are truly ignorant of these things, you can easily educate yourself. Otherwise, you are just playing silly games and should say so: "Yes, I understand evolutionary theory and I think it's all nonsense". If you say that, we can realize who you are and ignore you, saving all of us much time.
Professing to be wise, they became fools.
@Pcunix- You are telling a lot about evolution that I never uttered myself. You seem to be very good in putting your sentences to other people's mouths.
("Why was it made in such a beneficial way?"
Silence is Golden,
The dodo bird is still trying to understand the meaning of the word "beneficial" in your scenario. Thanks for playing.
To rephrase your question into a statement requires an assumption that the world was made in a beneficial way. This is an example of begging the question as "made beneficial" presupposes a motive and a creator.
Here is your question restated as argument:
Only a beneficial creator can create a beneficial world
The world is beneficial.
Therefore, a beneficial creator created the world.
Totally circular and thus invalid.
Why don't you just say, I believe god dun it and leave it at that without the games?
AKA Wilson - Golden bird is not being circular. It is a linear progression. What you have said here is a text book example of double talk. It reminds me of "Fellow Travelers" or folks of that ilk that I used to run into during my college days and shortly thereafter. There was a subversive influence behind the rhetoric. I have seen weak women fall under its spell, and needy men fall in line behind.
The creator's intentions were, are, and always will be beneficial. If you want to argue that . . . tell me the sun is not shining in Florida today.
I would be glad to give you room to share your beliefs, and show them respect . . . even if you are just a fool. If you don't respect mine, I will show the error of your ways. If you can't take correction, it is to your own destruction. Take it from a teacher.
(AKA Wilson - Golden bird is not being circular. It is a linear progression)
WD Curry 111,
No, it is a loaded question fallacy, a close neighbor to the fallacy of begging the question. He asked, "Why was it made in such a beneficial way?"
This presupposes that it is beneficial. 90% of all life forms that have lived on this planet have since become extinct, so it is hard to make an argument for positive linear progression of beneficial characteristics based on that fact.
The sun doesn't always shine. Sometimes you have rain and sometimes hurricanes.
The "problem of evil" is incompatible with your beneficial creator. Never mind all the other illogic that you'd never even think about - this alone is obviously false.
But never mind. You won't see that and honestly I'd rather you believed in a kind creator than a cruel one. Be happy.
AKA Winston, did I hurt you?
"Why don't you just say, I believe god dun it and leave it at that without the games?"
-I advise you to take medication for your sun-conscious mind. It hears things people never said.
It wasn't MADE for us, those humans in groups survived. Solitary humans died. Therefore those who exhibited "herd" or "social" behavior produced offspring that did the same-either by nature or learned behavior.
If your survival is invested in the survival of the herd, you care about the herd. Hence, empathy.
And in answer to your other post, I refuse to play games with you. You can imply ignorance on my part if you like but I'm not the one asking for simple definitions.
You don't know what 'biological life' is - and still, you are making claims about it. Your knowledge is incomplete. You don't know the complete picture. Sorry if that realization hurts your ego.
Get to know yourself, and then come here to debate.
ROFLMAO! Says the person that asks for the definition of "animal" and says others are wrong but can't say why.
You might want to check for typos before insulting the intelligence of others as well.
LOL! You were the one asking for definitions. How very dishonest of you.
No, but it's the easiest place for you to educate yourself. I'd hate to make you go to a library for something like this..
Okay . . . you are funny. Let me know when you are in Florida, and I will take you fishing.
A little rude of you to choose one internet stranger over all the others to publicly invite out for fishing
It's nice at least to be invited to the party
I have empathy for the religious too. You sometimes get attacked unfairly - you will often find me insisting that often the supposed "evil" of religion has far more to do with excuse than cause.
Some would say that certain religious practices have to be interfered with - for example, Christian Scientists refusing medical treatment for children. Those are heart wrenching decisions but I tend to side with the parents - while definitely feeling that the child has to be made aware of the conflict and should not be left unaware.
Whether anybody does or doesn't believe in God doesn't matter to me in the slightest bit, it never has, and I can't imagine it ever will. What does matter to me is that whatever people choose to believe, they show respect for the beliefs of others.
Much the same reasons why it matters to Christians that atheists don't believe in God...
Yet, a "Christian" cannot respect the atheist's belief and leave him alone. The "Christian " HAS to badger and whine and wheedle at the atheist ad nauseam to try and change their minds. As an Atheist, Please leave me alone as I leave you alone. Is that TOO much to ask?
You obviously care that they do or you would not be here in the forum. I cannot see why it matters to either side. I though did not come here for that reason. My reason was to inject the truth as I see it, in hopes that someone would learn from it. I am not looking for recognition, so much as someone that can understand the things I say so that it can be an open conversation. Bickering at one another certainly is not proving anything. This is why one should accept it as it is and learn to enjoy the time they have with others, online or not.
He says while keyboarding a message in a theistic forum. If you don't want a fight...what are you doing in the ring?
I think they are attracted to the light, like moths to a flame.
The title brought me in. I, certainly don't care what you believe. However like most others I get disturbed by someone knocking on my door and when I go answer I find some Bible thumping person there, trying to preach at me. This happens at least once a week, even with a "NO SOLICITORS" sign posted. This is why I am here asking "Why can't you Leave us alone?"
These people know MY beliefs as I have told them what they are. This just seems to make the "Christian" even more aggressive by disturbing me more often.
No, it is certainly not too much to ask. Of course I've seen Atheists badger and whine and wheedle at Christians ad nauseam to try and change their minds as well. LOL, its a two way street I'm afraid. There will always be those on both sides of the issue who will never be happy unless they are stirring the stinky pot.
You are making a blanket statement that isn't true at all. Unbutton your shirt so you can see where you are going.
GEO. Put an upside down cross on your door. It works wonders! (Garlic for vampires) If they are as aggressive as you claim, then they are disobeying their own messiah, and, are not in truth, christian. Notice that I don't capitalize christian.
Vampires? You have me mixed up with someone else, or clicked the wrong capsule or something. I was pointing out that this guy wasn't seeing clearly. I respect atheists rights to believe as they choose. I only share my beliefs when prompted.
Sorry , Druid Dude, I see what's up, now. I am used to user friendly programs. This thread is quarky.
And I was just kidding. I just assume they don't like reversed crucifixes. I believe in God, but I am not a christian.
I did address my remark to GEORDNC...That's why mine started out GEO. You can also maintain the flow of the forum better by using the black "Post a reply" button at the bottom right, but I don't use it much.
I'm more likely to pepper spray the next one that comes pounding at my door>
It is interesting how the American constitution has created a birdshot blast of denominations and sects. Those door knockers are "cultish" types, who believe they must do that in order to achieve salvation. I would sic the dog on them, but I understand their compulsion, and admire the courage of their convictions. Personally, I either don't answer, or, if it is hot, I give them a soda or a water and wish them well, and say, "I don't have time to talk right now, God Bless you."
I am surprised more don't get hurt.
You are a good writer, and you have an interesting gig here. I wouldn't believe the way I do if I hadn't had an epiphany of sorts. Christianity always seemed crazy to me. Angels, demons, wheels within wheels, cherubim and a God that never makes mistakes, but created evil. How many Gods are there in the mangled mess . . . one or three? Make up your mind for crying out loud. You can't have it both ways. There isn't a "pagan" religion that is more confusing or grandiose. It is out of the box, but you can't pry Christians out of their boxes. Go figure.
Then one day I found myself on my face saying . . . I am ruined . . . I am a man of unclean lips. I was no where near a church.
Ditto. christians had no answers...just platitudes. I psycho-analyzed myself...a thirty year journey. But I have found peace within, and therefore, without. I equate God with the only thing that fits the criteria. Energy, as in Einstein. Everything is a manifestation of energy, even consciousness. Energy is timeless and is not bound by space. It doesn't increase or decrease. It moves, yet doesn't move at all. If "E" is sentient, that is, consciously aware, Then "E" it is. It's a God foreign to my parents thinking, and provides an answer that doesn't tend to settle well with zealots of any stripe. I believe that God sees from every eye, not just man's...and hears from every ear. It is what has called us from our darkness, made us wear clothes and cultivate veggies and livestock. Denying this God is ridiculous. Remove it from the equation and everything evaporates like a dream.
That's interesting. When I was at Annapolis, we all had to study quantum theory and mechanics. I am right brained, and it almost killed me. One day, we were studying the early "atom smashing" experiments, so we were using finite numbers. I was learning how to use a slide rule, and had a brain overload. At the same time, I was staring at the formula for how much energy it takes to accelerate mass to the speed of light. It takes an infinite amount of energy. There is light traveling all over the universe. Hello?!
What a very interesting approach you have. Thank you for the comment too.
Oh heavens, don't say old, tried and tested.
Yes, that does it. That takes the cricket!
Tally Ho! Chums!
As they say, religious beliefs are like penises. I don't really want to hear you talk about yours, and I sure as hell don't want it jammed down my throat.
Well, if I am talking E=MC2 and that encompasses consciousness, then there is a possibility of sentience on a massive scale. it propels us beyond religion to the threshold of a new understanding. SPEED OF LIGHT SQUARED!!! Doesn't that mess w/ time?
E=MC2 does not mean speed of light squared.
Energy= Mass Conversion squared is what E=MC2 means.
Umm. no, not quite. I recommend this: http://manna-in-the-wild.hubpages.com/h … rank-sight
Energy = mass Times the speed of light squared. it breaks down roughly 186,000 miles per second, per second. It is the rellative recipe for man to travel at the speed of light and was the predisessor to modern quantum physics.
Actually, it looks more like this...
E = Energy
m = mass
c = speed of light
^2 = squared
Hence, E is equal to the mass times the speed of light squared.
Who says that? . . . and . . . I don't believe you.
I always wondered why people like pcunix want to rant and rave about believers. I once suggested on a forum that people just talked nice to one another. The next thing was he accused me of all sorts of crimes. I didn't even say whether I was an atheist or believer. The man just went crazy.. he assumed I was some Fundamentalist. I just don't have a problem with any religion . But people like PCUNIX just seem to like stirring things up.
Happy New Year to everyone of all colours and creeds.
Don't take it personally seanorjohn. I think we all rant from time to time. I just ranted at lizzieboo. I feel kind of bad about it, even though I said what I thought. I'm sure Pcunix was just having a bad day.
You are surely righr Emile. We all have bad days. But Pc's seem to endure. Apparently he is 64 years old.
64. Have you noticed most of the outspoken atheists are older? I wonder if we'll be atheists when we are old enough to retire?
Emile , I hadn't noticed that most outspoken atheists were older. I wonder what that could mean? What do you think it could mean?
I was nastier when I was younger. I like you guys much more now :-)
Do you want to call a truce PC. Cos you know stevenix found you out. You seriously pissed him off.He recognized your attack on me was wholly unfounded. You personally attacked me by slagging " your Beliefs" i.e my beliefs. I never mentioned my beliefs. He was in total agreement that you distorted what I wrote in the forum. Humble pie?
Ok, I let you rant but honestly: I was not intending my use of "your" to apply to you specifically. I was thinking if it as a generic response to any religious person and what ticked me off was that I did not and still do not see what I said as being an "attack" in any sense of the word.
I said I will defend religious freedoms but I will not respect religious belief. I can't see how you can call that an attack.
I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm not saying that you are a jerk for saying it is an attack. I'm saying that I am confused because I cannot see it.
So explain it to me. I'll be nice.
Ok I take that kindly but I will quote you exactly, when I revisit the forum. But I think the misunderstanding is in your use of the words" your silly beliefs" when you suggest they were not directed at me. Yet Stevenix and others thought they were. If you read it again, you will see they sounded like they were personally directed at me. But, You have to admit , you lost it that day. You ranted and ranted, all 64 years of ranting. Never was there such sublime ranting.Friends, now?
So you think "silly" is the attack?
You understand that atheists DO think that religion is silly - at the least?
Most would go beyond that - heck, when I first realized that people believed this stuff, I thought you were all insane! I thought that for many years and then I changed it to stupid and eventually I realized that no, it's just emotions and that it may be silly, but it isn't harmful by itself and I can still like people just the same.
This is your reply to my suggestion of tolerance and peace. Verbatim. (Brackets are my comments.)
" I'm not going to respect your views. (attacking my views not generality)
I respect your right to have them,( I never stated them)I will stand with you to fight anyone( I don't want a fight with anyone) who says you cannot practice your religion.
As disgusting as I think it is, I will also defend your right to brainwash your children with your beliefs. ( Do I have children)
That's all you get. Anytime you mention your silly beliefs( I never mentioned my beliefs , i merely suggested people on the religious forums should be respectful and kind to each other). I will point out how foolish they are."
This is what you wrote. You keep mentioning "you" "Your". This is either highly personally insulting or lazy writing from a writing bank. You need to change your way of writing unless you intentionally intend to cause offence.
Your opening sentence states "I am not going to repect your views". I didn't state them except to wish all well. You end with referring to "my silly beliefs" Again I didn't state them. You are wholly out of order and you should apologise. You insulted Stevenix, on the same forum, and he was trying to placate you. Both of us don't want to see you banned. We want you to see you behave civilly.
Again, I was not thinking of a specific "you", but a generic you. You didn't just ask for tolerance, you asked for respect.
And that's it. I'm not going to apologize to you or anyone else for that. Get over it. Or don't. I don't care either way.
You just don't get it . Do you? I wasn't asking for respect or tolerance for myself or my views. Unlike you I don't force my viewpoints on anyone. You don't realise that your lazy way of writing personally insults people. I guess at your age you won't be able to change your ways. On the forums, when one uses the words "you" and "your" in the insulting manner "you" do it will be taken personally. Grow up and stop acting in such a juvenile manner.
But like you say, you just "don't care".Says it all really.
I get that you weren't asking for yourself. What YOU don't get is that I wasn't replying to you specifically.
It wasn't personal, but even if it had been, it wasn't an attack. Nor was it insulting.
So, you are correct: I do not care. Get over it.
What you don't get is that your writing style makes it personal.Ask any moderator and they will assure you that your response to my message was personal and insulting. Just because you say you didn't mean it that way doesn't change anything. How many times have you been banned from the forums?
worry, I find you amusing , so I wouldn't dream of reporting you. I like you making a fool of yourself.
I told you before that if you can convince a moderator that I attacked you, go for it.
I didn't. You are trying to make trouble where there was none.
I don't want you banned. I prefer you to be openly exposed, by yourself, and for others to see you as you really are.Remember how the last forum chat ended? Your credibility rating is heading downwards.
A simple apology will suffice.
Wait a minute. Is an apology really necessary? Remember, up in Massatwoshits they aren't taught proper manners in the home. It is easy to be convinced that you are some kind of genius when you compare yourself to the average citizen. Besides, being stuck in the converted basement playing air hockey for six months does something to you . . . nothing that can't be cured by a vacation in Central Florida.
I owe you an apology. I hate cats.
And making fun of the State of Massachusetts and attempting to insult another person(or persons who live here) is having manners.
Now, that's perfect hypocrisy in action.
I may not always agree with you, but that was awesome. At least you're able to see it with a sense of humor and aren't trolling the net, like alot of the others, though sometimes we both can be a little trollish.
Get real. Do you know what we say down here if you can't take a joke?
what? Eat something rancid and die?
Seriuosly though. What do you say where you are from?
Three men were in a bar in Florida . . . a guy from Massachusetts, a Texan and a Florida “Cracker”. The Texan ordered a round. When the glasses were empty, he threw his glass against the wall, ”In Texas, we have so much oil that we never drink out of the same glass twice.”
The guy from Massachusetts ordered a bottle and poured each man a drink. When the glasses were emptied, he threw the bottle against the wall, “In Massachusetts, we have so much money that we never drink out of the same bottle twice.”
The Cracker ordered a round of beers. When the glasses were empty, he took out a 380 pistol and shot the guy from Massachusetts. He turned to the stunned Texan and said, ”In Florida, we have so many Yankees that we never drink with the same one twice.”
I live in Bradenton and was born here. I have had my fill of tourism, though I know it is good for the economy. I honestly think staying here for three or four months is overstaying one's welcome. And also, do they have to treat us as though we owe them something?
This is exactly what we were talking about somewhere else. Demanding "respect" and calling it a personal attack. Then they go straight to real atacks.. Priceless.
I am perfectly happy being atheist. I have never tried to convince others in my disbelief, but so many times I bump into believers trying to make me change my mind. I don't believe in God, and it doesn't matter to me if others do. Whatever makes each individual happy is fine by me, all I ask is the same respect in return as an atheist
The question should also be why religious people always try to convert. Belief in religion is a personal thing and should be kept that way. Parents and schools should teach the importance of a religion and only parents should suggest the right one for their child. For someone to say that they do not believe in religion, means that they believe that they alone are responsible for what happens to them and around them. That too then, in itself is a form of religion. We must all believe in something, whether it is a higher form of being or not is irrelevant. It is belief itself that is inspirational and fulfilling. To say you believe in nothing means that you do not even believe in yourself and that can surely only lead to a life without joy. Everybody should have their own belief but keep it to themselves unless asked. If asked, then someone should be able to answer freely without fear of prejudice or persecution anywhere on the planet.
AMEN! I have made that arguement so many times.
Especially for those who say they are atheist.
It shouldn't. I don't believe in God, but I don't care that others do. Some of my family are heavy handed when it comes to the topic of the Bible. Everyone has a right to express themselves as they see fit.
Yea I agree,it shouldn't make a difference.
Here's my theory:
Christians once converted truly beleive that their messsage of Christ will change and transform people ,in such a way that they will be set free from the burden of sin ( therefore enhance or heal an individuals life ..(short version)
An Atheist believes that because of religion the world has been the victim and slave to its lies and acts of atrocities. Evil to the bone. Therefore anyone who believes in God and/or the Bible is promoting the growth of this myth.
Both groups are sincere in their beliefs with varying degrees of extremities,in how they choose to stand ......and deliver.
I stand as a Christian,because thats my choice,but we should all be free to choose ,freedom in the true sense.
The common denominator is surely Love,or could be our goal
In other words, you want to change and transform people and you will press forth in that endeavor despite the fact people don't wish to be transformed by others simply because they have their own minds and wills. That is the height of pure selfishness and unbridled disrespect to others, putting it mildly.
No, atheists don't really have to believe that considering history books are full of the atrocities committed in the name of God and the Bible, for which we find the true origins of myths and lies.
Yes, you are free to chose to follow the path of an belief system that disrespects the wants and needs of others in it's attempt to convert and deceive.
No, the common denominators are honesty and respect. Love has nothing to do with it.
That's certainly not my belief and I have always been an atheist.
I'll admit that when I first understood religion at the age of 7 or so, I was frightened by it and I thought religious people were crazy (that included my parents, by the way). I later went through a brief period of really disliking the religious, but that mellowed out as I realized that it is just an emotional need that actually helps many cope. Coping with religion is a heck of a lot better than coping with drugs, so I became much more accepting. People can still tick me off, of course, but mostly I don't care what you belive and definitely don't think it is evil in any way.
Eaglekiwi, I love your answer and agree with the sentiments you express.
Does it matter? Does it stop you from being who you truly are? These are questions we should ask. I don't care what religion you are from because you are still familly. I do not care how you see things for I am sure that we may agree on one thing or another. I am searching things so that I know, not so much so I will believe. I am free of you and you of me and therefor what ever you allude to does not matter and vice a versa.
Honestly, I think anyone who pushes their religious beliefs on others or thinks they're elite for believing a certain way can go shove it. The info is there for everyone.. share it if you want to.. but try not to push religion or non-religion on people and we can all be happy.
If I say something that you do not understand or if I state an opinion, it is to get the person I am talking to, to accept that it does not matter. As Meher Baba used to say "Don't worry be happy". One should not be bothered by what I say, but if it works for them, it works and I have accomplished a great deed. I like to talk because as Alan Watts used to say "I dig it".
There are many spokes in a wheel to make it go around (successfully)
I think its neat to hear different opinions
I dig ya attitude
um.. yeah opinions are great. i think the original question was why do people try to get you to take their opinion. Not why are people sharing it?? sharing is great! Being a dick is not.
or... are we just feeling like arguing today? lol. Are you arguing my opinion? lol. Thought you liked opinions
You mistake my words for empathy. I am not a buddhist, I was just pointing out that what you said sounded buddhist. I have taken of every religion and I have found that they are not for me, though I am not an atheist either. You can call me what you want, I prefer free thinker.
(Sorry ,missed your post)
No, I am not Buddhist, but I am open to teachings from all kinds of other religions ,even secular. Just depends if I like it or feeds my spirit/soul
Is like most things( for me) if someone or something ,even entertainment doesnt edify or leave me feeling good about myself I cancel the download lol
Awfully popular forum. Thing is like the energizer bunny. One question: If the christian God is almighty....why is he such a bad shepherd? He's lost an inordinate number of sheep, and when he loses them, he disclaims that they were ever his sheep. He tells them that they are free to make up their own minds...then blows his stack when they do. Why does this appeal to anyone? They must really be afraid of him. He's got them shaking in their socks, apologizing for their 'sins', and begging forgiveness. Just why did he come down in the person of Jesus. By the way....if no one has ever seen God...then just how did his disciples see him? Or his mom and dad for that matter. And if he was God...then who in hell was he praying to in the garden at Gethsemane? Is God schizophrenic? I don't dispute that we virtually know dip about just about everything, but I know this. If there is a God...he doesn't play silly games...and all I see is a bunch of mind games...which is where the Druid Dude came in.
It pains a lot of people to see their fellow humans brainwashed or otherwise mentally handicapped. Also the religious industry is full of cases of fraud and downright swindle. Its easy to sell a product that no one can prove wasn't delivered. I.e. After-life insurance.
Usually it only bothers non-believers when it spreads outside of the church into politics and schools. For example in New Hampshire recently some tea party representatives have introduce a bill that would replace science (evolution) with religion (intelligent design i.e. creationism) in the public schools.
I swore I wasn't going to write here again, but this time I have to for the sake of my faith. Faith doesn't brainwash you at all. Having no faith is the worst decision you can make. God gives a person strength, hope, self-worth and LOVE. God can change your life completely around.
I am so sick and tired of atheists bashing Christians. Having love for the Lord is a good thing. Having patience, love, compassion, care, as Jesus taught us, is something beautiful. In no way is that brainwashing at all!!!!!
Stop persecuting Christians. Most atheists haven't even picked up a Bible or dismiss it because they believe it can't possibly be the Word of God.
It is the Word of God. He does exist!!!!!
You want to live a life of sin so you say there is no God. Good for you! There is a God and he will judge all of us! If you don't like it, I'm sorry, but I'm speaking the TRUTH.
God is love. He loves you and if you choose to reject his love, that is your choice. Amen.
P.S. Why is it most atheists are pompous, mean and nasty and can't wait to make you feel small and worthless for being a Christian? I'm so sick of their "I'm just too smart to be alive" pompous attitude! Deep down you just want to brainwash Christians with your sick perverse ways by believing there is no God!! You are wrong and you will be held accountable!
Yes; the Creator God could benefit the society; but Jesus was not a god or son of god.
I see what you’re saying. But to be honest, Christians can exhibit these similar qualities, just as atheists can.
From what I have observed, the only reason atheists get frustrated and angry towards Christians is only if they are attempting to shove their beliefs down people’s throats. Otherwise, honestly, I don’t think they care as long as Christians keep their beliefs to themselves.
However, an atheist sees the Christian religion as a nonsensical, illogical idea. Therefore, it produces ridicule because it gives the Christian the appearance of believing in that which does not make logical sense, and for no reason other than they want to believe it. It is frustrating to them.
To be honest, I think a lot of Christians ARE brainwashed into their beliefs. It is those who aren’t, which know what Christianity is about.
I think there are rotten attitudes on both sides. I’ve seen plenty of Christians act pompously with the idea that they are so much smarter than everyone else. …
Its hard to consider an atheist mentally lazy as they are constantly challenging and thinking for themselves as opposed to the faithful who have given up rational thought and turn their minds over to others to do their thinking for them.
Non-belief of many comes from the opposite of what you are saying about reading the bible. A careful reading of the bible and comparing it to other non-biased sources of information and common sense actually creates many atheist.
Any child from around six on knows that the stories told in Sunday school can't possibly be true. That's why religious adults spend so much time an energy trying to indoctrinate them and take away their natural curiosity of the world and supplanting it with bibilical "answers".
Late in life many leave the church because of its subpar morals. While society has moved beyond concepts of an eye for an eye, slavery, sending she-bears from the dessert to attack kids for mocking bald men, religious people still hide their bigotry, hypocrisy and hate behind ancient texts cobbled together from previous religions.
Its time to move on beyond spending one's life so concerned about death and work on living in the now and making the world better rather then depending on a predetermined path from a magical father figure in sky.
I have to agree with you, Melissa. Many atheists do tend to like making Christians feel small. They assume that someone is devoid of all reason because they believe in God, which is completely erroneous. It's extremely narrow minded.
Nope. Not devoid of all reason.
Deficient in reason in this particular area.
But that's OK. We need emotion and reason. In fact, recent studies have shown that it can be impossible to reach decisions from reason alone - we NEED the emotional input or we'll dither back and forth forever trying to decide which thing or course of action is better.
From the atheist side, I just think you are giving too much weight to the emotional inputs in this particular case. In many, many other situations, it's often better to give too much weight than not enough, so it's really hard to damn you too much for that.
Depends on what you know, of course. If someone has no experience with the supernatural, then they are going to think those who have claimed to have are devoid of reason. It's like people thinking it was unreasonable to believe the earth was wrong just because they didn't get it!
There is no supernatural. You don't "know" anything about that because it doesn't exist - it all comes from your own imagination.
It's fine to have imagination and fantasy. As I've said many times, religious belief is helpful to many. But it isn't real.
It is a result of our primitive minds, to understand that at the time, we could not. I am a spiritualist, so then for me, I share views in between both of your ideals. I am nor an atheist or religious, I just am and I have had to accept this. I do not know what is after this, so then I must just live my life and be aware of myself and the world at large. God is but a form of wishful thinking, one of which I am guilty of, but it does not pertain to the here and now and thus, it does not matter what I believe.
if it helps you to have wishful thinking, have it, enjoy it and don't feel guilty about it.
I don't feel guilty, I am just sharing a personal philosophy that pertains to me and how I see the issue. It helps me to understand the psychology of the situation from many angles, in so many words.
We all have the same mind (evolution).
Unless you recon we have evolved differently one from another.
Who exactly is NON-primitive?
So I suppose the millions of people throughout history claiming to have experienced the supernatural are all lying? I have personal experience of it, which I'm still trying to find a rational explanation for.
If you are honest with yourself, you'd know that you cannot know for sure the supernatural doesn't exist.
Yes, you are all lying.
If you were honest with yourself, you'd know the supernatural has never been shown to exist outside the irrational beliefs of believers.
I'll be honest to you. Some family members of mine have performed exorcisms. My mother played with a ouija board which told her she was going to marry my father.
My mother and I went to a cinema to watch the film, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" where a nice usherette decided to walk with us. Suddenly out of thin air eye, I didn't see it but my mom did, a pile of thread like spaghetti covered this woman's head. She was so bewildered and none of knew where it come from. It then just disappeared.
I had a diary inside an organizer and switched the phone off. Once the film had ended, I sat up straight and said to my mother, "My diary is gone." When I looked in my bag, it was gone. I don't know how it got stolen because we were in the back row and I had put it under my seat and no one was next to us.
It disturbs me because a character in the movie, Ginny, stole Harry Potter's diary.
Of course this is not evidence of anything. I don't have to prove anything to anyone. I know what happened and had eyewitnesses.
I don't appreciate you accusing me of lying. You do not know that for a fact. Just because it doesn't conform to your beliefs, doesn't automatically mean I'm lying. It's childish.
Oh yes, that is evidence of something, perhaps a few things that may require professional help.
It is confirmed when you make false claims and the facts are held up in front of you, time and time again.
You aren't conforming to my beliefs. You are making claims that are an affront to reality and facts. It's dishonest.
All jokes aside, seeing spaghetti appear and disappear is not a religious experience, it's a hallucination. If it were my mother, concern would drive me to have some testing done on her. The medical problems that cause hallucinations are usually quite serious.
Agreed. Perhaps, Claire believes it's all about God working in mysterious ways.
Melissa, I never said it was spaghetti. It was a pile of thread. I suppose two other people were having hallucinations with me! Lol! That crazy usherette! Where's her straight jacket??
Melissa, you don't know if I'm mental. You aren't a psychiatrist. I'm not the one who believes Jesus was a prophet but His father was an invisible sky fairy.
Claire, I wasn't trying to fight with you. It doesn't matter if it was thread or spaghetti, if my mother were hallucinating then I would have testing done. It wasn't an attack, it was concern. One doesn't have to be a fireman to recognize a burning building. My work with the homeless unfortunately brings me into contact with the mentally ill quite often, if one of my guys was seeing piles of anything appearing and disappearing, there would be at least a referral to a MHC, at most an ambulance trip. Hallucinations are scary and generally point to underlying issues. I would be concerned for anyone experiencing them.
Are you a psychiatrist, Melissa? Many people who have experienced the supernatural, especially bizarre encounters, keep it to themselves because they are terrified of being called crazy. I clearly do not have the same thinking.
You keep referring to me and my mother but there was a third witness and that was the usherette.
That's not to say that people don't experience hallucinations when they see things appear and disappear but don't think that applies to everyone. Just consider that you may just be wrong. Very few people do that.
And, a psychiatrist will tell them they are crazy because they are crazy.
The supernatural has never been shown to exist, hence you must consider that you are wrong.
When faced with people who are "seeing things" I generally go along with what they say too. It keeps them calm.
I am not trying to argue with you, no matter how much you seem to want that. Nor am I saying that you or your mother are crazy or that I can't be wrong. I'm saying that if you hear hoofbeats you think horses not zebras. It is far more likely that those suffering hallucinations are experiencing either psychological or physiological issues than random spaghetti string appearing out of thin air. One is relatively common, the other statistically extremely unlikely.
1. Someone involved has a mental health or physical health problem that needs immediate attention. Worst case scenario being a brain tumor, best case scenario being lack of sleep or stress. The downside to examination being doctors finding nothing wrong the upside is possibly saving your mothers life.
2. A pile of spaghetti string appeared out of nowhere and then disappeared. No harm, no foul.
3. Someone involved is lying to get attention.
It's one of those three. If you firmly believe it is not 3, then investigating 1 before accepting 2 is the safe and responsible thing to do. Once again, not trying to argue with you, just concerned that your mother's health may be in danger and you don't seem too upset about it.
Must I call you crazy for claiming Jesus is a prophet despite you thinking God is a fictitious sky fairy? Who do you pray to? The invisible sky fairy? I think you are very confused.
And you keep saying it is me and my mother who are the other only witnesses. There was a third party involved. Now if I am lying about the whole thing, what do I have to gain? Just ridicule and no one wants that. I get enough responses to my comment so I don't need to lie for attention.
Just consider you may just be wrong.
If we all thought we were right, we would all be wrong. If we knew we were all wrong, we would be close to the truth. If we accept that we know nothing, we have gained true wisdom. If we realize that it does not matter, we are exactly right.
You really really want to argue don't you?
Reread my post, if you can quote me where I called anyone crazy or said I was right then I will apologize profusely.
I gave three options for what occurred. They are the only three options, unless you would like to add one that I missed. I stick by my statement that given those three options, I would act on the first to eliminate the possibility of horrible consequences before accepting the second.
If you choose not to, then that is on you. I hope that everything turns out okay.
You are right, Melissa. I apologize.
Out of interest sake, which of the three cases do you think applies to me?
What facts, a Troubled Man? You never give facts!
Can you ever give facts? Of course you can...energy can be created. I've learnt something new today.
"You can create energy by burning fossil fuels, for example. That is a fact"
Sorry, are you saying we can't create energy by burning fossil fuels? Another belief on your part that contradicts facts?
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. We are using these changes in energy to power our lights and cars, so then, we are utilizing the change, not creating.
Allow me to explain. The entire concept of energy not being created or destroyed is a result of the fact that there is a finite amount of energy/matter in the universe and one cannot add more to it or take it away from our universe.
What happens to the energy/matter in our universe is another story altogether.
I'm talking about physical science. When I burn paper, it is still paper, only now it is in a different form. It has changed from one physical property to another. This is a fact and yet we don't honestly know where the energy came from or how it started. Those are just educated guesses and one will never know the why of it.
Not so. If I burn something, it has now become another form of energy. We use that energy, in the form of coal. When we heat the coal, it becomes heat energy and that energy is used. I am not using religion to explain this, I am using physical science, in hopes that you will take something of it. You don't have to agree with it, but if you read a book or go to school, you may learn something of it. It's called physical science, because it is a physical reality.