NationStates Jolt Archive

The Secular Religious Divide.

I think the Bush Kerry vote was a pretty good demonstration of this division. With the majority of Christians who attended church regulerly voting Bush and the majority of those who infrequently attended church or who never went to church voting Kerry. Also easily seen in the states Bible belt voted Bush non Bible belt voted Kerry.

Belief Systems I believe can be most easily perceived as houses. Houses are built on foundations and so aren't belief systems. The fundamental difference between an atheist belief system and a religious belief system is the concept of God or gods. Without the base both of these belief systems both would fall apart.

So that you are aware of the many differences I will list the things I believe as an atheist. These are things I do not believe exist. Not all belief sytems even if they are in the same catagory are the same but I think this is a good start.

Sin: no such thing as a trespass against God without God.

Forbidden Knowledge: There is no such thing as knowledge that is forbidden if there is no god to forbid it. The concept of forbidden knowledge is that exposer to certain pictures, sounds, or ideas is some how harmful. Forbididen Knowledge covers a ton of things many religious people are not even aware of. Age restrictions on certain media such as movies, Internet sites, books, and magazines is how the belief in forbidden knowledge manifests itself. There is four kinds of forbidden knowledge that I can think of right now that manifest themselves. They are violence, sex, vulgarity, and contradiction of religious teachings, The Vatican still has books on its banned list for teaching in contradiction to its own teachings.

Sexual Purity: Sexual purity has at its base religious teachings. Sex whether inside or outside of marriage does not make anyone impure.

Marriage: Marriage as a sacred unity between two or more people has at its base religious teachings. Civil unions of which there is a simple contract between people is the non religious variant. Marriage in its present form; do to the way it is often defended is nothing more than the church giving permission to fornicate.

Absolute Morality: There is no absolute morality without a god to give it.

Faith Based Magic: The idea the bible teaches that believing in something causes it to be true. No matter how much any one believes they can toss mountains into the sea it's never going to happen.

Dysfunctional Brains: Not a well known concept but it is taught in the Bible that those who reject the New Testament teachings do so because they have been tricked by the devil, or they put to much faith in science, or what have you. Thing about this claim is that neither side can win the argument. An atheist can't make the claim without considering the fact that he might be delusional a Christian can't claim it without considering the possibility that he is delusional.

Now for the stuff I as an atheist do believe in.

Hurting Other People: This is the atheist variant of sin. Hurting other people involves doing things you believe will cause others more harm than good. These actions include fraud, theft, and murder to name a few. Although immunizations may be uncomfortable at first they are done for the greater good. This is where I believe good morality comes from.

Unforbidden Knowledge: All knowledge is beneficial provided it is correct knowledge. Exposer to the world helps people to better adapt to it.

Sexual Play: Apart from disease and pregnancy there is no harm in unforced sex no matter how naive the partner or partners. Sex and sexual play just feels good and is fun.

Civil Unions: As noted above civil unions are the secular version of marriage.

Popular Morality: Even when it comes to so called absolute morality what society deems right and wrong is what is going to be just that. If Americans decided tomorrow that not eating the bodies of the dead was being immorally wasteful of a great natural resource we as a society would become cannibals and eating dead humans would become moral.

Knowledge Based Manipulation: As apposed to faith based magic knowledge based manipulation works. Knowledge based manipulation ( science ) of our world gives us the tool to influence our surrounding's.

Functional Brains: There is no matrix. There is no plot by fallen angels to hide what is real from us. There is no rebellion against God that causes us to believe and yet deny. What we see is what we have.

I hope you can see that there is much that divides the religious from the Secular. I think some of the religious are very aware of this division and feel threatened. As an atheist I feel oppressed by those who believe.

As to the debate.

This is why I believe many religious people feel so threatened by the Secular and why so many of the Secular feel oppressed by the religious in the United States of America.

I was wondering how large you feel the divide is between the Secular and the religious. What do you feel is the best way to deal with the differences.

I personally feel the best way to deal with the problem of religion is to convert the religious. Demonstrate that there is no lepricons, tooth faeries, and easter bunnies and when the religious are no longer as numerous they will cause fewer problems.

I personally feel the best way to deal with the problem of religion is to convert the religious. Demonstrate that there is no lepricons, tooth faeries, and easter bunnies and when the religious are no longer as numerous they will cause fewer problems.
Sounds good to me, but how do you propose to accomplish said task.
Tell ya what though, when you convert Smunkeeville to atheism, let me know how you did it, and I'll help you in spreading the lack of the word ;)

you won't suceed, but I suppose you can try.


btw Baran-Duine why pick me?

you won't suceed, but I suppose you can try.


btw Baran-Duine why pick me?

Maybe cuase you seem to be the most challenging to convinse.

btw Baran-Duine why pick me?
Because you have shown yourself to be a true believer in numerous threads, thus if he could convert you he has one amazing effective method ;)

Maybe cuase you seem to be the most challenging to convinse.
that to :fluffle:

Because you have shown yourself to be a true believer in numerous threads, thus if he could convert you he has one amazing effective method ;)
wow. thanks for the compliment. :)

I think there are other Christians on the board that could be more fun to try to convert (or more frustrating) but I haven't seen the few I am thinking about around lately, in fact I think one of them got deleted. Oh, well. Like I said you can try, but I doubt you come up with any convincing arguements. (well, ones that would convince me anyway);)

Because you have shown yourself to be a true believer in numerous threads, thus if he could convert you he has one amazing effective method ;)


that to :fluffle:

Seems like a great thread Dark Shadow Nexus and Smunkeeville try to convert eachother.

wow. thanks for the compliment. :)

I think there are other Christians on the board that could be more fun to try to convert (or more frustrating) but I haven't seen the few I am thinking about around lately, in fact I think one of them got deleted. Oh, well. Like I said you can try, but I doubt you come up with any convincing arguements. (well, ones that would convince me anyway);)
I figure converting you to atheism would be about as likely to happen as converting Grave_n_Idle to christianity...

and why do you assume it's a compliment?

Seems like a great thread Dark Shadow Nexus and Smunkeeville try to convert eachother.
I don't try to convert anyone, it's not my job. It is my job to spread the gospel and follow God's commandments. I will answer any questions anyone has, but I am not in the "converting" business.

and why do you assume it's a compliment?
saying that I have proven myself a "true believer" is a compliment to me, whether you meant it as an insult or not is your business, I can only control how I react to things, and I decided that it was a compliment. Did you think it would offend me?

saying that I have proven myself a "true believer" is a compliment to me, whether you meant it as an insult or not is your business, I can only control how I react to things, and I decided that it was a compliment. Did you think it would offend me?
No, it was meant as a compliment, I just was being contrary.
Although I must say that your response is one of the reasons I like you, we will never agree on religion, but you are always reasonable. :D

No, it was meant as a compliment, I just was being contrary.
Although I must say that your response is one of the reasons I like you, we will never agree on religion, but you are always reasonable. :D
I am not sure I remember you before this evening, are you someone's puppet?

you can TG me if you don't want to "out yourself" :p

snip

For an athiest, you believe in a lot of strange things. Please don't hold yourself out as representative.

For an athiest, you believe in a lot of strange things. Please don't hold yourself out as representative.
it was my understanding that athiesm was not a religion and therefore has no specific doctrine (other than the lack of belief in a higher power) so really he is free to believe (or not believe) whatever he wants right?

I mean nobody really assumes that all athiests go to like the athiest convention and talk about how to best represent their lack of belief right?

I am not sure I remember you before this evening, are you someone's puppet?

you can TG me if you don't want to "out yourself" :p
No, I'm not a puppet, I just visit sporadically, generally just end up lurking as someone has stated what I was going to already, and usually much better than I would have managed (damn you Grave_n_Idle!!!! :p )

For an athiest, you believe in a lot of strange things. Please don't hold yourself out as representative.

I didn't

I only suggested that the religious can and do hold very different views from the seculer.

No, I'm not a puppet, I just visit sporadically, generally just end up lurking as someone has stated what I was going to already, and usually much better than I would have managed (damn you Grave_n_Idle!!!! :p )
yeah I know it is freaky how well he can explain things, sometimes he can respond to something that someone has asked me and say exactly what I was going to say, only clearer and with more authority, it scares the crap out of me how smart he is sometimes, he is super fun to debate religion with, he makes me think a lot more than I am used to.

it was my understanding that athiesm was not a religion and therefore has no specific doctrine (other than the lack of belief in a higher power) so really he is free to believe (or not believe) whatever he wants right?
Exactly
I mean nobody really assumes that all athiests go to like the athiest convention and talk about how to best represent their lack of belief right?
We don't, what the heck have I been going to then?!? :rolleyes: :p

Ever tried to get two of these to convert each other...

http://artho.com/age/pics/shot2.gif

I don't try to convert anyone, it's not my job. It is my job to spread the gospel and follow God's commandments. I will answer any questions anyone has, but I am not in the "converting" business.


saying that I have proven myself a "true believer" is a compliment to me, whether you meant it as an insult or not is your business, I can only control how I react to things, and I decided that it was a compliment. Did you think it would offend me?

If you are into spreading the so called "good news" well than you can't be very effective if it is commonly believed you carry only the "oppressive superstition" maybe a debate between me and you could clear things up with me and the rest of the baby eating atheists.

<snip>, he makes me think a lot more than I am used to.
:D :rolleyes: But, that's not saying much, we already know you're from the Bible Belt :rolleyes: :D

Seriously though, he is amazingly good at arguing both sides, isn't he?

If you are into spreading the so called "good news" well than you can't be very effective if it is commonly believed you carry only the "oppressive superstition" maybe a debate between me and you could clear things up with me and the rest of the baby eating atheists.
there are baby eating atheists?:eek: gross.

and effective at what?

and what do you mean by the "oppressive superstition"?

:D :rolleyes: But, that's not saying much, we already know you're from the Bible Belt :rolleyes: :D
I usually only run into 2 types of people here that I debate IRL, the "I know there is a God and I hate him because there was this mean church lady once and she was a hypocrite" and the "I am a satanist because it pisses off my parents"

I like to come on here to talk because there are people with actual intelligent thought on the subject. I like to think, I like to question my beliefs.

Seriously though, he is amazingly good at arguing both sides, isn't he?
yep, he is indeed.

I didn't

I only suggested that the religious can and do hold very different views from the seculer.

I am glad you recognize that your beliefs are not representative of athiesm. I hope you would also agree that your beliefs are not representative on secular thinking.

IMAO, you did a poor job of explaining the distinction between religious views and secular views.

Moreover, religious people can have secular views. Most religious people in the United States believe in separation of Church and State.

I personally feel the best way to deal with the problem of religion is to convert the religious. Demonstrate that there is no lepricons, tooth faeries, and easter bunnies and when the religious are no longer as numerous they will cause fewer problems.
Why not just put them in concentration camps and fire up the ovens again?

I like to come on here to talk because there are people with actual intelligent thought on the subject. I like to think, I like to question my beliefs.
I think we definately could get along, I like to question your beliefs too :p :fluffle: There certainly is more opportunity for intelligent religious debate here, although, unfortunately there's plenty on both sides that won't even listen at all
to conflicting opinions.

Why not just put them in concentration camps and fire up the ovens again?
Because that's already been tried, and it didn't work?

there are baby eating atheists?:eek: gross.

and effective at what?

and what do you mean by the "oppressive superstition"?

Smunkeeville Even though you are a Christian I still doubt you get your news from the Weekly World News news paper along side stories of Bat Boy Saves America and the Worlds Fattest Women is Cuasing the Earth to Wabble

Unless you and your source is recieved as credable your news isn't really news is it? The Boy Who Cried Wolf would be a poor choice to spread the story of a wolf invasion. What I'm saying is that the "Good News" is of very little effect unless it can be demonstrated that it is news at all.

I hope that clears things up.

Baby eating atheists was meant as a toungue in cheek jest. A rather snide way of suggesting out group exclusionism amongst the believers.

Smunkeeville Even though you are a Christian I still doubt you get your news from the Weekly World News news paper along side stories of Bat Boy Saves America and the Worlds Fattest Women is Cuasing the Earth to Wabble

Unless you and your source is recieved as credable your news isn't really news is it? The Boy Who Cried Wolf would be a poor choice to spread the story of a wolf invasion. What I'm saying is that the "Good News" is of very little effect unless it can be demonstrated that it is news at all.

I hope that clears things up.

Baby eating atheists was meant as a toungue in cheek jest. A rather snide way of suggesting out group exclusionism amongst the believers.
I try not to get into the discussion of whether or not the Bible is a reliable source because it's not a winnable arguement either way. I can understand that if someone believes that it is flawed and unreliable that it does me no good to quote them scripture, and that if someone believes that there is no God that it does me no good to say "Jesus loves you" or even worse "you are going to hell, sinner" because it's a waste of my energy. That is why I am not in the "converting" business. I can answer questions, and try to lead a life that is a light in the world for Christ, but I won't try to convince someone, or try to scare them into a decision, because it's not my job, and I am not qualified to do so.

I try not to get into the discussion of whether or not the Bible is a reliable source because it's not a winnable arguement either way. I can understand that if someone believes that it is flawed and unreliable that it does me no good to quote them scripture, and that if someone believes that there is no God that it does me no good to say "Jesus loves you" or even worse "you are going to hell, sinner" because it's a waste of my energy. That is why I am not in the "converting" business. I can answer questions, and try to lead a life that is a light in the world for Christ, but I won't try to convince someone, or try to scare them into a decision, because it's not my job, and I am not qualified to do so.

That reply does more than clear things up. It says a lot of things you may not even be aware that it does.

That reply does more than clear things up. It says a lot of things you may not even be aware that it does.
enlighten me. really I am curious now.

That reply does more than clear things up. It says a lot of things you may not even be aware that it does.enlighten me. really I am curious now.
As am I




Wait, am I on Smunkee's side now? What have you wrought Dark Shadowy Nexus?:p

I try not to get into the discussion of whether or not the Bible is a reliable source because it's not a winnable arguement either way. I can understand that if someone believes that it is flawed and unreliable that it does me no good to quote them scripture, and that if someone believes that there is no God that it does me no good to say "Jesus loves you" or even worse "you are going to hell, sinner" because it's a waste of my energy. That is why I am not in the "converting" business. I can answer questions, and try to lead a life that is a light in the world for Christ, but I won't try to convince someone, or try to scare them into a decision, because it's not my job, and I am not qualified to do so.

I try not to get into the discussion of whether or not the Bible is a reliable source because it's not a winnable arguement either way.

And there was no arguement that won you over that the Bible is indead a reliable source? Many people when making positve claims feel the need to justify them. When people discover new things or come up with new things and want to share new ideas it isn't often heard from them the line, "I don't have to justify my beliefs to you."

and that if someone believes that there is no God that it does me no good to say "Jesus loves you" or even worse "you are going to hell, sinner" because it's a waste of my energy.

Again many people when making positve claims feel the need to justify them. When people discover new things or come up with new things and want to share new ideas it isn't often heard from them the line, "I don't have to justify my beliefs to you."

That is why I am not in the "converting" business.

Is this becuase you do not feel that you have the ability to justify your claims? Again without justification is "good news" really news at all?

and try to lead a life that is a light in the world for Christ

Does this imply the opposite for those who do not believe?

but I won't try to convince someone, or try to scare them into a decision, because it's not my job, and I am not qualified to do so.

How is it that you who was convinced enough to take your postion does does not have convincing evidence to take up your belief?

I try not to get into the discussion of whether or not the Bible is a reliable source because it's not a winnable arguement either way.

And there was no arguement that won you over that the Bible is indead a reliable source? Many people when making positve claims feel the need to justify them. When people discover new things or come up with new things and want to share new ideas it isn't often heard from them the line, "I don't have to justify my beliefs to you."
Maybe there wasn't, maybe it just 'felt right'

and that if someone believes that there is no God that it does me no good to say "Jesus loves you" or even worse "you are going to hell, sinner" because it's a waste of my energy.

Again many people when making positve claims feel the need to justify them. When people discover new things or come up with new things and want to share new ideas it isn't often heard from them the line, "I don't have to justify my beliefs to you."
I don't get this
That is why I am not in the "converting" business.

Is this becuase you do not feel that you have the ability to justify your claims? Again without justification is "good news" really news at all?
Personally I think what she was saying is that if someone wants to hear about her beliefs, she will tell them
and try to lead a life that is a light in the world for Christ

Does this imply the opposite for those who do not believe?
That people who don't believe don't create a ?
light in the world for Christbut I won't try to convince someone, or try to scare them into a decision, because it's not my job, and I am not qualified to do so.

How is it that you who was convinced enough to take your postion does does not have convincing evidence to take up your belief?[/QUOTE]
Once again, Maybe there wasn't, maybe it just 'felt right'


Personnally, I don't understand this attack on Smunkee, she believes what she believes and doesn't feel it to be necessary to force upon others, what could possibly be wrong with that?

And there was no arguement that won you over that the Bible is indead a reliable source? Many people when making positve claims feel the need to justify them. When people discover new things or come up with new things and want to share new ideas it isn't often heard from them the line, "I don't have to justify my beliefs to you."
I have heard many arguements both ways, I have faith that the Bible is reliable, I don't have scientific proof, you can't argue faith, people don't want to hear "I believe" they want facts, I don't have empirical evidence, so why bother trying to debate someone looking for it?

Again many people when making positve claims feel the need to justify them. When people discover new things or come up with new things and want to share new ideas it isn't often heard from them the line, "I don't have to justify my beliefs to you."
and again if someone is automatically opposed to the message how is my trying to beat it into them going to get either of us anywhere. It would be the same thing as you trying to convince me that there isn't a God, I believe there is a God, you can't provide me with any real evidence that there isn't so in effect, you would be telling me what you believe and if it directly conflicts with what I believe do you really think I will listen to you, based on your lack of evidence?

Is this becuase you do not feel that you have the ability to justify your claims? Again without justification is "good news" really news at all?
I don't have to justify it, it's impossible to prove it one way or the other. I have faith that it is true, my faith has no bearing on what someone else believes. Can you justify your belief that there is no God? Of course you can't, and how is your saying that there isn't without any evidence going to sway me?

Does this imply the opposite for those who do not believe?
If you don't believe, and are not commited to Christ then how can you be a light in the world for Him?


How is it that you who was convinced enough to take your postion does does not have convincing evidence to take up your belief?
I have evidence that convinces me, it is personal experience, it doesn't translate well to someone who has not had the experience, I can't "prove God" all I can do is try to show His love through my life and hope that I can be a postive experience for someone else. In the end I am only the messenger, I have no bearing on whether or not someone accepts the message, I am quite clear on what my responsibilities are, it is not my fault if they have a lack of faith and it is not my job to try to push them into false faith by trying to "convince" them that I am right.

< snip >
Well said. :)

< snip >
Well said. :)
Wow, the worlds turning inside out, I'm defending Smunkee and agreeing with Eut ;)

Well, g'night all, I have to work in the AM :mp5:

Forbidden Knowledge: There is no such thing as knowledge that is forbidden if there is no god to forbid it.

There may be no such thing as "forbidden knowledge" even if there is a God who could forbid it. I believe that knowledge is to be sought - and it is good so long as it is truthful.

Absolute Morality: There is no absolute morality without a god to give it.

Not necessarily true.

Faith Based Magic: The idea the bible teaches that believing in something causes it to be true.

Where in the Bible does it say this???

Sexual Play: Apart from disease and pregnancy there is no harm in unforced sex no matter how naive the partner or partners. Sex and sexual play just feels good and is fun.

If either partner is naive enough, they cannot possibly give informed consent, and therefore cannot willingly engage in sex. Are you trying to argue in favor of statutory rape here?

I hope you can see that there is much that divides the religious from the Secular.

Secular != Atheist. They are two different things. Meanwhile, all of the things you listed as having to do with religion do not occur in all religions. For instance, there are theistic religions that view sex, so long as it is consenting, as sacred in and of itself. Not all religions label any knowledge as "forbidden."

I personally feel the best way to deal with the problem of religion is to convert the religious. Demonstrate that there is no lepricons, tooth faeries, and easter bunnies and when the religious are no longer as numerous they will cause fewer problems.

How very patronizing. Please point me to the religion that believes in or worships leprechauns, tooth fairies, or easter bunnies?

I have heard many arguements both ways, I have faith that the Bible is reliable, I don't have scientific proof, you can't argue faith, people don't want to hear "I believe" they want facts, I don't have empirical evidence, so why bother trying to debate someone looking for it?

This is a logical point of view exscept that you admit here that you believe "feels right" is a justifiable reason to take up a position. I don't trust my feelings. Feelings are screwy and when unexamined feelings are the means by which you base disisions you could be very easily misdirected.

and again if someone is automatically opposed to the message how is my trying to beat it into them going to get either of us anywhere. It would be the same thing as you trying to convince me that there isn't a God, I believe there is a God, you can't provide me with any real evidence that there isn't so in effect, you would be telling me what you believe and if it directly conflicts with what I believe do you really think I will listen to you, based on your lack of evidence?

I wouldn't say automatically opposed is the right way of seeing it. It suggest a I am right I don't want to hear the opposing side kind of position.

While I can't provide evidence as to the non-existance of anything including lepricons, tooth faeries, and easter bunnies I can demonstrate that people make things up. I can demonstrate flaws or holes in the arguments that such things do exist.

I don't have to justify it, it's impossible to prove it one way or the other. I have faith that it is true, my faith has no bearing on what someone else believes. Can you justify your belief that there is no God? Of course you can't, and how is your saying that there isn't without any evidence going to sway me?

I believe I can Justify my belief that there is no God. Your faith may not have a bearing on what other people believe but your political advacacy has a bearing on the lives of others. Also of what real value is a unjustified Gospel? If you "witness" to some one than tell them to just believe it are you not just spreading a faerie tale? Why bother spreading the gospel to those who do believe the Bible is genuine and already believe in God? Are we not than preaching to the converted?

If you don't believe, and are not commited to Christ then how can you be a light in the world for Him?

If you are an atheist can you not be a light of the world for atheism?

I have evidence that convinces me, it is personal experience, it doesn't translate well to someone who has not had the experience, I can't "prove God" all I can do is try to show His love through my life and hope that I can be a postive experience for someone else. In the end I am only the messenger, I have no bearing on whether or not someone accepts the message, I am quite clear on what my responsibilities are, it is not my fault if they have a lack of faith and it is not my job to try to push them into false faith by trying to "convince" them that I am right.

A real messenger has very much the responsibility of dilivering a credable message. If you are commisioned to deliver a message would those who gave you that responsability aprove of your performance if you delivered that message in such a way that it was not believed?

I don't expect you push a message on people and I have no idea what a false faith is pehaps you could enlighten me.

pretty quote boxes :)

A real messenger has very much the responsibility of dilivering a credable message. If you are commisioned to deliver a message would those who gave you that responsability aprove of your performance if you delivered that message in such a way that it was not believed?
I believe my message is credible, I am responsible to spread the message I am not responsible for how it is recieved or even if people believe it.

I don't expect you push a message on message on people and I have no idea what a false faith is pehaps you could enlighten me.
There are many people who try to scare someone into a relationship with Christ, they talk of the "end times" and how it's "almost here" and that if you don't repent post haste that you will burn in hell, now all of this may or may not be true, nobody really knows when the end is coming, people who repent out of fear of hell, are not repenting for the right reason, fear isn't a good way to make such a decision. That is why I refuse to try to scare someone into repenting.

I can't justify making up facts either, the truth is there is no empirical evidence in favor of there actually being a God, to say there was would be lying, someone might believe the lie and base their faith on what I said was true. Faith is belief without evidence. If you need evidence then it isn't faith it is knowledge.

In reply to Dempublicents1

Originally Posted by Dark Shadowy Nexus
Forbidden Knowledge: There is no such thing as knowledge that is forbidden if there is no god to forbid it.

There may be no such thing as "forbidden knowledge" even if there is a God who could forbid it. I believe that knowledge is to be sought - and it is good so long as it is truthful.

True and False: If there was a God and he forbid some assorted knowledge that knowledge would be forbiden

Quote:
Absolute Morality: There is no absolute morality without a god to give it.

Not necessarily true.

I do not know of an absolute morality without God perhaps you could enlighten me.

Quote:
Faith Based Magic: The idea the bible teaches that believing in something causes it to be true.

Where in the Bible does it say this???

In the first three Gospels I believe all of the miricles Jesus did was attributed to faith.

Quote:
Sexual Play: Apart from disease and pregnancy there is no harm in unforced sex no matter how naive the partner or partners. Sex and sexual play just feels good and is fun.

If either partner is naive enough, they cannot possibly give informed consent, and therefore cannot willingly engage in sex. Are you trying to argue in favor of statutory rape here?

Are you suggesting there is such a thing as statutory rape here? Without pregnancy and disease as well as societal taboos of what harm is there in sexual play? Of what knowledge does one need to have in order to give consent to sex or in order for it to be "informed" consent?

Quote:
I hope you can see that there is much that divides the religious from the Secular.

Secular != Atheist. They are two different things. Meanwhile, all of the things you listed as having to do with religion do not occur in all religions. For instance, there are theistic religions that view sex, so long as it is consenting, as sacred in and of itself. Not all religions label any knowledge as "forbidden."

Shoot me for being wrong here. This is your chance to enlighten me. True not all beliefs are the same but they very well can be very ideologicaly opposed.

Quote:
I personally feel the best way to deal with the problem of religion is to convert the religious. Demonstrate that there is no lepricons, tooth faeries, and easter bunnies and when the religious are no longer as numerous they will cause fewer problems.

How very patronizing. Please point me to the religion that believes in or worships leprechauns, tooth fairies, or easter bunnies?

There is no religion that I know of that believes in leprechauns, tooth fairies, and or easter bunnies. Than again what was meant here is the idea that most if not all religions make claims that are just as unsabtatiated as leprechauns, tooth fairies, and or easter bunnies.

[QUOTE=Smunkeeville]I believe my message is credible, I am responsible to spread the message I am not responsible for how it is recieved or even if people believe it.

If you believe that you have been charged with the great commision would it not be irresposible of you to not care how that message was recieved? An advertising agancy may make the claim that they dilivered a message but if they did the job poorly and the promotion was received by the market as suggesting the advertised item was a piece of junk maybe the purchaser might of the adverticing agency's sevices might not win a court claim but would any other company want that agancy to advertice for them? I think you are being disgeniune about your claim to share the "Gospel" to me it seems you feel your where only commisioned to repeat the mantra.

There are many people who try to scare someone into a relationship with Christ, they talk of the "end times" and how it's "almost here" and that if you don't repent post haste that you will burn in hell, now all of this may or may not be true, nobody really knows when the end is coming, people who repent out of fear of hell, are not repenting for the right reason, fear isn't a good way to make such a decision. That is why I refuse to try to scare someone into repenting.

It is good that you don't want scare people wrongly into your religion. Although the same practice could just be reguaded as giving a word of warning.

Fear can help people make good disisions it has incoraged a great many not to run out into traffic or jump from high hieghts without a parachuet.

I can't justify making up facts either, the truth is there is no empirical evidence in favor of there actually being a God, to say there was would be lying, someone might believe the lie and base their faith on what I said was true. Faith is belief without evidence. If you need evidence then it isn't faith it is knowledge.

I'm glad you don't justify lies. I live by emperical evidence as much as I can. I percieve no virtue in acceptance through faith as apart from knowledge.

As a matter of fact I question what it is a person wishes to gain by accepting anything through faith. The faith idea looks like an ego trip to me. Are not those that accept things through faith commonly promoted by the Bible charactor of Jesus, the Bible, and people of faith? Looks to me that the act of faith is enough to make you cool to other believers.

As a matter of fact I question what it is a person wishes to gain by accepting anything through faith. The faith idea looks like an ego trip to me. Are not those that accept things through faith commonly promoted by the Bible charactor of Jesus, the Bible, and people of faith? Looks to me that the act of faith is enough to make you cool to other believers.

People who have faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God have lots to gain. Whether you think so or not. It gives comfort to grieving loved ones. It also gives hope for the future. Christians know what is going to happen to them when they die and I find great comfort in that fact. I am also very content with my life. I know God is in control. Contentment may just be part of my personality but I believe God had something to do with that too.

While some people may trying to be cool in front of other believers. I think that the people with the genuine faith are the people who are not doing it to be cool but actually believe that what they read and hear are true. I do not feel that I am greater than you because I have certain beliefs. While I don't speak for all Christians most of us realize that this is simply not true. We are Human Beings same as you. We make mistakes same as you.

You know, in my experience it isn't very effective for an atheist trying to convince a Christian that god doesn't exist, that the bible is contradictory and unreliable at best, and that Heaven and Hell are rather ineffective moral incentives.

Christians are far better at convincing other of that. I know it worked for me ;)

So, if you really want to show Christians the light of reason, let other Christians do the dirty work.

If you believe that you have been charged with the great commision would it not be irresposible of you to not care how that message was recieved? An advertising agancy may make the claim that they dilivered a message but if they did the job poorly and the promotion was received by the market as suggesting the advertised item was a piece of junk maybe the purchaser might of the adverticing agency's sevices might not win a court claim but would any other company want that agancy to advertice for them? I think you are being disgeniune about your claim to share the "Gospel" to me it seems you feel your where only commisioned to repeat the mantra.
I think you misunderstand. I do care how the message is recieved, I care deeply. I actually don't have control over it, to say that I do would be lying. I can't "make" someone believe, it's not my responsibility to try. It would be a waste of my time to go around trying to "make" people believe in God. I can spread the message and I can love my neighbor, but I can't force someone to do something that they are fundamentally against.

What would you have me do? How can I ensure that the message is heard? Brainwashing, torture? You can't even make me believe what you do, and you seem to think that your way is more "logical", how the heck do you want me to force faith?

Fear can help people make good disisions it has incoraged a great many not to run out into traffic or jump from high hieghts without a parachuet.
It is never a good idea to make a decision out of fear, if fear is the only reason that you make a decision, then that decsiscion won't last very long at all. I used to be afraid to do drugs, because my parents told me it would kill me instantly. After a while the thought of dying instantly got to me, what if the odds were really low? What if my parents lied to me? I ended up a drug addict. I don't do drugs now, but not out of fear. Fear has not been able to keep me sober for 7 years, the desire to do something better has, the knowledge that I can change my future, the hope that things can be better has.
Looks to me that the act of faith is enough to make you cool to other believers.
Looking "cool" is of no consequence to me. I don't really care what other people think about me, I care what my relationship with God is like. I would believe the same way if it was "cool" as I would if I lived in a country where people are killed and tortured for being Christian. It does seem to me though that a lot of "athiests" don't really believe that there isn't a God (not you personally) they even are afraid to spell out the name, they just run around talking about how there isn't a G-d because they think it's rebellious.

True and False: If there was a God and he forbid some assorted knowledge that knowledge would be forbiden

But why must God forbid knowledge?

I do not know of an absolute morality without God perhaps you could enlighten me.

My boyfriend is an atheist and believes in an objective, absolute morality - an absolute right and wrong based on what does and does not harm others. He thinks that human beings are evolving towards this absolute morality - that we will eventually find it as it is the best for humanity.

In the first three Gospels I believe all of the miricles Jesus did was attributed to faith.

Nope. They were attributed to the power of God and of Jesus. They were performed because people had faith, but the faith itself did not cause the miracles.

Are you suggesting there is such a thing as statutory rape here? Without pregnancy and disease as well as societal taboos of what harm is there in sexual play? Of what knowledge does one need to have in order to give consent to sex or in order for it to be "informed" consent?

Do you not realize that there are emotional consequences associated with sex (at least for the vast majority of human beings)? Even casual sex can have emotional effects on those who participate. A person must be ready for these - and must understand them - before being able to provide consent for sex.

I think you misunderstand. I do care how the message is recieved, I care deeply. I actually don't have control over it, to say that I do would be lying. I can't "make" someone believe, it's not my responsibility to try.

I did misunderstand. I guess it's just that you know what you have to work with and you do your best with it. Makes sense to me now.

But why must God forbid knowledge?

I don't think a god did forbid knowledge.

My boyfriend is an atheist and believes in an objective, absolute morality - an absolute right and wrong based on what does and does not harm others. He thinks that human beings are evolving towards this absolute morality - that we will eventually find it as it is the best for humanity.

We are in agreement here.

Nope. They were attributed to the power of God and of Jesus. They were performed because people had faith, but the faith itself did not cause the miracles.

Interesting I may come to see it that way.

Do you not realize that there are emotional consequences associated with sex (at least for the vast majority of human beings)? Even casual sex can have emotional effects on those who participate. A person must be ready for these - and must understand them - before being able to provide consent for sex.

I percieve no ipso facto emotional consequences. I've had a few sexual explorations in my youth and adult hood and in all cases I've felt no emotional consequences. I think this emotional consequences thing is a fallacy. To me sexual play is no different than a game of Chess, a ride on a rollercoaster, or a sit in a spa.

Ready and understand hmm seems magical mystical to me. I guess it can only be percieved when boys do teachers. I percive no harm less the kid cuaght VD apart from the social harm that comes from a sex condemning society.