NationStates Jolt Archive

Never herad of tryanny by minority?


If "almost everyone" is doing it, then by definition they are not the minority?

But then, in reality, Christians themselves are the largest group...

In answer to Abdju's questions: the less reasonable followers of dominant religious systems have the tendency to think they're being persecuted as soon as the societies they're a part of has evolved enough to prohibit said followers of the previously mentioned dominant religious systems from happily persecuting, tormenting and murdering those who hold different opinions. Hence this thread. If more members of this forum were of the Muslim persuasion, we would probably have an Islamic version of this thread (and many, many other threads!) as well.

Very true. Far more so than the idea that Christians are being persecuted, murdered and forced into ghettos in suburban LA.

Being ignored sometimes is enough for certain religious individuals to feel slighted.

Match abandoned after 88 minutes due to Apocalypse
Christianity 1 The World 2

Goalscorers:
Baby Jesus (10)
Charles Darwin (84) (pen)
Fred Phelps (own goal) (87)

Sendings off:
Young Creationist (84) (Professional Foul Logic)

I did not bother to read all 35 pages...clearly though someone has a problem with Christianity, Im impartial to it but I am what you would call an "atheist" I believe in science....this aside.

There is an old and new testament. Old testament was VERY different from the new one and the new one did not come out straight from christs lips infact it was twisted if you where to read the old testiman.... you would see that christ in fact is just like any other whack job we put in mental institutions for speaking to god. The old testament is wrong everything about it is wrong to follow the religion is dumb and if you just love christs ideals, why do you call your self a christian call your self a good person for fucks sake because i know christ was right and the ONLY reason they have listened to him back then is because all those whack events happened to him. I am sure if christ could come back from the grave, for real this time and actually stay and speak to someone he would go rambo on italy's ass for changing the old testament. :gundge: :mp5: WHO gave you the right to change a religion? its pure f'in mind control they just changed it so they could control the populace better face it. Islam makes more sense because theres no proof that they changed the book although they probably did but hey they are smooth criminals what can i say.

:headbang: Do what you want but don't impose your religion on others by going oh we christians get it sooooo bad, so we can go "oh your right! I have no right to say what i want about this religion, to speak my mind" If we said to our selfs lets stop "bashing" christians today then people would go alright we have no right, they must be right then lets join their religion! its all f'in mind control in my opinion. I for one will stop saying how dumb it is that you read a book written, by a non "prophet" when the largest christian population stops feeding them selves and starts feeding the poor. do something. Impress me. peace.

I did not bother to read all 35 pages...clearly though someone has a problem with Christianity, Im impartial to it but I am what you would call an "atheist" I believe in science....this aside.

There is an old and new testament. Old testament was VERY different from the new one and the new one did not come out straight from christs lips infact it was twisted if you where to read the old testiman.... you would see that christ in fact is just like any other whack job we put in mental institutions for speaking to god. The old testament is wrong everything about it is wrong to follow the religion is dumb and if you just love christs ideals, why do you call your self a christian call your self a good person for fucks sake because i know christ was right and the ONLY reason they have listened to him back then is because all those whack events happened to him. I am sure if christ could come back from the grave, for real this time and actually stay and speak to someone he would go rambo on italy's ass for changing the old testament. :gundge: WHO gave you the right to change a religion? its pure f'in mind control they just changed it so they could control the populace better face it. Islam makes more sense because theres no proof that they changed the book although they probably did but hey they are smooth criminals what can i say.

:headbang: Do what you want but don't impose your religion on others by going oh we christians get it sooooo bad, so we can go "oh your right! I have no right to say what i want about this religion, to speak my mind" If we said to our selfs lets stop "bashing" christians today then people would go alright we have no right, they must be right then lets join their religion! its all f'in mind control in my opinion. I for one will stop saying how dumb it is that you read a book written, by a non "prophet" when the largest christian population stops feeding them selves and starts feeding the poor. do something. Impress me. peace.

No machine gun smiley?

You're no fun.

Despite all the merry mockery and the raving rants of those who have seen the Light, discussions about religion usually aren't any fun at all. Sorry about that, Dempublicents1.

Though to be fair, it's widely suspected the concept of Lilith was a fabrication made in the 13th century AD, from a few lines here and there from the Old Testament.

The Alphabet of Ben Sira, the oldest known reference to Lilith being Adam's first wife, dates from between the 8th and the 10th centuries CE. Lilith herself predates Judaism.

No machine gun smiley?

You're no fun.

mp5 good enough? its a sub machine gun...closest i could find..jesus will forgive me though right?

The Alphabet of Ben Sira, the oldest known reference to Lilith being Adam's first wife, dates from between the 8th and the 10th centuries CE. Lilith herself predates Judaism.

So does Adam, in fact all of the stories in Genesis is before Judaism

Despite all the merry mockery and the raving rants of those who have seen the Light, discussions about religion usually aren't any fun at all. Sorry about that, Dempublicents1.

*shrug* I quite enjoy them, so long as they're discussions rather than fights or evangelizing.

Some of the most interesting religious discussions I've had have been with my husband - who is an atheist.

It's all in how you approach it. =)

This thread is epic beyond belief. The depth of stupidity displayed here is just purely awesome.


Tucker. There is probably some bleech under your Kitchen sink. Pour yourself a glass.

Well, the main problem is that most 'discussions' here usually are flawed from the very beginning, so this really isn't a very good place for serious and enlightening talks about religion, politics and the world. Come to think of it, the sad fact is that trying to have a somewhat intelligent discussion on the internet is pretty much the same as diving for oysters in a septic tank: useless.

Personally, I don;t think that it's just Christians being criticized around the world. For thousands of years, Jews have been persecuted. Also, for as far back as I have studied, people (Witches) of my religion (Wiccan) have been killed over their beliefs, take the Salem Witch Trials for instance. It's not just any one religion that is (thinking of a word...) "mis understood." So don't take it so hard, just don't take it as light as I make it sound...:p

Well, the main problem is that most 'discussions' here usually are flawed from the very beginning, so this really isn't a very good place for serious and enlightening talks about religion, politics and the world. Come to think of it, the sad fact is that trying to have a somewhat intelligent discussion on the internet is pretty much the same as diving for oysters in a septic tank: useless.

It does happen occasionally, believe it or not. I could start throwing out names of posters who can have civil, interesting religious discussions on the forums, but I'd end up leaving someone out and feel bad about it.

Suffice it to say that they do exist. =)

WELL Just face it man hesus was a fake, his mother was a slut. and she lied about it and said god screwed her well well...also if we all are from adam and eve and, adam and his hoe have children then his children have children with each other....would we not all be mutants like having extra limbs and what not? i mean this is all very twisted , god makes women out of rib of the first man then fast foward some hundreds of years god screws marry.....one of his own children ....this is just.... i hope jesus had no children because...well im just lost.... anyway if marry said she never had sex well then she lied because science says thats impossible and if you believe in science then you cant be a christian right?

convert to reality please! joking...

If it wasn't for all the white noise generated by the irate children frequenting this place, I might actually try and follow those discussions. Oh well, I'll just be one of the lesser forum jesters.

Personally, I don;t think that it's just Christians being criticized around the world. For thousands of years, Jews have been persecuted. Also, for as far back as I have studied, people (Witches) of my religion (Wiccan) have been killed over their beliefs, take the Salem Witch Trials for instance. It's not just any one religion that is (thinking of a word...) "mis understood." So don't take it so hard, just don't take it as light as I make it sound...:p


Far as I have read Wiccans aren't exactly old enough to be claiming they were the salem witches...

not to mention don't some people attribute the salem witch trials a good bit to St. Elmer's fire? (forget the science name....don't even remember if I got the saint name right)

Far as I have read Wiccans aren't exactly old enough to be claiming they were the salem witches...
No, but it gives the New Age-ers a persecution complex like the best of the big religions.

not to mention don't some people attribute the salem witch trials a good bit to St. Elmer's fire? (forget the science name....don't even remember if I got the saint name right)
It's 'St. Elmo's Fire', and it's also a kick-ass tune by Brian Eno.

Technically, you can't claim to speak the truth as the only one who knows the truth is God.

*alternate Christian viewpoint


This happens to any large/majority group though in a democratic society though. It's not right, but it happens. It's just more noticeable in a liberal environment, such as NSG.

That's what's great about monarchies. The many can't push the Few around.

No, but it gives the New Age-ers a persecution complex like the best of the big religions.


It's 'St. Elmo's Fire', and it's also a kick-ass tune by Brian Eno.

Not to mention a half decent movie that apparently 'defined' a generation.

This thread is epic beyond belief. The depth of stupidity displayed here is just purely awesome.


Tucker. There is probably some bleech under your Kitchen sink. Pour yourself a glass.

Warned for flaming.

not to mention don't some people attribute the salem witch trials a good bit to St. Elmer's fire? (forget the science name....don't even remember if I got the saint name right)
St. Anthony's Fire (you and Chumbly have it confused with St. Elmo's Fire, which is a kind of ball lightning that forms on ship's masts in stormy weather from static buildup), scientifically known as ergotism ("ergot" is a species of grain fungus which produces a hallucinogenic toxin).

Time for a brief intermission and to lighten up the thread with a little silliness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDXzpgKbhLo&feature=related

:)

Sorry that we speak the truth.

That arrogance is costing you goodwill in the world.
WHICH TRUTH?? The bible? OK, Which of the 50 versions?

I want to ridicule Christians, because they say stupid things are the truth.
I want to "save" Christians from living their life in fear of something imaginary
I want to stop Christians taking advantage of feeble minds and mislead them into believing Jesus is a god. THERE IS NO GOD!!
I want them to stop saying God Bless you!! it annoys me wildly!

If the truth is so strong, then why do people need the truth explained? Gods word should be the only source of information!

There is NO logic in your religion. If you believe those things, than YES, you are STOOOOPID!!!!
Christians claiming to know the truth is like Bush saying Iraq has become a better place to live since the war. You are fooling yourselves!!!!

If you claim to have the truth, then it's up to you to come up with some good arguments. If you don't have those, then shut up!!

At the moment Christianity is the most aggressive religion in the world. War, missionaries, interfering with other peoples liberties. If I don't believe in God, then why should I follow "his" laws. The laws of social interaction and my conscience are enough for me to be a good person. I don't need a god for that.

rant rant rant rant. ugh... I know it's useless, for you are blind.
To use the words of a Christian:"I hope, one day you will see the truth"

an example of stupidity:

Q: Why did god change his mind? (With the arrival of Jesus, everything changed)
A: Because he was adapting his word to changes in society.
Q: Ok, then why are you not muslim? Didn't you get the latest update?
A: No, they are mislead by the devil. We have the only truth...
Q: How do you know you have the truth and not other christian factions or jews or muslims or hindu's etc?

A: That is a matter of faith. Believe first and then you will see.

Q: Are you a quack, selling placebos or something?????

Some of the most interesting religious discussions I've had have been with my husband - who is an atheist.
That is so awesome. :)

Never herad of tryanny by minority?
Speaking of "tyranny" .....
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/20/teacher.cross/?iref=mpstoryview
School administrators in Ohio voted Friday to begin the process of firing a middle school teacher accused of burning a cross into a student's arm and refusing to keep his religious beliefs out of the classroom.

of course! Atheism is the most logical explanation. I always like it when someone shows me the logic in things. All religious people should at least listen to what they have to say. Not close their minds to it.

Unfortunately discussions about religion always end with:"you just have to believe it". There is no discussion possible when faith comes into play.

Do you believe in ghosts? NO
Have you ever felt the presence of a ghost? NO
Do you believe in Magic? NO
Have you ever seen Magic? NO
Do you believe in God? Yes
Have you ever felt Gods presence? Yes

I rest my case.

Dear Christians:

Pleeaaase go to the creationism museum.

Do you believe in ghosts? NO
Have you ever felt the presence of a ghost? NO
Do you believe in Magic? NO
Have you ever seen Magic? NO
Do you believe in God? Yes
Have you ever felt Gods presence? YesHad the exact same line of conversation many times myself. I will say, however, there are some who recognize that they simply don't have ALL the answers, just answers that work for them, and the rest they truly don't know. Doesn't often happen, and they certainly aren't the vocal majority, but it does happen.

Do you believe in ghosts? NO
Have you ever felt the presence of a ghost? NO
Do you believe in Magic? NO
Have you ever seen Magic? NO
Do you believe in God? Yes
Have you ever felt Gods presence? Yes

Wait, so your problem is that they don't believe in things they haven't experienced, but do believe in things they have experienced (or at least that they think they have)?

If the answer to the latter question is yes, it certainly wouldn't make sense for the next to last question to be no, would it?

Dear Christians:

Pleeaaase go to the creationism museum.

Ugh. Why would I spend money on such crap when I could go to a real natural science museum? Or an aquarium or zoo? Or an art museum?

WHy do people get dressed up to go to church? Does God give a shit if you wear a new dress or a suit and tie? Go to church naked. SHow some appreciation for all the work He put into you. ...and your 93 year old neighbor. ...hmm.... You know some ideas sound better when you start having them than when you finish. :p

WHy do people get dressed up to go to church? Does God give a shit if you wear a new dress or a suit and tie? Go to church naked. SHow some appreciation for all the work He put into you. ...and your 93 year old neighbor. ...hmm.... You know some ideas sound better when you start having them than when you finish. :p

Yeah, it's true, we could show up to church in anything we wanted and God wouldn't care. We don't dress up so much for God as for everyone else. Church is just as much a social function as anything else! :p

And it's cheaper than going to a bar, even!

Most of the atheists I know became such for very different reasons; for example, the fact that many of Christianity's root beliefs and myths originated in local pagan religions and folk tales.

No it doesn't....that is an exscuse for most atheists because they cannot defend their faith either way. Tell me how the world got here. Natural selection? I think not. You cannot tell me that a single cell- which has more info in it than 1000 Encyclopedia Britanica- got here by a random colision of the right material. If you do believe in the Big Bang, then who caused it? Atheism makes no sense whatsoever. It is a blatant denial of the facts in front of them due to emotional pain or plain ignorance. For me it was both. I understand atheists because I was one at a point in time, but in hindsight all it was was the denial of something bigger than myself.

WHy do people get dressed up to go to church? Does God give a shit if you wear a new dress or a suit and tie?

IIRC Leviticus seems to imply that, yes.

No it doesn't....that is an exscuse for most atheists because they cannot defend their faith either way. Tell me how the world got here. Natural selection? I think not. You cannot tell me that a single cell- which has more info in it than 1000 Encyclopedia Britanica- got here by a random colision of the right material. If you do believe in the Big Bang, then who caused it? Atheism makes no sense whatsoever. It is a blatant denial of the facts in front of them due to emotional pain or plain ignorance. For me it was both. I understand atheists because I was one at a point in time, but in hindsight all it was was the denial of something bigger than myself.

And what, pray tell, makes your particular belief better than all others ?
I mean - you diss atheism. Fine. But that doesn't make your own faith true...

No it doesn't....that is an exscuse for most atheists because they cannot defend their faith either way. Tell me how the world got here. Natural selection? I think not. You cannot tell me that a single cell- which has more info in it than 1000 Encyclopedia Britanica- got here by a random colision of the right material. If you do believe in the Big Bang, then who caused it? Atheism makes no sense whatsoever. It is a blatant denial of the facts in front of them due to emotional pain or plain ignorance. For me it was both. I understand atheists because I was one at a point in time, but in hindsight all it was was the denial of something bigger than myself.

Nothing in this post even remotely approached reality. We are all stupider from having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

...Tell me how the world got here. Natural selection? I think not. You cannot tell me that a single cell- which has more info in it than 1000 Encyclopedia Britanica- got here by a random colision of the right material.
This shows how little you understood natural selection.

If you do believe in the Big Bang, then who caused it?
There is no "before" the Big Bang, as the time of our universe started there.

Why would you accept anything else as the "uncaused cause" but not the Big Bang?

IIRC Leviticus seems to imply that, yes.

Leviticus implies a lot of really interesting things. :p

No it doesn't....that is an exscuse for most atheists because they cannot defend their faith either way. Tell me how the world got here. Natural selection? I think not.

You must be pretty smart, then, as I think we can safely agree that the world didn't get here via natural selection, given that natural selection has fuck-all to do with the beginnings of the world.

You cannot tell me that a single cell- which has more info in it than 1000 Encyclopedia Britanica- got here by a random colision of the right material.

I cannot? Really? Gosh. Will my throat miraculously close up if I try?

Anyway, I do indeed doubt that a single random collision could create a cell - that would be quite odd. Billions of years of random collisions, however, might just, especially considering the likely simplicity of the very first proto-cells.

If you do believe in the Big Bang, then who caused it?

Why does it need a "who" to cause it?

Atheism makes no sense whatsoever.

It makes as much sense as any other position of faith, and more than some. Of course, none of the things you listed above have anything to do with atheism, anyway.

It is a blatant denial of the facts in front of them due to emotional pain or plain ignorance.

....which "facts" would those be?

For me it was both. I understand atheists because I was one at a point in time, but in hindsight all it was was the denial of something bigger than myself.

That's nice. And everyone is just like you, eh?

By the way, just so you know, I happen to believe in God. I just thought I'd mention that to spare you looking very silly if you reply by insulting my atheistic beliefs. :p

ALL RIGHT! New toys have arrived. :D I'd like to start by thanking both Bergeijk and Etheldredastan for demonstrating so well why religious discussions so readily devolve into name-calling and foot-stamping. Your posts should be saved by all for future reference.

That arrogance is costing you goodwill in the world.
True. Arrogance does cost goodwill. Of course, this is just as true for atheists and for the other religions of the world as it is for Christians.
WHICH TRUTH?? The bible? OK, Which of the 50 versions?
What do you care? Is there a version you'd believe if they cited it? Didn't think so.
I want to ridicule Christians, because they say stupid things are the truth.
So do lots of non-Christian people.
I want to "save" Christians from living their life in fear of something imaginary
It is not your place in this world to presume to "save" them, no more than it is their place to presume to "save" you. Hm, yeah, what were you saying about arrogance?
I want to stop Christians taking advantage of feeble minds and mislead them into believing Jesus is a god.
Would you prefer to be the one telling the feeble-minded what to think?
THERE IS NO GOD!!
Prove it. I'll wait for you to prove that there is no god at the same time that I wait for Christians to prove that there is one. But I won't hold my breath waiting on either of you.
I want them to stop saying God Bless you!! it annoys me wildly!
We all have our crosses to bear, if you'll pardon the expression. :p
If the truth is so strong, then why do people need the truth explained? Gods word should be the only source of information!
And for some fanatics, it is.
There is NO logic in your religion.
Logic is a technique of structuring thoughts. It can be applied to anything, including religion, science, politics, philosophy, delusions, fantasies and outright lies. Illogic can also be applied to all those things. I personally have seen very logical explanations of religious beliefs and utterly illogical explanations of scientific theories. Logic or lack thereof is not the ultimate measure of truth.
If you believe those things, than YES, you are STOOOOPID!!!!
Um, it's spelled with a U, not four O's.
Christians claiming to know the truth is like Bush saying Iraq has become a better place to live since the war. You are fooling yourselves!!!! If you claim to have the truth, then it's up to you to come up with some good arguments. If you don't have those, then shut up!!
They only have to come up with good arguments if they are trying to get you to believe as they do. If they're just holding their beliefs and describing their beliefs, without asking you to agree with them, why do they have to come up with any argument at all?

As for asking them to shut up, (A) they have a right to speak freely just as you do, and (B) if everyone who made bad arguments just shut their mouths, there would be very few threads in NSG.
At the moment Christianity is the most aggressive religion in the world. War, missionaries, interfering with other peoples liberties.
They are certainly very assertive, and a few fanatics do get actually aggressive. I don't think I'd agree that they are the most aggressive in the world just now, though. (Though, to be honest, some of their more fanatical sects are trying to give radical fundamentalist Muslims are run for their money in the starting fights race. However, that hardly describes all Christians.)
If I don't believe in God, then why should I follow "his" laws. The laws of social interaction and my conscience are enough for me to be a good person. I don't need a god for that.
I agree with this statement entirely. A nice calm, reasonable moment there.
rant rant rant rant. ugh... I know it's useless, for you are blind.
To use the words of a Christian:"I hope, one day you will see the truth"
And another reasonable moment, enough to know that you were ranting rather than making a good argument about religion.

And now the flip side:
No it doesn't....that is an exscuse for most atheists because they cannot defend their faith either way.
Atheism is not a faith. It is a lack of faith.
Tell me how the world got here. Natural selection? I think not.
As Poliwanacraca pointed out, you are correct. Natural selection has nothing to do with the creation of the world. What you want is physics and cosmology, not biology.
You cannot tell me that a single cell- which has more info in it than 1000 Encyclopedia Britanica- got here by a random colision of the right material.
Oh, come on, I could tell you lots of things. Some of them might even be true. However, I suspect it would not make a difference to your reaction to them.
If you do believe in the Big Bang, then who caused it?
"Who"? If one is an atheist, then one is not likely to think anyone caused it, so your question is meaningless.
Atheism makes no sense whatsoever.
To you. I'll bet it makes perfect sense to atheists.
It is a blatant denial of the facts in front of them due to emotional pain or plain ignorance.
Which facts, and how do you know what other people are feeling or thinking?
For me it was both. I understand atheists because I was one at a point in time, but in hindsight all it was was the denial of something bigger than myself.
So your story is the story of all mankind? Hm...you know, I'm going to guess it actually isn't. I'm going to guess the story of you is only about you and only relevant to you. That's just how I usually bet.

Oh, for the record, I am neither Christian nor atheist. Just mentioning.

We all have our crosses to bear, if you'll pardon the expression. :p


Nicely done. :)

WHy do people get dressed up to go to church? Does God give a shit if you wear a new dress or a suit and tie? Go to church naked. SHow some appreciation for all the work He put into you. ...and your 93 year old neighbor.

You know of course that i completely agree with you here. *bows*

Nicely done. :)
Thanks kindly. ;)

Oh, and sorry I misspelled your name. Fixed it.

WHy do people get dressed up to go to church? Does God give a shit if you wear a new dress or a suit and tie? Go to church naked. SHow some appreciation for all the work He put into you. ...and your 93 year old neighbor. ...hmm.... You know some ideas sound better when you start having them than when you finish. :p

You know I always wondered about this too, after all the Bible says parapharsing of course that as we are all equal in Gods eyes we should come as we are.

You know I always wondered about this too, after all the Bible says parapharsing of course that as we are all equal in Gods eyes we should come as we are.

have you (any of y'all) ever tried going to church dressed in your normal clothing?

have you (any of y'all) ever tried going to church dressed in your normal clothing?
I have. They don't bar entrance. They're not like nightclubs.

Also, if some of these people are Americans, I don't believe their Sunday-go-to-meeting clothes are all that dressy. In a nation where people go shopping in pajamas and clean sneakers are considered dress shoes, how dressed up can they be getting? The only Americans nowadays who I see routinely dressing up in special clothes for church are those African American "church ladies," and they practically wear a uniform. There are whole stores devoted to those hats.

I have. They don't bar entrance. They're not like nightclubs.

Also, if some of these people are Americans, I don't believe their Sunday-go-to-meeting clothes are all that dressy. In a nation where people go shopping in pajamas and clean sneakers are considered dress shoes, how dressed up can they be getting? The only Americans nowadays who I see routinely dressing up in special clothes for church are those African American "church ladies," and they practically wear a uniform. There are whole stores devoted to those hats.

there probably are a few where they look at you funny if you come in in jeans and a tshirt.

my sister changed catholic churches when she lived in maryland because the one closest to her seemed far too much into money.

To say that something is more "logical" or "illogical" is simply a method of misusing the words. Logic is a construct, nothing more. A belief in god is neither logical, or illogical, as a belief, by itself, can not, by definition be logical or illogical. Logic is all about the steps you use to get there, not the result.

The problem with all this talk is this. No faith is any more provable than any other faith. In fact, I'll put it on the line and say that even science itself, for all its study and diligence can not prove anything. That is the fundamental flaw in our existance, the total inability to prove that that which we perceive is true. We may only make assumptions of truth, and then, based on that assumption, make even further assumptions.

We can not prove the big bang actually happen, we can only assume that our readings of background radiation are true, and not god faking the instruments (a quite literal deux ex machina?). Then based on that assumption, conclude that it is the most likely explanation of what we see.

We can not prove god anymore than we can disprove god, or prove zeus, or prove that Mur is not a hyperintelligent squirrel typing maddly away at a keyboard, with frantic, hyperintelligent sequirrel mannerisms. In the end, we simply lack perfect information, and no methodology to gather it. To claim one religious belief superior to another is silly. In the end, it's simply a matter of choice. Judaism is no more likely or unlikely than animism, mormonism, or norse mythology. To that end, if one is truly concerned with "logic", the only rational conclusion that can be drawn, is that no definitive conclusion can be drawn.

Anything else is just a matter of faith.

To say that something is more "logical" or "illogical" is simply a method of misusing the words. Logic is a construct, nothing more. A belief in god is neither logical, or illogical, as a belief, by itself, can not, by definition be logical or illogical. Logic is all about the steps you use to get there, not the result.

The problem with all this talk is this. No faith is any more provable than any other faith. In fact, I'll put it on the line and say that even science itself, for all its study and diligence can not prove anything. That is the fundamental flaw in our existance, the total inability to prove that that which we perceive is true. We may only make assumptions of truth, and then, based on that assumption, make even further assumptions.

We can not prove the big bang actually happen, we can only assume that our readings of background radiation are true, and not god faking the instruments (a quite literal deux ex machina?). Then based on that assumption, conclude that it is the most likely explanation of what we see.

We can not prove god anymore than we can disprove god, or prove zeus, or prove that Mur is not a hyperintelligent squirrel typing maddly away at a keyboard, with frantic, hyperintelligent sequirrel mannerisms. In the end, we simply lack perfect information, and no methodology to gather it. To claim one religious belief superior to another is silly. In the end, it's simply a matter of choice. Judaism is no more likely or unlikely than animism, mormonism, or norse mythology. To that end, if one is truly concerned with "logic", the only rational conclusion that can be drawn, is that no definitive conclusion can be drawn.

Anything else is just a matter of faith.
Very well said.





And stop fantasizing about me flicking my fluffy tail. :p

Very well said.

Thanks as always.

And stop fantasizing about me flicking my fluffy tail. :p

No.

Flick.

well flick you, too.

edit: in fact, flick you back in time!

Thanks as always.



No.

Flick.

CUUURSE YOUUUUUU, NEO AAAAARRRT!!!! *shakes squirrely fist frantically.

you'll never get flicked with an attitude like that...

well flick you, too.

edit: in fact, flick you back in time!

CUUURSE YOUUUUUU, NEO AAAAARRRT!!!! *shakes squirrely fist frantically.

have you (any of y'all) ever tried going to church dressed in your normal clothing?

Define Normal Clothing

If you mean rocking up wearing what I would wear down the street maybe Jeans and a t-shirt, maybe shorts and a short sleeved shirt (on warm summer days) then yes I have in fact what I wear in the street is what I wear to church. Anything else Ash?

have you (any of y'all) ever tried going to church dressed in your normal clothing?

Define Normal Clothing

If you mean rocking up wearing what I would wear down the street maybe Jeans and a t-shirt, maybe shorts and a short sleeved shirt (on warm summer days) then yes I have in fact what I wear in the street is what I wear to church. Anything else Ash?

Define Normal Clothing

If you mean rocking up wearing what I would wear down the street maybe Jeans and a t-shirt, maybe shorts and a short sleeved shirt (on warm summer days) then yes I have in fact what I wear in the street is what I wear to church. Anything else Ash?


then what did you mean by this?

You know I always wondered about this too, after all the Bible says parapharsing of course that as we are all equal in Gods eyes we should come as we are.

surely you dont wonder why we dont go to church naked.

then what did you mean by this?

You asked if I had ever tried going to church in my normal clothing I replied that I always go to church in my normal clothing.

surely you dont wonder why we dont go to church naked.

No but I think LG was making a point as to why people feel the need to dress up more formally when going to church, which is something I wonder about.

You asked if I had ever tried going to church in my normal clothing I replied that I always go to church in my normal clothing.



No but I think LG was making a point as to why people feel the need to dress up more formally when going to church, which is something I wonder about.

ahhhh

but surely you know the various reason and are really wondering why they find these reasons compelling enough to force them to dress formally.

ahhhh

but surely you know the various reason and are really wondering why they find these reasons compelling enough to force them to dress formally.

Ummm maybe, what are these reasons?

If political leaders were all christians creation would be taught in schools!!

Nuh-uh. Not true, I know plenty of Christians who aren't creationists.

Ummm maybe, what are these reasons?

well

some people dress formally out of tradition

some to impress their neighbors

some because others do and they dont want those others to think badly of them

some because they like to dress up and there arent all that many other chances in modern life

some because a church is a formal building and a formal ceremony so they feel they should dress nicely

some feel that god wants everyone to dress nicely for church

some dress nicely as an example for their children who they are teaching to respect the whole church thing and dressing nicely goes along well with that

some are trying to attract members of the opposite sex hoping to get a long term relationship going.

im sure there are other motivations that didnt occur to me.

well
some people dress formally out of tradition
some to impress their neighbors
some because others do and they dont want those others to think badly of them
some because they like to dress up and there arent all that many other chances in modern life
some because a church is a formal building and a formal ceremony so they feel they should dress nicely
some feel that god wants everyone to dress nicely for church
some dress nicely as an example for their children who they are teaching to respect the whole church thing and dressing nicely goes along well with that
some are trying to attract members of the opposite sex hoping to get a long term relationship going.
im sure there are other motivations that didnt occur to me.

I think the bolded ones may be the major reasons why people dress upmore formally when going to church where as the other reasons apply to most areas. And yes I do wonder why people find these bolded ones why they find them so compelling to dress up more formally rather than just wearing normal clothes something which as I say I wonder why they feel the need to dress up more formally.

I think the bolded ones may be the major reasons why people dress upmore formally when going to church where as the other reasons apply to most areas. And yes I do wonder why people find these bolded ones why they find them so compelling to dress up more formally rather than just wearing normal clothes something which as I say I wonder why they feel the need to dress up more formally.

hmmmm

i think that the bolded ones are the best reasons.

You know I always wondered about this too, after all the Bible says parapharsing of course that as we are all equal in Gods eyes we should come as we are.

Does it also say that we should come as we were, as he wants us to be?

hmmmm

i think that the bolded ones are the best reasons.

Well if people want to dress up for church I don't have a problem with it I just don't see the need to dress up for church or why it would be expected of you.

I googled clothing-optional churches. There are a few. :)

Well if people want to dress up for church I don't have a problem with it I just don't see the need to dress up for church or why it would be expected of you.

but there IS no need and no expectation as evidenced by your going in your street clothes.

Does it also say that we should come as we were, as he wants us to be?

Yes or something along those lines which is what I am trying to say.

but there IS no need and no expectation as evidenced by your going in your street clothes.

No but some people feel the need to go dressed up more formally and if there are a large amount of people feeling this need then that will translate into expectations. I think when you said I know the reasons as to why they do I wonder why they feel these reasons are compelling enough to dress up more formally.

No but some people feel the need to go dressed up more formally and if there are a large amount of people feeling this need then that will translate into expectations. I think when you said I know the reasons as to why they do I wonder why they feel these reasons are compelling enough to dress up more formally.

and i wonder why you have a problem with it.

if i choose to dress up for church (i dont go to church) because its what i was taught, what my mother and grandmother did, what has been done for a thousand years, i am participating in an eternal (ish) process of worship. its not just me but thousands of years of tradition that im a part of.

thats kinda cool.

and i wonder why you have a problem with it.

if i choose to dress up for church (i dont go to church) because its what i was taught, what my mother and grandmother did, what has been done for a thousand years, i am participating in an eternal (ish) process of worship. its not just me but thousands of years of tradition that im a part of.

thats kinda cool.

Well if you had read all my posts you would notice that in one of them I said I don't have a problem with people dressing up to go to church I just don't see why people feel the need to dress up formally when going. I am sure that some communities in particular churches would make an expectation for people to come dressed formally and I don't understand why?

Well if you had read all my posts you would notice that in one of them I said I don't have a problem with people dressing up to go to church I just don't see why people feel the need to dress up formally when going. I am sure that some communities in particular churches would make an expectation for people to come dressed formally and I don't understand why?

ok

Does it also say that we should come as we were, as he wants us to be?

Probably not doused in mud, though, to LG's likely disappointment.

Of course I must be wrong because you must have this mystic access to the meaning of the second creation story rather than how you have interpreted it. Well if you wish to believe that it is literal then you are more than welcome to it.

You don't get it do you? I used the 'mystic access' comment to signoff an argument, after detailing evidence for my point of view and pointing out that this was apparently the accepted interpretation at the time when the story is written.

You, on the other hand, simply use it to wave away any objections without explaining why the views of the people who wrote the texts are irrelevant to their intended meaning...


Of course if you had bothered to remember my first post you would know I said it was similar to the story of Pandora, so obviously I am not using it as a counter example. You did acknowledge that I said it was similar because you went on to say that I agreed with you. Obvious isn't it I would say that it is more obvious that women are the source of evil in the world and bring hardship onto men (the reason why the Gods created her in the first place).

You don't seem to understand the concept of a counter-argument. I accused the Genesis story of promoting unpleasant attitudes towards women, you denied it and said it was more like the story of Pandora (i.e. you tried to use Pandora's Box as a counter-example). I replied by saying that Pandora's story promotes pretty much the same attitudes.

No it doesn't....that is an exscuse for most atheists because they cannot defend their faith either way.

Atheism isn't a faith.

Tell me how the world got here. Natural selection?

Natural selection is a mechanism of Evolution, the world's formation is a question of Physics.

I think not. You cannot tell me that a single cell- which has more info in it than 1000 Encyclopedia Britanica- got here by a random colision of the right material.

What metric are you using to quantify information?

If you do believe in the Big Bang, then who caused it?

Begging the question.

Atheism makes no sense whatsoever. It is a blatant denial of the facts in front of them due to emotional pain or plain ignorance. For me it was both. I understand atheists because I was one at a point in time, but in hindsight all it was was the denial of something bigger than myself.

You know, I have trouble believing that an ex-Atheist would say "If you do believe in the Big Bang, then who caused it?" without realising how silly that sounds to Atheists.

My emotions are fine, thanks for asking, and I wouldn't consider myself to be ignorant.

Yes or something along those lines which is what I am trying to say.

Probably not doused in mud, though, to LG's likely disappointment.

No one gets me.

Eh...I think we've branched out into different discussions by this time, but something in response to the original topic:

-Few people take Christianity very seriously in my eyes, at least, those around my age (high school) who call themselves Christian. And everyone else seems deeply disapproving of it. I don't suppose, however, everyone bashes Christians--the religion is just kind of widely disliked.

-The Bible says that we should delight in taking persecution for following Jesus--it's a noble cause. (please forgive me, I'm entirely positive it's in there, but I'm still trying to find it. XP)

No one gets me.

Don't worry, CthulhuFhtagn, Jesus gets you.

Don't worry, CthulhuFhtagn, Jesus gets you.

Jesus listened to Nirvana? Man, I should convert.

Jesus listened to Nirvana? Man, I should convert.

Of course. As its name suggests, Nirvana was a Christian rock band.

Wow. That statement contained at least five factual errors. Name them all and win a prize!

You don't seem to understand the concept of a counter-argument. I accused the Genesis story of promoting unpleasant attitudes towards women, you denied it and said it was more like the story of Pandora (i.e. you tried to use Pandora's Box as a counter-example). I replied by saying that Pandora's story promotes pretty much the same attitudes.

My, my we are having trouble with comprehension today aren't we? I argued against it in the first story you used in an attempt to prove your point. In the second story I didn't use it as a counter argument that this story showed an unpleasant attitude towards women. I in fact said it had similar lines along the story as Pandora something which I acknowledged in my first post before youy decided to point it out after I had already done so. I used it as an argument that it didn't show that women needed to be kept on a leash but that women brought evil and pain and suffering into the world, in the case of Pandora she opened her jar in the case of Eve she ate the apple from the forbidden tree and tempted Adam to eat it.

Atheism isn't a faith.

No it is a belief that a God or any gods do not exist.

No it is a belief that a God or any gods do not exist.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. There's a slight difference.

No it is a belief that a God or any gods do not exist.

You're describing explicit atheism.

Implicit atheism is simply a lack of belief in any deities.

No one gets me.

Please sit down on this couch and tell me all about it.

*Pulls out pencil and notepad*

You're describing explicit atheism.

Implicit atheism is simply a lack of belief in any deities.

Ahh fair enough, so some atheists do have a belief and such hold faith that there is no God.

Ahh fair enough, so some atheists do have a belief and such hold faith that there is no God.

Just wondering: If the answer is "yes," will you use that as an excuse to continue talking about atheism as if it is a religion? To me, the way some people do that, it seems almost like saying that, if a person opposes the Democratic party, that means they're really Democrats because they have opinions about it, which must mean they have beliefs about it. Atheists have opinions about god(s), but opinion =/= faith, even if it is an unsupported opinion.

A second thing I wonder about: Why do some people want to describe atheism as a kind of religious belief? I do not understand that at all. Why is it so important to some people to claim that atheism is a religion? Is it because they are trying to invalidate atheists' denunciation of faith by arguing along the lines of, "Oh, yeah? Well, you have faith too, so neener-neener"?

I don't understand why such religious people can't just be content with the idea that intolerant atheists just don't know what they are talking about when it comes to faith. That's how I see it anyway. When I go over anti-faith arguments of atheists, I typically see a rigidity of thinking, a lack of imagination, and often a willful refusal to consider that other people may have personal experiences that they do not have, as if their personal experiences are the sum total of normal human experience. All that leads me to think that the kind of atheists who rail against faith as lies or delusions (and go about insulting the intelligence or sanity of religious people into the bargain) are arguing from ignorance. They haven't experienced it, so that means nobody else really does either; they don't understand it, so that means it makes no sense to anyone; they don't know it, so that means it doesn't exist to be known by anyone. That alone is enough to invalidate their arguments, as far as I'm concerned. I do not need to make the counter-claim that they really are having the same kind of experience as a religious person, only they don't know it -- which is how I see the "atheism is faith" argument.

But then I am also not trying to make them look wrong and me look right when it comes to faith. I'm not like the atheist who claims that faith is false, and I'm not like the theist who claims that lack of faith is false. I just wish people in general would stop judging others by standards that properly apply only to themselves.

I wouldn't mind if Atheism was called a religion if it meant I got tax break. After all, my non-existent place-of-worship won't maintain itself.

This one still going huh?

A thought occours to me on one of the 'charges' leveled agianst theists by some atheists.


When trying to explain the myriad versions of what God is, I am offten told that we theists seem to change our ideas on God to accomedate POV that have been falsified.

So not wholey unlike science then!

<snip>
We can not prove the big bang actually happen, we can only assume that our readings of background radiation are true, and not god faking the instruments (a quite literal deux ex machina?). Then based on that assumption, conclude that it is the most likely explanation of what we see.
<snip>
Anything else is just a matter of faith.


Agreed completely, and I'm going to borrow this to help make a point in a sec...


A second thing I wonder about: Why do some people want to describe atheism as a kind of religious belief? I do not understand that at all. Why is it so important to some people to claim that atheism is a religion? Is it because they are trying to invalidate atheists' denunciation of faith by arguing along the lines of, "Oh, yeah? Well, you have faith too, so neener-neener"?

I think, (And this is just my own theory) is that in a lot of cases a person who adopts an atheist perspective is not doing it out of a reasoned response to available info or anything of the sort. It's done because of some emotional desire or need to dismiss the possibility of God (For whatever reason) and so they tend to treat scientific theory as if it were infallible Gospel truth, as Neo Art observed. Nothing can be proven either way, but people who are emotionally invested (in both sides of the issue) tend to treat these things as if they COULD and HAVE been proven, whether you're trying to prove the Big Bang or the Great Flood.

So in that sense, one can say that there's a certain amount of faith being exercised by some atheists, only the faith is in science, treating it in a way very much like religion.

Most religions aren't about proving anything and don't pretend to, so their adherents can rightfully be said to have faith. The same goes for those atheists who treat science with the same blind adherence to every convenient hypothesis or theory. That too, is faith, and as much an insult to the scientific method as any.

Again, this is not true of ALL Atheists and I don't know what the proportion is between ones it applies to and ones it doesn't, but it's definitely out there, and fairly easy to see.

have you (any of y'all) ever tried going to church dressed in your normal clothing?

In my church, people are expected to dress up nice, but nobody would get thrown out for doing otherwise. Especially visitors.

Dressing up nice is a way we show respect for someone. It's a cultural thing. We dress up for weddings, funerals, etc. It's an outward sign of respect and reverence. It is thus the reason we do it. We show that respect for God. A person who can't dress up should certainly not stay home from church as a result, but whenever possible nice clothes are preferable.

Dressing up nice is a way we show respect for someone. It's a cultural thing. We dress up for weddings, funerals, etc. It's an outward sign of respect and reverence. It is thus the reason we do it. We show that respect for God. A person who can't dress up should certainly not stay home from church as a result, but whenever possible nice clothes are preferable.


I must admit that I don't really understand this one. I'm English so it is in my own culture to remove a hat before stepping into a holy place, yet I'm also a Sikh and so it is a religous requirement to cover my head before stepping into a holy place. Personaly I think God doesn't mind after all God see's me buck nekkid in the morning in all my *cough* glory! :D

I must admit that I don't really understand this one. I'm English so it is in my own culture to remove a hat before stepping into a holy place, yet I'm also a Sikh and so it is a religous requirement to cover my head before stepping into a holy place. Personaly I think God doesn't mind after all God see's me buck nekkid in the morning in all my *cough* glory! :D

LOL

Although that is a good example of different ways of showing respect in different cultures.

I don't think it's so much a question of what God minds as it is a matter of making the effort when one goes into Church. Someone who Can dress up but doesn't bother (In a setting where the other people do) isn't making an effort and that does say something about their willingness to show respect.

In my church, people are expected to dress up nice, but nobody would get thrown out for doing otherwise. Especially visitors.

Dressing up nice is a way we show respect for someone. It's a cultural thing. We dress up for weddings, funerals, etc. It's an outward sign of respect and reverence. It is thus the reason we do it. We show that respect for God. A person who can't dress up should certainly not stay home from church as a result, but whenever possible nice clothes are preferable.

which is fine (of course) as long as you dont fall into that "who has the nicest clothes" game that people are so prone to.

I think, (And this is just my own theory) is that in a lot of cases a person who adopts an atheist perspective is not doing it out of a reasoned response to available info or anything of the sort. It's done because of some emotional desire or need to dismiss the possibility of God (For whatever reason) and so they tend to treat scientific theory as if it were infallible Gospel truth, as Neo Art observed.

I have but one question. Do you believe that in a lot of cases a person who adopts a religious perspective is not doing it out of a reasoned response to anything, but rather because of some emotional desire or need to dismiss the possibility of no god? If a strong belief in "no god" is merely a way to emotionally avoid the possibility of god...couldn't we say that those who have a strong belief in "god" are merely trying to avoid the cold possibility of no god?

Do you, as a believer, feel that your belief is nothing more than a way to avoid the idea that god may not exist? And if not, if you feel that you can hold a belief in god that is not merely a method for you being an emotionally stunted individual, why can’t people, likewise as emotionally and intellectually healthy, simply reach the alternative conclusion?

In short, if you can believe in god, and not have that belief merely be an effort to shield yourself from some emotional conflict, why can’t the inverse also be true? Why is theism any more a “reasoned response” than atheism? Or do you feel that your belief is just an emotional attempt to deny the possibility that god does not exist?

Nothing can be proven either way, but people who are emotionally invested (in both sides of the issue) tend to treat these things as if they COULD and HAVE been proven, whether you're trying to prove the Big Bang or the Great Flood.

So in that sense, one can say that there's a certain amount of faith being exercised by some atheists, only the faith is in science, treating it in a way very much like religion.

There is, I think, a practical difference though, between the big bang and the great flood. The theory of the big bang requires one assumption. What we perceive is true. Now that IS an assumption, but as far as assumptions go, it’s a pretty safe one. Sure it’s possible that tomorrow morning the floor beneath my feet will be merely an illusion covering a pit to hell, and then when I awake in the morning and crawl out of bed I will plummet to my oblivion.

It’s certainly possible. But I think I’m pretty safe making the assumption that my floor really is a floor. We operate that way, it’s how we get about our daily lives. We can’t lay huddled in our bed for fear the illusionary floor will give way. So while the theory of the big bang, and indeed EVERY theory is predicated on an assumption, it’s an assumption that rational people need to make to stay sane. That things pretty much are how we perceive them, and then we work from there.

The great flood on the other hand requires a whole DIFFERENT set of assumptions. It requires us to believe that everything we know about physics, about biology, about geology, about meteorology..is wrong. It doesn’t merely start with an assumption of truth in perception, but requires us to throw away everything we know.

Thus not only is it disingenuous to compare the two, it’s also a bit unfair, and hypocritical to accuse atheists of people who blindly follow science when, frankly, so do you. You stepped out of bed this morning didn’t you?



Again, this is not true of ALL Atheists and I don't know what the proportion is between ones it applies to and ones it doesn't, but it's definitely out there, and fairly easy to see.

The same, I'm sure, can be said for theists.

Dressing up nice is a way we show respect for someone. It's a cultural thing. We dress up for weddings, funerals, etc. It's an outward sign of respect and reverence. It is thus the reason we do it. We show that respect for God.

But does God appreciate that gesture ?
Sure, He probably likes a show of respect - but does he like this particular form ? After all, Jesus did not seem to favour the snappily dressed. His Father threw humans out of paradise when they covered themselves. Showing respect by doing something God c.s. dislikes seems abit... odd.

Then again, Leviticus suggests that imperfections are not allowed in front of Gods altar, which disallows everyone without a tailormade suit (and those people wearing glasses).

But does God appreciate that gesture ?
Sure, He probably likes a show of respect - but does he like this particular form ? After all, Jesus did not seem to favour the snappily dressed. His Father threw humans out of paradise when they covered themselves. Showing respect by doing something God c.s. dislikes seems abit... odd.

Then again, Leviticus suggests that imperfections are not allowed in front of Gods altar, which disallows everyone without a tailormade suit (and those people wearing glasses).

It's what's in a person's heart that matters, not outward appearances. However, outward appearances can (but do not necessarily) reflect what is in a person's heart.

For example - a homeless person. They come into your church. They smell, their clothes are not nice at all. But they don't have the means at the time to do any better, but he came to worship God. Meanwhile, there's people who dress up sharp every Sunday for church but they go to church because they feel like they have to or for social/business reasons. Which do you think God appreciates more? Now think about someone who is going to worship, has the means to dress reasonably, but shows up looking like they just rolled out of bed. Where would you suppose that person falls in this spectrum?

The law in Leviticus was part of their laws on purity, which until Jesus came fulfilled it, was necessary to their salvation. It was symbolic of God's standard for purity and holiness. You're confusing it with moral laws, which are standards that will always be, such as the 10 Commandments.

The law in Leviticus was part of their laws on purity, which until Jesus came fulfilled it, was necessary to their salvation. It was symbolic of God's standard for purity and holiness. You're confusing it with moral laws, which are standards that will always be, such as the 10 Commandments.

Explain that to the gaybashers out there please ;)

However - the question remains. Does God truly like people dressing up ? Could spend that money on feeding a hungry child..

Anybody else think that christians are being bashed by almost everyone?

It's a conspiracy. We've hired the Jews and the Illuminati to do the bidding of the NWO. Of course they're all really being fooled by the vampires...but don't tell anyone I told you that.

Explain that to the gaybashers out there please ;)

However - the question remains. Does God truly like people dressing up ? Could spend that money on feeding a hungry child..

What God labels an abomination will always be. In this country, we have freedom to speak against their behavior just as much as they have freedom to speak for their behavior. As citizens in a nation that votes, we have the right to vote our consciences and petition the government to consider their position on an issue. However, speech is where your rights end - taking actions against someone that is not sanctioned by law is wrong, even if it is for the right reasons. Everyone is responsible to God for their own actions, whether they acknowledge it or not. So let Him deal with them, and you keep doing what you're supposed to because He's going to deal with you too eventually.

As for the question you re-posed, I already answered it. It depends on the person, the position of their heart, and what is within their reasonable means.

As for the question you re-posed, I already answered it. It depends on the person, the position of their heart, and what is within their reasonable means.

That is not an answer - it is a dodge.

which is fine (of course) as long as you dont fall into that "who has the nicest clothes" game that people are so prone to.

Agreed.

I have but one question. Do you believe that in a lot of cases a person who adopts a religious perspective is not doing it out of a reasoned response to anything, but rather because of some emotional desire or need to dismiss the possibility of no god? If a strong belief in "no god" is merely a way to emotionally avoid the possibility of god...couldn't we say that those who have a strong belief in "god" are merely trying to avoid the cold possibility of no god?


Absolutely. And I have just as much of a problem with that, because it's belief as a result of insecurity, not Faith.


Do you, as a believer, feel that your belief is nothing more than a way to avoid the idea that god may not exist? And if not, if you feel that you can hold a belief in god that is not merely a method for you being an emotionally stunted individual, why can’t people, likewise as emotionally and intellectually healthy, simply reach the alternative conclusion?


Hmm, that's two more questions... You said you had but one ;)

j/k.

To the first: No I don't.
To the second: I never said otherwise.


In short, if you can believe in god, and not have that belief merely be an effort to shield yourself from some emotional conflict, why can’t the inverse also be true? Why is theism any more a “reasoned response” than atheism? Or do you feel that your belief is just an emotional attempt to deny the possibility that god does not exist?


Um.. like I said.

Do remember that I specifically said that my opinion wasn't meant to define ALL Atheists. I was pretty clear on that. What you're saying here doesn't conflict with what I said at all.


There is, I think, a practical difference though, between the big bang and the great flood. The theory of the big bang requires one assumption. What we perceive is true. Now that IS an assumption, but as far as assumptions go, it’s a pretty safe one. Sure it’s possible that tomorrow morning the floor beneath my feet will be merely an illusion covering a pit to hell, and then when I awake in the morning and crawl out of bed I will plummet to my oblivion.

It’s certainly possible. But I think I’m pretty safe making the assumption that my floor really is a floor. We operate that way, it’s how we get about our daily lives. We can’t lay huddled in our bed for fear the illusionary floor will give way. So while the theory of the big bang, and indeed EVERY theory is predicated on an assumption, it’s an assumption that rational people need to make to stay sane. That things pretty much are how we perceive them, and then we work from there.

The great flood on the other hand requires a whole DIFFERENT set of assumptions. It requires us to believe that everything we know about physics, about biology, about geology, about meteorology..is wrong. It doesn’t merely start with an assumption of truth in perception, but requires us to throw away everything we know.


I don't think that last part is necessarily so. It categorically denies the possibility of reconciling our scientific/archaeological knowledge with the Biblical record, as recorded from the point of view of one individual (Moses).

Just as a lot of people reconcile Evolution with the Genesis story as the latter being a metaphor for the former.


Thus not only is it disingenuous to compare the two, it’s also a bit unfair, and hypocritical to accuse atheists of people who blindly follow science when, frankly, so do you. You stepped out of bed this morning didn’t you?


What's hypocritical? I mean, honestly how often do the larger issues like Evolution, The Big Bang or the truth of Quantum Mechanics enter into a person's everyday life? Hell, my cat woke up this morning same as I did and doesn't give a fig about science one way or the other. She didn't follow science, blindly or otherwise, any more than I did.

Do I believe in the Big Bang? Meh. Why not? I have no reason to either try to prove or disprove it. Do I believe in Evolution? No, but not because of my religious beliefs. There are plenty of Mormons who do believe in it and they've reconciled it with their religion just fine. Do I believe in Quantum Mechanics? I don't know enough about it to believe or disbelieve it. Kinda like my cat.

To I believe in information obtained via the Science of Astronomy? Well yeah since I can not only directly observe plenty of astronomical phenomena, I have no reason to doubt much of what I've read. None of that is blind adherence. When I was a kid, there were 9 planets. Now we've redefined what a planet is and so we only count 8. Fine. If they say so. I'm not emotionally invested in it one way or the other. I just want to live long enough to see humans walk on Mars.

I'm sure you'd agree that blind, closed-minded adherence to ANY system, be it religious, philosophical, scientific or otherwise, is a bad thing.

That's all I'm saying.


The same, I'm sure, can be said for theists.

Sure. I never said otherwise... Just not ALL Theists.

But does God appreciate that gesture ?
Sure, He probably likes a show of respect - but does he like this particular form ? After all, Jesus did not seem to favour the snappily dressed. His Father threw humans out of paradise when they covered themselves. Showing respect by doing something God c.s. dislikes seems abit... odd.

Then again, Leviticus suggests that imperfections are not allowed in front of Gods altar, which disallows everyone without a tailormade suit (and those people wearing glasses).

Well that's just another couple examples of culture. Does He appreciate it? I'm sure He does. One is supposed to be reverent in Church, and respect is a part of that.

A second thing I wonder about: Why do some people want to describe atheism as a kind of religious belief? I do not understand that at all. Why is it so important to some people to claim that atheism is a religion? Is it because they are trying to invalidate atheists' denunciation of faith by arguing along the lines of, "Oh, yeah? Well, you have faith too, so neener-neener"?

Well, it would appear that a high proportion of "atheists" report believing in some sort of deity....

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf

Note: I haven't read all the way through this study, so I don't know exactly what their methods were, but their categories were apparently based on self-identification. So 18% of those who self-identified as atheists also reported belief in some sort of deity (I'm leaving out the 3% who said other/don't know, as there is no way to tell how many of those were "other" and how many were "don't know").

There is, I think, a practical difference though, between the big bang and the great flood. The theory of the big bang requires one assumption. What we perceive is true.

To be fair, that isn't the only assumption. There is also the core axiom on which the scientific method rests - that the universe is deterministic.

But yeah, less assumptions overall involved in taking a scientific theory at face value than in doing the same with religious stories, I think. Or, perhaps, assumptions that are closer to universal. I suppose you could get by on believing in the Great Flood if your only assumption was "The Bible is literally true"...

Well that's just another couple examples of culture. Does He appreciate it? I'm sure He does. One is supposed to be reverent in Church, and respect is a part of that.

Hmm. Perhaps my phrasing was unclear. So let us use an extreme example:

Suppose that in culture X it is a sign of respect to chop some of your firstborns limbs off and offer them to the person you respect. Would God appreciate such a gesture ? It IS after all a sign of reference and respect.

If not, we agree that something being a sign of respect in the eye of the believer does not automatically mean it is appreciated by God.

So - does God appreciate this particular form of respect showing, based on Scripture ? Again: you could spend the money on saving dying children instead of clothes to look pretty before Him. And neither God nor Jesus seemed fond of fancy clothes.

Hmm. Perhaps my phrasing was unclear. So let us use an extreme example:

Suppose that in culture X it is a sign of respect to chop some of your firstborns limbs off and offer them to the person you respect. Would God appreciate such a gesture ? It IS after all a sign of reference and respect.

If not, we agree that something being a sign of respect in the eye of the believer does not automatically mean it is appreciated by God.

So - does God appreciate this particular form of respect showing, based on Scripture ? Again: you could spend the money on saving dying children instead of clothes to look pretty before Him. And neither God nor Jesus seemed fond of fancy clothes.

My thoughts on that are: The de-limbing of a child is a pretty extreme example but then, someone religious enough to want to go to a house of worship and show respect isn't gonna anger God by doing that...

...unless they think that's what God WANTS.

;)

But in seriousness, I think the gesture is the most important thing, so if you're talking a culture that has some bizarre ideas of how to show respect, then it would be well taken, as long as it isn't in conflict with the teachings of the religion itself, IMHO.

And it's true that one can spend the money on starving children, but typically the Church itself has some kind of program for doing that which is covered by the offerings of the congregation, so it's all taken care of.

What God labels an abomination will always be. In this country, we have freedom to speak against their behavior just as much as they have freedom to speak for their behavior. As citizens in a nation that votes, we have the right to vote our consciences and petition the government to consider their position on an issue.

You have the right to ask the government to do whatever you want. That doesn't mean the government has the authority to do it, however. And if you're petitioning the government to do something it doesn't have the authority to do, one has to wonder why.

You have the right to ask the government to do whatever you want. That doesn't mean the government has the authority to do it, however. And if you're petitioning the government to do something it doesn't have the authority to do, one has to wonder why.

Meh. People do that all the time. I don't think the Government has a right to mandate seatbelt laws but people petitioned for it...

What God labels an abomination will always be. In this country, we have freedom to speak against their behavior just as much as they have freedom to speak for their behavior. As citizens in a nation that votes, we have the right to vote our consciences and petition the government to consider their position on an issue.

Of course, even more than any other religion, a true christian would NOT 'vote' on 'conscience' or 'petition the government to consider their position on an issue'.

Those who honestly follow the words of Christ are to be a 'separate people', and are not supposed to be 'of the world'. They are to 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's...'

So, next time you contemplate a march against abortion laws, or find yourself considering which Presidential candiate most closely matches your religious perspective... just remember, you are doing Satan's work.

Nothing in this post even remotely approached reality. We are all stupider from having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

there is absolutely no reason to get defensive here. I was explaining my views and if you disagree with them, fine. But can you do it in a civilized manner?

I am not pointing fingers at an atheist. As I said earlier in the post, I WAS an atheist. There was a decideing point in my life where, instead of going by society's view of Christianity, I sat down and read the Bible myself to get a different point of view as to why Christians believe what they do. "Seek and you will find, Knock and He will answer." Well, I knocked and He did answer. All I was saying is that since my discovery of God, atheism no longer makes sense to me...I apologize if I stepped on some toes. If more people were willing to open their mind to Christianity, there would not be such high tensions betwee Christians an atheists. In all honesty, yes, Christians can be narrow-minded and hypocritical. Look at all these Televangelists like Binny Hines and such. You WILL have heretics in every religion....but the same goes for atheism. There is a blatant denial of not only Christianity (and every other religon as well) but also creatiion. All I was saying is that there is no way I can believe in NOTHING. It makes no sense to me anymore.

there is absolutely no reason to get defensive here. I was explaining my views and if you disagree with them, fine. But can you do it in a civilized manner?

I am not pointing fingers at an atheist. As I said earlier in the post, I WAS an atheist. There was a decideing point in my life where, instead of going by society's view of Christianity, I sat down and read the Bible myself to get a different point of view as to why Christians believe what they do. "Seek and you will find, Knock and He will answer." Well, I knocked and He did answer. All I was saying is that since my discovery of God, atheism no longer makes sense to me...I apologize if I stepped on some toes. If more people were willing to open their mind to Christianity, there would not be such high tensions betwee Christians an atheists. In all honesty, yes, Christians can be narrow-minded and hypocritical. Look at all these Televangelists like Binny Hines and such. You WILL have heretics in every religion....but the same goes for atheism. There is a blatant denial of not only Christianity (and every other religon as well) but also creatiion. All I was saying is that there is no way I can believe in NOTHING. It makes no sense to me anymore.

Perhaps if christians didn't attack people with their faith by telling them they are going to hell if they don't believe like christians do, people wouldn't have an automatic defensive reaction, and they might just maintain an open mind towards christianity? No, it couldn't be that, because christians can do no wrong.

All I was saying is that since my discovery of God, atheism no longer makes sense to me...

Now let's be honest. That isn't all you were doing:

No it doesn't....that is an exscuse for most atheists because they cannot defend their faith either way. Tell me how the world got here. Natural selection? I think not. You cannot tell me that a single cell- which has more info in it than 1000 Encyclopedia Britanica- got here by a random colision of the right material. If you do believe in the Big Bang, then who caused it?

You also started attacking science - and in a very ignorant way at that. Your remarks here make it incredibly clear that you have llittle to no understanding of the scientific theories in cosmology or biology.

Atheism makes no sense whatsoever. It is a blatant denial of the facts in front of them due to emotional pain or plain ignorance.

And then, here, you attack atheism in general as something that "makes no sense whatsoever". Note that you don't say "makes no sense to me." You say that it makes no sense at all.

You also make the claim that atheism is a denial of facts due to emotional pain or plain ignorance. You don't say that this statement only applies to you. In fact, you go on to say:

For me it was both.

Thus, you have suggested that atheism is always a product of emotional pain or plain ignorance, and that you had a helping of both.

Of course, you've already demonstrated "plain ignorance" of scientific theory above. Do you deny science because of emotional pain as well?

I understand atheists because I was one at a point in time, but in hindsight all it was was the denial of something bigger than myself.

And this is true for all atheists? If not, you don't "understand atheists". You understand the forces that, for a time, made you identify as an atheist.


If more people were willing to open their mind to Christianity, there would not be such high tensions betwee Christians an atheists.

One could put that the other way. If more Christians were willing to open their minds to the possibility that atheists are correct, there would not be such high tensions.

In truth, mutual respect is all that is necessary to do away with such tensions. I am a Christian married to an atheist. We get along just fine. Why? Because we are both willing to admit that we might be wrong and to respect the point of view of the other.

All I was saying is that there is no way I can believe in NOTHING. It makes no sense to me anymore.

But you are denying the possibility that, to someone else, belief in God may not make any sense to them.

Agreed completely, and I'm going to borrow this to help make a point in a sec...



I think, (And this is just my own theory) is that in a lot of cases a person who adopts an atheist perspective is not doing it out of a reasoned response to available info or anything of the sort. It's done because of some emotional desire or need to dismiss the possibility of God (For whatever reason) and so they tend to treat scientific theory as if it were infallible Gospel truth, as Neo Art observed. Nothing can be proven either way, but people who are emotionally invested (in both sides of the issue) tend to treat these things as if they COULD and HAVE been proven, whether you're trying to prove the Big Bang or the Great Flood.
Well, since, as you acknowledge, this is equally applicable to both atheists and religious people, then it doesn't really mean much. Basically, all you are saying here is that people think what they do for a reason.

So in that sense, one can say that there's a certain amount of faith being exercised by some atheists, only the faith is in science, treating it in a way very much like religion.
I completely disagree with this, because science is subject to tests of proof, whereas religion is not. The two are not comparable, and therefore, it would be extremely ignorant of anyone to treat science like a religion.

Most religions aren't about proving anything and don't pretend to, so their adherents can rightfully be said to have faith.
There is a vast difference between having faith and making a simple assumption. Since you are a person of faith, I would have expected you to know that.

Also, not only do I think it inappropriate to compare religious faith with the mere assumptions of people who take other people's word for stuff without bothering to check the facts themselves, you are also missing another point, namely: In religion, faith is the appropriate response because, as you say, it's not about proving things. In science, faith or assumption are both the WRONG response because science is all about facts and testing assumptions, not living by them. So for you to say that atheists treat science like a religion is to say, basically, that they misunderstand and misuse science. Now it's true that there are lots of people in the world who misunderstand and misuse science, but we have no reason to suspect that atheists in particular will do that as part of being an atheist.

The same goes for those atheists who treat science with the same blind adherence to every convenient hypothesis or theory. That too, is faith, and as much an insult to the scientific method as any.
Right, people who rely on assumptions or who do not test hypotheses are not using science correctly. I fail to see what faith has to do with that. You don't have to be a person of faith to be a lazy thinker.

Again, this is not true of ALL Atheists and I don't know what the proportion is between ones it applies to and ones it doesn't, but it's definitely out there, and fairly easy to see.
Really? I have to say I've never seen it. So if it is out there at all, I have a feeling it applies to very few atheists.

Well, it would appear that a high proportion of "atheists" report believing in some sort of deity....

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf

Note: I haven't read all the way through this study, so I don't know exactly what their methods were, but their categories were apparently based on self-identification. So 18% of those who self-identified as atheists also reported belief in some sort of deity (I'm leaving out the 3% who said other/don't know, as there is no way to tell how many of those were "other" and how many were "don't know").

<snip>
I haven't studied the study either, but I would like to know how they framed their questions and which respondents answered certain other questions (if they were asked ) and in what way. When I hear that people who self-identify as atheist also say they believe in some kind of deity, I wonder if they really believe that or if either "atheist" or "deity" was the closest to accurate option on one or another question. Or I wonder whether the questions were framed in a confusing manner, and the respondents were merely trying to declare themselves as open-minded to the possibility that there may or may not be a deity, regardless of what their personal beliefs are now. Or, to be honest, from what I've seen of the unintelligible claptrap that comes out of many American's mouths nowadays, I even wonder if they know what "atheist" and "deity" mean.

Of course, even more than any other religion, a true christian would NOT 'vote' on 'conscience' or 'petition the government to consider their position on an issue'.

Those who honestly follow the words of Christ are to be a 'separate people', and are not supposed to be 'of the world'. They are to 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's...'

So, next time you contemplate a march against abortion laws, or find yourself considering which Presidential candiate most closely matches your religious perspective... just remember, you are doing Satan's work.
I'm no Christian, but I always thought the "render unto Caesar" thing was the best argument for separation of church and state, not a rule that Christians are not allowed to participate in politics at all. I thought it was just the religious equivalent of "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," meaning that some things in life really are just secular and not part of or a reflection on one's religion. It wouldn't make an ancient Judean a bad Jew to pay taxes to Rome, just like it wouldn't make a Christian a bad Christian to be a citizen under a secular government.

Just wondering: If the answer is "yes," will you use that as an excuse to continue talking about atheism as if it is a religion?

No but if some Atheists believe that there is no God then that would show that some Atheists have a belief system. It is not a religion but still a belief system.

I'm no Christian, but I always thought the "render unto Caesar" thing was the best argument for separation of church and state, not a rule that Christians are not allowed to participate in politics at all. I thought it was just the religious equivalent of "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," meaning that some things in life really are just secular and not part of or a reflection on one's religion. It wouldn't make an ancient Judean a bad Jew to pay taxes to Rome, just like it wouldn't make a Christian a bad Christian to be a citizen under a secular government.

I've always understood it to mean that there may exist a difference between what you believe and what you should support politically.

No but if some Atheists believe that there is no God then that would show that some Atheists have a belief system. It is not a religion but still a belief system.
Um, hmmm...

1) There are different contexts in which one might say "I believe" something. They are NOT all equivalent to religious belief or faith. Atheists are of the opinion that there is no such thing as a god, and they believe their opinion is correct, at least because it is theirs, if for no other reason. That is not the same as having a "belief system" in regards to religion.

2) That said, of course atheists have belief systems. They just aren't religious belief systems. They can easily have political or social or philosophical belief systems. You don't have to use what atheists think about god(s) to show that they are capable of believing things.

...and they believe their opinion is correct, at least because it is theirs, if for no other reason. That is not the same as having a "belief system" in regards to religion.

Somewhat - for me, I simply never had belief, it's not that I don't believe in God, in an odd way that seems too much a statement of belief. God simply has no, and never has had, any part of my life.

This may be a poor analogy but there's a difference between people who used to smoke and gave up and those who never smoked at all.

Too often people mix these people up in terms of religion, imagining that all atheists make a choice about belief whereas, in fact, some people never made such a choice, it was simply never a part of their life.

I agree with Muravyets. Atheism is not a belief system, I'd consider it [I]denial [I] of a certain system(the religion). And yes, of course they have things they profess a belief in, like politics and philosophy, even though politics can be affected by religion significantly.

I've always understood it to mean that there may exist a difference between what you believe and what you should support politically.
Well, I don't know if I'd go that far... I mean, I don't think it was advising the Judeans to support the politics of Rome, just not to confuse their dealings with Rome with their dealings with their god and not to think that things like paying taxes (then) or voting (now) are religious exercises. But I wouldn't ask anyone to vote against their own conscience, whether they were religious or not.

There are different contexts in which one might say "I believe" something. They are NOT all equivalent to religious belief or faith. Atheists are of the opinion that there is no such thing as a god, and they believe their opinion is correct, at least because it is theirs, if for no other reason. That is not the same as having a "belief system" in regards to religion.
Apart from a caveat to temper strong statements of what atheists hold to be true (for we are a varied lot) I'd strongly agree.

After all, we'd think it strange to say that those who don't believe in ghosts (due, mostly, to lack of irrefutable evidence) have a 'supernatural belief system' equatable to those who do believe in ghosts.

Or that those who don't believe in aliens have a 'belief system' equatable to those who do believe in aliens.

Etc.

I thought it was just the religious equivalent of "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," meaning that some things in life really are just secular and not part of or a reflection on one's religion... it wouldn't make a Christian a bad Christian to be a citizen under a secular government.
PErhaps, though I've always found merit in a Tolstoyian Christian anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism).

[QUOTE]Somewhat - for me, I simply never had belief, it's not that I don't believe in God, in an odd way that seems too much a statement of belief. God simply has no, and never has had, any part of my life.

This may be a poor analogy but there's a difference between people who used to smoke and gave up and those who never smoked at all.

Too often people mix these people up in terms of religion, imagining that all atheists make a choice about belief whereas, in fact, some people never made such a choice, it was simply never a part of their life.[QUOTE]

True. That's their choice. I do realize that some people choose not to accept a belief in God or gods, or don't make it an extremely important part of their life. Those people have to be okay with their choice, and only their own.

Note: I haven't read all the way through this study, so I don't know exactly what their methods were, but their categories were apparently based on self-identification. So 18% of those who self-identified as atheists also reported belief in some sort of deity (I'm leaving out the 3% who said other/don't know, as there is no way to tell how many of those were "other" and how many were "don't know").

Perhaps they thought the word "atheist" refers to one specific theist.

Sorry about the "messed up text", I'm new and just getting the hang of the forum!

Sorry about the "messed up text", I'm new and just getting the hang of the forum!

To the bottom right of anyone's post is a 'quote' button, click that and you'll redirect to a reply page with the quote already formatted.

Or pray really hard that it just happens :)

lol...i am a little late...but, i think its funny how any religion gets bashed, it really just depends on who starts the argument. anyways, yea christianity gets a lot a flack, but any religion can be "persecuted" when they claim to know the answers to life and crap.

To the bottom right of anyone's post is a 'quote' button, click that and you'll redirect to a reply page with the quote already formatted.

Or pray really hard that it just happens :)

Thanks! I found it. ;) I don't know if I'm too sensitive, or if I'm overreacting, but it seems to me that my denomination takes a lot of heat, even from people practicing the same religion I do.

lol...i am a little late...but, i think its funny how any religion gets bashed, it really just depends on who starts the argument. anyways, yea christianity gets a lot a flack, but any religion can be "persecuted" when they claim to know the answers to life and crap.

Answers to life can mean something different to each person. The "answers to life" are really just what one person thinks will help them achieve their goal of a happy life. One person may not agree with another's "answer" so to speak. What I'm saying is there are many religions, but most, if not all, have the ultimate goal of some type of paradise, heaven, etc. in the afterlife. For example, Christianity and Buddhism both promote respect, tolerance, and especially kindness. However, they are different doctrine-wise; Christianity claims there is one God, whereas Buddhism professes no such belief in one creator god.

Personally I find that the biggest problem for Christians is the fake Christian hypocrites. While the real Christians are trying to clean up the mess society already has changed.

Btw, those whom are not Christians cannot cite the constitution because our country was originally found as unity of Church and State despite the horrible historical revisionism that has been occurring.

Just look in the declaration of independence, where it makes a statement about being governed under "natural law", what do you think that means? Well it is talking about God's law, don't beleive me? Well, most of our founders were Lawyers correct? So go to the original law text, it was written by William Blackstone, look up natural laws.

About a 1/3 of the world is Christian, I would say that's a rather large percentage. However, in the US, Christians are a majority.

Fake Christians are the majority, i call them traditionalists.

Personally I find that the biggest problem for Christians is the fake Christian hypocrites. While the real Christians are trying to clean up the mess society already has changed.

Btw, those whom are not Christians cannot cite the constitution because our country was originally found as unity of Church and State despite the horrible historical revisionism that has been occurring.

Just look in the declaration of independence, where it makes a statement about being governed under "natural law", what do you think that means? Well it is talking about God's law, don't beleive me? Well, most of our founders were Lawyers correct? So go to the original law text, it was written by William Blackstone, look up natural laws.

Sure they can, our Constitution is for all Americans, not just for Christians. Amendment 1 says the government cannot declare an official religion and guarantees freedom pf religion. Thomas Jefferson, a signer and major contributing author of the Declaration of Independence wrote "Religion is not a matter of governments to decree." He himself was a Christian. John Stuart Mill says "The individual is sovereign over himself."

And if non-Christians cannot cite our Constitution, should they have to abide by it?

And if non-Christians cannot cite our Constitution, should they have to abide by it?

Nope. Especially not the First Amendment.

Fake Christians are the majority, i call them traditionalists.

What is a traditionalist?

[QUOTE=Pirated Corsairs;13766194]Location: Athens, Georgia ;)

But what US are YOU living in? To even get elected to ANY public office, you're practically required to be a Christian. A large portion of Americans say that we should teach biblical myth in science class. We have God on our money and in our pledge (that children say every morning).

Myth? hmmm...

Did you know there are groups of atheist scientists who don't beleive in evolution because it is so "out there". Existentialism, there was some random cosmic stuff, it exploded into everything. Then, one planet that we know of just happens to have massive amounts of water on it. Then, all the necessary elements for life aligned in just the right pattern and lightning struck forming a living cell. Then it evolved over time to form irreducibly complex organisms with irreducibly complex DNA, and Highly complex amino acids. And thats why everything is the way it is.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but realize this is what were told. I just don't have that kind of faith.

Nope. Especially not the First Amendment.

What do you mean?

Did you know there are groups of atheist scientists who don't beleive in evolution because it is so "out there".

Atheist HOMOPHOBE scientists, sounds like.

What do you mean?

Non-Christians don't need to have freedom of religion. In fact, they aren't allowed.
It's in the Constitution.

[QUOTE=Pirated Corsairs;13766194]Location: Athens, Georgia ;)

But what US are YOU living in? To even get elected to ANY public office, you're practically required to be a Christian. A large portion of Americans say that we should teach biblical myth in science class. We have God on our money and in our pledge (that children say every morning).

Myth? hmmm...

Did you know there are groups of atheist scientists who don't beleive in evolution because it is so "out there". Existentialism, there was some random cosmic stuff, it exploded into everything. Then, one planet that we know of just happens to have massive amounts of water on it. Then, all the necessary elements for life aligned in just the right pattern and lightning struck forming a living cell. Then it evolved over time to form irreducibly complex organisms with irreducibly complex DNA, and Highly complex amino acids. And thats why everything is the way it is.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but realize this is what were told. I just don't have that kind of faith.

I'm sorry, I'm confused. Were you responding to something I said?

Existentialism
I do not think it means what you think it means.

Then, one planet that we know of just happens to have massive amounts of water on it.
No.

Then, all the necessary elements for life aligned in just the right pattern and lightning struck forming a living cell.
No.

Then it evolved over time to form irreducibly complex organisms with irreducibly complex DNA, and Highly complex amino acids.
No.

Done and dusted.

Atheist HOMOPHOBE scientists, sounds like.



Non-Christians don't need to have freedom of religion. In fact, they aren't allowed.
It's in the Constitution.

Umm, are you saying its illegal or wrong to be Jewish, Muslim, or any other non-Christian faith, and that they aren't guaranteed freedom of religion?(or don't need it)

Sure they can, our Constitution is for all Americans, not just for Christians. Amendment 1 says the government cannot declare an official religion and guarantees freedom pf religion. Thomas Jefferson, a signer and major contributing author of the Declaration of Independence wrote "Religion is not a matter of governments to decree." He himself was a Christian. John Stuart Mill says "The individual is sovereign over himself."

And if non-Christians cannot cite our Constitution, should they have to abide by it?

What I meant was cite as far as separation of church and state, and Mill's statement is exactly the purpose of our government. The criticism of democracy is what immoral people do with freedom and a government. They didn't have to worry about that, because they were teaching ethics in schools.

At that time the only other book printed more then the bible was the New England Primer, the text book they used in school. Which was heavily bible based http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Primer "The primer remained in print well into the 19th century and was even used until the 20th. A reported 2 million copies were sold in the 1700s. No copies of editions before 1727 are known to survive; earlier editions are known only from publishers' and booksellers' advertisements."

Personally I find that the biggest problem for Christians is the fake Christian hypocrites. While the real Christians are trying to clean up the mess society already has changed.
And all those false Scotsmen too. Very annoying.

Btw, those whom are not Christians cannot cite the constitution because our country was originally found as unity of Church and State despite the horrible historical revisionism that has been occurring.

Just look in the declaration of independence, where it makes a statement about being governed under "natural law", what do you think that means? Well it is talking about God's law, don't beleive me? Well, most of our founders were Lawyers correct? So go to the original law text, it was written by William Blackstone, look up natural laws.
Um, yeah, uh, no. I think anyone who is a citizen of the United States can cite the Constitution. And if you think separation of church and state is revisionist history, you must think the founders revised their own history themselves, as they were making it. Instead of misquoting the Declaration of Independence as if it has anything to do with the Constitution, why don't you try reading the Constitution? And instead of reading what Blackstone said about "natural law," why don't you try reading what John Adams and the other men who actually wrote the US Constitution wrote about US law and church and state?

Myth? hmmm...

Did you know there are groups of atheist scientists who don't beleive in evolution because it is so "out there". Existentialism, there was some random cosmic stuff, it exploded into everything. Then, one planet that we know of just happens to have massive amounts of water on it. Then, all the necessary elements for life aligned in just the right pattern and lightning struck forming a living cell. Then it evolved over time to form irreducibly complex organisms with irreducibly complex DNA, and Highly complex amino acids. And thats why everything is the way it is.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but realize this is what were told. I just don't have that kind of faith.
What is this -- a digest of the Calvin and Hobbes comix version of How We Got Here? You know, I honestly have to say I did not know any of this. Apparently, I was told different stuff.

[QUOTE=Pirated Corsairs;13766194]Location: Athens, Georgia ;)

But what US are YOU living in? To even get elected to ANY public office, you're practically required to be a Christian. A large portion of Americans say that we should teach biblical myth in science class. We have God on our money and in our pledge (that children say every morning).

Myth? hmmm...

Did you know there are groups of atheist scientists who don't beleive in evolution because it is so "out there". Existentialism, there was some random cosmic stuff, it exploded into everything. Then, one planet that we know of just happens to have massive amounts of water on it. Then, all the necessary elements for life aligned in just the right pattern and lightning struck forming a living cell. Then it evolved over time to form irreducibly complex organisms with irreducibly complex DNA, and Highly complex amino acids. And thats why everything is the way it is.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but realize this is what were told. I just don't have that kind of faith.

Do you mind if I ask if you are a Christian?

Christianity is Vs the world because its part of the plan!

These Christians indeed are a misguided group, they will likely require at least a year in the gulag after the Revolution to be reeducated.

Yea and what gets on my nerves is us christians aren't doing anything. We stand back and watch atheists rise into power!!!

you should! as karl marx said: ''Religion is the opiate of the masses.''

everyone is acting like atheists are bad people. just because we dont believe in fairytales doesnt mean we are evil, or as some wacko theists describe us: ''An evil Satanic scourge that must be cleansed from the earth''. every church should pay taxes and should never again receive any form of government funding whatsoever.

i want an atheist for president!

Umm, are you saying its illegal or wrong to be Jewish, Muslim, or any other non-Christian faith, and that they aren't guaranteed freedom of religion?(or don't need it)

Pretty much. Clearly, only Christians are allowed to have freedom of religion. :rolleyes:

These Christians indeed are a misguided group, they will likely require at least a year in the gulag after the Revolution to be reeducated.

OMIPU! It's Andaras! *hugs*

What is this -- a digest of the Calvin and Hobbes comix version of How We Got Here? You know, I honestly have to say I did not know any of this. Apparently, I was told different stuff.

Never, ever associate the Comic with this… filth.

you should! as karl marx said: ''Religion is the opiate of the masses.''

everyone is acting like atheists are bad people. just because we dont believe in fairytales doesnt mean we are evil, or as some wacko theists describe us: ''An evil Satanic scourge that must be cleansed from the earth''. every church should pay taxes and should never again receive any form of government funding whatsoever.

i want an atheist for president!

Karl Marx - proof the devil hates poor people.

No, but it makes it statistically more likely.

Then you'll be totally Screwed!

Pretty much. Clearly, only Christians are allowed to have freedom of religion. :rolleyes:

Actually I've heard religious people make the argument that 'freedom of religion' means you 'have to believe in something' and therefore it should be illegal to be an atheist or agnostic.

You see, the one thing that scares Christians the most is non-faith, they literally cannot comprehend atheism so you'll often hear them say 'atheism is a religion', you see that lets them deal with atheism or agnosticism just like another religion with whom they can compete for converts, they cannot understand that you cannot 'indoctrinate' someone to atheism because atheism has no doctrines.

I haven't studied the study either, but I would like to know how they framed their questions and which respondents answered certain other questions (if they were asked ) and in what way. When I hear that people who self-identify as atheist also say they believe in some kind of deity, I wonder if they really believe that or if either "atheist" or "deity" was the closest to accurate option on one or another question. Or I wonder whether the questions were framed in a confusing manner, and the respondents were merely trying to declare themselves as open-minded to the possibility that there may or may not be a deity, regardless of what their personal beliefs are now. Or, to be honest, from what I've seen of the unintelligible claptrap that comes out of many American's mouths nowadays, I even wonder if they know what "atheist" and "deity" mean.

I'd say it's either:

a) They counted those who accept the possibility of god(s)
b) The counted those who believe there is a god but who don't practice any particular belief system to be atheists.

I would personally be between the two: I think there might as well be a god or gods, but I highly doubt they give batshit about mankind. After all, we're just another lifeform on just another planet.

What is a traditionalist?

It's the word I use for people who call themselves Christian, but that is the extent of their religion (definition: reverence for God)

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Although existentialism is the idea that man must create his own ideology and ethics, the cause of that is the assumption there is no God, therefore Big Bang + evolution whether it be Gould or Darwinian. Thats why I used it.

No.


No.


No.

Done and dusted.

Ok, enlighten me.

And all those false Scotsmen too. Very annoying.

A nationality and religion are two completely different things. You can't call yourself a Christian if you don't have a relationship with God.

Um, yeah, uh, no. I think anyone who is a citizen of the United States can cite the Constitution. And if you think separation of church and state is revisionist history, you must think the founders revised their own history themselves, as they were making it. Instead of misquoting the Declaration of Independence as if it has anything to do with the Constitution, why don't you try reading the Constitution?

Misquote? explain.

And instead of reading what Blackstone said about "natural law," why don't you try reading what John Adams and the other men who actually wrote the US Constitution wrote about US law and church and state?

Ok, I will

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

What is this -- a digest of the Calvin and Hobbes comix version of How We Got Here? You know, I honestly have to say I did not know any of this. Apparently, I was told different stuff.

Enlighten me.

I'd say it's either:

a) They counted those who accept the possibility of god(s)
b) The counted those who believe there is a god but who don't practice any particular belief system to be atheists.

I would personally be between the two: I think there might as well be a god or gods, but I highly doubt they give batshit about mankind. After all, we're just another lifeform on just another planet.

An uninvolved god, is an irrelevant god. I suppose thats what you going for lol.

Perhaps if christians didn't attack people with their faith by telling them they are going to hell if they don't believe like christians do, people wouldn't have an automatic defensive reaction, and they might just maintain an open mind towards christianity? No, it couldn't be that, because christians can do no wrong.

I wonder if you can possibly understand how old, tired and disingenuous that excuse is? You're giving yourself permission to bitch at ALL Christians even though, unless you live under a rock, you know perfectly well that not all of us ram our belief down peoples' throats. In fact, most of us are as annoyed by that as you are.

Unless you just WANT to bitch at all Christians and none of that matters.

Enlighten me.
I'll try, but I'm not optimistic.

I was referring to the logical fallacy known as "No True Scotsman" in which the arguer asserts something about a topic, is presented with counter-examples, and tries to dismiss those counter examples by claiming they do not meet some arbitrary criteria for being included in the sample set.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/notruescotsman.html

Example from the site:
(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

Applied to your remark:
(1) Some or many people who identify as Christian believe a certain thing a certain way.
(2) No (true) Christian believes that thing that way.
(3) Those people are not (true) Christians, but "Christian hypocrites."
Therefore:
(4) Those people are not examples of how Christians think, and you can exclude them from the set "Christians" when talking about that religion.

It is, however, a fallacy because you are not the definitive authority on what consitutes "Christian," and the examples you wish to exclude are not only a very large group but also do meet the criteria established by recognized definitive authorities and have done so for a very long time.

Also, please learn how to use the quote function properly.

An uninvolved god, is an irrelevant god. I suppose thats what you going for lol.
Also, please learn how to keep track of the context of comments. The person you directed the above remark to was talking very specifically about how a particular opinion poll may have framed certain questions in order to have yielded certain apparently contradictory results. He was not talking about religion. He was talking about pollsters.

Enlighten me.

I'm not sure that's really possible at this stage of the game.

How about you define 'almost everyone' and 'bashing' because I think I might have missed the news item where Christians in the US were being imprisoned without trial, herded into death camps as part of some Bush's 'War on Christianity'. Are Christians being barred from public office?

And don't forget the famous quotes from Bush stating that Christians can't be patriotic citizens.

And don't forget the famous quotes from Bush stating that Christians can't be patriotic citizens.

That was Bush Sr., right? He was such an old-fashioned Christian hater.

I'd say it's either:

a) They counted those who accept the possibility of god(s)
b) The counted those who believe there is a god but who don't practice any particular belief system to be atheists.

I would personally be between the two: I think there might as well be a god or gods, but I highly doubt they give batshit about mankind. After all, we're just another lifeform on just another planet.Or
c) They extracted from the atheists their definition of what they consider the word "God" to mean (you don't believe in 'God'? what is it, then, that you don't believe? -- I don't believe there's this Big Person Up There...)

Is this thread still going?
Geez.

it seems like the atheists all have it out for christinaity mainly

really?

my personal freedoms are violated every day by people on the street telling me i am going to hell. i leave people alone, and i get attacked for it. by our society that tries to force me to believe something that i do not. and the worst part is when because i do not believe people assume i do not have morals. the single greatest value i have is the sanctity of human life.

christians i meet ostracize me for my beliefs. i believe that people should be able to do what they want without the threat of hell demonizing everything that makes us human.

i am sorry if i seem combative, that is not my intention. also, when i say "you", i am not blaming you specifically for anything. i am refferring to our christian society.

i just wish that christians accepted my beliefs as much as i accepted theirs. i listen to their ideas. i have read the bible several times, as well as the qu'ran and the Torah. but when i try to explain my beliefs, religous people shut down and denie everything i say.

also, a little statistic. 80% of all americans believe in Satan as a literal manifestation. you are the majority. you are not the ones being attacked.

we live in a christian nation, and it is the athiests who are assaulted on the street. we let you value your beliefs, so keep them out of the laws that effect everyone and let me value mine.

Personally I find that the biggest problem for Christians is the fake Christian hypocrites. While the real Christians are trying to clean up the mess society already has changed.

Btw, those whom are not Christians cannot cite the constitution because our country was originally found as unity of Church and State despite the horrible historical revisionism that has been occurring.

Just look in the declaration of independence, where it makes a statement about being governed under "natural law", what do you think that means? Well it is talking about God's law, don't beleive me? Well, most of our founders were Lawyers correct? So go to the original law text, it was written by William Blackstone, look up natural laws.

There's this thing called Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. It was unanimously ratified. Read it, come back, and explain to the class why it means that you're horribly wrong on every level and how you don't know what you're talking about.

Read it, come back, and explain to the class why it means that you're horribly wrong on every level and how you don't know what you're talking about.

Damn. Can we still do that? Don't the parents complain?

Btw, those whom are not Christians cannot cite the constitution because our country was originally found as unity of Church and State despite the horrible historical revisionism that has been occurring.

Just look in the declaration of independence, where it makes a statement about being governed under "natural law", what do you think that means?
You might ask the author of the Declaration what he thought.

Jefferson on Jesus: "That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of god physically speaking I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself"
"The tale of the virgin birth will one day be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter"
The deification of Jesus "is mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus, the hocus-pocus phantasm of a god like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads"

Jefferson on churches: "But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in church and state"
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty,... always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own"

Jefferson on the relation between church and state: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg"
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State"

Jefferson on Jesus: "That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of god physically speaking I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself"

More learned than the founding fathers?! But… this is not possible! :eek:

What bothers me is when someone critiques other religions they are considered a ignoramus. Or a racist.:rolleyes:

Or
c) They extracted from the atheists their definition of what they consider the word "God" to mean (you don't believe in 'God'? what is it, then, that you don't believe? -- I don't believe there's this Big Person Up There...)

...except you wouldn't only have 21% with an answer to that.

And if you go deeper into it:
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf

There's a chart which describes the net number of people identifying as a particular religious affiliation who believe in God. 21% of atheists said they do, with 8% absolutely certain and 13% less certain. (page 7)

Did you know there are groups of atheist scientists who don't beleive in evolution because it is so "out there".

No, I didn't know that. I still don't know that, seeing as no actual scientist would ever talk about "believing in" a theory anyway, and I somehow doubt you're going to provide any further information on these mysterious atheist scientists.

Existentialism, there was some random cosmic stuff, it exploded into everything.

I am trying really hard to figure out what a twentieth-century philosophical movement has to do with the origins of the universe, but I just can't seem to get there. Did a universe-sized Jean-Paul Sartre pop into existence before all else, whine about the ennui of life, and then explode? Do tell!

Oh, and I love the scientific merit of statements like "there was some random cosmic stuff." I can just see the astronomical journal title now: "Researchers Discover Random Cosmic Stuff; New Information Is 'Out There,' Say Critics."

Then, one planet that we know of just happens to have massive amounts of water on it.

Good point! I mean, the odds of at least one planet in billions and billions and billions having water on it are....um, pretty astronomically high, actually. Huh.

Then, all the necessary elements for life aligned in just the right pattern and lightning struck forming a living cell.

Erm, no, probably not exactly, but do see also my previous answer.

Then it evolved over time to form irreducibly complex organisms with irreducibly complex DNA, and Highly complex amino acids. And thats why everything is the way it is.

Please show me an example of an irreducibly complex organism.

Please show me an example of irreducibly complex DNA.

Please, please tell me that when you say "it evolved," you don't actually think evolution is something that happens to an individual organism.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but realize this is what were told. I just don't have that kind of faith.

If this is what you were told, then I am deeply sorry for you. Perhaps next time you should try learning science from people with at least some rudimentary knowledge on the subject?

No, I didn't know that. I still don't know that, seeing as no actual scientist would ever talk about "believing in" a theory anyway, and I somehow doubt you're going to provide any further information on these mysterious atheist scientists.

I am certain there are quite a few readers in French Poetry that hold those beliefs. Those are scientists as well after all.
Of course, if their opinions are entirely relevant is issue number 2.

However, we once again see a classic case of "if I diss A enough I have proven B".
Clearly, me dissing the belief that everything grew from the large magical Turd of Unicornland, raised by the invisble space leopards is proving that

...the theory of evolution is correct
or that
...intelligent design is correct
or that
... the ancient Egyptians had it right with the "Atum gave himself a blowjob" story
or that
... the giant spaghetti monester did it
or that
... Whatever "theory" I fancy today is correct !

And the most beautiful thing ? I do not even have to provide ANY evidence whatsoever that my theory has any more value. I just have to diss that other one.

Because when I would go for that silly other angle, the ToE compares to ID as Mount Everest compares to a heap of fly dung. Can't have that.

I wonder if you can possibly understand how old, tired and disingenuous that excuse is? You're giving yourself permission to bitch at ALL Christians even though, unless you live under a rock, you know perfectly well that not all of us ram our belief down peoples' throats. In fact, most of us are as annoyed by that as you are.

Unless you just WANT to bitch at all Christians and none of that matters.

This is a little disingenuous, no? The Bible says the christian is under direct imperative from your 'god' to 'ram your belief' down the throats of others.

What bothers me is when someone critiques other religions they are considered a ignoramus. Or a racist.:rolleyes:

thats happens sometimes

Oh, and I love the scientific merit of statements like "there was some random cosmic stuff." I can just see the astronomical journal title now: "Researchers Discover Random Cosmic Stuff; New Information Is 'Out There,' Say Critics."

My OChem prof did always tell us that a lot of chemistry was "hand waving". =)


This is a little disingenuous, no? The Bible says the christian is under direct imperative from your 'god' to 'ram your belief' down the throats of others.

Does spreading the Gospel necessarily require such methods?

I think it was Francis of Assisi who said something along the lines of "Preach often. If necessary, use words."

*facepalm*
This is why religious debate is one of my pet hates.
Don't get me wrong, Political Debates are obviously the way foreword, but that's because they GET SOMEWHERE.
Religious debate never works because beliefs are something you hold dearest, you aren't willing for someone else to ridicule or destroy them.
Religion is a very important personal decision and should be obviously chosen by you and only you, no one else. You should be able to look at the facts and beliefs of the religions (I have no problem with discussing or sharing your religion's beliefs, it's when we start shoving them around it breaks down) and then choose (or reject) for yourself.
It's also madness when people start quoting "facts" about religions in attempts to destroy it, "The Bible says X, so X must be X" and "Yeah well your stupid religion said X did X, how stupid is that?", the main stigma about religion is that there is no evidence for or against any. Therefore, does it not seem silly that we're bombarding each other with information? One can only prove anything to oneself. Sure, we (or perhaps, most of us) rely on science as fact, but nearly none of it is proven to us directly. Have you got an electron microscope at home you used to prove to yourself about the shell theory? (If you have, good on you, but you may have wasted a lot of cash, unless you plan to use it as a weapon when zombies invade).

and it is the athiests who are assaulted on the street.

Did you report your assaults to the police?

The whole thing sounds a lot like TI saying that Christians are bashed on all the time very exaggerated.

Oh and almost all laws are beliefs which affect us it may not be religious beliefs but someone’s belief went behind a law wether it is the speed limit on an open road (a belief which I disagree with) or free trade agreements even fiscal policy is based on peoples beliefs it may not be religious beliefs but they are still beliefs and if we went along with your belief that beliefs should be kept out of law then we wouldn't have many laws, which may be a good thing but then even that line of thinking is a belief.

If there is any bashing, then that is out of frustration. Christians are not good discussion partners when it concerns religion. It always ends with the faith before evidence thing.

The frustration comes from not getting satisfactory answers when I ask them simple questions.

Jesus is a river. There is a Christian floating by, opening his arms to catch me as if I'm crying for help. "Come with Jesus, Jesus saves". Maybe we atheists should be happy they believe in something imaginary.

If there is any bashing, then that is out of frustration. Christians are not good discussion partners when it concerns religion. It always ends with the faith before evidence thing.

The frustration comes from not getting satisfactory answers when I ask them simple questions.

Jesus is a river. There is a Christian floating by, opening his arms to catch me as if I'm crying for help. "Come with Jesus, Jesus saves". Maybe we atheists should be happy they believe in something imaginary.

This was my point exactly, these "debates" degenerate quickly, if you don't have any respect for anyone else's beliefs why shouldn't they belittle your own?
I'm not saying Bergeijk doesn't respect, it looks like he was provoked by Fundamentalist Christians, but he fails to realise it's religion not science, it relies on faith, not evidence, not realising that leaves you completely ignorant of the whole situation.

There's this thing called Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. It was unanimously ratified. Read it, come back, and explain to the class why it means that you're horribly wrong on every level and how you don't know what you're talking about.

I think people misinterpret that for the use of their own agenda, the purpose of Article 11 was to state the disposition between the U.S. and Muslim Nations as peaceful. If I'm wrong explain to me the use of the New England Primer.

"those who preach do not know, those who know do not preach"
-Lao tzu

a lot can be learned from this quote. digest it, analyze it

I follow no religion, i am a spiritualist

so today 2 years ago i met my spirit guides after meditating and slipping into alpha phase deep meditation

all they said was

Female: Should we tell him?
Male: NO

and yes i could actually hear them, but did not answer back because i was scared ****less

take that Christians!

namaste,

TOI

really?

my personal freedoms are violated every day by people on the street telling me i am going to hell. i leave people alone, and i get attacked for it. by our society that tries to force me to believe something that i do not. and the worst part is when because i do not believe people assume i do not have morals. the single greatest value i have is the sanctity of human life.

christians i meet ostracize me for my beliefs. i believe that people should be able to do what they want without the threat of hell demonizing everything that makes us human.

i am sorry if i seem combative, that is not my intention. also, when i say "you", i am not blaming you specifically for anything. i am refferring to our christian society.

i just wish that christians accepted my beliefs as much as i accepted theirs. i listen to their ideas. i have read the bible several times, as well as the qu'ran and the Torah. but when i try to explain my beliefs, religous people shut down and denie everything i say.

also, a little statistic. 80% of all americans believe in Satan as a literal manifestation. you are the majority. you are not the ones being attacked.

we live in a christian nation, and it is the athiests who are assaulted on the street. we let you value your beliefs, so keep them out of the laws that effect everyone and let me value mine.

That all depends on where you live, try being Christian in New York. But know that you at least have a defense, when Christians are ostracizing you, you can just say how ungodly they are being, Pharisaical Christians are the few people i can not tolerate. That and people who call you "Closed minded and wrong" Honestly, I've had people state their opinion and then when i peacefully disagree they say I'm closed minded and I'm wrong with an almost violent reaction. Ok? Sorry for not completely agreeing with you?

Wow. I guess everything really is bigger in Texas.

You know, like your ego. But not like your cranial capacity.

Thats horrible... you don't even know how old they are. How can you be so disrespectful? It was silly, but it wasn't offensive in any way.

"those who preach do not know, those who know do not preach"
-Lao tzu

a lot can be learned from this quote. digest it, analyze it

I follow no religion, i am a spiritualist

so today 2 years ago i met my spirit guides after meditating and slipping into alpha phase deep meditation

all they said was

Female: Should we tell him?
Male: NO

and yes i could actually hear them, but did not answer back because i was scared ****less

take that Christians!

namaste,

TOI

I'm lost, what are we taking?

I'll try, but I'm not optimistic.

I was referring to the logical fallacy known as "No True Scotsman" in which the arguer asserts something about a topic, is presented with counter-examples, and tries to dismiss those counter examples by claiming they do not meet some arbitrary criteria for being included in the sample set.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/notruescotsman.html

Example from the site:


Applied to your remark:
(1) Some or many people who identify as Christian believe a certain thing a certain way.
(2) No (true) Christian believes that thing that way.
(3) Those people are not (true) Christians, but "Christian hypocrites."
Therefore:
(4) Those people are not examples of how Christians think, and you can exclude them from the set "Christians" when talking about that religion.

It is, however, a fallacy because you are not the definitive authority on what consitutes "Christian," and the examples you wish to exclude are not only a very large group but also do meet the criteria established by recognized definitive authorities and have done so for a very long time.


Well standard is love. Jesus said that the most important commandment is to love God and love one another. So if a Christian is not being loving, he can hardly call himself a Christian.

Also, please learn how to use the quote function properly.


Also, please learn how to keep track of the context of comments. The person you directed the above remark to was talking very specifically about how a particular opinion poll may have framed certain questions in order to have yielded certain apparently contradictory results. He was not talking about religion. He was talking about pollsters.

Then he stated his own belief which i commented on.

I'm not sure that's really possible at this stage of the game.

Thank you for stating my extreme ignorance. I'll keep that in mind.

If there is any bashing, then that is out of frustration. Christians are not good discussion partners when it concerns religion. It always ends with the faith before evidence thing.

The frustration comes from not getting satisfactory answers when I ask them simple questions.

Jesus is a river. There is a Christian floating by, opening his arms to catch me as if I'm crying for help. "Come with Jesus, Jesus saves". Maybe we atheists should be happy they believe in something imaginary.
While in many cases I agree, I wouldn't say that Christians are inherently bad for discussing religion. On this forum, for example, I've had good discussions with several Christians, such as Dempublicents1 (and others).

This was my point exactly, these "debates" degenerate quickly, if you don't have any respect for anyone else's beliefs why shouldn't they belittle your own?
I'm not saying Bergeijk doesn't respect, it looks like he was provoked by Fundamentalist Christians, but he fails to realise it's religion not science, it relies on faith, not evidence, not realising that leaves you completely ignorant of the whole situation.

I know you weren't talking about me, but --
I do realize religion is about faith, not evidence. This is precisely my problem with it. I think beliefs should be held based on evidence, reason, and objectivity.

I'm lost, what are we taking?

who knows, i just was tired of al lthe religious talk

who knows, i just was tired of al lthe religious talk

Lolzies

I think people misinterpret that for the use of their own agenda, the purpose of Article 11 was to state the disposition between the U.S. and Muslim Nations as peaceful. If I'm wrong explain to me the use of the New England Primer.

The New England Primer? A completely irrelevant document predated the foundation of the United States by over one hundred years? That's your argument. I give you fucking law, and you give me that? Incidentally, read Article 11. It explicitly states that the U.S. is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion. If you interpret it another way, you have the worst understanding of grammar ever.

The New England Primer? A completely irrelevant document predated the foundation of the United States by over one hundred years? That's your argument. I give you fucking law, and you give me that? Incidentally, read Article 11. It explicitly states that the U.S. is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion. If you interpret it another way, you have the worst understanding of grammar ever.

Actually, if you research, The New England Primer was used into the 19th century and proves the intertwining of Christianity and Education.

Article 11 of this Treaty is Hardly Law, but negotiation. At the time the Atlantic had been under the control of Muslim North African States of the Barbary coast through privateering (government sanctioned piracy). They considered themselves at war with anyone who did not have a treaty with them. So tell me, when your negotiating with Muslim pirates (I'm not calling Muslims pirates...), would you say, Oh yes, Were the Religious Christians in the world, but leave us alone. After the Crusades, I doubt that would work. Also what we read is a crude interpretation of Arabic into old English, not that that matters.

That all depends on where you live, try being Christian in New York. But know that you at least have a defense, when Christians are ostracizing you, you can just say how ungodly they are being, Pharisaical Christians are the few people i can not tolerate. That and people who call you "Closed minded and wrong" Honestly, I've had people state their opinion and then when i peacefully disagree they say I'm closed minded and I'm wrong with an almost violent reaction. Ok? Sorry for not completely agreeing with you?

Really? Can you explain just how Christian's in New York have it so bad? I'm sure a lot of us are quite curious.

Really? Can you explain just how Christian's in New York have it so bad? I'm sure a lot of us are quite curious.

They do not get their way in every single detail and are expected to consider others.

Oh, and cabs honk at them.

They do not get their way in every single detail and are expected to consider others.

Oh, and cabs honk at them.

Heh.

Article 11 of this Treaty is Hardly Law
Epic fail.
"all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" -- US Constitution, Article VI

Four things in one post that you just don't seem to get:
Originally Posted by Muravyets
I'll try, but I'm not optimistic.

I was referring to the logical fallacy known as "No True Scotsman" in which the arguer asserts something about a topic, is presented with counter-examples, and tries to dismiss those counter examples by claiming they do not meet some arbitrary criteria for being included in the sample set.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/notruescotsman.html

Example from the site:


Applied to your remark:
(1) Some or many people who identify as Christian believe a certain thing a certain way.
(2) No (true) Christian believes that thing that way.
(3) Those people are not (true) Christians, but "Christian hypocrites."
Therefore:
(4) Those people are not examples of how Christians think, and you can exclude them from the set "Christians" when talking about that religion.

It is, however, a fallacy because you are not the definitive authority on what consitutes "Christian," and the examples you wish to exclude are not only a very large group but also do meet the criteria established by recognized definitive authorities and have done so for a very long time.


Well standard is love. Jesus said that the most important commandment is to love God and love one another. So if a Christian is not being loving, he can hardly call himself a Christian.
1) You still have not told me what makes you the authority on what criteria a person has to meet to be a Christian. All you are doing here is picking another criterion with which to exclude others from the set "Christian." So it's still the same fallacy unless you have something back it up with.

Also, please learn how to use the quote function properly.
2) I am going to explain this once. Please save these instructions for future use.

Quotes are set off thusly: [ QUOTE ]texttexttext[ /QUOTE ] (but with no spaces; these are used to keep the quote code from activating.)

When you want to break up someone's post to respond to different parts of it, put [ QUOTE ] and [ /QUOTE ] at the beginning and end of each section. Then type your comment after the [ /QUOTE ]

Use the Preview Post button to make sure you did it right before posting it.


Also, please learn how to keep track of the context of comments. The person you directed the above remark to was talking very specifically about how a particular opinion poll may have framed certain questions in order to have yielded certain apparently contradictory results. He was not talking about religion. He was talking about pollsters.Then he stated his own belief which i commented on.
3) Only he was not stating a belief about religion. He was stating a belief about the pollsters.

4) Writing all your comments in bold doesn't make them better.

Does spreading the Gospel necessarily require such methods?

I think it was Francis of Assisi who said something along the lines of "Preach often. If necessary, use words."

You can argue that living the lifestyle is a good advertisement for the philosophy, or whatever... but, while I consider that a preferable and more sophisticated approach, I really don't think you can make an argument of it as the sum and substance of witnessing.

Of course, looking at the history of the scripture, there's little reason to believe that the 'great commission' was in any of the earliest incarnations of 'the church'... but if you take the whole canonical bible as a given, I think you really have to be buttonholing.

More's the pity.

But then, the best of all worlds is probably not to take the whole scripture as equal.

Actually, if you research, The New England Primer was used into the 19th century and proves the intertwining of Christianity and Education.

Article 11 of this Treaty is Hardly Law, but negotiation. At the time the Atlantic had been under the control of Muslim North African States of the Barbary coast through privateering (government sanctioned piracy). They considered themselves at war with anyone who did not have a treaty with them. So tell me, when your negotiating with Muslim pirates (I'm not calling Muslims pirates...), would you say, Oh yes, Were the Religious Christians in the world, but leave us alone. After the Crusades, I doubt that would work. Also what we read is a crude interpretation of Arabic into old English, not that that matters.
Let me get this straight: Is it your contention that because many Americans are Christians, that means that US law and the Constitution are based on the Christian religion? And are you arguing this in spite of the specific declarations in the Constitution itself, in the other writings of the authors of the Constitution and the nation's founders, in US treaties, and in various other legal decisions and governmental actions over the years, that directly contradict your claim and state clearly that the US government is secular in nature, not religious?

Futhermore, is it your contention that the Treaty of Tripoli was lying because the US government was afraid of Muslims? Or do you think it was because they were afraid of pirates? Are you under the impression that, if only they had known that the Americans were Christian, the Muslims, or pirates, or whatever you are talking about, would have immediately attacked them? Do you think that those Muslims did not know that the Americans were Christians?

All of that seems extremely unlikely to me, whereas, it seems far more likely that the Treaty of Tripoli was stating with complete honesty that the US government is not a religious organization, so that, no matter what Muslims might think of Christians or vice versa, the US government does not represent the Christian side of that relationship, and a deal with the US government has nothing to do with religion, regardless of the relgion of any given representative of that government. In other words, that the US government is secular. The reason this seems likely to me is that the separation of church and state was enshrined in the US government by the men who invented it, who were the same people who wrote the Treaty of Tripoli.

They were religious men who wanted and built a secular government. Deal with it.

Really? Can you explain just how Christian's in New York have it so bad? I'm sure a lot of us are quite curious.
I'd like to know this, too. I'm from NYC, and I have lots and lots of both Catholic and Protestant friends from that city, and not one of them has ever seemed to have a hard time because of their religion.

You know, for the longest time, I couldn't understand why some people, despite the words of the constitution, despite agreements entered into by our fledging nation, despite the very words of the founders themselves, absolutly insisted that we are a "christian nation". But then I figured it out.

You see, these people believe the founders were christian (not quite right but let's go with that) and in addition are so arrogant in their beliefs, so utterly assured in the validity of their beliefs, so totally and utterly wrapped up in the idea that they are right and everyone else is wrong, that if they ever had the chance to enforce their religion by law, would most assuredly take it. Therefore the idea that others, if given the same opportunity, would not take it, is so utterly incomprehensible, so totally confrontational to their world view, that they just can't accept it. Such an utterly foreign idea, they insist, despite all evidence, that "america is a christian nation" because they simply are unable to understand that there are people out there who actually don't wish to push their faith on others

You know, for the longest time, I couldn't understand why some people, despite the words of the constitution, despite agreements entered into by our fledging nation, despite the very words of the founders themselves, absolutly insisted that we are a "christian nation". But then I figured it out.

You see, these people believe the founders were christian (not quite right but let's go with that) and in addition are so arrogant in their beliefs, so utterly assured in the validity of their beliefs, so totally and utterly wrapped up in the idea that they are right and everyone else is wrong, that if they ever had the chance to enforce their religion by law, would most assuredly take it. Therefore the idea that others, if given the same opportunity, would not take it, is so utterly incomprehensible, so totally confrontational to their world view, that they just can't accept it. Such an utterly foreign idea, they insist, despite all evidence, that "america is a christian nation" because they simply are unable to understand that there are people out there who actually don't wish to push their faith on others
Yeah, I'm thinking that's the case. Ironic, when you think about the founders themselves.

Really? Can you explain just how Christian's in New York have it so bad? I'm sure a lot of us are quite curious.

New York has the most media of any state, and who ever controls the media controls the culture and the masses. People are incline to stick their noses up at you if your not worldly and accept the idea's of relativism and post modernism. I suppose thats getting a little specific but you get the idea. Christianity is like the plague in New York, and most people are disillusioned by the Catholic Church to begin with. I don't blame them.

They do not get their way in every single detail and are expected to consider others.

Oh, and cabs honk at them.




Your Kind.

Let me get this straight: Is it your contention that because many Americans are Christians, that means that US law and the Constitution are based on the Christian religion? And are you arguing this in spite of the specific declarations in the Constitution itself, in the other writings of the authors of the Constitution and the nation's founders, in US treaties, and in various other legal decisions and governmental actions over the years, that directly contradict your claim and state clearly that the US government is secular in nature, not religious?

No actually i'm just screwing with you.

Futhermore, is it your contention that the Treaty of Tripoli was lying because the US government was afraid of Muslims? Or do you think it was because they were afraid of pirates? Are you under the impression that, if only they had known that the Americans were Christian, the Muslims, or pirates, or whatever you are talking about, would have immediately attacked them? Do you think that those Muslims did not know that the Americans were Christians?

Yes absolutely terrified of the one eyed, woodenlegged, scurvy afflicted, Muslim pirates.

All of that seems extremely unlikely to me, whereas, it seems far more likely that the Treaty of Tripoli was stating with complete honesty that the US government is not a religious organization, so that, no matter what Muslims might think of Christians or vice versa, the US government does not represent the Christian side of that relationship, and a deal with the US government has nothing to do with religion, regardless of the relgion of any given representative of that government. In other words, that the US government is secular. The reason this seems likely to me is that the separation of church and state was enshrined in the US government by the men who invented it, who were the same people who wrote the Treaty of Tripoli.

No actually I wrote it.

They were religious men who wanted and built a secular government. Deal with it.

No they weren't, they were actually Dolphin men who wanted to build a Kitty government.

I'd like to know this, too. I'm from NYC, and I have lots and lots of both Catholic and Protestant friends from that city, and not one of them has ever seemed to have a hard time because of their religion.

You know, for the longest time, I couldn't understand why some people, despite the words of the constitution, despite agreements entered into by our fledging nation, despite the very words of the founders themselves, absolutly insisted that we are a "christian nation". But then I figured it out.

You see, these people believe the founders were christian (not quite right but let's go with that) and in addition are so arrogant in their beliefs, so utterly assured in the validity of their beliefs, so totally and utterly wrapped up in the idea that they are right and everyone else is wrong, that if they ever had the chance to enforce their religion by law, would most assuredly take it. Therefore the idea that others, if given the same opportunity, would not take it, is so utterly incomprehensible, so totally confrontational to their world view, that they just can't accept it. Such an utterly foreign idea, they insist, despite all evidence, that "america is a christian nation" because they simply are unable to understand that there are people out there who actually don't wish to push their faith on others

Yes that is exactly how it is. I'm glad you have such insight into my mind. Nobody else understands me.

New York has the most media of any state, and who ever controls the media controls the culture and the masses. People are incline to stick their noses up at you if your not worldly and accept the idea's of relativism and post modernism. I suppose thats getting a little specific but you get the idea. Christianity is like the plague in New York, and most people are disillusioned by the Catholic Church to begin with. I don't blame them.

That would make sense if the media wasn't controlled by Christians.

Try again.

That would make sense if the media wasn't controlled by Christians.

Try again.

Could be worse. Your Media could be controlled by a bunch of lunatics stuck in a sixties time-warp.

That would make sense if the media wasn't controlled by Christians.

Try again.

Your going to have to explain to me how that works, because I'm completely lost.

The media is everything that is worldly and secular. And it really doesn't make a difference but, my cousin is in advertising, her boyfriend is in advertising, and all her friends are in advertising. Coincidentally, they are all atheists. I don't know what gives you the impression that the media is Christian, but let me assure you, that is everything that Christianity is not (or at least should not be).

Your going to have to explain to me how that works, because I'm completely lost.

The media is everything that is worldly and secular. And it really doesn't make a difference but, my cousin is in advertising, her boyfriend is in advertising, and all her friends are in advertising. Coincidentally, they are all atheists. I don't know what gives you the impression that the media is Christian, but let me assure you, that is everything that Christianity is not (or at least should not be).

Any proof for this beyond worthless anecdotes?

New York has the most media of any state, and who ever controls the media controls the culture and the masses. People are incline to stick their noses up at you if your not worldly and accept the idea's of relativism and post modernism. I suppose thats getting a little specific but you get the idea. Christianity is like the plague in New York, and most people are disillusioned by the Catholic Church to begin with. I don't blame them.
So you don't actually have any instances of Christians being given a hard time in New York? No news reports, no statistics or police/local government reports, no reports done by religious groups, not even any personal anecdotes to share with us as examples of what you're talking about?

No actually i'm just screwing with you.
Oh, good. For a while there you had me worried.


Yes absolutely terrified of the one eyed, woodenlegged, scurvy afflicted, Muslim pirates.
Arr for Allah.


No actually I wrote it.
Really? Then I'm surprised you didn't know what it was about.


No they weren't, they were actually Dolphin men who wanted to build a Kitty government.
A Hello Kitty government. *nods*

Your going to have to explain to me how that works, because I'm completely lost.

The media is everything that is worldly and secular. And it really doesn't make a difference but, my cousin is in advertising, her boyfriend is in advertising, and all her friends are in advertising. Coincidentally, they are all atheists. I don't know what gives you the impression that the media is Christian, but let me assure you, that is everything that Christianity is not (or at least should not be).
Precisely what does the horrid wretchedness of the advertising industry and the atheism of a few individuals have to do with how Christians get treated in New York?

Any proof for this beyond worthless anecdotes?
I'd settle for an anecdote at this point, as long as it was about a Christian being given a hard time in New York.

But let's give Pantalunis points for figuring out the quote function.

So you don't actually have any instances of Christians being given a hard time in New York? No news reports, no statistics or police/local government reports, no reports done by religious groups, not even any personal anecdotes to share with us as examples of what you're talking about?

Im not talking about public lynchings, I'm talking about acceptance into society. If you want an anecdote I have been screamed at for being a christian by someone i didn't even know(with a rather large group behind them) because they heard I was against gay marriage or something.

Im not talking about public lynchings, I'm talking about acceptance into society. If you want an anecdote I have been screamed at for being a christian by someone i didn't even know(with a rather large group behind them) because they heard I was against gay marriage or something.

You weren't being bashed, then, for being a Christian, but for being a bigot.

Any proof for this beyond worthless anecdotes?

Are you kidding me? Proof? MTV and every corporation who has ever used anything inappropriate or idolatrous in their advertisements? 95% of the movies that have come out in the last 8 years.

Everything that is unholy (aka Abercrombie and Fitch Lolzies)

Im not talking about public lynchings, I'm talking about acceptance into society. If you want an anecdote I have been screamed at for being a christian by someone i didn't even know(with a rather large group behind them) because they heard I was against gay marriage or something.

how did this crowd know that you are christian and how did they know you are against gay marriage?

did strangers suddenly accost you and yell at you without any prelude?

Are you kidding me? Proof? MTV and every corporation who has ever used anything inappropriate or idolatrous in their advertisements? 95% of the movies that have come out in the last 8 years.

Everything that is unholy (aka Abercrombie and Fitch Lolzies)

things that are not specifically religious are anti-christian?

You weren't being bashed, then, for being a Christian, but for being a bigot.

A bigot? That is horrible, you don't even know me. I'm not trying to be aggressive but give me a break. I'm not shoving anything down anybodies throat, or oppressing anyone. I am entitled to my opinion, i have gay friends lol.

You weren't being bashed, then, for being a Christian, but for being a bigot.

Btw I'm friends with that person now and she apologized.

A bigot? That is horrible, you don't even know me. I'm not trying to be aggressive but give me a break. I'm not shoving anything down anybodies throat, or oppressing anyone. I am entitled to my opinion, i have gay friends lol.

"I'm not racist, I have a black friend!"

things that are not specifically religious are anti-christian?

Not anti-christian but worldly, someone said that the media was controlled by Christians which is outrageous.

"I'm not racist, I have a black friend!"

Thank you for building me up so.

how did this crowd know that you are christian and how did they know you are against gay marriage?

did strangers suddenly accost you and yell at you without any prelude?



This was in a school. Which pretty much explains it all.

Thank you for building me up so.

To elaborate:

If somebody supported segregation, but then said "I'm not racist! I even have a black friend!" would you think they're racist? Of course they are!

Same thing.

Im not talking about public lynchings, I'm talking about acceptance into society. If you want an anecdote I have been screamed at for being a christian by someone i didn't even know(with a rather large group behind them) because they heard I was against gay marriage or something.

Like Ashmoria, I would also like to know how this person knew that you were a Christian and that you oppose gay marriage. And this large crowd, were they actually participating in the being against you process, or did they just happen to be standing behind the person who yelled at you? Was this at some kind of demonstration or similar event? Is there any reason for us to believe you were targeted or maltreated solely because you were a Christian, as opposed to in the context of a Christian-based message against gay marriage? I would have been interested to hear exactly what the person said to you.

When you're just walking down a street in NY, do people give you a hard time for being a Christian? Have you ever been hassled at school or work for being a Christian? Do Christian churches get vandalized in NY any more than mosques and synagogues do? Are there specifically anti-Christian messages displayed in any form whatsoever in NY? I don't mean stuff that you just think is out of keeping with a Christian lifestyle. I mean stuff that is opposing Christianity or saying bad things about Christians.

Not anti-christian but worldly, someone said that the media was controlled by Christians which is outrageous.

Lots of Christians do not divorce themselves from the material world in all ways. Is this another attempt at the logical fallacy of claiming without supporting evidence that some people are not "true" Christians?

This was in a school. Which pretty much explains it all.

no it doesnt explain it at all.

there is a big difference between a classmate finding out that you are a devout christian and yelling at you for being a fool because of it and a discussion of gay rights where you advocate denying civil rights to a group of people based on your religious beliefs and being yelled at for that.

Not anti-christian but worldly, someone said that the media was controlled by Christians which is outrageous.

It is possible to be both Christian, and worldly.

You fail.

It is possible to be both Christian, and worldly.

You fail.

True, but I'd say it's impossible to a Christian and not loose some level of rationality in thinking, no matter how figuratively you take the Bible.

Lots of Christians do not divorce themselves from the material world in all ways. Is this another attempt at the logical fallacy of claiming without supporting evidence that some people are not "true" Christians?

Your comments on this subjects are begging verses, but i don't want you to subject that to you. Let's just say that if most "Christians" read the bible independently the world would be a very different place.

no it doesnt explain it at all.

there is a big difference between a classmate finding out that you are a devout christian and yelling at you for being a fool because of it and a discussion of gay rights where you advocate denying civil rights to a group of people based on your religious beliefs and being yelled at for that.

Ok, if you insist. A friend of mine, in a joking manner, told this girl that I'm a Christian and that I think homosexuality is wrong (Im not getting into that debate, it is like any other sin, gays aren't demon spawn). So she gathers her friends and verbally attacks me. Very loudly lol.

Ok, if you insist. A friend of mine, in a joking manner, told this girl that I'm a Christian and that I think homosexuality is wrong (Im not getting into that debate, it is like any other sin, gays aren't demon spawn). So she gathers her friends and verbally attacks me. Very loudly lol.
Wow, so you think people sin based on something they have no control of?

Thanks for reminding me again why Christianity is irrelevant.

To elaborate:

If somebody supported segregation, but then said "I'm not racist! I even have a black friend!" would you think they're racist? Of course they are!

Same thing.

Yes, I know what you mean, but I think you know what i mean as well. Just because I think it is wrong doesn't mean I hate gay people. I've lied before, I'm human and so are they. I'm very accepting of my Gay friends even if I don't condone it.

Wow, so you think people sin based on something they have no control of?

Thanks for reminding me again why Christianity is irrelevant.

That is another debate...

True, but I'd say it's impossible to a Christian and not loose some level of rationality in thinking, no matter how figuratively you take the Bible.
How so?

Where does the loss in rationality occur?

There are some very (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSTAagcaFN0) rational (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIxWcVXRxjU&feature=related) Christians (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpPxuk61SdM&feature=related).

Yes, I know what you mean, but I think you know what i mean as well. Just because I think it is wrong doesn't mean I hate gay people. I've lied before, I'm human and so are they. I'm very accepting of my Gay friends even if I don't condone it.

That makes no sense at all.

Being homophobic and being racist are no different, because you are discriminating against an individual over something they have no control over. You trying to gloss over this fact with your 'I've got gay friends' is quite frankly absurd.

It is possible to be both Christian, and worldly.

You fail.

You can call yourself a christian and be worldly, but "Worldly Christian" should be an oxymoron, sadly in America it is not. I don't think people really know what Christianity is, not to belittle or anything. But to call a Christian worldly is one of the worst insults you can offer, not that they should be offended. Because they shouldn't.

You succeed.

That makes no sense at all.

Being homophobic and being racist are no different, because you are discriminating against an individual over something they have no control over. You trying to gloss over this fact with your 'I've got gay friends' is quite frankly absurd.

1: I don't beleive they have no control over it.

2: I'm not discriminating.

3: I'm not trying to gloss over anything.

Btw, what your view on people who are bi? Just out of curiosity.

1: I don't beleive they have no control over it.

2: I'm not discriminating.

3: I'm not trying to gloss over anything.

Btw, what your view on people who are bi? Just out of curiosity.
Yes, I know what you mean, but I think you know what i mean as well. Just because I think it is wrong to be black doesn't mean I hate black people. I've lied before, I'm human and so are they. I'm very accepting of my black friends even if I don't condone them being black.

Your comments on this subjects are begging verses, but i don't want you to subject that to you. Let's just say that if most "Christians" read the bible independently the world would be a very different place.

and just what difference would it make?

what beliefs do you think a christian would change if only he read the bible independantly that would change the world?

and just what difference would it make?

what beliefs do you think a christian would change if only he read the bible independantly that would change the world?

I don't know if you read it or not, but it paints a very different picture of how a person should be then you see of Christians in our society.

For instance I didn't want to bring verses into this, but it's my favorite and it shows you what i mean.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7

4: Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

How many people do you know like this? I know you aren't a christian but isn't that amazing? :)

Also just in case you didn't know, the golden rule also comes from the bible, and even as basic as that is, a lot of Christians don't do so.

Yes, I know what you mean, but I think you know what i mean as well. Just because I think it is wrong to be black doesn't mean I hate black people. I've lied before, I'm human and so are they. I'm very accepting of my black friends even if I don't condone them being black.

One more time.

I don't beleive they have no control over it.

I don't beleive it is genetic.

I don't beleive it is a mental disorder.

I beleive it is a choice.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7

4: Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

How many people do you know like this? I know you aren't a christian but isn't that amazing? :)
It is a beautiful verse, yes.

Also just in case you didn't know, the golden rule also comes from the bible
It also exists, in some form or another, in every single religion in the world, along with many non-theological philosophical outlooks.

I beleive it is a choice.
Are you actually saying being homosexual requires every individual to make a conscious choice?

I have to say that their is alot of problems with that theory, for example I am heterosexual and you couldn't force me to make the 'choice' to be homosexual, no offense but I am not attracted to other guys, I think that can be applied to other people as well.

It is a beautiful verse, yes.

Thank you.

It also exists, in some form or another, in every single religion in the world, along with many non-theological philosophical outlooks.

Yes I'm aware, that was kind of the point, it is so basic, yet many people do not comply.

1: I don't beleive they have no control over it.

They have as much control over it as a heterosexual does. That is to say they can keep it in their pants. Not so much for attraction.

2: I'm not discriminating.

But since you think it is wrong, a sin, ect. One could view you as the type who is against same-sex marriage, adoption, sex, ect. Which would be discrimination.

3: I'm not trying to gloss over anything.

Varnish then?

Btw, what your view on people who are bi? Just out of curiosity.

Lucky.

Are you actually saying being homosexual requires every individual to make a conscious choice?

I have to say that their is alot of problems with that theory, for example I am heterosexual and you couldn't force me to make the 'choice' to be homosexual, no offense but I am not attracted to other guys, I think that can be applied to other people as well.

Yes, but every individual is different, some may struggle with one thing, and others another. Not that it compares in any way, but some people feel the need to compulsively steal, that does not make it Ok.

I beleive it is a choice.

You know what? Even if it was, what does it matter? Why should anyone be treated poorly in any way for something that doesn't matter in the slightest?

Thank you.
Thank Paul. :p

Yes I'm aware, that was kind of the point, it is so basic, yet many people do not comply.
Well, there are a number of objections (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#Criticisms) to the position.

Also Pantalunis, you would also think that if being homosexual was a choice then their would be alot more of a public knowledge and record of young people coming into their teens 'deciding' if they like guys or gals. And also how would such a 'decision' to be made? Because if you are suggesting an unconscious decision, then that itself brings up alot of problems in your theory.

I don't know if you read it or not, but it paints a very different picture of how a person should be then you see of Christians in our society.

For instance I didn't want to bring verses into this, but it's my favorite and it shows you what i mean.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7

4: Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

How many people do you know like this? I know you aren't a christian but isn't that amazing? :)

Also just in case you didn't know, the golden rule also comes from the bible, and even as basic as that is, a lot of Christians don't do so.

what christians do you think havent heard those passages many many times?

But since you think it is wrong, a sin, ect. One could view you as the type who is against same-sex marriage, adoption, sex, ect. Which would be discrimination.

Yes but I do not beleive you are born so, I discriminate against a Homosexual just as much as I discriminate against a gossip. You do not give a gossip your valuable information. I know it doesn't compare but I can't think of another example.

They still have the right to have sex, marry, and adopt with the opposite sex.

Lucky.

Interesting.

I beleive it is a choice.

So at what point were you equally attracted to men and women and you made the choice to be attracted only to one?

At what point did you decide what your reaction to male and female pheremones would be?