Thoughts on the state of "atheist vs. theist"
Offline This is troubling me, and I think it is why I keep coming back here. I am a Christian, therefore, my arguments come from that Christian worldview. Oftentimes I have simply reiterated a Christian point, and then, to my surprise several people attack what I have said, called me a liar, arrogant, rude, prideful, etc. And I’m left wondering, what on earth did I say that incited so much anger? Truth is, I am a caring person who wants to improve and make a positive impact on the world. I love animals, I respect the earth, I think we need to take better care of it. If I’ve harmed someone, I want to make amends, etc. So, I honestly do not understand where your anger comes from. Is it simply because I don't agree with you?
Taking my Christianity out of the equation, I am a person, I have opinions, I feel strongly about my opinions because they have been formed from decades of searching, thinking, turning things over in my mind. I am no different than you, in that respect. It just so happens that you came to different conclusions than me. But, I can tell, you feel equally strongly about your beliefs and feel I would be better off if I were atheist. You know that I feel you would have a richer experience in this life if you believed in God, not necessarily even the Christian God. So, tho our opinions are different, the way we are approach each other is really not so different. In light of that, what I do not understand is why we cannot converse like adults, hear each other’s view points, accept that we are both attempting to influence the other side with those view points, and let go of all the meanness and personal put downs?
I don’t know who here is American, but what I see happening in this country and throughout the world is deeply troubling. There is a divide growing between the secular and religious communities, and the two need to come back to the center and start communicating better in order to make some honest compromises. We have to live in this world together. You are never going to eradicate the worship of God, I am never going to get everyone to see the need to worship God. Most likely, you are not going to deconvert me, nor am I going to convert you. So, can we, instead start listening, and refrain from judging others ideas as stupid, baseless, juvenile?
Also, I do not feel the “delusional” label you have placed on theists is going to get us anywhere positive. I can just as easily call you delusional. The fact is, you are not in my brain, I am not in yours. You have not had my experiences, I have not had yours. So, you can no more honestly judge me delusional than I can judge you.
- Login to post comments
. We are judged, and people attempt to make us feel inferior constantly. We do the only thing we can, we argue and discuss. We aren't going to force people to shut up, because we realize that the same free speech we enjoy also protects them. We realize that to violate their rights, will lead to our rights being violated in the future. 
This is troubling me, and I think it is why I keep coming back here. I am a Christian, therefore, my arguments come from that Christian worldview.
Christians don't all share the same world view. Some of you are vague and new-agey, others believe “god” punished New Orleans for sin and that before the world ends they'll fly into the sky bodily. The only commonality to the religious conceit is its confession of the priorities and insecurities of its bearer. Your views, for example, reflect middle state insulation, overpowering neediness and willful ignorance.
Oftentimes I have simply reiterated a Christian point, and then, to my surprise several people attack what I have said, called me a liar, arrogant, rude, prideful, etc.
I don't acknowledge there being a “Christian point.” Even the personality and attitudes of the central mythical figure are inconsistent across believers claiming the same label. From what I've seen the appeal of the idea of an overriding authority figure is it gives theists an authority to appeal to when their argument flounders in an intellectual or material arena.
I love animals, I respect the earth, I think we need to take better care of it.
Is that a Christian point of view?
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” -Genesis 1:26
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” -Genesis 1:28
“When the last tree is felled, Christ will return.“ -James G. Watt, Secretary of the Interior under President Reagan
If I’ve harmed someone, I want to make amends, etc. So, I honestly do not understand where your anger comes from. Is it simply because I don't agree with you?
You're playing the victim and attacking a straw-man. The first thread you started challenged atheists to “convert” you; in reply, you preached a lot of garbage to further your premise that atheism originates in a bad church experience. That was a cheap attempt to characterize the position as a knee-jerk response rather than one developed intellectually. Your second thread was much the same, but you started it with, “If god isn't real, why did I cry at church?” before proceeding to make the exact same insincere challenge (you never did reply in defense after I accused you of making the same stupid challenge twice).
Taking my Christianity out of the equation, I am a person, I have opinions, I feel strongly about my opinions because they have been formed from decades of searching, thinking, turning things over in my mind.
Your extensive exploration of “all religions,” before “logically” arriving at the religion you were brought up with, never included learning the role of one of the three primary figures in the world's third largest religion.
I am no different than you, in that respect. It just so happens that you came to different conclusions than me.
I arrived at a conclusion, you arrived with one.
But, I can tell, you feel equally strongly about your beliefs and feel I would be better off if I were atheist.
I think I like you better on that side. You make the case for religious incoherence so I don't have to.
You know that I feel you would have a richer experience in this life if you believed in God, not necessarily even the Christian God.
That's heresy, but do go on.
So, tho our opinions are different, the way we are approach each other is really not so different. In light of that, what I do not understand is why we cannot converse like adults, hear each other’s view points, accept that we are both attempting to influence the other side with those view points, and let go of all the meanness and personal put downs?
I've already heard your point of view. What you've offered since has only been your insistence.
I don’t know who here is American, but what I see happening in this country and throughout the world is deeply troubling. There is a divide growing between the secular and religious communities, and the two need to come back to the center and start communicating better in order to make some honest compromises. We have to live in this world together.
I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.
You are never going to eradicate the worship of God, I am never going to get everyone to see the need to worship God. Most likely, you are not going to deconvert me, nor am I going to convert you. So, can we, instead start listening, and refrain from judging others ideas as stupid, baseless, juvenile?
All this hemming and hawing, for what? You've already stated your views, and restated them, and they're never going to be any better.
Also, I do not feel the “delusional” label you have placed on theists is going to get us anywhere positive. I can just as easily call you delusional.
Good luck with that one.
The fact is, you are not in my brain, I am not in yours.
Thank Zeus for small favors.
You have not had my experiences, I have not had yours. So, you can no more honestly judge me delusional than I can judge you.
Mealy mouthed bullshit. “Delusional” applies to anyone who insists on a belief that is contradictory to reality. “God” would have to be a demonstrable reality before an atheist could be called delusional. Not only do you believe in inessential ideas, you think Jesus listens to all your whining. Your particular “god” is like your non-threatening gay roommate.
I changed my avatar in honor of this thread.
Heh heh!
Somehow I can picture a cartoon of God : "Oh, fuck not her again! Why couldn't she have been a Buddhist or Atheist or something leave me the hell alone!"
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Splenda= .01% active ingredient 99.99% fluff, I see an analogy here.....
Hope you stay healthy. Modern pharmaceuticals (sp) are "man made chemical crap"
Point?
Actually "fallen" refers to the ridiculous story of our many times great grandparents having eaten a Flying Spaghetti Monster-damned apple being such a crime that every human being ever born is punished for it. There's plenty of extremely immoral things in both books of the BuyBull by the way. Remembering another quote (believe it was Robert Ingersoll)
"Anyone who completely follows the Old Testament would be in prison, anyone who completely follows the New would be insane."
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Based on the moral code I follow, many of you have been quite uncivil. I am not used to being treated in that manner, that's why it is so glaring to me. It also makes me question your ability to "write your own moral codes." I'm thinking you could use some outside help. (Yes, I know I need help to, but I've already come to that conclusion for myself...)
Why does this remind me of women who defend their abusive husbands, after they've beaten them...well, except for the fact that god can't physically abuse you...but hey, you can assume you omnipotent invisible friend needs you to defend them, just don't expect us not to ridicule you for not letting god defend himself.
No Gods, Know Peace.
Wha???
We understand that your approach is emotional, but it's invalid. Emotions are not tied to reality in the same way that logic is. And, furthermore, you have resisted every attempt I have ever seen anyone make to use logic, so I'd say you just want to use emotions. You'll believe in anything that 'feels' right to you. You'll happily ignore reality and indulge pure fantasy whenever it suits you, and expect that the fantasy will be on even intellectual ground with reality. If we granted emotions the same authority as logic to determine reality, there would be no limit to the things that we would have to assume correct.
When people point out the problems with your approach, you play the poor wounded victim, unjustly maligned for your faith. In fact, I think you like the roll of martyr, and you delude yourself to believe that you are one. You certainly talk about it a lot.
You complain that you are not treated with sensitivity ad nauseum, while refusing to recognize how offensive it is to atheists when you demand that we submit to the authority of your personal imaginary friend, a genocidal war criminal who only values those who are willing to completely surrender to him. The god that you worship is in your own head. This is evident from the fact that you discovered him with your emotions alone.
Unless you are willing to use proper reason to approach the question of god's existence, you are a lost cause, wandering in the darkness of your faith, guided by an ignorant book of dubious origin. As much fun as it would be to discuss the ontological status of the supernatural with you, I don't think you are up to the challenge intellectually.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Theists realize that human intellect is severely limited.
They have good reason to think so.
I was hoping you might come to the same understanding eventually, but I don't think that's gonna happen.
Appeal to wonder.
Just telling you a little about me, if you care. Probably not tho.
What do you think?
[in response to bible verses and quote from Christian Secretary of the Interior, James Watt]
Point?
That your point of view is just that. Only that. That your “Christianity” is nothing but a label to legitimize your hayseed perspectives.
I wish you’d all get over yourselves thinking I’m playing “victim”. You are not that powerful.
Then stop whining.
This thread was my attempt to clear the air and start over.
You've been chewing on the same old chestnut since you arrived. You've had ample opportunities not to sound like a buffoon. Starting over isn't going to revitalize your basic premise.
You do not believe in God so heresy means nothing to you. Why should you care? I just think you would be better with some understanding, any understanding of God, rather than simply ignoring him, or worse, talking smack about him.
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” -Exodus 20:3
Before you pop off about all “gods” being the same, not all religions are monotheistic, and they are definitely not in agreement about what the word “god” signifies. You're right that I don't care about heresy, but as a Christian you're supposed to. Your dismissal confirms your religious leaning is as shallow as brand loyalty.
Nothing to say in reply to my remark about your ignorance of Hinduism, I notice. Fancy that.
[Stupider reply to stupid joke.]
You … are… delusional. That wasn’t hard.
You are customer of the month at Wal-Mart.
Also, you twist truth and turn it into lies and lead people into darkness, and that…really…peeves…me…off…
Yeah? Support that statement.
You flatter yourself. You think you have this little “reality” gig all figured out. None of us do.
God of gaps argument.
I don’t have a gay roommate.
(Sigh) You insulated thing. Jesus is your gay roommate. He's the one guy in the world that has to listen to your bullshit no matter how insipid. Largely because he's imaginary.
Hello. I am here because I am honestly deeply troubled by the inability for the secular and religious community to communicate. All you have to do is look at American politicians and see it has become a serious problem. They are so divided that they cannot get anything done, and they are more interested in pushing their side of the cause than in seeing any real problem get solved.
You mean like how Christian republicans use the “culture of life” argument against embryonic stem cell research, even though they probably know the frozen embryos in question are simply on their way to the trash? Or, how they argue against abortion one minute, then the next invoke images of lazy “welfare mothers” with a litter of kids? Or their consistent support of wars with no clear goal, from which they stand to profit through their investments in mercenaries and private contractors, that they know will result in the loss of people whose lives are already tied inextricably into the lives of others? People who aren't a maudlin abstraction, but a real father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, etc.
I think this is the great debate of our time, actually, and I think, if we do not learn to talk to each other, the consequences could be dire for both sides. That's why I'm here. I think it is important, no matter how difficult it may be sometimes. Those of us in the trenches, common citizens, need to rise up and stop this insanity that is threatening to tear our world apart.
I'm so fucking tired of war metaphors and corn pone religious imbeciles.
I don't eat splenda either. I'm a whole foodie don't eat that man-made chemical crap. Yeah, that's another great analogy for these boards.
I'm critical of some human inventions as well. I don't think this “god” thing has worked out.
Until you realize the flaw in your logic rendered by that presupposition, the discussion remains at an impasse.
I'm sure the members of those other religions would beg to differ. And this doesn't quite jibe with an earlier quip of yours, that other religions were "False prophecies".
How so? And which version of it?
Yet as long as you concede that other religions demonstrate similarities such as rapid expansion or long-standing tradition, you cannot use such in singular support of your religion. And our "inability to always see (god) clearly" points to his non-existence.
You didn't. My apologies.
And there is such a thing as christian fascism. I'm not afraid to say it.
I see nothing purposeful in ad hominem. I only saw fit to point out your flaws since you are of the habit of pointing out mine. The fact is, whether or not I'm angry has no bearing on the soundness of my argument. If I shouted at you "2 + 2 = 4, bitch!", would you say my arithmetic was wrong because I'm so angry? How about you lay off the accusations, and just address the argument. Is that fair?
When you evade honest and heartfelt arguments, then throw in emotional red herrings, expect no less.
Tell you what. Use emotion to prove gravity is real, or that Julius Caesar is a historical figure, and I might consider that emotion can point you to "the truth", y'all.
Thank you for acknowledging this. Perhaps you are ready to lay aside emotions and resume the debate about the lack of historical evidence for jesus.
I agree. Once you give up jesus, we'll go out for pizza - my treat!
There are no theists on operating tables.
Hi sugarfree...me again!
I have asked you before to provide a valid, verifiable reason why you believe and I realize now I may have been asking too much. Perhaps I should start by asking what you believe? This does not mean your particular branch of Christianity because everyone has different beliefs. I am specifically asking what you believe about your God. Here are a few choices to help you get started:
Your beliefs may not fit into any of these choices so if you could provide one or two sentences similar to the ones above that describe what you believe, then it may be possible to determine why you believe it. This is not an exercise in giving up your faith; just defining it so that we can have better dialog about it.
Thanks!!
A question so many times overlooked in favor of assumptions about what a theist believes-- or "must" believe".
Strangely, theist are many times accused of doing the same thing.. except making assumptions about what atheists believe.. or "must believe".
Hmm.. I don't know why I'm traveling from thread to thread and just dropping my two cents everywhere. Perhaps I should actually stick with a thread-- but all the ones I've started have died for the moment. So perhaps I'll get into the habit of jumping in unwelcomed again.. :/
Asking for a definition of what a person believes is trying to avoid making the assumption about what they "have to" believe. I always wonder why theists have such an issue with defining what exactly it is that they believe.
No Gods, Know Peace.
Yah, I wouldn't understand it either. People should be able to define what they believe.
And yes.. I know the what the purpose of the question was-- heh, I was just saying it's not a question that's asked to often. At least I haven't seen it much..
Could be wrong.. it could be a very popular question.
Yah, I wouldn't understand it either. People should be able to define what they believe.
[...]
It's a question worth asking. Many of the theists on these forums have very eccentric views, yet they retreat to the ambiguity of the broader label to draw support from popularity or authority. The sentence, “I believe in god,” doesn't suggest anything about attitudes or behavior. Just as you can cherry pick from text, you can be selective about who you call yours peers.
Oops {quietly removes foot from mouth}...I try to ask it in most discussions, mainly from the stand point of knowing how to argue. I wouldn't be able to argue the same things with a deist as opposed to a young earth creationist.
No Gods, Know Peace.
I suppose one "can" cherry pick from any text.
However, to be fair, sometimes "atheists" do attack the "broader label" by default, irregardless of explicitly stated beliefs to the contrary (or in the absence of definition).
Heh.. indeed-- very different.
I see you responded to one of my posts and ignored the other.
There is nothing wrong with needing. Being able to effectively name, express, and fulfill one's needs is a sign of maturity.
You totally failed to answer my point, which was that the physcological comfort of the notion has no affect on the truth value of the proposition. My point about the abdication of human responsibility remains unanswered.
"Religious people" realize their own responsibilities and also recognize their weaknesses. They realize that in some situations in this life, their own power, intelligence, and self-sufficiency is not enough.
This has no reflection of the truth value of the proposition. You are asking for help from something which is not there. Ultimately, you are not strong by admitting you are weak. You are weak for abdicating responsibility. If your self-sufficiency is not enough, that is your problem. It does not change the fact that there is nothing else except other people.
It is strength to be able to admit when one is weak, and it is strength to be able to let go of pride and ask for help.
You are playing the worlds smallest violin. And setting up an absurd dichotomy. If you are insufficient, turn to other people. Do not make physcological projectionist statements about the nature of morality. I can see through it in seconds.
This morning at chuch, we used our moral guide to learn how to strengthen marriage. What do you use as a moral guide?
What a stupid question. I am using scientific finding to challenge the notion that humans need a moral guide to be good. Scientists studying morality have pinpointed a mechanism known as plastic synapse genesis as the key. Morality is teh result of cumulative life experience. It does not come from a book. This is nonsense. If it did, there would be no such thing as Hermeneutics. I cannot go more than two minutes in my cognitive nueroscience class without talking about morality. The notion that it comes from a book is unscientific childish idiocy.
Have you ever read the NT? I'm sure you have. Were you unable to extract just one itsy bitsy moral truth from it?
But to extract the moral truths and avoid the nasty bits would require a Van Tillian presuppositionalist doctrinal approach to morality, which is contradictory to the nature of your argument. Inherently, hermeneutics defeats itself in this regard. A Holy Book cannot be used as a moral source unless your moral grounding is inherently pre-established. History has taught us that countless times.
False. Theists realize there are forces in this world which desire to lead one astray, and that we need assitance in keeping on the straight and narrow path
Do you even know what axiology is? There is no evidence that humans require such assistance, certinaly not from an ancient book. Your assertions are emotional and unscientific.
We realize that despite our best efforts, we will always make mistakes in our judgement and therefore require a higher moral authority to compare our actions to, to make sure we never "delude" ourselves into thinking we are doing better than we actually are.
Firstly, this is a direct nonsequiter, a shameless one considering that you dodged my point. You abdicate your responsibility to decide for yourself right and wrong. This is the fundamental physcology behind religion, namely that it is all about abdication of axiological responsibility.
I wonder why you would rather blame the Bible for so many human ills, than look inside your own heart to see the potential for negativity that exists there
You are twisting my words. I was just saying that judging by the spectrum of morality across a swath of people claiming all to get morality from the same book of ancient fables, all with totally different Hermeneutics, the claims of morality from scripture are nonsense.
Many absolute messages can be extracted from the Bible. However, if you believed that to be true, you might be compelled to believe it holds some authority over your life.
There is no evidence for the validity of the Bible that does not resort to one reasoning in a circle.
Admitting that would require you to give up the absolute authority that you currently hold over your life, and I realize, that's not necessarily a fun thing to do.
Nor is it necessary. Humans are not children. There is no evidence that men of God are more moral than men without. You are being ridiculous.
Thanks greatly to Christ himself.
No. You have never studied Western history? For 1700 years after Christ, societal jurisprudence was ghastly and unimaginable, thanks very largely to the iron grip Christendom exerted over free thought and human sanity. It was the Enlighentment that triggered the moral revolution, by destroying religion as a social structure which weilds political power. I am afraid that many believers are attempting to reverse this. We must stop it. You know that historically, whenever religion is in political power, the results are grave.
Christianity has been around for 2000 years. In that time, how many governments have risen and then toppled?
Countless. For most of history, all of them theocratic.
Christianity remains relevant today because of the spiritual truths, which, because of the way you approach the book (sans belief in anything spiritual) you are unable to extract.
You have no excuse to be so condescending because you lack the capacity to argue against me for the ontological coherency of your belief or the notion of vitalism. Therefore, please kindly shut up until you can actually defend your propositions. I extended my offer for you to do so in the other thread, and in an extremely dishonest fashion you dodged my arguments, whined and then resigned from the debate. Therefore, you have no right to make such statements.
Anyway, the test of time argument is irrelevant, and the notion that truth is based on this is a direct non sequiter with no coherency whatsoever. The argument from plurality stands in firm opposition to it, and I see that you have repeatedly failed to counter it. Ultimately, you have failed to provide rational ontology for your belief.
Spiritual truth is an incoherent concept. There are three essays I want you to read (should be on the forum somewhere) which deal with this. In the interest of rational debate please read them. Two of them were written by todangst. They are titled Supernatural is a broken concept and God is an incoherent term, and one by myself titled Ontological and Epistemilogical incoherencies and contradictions present in Classical Theology
Again, I point out that in light of your repeated argument from assertion (a standard logical fallacy) and thusly no attempt to justify the coherency of your propositions, you have no right to make such comments.
There are plenty of us who are seeing them and are using them to make better lives for ourselves. As far as Islam, the religion is in crisis, I agree. I am hopeful that they will come to a better consensus on how to properly interpret their book.
True.
You flatter humanity. Humans are the ones killing each other and waging these wars.
They would be doing it with or without the books.
Exactly! You just defeated your own argument
You are focusing on the symptoms of fallen man rather than blaming the cause, which is fallen man himself. That is what is meant by "fallen".
No. My argument was not against the books, but rather the notion of extracting morality from them, because ultimately the notion of Hermeneutics is incoherent. You should read another essay by todangst called The Self-refuting nature of Hermeneutics.
This is the wrong way to read scripture. Any balanced church will teach people that. A balanced church is evidenced by the fruits of the spirit...whether the people in it possess those fruits...love, kindness, compassion, patience, etc.
Theists need to be taught how to properly read their religious texts. That part of the necessary growth process. Currently Islam is having a crisis regarding that.
Hah. Now I've got you. You have fallen prey to one of the most basic errors in theology regarding Hermeneutics. It is clear from that statement that I understand the theology upon which your beliefs are based better than you do, because "correct way to read scripture" is a Van Tillian doctrine which has been thoroughly discredited by a century of discourse. again, I urge you to read todangst' essay, where he iterates that point, namely that correct Hermeneutics is a false doctrine which is a slippery but contradictory attempt to escape the contradictory nature of religious scripture. Nice try.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I suppose one “can“ cherry pick from any text.
True. I would then argue that people are especially motivated to do so from texts that serve a certain purpose; and some texts are vague enough to especially facilitate it. If two people are familiar with a writer, one can potentially recognize when the other pulls a quote out of context. The many religious denominations suggest this isn't so in holy books; that there isn't a clear context for many things. Anecdotally, the only internally consistent religious label I've come across has been Scientologist.
However, to be fair, sometimes “atheists“ do attack the “broader label“ by default, irregardless of explicitly stated beliefs to the contrary (or in the absence of definition).
(Irregardless?)
Anyway... I agree. I think this is a misconception that atheists have fallen prey to, and one which some theists nurture. Despite the contradictions between denominations, religions, characterizations of “god,” of any conflict with multiple “gods,” there seems to be a motivation to claim a unity based solely on belief versus a lack of it. As if all the religious disagreements of the past should now fall by the wayside because the atheist, I suppose, is seen as an enemy of all religions. As if the actual content of each belief system had been suspended in order to polarize everyone into one of two groups. If mainstream people do find appeal in this desperate ploy, I predict religions will be come more vague, less dogmatic, and adjust their message to something closer to describing a modern mainstream lifestyle. Gotta stay in business. Pope Ratzinger agrees.
The foundation is instinct. The rest is what you are taught and come up with on your own. Most of my morality has come from myself(emotions and experiences). I don't do things to people that I wouldn't want done to me.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless
Heh.. sort of.
It's a word.
See.. heres the thing about "internally consistent". A mathbook is "internally consistent"-- a literary work can or cannot be, depending upon how ones chooses to define the constraints of "consistency" and how one chooses to interpret the words within.
For instance, an example might be this:
A character study describes a "saint" who acts perfect throughout 199/200 pages, yet does something horrendous on one of those pages.
Now. Would that be inconsistent? Depends on the constraints (I'm using this word under my own terms since I can't pull from my limited vocabulary a clearer word) of "consistency".
If the book writes that the "saint" has one dog on page 10, two dogs on page 55, and no dogs on page 102-- even though it was all during the same time period-- one person might consider this internally inconsistent. Yet, some might contend, saying:
If the purpose of the book is to be a character study-- how is a discrepency between the numbers of a dogs inconsistent with that purpose?
These people would consider the fact that the person acted conclusively "out of character" as an inconsistency.
A fairly liberal use of the concept.. indeed.
I, personally, do not find the Christian religious text to be inconsistent in purpose because, personally, I do not believe the purpose of the text to be necessarily a science book or a history book-- merely a character study. As such, the constraints of inconsistency are a bit more liberal..
To give an example: If the bible is considered a character profile.. and throughout that "character profile" I am left with the impression that he is a "just God"-- then I would find it inconsistent to his character that such a place as hell exists (in the eternal torment type of deal) for it seems, from my perspective, unjust.
I would suggest that many people view it this way..
I'm not saying this is how I look at the bible.. merely that IF.
Anyways.. yes.. "cherry picking" can occur I suppose. Definitely not "a rule", and the what constitutes "cherry picking" would perhaps be argued quite feverishly.. since it has such negative connotations on its back.
I suppose some may.
If God is real and a religions purpose is to worship him-- then there should be no "enemy". Atheism may be an "enemy" to religion.. but definitely shouldn't be the enemy of "religious people". Understand the distinction? It's something I consider to be true...
Heh. Perhaps. Although.. as an evangelical.. I do not find the word of Pope Ratzinger to carry more weight any other person.
How much do I owe you for that little psychoanalysis. $2? Tell you what, I'll give you a $3 tip to make it an even $5.
Okay, again. I'm saying, do not TOTALLY discount your emotions. When you use logic IN CONJUCTION with emotion, creativity, general observation...ETC., you will come to different conclusions about this world. I use all my faculties to come to conclusions about truth, not just logic. How many times do I have to say that. I am using emotion here because I am attempting to balance out your views and show you how to listen to and interpret emotions (because I'm getting the impression that you may have forgotten).
The other part, the bitterness part, I just pointed out to show you what I read as anger in your posts, and why I don't buy it when you tell say "I've never been angry with you."
I must also say this. I'm getting a lot of crap on this thread about whining. My point with this thread is to see if we can communicate respectfully. Part of that is being able to discuss offenses, anger, feelings and the like out in the open, so that they are immediately resolved rather than festering. When they fester, both sides end up throwing rude zingers back and forth and nothing gets accomplished. I am not ashamed to say when I have been offended and I think bringing it up allows us to get beyond it and move into deeper more productive conversation.
Lastly, if you do not wish to join me in this endeavor, I will happily retreat to Trollville.
My personal opinion and opinion of many others in the Christian faith is that people like Muhammad and the Mormon founder would be considered false prophets. Jesus warned us about them. He also said the devil can appear as an angel of light, meaning he can offer some of God's truth but twist it just enough to deceive. So I am more wary of religions developed after Jesus, due to what Jesus has told me to be on the look out for.
The fact that you cannot see the circular reasoning in that paragraph is very frightful.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I must also say this. I'm getting a lot of crap on this thread about whining. My point with this thread is to see if we can communicate respectfully. Part of that is being able to discuss offenses, anger, feelings and the like out in the open, so that they are immediately resolved rather than festering. When they fester, both sides end up throwing rude zingers back and forth and nothing gets accomplished. I am not ashamed to say when I have been offended and I think bringing it up allows us to get beyond it and move into deeper more productive conversation.
I have tried to start arguments with you sugarfree. But whenever I point out that your God is a logical contradiction, and the difference between alogical and illogical, you metaphorically jam your fingers in your ears and scream LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA.
If you deliberately incite anger (for refusing to debate or ignoring responses) then you cannot call people angry for being angry at you.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
So, if I am remembering correctly, this would be utilitarianism? If I am also remembering correctly, the possible pitfall of this philosophy is the chance for a person or institution to justify evil acts because they help the greater humanity.
Just for comparison's sake, I look to Jesus for my morality. When he was asked "What is the greatest commandment" he gave a two part answer, 1) love God with all your heart, 2) love your neighbor as yourself. The second part is pretty much the golden rule, however, he entwines the golden rule with the commandment to love God. I believe this is to protect against the possible damage that can occur in the purely utilitarian approach. The idea is that one must understand the moral character of God so that when one goes on to make decisions the common good, they are in line with God's character (i.e., devoid of evil).
I think this can be applied to some of the misunderstandings/disagreements regarding stem cell research. A Christian is more likely to mull over a scientific advancement as he/she parses out the possible positives and negatives of that advancement. Given the pros and the cons, they ask themselves, tho this may help the greater good, is it acceptible to God, Is it evil? So, what you perceive as Christians dragging their feet is actually them trying to determine what is going to be best for humanity in the long run. Christians want to help humanity, but not at the risk of introducing a potentially greater evil into the world that could actually lead to greater human suffering.
Hopefully this clears up some misconceptions.
Notice that love god of comes first though. He's telling people to love god more than other people. So, in a dispute in which god and a human are on different sides, god wins. Do you think that this can't be abused? Do you think that nothing evil has been done in the name of god? This is not the basis for a good moral frame work. This is the basis for mental subjegation. This is the "idea' that allows people to abdicate responsibility and consequence. Especially if your brand of faith requires some kind of belief that the church is the will of god...ho ho... now we have a human institution in charge of your moral responsibility.
Wouldn't it be easier just to decide for yourself?
um...no if you can explain to me the inner workings of "stem cell research" I'll buy you a car...I've discussed this issue with many xtians and until I explain what misconceptions most of them have about the research itself, they don't realize they were lead astray. Explain stem cell research....because after all you can't weigh the options without knowing what the options are.
[edited for typo]
No Gods, Know Peace.
Do you not understand morality is subjective? Give me ten christians and they will have ten different ideas of morality, ten different ideas of what jesus meant, and ten different ideas the most important parts of morality. Humans use empathy, altruism, society, and what they are taught in their formative years to develop what is "moral". If there was a universal morality, let's say in the bible, all christians would hold to the same moral code, which they do not.
And of course if you strictly followed the BuyBull you'd be a very immoral person (stoning people to death for trivial offenses, discriminating against women, etc.)
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Sugar, I am trying to open up a dialog with you and I need your help to better understand where you are coming from....if you cannot answer this question, I can rephrase it if that helps. Thanks!
No one here is against emotion. We are not cold-hearted people. You can't reason with emotion. You reason with facts. Your emotions are subjective.
No one is holding a grudge. I'm merely pointing out that original thread. As I've said, I usually don't follow your threads so I have no idea how much this has been brought up.
Look around, Sugarfree. Are you saying we are not judged harshly?
I suggest you tread very carefully when you jump to conclusions regarding morality and atheism. This is a common misconception that has been refuted here countless times. Therefore, I will not reiterate what has already been said. Incidentally, I think that the common belief that atheists are incapable of morality is a rather harsh judgment, don't you? Yes, some atheists can be mean. So can Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.
Sorry, I have no idea why the format is so screwed up.
If god takes life he's an indian giver