When atheists go too far

dvpower · 15-06-2011 9:57pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

Is the Atheist movement in the Republic big?

Catholic atheists yes. Protestant atheists not so much. :pac:

philologos · 15-06-2011 11:05pm

twinQuins wrote: »

However, if you could see your way to setting aside your usual epistemological whataboutery (and really, it is completely irrelevant), can you prove your god exists?

I can't prove that I exist as a material being on a philosophical level. There are many things I can't prove.

That suggests that it is a pretty useless path of discussion to go down. What is more fruitful is what reasons we have for our thinking. This is a better line of discussion.

I would consider the "provide proof" line to be a dead end, but not just in respect to the God debate but in respect to a whole lot of other debates as well.

I find the idea of atheists barking "where's the proof" to be lazy.

Here's the line of discussion on this issue that I generally posit a a good one.:

Given the following 3 positions:
1. Atheism - God is not likely to exist.
2. De-facto agnosticism (agnostic atheism is in the first in that God is regarded as less likely, and agnostic theism falls into the third in that God is more likely, defacto agnosticism is strictly "I don't know").
3. Theism - God is likely to exist.

A better discussion would work like this:
If I am an atheist what are my reasons for thinking that God is less likely to exist than not.
If I am a theist what are my reasons for thinking that God is more likely to exist than not.
De-facto agnosticism could be argued for but there isn't much to be argued for in saying why one is uncertain.

iamstop · 15-06-2011 11:12pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

Is the Atheist movement in the Republic big?

Atheist movement? Lol.

Cú Giobach · 15-06-2011 11:13pm

iamstop wrote: »

Atheist movement? Lol.

I had one of them this morning.

strobe · 15-06-2011 11:14pm

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I am trying to think of a nice god, and offhand I can't, they all seem to be angry and prone to smiting all the time.

Dionysus always struck me as a sound enough chap.

Dionysus was the god of the grape harvest, winemaking and wine, of ritual madness and ecstasy in Greek mythology.... He is also the Liberator (Eleutherios), whose wine, music and ecstatic dance frees his followers from self-conscious fear and care, and subverts the oppressive restraints of the powerful.

Sounds like my kind of deity.

Turtwig · 15-06-2011 11:17pm

philologos wrote: »

If I am an atheist what are my reasons for thinking that God is less likely to exist than not.
If I am a theist what are my reasons for thinking that God is more likely to exist than not.
De-facto agnosticism could be argued for but there isn't much to be argued for in saying why one is uncertain.

Actually this may seem unfair on the theist, but alas life isn't always fair. The atheist doesn't actually have to explain anything as s/he is not making the assertion that something exists. If you follow your trail of thought to its logical conclusion then every human should be expected to explain why s/he doesn't believe in every imaginable entity possible that they don't believe in. Such an approach is impractical and rather useless. Instead those who make the assertion of some claim or truth should explain why it is likely to be true and others can simply argue their case against it by scrutinising the proponents points.

And to make it even more relevant, Christians are the ones who claim we're gonna burn in a pit for the rest of our unnatural lives. So clearly, they should explain why? I'd argue that theists themselves shouldn't have to explain any of their beliefs until those theists namely Muslims, Christians and Jews who believe in certain negative consequences have explained their reasoning for believing in those negative consequences first.

philologos · 15-06-2011 11:19pm

Malty T: In the best discussions there is a dialogue. I'm not much interested in having one person bark continually "prove it" (There are a whole load of things that we would regard as pretty certain haven't been proven). As far as I see it both atheism and theism deviate from defacto agnosticism and as such both should present reasons for why something is likely or not likely in the best discussions that can be had about this issue and that's really the absolute best we can do in this discussion bar actually being willing to give Christianity a go or vice versa.

Cú Giobach · 15-06-2011 11:20pm

strobe wrote: »

Dionysus always struck me as a sound enough chap.
Sounds like my kind of deity.

Maybe it's time we got the Greek pantheon going here, it would make a nice change from that rather austere chap in vogue at the moment.

Turtwig · 15-06-2011 11:24pm

philologos wrote: »

Malty T: In the best discussions there is a dialogue. I'm not much interested in having one person bark continually "prove it". As far as I see it both atheism and theism deviate from defacto agnosticism and as such both should present reasons for why something is likely or not likely in the best discussions that can be had about this issue and that's really the absolute best we can do in this discussion bar actually being willing to give Christianity a go or vice versa.

I have a ball
Oh Yeah? Prove it!
Here are the likely reasons why I have a ball.

I'm sorry mate but according to your beliefs everyone reading this thread is guilty of a crime by which their punishment is an eternity in hell. The onus is on you to prove their guilt! Not on them to prove their innocence! The burden rests with you, face up to that.

Edited to add : In my book nothing can be proven the best we can ever offer is the likely rational and plausible explanations for everything. So rational reasons will do.

philologos · 15-06-2011 11:35pm

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm sorry mate but according to your beliefs everyone reading this thread is guilty of a crime by which their punishment is an eternity in hell. The onus is on you to prove their guilt! Not on them to prove their innocence! The burden rests with you, face up to that.

Everyone including me actually! It's not very difficult to show that everyone has done what is wrong on numerous occasions. It's also not very difficult to show that mankind as a whole is fallen. All that takes is a quick read through today's newspaper or the newspaper on any other day. As I've said already hell shouldn't be an option for anyone in comparison to restoring the broken relationship that we have with God.

But yeah, I'm merely saying that what I've described is the model that I find most appropriate for discussing whether or not God exists. That's what I find most reasonable and I'm quite entitled to say why that is so.

As far as I'm concerned atheists and theists both deviate from defacto agnosticism and as a result should both be willing to argue as to why they take these positions. I'm not going to "face up" to what I find an unreasonable and an unworkable method of discussing this subject.

Turtwig · 15-06-2011 11:44pm

philologos wrote: »

Everyone including me actually! It's not very difficult to show that everyone has done what is wrong on numerous occasions. It's also not very difficult to show that mankind as a whole is fallen. All that takes is a quick read through today's newspaper or the newspaper on any other day. As I've said already hell shouldn't be an option for anyone in comparison to restoring the broken relationship that we have with God.

But yeah, I'm merely saying that what I've described is the model that I find most appropriate for discussing whether or not God exists. That's what I find most reasonable and I'm quite entitled to say why that is so.

As far as I'm concerned atheists and theists both deviate from defacto agnosticism and as a result should both be willing to argue as to why they take these positions.

You're missing the point. I'm not asking you to prove people aren't perfect. That's quite easy as all you have to do is define the bar of perfection at an unrealistic level. I'm asking you to demonstrate likely reasons for why you believe these crimes are punishable by fire and brimstone.
Also, it's easy to pick out flaws of people who live long enough to commit one, but what about those who don't live long to commit one? Are those people judged on the basis that they were going to commit a future crime anyways, or are they deemed innocent? To put it bluntly are babies innocent or guilty? Are all babies born innocent or guilty?

You're entitled to say whatever the heck you like, but ultimately it is you, who has deemed me guilty of a crime I believe I didn't commit. Why do I, and other, have to prove my innocence? I shudder to think what would happen if we applied your model to the current judicial system. Guilty until proven innocent.:rolleyes:

philologos · 15-06-2011 11:54pm

Malty_T wrote: »

You're missing the point. I'm not asking you to prove people aren't perfect. That's quite easy as all you have to do is define the bar of perfection at an unrealistic level. I'm asking you to demonstrate likely reasons for why you believe these crimes are punishable by fire and brimstone.
Also, it's easy to pick out flaws of people who live long enough to commit one, but what about those who don't live long to commit one? Are those people judged on the basis that they were going to commit a future crime anyways, or are they deemed innocent? To put it bluntly are babies innocent or guilty?

It's not the most difficult really. In Christian thinking God has created the world and has given us standards to live by. All mankind has failed to reach them and as a result are liable to punishment. As a result Jesus Christ came, lived, was crucified and was Resurrected to pay in full the price of the sin that we committed against our Creator which He has the right to punish. By Christ paying our sins the penalty that we would have had to take is taken from us so that our relationship with God is restored. If we reject this offer of salvation at judgement we will be still liable for the full weight of the sins we have committed because we haven't accepted Christ's salvation on the cross in which He took our place and paid the price we deserved to pay.

It's not about anyone being punished specifically for being an atheist, it is about the punishment that we all deserve. God has given us a second chance, the question is are we willing to take it?

I don't think newborn children have sinned against God. I believe that God is a just and righteous judge. Although I do believe that mankind due to the freedom of the will is inclined towards evil.

Malty_T wrote: »

You're entitled to say whatever the heck you like, but ultimately it is you, who has deemed me guilty of a crime I believe I didn't commit. Why do I, and otheres, have to prove my innocence? I shudder to think what would happen if we applied your model to the current judicial system. Guilty until proven innocent.:rolleyes:

I don't deem you guilty at all and I won't at the end of time.

I've claimed that I like all people am guilty of violating God's standards. As a result of this I deserve to be punished by God for not living as He has commanded. God has given us a second chance, I've decided to take it and I've decided to ask Him to take an active role in my life to bring me each day step by step more and more in line with His truth. I screw up, we all do, the question is are we going to ask God to help us along the way or are we going to reject Him.

There's nothing about guilty until proven innocent. We are proven (in a judicial sense) guilty in so far as we've broken God's commandments as I see it. He's the one person we can't hide anything from.

15-06-2011 11:56pm

philologos wrote: »

Everyone including me actually! It's not very difficult to show that everyone has done what is wrong on numerous occasions. It's also not very difficult to show that mankind as a whole is fallen. All that takes is a quick read through today's newspaper or the newspaper on any other day. As I've said already hell shouldn't be an option for anyone in comparison to restoring the broken relationship that we have with God.

How can you show that we're fallen when you have no reference point to contrast our fallen state with?

Seachmall · 16-06-2011 12:00am

philologos wrote: »

There's nothing about guilty until proven innocent. We are proven guilty in so far as we've broken God's commandments as I see it.

Blah. God creates us to forgive us for sins and temptations he created as long as we live up to standards he sets knowing we won't achieve them. Should we not reach said standards he punishes us for eternity. What a pr*ck.

We can dance around this point forever but it ultimately comes down to that.

G'night.

sensibleken · 16-06-2011 12:01am

Asry wrote: »

I have indeed. The conflicting commandments in Leviticus were deemed null and void by something called the New Covenant. I'll post a link here rather than going into it because it's been hashed out on the Christianity forum already. Leviticus is not the only place in the bible that refers to homosexuality - yes it cites men having relations with men explicitly, but there are other passages which just reference homosexual sex specifically.

It does not. Nowhere does jesus mention homosexuality in the new testament. there are passages that talk vaguely about un natural stuff but do not mention girl on girl.

the only reference that has come out of it has been due to a fairly recent obsession by the RCC church with homosexuality.

Its bullshít. and nasty bullshít at that, a horrible vile philosphy that has leads people to believe that they are 'un natural' contrary to all evidence and logic. based on what, vague words in greek from men who followed jesus, not the man himself. most references are to do with "arsenokoitai" which varies in interpretation. it is certainly not explicitly homosexual and even less so pertaining to women.

Nodin · 16-06-2011 12:01am

Seachmall wrote: »

Blah. God creates us to forgive and reward us for sins and temptations he created as long as we live up to standards he sets knowing we won't achieve them. What a pr*ck.

We can dance around this point forever but it ultimately comes down to that.

G'night.

Not to mention the way its not clear which set of standards we're supposed to follow in the first place.....

KeithAFC · 16-06-2011 12:02am

iamstop wrote: »

Atheist movement? Lol.

Yeah. A big Atheist movement in Europe at the moment.

Mark200 · 16-06-2011 12:13am

philologos wrote: »

Everyone including me actually! It's not very difficult to show that everyone has done what is wrong on numerous occasions. It's also not very difficult to show that mankind as a whole is fallen. All that takes is a quick read through today's newspaper or the newspaper on any other day.

It's worrying that you'd (presumably) feel comfortable getting down on your knees and worshipping a being that has apparently created us sick and commanded us to be better.

And it doesn't take more than a quick read through the newspapers to point out how incompetent this being must be if he/it created such a naturally violent planet for us to live on. Volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes. He really couldn't do any better huh? If this is the best he could do then I'm really not all that impressed.

dpe · 16-06-2011 12:15am

philologos wrote: »

It's not the most difficult really. In Christian thinking God has created the world and has given us standards to live by. All mankind has failed to reach them and as a result are liable to punishment1. As a result Jesus Christ came, lived, was crucified and was Resurrected to pay in full the price of the sin that we committed against our Creator which He has the right to punish2. By Christ paying our sins the penalty that we would have had to take is taken from us so that our relationship with God is restored. If we reject this offer of salvation at judgement we will be still liable for the full weight of the sins we have committed because we haven't accepted Christ's salvation on the cross in which He took our place and paid the price we deserved to pay3.

It's not about anyone being punished specifically for being an atheist, it is about the punishment that we all deserve4. God has given us a second chance, the question is are we willing to take it?

I don't think newborn children have sinned against God. I believe that God is a just and righteous judge. Although I do believe that mankind due to the freedom of the will is inclined towards evil.

I don't deem you guilty at all and I won't at the end of time.

I've claimed that I like all people am guilty of violating God's standards. As a result of this I deserve to be punished by God for not living as He has commanded. God has given us a second chance, I've decided to take it and I've decided to ask Him to take an active role in my life to bring me each day step by step more and more in line with His truth. I screw up, we all do, the question is are we going to ask God to help us along the way or are we going to reject Him.

There's nothing about guilty until proven innocent. We are proven (in a judicial sense) guilty in so far as we've broken God's commandments as I see it5. He's the one person we can't hide anything from.

OK, assuming I bought into all this crap, (which I don't), then;
1. Why? No-one's ever explained to me why we're liable for punishment. I'd also suggest the punishment for not keeping the sabbath (for instance, and probably the only commandment I'm actually guilty of) rather outstrips the crime. God certainly doesn't seem to have much of a sense of proportion.

2. Why? Basically he gives himself the right. Stacked deck, unimpartial judge, we're kinda of screwed before we start aren't we?

3. Says who? I don't think I have any "crimes" I need to be judged for.

4. Speak for yourself.

5. Wow. I don't keep the sabbath and I often take the Lord's name in vain. Big feckin whoop. Guilty as charged your honour, throw me in the pit. And you can't see how ludicrous this is as a concept?

Frankly, even if God existed, he's so screwed up he wouldn't be worthy of our worship anyway.

Mark200 · 16-06-2011 1:59am

dpe wrote: »

Frankly, even if God existed, he's so screwed up he wouldn't be worthy of our worship anyway.

Amen.

iamstop · 16-06-2011 2:05am

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yeah. A big Atheist movement in Europe at the moment.

To me a movement involves organizing. I mentioned earlier that I am an atheist but never once have I been to a meeting or rally about it.

tjones64 · 16-06-2011 2:07am

poop

KeithAFC · 16-06-2011 3:15am

iamstop wrote: »

To me a movement involves organizing. I mentioned earlier that I am an atheist but never once have I been to a meeting or rally about it.

Really? There is plenty of events and such in regards to Atheism.

Ellis Dee · 16-06-2011 6:40am

There would probably be a lot less hassle and misery in this world if people began to grasp that all those stories about deities and sky fairies and hobgoblins in the clouds and angels on pinheads are the purest rubbish. I suppose they began long ago when our ancestors reached a certain level of consciousness and became capable of abstract thought. At some stage they must have begun wondering about things beyond their immediate experience. Probably the first science was when they looked at the stars, noticed that some of them moved, and wondered what they were. As Nietzsche pointed out, they wanted to escape their misery, but the stars were too far away for them.:rolleyes:

This early thinking eventually led to more complex formulations, which were eventually seized on and further developed by the manipulators and exploiters, who now had what proved to be a powerful means of control.:mad:

And that is what it largely still is. Those who pull the religious strings and hit the right chords in the fearful and gullible are really only playing the fools like a cheap guitar and enjoying the power and material benefits that it brings them.

"My brother's a brave missionary,
A saving young women from sin,
He'll save you a blonde for a shilling,
My God how the money rolls in."

http://www.harmonieii.co.uk/caving/they%20words/rolls.html

All that most atheists do is snort in disbelief at the guff that the god-botherers and guilt-instillers constantly spout. How can that be described as going too far? Most atheists would indeed like to go far, very far, very far indeed if only they could - to somewhere that they will never again have the religious drug-pushers in their face. But for now the stars are too remote for us as well.

philologos · 16-06-2011 8:04am

dpe wrote: »

OK, assuming I bought into all this crap, (which I don't), then;
1. Why? No-one's ever explained to me why we're liable for punishment. I'd also suggest the punishment for not keeping the sabbath (for instance, and probably the only commandment I'm actually guilty of) rather outstrips the crime. God certainly doesn't seem to have much of a sense of proportion.

We've broken God's standard therefore He has the full right to punish us as we live in His creation. Just as much as the judge has the right to sentence you for crime.

I'm seriously doubting that not keeping the Sabbath is the only commandment you've broken (The Ten Commandments aren't the only standards which God has set us - Try looking at the Sermon of the Mount in Matthew 5 or Romans 1). So you've never lied? Stolen? Lusted after another? Coveted someone else's wife? Coveted your neighbours possessions? Hated someone in your heart? Were angry without good cause? Dishonoured your mother and father? God's standards are extensive and reach into every area of our lives. Even on the basis of these alone I can doubt what you're saying is true.

If these (and more) are the standards that God has set me, I've broken a lot of them. And if these are the standards that God is going to judge me by breaking them I deserve to be punished. That was one of the first recognitions I made in becoming a Christian and thats one of the key points where it began to make sense to me.

dpe wrote: »

2. Why? Basically he gives himself the right. Stacked deck, unimpartial judge, we're kinda of screwed before we start aren't we?

The universe is His. I don't see how God is "unimpartial". He is only judging based on his standards. He has also given us a second chance through Christ because he doesn't want us to bear the punishment but to be transformed by Him and live for Him.

The one possibility that nobody is willing to really consider, but we can accept this and start living the lives we were called to live from the beginning. For me that's hugely exciting, it's like coming home.

dpe wrote: »

3. Says who? I don't think I have any "crimes" I need to be judged for.

I doubt you're sinless. Indeed I'm led to believe that one who claims such is a liar.

dpe wrote: »

4. Speak for yourself.

I could but I believe this is objectively rather than subjectively true.

dpe wrote: »

5. Wow. I don't keep the sabbath and I often take the Lord's name in vain. Big feckin whoop. Guilty as charged your honour, throw me in the pit. And you can't see how ludicrous this is as a concept?

I don't think it's ludicrous because I don't think you're telling the truth. See the first paragraph.

dpe wrote: »

Frankly, even if God existed, he's so screwed up he wouldn't be worthy of our worship anyway.

You're fully entitled to think that. You think I'm mistaken and I think you're mistaken.

smash · 16-06-2011 9:08am

philologos you can only call someone a sinner if they believe in your god's commandments. Most of us don't, therefore we're not sinners. And it's not his universe, that's just what you choose to believe.

This is the problem with religious fundamentalists, you look at everyone through your beliefs and judge them for it.

dpe · 16-06-2011 9:11am

Well its bloody handy that he doesn't exist then. Oh and by the way:

So you've never lied? Yes, and without lying we'd have social breakdown in about five minutes. So "God" is clearly an idiot. Stolen? No. Lusted after another? What? There'd be no human race without that one. Coveted someone else's wife? No. Coveted your neighbours possessions? No. Hated someone in your heart? No. But I'm beginning to hate you. Were angry without good cause? Not really. "Good cause" is a subjective assessment. Dishonoured your mother and father? No.

16-06-2011 9:37am

Yeah the whole thing does get stuck at "I have power over everything and I know what's going to happen in the future so I'll design something to be flawed then punish it for being flawed"

philologos · 16-06-2011 9:42am

steve06 wrote: »

philologos you can only call someone a sinner if they believe in your god's commandments. Most of us don't, therefore we're not sinners. And it's not his universe, that's just what you choose to believe.

It's not about calling anyone a sinner. It's about acknowledging that everyone has done what is wrong. That's pretty rudimentary as I see it. As I've said already numerous times on this thread this is as true for me (I.E I'm as much a sinner as anyone on the face of the earth) as it is for anyone else.

steve06 wrote: »

This is the problem with religious fundamentalists, you look at everyone through your beliefs and judge them for it.

I believe God is real. That's why I see the universe as a universe created by God. You don't. Each position has different consequences on our thought. If God is real it would be patently immoral of me not to tell you of what God has done for you.

smash · 16-06-2011 9:48am

philologos wrote: »

It's not about calling anyone a sinner. It's about acknowledging that everyone has done what is wrong.

That is complete BS... People have only done wrong according to the laws of your god. Not ours!

philologos wrote: »

If God is real it would be patently immoral of me not to tell you of what God has done for you.

Where do you get off thinking you have the right to preach to anyone else about your beliefs as if they're fact? The arrogance is unbelievable. Your make believe god has done nothing for me.

16-06-2011 9:50am

steve06 wrote: »

Where do you get off thinking you have the right to preach to anyone else about your beliefs as if they're fact? The arrogance is unbelievable. Your make believe god has done nothing for me.

He does have a point, however much we might disagree

IF his god is real he would really be obligated to tell us

smash · 16-06-2011 9:54am

bluewolf wrote: »

IF his god is real he would really be obligated to tell us

Well then f*ck it, I might as well start telling kids that Thor is real and if they don't worship them they'll be struck by lightning. There's as much to back up that theory as there is to the theory of god.

Actually there's probably more of a chance of him being real because people actually do get struck by lightning.

16-06-2011 9:54am

steve06 wrote: »

Well then f*ck it, I might as well start telling kids that Thor is real and if they don't worship them they'll be struck by lightning. There's as much to back up that theory as there is to the theory of god.

Actually there's probably more of a chance of him being real because people actually do get struck by lightning.

He started his sentence with an "if", so your ire is a little misplaced

smash · 16-06-2011 9:57am

bluewolf wrote: »

He started his sentence with an "if", so your ire is a little misplaced

Well then, IF god isn't real, all he's doing is installing fear for no reason. That's a form of terrorism and mental abuse.

16-06-2011 9:59am

steve06 wrote: »

Well then, IF god isn't real, all he's doing is installing fear for no reason. That's a form of terrorism and mental abuse.

I don't think the conspiracy theory people are guilty of terrorism or mental abuse

smash · 16-06-2011 10:04am

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't think the conspiracy theory people are guilty of terrorism or mental abuse

That's ok, cos I don't believe the conspiracy theory about hell.

philologos · 16-06-2011 10:06am

steve06 wrote: »

Well then, IF god isn't real, all he's doing is installing fear for no reason. That's a form of terrorism and mental abuse.

How? I'm suggesting to you that there is no need to be afraid. That's why the Gospel is good news in that God has forgiven us if we are willing to simply accept it.

For me it is a very positive association and I'm thankful to God as a result. Others mightn't be but that is your choice.

16-06-2011 10:09am

steve06 wrote: »

That's ok, cos I don't believe the conspiracy theory about hell.

Okay good, so it's not terrorism or mental abuse and we can move on from the dramatics

Seachmall · 16-06-2011 10:10am

philologos wrote: »

God has forgiven us if we are willing to simply accept it.

Why has he forgiven me? What have I done?

Jesus didn't die for my sins, I wasn't even born. Don't lump me in with people 2000 years my senior who I never met.

smash · 16-06-2011 10:22am

philologos wrote: »

That's why the Gospel is good news in that God has forgiven us if we are willing to simply accept it.

Well that's cool. I'll just live my life how I want to then and when I die, if god exists then I'll accept him and be forgiven. Until then, I couldn't care less about religion and don't want to hear about it and I'll 'sin' as much as I want.

bluewolf wrote: »

Okay good, so it's not terrorism or mental abuse and we can move on from the dramatics

It is when you're drilling into the minds of children who know no better.

philologos · 16-06-2011 10:26am

steve06 wrote: »

Well that's cool. I'll just live my life how I want to then and when I die, if god exists then I'll accept him and be forgiven. Until then, I couldn't care less about religion and don't want to hear about it and I'll 'sin' as much as I want.

According to Christians that's too late. You live this life and then you're judged. Acceptance would also have to be in earnest rather than saying "I want in now".

If you genuinely don't want to hear about it I'd suggest that you don't look at or post in threads that have to do with atheism and faith. The other option is to place me on ignore which I'm totally OK with.

16-06-2011 10:28am

steve06 wrote: »

Well that's cool. I'll just live my life how I want to then and when I die, if god exists then I'll accept him and be forgiven. Until then, I couldn't care less about religion and don't want to hear about it and I'll 'sin' as much as I want.

It is when you're drilling into the minds of children who know no better.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Are you a child who doesn't know any better? does phil go around lecturing children? I doubt it

smash · 16-06-2011 10:29am

philologos wrote: »

According to Christians that's too late. You live this life and then you're judged. Acceptance would also have to be in earnest rather than saying "I want in now".

So you have to live in fear just in case?

bluewolf wrote: »

does phil go around lecturing children? I doubt it

I don't.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-06-2011 10:32am

Near 1000 replies in less than a week. Well done

However...

steddyeddy wrote: »

Dawkins said he doesnt mind ridiculing other people's beleifs. Im an agnostic but I really dont see the point in constantly maintianing that anyone witha different view of the world to mine is stupid or wrong.

... it is YOU not Dawkins who equated ridiculing a belief with calling the person stupid. It is important to note that there is a massive difference between the two and one which Dawkins is very much aware of.

Even the most intelligent people can have beliefs that are silly, wrong or even dangerous. Look at Newton, one of the most lauded scientists in our history. No one doubts his intelligence and his contributions to our society. The man had some seriously ridiculous ideas around health and alchemy however.

One can attack and ridicule bad ideas in isolation from those that hold them. Not only CAN but SHOULD. Ideas, especially entirely unsubstantiated and unfounded ones, can be dangerous things and we owe it to each other and ourselves to confront bad ones wherever we find them.

This is NOT the same as attacking or disrespecting the holder of the idea. In fact I see it as a gesture of respect that we care enough about our fellow man to even spend our precious time attempting to denude them of their more ridiculous and unfounded notions.

CerebralCortex · 16-06-2011 10:35am

philologos wrote: »

Everyone including me actually! It's not very difficult to show that everyone has done what is wrong on numerous occasions. It's also not very difficult to show that mankind as a whole is fallen. All that takes is a quick read through today's newspaper or the newspaper on any other day. As I've said already hell shouldn't be an option for anyone in comparison to restoring the broken relationship that we have with God.

You're above argument assumes a very silly and primitive notion of contra causal free will(sorry for bringing it up folks). It also flies in the face of a lot evidence to the contrary about human behaviour. We are animals lets not forget that important fact.

Cú Giobach · 16-06-2011 10:41am

philologos wrote: »

We've broken God's standard therefore He has the full right to punish us as we live in His creation. Just as much as the judge has the right to sentence you for crime.

I'm seriously doubting that not keeping the Sabbath is the only commandment you've broken (The Ten Commandments aren't the only standards which God has set us - Try looking at the Sermon of the Mount in Matthew 5 or Romans 1). So you've never lied? Stolen? Lusted after another? Coveted someone else's wife? Coveted your neighbours possessions? Hated someone in your heart? Were angry without good cause? Dishonoured your mother and father? God's standards are extensive and reach into every area of our lives. Even on the basis of these alone I can doubt what you're saying is true.

If these (and more) are the standards that God has set me, I've broken a lot of them. And if these are the standards that God is going to judge me by breaking them I deserve to be punished. That was one of the first recognitions I made in becoming a Christian and thats one of the key points where it began to make sense to me.

If you weren't a Christian would you have no problem doing these things?
In other words is it only your god preventing you from stealing, sleeping with a friends wife etc....

philologos · 16-06-2011 10:41am

bluewolf wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Are you a child who doesn't know any better? does phil go around lecturing children? I doubt it

Well I don't have children. So no. Honestly though people will make up anything about you for the sake of skewing an argument if they can

This subdiscussion arose out of free will. It led into a judgement and the here-after and I've simply been addressing questions / counter-points in respect to what I believe.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If you weren't a Christian would you have no problem doing these things?
In other words is it only your god preventing you from stealing, sleeping with a friends wife etc....

No, I think a lot of atheists are opposed to this as a result of the conscience that they were given by God. I believe atheists can live a mostly ethical existence but we've still violated God's standards.

Chardee MacDennis · 16-06-2011 10:44am

Sums it up IMO

CerebralCortex · 16-06-2011 10:46am

philologos wrote: »

No, I think a lot of atheists are opposed to this as a result of the conscience that they were given by natural selection. I believe atheists can live a mostly ethical existence

FYP so I can agree with you.

dvpower · 16-06-2011 10:48am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is NOT the same as attacking or disrespecting the holder of the idea. In fact I see it as a gesture of respect that we care enough about our fellow man to even spend our precious time attempting to denude them of their more ridiculous and unfounded notions.

Certainly we should show respect for people even if they have ridiculous views, but why would we show respect for people who hold depraved views, like the view that it is just that people who don't believe in God should suffer eternal pain and suffering?

When atheists go too far

Comments