#991

philologos said:
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 said:
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.

1 person has thanked this post
#992

steve06 said:
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.

bluewolf being awesome
#993

steve06 said:
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.



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

#994

philologos said:
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 said:
does phil go around lecturing children? I doubt it

I don't.

nozzferrahhtoo Registered User
#995

Near 1000 replies in less than a week. Well done

However...

steddyeddy said:
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.

2 people have thanked this post
CerebralCortex Registered User
#996

philologos said:
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.

#997

philologos said:
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....

#998

bluewolf said:

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;72795351
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 Registered User
#999

Sums it up IMO

3 people have thanked this post
CerebralCortex Registered User
#1,000

philologos said:

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.

#1,001

nozzferrahhtoo said:

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?

#1,002

philologos said:
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.

You keep mentioning god's standards, yet what you are talking about are basic standards needed for the proper functioning of our social species, just because someone gathered these basic rules together and said a certain deity forbids them doesn't make them his rules.

Seachmall Registered User
#1,003

dvpower said:
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?

Because it's a personal opinion he holds and he's not forcing it on anyone.

From what I can see Philologos has not attacked anyone here on a personal level, you may disagree with his opinions so attack his arguments; not his person.

5 people have thanked this post
#1,004

I think one of the main reasons religion is around is to keep order in society and to ensure a man can have a woman all to himself without her having sex with other men. That's why women are often told to cover up there attractive features in religions and to be ashamed of sex. Why do you a husband could rape his wife all he wanted. The rules were designed to protect the husband from being cheated on. So another man raping her was a big deal. It wasn't a problem at all for a man to rape his wife. It's one big trick by making up false rewards and punishments in some abstract afterlife.

1 person has thanked this post
#1,005

philologos, do you feel the that people who follow other religions with different rules will be judged by your god and not theirs?

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!