When atheists go too far

Cú Giobach

Asry wrote: »

How can something that fills me with such happiness be wrong?

People had exactly the same feelings and emotions for Hitler and Mao, its quite normal and natural but not a sign that the object of your affection is necessarily good.

AhSureTisGrand

Asry wrote: »

Interesting, actually, just about what you said there - I went to a private Catholic school as a child and went to mass every single day...and mysteriously have no memory of it at all! Isn't that weird?

None at all? That's not so much weird as alarming

MagicMarker

Asry wrote: »

And yes, you can You need to write a letter to your bishop asking to be struck off the baptismal record

Not anymore you can't.

http://www.countmeout.ie/suspension/

philologos

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

So what's your interpretation of "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed"? Seems to me Jesus was praising blind faith

He is referring to those people who will be believers after Thomas. I reject the idea that the material is the only real thing in existence, it's lazy reasoning and very philosophically questionable.

Asry

MagicMarker wrote: »

Not anymore you can't.

http://www.countmeout.ie/suspension/

When I read that, I just wanted to impart here that I said a really bad word, really loudly, and unfortunately cannot repeat it here. So to that end, I'll do this:

&*^%$£"!!!

Asry

Cú Giobach wrote: »

People had exactly the same feelings and emotions for Hitler and Mao, its quite normal and natural but not a sign that the object of your affection is necessarily good.

Emmmmmmmmm......no comment? No, really, I can think of nothing to say to that. Clearly if I were a better Christian, I would, but I've drawn a blank :S

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

None at all? That's not so much weird as alarming

Nah, I was just a little kid, it's not alarming. Plus I'm fairly thick in the head now and I'm 26, so I'm not surprised I can't remember those years.

Ellis Dee

philologos wrote: »

Ellis Dee - I don't compare the belief in God to fairies or leprachauns. In fact the comparison would never come to mind because a belief in God concerns the essential origins of the universe. The existence of fairies and leprachauns fades in comparison. It is conceivable and reasonable to think that there was an intelligent Creator behind the universe we currently inhabit.

What would be a leap to me would be the suggestion that the universe created itself.

Why can't you make that comparison? There is no more and no less evidence that your god exists than there is that fairies, leprechauns, trolls (of the non-Internet kind) or wookies exist, either.

Believing in a god does not solve the question of the origins of the universe, because if the answer is god, then the inevitable next question is what created god, and so on. Or as Dean Swift put it: "So Nat'ralists observe, a Flea Hath smaller Fleas that on him prey, And these have smaller Fleas to bite 'em, And so proceed ad infinitum."

Maybe there was no beginning and there will be no end. Just because everything in our limited experience has a beginning and an end doesn't mean there are not things beyond our comprehension, such as a universe or multiverse that always was and always will be. Something that is not necessarily aware of our existence, or even of its own.:)

lmaopml

Richard Dawkins is a fabulous scientist. He's also a very eloquent speaker and super intelligent. He's arrogant though, intelligence and arrogance aren't mutually exclusive, and imo arrogance is not a virtue - this puts me off him somewhat.

After 9/11 he was so appalled at what happened that he gave himself a bit of a mission of sorts, and it's blossomed....So, essentially he is very human like everybody else.

I don't mind atheists, lots of my friends are atheist/ignostic...etc. and I get on perfectly fine with them. They come in every shape size and warm, luke warm, and red hot..lol.... and I don't particularly like to stereotype them, as much as I hate any type of 'stereotype'. I will say that the very fundamentalist ones who seem to be more drawn to Richards mission and want to 'set the children free' can be hard to listen to without doing :rolleyes: that.

AhSureTisGrand

philologos wrote: »

He is referring to those people who will be believers after Thomas. I reject the idea that the material is the only real thing in existence, it's lazy reasoning and very philosophically questionable.

And what was he saying about them? It seems to me Thomas wanted more than just anecdotal evidence, while Jesus was saying that the blessed ones were those who couldn't find better evidence yet believed anyway

philologos

^^ That they won't have the privilege of seeing him in the flesh. They will have to rely on other means to seek Him.

Freddie59

Ellis Dee wrote: »

It is your interpretation that is, to use your own term, curious. I am not stating that I believe I know what Enda's - or for that matter Obama's - beliefs are. All I am pointing out is that both men are manifestly intelligent, both are clearly ambitious, and both clearly recognise that in their respective countries it is not politically wise to deny the existence of the sky fairy. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to leave open the possibility that neither actually believes in a god. In other words, I was contradicting an earlier poster who seemed to be saying that the fact, as the poster seems to regard it as, that men like them, in that poster's view, believe in a deity disprove's someone else's statement that no sane person could believe in a supreme being.:D

You are - for all intents and purposes - stating that these men use God to get votes. Are you actually THAT arrogant?

Freddie59

RichieC wrote: »

The truth hurts.

:rolleyes:

MagicMarker

Freddie59 wrote: »

You are - for all intents and purposes - stating that these men use God to get votes. Are you actually THAT arrogant?

Are you? It's well known that declaring yourself an atheist in America is committing political suicide.

Freddie59

Shenshen wrote: »

I just love that... to be a militant Christian/Muslim/Sikh/Hindu, you need to kill people. Preferably more than one.

To be a militant atheist, you just have to laugh at others....

Unless you're Hitler.

MagicMarker

Freddie59 wrote: »

Unless you're Hitler.

In which case you'd be a christian.

Freddie59

MagicMarker wrote: »

Are you? It's well known that declaring yourself an atheist in America is committing political suicide.

How am I arrogant? Did I declare (without a person's consent) that I am close enough to them to declare their beliefs - or lack thereof?

FOGOFUNK

Freddie59 wrote: »

You are - for all intents and purposes - stating that these men use God to get votes. Are you actually THAT arrogant?

I must be, because I think the same, well maybe not Enda, but Obama I believe comes accross atheist/agnostic.

Cú Giobach

Freddie59 wrote: »

You are - for all intents and purposes - stating that these men use God to get votes. Are you actually THAT arrogant?

You are - for all intents and purposes - stating that these men don't use God to get votes. Are you actually THAT naive?

Craebear

Freddie59 wrote: »

You are - for all intents and purposes - stating that these men use God to get votes. Are you actually THAT arrogant?

Freddie59 wrote: »

Unless you're Hitler.

Not sure if serious...

lmaopml

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

So what's your interpretation of "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed"? Seems to me Jesus was praising blind faith

Faith, doesn't necessarily mean 'blind' or losing all sense of reason and being someone who needs a 'crutch', a broken person.

If a person of faith dies they die like everybody else does, hey ho - people have faith in very many and varied things as they go through life, it could be described as 'blind' too in the strict natural sense of things...all things considered.

Jesus said a whole lot more than praising blind faith, but yes 'faith' is part and parcel. Inseperable actually.

pragmatic1

philologos wrote: »

^^ So people who love each other don't hope the very best for each other in life?

I believe in evolution, and it's not about taking it as a metaphor it's that the passage in the Hebrew lends itself to being regarded as allegory. I think God created the world, and the scientific state of the world can help us find out more about how He made it. Not even the strongest "literalist" takes the Bible entirely literally as if one took Jesus' parables literally they would miss the point and think it as an agricultural handbook. I read the Bible in a way that is most faithful to how it is written, that means exploring genre, context etc. The Bible is a library of books, not just one so one has to take care in reading it.

If Jesus weren't a historical figure then I might be more inclined to see him as a mere metaphor

How does one distinguish between what to believe then. Is it a bit like a pick and mix Bible, pick the bits that fit you own views and forget about other stuff. Because if thats the way it is, its hypocracy. If I remember correctly, Jesus had some very choice words for hypocrites.

Mark200

pragmatic1 wrote: »

How does one distinguish between what to believe then. Is it a bit like a pick and mix Bible, pick the bits that fit you own views and forget about other stuff. Because if thats the way it is, its hypocracy. If I remember correctly, Jesus had some very choice words for hypocrites.

But are those supposed to be taken literally or not? :pac:

With all the murders and confusion over peoples different interpretations of their respective books, you'd think this all-powerful all-knowing being would have bothered to clarify a few things.

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

He is referring to those people who will be believers after Thomas. I reject the idea that the material is the only real thing in existence, it's lazy reasoning and very philosophically questionable.

The man that believes in a bearded man in sky telling us to be good and to hate gays is talking about lazy reasoning... jesus fking christ..

Ellis Dee

Freddie59 wrote: »

You are - for all intents and purposes - stating that these men use God to get votes. Are you actually THAT arrogant?

You have actually no basis on which to evaluate whether or not I am arrogant, or how much so. You also have no right to judge me in that way. Doing so is, in fact, very presumptious of you and in itself verges on the arrogant.

Your interpretation is a distortion of what I wrote. Whether it is deliberate or not is something that I likewise cannot determine.

What I actually said is that the fact Kenny and Obama openly declare themselves to profess religion does not prove anything, least of all that they actually believe in that stuff. It is something that a politician must do in especially the USA and almost as much so in Ireland. That is the unfortunate reality. Politics is the art of the possible and it is quite conceivable that one or other of those men, or both, occasionally wonders whether all that stuff about the magic tree and the talking snake and the sky fairy and harps and haloes in the hereafter could possibly be anything more than a ridiculous tale, like that of the great flying spaghetti monster or the orcs and elves. But as pragmatists they are unlikely ever to voice those doubts and risk someone like Sarah Palinosaur or that aul Ni Mathuna wan stepping into their jobs.:rolleyes:

Mindme

Disbelieving in a God in a religion dominated world does not come easy to those indoctrinated as children. We had to work extremely hard to escape the nonsense.

Thinking a lot usually does the trick. Better still reading books written by those considered highly intelligent in science and literature, is a great help.

later12

Mindme wrote: »

Disbelieving in a God in a religion dominated world does not come easy to those indoctrinated as children. We had to work extremely hard to escape the nonsense.

Extremely hard? Indoctrinated? Really?

This is where I think atheism goes too far. For most people, atheism was just an adolescent realisation based on the absence of any evidence supporting the relevant proposition.

There is nothing complicated about atheism, nor is it a particularly intelligent position, nor is it an academic way of life, nor is atheism hard work. It is a pretty basic observation. It really needs to be left at that.

If there is one thing that is as ridiculous as religious people advancing their beliefs as intellectually founded, it is atheists pretending that there is any intellectual depth to atheism. There is about as much intellectual depth to atheism as there is scepticism of the banshee. If you think it is particularly intellectual to disbelieve in God, your perception of intellectual muscle is probably not all that toned to begin with.

I suggest you find a real intellectual pursuit.

Mindme

later10 wrote: »

Extremely hard? Indoctrinated? Really?

This is where I think atheism goes too far. For most people, atheism was just an adolescent realisation based on the absence of any evidence supporting the relevant proposition.

There is nothing complicated about atheism, nor is it a particularly intelligent position, nor is it an academic way of life, nor is atheism hard work. It is a pretty basic observation. It really needs to be left at that.

If there is one thing that is as ridiculous as religious people advancing their beliefs as intellectually founded, it is atheists pretending that there is any intellectual depth to atheism. There is about as much intellectual depth to atheism as there is scepticism of the banshee. If you think it is particularly intellectual to disbelieve in God, your perception of intellectual muscle is probably not all that toned to begin with.

I suggest you find a real intellectual pursuit.

I bow to your youth. :-)

Even the great Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky struggled. Throughout his life.

philologos

pragmatic1 wrote: »

How does one distinguish between what to believe then. Is it a bit like a pick and mix Bible, pick the bits that fit you own views and forget about other stuff. Because if thats the way it is, its hypocracy. If I remember correctly, Jesus had some very choice words for hypocrites.

It's not picking or mixing, it's reading things in the genre that they are written. One can tell this in many cases simply by where they fall in the Bible. The Torah (Genesis - Deuteronomy) is generally legalistic and concerns the law to the Hebrews, The Historical Books deal with the history of Israel from the time of Moses until the time when the the Israelites are brought back from captivity in Babylon. The Poetic Books from Job to Song of Solomon are philosophy / poetry about the common everyday relationships that people have with God and other people, The Prophets are containing prophesy about the judgement against the Israelites for turning away from God and later on about how they will be brought back to Israel after the time in captivity is over. The Gospels are accounts of Jesus' life. The Apostolic letters are about how Christians should live in the world and how Jesus' life, death and resurrection affects the Christian faith.

Simply put the Bible has a number of books that need to be read correctly in their own right. I believe in the Bible as a whole. The question is how is it believed. Is it believed as allegory in the case of Jesus' parables or much of the prophets. Is it believed as legalistic as the Sermon of the Mount or the Ten Commandments are? Is it written as history as Joshua crossing the Jordan at Gilgal is. Or is it advice and instruction to the Christian communities as Peter's letter to the Jewish-Christian diaspora in Asia Minor is?

That's simply sensible. That's not picking or choosing that's just reading things as they were intended to be read.

Freddie59

MagicMarker wrote: »

In which case you'd be a christian.

Of course you would...............:rolleyes:

Freddie59

FOGOFUNK wrote: »

I must be, because I think the same, well maybe not Enda, but Obama I believe comes accross atheist/agnostic.

Comes across as..........your opinion, might I even say belief? You, or anyone else, cannot speak for the man. It is what you want him to be - not what he actually is.