When atheists go too far

Asry

ITguy2 wrote: »

But you have to admit religion is kind of humorous, it's humorous in it's innocence for some of us in the way that adults view children awaiting santa claus on christmas eve, or leaving carrots out for Rudolph.

But are you agreeing then that just because you hold that opinion that that gives you the right to put other people down?

ITguy2

fedor.2. wrote: »

He'll be sorry when he's in hell

Ah yes - hell, the magical kingdom where “souls” are punished infinitely for finite crimes. But not just (supposedly) punished in the lock-them-up-behind-bars sense, but burned alive and tortured for eternity. No offense, but do some of you people really believe that crap the church has been peddling? Where is the logic in burning somebody alive forever, regardless of what (supposed) "sins" they commited on earth? This god has some serious issues it would seem.

Asry

ITguy2 wrote: »

Ah yes - hell, the magical kingdom where “souls” are punished infinitely for finite crimes. But not just (supposedly) punished in the lock-them-up-behind-bars sense, but burned alive and tortured for eternity. No offense, but do some of you people really believe that crap the church has been peddling? Where is the logic in burning somebody alive forever, regardless of what (supposed) "sins" they commited on earth? This god has some serious issues it would seem.

I do believe in these things, yeah. As for why, maybe just go look at the Christianity forum. :rolleyes:

CerebralCortex

Asry wrote: »

I do believe in these things, yeah. As for why, maybe just go look at the Christianity forum. :rolleyes:

You do realise it won't change his accurate portrayal of Christian beliefs?

Turtwig

Asry wrote: »

I do believe in these things, yeah. As for why, maybe just go look at the Christianity forum. :rolleyes:

Well depending on who you ask you'll get a different reason for why, a different explanation of hell and a different answer to the question of what happens to babies who die.
It's all so bloody confusing.

Asry

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You do realise it won't change his accurate portrayal of Christian beliefs?

Whose? Malty's?

Asry

Malty_T wrote: »

Well depending on who you ask you'll get a different reason for why, a different explanation of hell and a different answer to the question of what happens to babies who die.
It's all so bloody confusing.

Eugh, I know. It's confusing. Even in the RCC it's confusing. There's stuff that's doctrine, like definitive answers, and then just speculative theology, like the idea of limbo.

In fairness, I'm a member of the RCC at the moment but I disagree with a lot of things, and was going to renounce it but they've removed the loophole that lets you request it! So I'm baptised and confirmed, which means I cannot ever leave! Sure I can walk away and stop practicing but in the back of my head I'll always just be a failed Catholic.

But the stuff I believe in include God, Intelligent Design, some form of afterlife, as in heaven and hell, but I'm really not sure what form they'd take. Emmm. Jesus. The Resurrection. But like. I dunno. I go to mass and all. I'm going to world youth day in August. But I'm also a bit of a feminist and LGBT. You know? So yeah, I believe the stuff, but I don't think you have to be a d*ck about it.

ITguy2

Asry wrote: »

I do believe in these things, yeah.

Right, so we are supposedly god's children aren't we? Let's say if a child somewhere called Joe or Mary done something bold, maybe even smashed all the windows in their parents house with rocks. How would you feel if the punishment for those children (even though they had done great damage) was to have their hands chained to the back of a fireplace, and to have their hand burnt for 10 minutes?

That is a pretty sick thought isn't it? And yet you have many christian loonies who believe that their loving god punishes many, if not most of his children in a place called hell where they are burnt and tortured for eternity.

I'm glad I'm an atheist, becuase the thought of been religious and been held mentally captive throughout my life to the ****ing lunatic christians read about in the bible sends shivers down my spine far more than any supposed devil or demons ever could.

Seachmall

Asry wrote: »

Intelligent Design

Just out of curiosity where did you learn to believe in Intelligent Design? School? Parents? Friends?

ID isn't all that common in Europe, not even in the Vatican. The official RCC stance is Evolution occurred but was guided (known as the Watchmaker Theory).

Don't mean to sound intrusive, it's just a rare belief now-a-days (outside of some US States of course).

dvpower

Asry wrote: »

But the stuff I believe in include God, Intelligent Design, some form of afterlife, as in heaven and hell, but I'm really not sure what form they'd take. Emmm. Jesus. The Resurrection. But like. I dunno. I go to mass and all. I'm going to world youth day in August. But I'm also a bit of a feminist and LGBT. You know? So yeah, I believe the stuff, but I don't think you have to be a d*ck about it.

Doesn't the RCC preach that practicing LGBT people are going to go to hell? How do you reconcile this with your membership of that organisation?

Turtwig

I think we need to be very careful here. Intelligent Design is one of those awkward labels that creationists have hijacked in order to spread their ideology. Evolution doesn't rule out an Intelligent Design, in fact it says nothing about the designer or lack of one; it merely explains how organisms changed over time. The brilliance of ID Theory proposed by creationists is that even though it is peddling pseudoscientific bullsh1t it has an appeal to anyone who believes in a intelligent designer. Te majority of those people are unable to distinguish between a theory which is basically a facade to shoehorn the bible and religious faith into science classrooms and one which is actually the scientific theory agreed with by muslim, christian, jewish and atheist scholars alike.

So to clarify, the idea of Intelligent or an intelligent designer is fine, that's a personal belief. Where it enters the hazardous to humanity territory is when it comes to the insistence that there exists a religion known as evolutionism. "Evolutionists", once you hear that term, just run away. The person is talking through their arse.

philologos

ITguy2 wrote: »

That is a pretty sick thought isn't it? And yet you have many christian loonies who believe that their loving god punishes many, if not most of his children in a place called hell where they are burnt and tortured for eternity.

I'm glad I'm an atheist, becuase the thought of been religious and been held mentally captive throughout my life to the ****ing lunatic christians read about in the bible sends shivers down my spine far more than any supposed devil or demons ever could.

We are God's children by adoption through faith in Christ (Galatians 3:26-29, John 1:12). Otherwise we are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3) meaning that we are liable to God's judgement. That's on a Biblical level.

That's mainline Christian belief. As has been emphasised countless times, nobody has said that they would want atheists to go to hell. What has been said is that Jesus is the only way to salvation. Most Christians would long for others to know about Christ.

As for being mentally captive. Simply put I'm not. I could decide to reject Christianity, but I believe it to be true and I am thankful to God for what He has done for me so I won't.

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

As has been emphasised countless times, nobody has said that they would want atheists to go to hell.

Atheists who are dead. They no longer have an opportunity for redemption. God wants them to go to hell, no?

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

We are the Napkin's children by adoption through faith in Meals (Napkin quadrant 3: 26-29 cm). Otherwise we are children of Fodder (Napkin Quadrant 2:3 cm) meaning that we are liable to the Napkins judgement. That's on a dining level.

That's mainline Napkin belief. As has been emphasised countless times, nobody has said that they would want non napkin believers to turn to fodderl. What has been said is that the Napkin is the only way to nourishment. Most Napkin followers would long for others to know about the Napkin.

As for being mentally captive. Simply put I'm not. I could decide to reject the Napkin, but I believe it to be true and I am thankful to the Napkin for what He has done for me so I won't.

Reductio ad absurdum

ITguy2

philologos wrote: »

As for being mentally captive. Simply put I'm not.

But is the threat of hell looming over one's head not a form of mental captivity? It seems to me to be a form of an iron grip on peoples mental functioning. The fear of hell is instilled in many people and they base many of their actions and beliefs in life on this basis.

I could decide to reject Christianity, but I believe it to be true and I am thankful to God for what He has done for me so I won't.

Well that is fair enough if you belief that for yourself. But ask yourself - what has he done for the world in general? Why the diseases, why the malnourished children around the planet, why the natural disasters such as the one that devastated Japan a while back? It seems to me that it is more believable to conceive that we are the products of random evolution and confined within the laws of physics, including at times when some of those laws harm us - than to believe there is a conscious entity overlooking our existence.

It is simply to unbelievable when looking at the state of the world to concede that there is a benevolent god. If you were master of some simulation or creation or your own - would you let it get to the state that much of the world is in today? Not very likely.

And last but not least, why do so many Christians believe that the universe is 6,000 years old when it has been clearly shown that it is somewhere around 13-14 billions year old, based on scientific evidence.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

No, it means that people are wrong for rejecting Him.

Why? Shouldn't we have the choice without the prospect of punishment?

coffee_cake

philologos wrote: »

As for being mentally captive. Simply put I'm not.

That's just the stockholm syndrome talking

philologos

ITguy2 wrote: »

But is the threat of hell looming over one's head not a form of mental captivity? It seems to me to be a form of an iron grip on peoples mental functioning. The fear of hell is instilled in many people and they base many of their actions and beliefs in life on this basis.

It isn't looming over my head as I've decided to follow Christ. Hell actually wasn't the major factor in deciding as to whether or not Christianity was true. Rather it was an assessment of who God was, who Jesus was and how the Biblical narrative held up to reality.

Romans 8:1 says that there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus. Meaning that those who have accepted Jesus and who aim to live each and every day as He did have no reason to fear hell.

As a Christian, hell doesn't play much of a part in my daily life. The love of God is the basis of my life and indeed finding out how He would like me to demonstrate that love to others. That's the core philosophy in my life.

ITguy2 wrote: »

Well that is fair enough if you belief that for yourself. But ask yourself - what has he done for the world in general? Why the diseases, why the malnourished children around the planet, why the natural disasters such as the one that devastated Japan a while back? It seems to me that it is more believable to conceive that we are the products of random evolution and confined within the laws of physics, including at times when some of those laws harm us - than to believe there is a conscious entity overlooking our existence.

It's not just "believing it for myself". I believe it is objectively true. It's simply not just something nice to believe.

As far as I see it without God we wouldn't be here. The greatest thing that God has done for us is demonstrate His mercy to us through Jesus. That becomes clearer the second one decides to follow Him. It isn't very clear until then.

I personally believe in biological evolution, but I don't believe that this could have happened of its own accord without a Creator.

ITguy2 wrote: »

It is simply to unbelievable when looking at the state of the world to concede that there is a benevolent god. If you were master of some simulation or creation or your own - would you let it get to the state that much of the world is in today? Not very likely.

The state the world is in today is largely reflective of the state that humanity is in today.

ITguy2 wrote: »

And last but not least, why do so many Christians believe that the universe is 6,000 years old when it has been clearly shown that it is somewhere around 13-14 billions year old, based on scientific evidence.

Ask a Young Earth Creationist. I'm not one of them. I think it is largely down to what is lost in the translation between the Hebrew and the English language. The word in the Ancient Hebrew of Genesis 1 for day (yom) is a word that can be used in broader contexts of time. Whereas in the English language day is much more defined than yom.

Edit:

dvpower wrote: »

Atheists who are dead. They no longer have an opportunity for redemption. God wants them to go to hell, no?

They have already been judged. That is God's ultimate decision but He doesn't desire for anyone to go there. He desires for us to come to know Him.

2 Peter 3:8-9 wrote:

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

dvpower

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Why? Shouldn't we have the choice without the prospect of punishment?

You DO have a choice - you can accept Jesus as your saviour and escape the punisment you richly deserve. Anyway, people who do wrong (failing to measure up to God's standard) deserve punishment <insert bible quote>.

philologos, you can take the rest of the day off - I'll take it from here.

Asry

dvpower wrote: »

Doesn't the RCC preach that practicing LGBT people are going to go to hell? How do you reconcile this with your membership of that organisation?

With difficulty and sacrifice As I said, I was planning on leaving, but I can't - I'm bound here. The official line is that people with homosexual tendencies wouldn't be punished for them, but those who consummate them will. It's the act of homosexual sex which is the sin, not the presence of homosexuality in the first place. So yeah, I'm celibate, block out any thoughts/daydreams etc. I'm the B part of LGBT so perhaps it's not so dreadful. My bf is supportive. But no, I have severe intimacy issues as regards previous aborted attempts at relationships with women and in general, it's easier to try to stamp out that part of myself.

Seachmall wrote: »

Just out of curiosity where did you learn to believe in Intelligent Design? School? Parents? Friends?

ID isn't all that common in Europe, not even in the Vatican. The official RCC stance is Evolution occurred but was guided (known as the Watchmaker Theory).

Don't mean to sound intrusive, it's just a rare belief now-a-days (outside of some US States of course).

Maybe I used the wrong term? Maybe I mean the Watchmaker Theory one. I'm just reading about that on wikipedia now. I just mean the idea that for everything to be so complex and perfect and in such delicate symbiosis...surely someone must have made it that way? The designer for the design?

Kind of like this as well -

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

Seachmall

Asry wrote: »

Maybe I used the wrong term? Maybe I mean the Watchmaker Theory one. I'm just reading about that on wikipedia now. I just mean the idea that for everything to be so complex and perfect and in such delicate symbiosis...surely someone must have made it that way? The designer for the design?

Ah right, that's fair enough. I thought you meant the neo-creationist thing.

Apologies.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

Just a mention though, that's more a Deistic belief than a theistic one. The RCC is a theist organisation, definitely not a deist one.

sensibleken

Asry wrote: »

With difficulty and sacrifice As I said, I was planning on leaving, but I can't - I'm bound here. The official line is that people with homosexual tendencies wouldn't be punished for them, but those who consummate them will. It's the act of homosexual sex which is the sin, not the presence of homosexuality in the first place. So yeah, I'm celibate, block out any thoughts/daydreams etc. I'm the B part of LGBT so perhaps it's not so dreadful. My bf is supportive. But no, I have severe intimacy issues as regards previous aborted attempts at relationships with women and in general, it's easier to try to stamp out that part of myself.

This is very sad. First of all you are not bound. just because some ouldfella poured water on your head when you were a baby and you said two responses when you were 12 does not mean you are bound by anything.

What part of the bible condems lesbians? It is only male homosexuality which is condemned. Stamping out a part of yourself is incredibly dangerous. Be celibate is fine but repression is dangerous

Mark200

philologos wrote: »

As far as I see it without God we wouldn't be here. The greatest thing that God has done for us is demonstrate His mercy to us through Jesus. That becomes clearer the second one decides to follow Him. It isn't very clear until then.

I personally believe in biological evolution, but I don't believe that this could have happened of its own accord without a Creator.

So the greatest thing he has done is deciding to not send us all to eternal torture (just send most of us).

philologos wrote: »

They have already been judged. That is God's ultimate decision but He doesn't desire for anyone to go there. He desires for us to come to know Him.

That's like holding a gun to someones head and saying "I don't want to kill you, I just want you to give me your money. If you don't give me your money I have no choice.."

The robber would still be taking the decision whether or not to shoot them.

dilbert2

http://www.inspiredinsanity.com.au/images/uploads/t-shirts/tees%20gooses/tmenjesuscoming2.JPG

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

They have already been judged. That is God's ultimate decision but He doesn't desire for anyone to go there. He desires for us to come to know Him.

Of course he desires it. He sends them there. He surely could choose not to (or at least put them out of their misey after a couple of billion of years).

Funny how a God that exists outside of time itself puts a deadline on forgivness but none on punishment.

Seachmall

dvpower wrote: »

Of course he desires it. He sends them there. He surely could choose not to (or at least put them out of their misey after a couple of billion of years).

He could also remove any temptations, or create people without temptation, but that's not as much fun.

optogirl

Asry wrote: »

With difficulty and sacrifice As I said, I was planning on leaving, but I can't - I'm bound here.

So the only reason you are still a member of the church is because they wont let you leave officially?

The official line is that people with homosexual tendencies wouldn't be punished for them, but those who consummate them will. It's the act of homosexual sex which is the sin, not the presence of homosexuality in the first place. So yeah, I'm celibate, block out any thoughts/daydreams etc. I'm the B part of LGBT so perhaps it's not so dreadful. My bf is supportive. But no, I have severe intimacy issues as regards previous aborted attempts at relationships with women and in general, it's easier to try to stamp out that part of myself.

Asry - embrace whatever feelings you have - for a start, you are not alone. Repressing these parts of yourself which do no harm to others is dangerous. You say you already have problems with the church -why stay there just because you happened to be born into it? You now have free will and free choice. I am an atheist but I would hope that the god you believe in would not want you to be unhappy and deny who you are. If you believe he made you, he made you how you are.

Tehachapi

Albert Einstein wrote:

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. … Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

-

Asry

optogirl wrote: »

So the only reason you are still a member of the church is because they wont let you leave officially?.

Yep that's one of the reasons, definitely. To leave though would mean an obliteration of a whole ideological viewpoint of the world, of what is right and wrong, and what I can expect for my life and my children (if I ever have any - unlikely!:D)

optogirl wrote: »

Asry - embrace whatever feelings you have - for a start, you are not alone. Repressing these parts of yourself which do no harm to others is dangerous. You say you already have problems with the church -why stay there just because you happened to be born into it? You now have free will and free choice. I am an atheist but I would hope that the god you believe in would not want you to be unhappy and deny who you are. If you believe he made you, he made you how you are.

That's one viewpoint, certainly. But you can't get away from the fact that the bible says, unequivocally, many times, that it is a sin and an abomination. No changing in religious denomination will change that. BUT, I don't know that for sure because all I know is what the RCC has taught me since infancy. I'd have to read about stuff really.

Asry

Tehachapi wrote: »

-

...that's just an elaboration of the quote I posted. What's your point?