When atheists go too far

Matthew23

flutterflye wrote: »

Clearly it does when they continue to prey [sic] for us!

we pray for u but we cant make you beleive so we just ignore it usualy

Mat23

Einhard

philologos wrote: »

God's world is His. We live in it and He has placed certain standards on it. That's pretty much the way that I see it. If we willfully reject His standards we can expect to be punished just as in numerous other areas in which we reject authorities.

The thing is, we get to choose our authorities. Neither they, nor their edicts, are imposed on us by imperial fiat.

Also, what do you mean "willfully reject his standards"? I'm an ateist, but it's far from willfull. I have absolutely no choice in the matter. I can see that there are attractions to faith, but they are beyond me to experience. Even were I pretend, I'd be fooling only those around me, not myself, and certainly not any God I'd profess to believe. Is, therefore, my atheism, over which I have no will, something I should be punished for?

God doesn't need anyone to love Him rather we need the love of God and to be in a fulfilling relationship with Him in order to have a real wholeness of being.

Isn't that entirely subjective? How exactly do you measure "wholeness of being" in others? And if love is imposed through fear, can it really be described as positive? Can it really be described as love? If a husband threatened to beat his wife senseless unless she tended to him, and loved him, would be call it love?

Meh. I find that these arguments tend to be built on strawmen personally having read the Bible in depth over the past few years.

So reading something in depth now changes the meanings of the words on the page? I always find this an interesting tactic. The words don't actually mean what you think they mean, but what I deem them to mean. It's basically a cop out. It's also ironic, given the Bible has so long been put forward as a means by which to live a Christian life, and yet, at the same time, to suit the purposes of those who wish to evade hard questions on the text, it is something which can only be understood through substantive reading, deep thought, and intellectual brio. Not exactly a document by which a barely literate Protestant peasant, or even an educated Coventry mill worker, might be able to understand then, if that's the case. The word of God- not available to the common man!

We must live on a completely different planet. I find people are more disposed to what is evil rather than what is good.

You must ignore millenia of evolutionary biology then. The evidence to suggest that morality came about gradually as an evolutionary imperative, both biologically and later culturally, is overwhelming. Man (in general), it is quite evident, is literally hardwired to do good.

It's always slightly disturbing how little faith some religious have in human nature.

He loved you so much that He sent His Son Jesus to die for you. God is fully just, and is fully forgiving if we decide to receive it.

Ah yes, so just that he sent his son Jesus to die for us- ignoring the fact that, for countless millenia prior to this, all humans who died wer consigned to Hell. Did God not love those people? Or what about thise for whom, through no fault of their own, the word of God was somewhat late in coming? The countless generations of native Americans and Australian Aborigines, damned to Hell, whilst the Word spread slowly as a snail from the Levant. I can contact Australia in 10 seconds, but it took the word of "Almighty" God almost 20 centuries. And with far more serious consequences- if you were to believe his proponents. Truly, he works in mysterious ways...

If you murder someone 30 years ago and you are brought before a court 30 years later it doesn't matter what you've done over the last 30 years, you are still guilty of murder.

In the same way if you reject God you are guilty of that rejection until you aim to put it right with Him.

In our civilised human justice system, as opposed to the barbarous excuse for justice that you ascribe to your God, mitigating circumstances are taken into account. Thus, we have pleas of insanity, murder, manslaughter etc, and a whole host of other degrees of responsibility. With God, there's nothing of that- there's one standard, and any deviation results in barbarous mutilation and pain. Thus, I as an atheist are, in your eyes consigned to Hell. But I haven't chosen to be an atheist, and if tere is a God, I must be one through his design. No matter, God isn't one for nuance- off to burn in hell with you...

Also, in our enlightened system of justice, as opposed to the parody of justice espoused by people like you on behalf of God, people can redeem themselves after their punishment. Not so with God...

philologos wrote: »

Who says unquestioned? Many Biblical figures asked questions of God. That's pretty much what occupies many of the pages of the Bible.

No, what occupies many pages of the Bible, are figures questioning God, and then being brutally persecuted and punished for having the temerity to do so...

It's far from a one way dialogue, but it is truly a two way relationship as far as I see it in my daily life and in as far as we can see it running through the lives of Biblical figures. Not that I am comparing myself to any of them.

It's a two relationship insofar as you agree, or you are punished; you obey, or you are punished. There's nothing to distinguish it from Assad's regime in Syria, or the type of brutal father against whom the latest ISPCC ads were broadcast.

Ultimately I think we all do. You may disagree.

This is quite an eloquent testiment to your discomfort with the punishments alleged reserved for God for those who let Him down. Your innate human decency cannot stomach the idea of people being tourtured in eternity for crimes and sins over which they might have no control. How to reconcile this natural discomfort though, with your religious faith? The punishments themselves cannot be questioned, as that would be questioning the Bible, and God himself, so rather you have to pretend that, in some way, everyone comes to God in the end, and thus are saved. Thus, the people you like, and whose company you enjoy, are saved from an eternity of mutilation.

It's a nice touch, but it's a cop out, designed, like religion in fact, for your own comfort.

It seems like we went in two entirely different directions.

Ah, that's because you read the Bible "properly", while Cú just read it...

Absolutely, it is a part of the human condition. Looking towards God for guidance helps not to get caught in the ways of the world which in many ways is disposed towards evil.

Yet, for many centuries, on this continent, looking to God for guidance, inevitably meant becoming caught up in one of the most corrupt and brutal institutions in history. It meant actively ensnaring oneself int he ways of the world...

Also, man is not disposed towards evil. Evil gets the headlines, but you know not to read the headlines, and take them as the whole truth surely...

Why would He let you into heaven if you have said that you want nothing to do with Him? Rather to the point, why would you want to be with God in heaven if you wanted nothing to do with Him?

Most atheists, most decent minded people, would want nothing to do with a tyrannical brute, who delights in seeing people tortured and brutalised and mutilated, and who is on record (if that's what one accepts the Bible to be) as directing his zealous forces to revel in massacre and rape.

However, if the choice came down to Him, or burning in his Hell for eternity, it's an easy choice!;)

gosuckonalemon

I gotta say, as an educated person who believes in science and understands the concept of evolution, people like philologos freak the shi.t outta me with their wacky beliefs about God and all that jazz.

Osgoodisgood

Matthew23 wrote: »

if u wanna ignore the goodness of religion u can do whatever you want , doesnt matter to people of fate

Mat23

My point was that whether his life is better or not it has no bearing on whether religion is based on anything substantive. The "goodness" of religion is a different subject again.

CiaranC

philologos wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned in terms of Jesus as a person taking a clear place in the historical timeline He has displayed His standards clearly for all.

Em, entire civilisations rose and fell without your god even bothering to mention that he exists to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayans

LighterGuy

CiaranC wrote: »

Em, entire civilisations rose and fell without your god even bothering to mention that he exists to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayans

well you dont believe in god obviously :pac: (haha 'your god' :pac:)

But seriously, if someone wants to believe in god. its their choice. And its the same if someone who doesnt believe.


Live and let live.
If anyone tries to force their beliefs onto others (believing in a god, or even not believing in a god) .. are simply wan*ers.

Dudess

I would never belittle an individual for having faith - it's cuntish to do so - but expressing the view that aspects of religion are ludicrous is not the same as attacking a religious individual.

Elliemental

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

So? Are we to then assume that all bad actions are linked to religious beliefs? People who don't believe in any god kill and rape and steal.

The only thing that is important is that they do these things, i don't give a **** about why.

If someone wants to believe the Universes was shat out by a Cosmic Iguana...let them...if they kill someone because they think that...then yeah, deal with them for their actions, not their beliefs.

I neither said, nor implied, that ALL bad actions are linked to religion. Just some of them, and when they are, they tend to be enormously bad actions.

For instance, take the Sebrenica massacre. Thousands of Mulsims gunned down like feral street dogs, just for being Muslim. Then there's the crusades, etc, etc.
Down the aeons; men, women, and children have all killed and been killed in the name of religion.
I repeat, I did not say that all atheists are good people. But, for centuries we have been told that to be truly good people, we must accept the word of the Bible, and live our lives as slaves to this two thousand year old book. How does that correlate to the religious massacres, rape and abuses that we see all about us?

I'm an atheist, and proud to be good without God.

El Siglo

I'm an agnostic/atheist, however I wouldn't go as far as completely ridiculing someones personal beliefs (i.e. if they're not preaching or forcing their ideas on anyone else then they can believe whatever they want). I think a lot of what he's doing is a reaction to fundamentalist Christianity in the US, and for that fair play he's on the offensive against it.

steddyeddy

I dont have faith In anything relgious. I think It would be very hard for me to have faith in anything really without evidence however as long as people dont force any sort of dogmatisim down my throat (and there is such a thing as scientific dogmatisim contrary to popular belief) then I wont spit venom at them for their own personal beliefs. If religious fanatics are pushing dangerous hate inciting dogma then we need to attack it and stem it. The only people I would not like to "ridicule" are people whom use faith at a personal level rather than push it down peoples throat or attack enemys of the faith.

Freddie59

Einhard wrote: »

I as an atheist are, in your eyes consigned to Hell.

Wouldn't necessarily agree. I know many people (who are not Mass-goers or believers) but who are very good people in their lives. I believe that there is a God that can say 'hey, you may not have acknowledged Me, but ya know what? I think you'll fit in well up here'.

That is what life is about. Do good when you can; help others; and be discreet about it. But Einhard, one thing I do note is that if you compare both of us, you are full of vitriol, suspicion, (might I even say hatred) for we Catholics/Christians/believers of all faiths. You cast God down without a second thought. You question existence (nothing wrong with that) but you do not seem content. It shows in your posts.

I, and millions like me, on the other had..........:)

Freddie59

steddyeddy wrote: »

I dont have faith In anything relgious. I think It would be very hard for me to have faith in anything really without evidence however as long as people dont force any sort of dogmatisim down my throat (and there is such a thing as scientific dogmatisim contrary to popular belief) then I wont spit venom at them for their own personal beliefs. If religious fanatics are pushing dangerous hate inciting dogma then we need to attack it and stem it. The only people I would not like to "ridicule" are people whom use faith at a personal level rather than push it down peoples throat or attack enemys of the faith.

Fair play to you Eddy. And there are a lot more people who have a deep personal faith as opposed to the fanatical zealots, who are in the minority in most cases. I've worked with a borderline Atheist for ten years. We get on great and the slagging is mighty. But never offensive.

Freddie59

Dudess wrote: »

I would never belittle an individual for having faith - it's cuntish to do so - but expressing the view that aspects of religion are ludicrous is not the same as attacking a religious individual.

Again fair play to you. Unfortunately sometimes people cross a line (on both sides) which can be offensive and unacceptable.

Freddie59

dvpower wrote: »

That's as far as you're concerned. It's not clear to me. And it not clear to the vast majority of people.

'God' needs to do better.

I find that hard to understand. Both God and His son are pretty clear about what they expect.

Dudess

Dawkins is the only high-profile atheist who ever gets wheeled out ever, and it's assumed every atheist worships at his altar - I'm not a major fan of him tbh and find him quite arrogant.

bnt

Dudess wrote: »

Dawkins is the only high-profile atheist who ever gets wheeled out ever, and it's assumed every atheist worships at his altar - I'm not a major fan of him tbh and find him quite arrogant.

Not only that - the language used by some of these critics of atheism tells me more about them than it does about the subject of atheism. If they talk about Dawkins as a "priest", and the rest of us as "acolytes" or "disciples" who "worship" at his "altar", it tells me that that's how they view the world and everyone in it.

In that worldview you're either a leader or a follower; you're either with them or against them. If you agree with an idea, then you have to follow the originator of the idea, or reject the idea. But Dawkins did not invent atheism, and he spent most of his career writing about evolutionary biology first, not atheism. He's said things that I don't agree with, even insulted people unnecessarily, and if I had a chance to meet him informally I doubt we'd get on well. But that's OK, because the concepts we deal with are loose, unfinished, and not tied to him or anyone else.

Dawkins is not a leader, but then I don't need anyone to tell me who I am. I was an atheist long before I'd even heard of him or read any writings on the topic. If I read someone on the topic who uses such religiously-loaded language to describe atheists, I don't bother finishing the article, because I can tell he/she doesn't understand anything about actual atheists - as opposed to the caricatures presented to them by their religious leaders.

philologos

CiaranC wrote: »

Em, entire civilisations rose and fell without your god even bothering to mention that he exists to them.

God revealed Himself to the Hebrews first and then to all nations through the spread of Jesus. He has placed people to serve Him all over the world, and indeed it is continuing to this day. God allows us to partner with Him in His work. I find that a strength rather than a weakness. I've learned a lot from Him in doing this.

Matthew23

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

My point was that whether his life is better or not it has no bearing on whether religion is based on anything substantive. The "goodness" of religion is a different subject again.

its not a good point tho coz religion has been around for ages and atiests are new and will go away like all the other fake religions :D:D

Mat23

philologos

Dudess wrote: »

I would never belittle an individual for having faith - it's cuntish to do so - but expressing the view that aspects of religion are ludicrous is not the same as attacking a religious individual.

First of all when we speak of religion we have to realise that that word is extremely broad. What are you referring to when you say that "aspects of religion are ludicrous"?

As for "religious individual" - I don't think I would personally describe myself as "religious" even though I believe in God. The word has connotations of hyper-ritualism and hyper-legalism neither of which I would say describe my beliefs.

dvpower

Matthew23 wrote: »

its not a good point tho coz religion has been around for ages and atiests are new and will go away like all the other fake religions :D:D

Mat23

Atheists are new? Do you actually understand what an atheist is?

philologos

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

I gotta say, as an educated person who believes in science and understands the concept of evolution, people like philologos freak the shi.t outta me with their wacky beliefs about God and all that jazz.

What makes you think I'm not educated, or that I don't believe in evolution? Or rather what makes you have such an obnoxious superiority complex?

Personally I think not believing in God often leads to wackier conclusions about the origins of the universe, but that's for another discussion.

Matthew23

dvpower wrote: »

Atheists are new? Do you actually understand what an atheist is?

well i mean people like dawkins who are just starting to come out now they are new. but god is forever

Mat23

dvpower

Matthew23 wrote: »

well i mean people like dawkins who are just starting to come out now they are new. but god is forever

Mat23

I understand. You think atheists should get back in their box.

johnmcdnl

philologos wrote: »

Evolution doesn't disprove the idea that God could have created the universe and all that is in it including its processes and laws.

As for God controlling everything, I do think that He has full authority and can exercise full control, but has also allowed us room to express our free will.

but the bible says that god created the world in 7 days and talks about Adam and Eve and all that... which is disproved by evolutionism

so if that story is wrong - well how do we know the rest of the bible isn't wrong...

Dudess

I don't talk about my atheism unless it's of relevance (some people seem to think atheists automatically go on about it all the time, by virtue of the fact they're atheists) and I think people who go on and on about how they hate the church are like teenagers, but I certainly reserve the right to ridicule believers who ridicule atheists.

Matthew23 wrote: »

well i mean people like dawkins who are just starting to come out now they are new. but god is forever

Mat23

No, you believe god is forever, but you don't know for certain.

Arrogant to do that bold thing with your username too - you're a schoolkid, not a contributor to the bible.

philologos

The word rendered as day in the Genesis passage is 'yom' and is used later in the Tanakh for longer periods of time. Adam and Eve isn't "disproven" by evolution, and there are some Christians who are involved in research science who are suggesting that it is also possible that Adam and Eve could have been two people amongst others. Genesis 4 can be used to back up this argument when Cain fears that other people might kill him. (If Cain was the son of the first two people on earth, who else could have killed him?).

The issue is much broader than some critics and YEC's (Young Earth Creationists) claim it is.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Freddie59 wrote: »

Wouldn't necessarily agree. I know many people (who are not Mass-goers or believers) but who are very good people in their lives. I believe that there is a God that can say 'hey, you may not have acknowledged Me, but ya know what? I think you'll fit in well up here'.

Part of the bible suggest this. Other parts suggest faith is the only way to be saved. God doesn't seem too sure on his standards.

Matthew23

Dudess wrote: »

I

No, you believe god is forever, but you don't know for certain.

Arrogant to do that bold thing with your username too - you're a schoolkid, not a contributor to the bible.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


arogant to call somebody like me a schoolkid, I am in college . and i can do whatever i want with my user name:p:p

Mat23

Dudess

It's christian to live and let live - not to be snide and condescending. Saying a few aul' prayers won't change that.

Osgoodisgood

philologos wrote: »

The word rendered as day in the Genesis passage is 'yom' and is used later in the Tanakh for longer periods of time. Adam and Eve isn't "disproven" by evolution, and there are some Christians who are involved in research science who are suggesting that it is also possible that Adam and Eve could have been two people amongst others. Genesis 4 can be used to back up this argument when Cain fears that other people might kill him. (If Cain was the son of the first two people on earth, who else could have killed him?).

The issue is much broader than some critics and YEC's (Young Earth Creationists) claim it is.

Good grief. It's getting more and more difficult to squeeze your book into the gaps that science has left behind isn't it?
"Research science" about Adam and Eve? Give me a break.