Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

When atheists go too far

Options
1…910121415…47

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Tomtata
    Registered Users Posts: 227 ✭✭Tomtata


    philologos wrote: »
    Tomata - Christianity != RCC, RCC == Christianity, RCC != All religion.

    That's the problem with much discussion about "religion" on boards. It takes this broad thing and assumes it only makes reference to Roman Catholicism.

    Well with nearly 1.2 billon so called members prehaps a good starting point!


  • Options
    #333
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    philologos wrote: »
    I don't think you should.
    You don't think I should subjected to an eternity of punishment in hell, just for being an atheist?
    philologos wrote: »
    I think you should believe and trust in Jesus so that you can be saved.
    So you do think I should subjected to an eternity of punishment in hell, if I remain an atheist.
    philologos wrote: »
    I don't think anyone should go to hell, but many ultimately choose to do so.
    Choose to go to hell. What tripe. I don't even believe it exists.
    philologos wrote: »
    I don't think I would say I am happy at the prospect of anyone going to hell. I would prefer if people believed, were saved and lived for God in this life and in the next. The thought of people going to hell is something that I as a Christian wouldn't like to see happen to anyone.
    But you still see no injustice in people being sent to hell if they choose not to believe. That's obnoxious in any right thinking person's book - eternal punishment for a thought crime.


  • Options
    #334
    Craebear
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭Craebear


    sandmanporto wrote: »
    As far as I'm concerned Dawkins is as bad as those religious fanatics but he's on the other side of the fence. He really should shut his mouth! He's a very annoying man and he's kinda robotic! he's not hte type of guy you'd have a bit of craic with at the bar so he's trying to make up for it criticizing religion lol


    Ye! Damn that guy with his walking into crowded market places and blowing people up!

    Think before you say something :/


  • Options
    #335
    Johro
    Registered Users Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Johro


    Caitlinn wrote: »
    So what you are saying is that anyone old enough to comprehend religion would choose to be an atheist?
    Not necessarily. Anyone not brainwashed as a child though, most likely.


  • Options
    #336
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    dvpower wrote: »
    You don't think I should subjected to an eternity of punishment in hell, just for being an atheist?

    I think you should believe and trust in God. That's what I would hope.
    dvpower wrote: »
    So you do think I should subjected to an eternity of punishment in hell, if I remain an atheist.

    If you reject God and then He judges you after death, He will judge you on the basis of your life. Everybody is guilty of violating His standards. If you accept God through acknowledging what Christ has done on your behalf, you will stand blameless just as He was despite the fact that you may have fallen short because you've accepted the forgiveness that Christ offered on the cross.

    That's the same for both you and me. If I decide to reject God, then I will face the same consequences at the end of time.
    dvpower wrote: »
    Choose to go to hell. What tripe. I don't even believe it exists.

    Ultimately rejecting God means rejecting spending eternity with Him.
    dvpower wrote: »
    But you still see no injustice in people being sent to hell if they choose not to believe. That's obnoxious in any right thinking person's book - eternal punishment for a thought crime.

    No, I think it is wholly just and I think I deserve it as much as anyone else. God in His mercy has offered us a chance to put things right, we can either take it or not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    One thing that I will never understand is how people can worship an entity that is so cruel that it would condemn someone to an eternity of absolute torment, just for using the logic and rationality that it itself provided.
    The bible is full of comments like "God loves you" yet as the saying goes "actions speak louder than words", and from the actions of Yahweh it is blindingly obvious his idea of "love" isn't quite what most of us would subscribe to, and quite frankly even if it was proven that this entity does exist I would no more worship it than I would any mass murdering psychopathic megalomaniac .


  • Options
    #338
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    One thing that I will never understand is how people can worship an entity that is so cruel that it would condemn someone to an eternity of absolute torment, just for using the logic and rationality that it itself provided.
    The bible is full of comments like "God loves you" yet as the saying goes "actions speak louder than words", and from the actions of Yahweh it is blindingly obvious his idea of "love" isn't quite what most of us would subscribe to, and quite frankly even if it was proven that this entity does exist I would no more worship it than I would any mass murdering psychopathic megalomaniac .
    No no no, don't you get it? God does love us because he gives us the choice of whether to spend eternity in hell. Those pesky homosexuals ya see, they can choose not to be homosexual, ergo god will allow them in to heaven.

    It's all very logical and not complete BS in any way whatsoever.


  • Options
    #339
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    One thing that I will never understand is how people can worship an entity that is so cruel that it would condemn someone to an eternity of absolute torment, just for using the logic and rationality that it itself provided.

    This presumes that you actually are doing this. Misplaced skepticism is as irrational as misplaced belief.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    The bible is full of comments like "God loves you" yet as the saying goes "actions speak louder than words", and from the actions of Yahweh it is blindingly obvious his idea of "love" isn't quite what most of us would subscribe to, and quite frankly even if it was proven that this entity does exist I would no more worship it than I would any mass murdering psychopathic megalomaniac .

    Indeed, actions do speak louder than words. Jesus dying on the cross in the place of mankind speaks much louder than words in terms of how God loves us as far as I see it.


  • Options
    #340
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    One thing that I will never understand is how people can worship an entity that is so cruel that it would condemn someone to an eternity of absolute torment, just for using the logic and rationality that it itself provided.
    The bible is full of comments like "God loves you" yet as the saying goes "actions speak louder than words", and from the actions of Yahweh it is blindingly obvious his idea of "love" isn't quite what most of us would subscribe to, and quite frankly even if it was proven that this entity does exist I would no more worship it than I would any mass murdering psychopathic megalomaniac .


    Very good analysis. Of course, there is no god and the mythical creature that would create people and then subject them to a trial and possible condemnation, although they had never wanted that, is simply the creation of people - people with a hunger for power and a desire to dominate others. The whole idea is like that of a cat playing with a mouse. The mouse certainly never volunteered to get into the situation it is in.

    It is understandable that when people in Ireland speak of religion, they mean the Rome-based church that has been so dominant, interfering and involved in scandals. How much has the Methodist church, for example, bothered anyone in, say, Tullamore?

    I hope I can post a YouTube video (not sure I know how). It's the late great very funny atheist George Carlin and he really points out the absurdity of religion.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=george+carlin+religion+is+bull****&aq=1&oq=george+Carlin


  • Options
    #341
    Osgoodisgood
    Registered Users Posts: 869 ✭✭✭Osgoodisgood


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    No no no, don't you get it? God does love us because he gives us the choice of whether to spend eternity in hell. Those pesky homosexuals ya see, they can choose not to be homosexual, ergo god will allow them in to heaven.

    It's all very logical and not complete BS in any way whatsoever.

    Look, you're being unreasonable. The man in the sky is allknowing and you're not supposed to be able to work it out. He has a plan and that should be enough for you. Don't try to make sense of it all, the only information you'll ever need can be found in a bronze age book compiled by Middle Eastern goat herders.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    Looks like my attempt to post the George Carlin video failed. Maybe someone can kindly advise me on how to do it. But if anyone is interested, just go to YouTube (www.youtube.com) and type "George Carlin" into the "search" box.:)


  • Options
    #343
    TwoShedsJackson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    philologos wrote: »
    Indeed, actions do speak louder than words. Jesus dying on the cross in the place of mankind speaks much louder than words in terms of how God loves us as far as I see it.

    Do you interpret the Bible literally, and follow all it's instructions?

    If not, do you believe it is even possible to follow all the practices set out in the Bible?

    Which sections of the Bible have you decided can be ignored due to not falling into the framework of what any rational human alive today would regard as ethically and/or morally right?

    How do you rationalise yours or other Christians decisions to pick and choose what you do want to use from the Bible?


  • Options
    #344
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    gbee wrote: »
    PSSST, I'll let you in on my little secret, I keep this to myself, but I don't believe than any sane man can believe in a divinity.

    So you would consider, let's say, Barack Obama, Abe Lincoln, maybe even our own Enda as 'not sane'? :confused:


  • Options
    #345
    ColeTrain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭ColeTrain


    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    Looks like my attempt to post the George Carlin video failed. Maybe someone can kindly advise me on how to do it. But if anyone is interested, just go to YouTube (www.youtube.com) and type "George Carlin" into the "search" box.:)

    It was posted earlier in the thread, very funny clip.

    To post a video just click the Youtube icon when your writing a post and it will give you a code, between the tags paste in the youtube address but only what's after the = So you'd be pasting in MeSSwKffj9o out of the youtube address below.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o


  • Options
    #346
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    So you would consider, let's say, Barack Obama, Abe Lincoln, maybe even our own Enda as 'not sane'? :confused:

    Of the three you mention, I seem to recall reading that Abe Lincoln, if not an outright atheist, had severe doubts about the existence of any kind of deity or supernatural being.

    Obama and Enda are both "sane" in the sense that they are ambitious politicians and they know which side their bread is buttered on when it comes to getting votes; neither would find it expedient to be in any way doubtful about religion in the country where they have to appeal to the electorate. :D


  • Options
    #347
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    ColeTrain wrote: »
    It was posted earlier in the thread, very funny clip.

    To post a video just click the Youtube icon when your writing a post and it will give you a code, between the tags paste in the youtube address but only what's after the = So you'd be pasting in MeSSwKffj9o out of the youtube address below.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o


    Thanks a lot, ColeTrain. I'm sure I'll get the hang of it eventually. Another one that's great for a laugh is where he compresses the Ten Commandments down to two.:)


  • Options
    #348
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    There are different types of belief and unbelief. Some times extremists rule debate.

    I found in A & A that there are lots of really sound atheists there who like to discuss philosophicical, ethical & moral issues and are almost "quaker" in their approach to life. I love the place for that.

    Now you need a sense of humour posting there and if you believe in God but I did get into some great discussions on philosophy and thought etc and William of Occam, Feynmann etc.And you have to be able to let some things slide.

    I wouldnt argue with shrill & dogmatic people at the best of times but did on A & A. I got dragged into all kinds of social & political discussions which elsewhere I would see as being trolled.

    Will I post there again, dunno.But if I do I may start a thread "Dawkins, Disciple of Beelzebub and his agent on earth or Scientist ".


  • Options
    #349
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    philologos wrote: »
    This presumes that you actually are doing this. Misplaced skepticism is as irrational as misplaced belief.
    You yourself said that "humans were created in the image of god" and you also say "humans are inherently evil", worshipping an entity that is even by your logic evil, is irrational.
    The idea of worshipping gods, kings etc...basically bowing down to your betters is something that belongs in the middle ages (where most religions are stuck).
    Science is pushing god further and further away, we now know how plants grow, animals are born and how stars and planets are formed with no need to invoke supernatural entities, the formation of the universe is just one step further that we haven't quite got yet .
    You do not believe in Thor, Vishnu, Kali etc... I am just going one god further and am adding Yahweh to that list.
    Indeed, actions do speak louder than words. Jesus dying on the cross in the place of mankind speaks much louder than words in terms of how God loves us as far as I see it.
    A few hours torment compared to the countless deaths and immeasurable suffering attributed to him in the OT, Hmmm...... slightly uneven methinks.
    Even the masochistic bloody sacrifice of the crucifixion shows his obsession with cruelty and death as opposed to a truly benevolent god who would be abhorred by such actions and would
    1. not condemn all humanity for the sins of a few, or
    2. forgive sins with no more than a wave of his ethereal hand.


  • Options
    #350
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    It's the late great very funny atheist George Carlin and he really points out the absurdity of religion.
    Good ole George, he really has given me a good laugh over the years. Good video. :)


  • Options
    #351
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    You yourself said that "humans were created in the image of god" and you also say "humans are inherently evil", worshipping an entity that is even by your logic evil, is irrational.
    The idea of worshipping gods, kings etc...basically bowing down to your betters is something that belongs in the middle ages (where most religions are stuck).
    Science is pushing god further and further away, we now know how plants grow, animals are born and how stars and planets are formed with no need to invoke supernatural entities, the formation of the universe is just one step further that we haven't quite got yet .
    You do not believe in Thor, Vishnu, Kali etc... I am just going one god further and am adding Yahweh to that list.

    I don't see how one could construe God as evil personally given that I would consider Him to be the standard of what is good and evil. As I've said already, I suspect your claims about God being evil are strawmen of some form.

    As for not believing in Thor, Vishnu or anyone else. What I would say is that I wouldn't reject thought on the basis of ignorance. I would aim to look into what people are saying rather than blindly rejecting it.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    A few hours torment compared to the countless deaths and immeasurable suffering attributed to him in the OT, Hmmm...... slightly uneven methinks.

    See above. I've encountered a lot of claims of people suggesting that God is evil and in every case they have fallen flat.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Even the masochistic bloody sacrifice of the crucifixion shows his obsession with cruelty and death as opposed to a truly benevolent god who would be abhorred by such actions and would
    1. not condemn all humanity for the sins of a few, or
    2. forgive sins with no more than a wave of his ethereal hand.

    God hasn't condemned all of humanity. He has redeemed them through Christ. Christ being a clear and visible sign of God's forgiveness to us. I suspect that if God had forgiven you anyway you would ask what reason would you have to believe that God has forgiven you. The Crucifixion is tangible.

    So let's not pretend that this is a real objection because I'm doubting that even if God had decided not to give a tangible sign of His mercy that you would still reject Him.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    philologos wrote: »
    I don't see how one could construe God as evil personally given that I would consider Him to be the standard of what is good and evil. As I've said already, I suspect your claims about God being evil are strawmen of some form.
    I am judging him by (his supposed) actions.
    The OT is a story of conquest, genocide and intolerance lorded over by a megalomaniacal war god.
    As for not believing in Thor, Vishnu or anyone else. What I would say is that I wouldn't reject thought on the basis of ignorance. I would aim to look into what people are saying rather than blindly rejecting it.
    I don't get what you are saying here.
    God hasn't condemned all of humanity. He has redeemed them through Christ. Christ being a clear and visible sign of God's forgiveness to us. I suspect that if God had forgiven you anyway you would ask what reason would you have to believe that God has forgiven you. The Crucifixion is tangible.
    Forgiven me for what? According to you he created me, and if his creation was imperfect that is not my fault.
    So let's not pretend that this is a real objection because I'm doubting that even if God had decided not to give a tangible sign of His mercy that you would still reject Him.
    As I said earlier it is not a case of rejecting anything, even if I wanted to I cannot believe in such a silly concept.


  • Options
    #353
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    I am judging him by (his supposed) actions.
    The OT is a story of conquest, genocide and intolerance lorded over by a megalomaniacal war god.

    You see, Cú Giobach, a lot of religious people argue that good is what God does. So, if God does or wills something, it is inherently good. He can't do or will evil; evil is what God doesn't do or will. God is also the standard by which good and evil are measured. So, everything in the Bible is good, not evil, by that logic.

    Good is what God does or wills.
    God is the morally objective standard against which good and evil is measured.
    Therefore, God can't be evil, nor can he do evil.

    It's a logically valid argument.

    I still criticise God, though. A person can do that if they reject him as the standard of objective morality. Using my subjective morals I think the God of the OT is one of the most evil imaginings of all time. You can't really use this argument against a theist, though: they'll reject your subjective morality based on their premise that God is the standard for objective morality.


  • Options
    #354
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    I am judging him by (his supposed) actions.
    The OT is a story of conquest, genocide and intolerance lorded over by a megalomaniacal war god.

    Not really. The Old Testament is a broad collection of 39 books containing Torah law, historical books, poetic books and prophesy.

    As gvn has pointed out your argument is based on subjective morality. I would hold that morality is entirely objective. Rights and wrongs are based on universal principles. As to where these universal principles come from, I believe they are from God Himself.

    I don't get what you are saying here.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Forgiven me for what? According to you he created me, and if his creation was imperfect that is not my fault.

    He created us with free will and we decided to rebel against Him. I include myself as much as you in that definition. The only difference between you and I is that I've stopped because I've come to realise who God really is and what He has done.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    As I said earlier it is not a case of rejecting anything, even if I wanted to I cannot believe in such a silly concept.

    You've clearly rejected God. Hence why you are arguing against His existence.

    IMO, I don't see how Christianity is more illogical than atheism is. I was agnostic for quite a few years but I eventually realised that it didn't make sense (there had to be a truth as to why things are the way they are) and it was simply the result of a lot of confusion about what to believe. I was born with a philosophical mind and as a result I can't just leave questions like this alone.


  • Options
    #355
    AhSureTisGrand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭AhSureTisGrand


    philologos wrote: »
    You've clearly rejected God. Hence why you are arguing against His existence.
    "Reject" seems to me a peculiar word to use. Would you say you reject unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster, or would you simply say you don't believe they exist?
    philologos wrote: »
    (there had to be a truth as to why things are the way they are)

    Why do you say this? Can nothing exist without "truth" as to why it exists?


  • Options
    #356
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    AhSureTisGrand wrote: »
    "Reject" seems to me a peculiar word to use. Would you say you reject unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster, or would you simply say you don't believe they exist?

    By not believing that they exist I am rejecting / denying their existence.
    AhSureTisGrand wrote: »
    Why do you say this? Can nothing exist without "truth" as to why it exists?

    This is simply common sense. Things happen for a reason. Things exist for a reason.


  • Options
    #357
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    AhSureTisGrand wrote: »
    Reject seems to me a peculiar word to use. Would you say you reject unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster, or would you simply say you don't believe they exist?



    Why do you say this? Can nothing exist without "truth" as to why it exists?

    Religious people think 'Religious' is the default setting in the brain. which of course is horseshyte.


  • Options
    #358
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I wouldn't consider myself "religious". That aside I believe humans are born agnostics (without knowledge) and then through experience can seek and find their Creator.


  • Options
    #359
    AhSureTisGrand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭AhSureTisGrand


    philologos wrote: »
    By not believing that they exist I am rejecting / denying their existence.
    I still think it is quite different from simply saying "I reject them" them. I think to reject God one would have to believe He exists at the same time. I can reject the statement "God exists" however, because that statement does exist in some form.
    philologos wrote: »
    This is simply common sense. Things happen for a reason. Things exist for a reason.
    Two questions:
    1. Does everything happen for a reason?
    2. If so, can something exist that is also the reason for itself? ie "x happens because x happens"


  • Options
    #360
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    AhSureTisGrand wrote: »
    Two questions:
    1. Does everything happen for a reason?
    2. If so, can something exist that is also the reason for itself? ie "x happens because x happens"

    1. I think the vast majority if not all things have an underlying reason.
    2. In terms of finite things it seems too circular. For example if someone is 10 years old, there must have been something that happened (conception) 10 years and 9 months ago (biologically) for him to take his place in time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    AhSureTisGrand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭AhSureTisGrand


    philologos wrote: »
    1. I think the vast majority if not all things have an underlying reason.
    So you leave open the possibility that something may lack an underlying reason.
    philologos wrote: »
    2. In terms of finite things it seems too circular. For example if someone is 10 years old, there must have been something that happened (conception) 10 years and 9 months ago (biologically) for him to take his place in time.
    But if there is something infinite then it does not require a cause other than itself?


Advertisement