Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Benny_Cake · 21-11-2013 08:24AM

marienbad wrote: »

In my experience the vast majority of atheist couldn't give a flying fcuk about ancient texts provided someone's else's interpretation does not impact on our lives today.

The vast majority probably don't, but from my time on these parts of Boards there is definitely a noisy minority of atheists for whom the very existence of people who don't think as they do is enough to upset them, much as it is with fundamentalists.

That doesn't reflect on the majority of atheists, who are pretty much indifferent, as you said. It's a reminder that intolerance is not confined to any one group though.

georgesstreet · 21-11-2013 01:03PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The vast majority probably don't, but from my time on these parts of Boards there is definitely a noisy minority of atheists for whom the very existence of people who don't think as they do is enough to upset them, much as it is with fundamentalists.

That doesn't reflect on the majority of atheists, who are pretty much indifferent, as you said. It's a reminder that intolerance is not confined to any one group though.

Of course thats right, although it must be pointed out that when the church was strong in Ireland, as an institution it was actively intolerant of anyone who did not conform in ways which no atheist would attempt.

Disliking views which one views as unintelligent is not the same thing at all.

nagirrac · 21-11-2013 05:19PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

Of course thats right, although it must be pointed out that when the church was strong in Ireland, as an institution it was actively intolerant of anyone who did not conform in ways which no atheist would attempt.

Disliking views which one views as unintelligent is not the same thing at all.

How do you know "no atheist" would attempt to be intolerant in the same manner? History would strongly suggest otherwise. Regardless of how many atheists try and paint it otherwise, Atheism is an ideology, and like any ideology it can be passive or aggressive depending on circumstances. Atheism is a major tenet of Marxism, the belief that religion is a crutch and has to be removed to "free the proletariat". Well we saw how well that worked out for the tens of millions who died at the hands of Marxist regimes in the 20th century, and still going on in many countries (N. Korea). I know atheists tire of this argument, but it disproves your theory "no atheist would attempt this type of intolerance". Large numbers of people who killed huge numbers of their fellow countrymen did so because of intolerance and the religious were targeted specifically because of their "unintelligent thinking" and their threat to the state ideology.

Hopefully the days are behind us, in the West at least, where broad society accept authority figures and their ideology. When the church was strong in Ireland was an era when all figures of authority were given respect that looking back on it now we see they did not deserve. I grew up that era, unlike I suspect a lot of posters on boards, and there was intolerance from all directions not just the church. In all my years at school I never saw a religious figure (and they were many of them) physically abuse a child, but I saw plenty lay teachers do it. I had a headmaster in national school who beat the crap out of kids, and when his temper was out of control would leave down the cane and beat them with his fists. I'm not saying there wasn't abuse by religious, but the big lie that Irish society can't seem to accept is that abuse was widespread in society. If you read the Ryan report it wasn't just priests abusing, it was lay teachers, doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, in other words any pedophile who had access to children. Ireland was like the BBC back then, anyone who liked to fiddle with kids had free access to do so and the state, which was ultimately responsible, did nothing to protect its most vulnerable.

Your summary of atheism as "disliking views which one views as unintelligent" represents the fundamental misunderstanding of religion that many if not most atheists make. Religion is not based on views, it is based on ritual or practice which leads to known psychological benefits. Humans have been at it for at least 50,000 if not 100,000 years, it is probably the main driver of humans organizing into and maintaining societies, and the reason we are here to talk about it.

There is nothing unintelligent about religion, rather there are religious with various levels of education, just as there are atheists with various levels of education. There is clearly a correlation between higher levels of education and atheism, but the correlation between levels of education and intelligence is much less defined, some of the most brilliant minds we know of dropped out of high school or never went to college.

marienbad · 21-11-2013 05:54PM

nagirrac wrote: »

How do you know "no atheist" would attempt to be intolerant in the same manner? History would strongly suggest otherwise. Regardless of how many atheists try and paint it otherwise, Atheism is an ideology, and like any ideology it can be passive or aggressive depending on circumstances. Atheism is a major tenet of Marxism, the belief that religion is a crutch and has to be removed to "free the proletariat". Well we saw how well that worked out for the tens of millions who died at the hands of Marxist regimes in the 20th century, and still going on in many countries (N. Korea). I know atheists tire of this argument, but it disproves your theory "no atheist would attempt this type of intolerance". Large numbers of people who killed huge numbers of their fellow countrymen did so because of intolerance and the religious were targeted specifically because of their "unintelligent thinking" and their threat to the state ideology.

Hopefully the days are behind us, in the West at least, where broad society accept authority figures and their ideology. When the church was strong in Ireland was an era when all figures of authority were given respect that looking back on it now we see they did not deserve. I grew up that era, unlike I suspect a lot of posters on boards, and there was intolerance from all directions not just the church. In all my years at school I never saw a religious figure (and they were many of them) physically abuse a child, but I saw plenty lay teachers do it. I had a headmaster in national school who beat the crap out of kids, and when his temper was out of control would leave down the cane and beat them with his fists. I'm not saying there wasn't abuse by religious, but the big lie that Irish society can't seem to accept is that abuse was widespread in society. If you read the Ryan report it wasn't just priests abusing, it was lay teachers, doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, in other words any pedophile who had access to children. Ireland was like the BBC back then, anyone who liked to fiddle with kids had free access to do so and the state, which was ultimately responsible, did nothing to protect its most vulnerable.

Your summary of atheism as "disliking views which one views as unintelligent" represents the fundamental misunderstanding of religion that many if not most atheists make. Religion is not based on views, it is based on ritual or practice which leads to known psychological benefits. Humans have been at it for at least 50,000 if not 100,000 years, it is probably the main driver of humans organizing into and maintaining societies, and the reason we are here to talk about it.

There is nothing unintelligent about religion, rather there are religious with various levels of education, just as there are atheists with various levels of education. There is clearly a correlation between higher levels of education and atheism, but the correlation between levels of education and intelligence is much less defined, some of the most brilliant minds we know of dropped out of high school or never went to college.

We seem to be of an age nagirrac , but my recollections of Ireland of the 50's and 60's would differ substantially from yours and from personal experience are just lost decades swamped by violence at the hands of members of the hierarchy. I don't deny that lay people were also a massive part of this culture but the tone and controls were set and rigorously controlled by you know who.

As for the Marxist =Atheist notion , do we really want to go there ? Those regimes to which you refer had about as much to do with Marxism as Mother Theresa had with health care.

As always it was about power and control , be it McQuaid, Franco, Salazar, and on to the extremes of Hitler and Stalin.

As an aside it is interesting how Putin and the Orthodox Church are making such happy bedfellows at the moment.

nagirrac · 21-11-2013 07:59PM

marienbad wrote: »

As for the Marxist =Atheist notion , do we really want to go there ? Those regimes to which you refer had about as much to do with Marxism as Mother Theresa had with health care.

I am not saying Marxism=Atheism, but that atheism or more specifically the rejection and attempted abolition of religion was a central tenet of Marxist ideology (not necessarily what Marx himself wrote or what he meant, but how it got interpreted). It is not too hard to find it in what he wrote: "The abolition of religion as the illusionary happiness of the people is necessary for their true happiness". Of course Lenin and Stalin and all the other assorted despots thought that was a great idea, remove one illusion of happiness and replace it with another, and if you don't like it off to the gulag.

The point I am making is the dangers to freedom in ideology itself and imposing that ideology on society, the notion that "I" know what is good for "you" and will make "you" happy. The notion that I am better than you because you are unintelligent and I am really smart. You are absolutely correct, it is all about power and control, even from the ones' in power we may find more palatable; Obama with his "clinging to their guns and religion" jibe, even though his own biography claimed how central Christianity was to his own life.

SoulandForm · 21-11-2013 08:27PM

Actually the attitudes to Religion varied a lot both between countries and periods of time in the USSR and People's Democracies; the most Socialist phrase in Soviet history following on the nihilism of the early Bholsevik period was when Stalin (who I think the evidence suggests was some type of believer) made on Concordat with the new rite Russian Orthodox Church and stopped all persecution of the Old Ritualists. The People's Republic of China has always been pretty tolerant outside of the initial phrase of the "Cultural Revolution". Poland (which should have broke Papal control of the Roman Catholic Church and paid dearly for not doing so) and the DDR are not comparable to either Socialist Albania or Yugoslavia.

There was so much great about these experiments- its a shame that they clung to dogmatic Marxism and so allowed by their official rigidity to be destroyed by their populations buying the superior American propaganda which in turn led to a massive human disaster.

nagirrac wrote: »

I am not saying Marxism=Atheism, but that atheism or more specifically the rejection and attempted abolition of religion was a central tenet of Marxist ideology (not necessarily what Marx himself wrote or what he meant, but how it got interpreted). It is not too hard to find it in what he wrote: "The abolition of religion as the illusionary happiness of the people is necessary for their true happiness". Of course Lenin and Stalin and all the other assorted despots thought that was a great idea, remove one illusion of happiness and replace it with another, and if you don't like it off to the gulag.

The point I am making is the dangers to freedom in ideology itself and imposing that ideology on society, the notion that "I" know what is good for "you" and will make "you" happy. The notion that I am better than you because you are unintelligent and I am really smart. You are absolutely correct, it is all about power and control, even from the ones' in power we may find more palatable; Obama with his "clinging to their guns and religion" jibe, even though his own biography claimed how central Christianity was to his own life.

marienbad · 21-11-2013 08:31PM

nagirrac wrote: »

I am not saying Marxism=Atheism, but that atheism or more specifically the rejection and attempted abolition of religion was a central tenet of Marxist ideology (not necessarily what Marx himself wrote or what he meant, but how it got interpreted). It is not too hard to find it in what he wrote: "The abolition of religion as the illusionary happiness of the people is necessary for their true happiness". Of course Lenin and Stalin and all the other assorted despots thought that was a great idea, remove one illusion of happiness and replace it with another, and if you don't like it off to the gulag.

The point I am making is the dangers to freedom in ideology itself and imposing that ideology on society, the notion that "I" know what is good for "you" and will make "you" happy. The notion that I am better than you because you are unintelligent and I am really smart. You are absolutely correct, it is all about power and control, even from the ones' in power we may find more palatable; Obama with his "clinging to their guns and religion" jibe, even though his own biography claimed how central Christianity was to his own life.

But what is you are saying is so broad that it includes everything and anything, from the most liberal democracy to the most repressive dictatorship and everything in between.

Or are you advocating some form of anarchy as the ideal ?

SoulandForm · 21-11-2013 08:36PM

And this is classic....

And no I dont think Stalin was a saint.

Brian Shanahan · 21-11-2013 11:45PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'll bite.

Which ancient texts do atheists read literally?

Well I read the bible literally, it's one of the reasons why I realised YHWH is an impossibility, also a giant douche.

nagirrac · 22-11-2013 02:01AM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well I read the bible literally, it's one of the reasons why I realised YHWH is an impossibility, also a giant douche.

.. and if you read it literally, that's about the only reasonable conclusion one can come to.

Don't you ever question though why you read the bible literally? If it was written as mythos, and those best equipped to tell us say it was (Jews), and the great majority of Jews and Christians regard it as mythos, why would an atheist read it literally? It's a genuine question.

The only people who read the bible literally are fundamentalist Christians and atheists, strange bedfellows indeed

marienbad · 22-11-2013 02:29AM

nagirrac wrote: »

.. and if you read it literally, that's about the only reasonable conclusion one can come to.

Don't you ever question though why you read the bible literally? If it was written as mythos, and those best equipped to tell us say it was (Jews), and the great majority of Jews and Christians regard it as mythos, why would an atheist read it literally? It's a genuine question.

The only people who read the bible literally are fundamentalist Christians and atheists, strange bedfellows indeed

Come on nagirrac, you are making it a black and white choice . As I said earlier most people - including atheists - don't care how such texts are read.

The question is not are they true or allegorical , but which parts are true and which are allegorical and how they are applied to all and sundry today irrespective of beliefs .

You have your fundamentalists who believe every word is true and can't wait until Israel recovers all those biblical lands and we can get on with Armageddon , and then your have the nice variety who fully accept evolution but still wish to prevent the use of condoms in the fight against aids or stop gay marriage and a host of other issues - all based on their reading of these ancient texts.

To a lot of people these are not just philosophical questions but are , at best,gross interference in their everyday lives and at worst a death sentence , and all based on 'literal' interpretation of some one else's book.

nagirrac · 22-11-2013 06:54AM

marienbad wrote: »

But what is you are saying is so broad that it includes everything and anything, from the most liberal democracy to the most repressive dictatorship and everything in between.

Or are you advocating some form of anarchy as the ideal ?

No, I wouldn't advocate anarchy, but I do favor limited government. The "most liberal" democracies and dictatorships tend to have a lot in common in that the state seeks to have as much control over people as possible. Both feature massive government structures to accomplish this and that generally involves eroding personal freedom over time. Obviously government has a significant role in providing internal and if necessary external security, maintaining a just legal system, regulating the economy to avoid monopolies, and preventing "too large to fail" entities from destroying economies, but that's about it. So, in summary I support a political system that stays out of people's lives unless they are breaking the law, and operates efficiently. I know, its a tough ask.

nagirrac · 22-11-2013 07:26AM

marienbad wrote: »

Come on nagirrac, you are making it a black and white choice . As I said earlier most people - including atheists - don't care how such texts are read.

The question is not are they true or allegorical , but which parts are true and which are allegorical and how they are applied to all and sundry today irrespective of beliefs .

To a lot of people these are not just philosophical questions but are , at best,gross interference in their everyday lives and at worst a death sentence , and all based on 'literal' interpretation of some one else's book.

Except it is a black or white choice, at least in the West. Literal interpretations of ancient texts should just be rejected, period. Most religious people in the West do not read these texts as literal, or even read them at all. Religion to them is simply a ritual, a social connection to others, and a way of dealing with the trials and tribulations of their lives. Where in the West today does religion grossly interfere in everyday life? I honestly don't see it, except I suppose the state funded education system in Ireland, but that's a complicated problem to unravel without destroying what is a pretty good education system given the resources of the country.

Clearly there are muslim governed countries that apply biblical era laws, but what can we in the West realistically do about it? If they don't have the motivation to change themselves I'm not sure there's much to be done, except maybe leave them alone to sort it out eventually themselves. Its much the same as asking what should we do about child labor in Asia, stop buying products from there I suppose, but people do like those cheap consumer goods and don't want to think about why they are cheap.

georgesstreet · 22-11-2013 08:14AM

nagirrac wrote: »

How do you know "no atheist" would attempt to be intolerant in the same manner? History would strongly suggest otherwise. Regardless of how many atheists try and paint it otherwise, Atheism is an ideology, and like any ideology it can be passive or aggressive depending on circumstances.

By definition, atheists don't belong to any institution to do with atheism, and in context what I meant was that the RC church, as an institution, was horrifingly cruel and intolerant.

Atheism is the absence of ideology, and to not believe in god, or flying saucers, or teapots hurling through space is, quite obviously, the failure to believe in any of those ideologies.

nagirrac wrote: »

Well we saw how well that worked out for the tens of millions who died at the hands of Marxist regimes in the 20th century, and still going on in many countries (N. Korea). I know atheists tire of this argument, but it disproves your theory "no atheist would attempt this type of intolerance".

Trying to reduce it to athiest=bad and christisn=good is just a silly argument. Humans are good and bad whether they be atheist or christian. For example, on the buckle of every NAzi soldier was the inscription "in god we trust". The leader of North Korea is the supreme being, and in every way resembles a god.

nagirrac wrote: »

Large numbers of people who killed huge numbers of their fellow countrymen did so because of intolerance and the religious were targeted specifically because of their "unintelligent thinking" and their threat to the state ideology.

If you are talking here about Ireland, large numbers of their fellow countrymen were killed because people of one religion thought they had the wrong version of what was essentially the same religion. One of the common themes of religion throughout the ages has been that it makes ordinary people do wicked things. For some, all they have to do is to believe god is on their side and, hey presto, its morally fine to torture, murder and maim others because their god made them do it.

nagirrac wrote: »

Hopefully the days are behind us, in the West at least, where broad society accept authority figures and their ideology. When the church was strong in Ireland was an era when all figures of authority were given respect that looking back on it now we see they did not deserve. I grew up that era, unlike I suspect a lot of posters on boards, and there was intolerance from all directions not just the church. In all my years at school I never saw a religious figure (and they were many of them) physically abuse a child, but I saw plenty lay teachers do it. I had a headmaster in national school who beat the crap out of kids, and when his temper was out of control would leave down the cane and beat them with his fists. I'm not saying there wasn't abuse by religious, but the big lie that Irish society can't seem to accept is that abuse was widespread in society. If you read the Ryan report it wasn't just priests abusing, it was lay teachers, doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, in other words any pedophile who had access to children. Ireland was like the BBC back then, anyone who liked to fiddle with kids had free access to do so and the state, which was ultimately responsible, did nothing to protect its most vulnerable.

This thread is about the existence of god. No one here would deny that it was not only the RC church in Ireland which was rotten. If you are unaware that many priests got away with horrific abuses due to the RC church abusing its considerable power, it's just not an excuse to say some others did terrible things also, as that seems to try to condone or excuse that.

I never "saw" a religious figure do it either, but what relevance that has to the fact that many many did, and the fact that the conspiracy of the RC church enabled that abuse to continue for many, many years. It's interesting that no one alive, for 2000 years, "saw" jesus, but so many can appear to believe that he had supernatural powers and so on, on really quite flimsy evidence, yet here you say you never "saw" abuse as if that's some sort of evidence.

nagirrac wrote: »

Your summary of atheism as "disliking views which one views as unintelligent" represents the fundamental misunderstanding of religion that many if not most atheists make. Religion is not based on views, it is based on ritual or practice which leads to known psychological benefits. Humans have been at it for at least 50,000 if not 100,000 years, it is probably the main driver of humans organizing into and maintaining societies, and the reason we are here to talk about it.

.

If it's your view that, for example christianity, is not based on the view that jesus has supernatural powers, and was sent to the earth to free us from our sins, or that god gave us the 10 commandments, then thats your view. It seems an unusual view of christianity to reduce it to some sort of social club, as you seem to describe it.

nagirrac wrote: »

There is nothing unintelligent about religion, rather there are religious with various levels of education, just as there are atheists with various levels of education. There is clearly a correlation between higher levels of education and atheism, but the correlation between levels of education and intelligence is much less defined, some of the most brilliant minds we know of dropped out of high school or never went to college.

Its up to each one of us to decide if there is nothing unintelligent about religion. If you choose to believe that jesus had supernatural powers, and was able to suspend the laws of nature, that's your decision, but it doesn't make your decision intelligent. To choose to believe something without evidence is not intelligent.

I don't think it's very intelligent to choose to believe that a man who lived 2000 years ago was the son of one of the many gods humans have invented over the timescale you mention, or that he had supernatural powers, for example. If someone else chooses to believe both those things, any onlooker has to observe the choice to believe those two things is not based on facts, but based on belief itself. I call that unintelligent, by definition.

marienbad · 22-11-2013 12:14PM

nagirrac wrote: »

No, I wouldn't advocate anarchy, but I do favor limited government. The "most liberal" democracies and dictatorships tend to have a lot in common in that the state seeks to have as much control over people as possible. Both feature massive government structures to accomplish this and that generally involves eroding personal freedom over time. Obviously government has a significant role in providing internal and if necessary external security, maintaining a just legal system, regulating the economy to avoid monopolies, and preventing "too large to fail" entities from destroying economies, but that's about it. So, in summary I support a political system that stays out of people's lives unless they are breaking the law, and operates efficiently. I know, its a tough ask.

Are we moving into Ayn Rand territory then ?

nagirrac · 22-11-2013 04:20PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

If you are talking here about Ireland, large numbers of their fellow countrymen were killed because people of one religion thought they had the wrong version of what was essentially the same religion. One of the common themes of religion throughout the ages has been that it makes ordinary people do wicked things. For some, all they have to do is to believe god is on their side and, hey presto, its morally fine to torture, murder and maim others because their god made them do it.

Just to take up this one point and I will respond to the rest later. How could I be talking about Ireland, when my exact words were "large numbers of people killed huge numbers of their fellow countrymen did so because of intolerance and the religious were targeted specifically because of their "unintelligent thinking" and their threat to the state ideology. Clearly I am talking about Marxist inspired regimes, which in their totality murdered over 100 million of their own people (not including wars between nations) based on non religious ideology. There is a study done at the University of Hawaii which I can dig up if you are interested, comparing the #s murdered internally in Marxist regimes compared to democratic regimes since 1917, and the score is roughly 150 million to 0.5 million.

If you want to talk about the Northern Ireland conflict, stating that people were killed in that conflict due to having a different version of the same religion is simply the kind of nonsense that only a Dawkins could sprout (as he did in his introduction to The God Delusion), and demonstrates an abject ignorance of the history of that sad little statelet. The root cause of that conflict which stems from the 17th century, like most conflicts in history, is ethnic and economic. The two sides involved were the indigenous Irish who happened to be Catholic and settlers from Scotland and England who happened to be Protestant. Substitute black and white or whatever ethnic difference you choose for religion and it is the same thing, the settled regarded the indigenous as sub human, which incidentally is how the UK government saw the indigenous Irish (check the Westminster debates from the 17th through late 19th centuries).

After the independence of southern Ireland, and under the not so careful eyes of the UK government, the majority were allowed to establish and maintain an apartheid state for 50 years. Do you think anyone joined the IRA because of religion? Young people joined the IRA because they saw injustice and saw peaceful attempts to resolve it crushed violently, violence was the last resort in NI for a population who had been abandoned by both the UK and the Irish government. Absolutely insane that a conflict like that was allowed happen because basic human rights were denied to a population due to their ethnicity (not their religion). Ask yourself would this have been tolerated in mainland UK, the truth is Westminster didn't give a flying fcuk as it was just the Oirish.

nagirrac · 22-11-2013 04:43PM

marienbad wrote: »

Are we moving into Ayn Rand territory then ?

Heavens no, although like all thinkers she has to be judged in the era she lived in, and she had some very good ideas along with some terrible ones. In terms of politics I am a closest to a Democrat on social issues and a Republican on economic issues, so a Libertarian.. but I think we have dragged the tread enough off topic at this stage.

nagirrac · 22-11-2013 05:27PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

Atheism is the absence of ideology, and to not believe in god, or flying saucers, or teapots hurling through space is, quite obviously, the failure to believe in any of those ideologies.

Trying to reduce it to athiest=bad and christisn=good is just a silly argument. Humans are good and bad whether they be atheist or christian. For example, on the buckle of every NAzi soldier was the inscription "in god we trust". The leader of North Korea is the supreme being, and in every way resembles a god.

If you think my position is atheist=bad and Christian=good then you could not be further off the mark. I am neither an atheist nor a Christian so have no skin in that game. All ideology that separates and tries to organize humans into "good" and "bad" groups because of race, religion, lack of religion, etc. are inherently flawed and ultimately lead to erosion of rights and conflict in society.

Atheism is an ideology. Many atheists define atheism as simply the lack of belief in God, but by that definition the chair I am sitting on is an atheist. Atheism is a positive ontological statement, that "the universe we observe does not depend on its existence on a being transcendent of it" (the Maverick Philosopher). It is absolutely not true that atheists do not belong to any organizations, what is Atheist Ireland?, American Atheists?, The League of militant Atheists? Atheism +?

I have read the Ryan report so am quite familiar with the history of abuse in Ireland. The involvement of the RC hierarchy and individual members is despicable. All abuse is despicable. The biggest error made in the investigation was the agreement on anonymity, as all those involved, clerical and non clerical, should have been named and shamed, regardless of whether they were alive or dead.

The ideology of the Nazi party was based on the superiority of the Aryan master race. They played nice by and large with Christianity as 90+% of Germans were Christian and they would never have got to power without a winnable electoral strategy which by definition could not attack Christianity. The plans the Nazis had for Christian churches are well documented in the Nuremburg trials, clearly the Nazis envisioned a post Christian, post religious empire.

tommy2bad · 22-11-2013 09:20PM

georgesstreet;
If it's your view that, for example christianity, is not based on the view that jesus has supernatural powers, and was sent to the earth to free us from our sins, or that god gave us the 10 commandments, then thats your view. It seems an unusual view of christianity to reduce it to some sort of social club, as you seem to describe it.

Just to respond to this comment; It's not one or the other, Christianity is both a belief in all the supernatural stuff and a social club. With all the problems and politics that that brings.

lmaopml · 22-11-2013 11:07PM

Christianity in action is thinking about others needs before your own,
thinking about how lucky you are to call yourself a Christian, and to live it is certainly about giving, but also receiving too the most valuable of all things - the 'peace' of Christ is sometimes comforting and sometimes lonely.

It is not a social club, in fact very often it can be quite lonely at times in my experience to be a Christian today.

_Redzer_ · 22-11-2013 11:39PM

lmaopml wrote: »

Christianity in action is thinking about others needs before your own,
thinking about how lucky you are to call yourself a Christian, and to live it is certainly about giving, but also receiving too the most valuable of all things - the 'peace' of Christ is sometimes comforting and sometimes lonely.

It is not a social club, in fact very often it can be quite lonely at times in my experience to be a Christian today.

See, I don't agree with this because it should include a little foot note stating "T&C apply".

Thinking about others before your own yet oppose same-sex marriage and homosexuality, just to name one example of many.

It's a nice idea, but when it comes down to it, it's really not that true.

_Redzer_ · 22-11-2013 11:40PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

Its up to each one of us to decide if there is nothing unintelligent about religion. If you choose to believe that jesus had supernatural powers, and was able to suspend the laws of nature, that's your decision, but it doesn't make your decision intelligent. To choose to believe something without evidence is not intelligent.

I don't think it's very intelligent to choose to believe that a man who lived 2000 years ago was the son of one of the many gods humans have invented over the timescale you mention, or that he had supernatural powers, for example. If someone else chooses to believe both those things, any onlooker has to observe the choice to believe those two things is not based on facts, but based on belief itself. I call that unintelligent, by definition.

This makes a load of sense

SoulandForm · 22-11-2013 11:41PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

See, I don't agree with this because it should include a little foot note stating "T&C apply".

Thinking about others before your own yet oppose same-sex marriage and homosexuality, just to name one example of many.

It's a nice idea, but when it comes down to it, it's really not that true.

Maybe she opposes them out of love?

lmaopml · 22-11-2013 11:54PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

See, I don't agree with this because it should include a little foot note stating "T&C apply".

Thinking about others before your own yet oppose same-sex marriage and homosexuality, just to name one example of many.

It's a nice idea, but when it comes down to it, it's really not that true.

It's really not that true if one is inclined to 'hate' - we're all free agents in this life to choose our own way, and also to hate too, and that is never okay.

It really is true when one is not inclined to hate but to live for others above and beyond what satisfies self at all, that's Christianity in action - and there are so many examples of people who are unsung heroes, that I couldn't even guess their number - but I'm most grateful to them.

I'd like to say that I am forever in their debt, and of course knowing Christ is the richest thing of all I have been given by teaching in some ways, but by also seeing the poor too during my life so far - that took time to learn for me - I'm like that a slow learner in these things. It took time for me to see what makes us rich.

_Redzer_ · 23-11-2013 12:30AM

SoulandForm wrote: »

Maybe she opposes them out of love?

Because that makes sense....

lmaopml · 23-11-2013 12:52AM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Because that makes sense....

Christianity never makes sense to anybody who doesn't understand sacrifice and it's relationship with love. Real love always involves sacrifice, absolutely always - that is a lesson of life, and sometimes one we never ask for, but are given and it's hard..very hard when it's something we have to learn late.

That doesn't mean hatred of others, anything but....it means reaching out always knowing that you are attached to the most loving arms of all... to absolutely every single person no matter whom - knowing you are the very same as them, no more no less.

The Gospel doesn't change, we may, but it doesn't, and neither does Christ not be able to read the heart of a man today or yesterday or tomorrow perfectly, and it's the heart that matters - that's the truth.

marienbad · 23-11-2013 01:01AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Christianity never makes sense to anybody who doesn't understand sacrifice and it's relationship with love. Real love always involves sacrifice, absolutely always - that is a lesson of life, and sometimes one we never ask for, but are given and it's hard..very hard when it's something we have to learn late.

That doesn't mean hatred of others, anything but....it means reaching out always knowing that you are attached to the most loving arms of all... to absolutely every single person no matter whom - knowing you are the very same as them, no more no less.

The Gospel doesn't change, we may, but it doesn't, and neither does Christ not be able to read the heart of a man today or yesterday or tomorrow perfectly, and it's the heart that matters - that's the truth.

It always seems to be somebody else making the sacrifice for your ''love'' though .

lmaopml · 23-11-2013 01:14AM

marienbad wrote: »

It always seems to be somebody else making the sacrifice for your ''love'' though .

Only if you have square eyes. Don't you know somebody who loved and never ever looked for return? Husbands and wives learn this thing sometimes - the just giving....in fact a lot of people learn to just 'give'..and live it.

You can get caught up in 'us' and 'them' if you like....but there is no such thing. There is only one thing important, only one free thing you can give, and that is your love for nothing at all..no payback, even if you are hated for it by others at times, or loved too - it's of no consequence..

That is what inspires Christians and still does - perhaps it's a different language in some ways, but it's not old or new, it's just the truth. That there is more to mere 'people' or a 'person' than you or I could know..

That's Christianity, Christ two thousand odd years later - and if you think it's daft well that's okay, whatever..it won't change the fact. I don't mind anyways...I'll just be me one way or the other and I'm Christian, that's my choice, I've made it.

marienbad · 23-11-2013 02:31AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Only if you have square eyes. Don't you know somebody who loved and never ever looked for return? Husbands and wives learn this thing sometimes - the just giving....in fact a lot of people learn to just 'give'..and live it.

You can get caught up in 'us' and 'them' if you like....but there is no such thing. There is only one thing important, only one free thing you can give, and that is your love for nothing at all..no payback, even if you are hated for it by others at times, or loved too - it's of no consequence..

That is what inspires Christians and still does - perhaps it's a different language in some ways, but it's not old or new, it's just the truth. That there is more to mere 'people' or a 'person' than you or I could know..

That's Christianity, Christ two thousand odd years later - and if you think it's daft well that's okay, whatever..it won't change the fact. I don't mind anyways...I'll just be me one way or the other and I'm Christian, that's my choice, I've made it.

Tell that to the person you would deny a life partner . How is your 'love' increased by their misery ?

georgesstreet · 23-11-2013 09:33AM

nagirrac wrote: »

Atheism is an ideology.
.

Athiest is defined by the OED as;
noun

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:"
.

Ideology is defined by the OED as;
noun

1 (plural ideologies) a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy:the ideology of republicanism

If you consider someone who does not believe, or has an absence of belief, in for example, flying teapots in space, as having an ideology in the non belief of flying teapots, then you appear to misunderstand what ideology is.

Athiest do not believe in he system of ideas and ideals of god, which is the exact opposite of ideology.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments