Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Star Press

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Comments (Page 283)

Showing posts 5,641 - 5,660 of11,195
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5992
Nov 16, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
I often hear the lament from anti-theists about Christian hypocrisy as the impetus behind their rejection of God
Christian hypocrisy wasn't a factor in my apostasy simply because it wasn't apparent from within. It was the bible itself combined with the failure of the god to deliver on its promises that led me to realize that Jehovah-Jesus was a mythological character, and to correct my mistake.

Your hypocrisy is now quite apparent, and serves as a continual reminder of the damage that your faith does to people, and that I made a good decision to extricate myself from it. Just look at you.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5993
Nov 16, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
Atheist hypocrisy

I read what the woman in all her giddy-like-a-school-girl excitement had written on the tract.

On the front:“There is no God!”
On the back:“Shame on God!”

There you have it ... classic anti-theist hypocrisy:“Shame on the very thing I believe doesn’t exist.”
You're not a very smart man, are you? Do you have any idea what hypocrisy is? That was not it. Here's one definition: "The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."

Now look at what you offered as an example of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be telling others not to write on tracts and then doing it yourself, for example. It's a specific kind of self-contradiction involving advice and a behavior that contradict one another, not expressing conflicting ideas.

We call that a logical contradiction, such as when you claim that a god grants free will, yet still knows in advance what you have always been fated to "choose," or when somebody tells you about a perfect god with absolute morals that updates them with new laws nevertheless.

Do you call that hypocrisy? I guess you do. I don't. I call that human fallibility - exactly what you would expect from random individuals not well versed in either logic or philosophy that created a mythology without the benefit of an editor.

This how you Christians reaffirm my choice. You demonstrate repeatedly how poorly you think, and how much more I see than you do. You missed this point, or you wouldn't have posted that. I wouldn't. I know better.

You make too many mistakes, as did the author of that piece. He thought he had a good argument, and you agreed. I saw your mistakes. Obviously, am more discerning and think better than you or that author, and that I understand and assess idea better than either of you do. The implications regarding faith are obvious.

==========

Worse, you have misrepresented what the woman likely meant by "God." It likely meant Christianity. Consider Nietzsche's famous declaration that "God is dead." It's pretty clear that he meant that Christianity is dead. He obviously didn't believe that that god existed. We call this metonymy, as when we refer to the passage of time as "Father Time." From Wiki:

"Metonymy is a figure of speech used in rhetoric in which a thing or concept is not called by its own name, but by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept. Metonyms can be either real or fictional concepts representing other concepts real or fictional, but they must serve as an effective and widely understood second name for what they represent. For instance, "Hollywood" is used as a metonym for the US cinema industry, because of the fame and cultural identity of Hollywood, a district of the city of Los Angeles, California."

Calling Christianity "God" - as in "Shame on God," meaning shame on the Christian church or shame on Christianity - is also metonymy.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5994
Nov 16, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
They also spend a lot of time mocking Christians who actually live according to the principles set forth in Scripture
Are you referring to yourself? You don't follow Christ's teaching.

Furthermore, I don't mock you nearly as much as I oppugn and censure you. You could also say that I reproach and upbraid you. You need a new dictionary.
derek4 wrote:
those Christians who strive to follow the commands of Christ.
You're not even close. You are repugnant.
derek4 wrote:
You can’t on the one hand accuse Christians of hypocrisy for not practicing what they preach, and then, on the other hand, mock them when they do.
Of course we can,and it's legitimate. If what you preach is ridiculous, like "abstinence only," and you still can't follow it, you get called on both counts - first for offering a bad and untenable idea, and then for demonstrating with your hypocrisy why its advocacy is a ridiculous plan in the first place.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5995
Nov 16, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
So I ask you this day, which would you rather see, Christians following their Lord’s commands, or those shallow, Sunday-only Christians who claim to follow Christ but who live just like you?
I'd rather you were more like me. For starters, stop demeaning science and humanity.

What I'd like to see are more humanists. And regarding Christians, when I see one, I'd rather he didn't wear his religion on his sleeve. I'll tell you who my favorite Christians were: they were my patients that I knew for years, but didn't know that they were religious until I became Facebook friends with them. Now that I know what they believed,I thank them for keeping it to themselves. Now that's a good Christian.

[QUOTE who="derek4"Choose this day who you’ll mock ... then remain consistent.[/QUOTE]

Deal.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5996
Nov 16, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
" Even the US House of Representatives have felt the sting as they have been told that they are not allowed to wish their constituents “Merry Christmas” if they are using their congressional mailing privileges.”[Yet, the atheists sing Christmas carols – hypocrisy, lol.]
This is why you get mocked. Where is the hypocrisy there? It is un-American to use the government to promote religion.
derek4 wrote:
“But more often than naught, atheists focus much of the holiday humbug towards any public displays of Christmas and nativity scenes."
Wrong again. Feel free to put Santa, Frosty, Rudolph and the elves all over your personal property and businesses. Just keep it off of our common property.

Please note that the word "public" has several meanings.

[1] One means out in the open and seen by others, as in the phrase "out in public" or "public nudity." In this sense, public displays are fine.

[2] Another refers to the government, such as "public sector"and "public property." It is in this last sense that "public displays" are illegal.

[3] For completeness sake, we might note that another refers to the people collectively, as in "public parking," "the public domain," or "public opinion." One special usage in this category means supported by taxes and contributions rather than through advertising, such as "public television."

Your thinking is not rigorous enough. Plus, you need a better dictionary. That's the wrong "naught." The phrase is "more often than not."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5997
Nov 16, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
Every year at Christmas, the city displays a nativity scene in the lobby of city hall
That's illegal. Take it down or we'll take it down for you.
derek4 wrote:
Marshall told the local media,“If a person wants to express their beliefs in their homes, in their church, they are more than welcome to, but in the public square, which I’m paying for with my taxes, there shouldn’t be belief systems.”
That's the law. Do you care about the law, or do you think that you and your church above it?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5998
Nov 16, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
Marshall and the Freedom From Religion Foundation have demanded that if the city insists on keeping the nativity display, that they post an anti-religion sign in the lobby with the traditional Christmas scene. The front of the sign reads,“At this season of the Winter Solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”
What possible legitimate objection could you have with that. I'd also like to see every other coin and bill say, "We Trust In No Gods" if we must advertise our personal beliefs on the money. Do you object to equal protection and representation for atheists? Of course you do.
derek4 wrote:
Atheism is a religion because it is a belief system.
No, atheism is a conclusion. The belief is in the validity of rational skepticism and reason. And atheism is just one of its ramifications.

Furthermore, atheism is but a single idea, not a system. The other two offspring of rational skepticism, science and secular humanism, are systems.

Finally, if atheism is a religion, it is the only correct one. It stands alone form the others. It offers no metaphysics, no mythology, and no ethics. It has no rituals, mythologies, superstitions, magic, or dogma, and it does not involve imagined creatures or realms.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5999
Nov 16, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
[The fndings of the Darwin gang were also false.]
Nobody cares about you Christians' criticisms of science except other Christians. We also don't care what rodeo clowns, porn set fluffers, or crack whores think about science, either.

Darwin's ideas are confirmed. They are unshakably established as correct. Shaking your scary Jesus chicken on a stick at it won't change that. Move on.

http://nirmukta.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/1... [The "debate" continues]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6000
Nov 16, 2012
 
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
The way I see it, you can't understand the scriptures properly without the Holy Ghost guiding you.
Then at most one of you has that, since no two of you can agree on what the words mean. I think that what you meant is that there is a state of mind wherein you accept the scriptures as divine revelation, and you call that being filled with the spirit or ghost.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
The scriptures were written by men as they were directed by God.
I doubt it. There's not much evidence of superhuman intelligence, wisdom, or prescience there.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6001
Nov 16, 2012
 
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
Personally, I think the interpretation that the bible says the creation had to take place in 7 literal 24 hour days is wrong.
Me, too. But several of your fellow Christians disagree. Are they not guided by the Holy Ghost?
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
We don't know exactly how the creation took place. Days are really "creation periods." We don't know how long those periods are or which mechanisms God used to create life. Maybe life was created in an instant as he organized the elements, or maybe organizing the elements looks a lot more like evolution. We don't know.
Maybe your god doesn't exist. As you say, you don't know.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6003
Nov 16, 2012
 
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
I do not doubt that there are errors in the bible, but I think the bible as a whole is a inspired work of scripture.
That's an puzzling juxtaposition of ideas. Those very errors are what allows to rule out that the words are of divine origin, or that if some are, they have been contaminated by error. How can you trust such a book?

Besides, inspired isn't nearly good enough for a god. West Side Story is inspired by Romeo and Juliet, The Flintstones were inspired by the Honeymooners, and Clapton's Crossroads was inspired by Robert Johnson's original version. In each case, the pairs are so dissimilar that you might not have noticed that they were even related. That's how much latitude the word "inspired " allows.

If you have an omnipotent god with a life or death message, and he lets unsophisticated goatherds ghost write it in part for him, well, you've got a lazy and irresponsible god there. Lazy isn't even the right word if it's no harder to write the words yourself than not. That's indifferent and negligent.

Let me rephrase it. If I wrote a will for you (I am not an attorney, and am not qualified to do that), told you that it was inspired by a will written by an attorney, and you found mistakes in it, would you risk your children's inheritance on that document?

That was an apt analogy, BTW, since most Christians are giving a large portion of what would have been their estate at death if they still had it and the interest it could have earned. I did the calculation for myself based on a 10% tithe, which amounts to a years income every eight to ten years depending on the return. I left the church around 1980, and retired in 2009 - about three decades. That's at least five years income before taxes, since the dollars from the eighties, which would have been compounding the whole time, would have tripled to quadrupled by now, the dollars from the nineties doubled, etc..

I retired with about five years income total. I'd say do the math, but I just did it. And I expect to leave most of it behind, since I am living just fine on the interest from it - not in America, of course, where interest has now dropped to nothing. And once Social Security begins, we'll be bringing in more than we spend.

Anyway, if I hadn't rejected the claims of the bible, the church would have ended up with most of that, and I'd still be working.

You can't convince me that I should have given all of that to the priests and their children based on the claims in a book full of errors.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6004
Nov 16, 2012
 
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
Parts of the bible are meant to be interpreted differently.
Where does your god tell you that? That sounds like a rule invented by men for the sake of expediency.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
The Bible gives us the guidelines and the spirit teaches us how we are to apply them to our individual lives in a way that is in harmony with the level of spiritual progression we are at.
You all seem to have different guidelines, too. Earlier, you posted, "Personally, I go by the King James version of the Bible and the Book of Mormon." You must be aware that Catholics, for example, reject the Book of Mormon, and have their own bible. That also tells us that this is all man made, as I'm sure that the Catholics pray just as sincerely and diligently as the Mormons.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6005
Nov 16, 2012
 
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
I feel that God is a merciful God
How do you figure that he is merciful? Because he deigns to forgive us for being human and not having godlike qualities - his own handiwork - if you'll grovel before him? If anybody needs forgiveness, it's the god that did that and then blamed its creation for its own manufacturing failures.

Besides, do you know what he does to unbelievers? He delivers them to an evil beast in a torture pit to be tortured for eternity. There is no mercy in that, because there is no mercy in hell, and no hope for a reprieve. How could a loving god be so cruel and unforgiving?

There's a contradiction for you, BTW - number ten on this list of contradictions about the god that I compiled :

[1] An omniscient being that grants free will
[2] An omnipotent being incapable of being in the presence of sin
[3] A perfect being needing worship
[4] A perfect being that changes its mind, as with new laws and covenants
[5] A perfect being that makes mistakes or contradicts itself
[6] A perfect being that creates or alters anything
[7] A non-spacial being being omnipresent
[8] An all-loving, omnipotent being that allows suffering.
[9] A perfectly just being that punishes innocents like firstborns.
[10] A merciful being that damns without hope of forgiveness from hell.
[11] Anything existing, persisting, thinking or acting outside of time. Those words all imply an interval of time.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6006
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

IANS, another series of great posts. Enjoyable reading. Cheers

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6007
Nov 16, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
Atheist hypocrisy

I often hear the lament from anti-theists about Christian hypocrisy as the impetus behind their rejection of God, but rarely is atheist hypocrisy ever mentioned.”

continued:

“I recall a time a few years ago when I posted a gospel tract on the community bulletin board of a local coffee shop.


Shortly thereafter, as I sat sipping my hot beverage, a woman in her thirties entered the shop and made her way over to the bulletin board. Upon seeing the tract, she quickly removed it and promptly found a table where she sat and thumbed through the little booklet. Her behavior led me to speculate that she was familiar with what she held in her hands, and I watched from a distance.

Then this woman took out a pen and began to write on the tract (both the front and rear covers). This greatly piqued my interest of course, and I continued to observe.

A short while later another woman entered the establishment and approached the table where the first woman sat. The second woman greeted the first and the first woman gleefully showed the second woman the cover of the tract. The second woman gave a smirk while the first had a grin ear to ear. She then promptly returned the tract to the bulletin board.

My party and I left at the same time as the two women did but my curiosity got the best of me so I returned to the bulletin board inside the business and retrieved the tract. And there I read what the woman in all her giddy-like-a-school-girl excitement had written on the tract.

On the front:“There is no God!”

On the back:“Shame on God!”

There you have it ... classic anti-theist hypocrisy:“Shame on the very thing I believe doesn’t exist.”

How can someone say on one hand,“There is no God!” then on the other hand say,“Shame on God!”? That is either blatant hypocrisy or a mild case of schizophrenia.

You canÂ’t claim that someone or something doesnÂ’t exist, then offer an opinion on that someone or something. Let me offer an example.

If I said that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, but then warned you that you should be careful while swimming in Loch Ness because the Monster might get you, would you not be justified in questioning the truthfulness of my original claim that Nessie doesnÂ’t exist?

So I came to the realization that most self-proclaimed atheists arenÂ’t atheists because they disbelieve the existence of God, but itÂ’s simply because they hate Him. They donÂ’t want to be limited or prohibited in their lifestyle choices, nor be confronted with their sin, so they self-inflict a seared conscience upon themselves.

I would prefer if these professing atheists would be upfront and honest about their beliefs and come to terms with the fact that they simply hate God and His laws, instead of hiding behind a pretentious facade of pseudo-intellectualism in their declaration that the very thing they hate does not exist.”
http://defendingcontending.com/2012/01/09/ath...
Oh the irony.

Probably escapes you, doesn't it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6008
Nov 16, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
We always need to remember fraudulent science, lol
No, laughing boy. We need to remember what a fraud your church is.

With its myriad self-contradictions, failed prophecies and errors of historical and scientific fact, your bible is refutes its own claim of being divinely authored.

Being inauthentic makes its contents mythology, and the characters in it fictitious, including the god.

As a result, the religion based on your bible is false, and the church that exploits it all is fraudulent.

This is separate from the personal you commit individually, the fraud inherent in faith. Faith begins with a lie to the self, and then generalizes it to become a state of comprehensive and continual lying, still to the self about what is believable, but then also to other Christians that you glad hand once a week with as you flash them a forced smile, and finally, to the non-Christian world. You recently told us how you emulate Christ, a bald-faced lie even to those of us who know very little about you. As a Christian, you also claim to have an inner peace and joy that also has clearly eluded you.

[CONT]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6009
Nov 16, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
We always need to remember fraudulent science, lol
Yes, it is you and your church that are frauds, not science.

While screech and jump up and down about it, science marches on, revealing this amazing universe to us in ways that not only allow us to understand it, but to predict much of its behavior, and to control and exploit parts of it.

Your representation of science as being the output of individual researchers is a bald-faced lie as well - more Christian fraud. Yes, scientists sometimes cheat or err, and produce invalid results. But you know damned well that its not science until the science community vets it as science. That means that the results have been subjected to peer review and critique, that they have been confirmed by independent investigations, and that no contradictory results have arisen after a protracted period of time. Only then it is science.

By this reckoning, science is never wrong. Additional evidence for the veracity of any scientific proclamation occurs whenever the science works, meaning, allows us to predict outcomes in way not possible before the science was elucidated.

This is how we know that the central tenets of evolutionary theory are correct, having run the gauntlet for over 150 years. The test of time coupled its explanatory power and with the confirmed predictions of the theory assure us that the theory is correct.

Incidentally, science is validated by every one of those exposures of fraud. Who do you think does that? Priests? Science always questions itself. That's what makes it so powerful. It questions nature, and it questions the results of those inquiries.

“Science humbly asks questions that may never be answered. Religion arrogantly offers answers that may never be questioned.”~ anonymous

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6010
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Adam wrote:
IANS, another series of great posts. Enjoyable reading. Cheers
Thank you.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6011
Nov 16, 2012
 
Good morning everyone,

Just checking in – I keep you busy with posts you skip and don't read, lol – another lie from your hypocritical lips, lol......

All that work you do, composing, and typing your little fingers away.

Be careful - you'll wear your godless fingers clear down to the bone --- ha – don't want to defraud the worms of some good meat to chew on, lol.

And how are all our atheist hypocrites today who spend hours writing about the God they don't believe in? LOL

NOW: Get busy and read those fraudulent science books!!!! Look at those Haeckel drawings!!!!

Practice singing those Chistmas carols - get informed, lol.........no time to waste - you're lagging way behind.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6012
Nov 16, 2012
 
Atheists and Hypocrisy

“Atheists, at least the ones I’ve read and argued with, love to point out hypocrisy when they see religious people – especially Christians – guilty of it. Fair enough. In fact, not just fair. We need the scrutiny of skeptics. It reminds us that Christ has called us not to be the judges and condemners of the world, but the salt and light.

That being said, the honest truth is that sometimes the hypocrisy of some atheists makes Ted Haggard look downright pristine. For instance, an atheist group in Michigan called the Center for Inquiry recently had a venue cancel their reservation. It seems that the privately-owned Wyngate Country Club discovered that the group was indeed atheist and that the event featured a nationally known atheist speaker, Richard Dawkins.

So the atheist group is … you guessed it: suing. Why? On the basis of religious discrimination. Here’s the legalese they cite:

Privately-owned companies are not exempt from laws against discrimination. If a privately-owned Michigan business offers services to the public (the legal term is “public accommodation,”) they must abide by both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and cannot discriminate against people based on religion.

Let me get this straight. Atheists famously get their collective panties in a wad when a religious display is allowed on public property – property we ALL pay for. But now they go bat-crap crazy when a PRIVATE organization that THEY DIDN’T pay for reserves the right to host who they please? Really?

AND I’ve never had an argument with an atheist who didn’t indignantly demand that atheism IS NOT a religion. But now it’s okay to hide behind laws that protect religion? That volume of hypocrisy is breath-taking!
http://kevinchilds.com/2011/10/14/atheists-an...

[Therein lies their double talk / hypocrisy. Atheism is a religion. The religion of infidels.]

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 5,641 - 5,660 of11,195
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••