Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 Full story: The Star Press 11,175

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

Full Story

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#6459 Nov 22, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, I failed at nothing. The scripture was in the link I provided which you didn't want to plough through, so you were dishonest and lazy.
There is no baby Jesus.
He grew up, was crucified, and resurrected, and when your short life has ended, he will see that you get the justice you deserve, even as the worms are burrowing in and out of your godless eye sockets. Enjoy your blasphemy while you can, it's all you've got.
And, as you know, your family is planning a big party on the day they finally get rid of you.
You spelled "everything" wrong, you fail at everything. That's why all you have it copy pasta. If you had an original thought, it suffocated among the vast amounts of conspiracy and religious nuttery you crammed into your brain, good thing there isn't much information from those camps, lest we need clean up on aisle 3.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#6460 Nov 22, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The Africans and Asians are still quite undereducated, unsophisiticated, and superstitious.
I guess you were making generalisations. But in China and Japan, they have a high proportion of Atheism and Agnosticism.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6461 Nov 22, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
FASB codification is based on face, yet it is subject to interpretation and implementation of accountants. That doesn't mean FASB codification is fables.
Its ambiguity does mean, however, that the codification, like the bible, was not written by a god. It also means that its contents will be frequently misunderstood and misapplied.

I hold a book said to be divinely authored to a higher standard than any existing book - even a government publication. The bible doesn't come close to meeting that standard, and so is easily identified as inauthentic.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6462 Nov 22, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
I think its wrong for some one to get paid to preach the word of God.
I'm glad to read that.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
Ultimately, the Bible is the word of God
I don't believe that. I have no reason to believe it. Why do you?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6463 Nov 22, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
Or perhaps a lot of it (modern religion) is man made and some of it is actually divine direction from God.
There's not much doubt that some of the bible is the word of man. The question is whether some or none of the words come from a supernatural source, and if any are, how to know that that is the case, and how to tell which are which.

How would you feel about a will that was at most partly from the testator, and you couldn't tell which if any parts those were? Would you transfer an inheritance based on it? If not, why would you base your life on a bible of similar provenance?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6464 Nov 22, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
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.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
1. Its not really "free" free will if there are consequences and those consequences are redeemed at a price, which I am assuming there are if you are talking about Christians.
Then you don't accept the doctrine that man us endowed with free will? How does that comment relate to mine? If you reject free will, and accept a doctrine of absolute determinism, then there is no contradiction there.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
2. Is he incapable or are we incapable? IF he wants to be in some one's presence he can send the Holy Ghost to prepare and cleans the individual before he appears. God has appeared to imperfect men. See the story of Moses.
It's your god that we are told is unable to abide sin. I can, and so can you. Why is your god less capable than we are? And if he is, that contradicts the assertion that he is omnipotent.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
3. God doesn't need us or our worship, but we need him.
Then why create our world and us? Aren't we here for an audition for a part in heaven to worship the god? And if he doesn't need our worship, why reject us for failing to worship him?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6466 Nov 22, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
7. I don't follow the non-spacial omnipresent thing. I think its pretty clear in scripture that God has a body. One example: How can God create man in his own image IF God doesn't have an image or body? How can Moses see God face to face if God doesn't have a face? God has a body, though some have tried to alienate God from mankind by proclaiming God to be unknowable, devoid body, parts or passions. Such a declaration, is in my opinion, a form of twisted atheism, because the believer, in effect, believes in nothing. I totally back you up on this one.
How can you be everywhere yet not in space? The rest of that seems unrelated to the cited contradiction.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
8. Parents allow suffering, yet they love their children. I don't think that is a contradiction. Suffering is part of learning in some cases.
The bible god allows needless suffering and causes more. There was no reason to drown every terrestrial animal in a flood intended to eliminate sin from the earth. Imagine how many creatures would have suffered prolonged, agonizing, terrifying deaths as the water levels rose? I would not forgive your god for that if I believed in it.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
9. I don't think God punishes new borns. That doctrine is not consistent with the Jesus Christ of the New Testament or Book of Mormon.
I believe that you're wrong, and that you're evading the central point, which relates to innocents killed by your god, not just newborns. Nevertheless, newborns were victimizes by your god, such as all of the newborns on the earth at the time of the flood were drowned. Any if an Egyptian family had had their first child around the time of the plagues of pharaoh,that infant died.

You've only rebutted one contradiction so far, and that was at the expense of the doctrine of free will, which is used to justify the punishment of those that don't choose the god.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
10. I don't believe that either. That is not found in scripture I have seen.


There went hell theology. A lot of Christians make that claim.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
11. I don't think God acts outside of time.
Most of your fellow Christians do. You seem to have a few fewer contradictions to contend with.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6467 Nov 22, 2012
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
PS: Thank you for taking the time to respond thoughtfully to my assertions.
And thank you for doing the same.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
In a way, I think you are doing many people a service, inviting people to reflect on their core beliefs.
Thank you. So are you.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
I also respect that you don't simply resort to name calling, as many people, both "believer" and non-believer do.
Thanks, and once again, back atcha.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6468 Nov 22, 2012
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the problems for many people, is that beliefs come naturally. Skepticism comes unnaturally. To be a skeptic sometimes you not only have to swim against the tide of other peoples' opinions. But also you have to combat want can be a superstitious tendency in all of us. I think that evolution have had gifted up with some irrational behaviours. We may hear a noise in the house, and assume its an intruder, or maybe even a ghost, without first thinking it could be wind or mice, for example. I guess the early hominids in the savanna would have heard a rustle in the grass. They would naturally assume this was a predator rather than the wind. This paranoia would give them a better chance of survival. Perhaps this is part of the reason our brains are wired to believe in supernatural things. Your thoughts?
That's a complicated issue - why many or all of us gravitate to magical thinking. I know that I do, too. I enjoy and embrace it, with no concern that it is irrational. I just never let it inform my decisions -only enrich my experience of life.

I especially try to nurture the spiritual experience, wherein I feel gratitude, awe, connectivity and a sense of mystery. What do I care if it is a false message generated by so many neurons given as a gift of evolution? Maybe I'm grateful to nobody and to nothing. So what? It feels good, and I welcome it.

Sure, that's irrational, but so is all affect. Joy is not a rational decision. It's a pleasant experience, an end unto itself needing no reason or explanation. Only thoughts about things need to be rational,not feelings. We use the rational mind to plant and weed the garden of affect. But it cannot supply the beauty.

This has been an acknowledgement of the role of the irrational in our fullest and most authentic lives. And magical thinking is part of that. Just don't go making life decisions based on your the magical meditations. They are also an end unto themselves, not an imperative to act.

And I agree that skepticism is acquired, not natural, and needs to be cultivated as a habit of thought.

Thanks for asking.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6469 Nov 22, 2012
derek4 wrote:
the crusades took place from approximately A.D. 1095 to 1230. Should the unbiblical actions of supposed Christians hundreds of years ago still be held against Christians today?
Should the sins of Adam, which ostensibly happened millennia before that, still be held against man today? Should th efailure of somebody to accept Christ that is consigned to hell still be relevant a billion years later?

If you don't require forgiveness of your god, why do you expect the rest of us to be more forgiving? Are we better creatures?
derek4 wrote:
Christianity is not the only religion with a violent past.
We know.There is nothing special about Christianity.
derek4 wrote:
In actuality, the crusades were responses to Muslim invasions on what was once land occupied primarily by Christians. From approximately A.D. 200 to 900, the land of Israel ... was inhabited primarily by Christians.
Did you steal that from the Jews? Then the Muslims took it from you? And that makes it rightfully yours? Humanist ethics are different.
derek4 wrote:
The actions that many so-called Christians took in the crusades were still deplorable.


We know. That's why we cite the so often.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6470 Nov 22, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Islam is not a religion that can speak from a position of innocence in these matters.
Many of us see the two of you as different stages in the evolution of the same process.
derek4 wrote:
The crusades were brutal and evil. Many people were forced to “convert” to Christianity. If they refused, they were put to death.
Yes, we know.
derek4 wrote:
The idea of conquering a land through war and violence in the name of Christ is completely unbiblical. Many of the actions that took place in the crusades were completely antithetical to everything the Christian faith stands for.
Your bible doesn't define the behavior of your church. And it's hard to tell what the church stands for. It seems to stand for itself.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6471 Nov 22, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Basically, convert or die, an unbiblical concept.
That's exactly what your god is said to say. That's the central biblical concept.
derek4 wrote:
These Crusades were evil and brutally violent.
And they lasted for centuries. That's the power of Christianity.
derek4 wrote:
More importantly, don't besmirch the name of Jesus Christ because some people who claim to follow Him act out unbiblically on their own.
I don't care about the name of Jesus Christ. I care about your church, which has always been as murderous as the law allow it to be.
derek4 wrote:
If you are an atheist, it would be similar to me making a judgment on your character based on the acts of Joseph Stalin.
Hardly. I'm comparing a Christian to a Christian, and you're comparing a Stalinist with a humanist.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6472 Nov 22, 2012
derek4 wrote:
The Crusades were inconsistent with the teachings of Christ.
That was irrelevant to the church then as the teachings of Christ are to it today.
derek4 wrote:
Lastly, I find it interesting that critics of Christianity have to go back 800 years to point to the Crusades to make their objection. By contrast, we can see the horrific fruits of atheism in just the last 100 years. As bad as the Crusades were, they don't compare with the bloodshed of the 20th Century, the bloodiest century in all of history.”
http://bringingtruth.com/Objections/WhatAbout...
The Stalinism and Maoism were religions as surely Christianity and Islam, except that their gods are mortal. All cults of personality are a dangerous cults, whether the personality is human or fictitious

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6473 Nov 22, 2012
Khatru wrote:
What goes "Oh no! Once again the devastating logic of the atheists have made me and my religion look very stupid indeed. I know I can't refute anything they say so I'll just flood the thread with a lot of spam that I don't really understand"
I know. Dim does that.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6474 Nov 22, 2012
KJV wrote:
Kind of hung up on that Pi thing aren't ya buddy? People are building things using their forearms as a measuring stick and you're all hung up on the .1415....
Um, yeah, I am. 0.14159 - or 4.72%- is the difference between a god and a goatherd. Everybody reading this outperforms the ancient goatherds.Why didn't your god?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#6475 Nov 22, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Kind of hung up on that Pi thing aren't ya buddy?
People are building things using their forearms as a measuring stick and you're all hung up on the .1415....
You know you're insane right?
Nut case!
Doesn't really matter how much you want to avoid it, the Bible (which you earnestly believe to be the word of your imaginary god) gives a ratio of three for Pi.

The temple was built around 1000 BCE by which time those in the know (apparently not your god) were familiar with Pi and their value was more accurate than the Bible's.

Babylonian clay tablets from nearly 1000 years earlier provide a value of 3.1250 for Pi. An Egyptian papyrus from about 800 years before Solomon shows a value of 3.1605 for Pi.

Both are more accurate than your Bible.

I guess your god's scriptures just aren't as divine as you think they are.

LOL

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#6476 Nov 22, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't understand those post?
We need to dumb it down for you?
No, Derek.

It's you.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#6477 Nov 22, 2012
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for staying in the forum, KJV. Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.
Hey, Dim! I have a couple of Thanksgiving haikus for you:

Fam’ly feasts are gross!
"Ever hear of a napkin?!!"
belches Auntie Esther.

With stuffing in hand,
And arm elbow deep in bird,
Her memory haunts.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#6478 Nov 22, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct! Non belief.
Atheist BELIEVE there is no God or Gods.
Believing in something that cannot be proven is faith. Another interchangeable word for faith is RELIGION.
Notwithstanding mathematics; nothing can be proven.

When I go into a tall building, I believe that the stress-bearing calculations made by structural engineers are correct.

Tell me how that belief is a religion.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#6479 Nov 22, 2012
Christianity: The belief in a magic book written by an all-powerful invisible imaginary friend, which would be charming coming from anyone under ten, but from an adult is, quite franky, deeply worrying.
derek4 wrote:
REF: Post 6436 [George Washington]
Correction to link:
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/thanks...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 39 min Dally Mama 231,955
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 2 hr woodtick57 1,033
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 3 hr Morse 27
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 3 hr Morse 14,450
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 6 hr QUITTNER Nov 27 2014 31
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 12 hr Richardfs 1,423
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 19 hr Gillette 5,946

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE