Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#171229 Jul 8, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
This is total rubbish and based on the incredulous and deliberately ignorant teaching of chistianity, not fact.
Adam Lanza - christian
James Holmes - christian
Anders Behring Breivik – christian
Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic committed genocide against Moslems in the name of their christian church
The IRA were mass murdering terrorists for the name of their church, BTW I was injured in one of their indiscriminate attacks so I happen to have learned quite a lot about their policy and methods.
How about the NLFT in india. Good christians all
And the KKK and anti abortionists in the US, right wing christians
What about those dealers in misery, the eastern European human traffickers, the majority of all those caught and tried are christian.
Hitler was catholic, his actions were based on his christian beliefs and he was never excommunicated..
Stalin, tipped for the job of priest before setting his sights on reality
Facts are facts no matter what your faith tells you
The point I'm trying to make, is that just because somebody says they're a Christian doesn't mean they really are. They may think they are, but their actions betray their words.

If a police officer makes a traffic stop and spots drugs in the car, he can arrest the driver based upon that observation. But suppose he doesn't arrest the suspect, but merely confiscates the illegal drugs and allows the driver to leave the scene. Now let's further suppose that this police officer then sells the drugs for his own profit when he's off duty. As presented, is our police officer worthy of being considered a police officer? He might wear the badge and uniform, and drive the car and respond to calls; but does this officer truly represent the essence of the motto "To protect and serve"? No he does not. His hypocrisy betrays his outward appearance, and stains the police profession as an institution of law enforcement.

Likewise, a Christian who does not obey the tenets of Christian teachings (Love your enemies, give to the poor, care for the sick, etc, etc.) is not a Christian in the true sense. Such a person is a "pretender" which is the original definition of a hypocrite. These people must be seen for what they really are, and not what they claim to be. By observing behavior you're aware of the difference between a genuine Christian and a religious hypocrite. If you continue to misidentify all Christians based upon the actions of the hypocrites there is a question to be answered:

Mow that you're aware of the difference, will you continue to misidentify, and if so, why would you do so?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#171230 Jul 8, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
The point I'm trying to make, is that just because somebody says they're a Christian doesn't mean they really are. They may think they are, but their actions betray their words.
If a police officer makes a traffic stop and spots drugs in the car, he can arrest the driver based upon that observation. But suppose he doesn't arrest the suspect, but merely confiscates the illegal drugs and allows the driver to leave the scene. Now let's further suppose that this police officer then sells the drugs for his own profit when he's off duty. As presented, is our police officer worthy of being considered a police officer? He might wear the badge and uniform, and drive the car and respond to calls; but does this officer truly represent the essence of the motto "To protect and serve"? No he does not. His hypocrisy betrays his outward appearance, and stains the police profession as an institution of law enforcement.
Yes, in this situation, this person is still a police officer. They are a *corrupt* police officer.
Likewise, a Christian who does not obey the tenets of Christian teachings (Love your enemies, give to the poor, care for the sick, etc, etc.) is not a Christian in the true sense. Such a person is a "pretender" which is the original definition of a hypocrite. These people must be seen for what they really are, and not what they claim to be. By observing behavior you're aware of the difference between a genuine Christian and a religious hypocrite. If you continue to misidentify all Christians based upon the actions of the hypocrites there is a question to be answered:
Mow that you're aware of the difference, will you continue to misidentify, and if so, why would you do so?
Have you ever heard of the 'no true scotsman' fallacy? A Christian is someone who believes in the basic tenets of Christianity: the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection, the forgiveness of sins, etc. A person can believe in these things and still be 'corrupt' in the same way that a person can be a corrupt police officer.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#171231 Jul 8, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Showing your butt in public is going to get you in trouble
not when its this fine of a butt... SMOKIN

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#171232 Jul 8, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're deaf and dumb and do not understand ?
thats it copy my most excellent posts!!! keep up the good work grasshopper

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#171233 Jul 8, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, in this situation, this person is still a police officer. They are a *corrupt* police officer.
<quoted text>
Have you ever heard of the 'no true scotsman' fallacy? A Christian is someone who believes in the basic tenets of Christianity: the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection, the forgiveness of sins, etc. A person can believe in these things and still be 'corrupt' in the same way that a person can be a corrupt police officer.
There is a tendency on here for the atheists, who claim to be educated, to define Christians and other religions by the "official" writings and edicts of a religion's hierarchy. This is a likely result of their being trained and educated by textbooks. It is a very limited perspective of almost any thing studied. It doesn't allow for the very wide variation in personal interpretations of a particular religion. This is why you have so many sects of them. The college trained Topix atheist does their thinking and pronouncements with blinders on. The reins attached to their minds from such "education" also direct the direction they look in.

College used to be about making one think. Now it is a factory for stamping out clones. A money making industry for mass production of the mindless intellectual.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#171234 Jul 8, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a tendency on here for the atheists, who claim to be educated, to define Christians and other religions by the "official" writings and edicts of a religion's hierarchy. This is a likely result of their being trained and educated by textbooks. It is a very limited perspective of almost any thing studied. It doesn't allow for the very wide variation in personal interpretations of a particular religion. This is why you have so many sects of them. The college trained Topix atheist does their thinking and pronouncements with blinders on. The reins attached to their minds from such "education" also direct the direction they look in.
College used to be about making one think. Now it is a factory for stamping out clones. A money making industry for mass production of the mindless intellectual.
I very much understand that different people have different interpretations of their religion. This very fact is one of the many that puts religion into question. If it were *truth* rather than *opinion*, then there would be much more agreement between the different sects.

But the question being addressed is the definition of the word 'Christian'. For a modern reader, that consists of believing in the divinity of Jesus, in the resurrection, and in the forgiveness of sins. And those beliefs allows for corrupt individuals to be Christians. And that was the basic point. If you wish to use a *different* definition of the word 'Christian', the please give it. But be aware that the standard definition is the one I gave.

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#171235 Jul 8, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>I'm glad that a message from the bible was able to inspire you, and make your life better.
If people need God in their life to make them better, then by all means...have God in your life.
I respect that, and would never want that taken from anyone.
BUT, being an Agnostic, I must add....so often do "believers" give themselves credit for their won change...they give that credit to God, when it was actually their own inner strength the whole time.
That's fair enough. And I believe that yes, faith in God can build inner strength too. It's hard for me to attribute anything to the supernatural, since by definition, anything observed must exist inside of nature, and anything supernatural is outside of nature.
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
My point is WHY would God help you resolve issues....but NOT be there for the kids at Sandy Hook, Oklahoma Tornado? Boston Bombing? Starving, beaten, and molested children?
If God took the time in YOUR life to ensure you receive a very important message, why not do the same in dire situations involving innocent children?
Honestly? I really don't know why. I can pretend to know, or try to quote scripture but I won't. Bad things happen in the world. Evil and corruption are rampant. Where is God in all of this? I really do not have an answer for that. My opinion (and probably not the truth, or maybe not anyone else's opinion) is that God is subjective. I've not ever seen any huge miracles like amputee's limbs growing back or the dead being raised. I believe that God usually changes people from within, and therefore changes the world through changed people. It's not a fast process when it's looked at in the span of a single lifetime. A relationship with God can cause people to seek positive changes in their lives, and help out others. Note that I am not saying that a non spiritual person can't be a force for positive change. I'm giving an account of my subjective experiences.
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
I guess that's why I'd never worship or understand the supposed Christian God.
I mean, anything that would qualify as a God would understand this...is that really a GOD worthy of worshipping?
My understanding of God is nowhere near complete either. Faith is difficult sometimes, especially when evil people do evil things to the world, and it hits close to home. I'll tell you what.. We seem a lot alike in our experiences (other than my recent re-conversion). You might laugh at this, or make a funny face when you read it, but I'll pray for you that you may seek God once again. Maybe you'll change your mind like I have. Maybe you'll make faith important in your life again. Maybe God will change you and inspire you to change the world.

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#171236 Jul 8, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks.
I've been looking for god in all the wrong places.
Are you really looking, though? If you are, don't stop.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#171237 Jul 8, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>thats it copy my most excellent posts!!! keep up the good work grasshopper
Didn't copy and paste i wrote that text

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#171238 Jul 8, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I very much understand that different people have different interpretations of their religion. This very fact is one of the many that puts religion into question. If it were *truth* rather than *opinion*, then there would be much more agreement between the different sects.
But the question being addressed is the definition of the word 'Christian'. For a modern reader, that consists of believing in the divinity of Jesus, in the resurrection, and in the forgiveness of sins. And those beliefs allows for corrupt individuals to be Christians. And that was the basic point. If you wish to use a *different* definition of the word 'Christian', the please give it. But be aware that the standard definition is the one I gave.
Review your response and note the emphasis on standardization.

Corrupt is a relative and moralistic term, From a strictly physical evolutionary viewpoint anything and everything that enhances ones survival is moral. This extends from the individual to the group the individual live sin. That is why in some tribal or insular groups it is not moral to cheat or steal from the group, but it is OK to do so to outsiders. This is not a religious thing, it is evolutionary in nature. Religion is incorporated into such as a reinforcement, but it is not the causation. It can be the definer of just who the group is, and the code of conduct within. Christianity is the only truly universal one existing now with the greatest flexibility of definitions. This means you have more drawn in under the umbrella of a social code of conduct. Including your secular humanism.

Atheism has no limits put on personal aggrandizement. Atheism can be just as intolerant as any religion, and has no "religious" scruples to provide a consistent code of conduct. That code of conduct is determined strictly by those currently at the top of the heap.

Which has the greatest potential for "corruption"?

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#171239 Jul 8, 2013
Talking to yourself I see.
Osama bin-Saban wrote:
<quoted text>Osama, wasn't going to critique Mikko's pic ... but, since you brought it up, Clown... that boy is UGGGGGGGGGGLY!!! That boy looks like ole UGA, the Georgia mascot! Hey, Mikko ... better go back to your big bang scientists for a refund. Boy, did you get shortchanged! Just kidding, Mikko ... well, maybe not!
>:)

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#171240 Jul 8, 2013
Hey he admitted to doing that which makes it funnier :)
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>hehehe

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#171241 Jul 8, 2013
Also Trannie town's sock.
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>I think you may be identified as this:

Noun: zealot
1. A fervent and even militant proponent of something

Noun: Zealot
1. A member of an ancient Jewish sect in Judea in the first century who fought to the death against the Romans and who killed or persecuted Jews who collaborated with the Romans

WordWeb Pro 6.6

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#171242 Jul 8, 2013
You should at least change up your wording and style a little bit trannie town clown for your sock accounts okay?

Better luck next time.

: flush:
Osama bin-Saban wrote:
<quoted text>Where did you come up with this BS ... CrackedLibertyBell? LOL!!! Although, yours truly, that would be moi, is a solid believer in The Old Testament ... The Great Osama is living the one and only blessed lifetime God has granted him. "Yes, Lord ... Osama is very pleased that You gifted him with universal knowledge, wisdom, and truth, and that Your greatest gift, was that of not having to wander aimlessly in circles in the Wilderness of Dumb @ss looking for the Answers of Life." So it was said, so it was done!
>:)

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#171243 Jul 8, 2013
I only like chicks so no worries about competition. Hey you are the one bragging about examining men's junk in the men's room.

That's your hobby and let's be honest you do speak lots about other men's Johnsons yes?

Yes.

Wipe your chin.
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>you post about thr mens room a bunch! I bet you would gargle a mean set of balls...

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#171244 Jul 8, 2013
His favorite is examining men's penis size in the men's room upon his own admission.
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>Soo that's what you do when you're not here at topix

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#171245 Jul 8, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
The point I'm trying to make, is that just because somebody says they're a Christian doesn't mean they really are. They may think they are, but their actions betray their words.
If a police officer makes a traffic stop and spots drugs in the car, he can arrest the driver based upon that observation. But suppose he doesn't arrest the suspect, but merely confiscates the illegal drugs and allows the driver to leave the scene. Now let's further suppose that this police officer then sells the drugs for his own profit when he's off duty. As presented, is our police officer worthy of being considered a police officer? He might wear the badge and uniform, and drive the car and respond to calls; but does this officer truly represent the essence of the motto "To protect and serve"? No he does not. His hypocrisy betrays his outward appearance, and stains the police profession as an institution of law enforcement.
Likewise, a Christian who does not obey the tenets of Christian teachings (Love your enemies, give to the poor, care for the sick, etc, etc.) is not a Christian in the true sense. Such a person is a "pretender" which is the original definition of a hypocrite. These people must be seen for what they really are, and not what they claim to be. By observing behavior you're aware of the difference between a genuine Christian and a religious hypocrite. If you continue to misidentify all Christians based upon the actions of the hypocrites there is a question to be answered:
Mow that you're aware of the difference, will you continue to misidentify, and if so, why would you do so?
Yes we have all heard this point before and it is meaningless because the facts tell us otherwise.

The proof is in the number of christians who hide their violence behind their god, as to whether they are true christians or not is mute, they accept what they are doing in the name of christianity and expect to be forgiven by their god for their actions.

I do not misidentify christians, I differentiate between the few good christians and the rest. Note that my best friend is a ‘good’ christian with a masters degree in theology (aiming for a PhD) and is about as highly placed in her church as a woman with her qualifications can get.

So using nothing but good christian guesswork to make false accusations about my attitude to christianity links you inexorably to those christians mentioned above.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#171246 Jul 8, 2013
Look at the percentage of Christians in brazil.

You're welcome
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>This article says nothing about the religious or spiritual beliefs of the fans who committed this atrocity. How did you come to the conclusion that any religious group did this?

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#171247 Jul 8, 2013
Apology accepted
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>This is true. I concede that Brazil, as a Latin country has a very high population of people who self identify as Catholic (or other denomination) but it is the actions that betray their words. And I would say that those who did commit the crime were not practicing Catholics or Christians. If they were, then they're seriously misunderstanding the tenets of peace as taught by Christ.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#171248 Jul 8, 2013
Kill your own child?
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>what does the bible say for you to do?

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 to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 15 min Eman 22,031
Atheism 101: What's the most aggravating argume... 56 min Thinking 2
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 1 hr Thinking 183
Stump a theist with 2 questions 1 hr Patrick 16
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 4 hr Patrick 41
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 9 hr Thinking 69
The Ultimate Evidence of God 16 hr sriKim 120
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••