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

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#206266 Jan 22, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Btw
Have YOU done "all you could"?
Or do you just expect that out of others?
It would be different if the church was tooting its own horn. They are simply trying to do what they can and have made no claims of great achievements. Yet the people trying to demonize others that do way more than them while they don't do chit except get sanctimonious on an Internet site seems odd to me

You know I like and respect ya Hip. And in most cases. But you are dead wrong here. And unless you wanna go to Africa and start combatting AIDS there like the Christian organizations, I don't see how you are in any position to judge them
Fair question. A little bit diversionary, but fair, I guess.

Yes, I have. It would be counter-productive and self-serving to run down a list in this anonymous setting, because obviously one could say anything and no way to prove it, nor do I care about "proving" anything about myself. It wasn't about me when i did it, and it ain't about me now. But, yes, I have, locally and "cross-border" and each time (but one) has been in some way church-sponsored or affiliated (tho' anyone can participate). Each time has been enlightening and uplifting on multiple levels, and i look forward to a more active role when I retire. I believe strongly in hands and feet outreach, and agree with you that those who don't or haven't with either time, talent, or treasure have a weaker position from which to argue.

But at the same time, I think it's hubristic to imagine that most Americans haven't done so in one form or another. Survey data backs me up on that, so really, it's just another misdirection tactic. A valid question, but not material to someone expressing an opinion.

Btw, I've never taken part in anything that had "moralistic" conditions attached. You do what you can, where it's needed, with everything in your arsenal. Think about it - how many more souls would there be to "save" if we did everything possible to save lives?

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#206267 Jan 22, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Well, actually she was sympathizing for your wife who you've represented incessantly as some kind of drug-crazed harlot. She didn't just wish you'd stfu, Marty Martyr, but that you'd stfu about using the poor girl as an argument-stopper in a discussion board with people who don't know what kind of good person she very well might be.
You are correct. I said "in regards to her".
Clearwater can't seperate himself from his victim status long enough to read
what I actually wrote.

Honestly, I've been speaking out about the way this fella uses his wife as
a human shield to make some sorted point against homosexuality for almost 5 years.
I'll never forget the first time I read his nonsense.. This is where I first started
wondering who these peeps ,here on topx, truly call their god..
And as I've read and learned more of these topix proclaimer s of Christianity
-it's been a slippery slope from there.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#206268 Jan 22, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
That's called an idiom of preference.
It means that if our love for out family interferes with worshipping and obeying God properly, we don't genuine love Him.
I don't really care what you think it means.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#206269 Jan 22, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
Luke 14:26 KJV - "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Admittedly the wording is a little peculiar but the point is made more clear in context. Especially when looking at other verses like love your neighbor and the Good Samaritan. But look at the next verses...
27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it— 29 lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying,‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’?
The message is nobody should claim other things are preventing them from following Christ. And if someone isn't willing to put heart and soul into their faith and make God the foundation of all they do then they shouldn't even bother and won't be a follower of Christ
Again, I admit it seems like an odd choice of words. But literally every other verse teaches to love everyone including brother, neighbor, and enemy. It just was kind of a weird wording IMO but I get the message and its about making Jesus the foundation, not actually hating other people
That's not the message I see. Nor do I see the subsequent verses as illuminating the one in question, nor saying what they say to you. They seem to be unrelated. First, a man (or woman) is told to forsake everybody important in his life including himself to follow Jesus. The word hate is used. Then he is warned not to start something that he can't finish. I don't see "nobody should claim other things are preventing them from following Christ" in that.

This is what I call a verbal Rorschach test. You get to choose what the words means - which words to take literally and which to say really mean something else. And you get to chose which other verses support it. You chose love thy neighbor and Good Samaritan, and the following verse. Someone else may choose "I come with a sword" and three verses before. And nobody but the two of you has a say in that. You each go by your gut feelings, which will be different because you have different emotional and intellectual proclivities, and each feels that he is being led by the Spirit. You may even debate with one another, but neither has a compelling argument for the other because there is no compelling argument for one interpretation over the other, or any other.

And this is how organizations as disparate as the Quakers and the Klan justify themselves using the same book. One might say that one is more correct and the other wrong, but which is which depends on whether he identifies with pacifists or violent racists.

So what does the bible actually say? To me, it says what the reader wants it to say.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#206270 Jan 22, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>I am somewhat ashamed looking back that I helped spread the hate as a kid. I hope I never said anything around someone that actually was gay. And I like to think I grew up and grew past the ideas I once had. Some things will always make me uncomfortable. But that's my problem. I try to make sure they don't prevent me from doing the right thing. But I can honestly say for me the church played no role. And even if everybody else thought what they did as done trickle down effect from some church origin (which I don't think is the case) my original personal opinion in it would have been the same regardless. The biggest affect on what shaped my views was my own perception and feelings about a dude engaging in certain things with another guy
(edit for length - see post 206164)

Excellent and honest post, and one which mirrors my experience. My position also has "evolved" over time, and I'm going to "blame" social indoctrination. Altho', to add my own dash of honesty, I think the idea of male sex was more a problem than the idea of females, and I really doubt I'm alone in that. There's an odd little dichotomy for thought, hmm?

One thing I would like to add tho' in my "evolution". You mention that the idea made you uncomfortable, and I get that. But at one point I realized that really wasn't fair. Why? Because I'm not interested in imagining anybody, hetero or otherwise, swappin' body fluids. You know? I'm the guy that fast forwards thru the gratuitous sex in an otherwise good movie, or even long romance scenes. I really doubt I'm alone in that either, at least for guys.

So, at one point I realized, why are we just singling out this one group, when we really don't want to think about anyone doing the nasty if we're not in the picture? I think it's a false and unfair distinction.

Why, when we think about the marriage question, do we focus on the sex act with the gay community so much more than with straights? I think it reveals a problem in our own wiring, not theirs.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#206271 Jan 22, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't realize the source,
you stumble in confusion and sorrow.
When you realize where you come from,
you naturally become tolerant,
disinterested, amused,
kindhearted as a grandmother,
dignified as a king.
Immersed in the wonder of the Tao,
you can deal with whatever life brings you,
And when death comes, you are ready.”
&#8213; Zhuangzi
I can readily understand what is being said there, but I have a much less romantic view of the situation.

I have spent some time trying to figure if I'm in a zoo, a prison, or a psychriatic ward here. I kinda gave up and resigned myself to whatever because of my military experience. This has been one hell of a long duty assignment in not exactly the choicest of them. The locals leave a lot to be desired. I have orders to observe and not interfere. Just suffer them.

Dave has got kinda tired.

This thread has helped, though. It has attracted several heavy hitting intellects on the theistic side. Very impressive and heartening. Almost all of those theistic thinkers on here fit that category. I used to stand off these howling crazies by myself for a long time, especially in that PTAG(shudder) thread.

I will say you made a tremendous difference with your appearance. Your force of personality and intellect really turned a tide on these forums.

It is so nice to see some sanity emerge in this chaos. Gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Not in the best of heads this morning. Got up and read the overnight posts. Usually this is a game of sorts, but the Topix atheist attempts to look intellectual and "in the know" didn't strike me so funny this morning. It was more pathetic, like a mortally injured animal struggling to get up. Bummer.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#206272 Jan 22, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah I used the same box. That is what screwed it up
I thought even you said in your post it would be a combination of sources. I may be wrong though as it was pretty late that I was replying. Although I would still make the same claim
I don't know how much I can offer as proof but I can relay my own personal experience. And that was my negative opinion of homosexuals came from the playground, sports teams, classmates, movies, music, etc. Literally my church doesn't even talk about it as our homilies are based on the readings which are from the gospels.
I grew up with a very negative view toward homosexuality. And it also wasn't just how I was socialized. I personally found it very disturbing and the mere idea of the act between men was distasteful to me to say the least.
And like I shared earlier, as I got older I started to be more aware of the hatred they dealt with and that part of my personality that was concerned with social justice and human decency started to overtake any negative feelings. Sure I thought it was messed up but damn, they were still human beings just like anybody else and they didn't need people's permission to be themselves and sure as heck didn't deserve to be bullied or discriminated against. So I just filed the sex act away as "none of my business" and started focusing more on the person themselves and how they were being treated
But that is why I feel numerous things, including just perhaps done personal immaturity and unfamiliarity, played a role in shaking my opinions. I may have never been hateful to someone that was gay but I certainly had some pretty unkind opinions towards homosexuality. And that was pretty much on me and other people my age trying to be what I thought a 'man' should be like and think while still a boy. And the negativity was reinforced in movies and rap songs. Being gay was an insult to call a guy
I am somewhat ashamed looking back that I helped spread the hate as a kid. I hope I never said anything around someone that actually was gay. And I like to think I grew up and grew past the ideas I once had. Some things will always make me uncomfortable. But that's my problem. I try to make sure they don't prevent me from doing the right thing. But I can honestly say for me the church played no role. And even if everybody else thought what they did as done trickle down effect from some church origin (which I don't think is the case) my original personal opinion in it would have been the same regardless. The biggest affect on what shaped my views was my own perception and feelings about a dude engaging in certain things with another guy
This post helps me understand you a little more.
You say your thoughts against homosexual "men" was formed in your heart and
not by an outside source. You are a Roman Catholic and say their beliefs did not
shape your negative opinions of a class of people different from you.

You seem -to me- to have been born w this heart of disdain towards others.
You may try and say you no longer feel as you did in your youth,( I'm guessing
by your own words) you were a bully back then.,

Your heart hasn't changed one bit, IMO. You have simply found new "victims"
to try and intimidate and climb upon to feed that defective(hate filled)?heart of yours.

And for that, I feel quite bad for you- although- not as bad as those you insult
try to belittle, slander and disrespect. almost hourly, on the Internet..

This piece of the www. has become the school yard of your youth..so to speak.
Makes so much sense now.
Thanks for sharing.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206273 Jan 22, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>But you didn't say, "courts can stray from it". This ain't "courts", this is The Court, established by the Constitution to say what that Constitution means. Whatever the Court says at any given time, that's what the Constitution means, until countermanded by a subsequent decision.
It ain't a perfect system, but it's the best we've come up with yet.
Buck, the only reason I find your point weak is because you only think they stray when you disagree with their decision. If you don't see the hubris in that stance, well, there ya go. I guess it'd be surprising if you did.
Wrong. Whatever the Court says is NOT necessarily what the Constitution means.

That is logically impossible. Since a subsequent Court can and does reverse what a Court said the Constitution means, your reasoning makes both conflicting rulings correct.

The Constitution cannot mean both "A" and "non A".

Aside from the flaw of being impossible, your view is unconstitutional. The Court would be free to legislate, and the judiciary would be supreme, not co-equal.

Your view is both impossible and wrong.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206274 Jan 22, 2014
sweets2360 wrote:
A few years ago I read a report from one of the AIDS research people, I cant remember who or what, that stated the culture of most Africans is skewed to the passing along of aids. For instance, you are discussing sex between practically strangers, and that they have convinced a lot of people to use condoms for that purpose, but in actuality, most men and women in Africa have several lovers that they have sex with on a regular basis. And no condom is used. They may see these people one a week, once a month, or once a year, but it is a regular happenstance so they don't think about it being an occurance that warrants the use of condoms. So aids continues to be a passed on problem.
Yes, I'm referring to people having sex with practically strangers.

I consider that to be short-sided, stupid and immoral, especially in places where STD's are prevalent and the people are aware of them.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#206275 Jan 22, 2014
HipGnosos wrote:
Sure, the Church has it's role. It feels it's task is to teach a better way. But when people are in the midst of drowning, is it best to hold swimming lessons, or to throw a lifejacket? Do you really feel better about it to say, "Well, it is sad, but we tried to teach them to swim, and they wouldn't listen." More than that, certain people in power attach restrictions - "We will pay for lessons, but not for lifejackets. If they learn to swim, they won't need lifejackets." In the meantime the drownings continue unabated. So, yes, the Church can hold their head up - they did not condone immoral behavior, and they prevented it being subsidized. Hallelujah! And people continue to die needlessly. Is it the church's fault? Why, heavens no! Believers can sleep soundly knowing they did all they could under God. All they could.

[QUOTE who="Skombolis"]That s just silly Hip If that was how they felt they wouldn't be in Africa trying to stop the spread of AIDS You can try to put whatever spin on it you want. But it's odd someone who adamantly wants prayer out of school is now trying to criticize the church for somehow not taking a bigger social role in public health policy Their obligation is to teach what they feel is right. They try to feed and clothe and bring vaccines to the afflicted. If you really want to try to make them the bad guys because they feel the best way to teach people is to teach them to have sex within monogamous marriages then knock yourself out I personally think it looks rather petty
JMO
I agree with HipGnosis, who I believe is saying that the church's ability to help is severely limited by its doctrine.

I would go further and add that I don't believe that the church is interested in whether those people live or die, as the flippant comments about Job's children indicate. Riverside Redneck noted that they were in heaven, so what's the big deal?
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

That attitude runs rampant through Christianity, as when we discuss the deaths of anybody
http://lh6.ggpht.com/--hXMr-dc2Xs/Tin6AAPoKtI...

Why would these Africans be viewed any differently?

I would say that the church actually does harm by drawing people to a solution that is sure to fail, just as a charlatan with a quack remedy that diverts patients from effective therapy does worse than nothing. He does harm.

You wrote about the church that, "Their obligation is to teach what they feel is right." Do you agree that our obligation is to do the same, which for us means to contradict the church and criticize its ways, as with posts like this one? For people who put no stock in the values of the church that part from rational ethics, we see these values as not only wrong, but deadly.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206276 Jan 22, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
It has been demonstrated over and over again that, like communism, abstinence only works in theory, not in practice. Therefore, what is the moral culpability to an organization who rejects more effective preventative measures in favor of an ideology that has been proven not to work?
Safe sex DOES work in practice.
Abstinence works in practice. 100%.

It doesn't work if not in practice.
Bongo

Coram, NY

#206277 Jan 22, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
This from the irrelevant liar who was meant to leave topix.
*see DS? drongo knew who my comment was about*
It was obvious, funny face. And you still never supported your ridiculous claim that you could sue the school if someother kid was caught praying in front of yours. Youre just another malcontent lost soul

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#206278 Jan 22, 2014
Le_le wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct. I said "in regards to her".
Clearwater can't seperate himself from his victim status long enough to read
what I actually wrote.
Honestly, I've been speaking out about the way this fella uses his wife as
a human shield to make some sorted point against homosexuality for almost 5 years.
I'll never forget the first time I read his nonsense.. This is where I first started
wondering who these peeps ,here on topx, truly call their god..
And as I've read and learned more of these topix proclaimer s of Christianity
-it's been a slippery slope from there.
Oh yeah, I remember it well. I said that once a'ways back, and have left it alone ever since, tho' he kept using it at every opportunity, and even when it had no connection. Like I said, I won't comment critically on personal experience, but when it's used as basis for a position, it's no longer personal experience, but offered as "evidence", and thus fair game for rebuttal.

I declare, you must have been having an interesting "ride". I think you and I have butted heads on occasion a'way back in the day, but I've also seen you "evolve" in WSJLM, as have I, and many of us. But hey! That's really what most of these threads are about, fightin' and lovin', growin' and slidin'. The trick is keeping them fun, informative, and above the belt. We most of us ain't too good at that last part. In any case it's good to "speak" with you, and I wish you and yours,

Peace in the light of knowledge and truth.
HipG

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206279 Jan 22, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, you express support for Barton.
Now, you defend Osteen.
What next, Ann Coulter? David Duke?
I defend them when false charges are made.

You object to that?

What's wrong with Ann Coulter? Inuendo much?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206280 Jan 22, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
The book of Job is a fictional story according to the people who wrote it.
Feel free to tell the Jews they don't know sh!t about their own books..
Point me to a Jew and I will.

Because I know that Ezekiel referred to Job along with Noah and Daniel in Ezekiel 14.

Also, James uses the example of Job to comfort suffering, proving the point that God is merciful, see James 5.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206281 Jan 22, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
Words like "destiny" and "fate" are often used by people that believe in a plan that has a purpose or a higher power behind it. The ways in which these words are used, in most cases, are inconsistent with my worldview.
The concept I brought up was determinism.
Determinism is very similar to fate int that your future is predetermined and you aren't the cause of anything because it's already set.

It's a direct opposite to free will, which is why I think people like you & Harris dig it. Anything to go against Christianity turns you guys on.

But it's funny that an "evidence-based rational skeptic" would believe in something like that...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206282 Jan 22, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus didn't say material wealth was unimportant. Quite the contrary; he said it would inhibit entry into heaven.
No, he said it would inhibit entry into "the Kingdom".

He also said "the Kingdom is within you", not somewhere out there.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206283 Jan 22, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
Neither did Job.
These are fictional characters of a myth.
Says you.

But you also say that Jesus is a character of myth.

We see very differently on this.
Yes it is, but why would that matter to you?
Did Zeus and his kids exist?
I don't know and I don't care.

I don't go around arguing about things I don't believe in.

You see, I'm not an atheist.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#206284 Jan 22, 2014
Tide with Beach wrote:
I don't really care what you think it means.
TA-DAAA!

I accept your concession.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#206285 Jan 22, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, as I pointed out before, faith is not a reliable epistemology.
The only person who peddles faith is a charlatan.
And you take that on faith.

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 10 min Eagle 12 2,390
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 2 hr Pahu 33
God' existence 2 hr Carchar king 63
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 2 hr Carchar king 138
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr Thinking 23,194
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 9 hr Crazy Mess 1
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Thu thetruth 1,442
More from around the web