Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism
| 4668 | 1390235 |
I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
- 4,668 Replies
I am a Christian, and I know that there are reasons to hate Christians.
If I hold any hatred it's to the religion not the people.
Because no matter what you believe, you will face that belief when you shut your eyes for the last time.
Just because you believe something doesn't make it real. So just because you believe it doesn't make it so when you die. Determining what's real is where facts and critical thinking comes into play.
Just because you believe something doesn't make it real. So just because you believe it doesn't make it so when you die. Determining what's real is where facts and critical thinking comes into play.
I didn't say when you die. I said when you shut your eyes for the last time, it will be the only thing on your mind. "What's going to happen to me?" An example would be: "I'm going to be put in a box and stuck in the ground."
And that will be all you can think about. Alone, most likely.
If I hold any hatred it's to the religion not the people.
There is no religion without people, my friend. You can't hate what a religion is without hating the people who practice it, because they are one in the same. A religion is a practice of faith performed by people.
You could hate the churches, but those are built by somebody, sometimes agnostic construction workers, even.
My point is, the concept itself has no substance, no essence. You might as well hate a distant star, as, practically speaking it exists more in our universe than your concept of Christianity.
I don't believe it is ever right to hate, but if I were going to hate, I would pick something real. Something malleable.
I didn't say when you die. I said when you shut your eyes for the last time, it will be the only thing on your mind. "What's going to happen to me?" An example would be: "I'm going to be put in a box and stuck in the ground."
Okay so your referring to the point just prior to death while your brain is still shutting down? I suppose that's possible.
There is no religion without people, my friend. You can't hate what a religion is without hating the people who practice it, because they are one in the same. A religion is a practice of faith performed by people.
Your right that there wouldn't be religion without the people but that doesn't mean I hate those who follow the religion. I suppose you can think of it like hating the deed rather than the person doing it. I know many here are tired of the brainwashing bit, but looking at it that way I don't have reason to hate someone for doing something under those conditions.
I don't believe it is ever right to hate, but if I were going to hate, I would pick something real. Something malleable.
In the minds of the people who believe in these religions it is real. I clearly dislike what it takes to believe these things. Ideas can translate into real actions.
So what you're saying is, you dislike commitment? Lolz, that sucks. That basically counts you outta the convo, since this thread wasn't even MEANT for agruing about this. It was meant as an inter-crhistian discussion of events relating to, or including, or something christians, something something something, no flamers or athiests. OUCH. I'm not feeling bad for athiests getting put with flamers, I'm feeling bad for flamers being put with atheists. At least falmers ca justify by saying they have anger issues, but atheists have a CHOICE.
So what you're saying is, you dislike commitment? Lolz, that sucks. That basically counts you outta the convo, since this thread wasn't even MEANT for agruing about this.
Was that addressed to me? If so I don't recall saying that.
I'm not feeling bad for athiests getting put with flamers, I'm feeling bad for flamers being put with atheists. At least falmers ca justify by saying they have anger issues, but atheists have a CHOICE.
I'm smelling smoke, is there an open flame around?
In the minds of the people who believe in these religions it is real. I clearly dislike what it takes to believe these things. Ideas can translate into real actions.
But actions themselves aren't tangible either. Only people are real. You can't divide someone's actions from the person, it's not possible. It doesn't seem logical to say. If someone says, "I don't hate the murderer, I just despise his actions." What does that mean? By the foundations of logic at the heading of this thread:
Some people are Christians.
All Christians practice Christianity.
People are indivisible from their actions.
Person X hates Christianity.
Person X hates all Christians.
If we go by these postulates, saying you hate Christianity by these methods, also states you hate all Christians as well.
Please don't misunderstand, I'm not attempting to put words in your mouth, but I am trying to infer that often those words. "I don't hate the rapist, I just deplore what he did," could be seen as excuses--emotional transference--away from something that is seen as 'wrong', hatred for people, to something that isn't so bad 'hatred for an intangible object'.
Was that addressed to me? If so I don't recall saying that.
Given the lack of context he put it in I think he is referring to:
In the minds of the people who believe in these religions it is real. I clearly dislike what it takes to believe these things. Ideas can translate into real actions.
He's simply putting words in your mouth.
Some people are Christians.
All Christians practice Christianity.
People are indivisible from their actions.
Person X hates Christianity.
Person X hates all Christians.
Yes... but no. It's a difficult subject but that is not the case, the actions of one aren't entirely their own, I've been compromised, you almost certainly have - pretty much everyone has been in some way or another. It's enviromental influence and as such the actions of one change the actions of many, and it's an ongoing chain reaction.
The indoctrination of Christians is something I despise, and their actions there forward aren't even voluntary in some aspects.
In that way, I can't hate those Christians, but I hate the idea of Christianity - agreed?
Also, I'm not speaking for MageGray but I pretty much agree with him on hating Christianity and as so I'm justifying myself
- H
Also, I'm not speaking for MageGray but I pretty much agree with him on hating Christianity and as so I'm justifying myself
Sounds about right.
Religion tends to be very compartmentalized in the brain and can come out as even just an automatic response due to conditioning. So it can be out of the persons control.
Also holding a particular view or set of views doesn't mean I have to dislike that person even if I dislike the views they hold.
The point I'm trying to make is that if God has an absolute morality, then he shouldn't have had a problem telling people the truth about slavery, especially considering that he was revealing himself so they would know that he exists for a fact.It was already hard enough to people to understand that there's God who has all the authority over them. Do recall the history of Israeli while they were in the desert travelling to the promised land. There was even a doubt whether it was true that God is with them, even despite of Him leading the nation through, and proving His existance every single day. Now imagine, that such a nation is given the ultimate morale at once - they will not accept it, because they were not ready for such a revelation. (Even we are not ready I expect.) So it is normal that God does reveal more of the ultimate morale while time passes and society matures.
However, if morality really is subjective to what people believe, then it would make sense for made-up gods to believe in something that we no longer accept.Morality is not subjective to beliefs, the main case is that humanity is not a single society, and different parts of it are capable of accepting the morality at different levels. So here the answer is no.
It doesn't matter if women have more equal rights nowadays; God still thinks they should remain silent in church and that they should submit to their husbands.Oh well, patriarchate as the way to run a family still exists and is viable in general. And "equal rights" should not mean "equal gender representation", "equal wages" or "women must be able to apply anywhere". You have the right to remain silent. Everything you say might be used against you. Etc. Also, a woman is a hormone-ruled human, she can be naturally gullible at certain times, and unusually harsh at other times, which can be used against those who are under that woman's lead if she would be persuaded into making bad decisions. A man, otherwise, has only one strict position and is more conforming in holding the general course of development, because he is not hormone-dependant in the way a woman is, that's why a man should rule the family, and take responsibility for it.
Blindly and willingly; we have no reason to believe in God.I'll leave you be, then. You will either start to believe, or not.
Hypothetically, what if the civil war had never happened, and slavery actually spread throughout America?What-if-false and IMHO makes ridicule. See 3 above.
I've never seen any evidence of him, and it seems to me that you can attribute anything good to God if you really wanted to believe that. Doesn't it make more sense to not assume that it was God until you have some sort of reason to think it was God?You seem to be using Occam's principle here, holding the razor wrong side up. Tell me please, what is "random", "chance" and "incident" ("accident"? (I'm asking how do you explain luck and how come some people get good events happening, and some get bad, and why - this one is necessary.)
Maybe you believe that the Old Testament laws are laws we've outgrown, but according to this passage:You do really miss the point. A law remains, but loses area of application.
After the examples I've provided you have to ask?Yes, since there are examples of greater trust in place that turn what you say "gullibility" into the only principle that makes the thing run. First, Abraham (and Israeli as a result). Second, there is a congregation of believers who don't make other living than what God's Providence will send, and they survive and prosper.
If your just believing without justification for something you consider even more important than what you would require hard evidence for, that just being even more foolish.Rephrase please, I can't get this phrase for other than a set of words. Or maybe it's just I have the justification to believe in God, which you don't acknowledge as one.
I have read up on Fatima's events and we have already covered how much bunk it is.You stated your personal opinion as a conclusion here. Your only argument is "Astronomers didn't see Sun actually moving, so all that happens there is blah-blah-blah." Which does not make the fact less true. And, I was bringing up Fatima for those who haven't been following us through this entire dialogue.
Even though the brainwashing answer is a completely valid one, we'll steer clear of that.It might be valid but it's not always true. I have come to belief in God by my own, without any "brainwashing", I have used my own brain without any interference to understand that there is God.
What better way to find out the truth than to be skeptical of all the options?"All" options you say? So far no one was skeptical about his own sanity, maybe you shuold try?
Atheism doesn't hold any absolute morals or make claims, which is why it doesn't get the same amount of skepticism.Atheism makes at least one claim, that is, all who believe in God, or gods, are wrong. And atheists use this claim as a null hypothesis without any given means to counter it. And for some reason the existance of this null hypothesis is treated as an axiom.
if the questions we are posing are just "desperate attacks to cripple your faith" that have no validity, then you should have no problem providing the justification.It is enough to provide the reason to make the question void, in some cases when it is so. But many do ask for justification while asking void questions.
Just because you believe something doesn't make it real. So just because you believe it doesn't make it so when you die.Unless it was true from the very beginning. but this is the thing you can't be sure of, as it resides in the plane where mortal logic can't be applied properly.
Some people are Christians.The third statement seems to be wrong, there are things that make people do offenses while them being divided from those actions, say hypnosis, misinformation or despair (and going nuts, if speaking extremes). So, the last conclusion becomes wrong here. Otherwise this could be applies to any other systems of belief, be it science or FSM, or even atheism.
All Christians practice Christianity.
People are indivisible from their actions.
Person X hates Christianity.
Person X hates all Christians.
Morality is not subjective to beliefs, the main case is that humanity is not a single society, and different parts of it are capable of accepting the morality at different levels. So here the answer is no.
objective morality would be morality would be morality independent of the mind not by the judgment of a conscious being. if your claiming your "objective" morality comes from God then it con only be objective if God is not a conscious being, which would negate the status as God.
Oh well, patriarchate as the way to run a family still exists and is viable in general. And "equal rights" should not mean "equal gender representation", "equal wages" or "women must be able to apply anywhere".
equal rights means having the same opportunities and rights everyone else has. So if a guy has to be equally represented so does a woman. If a guy has the opportunity to make a certain wage a woman should have the the same opportunity if in the same position. If a guy can apply anywhere, so can a woman.
Also, a woman is a hormone-ruled human
Guys can be quite hormonally ruled as well. Your arguments here sound quite bigoted. Attitudes I wouldn't be at all surprised are derived from your religious beliefs.
Tell me please, what is "random", "chance" and "incident" ("accident"?
Following no describable deterministic pattern.
Yes, since there are examples of greater trust in place that turn what you say "gullibility" into the only principle that makes the thing run. First, Abraham (and Israeli as a result). Second, there is a congregation of believers who don't make other living than what God's Providence will send, and they survive and prosper.
No the things you listed don't make faith anything more than just being gullible. Your still basing your beliefs on things you have no proof of. You can pull things up like miracles or some personal experience, but you still have to work from a presupposed relationship. You've even gone as far as to insert claims that weren't made or flat out ignore evidence and other more likely possibilities just to jump to your predetermined conclusion.
You stated your personal opinion as a conclusion here. Your only argument is "Astronomers didn't see Sun actually moving, so all that happens there is blah-blah-blah." Which does not make the fact less true. And, I was bringing up Fatima for those who haven't been following us through this entire dialogue.
No I don't since as you pointed out independent observation of the event does not confirm it as real and even goes against the claim and further evidence indicates an optical illusion.
Atheism makes at least one claim, that is, all who believe in God, or gods, are wrong.
No it doesn't. Atheism is just a lack of belief in a any god. Since there is nothing determining why that lack of belief exists, it doesn't follow that ones lack of belief has to mean the claim existence is wrong.
And atheists use this claim as a null hypothesis without any given means to counter it. And for some reason the existance of this null hypothesis is treated as an axiom.
You can counter it by providing objective evidence that we can than independently verify and come to the same conclusion that god (any god) exists.
if your claiming your "objective" morality comes from God then it con only be objective if God is not a conscious beingYes, God defines morale. And "subjective" means "defined by humans". So yes, God-given morale is objective.
Your arguments here sound quite bigoted. Attitudes I wouldn't be at all surprised are derived from your religious beliefs.Agreed here. Still, I have found out that running MY family as a man is beneficial to both of us.
equal rights means having the same opportunities and rights everyone else has. So if a guy has to be equally represented so does a woman. If a guy has the opportunity to make a certain wage a woman should have the the same opportunity if in the same position. If a guy can apply anywhere, so can a woman.I was surprised when I was first searching for a job that some jobs are limited to be woman-only. So the last position is a no, it should be job dependant. Wage difference is explained by an ability of a woman to become pregnant and decree vacations following that, up to 2 years straight, and by this time the employer has to pay her some minimal wage, while that woman won't do a thing for him. Unless you will fire the woman if she becomes pregnant, you are unable to provide her with wage equal to the man doing the same job.
Following no describable deterministic pattern.Okay, why did this particular random event turned beneficial for you, and that particular event turned detrimental? Also, how come there are random events of unknown origin, which should not even be there in case of there's no God?
Your still basing your beliefs on things you have no proof of.Will do a more thorough search about that Providence congregation, they still exist.
No I don't since as you pointed out independent observation of the event does not confirm it as real and even goes against the claim and further evidence indicates an optical illusion.There was an independent observation confirming the issue:
According to contemporary reports from poet Afonso Lopes Vieira and schoolteacher Delfina Lopes with her students and other witnesses in the town of Alburita, the solar phenomenon was visible from up to forty kilometers away.And, "indicates" does not equal "erson suggests". Also I haven't heard no explanation of the part when the sun "seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight" (Dr. Almeida Garrett).
No it doesn't. Atheism is just a lack of belief in a any god.It's agnosticism instead.
You can counter it by providing objective evidence that we can than independently verify and come to the same conclusion that god (any god) exists.I can counter a claim by displaying why it's a wrong claim, by any logical method available, such as pointing at contradictions within it. (In case of what was said in Garabandal is true, there will be an event that will leave a landmark as an objective verifiable evidence you require, so I'll be able to provide you with some. But there's none yet there, so I'm waiting.)
It was already hard enough to people to understand that there's God who has all the authority over them. Do recall the history of Israeli while they were in the desert travelling to the promised land. There was even a doubt whether it was true that God is with them, even despite of Him leading the nation through, and proving His existance every single day.
This sounds like an ingenius way of covering up a lie. We have examples of fictional people in these stories still not believing in God despite evidence being put forth. Now, because people are demanding evidence, believers can just say that "you will not accept the truth even if it is proven".
Now imagine, that such a nation is given the ultimate morale at once - they will not accept it, because they were not ready for such a revelation. (Even we are not ready I expect.) So it is normal that God does reveal more of the ultimate morale while time passes and society matures.
Don't you think God could've saved a lot of people in the Civil War, once the idea of abolishing slavery was planted, by revealing himself as a booming voice in the sky with a physical form, and shouting, "Do not fight the most violent war in American history! I, your Christian God, declare that slavery is a sin." Seems even God's ultimate morale doesn't give him the knowledge of when to reveal it.
Morality is not subjective to beliefs, the main case is that humanity is not a single society, and different parts of it are capable of accepting the morality at different levels. So here the answer is no.
You could call it accepting morality and different levels, but I would call it different morality in general. Just because we want to force morals on other people doesn't mean ours is closer to the true morality, and it doesn't even prove that there is an absolute morality.
And "equal rights" should not mean "equal gender representation", "equal wages" or "women must be able to apply anywhere". You have the right to remain silent.
Um, that's exactly what equal rights should mean. What you're going for is "equal dignity". If you wanted to make the argument that women shouldn't have equal rights, that's a different discussion. I guess it might be difficult to convince you that God's belief that women are inferior is immoral since you totally agree with it.
I'm asking how do you explain luck and how come some people get good events happening, and some get bad, and why - this one is necessary.
Luck is an abstract concept. Nobody can explain why good things happen to some and bad to others. I don't know why. That doesn't mean that I should assume without evidence or rational justification that it was your particular god, let alone any god.
You do really miss the point. A law remains, but loses area of application.
I got the point. God makes immoral laws regarding slavery hoping that we'll realize they're immoral and abolish slavery. Nice loophole, and it only took a few thousand years to actually succeed. I'm sure those who were born into slavery and died in slavery completely agree.
I have used my own brain without any interference to understand that there is God.
Right, but most people are brainwashed into a religion, and if people belong to specific demoninations, it can be fairly supported that those attending are brainwashed every Sunday to continue a belief without evidence, when they might have otherwise seen the absurdity in it.
It is enough to provide the reason to make the question void, in some cases when it is so. But many do ask for justification while asking void questions.
I agree. But the Christians responding haven't been doing that. Just because we're asking questions does not mean that we have malevolent intent. I don't direct this so much towards you, though, as you have been answering our questions.
I was surprised when I was first searching for a job that some jobs are limited to be woman-only. So the last position is a no, it should be job dependant. Wage difference is explained by an ability of a woman to become pregnant and decree vacations following that, up to 2 years straight, and by this time the employer has to pay her some minimal wage, while that woman won't do a thing for him. Unless you will fire the woman if she becomes pregnant, you are unable to provide her with wage equal to the man doing the same job.
The original intent of difference between pay was that women couldn't do the manual labor as easily as men, and that principle just kind of stuck with us. I see your point about pregnancy, but that's no justification saying that women therefore don't deserve to make as much as men, for something they might do.
Okay, why did this particular random event turned beneficial for you, and that particular event turned detrimental? Also, how come there are random events of unknown origin, which should not even be there in case of there's no God?
Because it's random? If I flip a coin and it lands on heads, why did God make it land on heads and not tails? What ultimate morale principle do you think he's taking into account?
It's agnosticism instead.
Agnosticism means not claiming to know about the spiritual, as opposed to gnosticism, claiming to know about the spiritual.
An agnostic atheist would be not believing in a god, but not claiming to know if there is a god. A gnostic atheist would be what you were describing, claiming to know that there is no god.
Most theists tend to be gnostic theists, claiming to know that there is a god, while the more open-minded theists tend to be agnostic theists, believing in a god but not claiming to know that there is a god.
Christianity and all its splinter religions are the least accepting of all religions, "your not christian, you go to HELL!"
A gnostic atheist would be what you were describing, claiming to know that there is no god.
*edit*
Just to keep from getting confused, when I say "what you were describing" I mean what you were describing as an atheist, not what you were describing as an agnostic.
Yes, God defines morale. And "subjective" means "defined by humans". So yes, God-given morale is objective.
dictionary.com
"5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."
Merrian-Websters
"1a: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence"
3a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>
wiki: Objectivity (philosophy)
"While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"â"that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject."
objective is independent of the mind not by the judgment of a conscious being. That being doesn't have to be human.
There was an independent observation confirming the issue:
[quote]According to contemporary reports from poet Afonso Lopes Vieira and schoolteacher Delfina Lopes with her students and other witnesses in the town of Alburita, the solar phenomenon was visible from up to forty kilometers away.
[/quote]
I the sun was actually moving rather than it just being some sort of optical illusion it would be visible everywhere, not just from a few kilometers away.
Also I haven't heard no explanation of the part when the sun "seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight" (Dr. Almeida Garrett).
There is no firmament and since we can already consider the movement some sort of optical illusion given the very narrow range it was observable from (yes a kilometer is narrow for the sun), this also was likely part of that illusion.
can counter a claim by displaying why it's a wrong claim, by any logical method available, such as pointing at contradictions within it.
Yes we can counter claims by pointing out contradictions, which is what we can do with the Bible.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
However I don't see you doing this with your counters. I do see you continuing to use bad logic and reasoning. Which frankly is getting old and quite grating to have to put up with.
You must be logged in to post a reply!