AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism

4668 1473255
thepyro222
offline
thepyro222
2,150 posts
Peasant

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
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

Nope, he simply doused himself in gasoline, assumed the lotus position in the middle of a busy intersection and killed himself by self immolation

HEY STOP FLAMING!
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

Atheists kill.


In every demographic you will find those who commit acts which a large portion of their society find deplorable.

The issue isn't so much that there is killing being done, or who's name (or lack thereof), but that religion is used as a catalyst to incite people who otherwise show no signs of sociopathic behavior to act out. Religious fervor creates a heightened state in which one is far more succeptible to exterior influence on their behavior. This has manifested itself in numerous negative ways, bigotry and murder only being a few of them.

Eliminating religion will not eliminate these things, it will simply eliminate a very powerful tool which leads to them in many cases where other stimuli would not.

I believe both were excommunicated no?


In the case of Hitler he was not excommunicated until AFTER his campaign against Europe. Initially he had the backing of the Catholic church, and was an official member in good standing.

Of course this is all in the old testament and was the culture of that time. I suppose if the bible were written in today's age and read 2000 years from today, things we do now would probably be viewed as wrong that we consider ok today. I'm not futureseer person and my bracket was awful tuis year for the NCAA so I have no specific examples, but regardless, it was acceptable at that time.


Of course it reflects the standards of the time because it was written by men of that time who were imparting their prejudices and political opinins on the idea of God.

I'm watching all three lord of the rings extended editions all in a row with some friends and I'm totally psyched for it! !


*jealous*
I don't have them on BluRay yet, and they only have Fellowship of the Rings on NetFlix to stream to my PS3 so I haven't gotten to have a LOTOR marathon yet :'(
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

I'm watching all three lord of the rings extended editions all in a row with some friends and I'm totally psyched for it! !


Oh jeez, those movies were long enough without being extended for me, I can't imagine watching all 3 in a row even normal edition.

And that is the problem. Using a 2000 year old book as a basis of morales and actions is a horrible idea. It's like using surgical methods from the civil war in a modern ER.


Like I said earlier, if the Bible is supposed to be the word of god, then shouldn't what in the Bible be correct, no matter the time? But, this isn't the case, i'm sure no priest or day to day citizen would think it's okay to do 1/2 the stuff that's in the bible, and yet it's followed still. Which means that god was originally wrong, or man interpreted it wrong, or it was just a bunch of stories.
Wafflesquad
offline
Wafflesquad
170 posts
Peasant

Like I said earlier, if the Bible is supposed to be the word of god, then shouldn't what in the Bible be correct, no matter the time? But, this isn't the case, i'm sure no priest or day to day citizen would think it's okay to do 1/2 the stuff that's in the bible, and yet it's followed still. Which means that god was originally wrong, or man interpreted it wrong, or it was just a bunch of stories.


Well why do you say the Bible is outdated? There are absolutes: 1+3 will ALWAYS (barring an error) equal 4. The Bible is the same way. And if it is outdated, than WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE READ IT?
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,255 posts
Regent

There are absolutes: 1+3 will ALWAYS (barring an error) equal 4. The Bible is the same way.

Er.. how is the bible an absolute? What passages are in your opinion?
Do you have conscience about the abhorrent things that are listed in it, especially in the old testament? The only reasonable way to look at the bible is to take everything metaphorically and not literally.
And if it is outdated, than WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE READ IT?

Because they have to? Because they're told that the bible is the truth? Because they're told that the bible brings salvation? Because it is the foundation of their religion?
Either because they look at it the right way (metaphorically) and are able to filter out wisdom and morals out of it, or because they look at it the wrong way (literally) and feel pleasure in doing so because they are sadistic idiots.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

Well why do you say the Bible is outdated? There are absolutes: 1+3 will ALWAYS (barring an error) equal 4. The Bible is the same way. And if it is outdated, than WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE READ IT?

Using cheesey comparisons to maths does not make the Bible true. You didn't explain how its true, you just used a comparison to make it look true, and it's theese fogged off answers or defenses that is what reinforce you belief. I suggest you stop it, and properly answer the question as in - don't say its an absolute unless you can prove it.

I can prove I am absolute? Look, I'm influencing this keyboard.

Because they have to? Because they're told that the bible is the truth? Because they're told that the bible brings salvation? Because it is the foundation of their religion?
Either because they look at it the right way (metaphorically) and are able to filter out wisdom and morals out of it, or because they look at it the wrong way (literally) and feel pleasure in doing so because they are sadistic idiots.

You missed the, possible, biggest one. They are indoctrinated into Religion at young age. If you have a young relative (4 and older) you would know that pretty much anything they ask is the simplest thing, and even if it isn't, they're always open to answers and won't question it at all. Religion is often indoctrinated into children which fixes it into their brain, if they are older they still believe it as they were told it as a child, and their will to uphold their religion is without peer - that is not a good thing. It doesn't encourage open-mindedness, it lacks self-development and possibly self-esteem and it could well result in their children having the same fate.

- H
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Eh, I'll take credit for flaming, but every single one was a response from an atheist flaming/trolling(which ever is which).


As a Christian aren't you suppose to take the high ground?

Now obviously the bible doesn't say that but he interpreted it that way.


What makes his interpretations wrong and your interpretations right? Didn't you both sit in prayer having God tell you what the right way the passages should be read?
Strongbow
offline
Strongbow
324 posts
Nomad

"Jesus loves me, this I know
for the bible tells me so..."


I recall that line from as early as I can remember. Religious conditioning is a given. Interpretation is where things get a bit more outlandish.

@MageGreyWolf: you should provide the link to that Context video you found again. I believe it would provide appropriate perspective to the idea of literal interpretation.

Plus, it was just hilarious!

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

@MageGreyWolf: you should provide the link to that Context video you found again. I believe it would provide appropriate perspective to the idea of literal interpretation.


Here you go.
Context!!!!!!
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Sorry for the double but the guy who did that Context video has a new video up.

1 Corinthians 13

wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

I fully believe it is the word of God. The bible had already been selected and formed way before the crusades and all the screw ups of the church.


Okay, do I need to post the bible history lesson for a THIRD time? I would not consider a Roman council who deliberately searched for texts claiming Jesus as the son of god, trustworthy. Furthermore I would not trust time itself. Time has a nasty habit of twisting words and their meanings. The bible has changed throughout the centuries and regardless of what you may believe it has changed more recently than you think.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

From Page 56...

this is a discussion which has no end.

And therefore must be bad! Is that what you're saying
people say that there is no evidence that god exists,
but there also is no evidence that god doesn't exist!

Umm...that's quite a stretch. We actually HAVE presented such evidence on both sides. For example,
1. ~(p ^ ~p) - Law of Non-contradiction.
2. (p --> q) --> (~q --> ~p) - Reductio Ad Absurdum. By denying the consequent, you disprove the antecedent.
3. ~D --> (p ^ ~p) - Not-Determinism (~D) implies a contradiction.
4. (~D --> (p ^ ~p)) --> (~(p ^ ~p) --> ~~D) - Use of Reductio Ad Absurdum (2) in this particular instance.
5. (~(p ^ ~p) --> ~~D) - Modus Ponens (3,4).
6. ~~D - Modus Ponens (2,5).
7. ~~D --> D - Not-Not something implies something.
8. Therefore, D - Determinism is inevitable!!!

Now, one might say that Determinism doesn't necessarily preclude God. However, this proof still implies that if D, (G --> D), because anything implies a true statement. Determinism, therefore (God --> Determinism).

Determinism is therefore a condition for God, even though most theists would deny it.
and you cannot always rely on facts, that is why we
believe. if everything was known to be true,
there would be no believing.

I believe 1+1=2, even though I know it. This is not a correct definition of "believe."
also, there is bad stuff right: evil exists, then good must also exist. so don't blame god for bad stuff, he's not the only power working on this world.

Virtues don't necessarily stem from God; in fact, if they can exist without a God, then I don't see how God is necessary at all.

Read the Euthyphro.

look at how beautifull the world is: look how complicated everything is. someone must be behind it

Look at the empty rest-of-the-galaxy. If life arose spontaneously on any of those planets, they would have thought that a deity was behind it whether or not that was actually true.

Furthermore, read about Fermi's paradox - life probably doesn't exist elsewhere in the galaxy.

Furthermore, evolution explains much of the complexity of life. There is a strong evolutionary pressure for more complex life forms, since those are more adapted to their environment and will survive and reproduce. That explains a great amount of the complexity.
I believe in evolution, big bang, and stuff like that, I just believe that something must have started it: people say that there was emptyness before the big bang, but what can come from emptyness?

Asking "What came before the Big Bang?" is a misunderstanding of the Big Bang. There is no "came before" because the Big Bang created time.
and atheists, why do you keep trying deny god? are you scared that god exists? I would like an answer to that?

No - we are not scared that God exists. We are not trying to deny morality (absolute morality can exist without a God) or anything. We don't BELIEVE God exists. That's the whole point. The burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist.
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
955 posts
Nomad

The list of Jesus' commandments
A nice list, but the trick there is, "This one commandment summarizes all the others: "Love one another as I have loved you."" (quote from the link) This means if you will fulfill this, you will fulfill all the other commandments. You should know that phrases like "wash each other's legs" are examples of what a true disciple of Christ should do, which is to serve his neighbors in a way he can, and in what they need. Like say going to the hospital to change a sick person's diapers and have a talk with him to make him feel that he's not alone in the world.

Nice toss, by the way.

So send a bear to kill a couple kids is malevolent only if a human sent it, but if it's God he get's a free pass? Sounds like a double standard to me.
Was this a completely same situation, at the very first? Or were you relating to 4 Kingdoms 2:23?
As for your your reasoning that a homosexual couple can't reproduce, thus can't be considered a marriage is ridiculous. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who, for one reason or another are unable to have their own biological children, yet are regarded as being married. If we are to regard the heterosexual couple who can't have kids as married, we have no reason to say the homosexual couples can't be married because they can't have kids.
Wrong expansion. You say "some" heterosexual couples can't reproduce, I say "all" homosexual couples can't reproduce. Exclusions happen at all times, but two men can't conceive because there's no woman to conceive, and two women can't conceive because there is no man between them to provide the semen to conceive. Therefore homosexual couples won't count as "married".
According to this study Christians have problems with staying married.
Hmm, interesting. This link states this: "Hughes claim that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been "saved."" And several other passages about how Christian moral should be employed. This is the main problem of protestant Christianity - most of them believe that there's a certain point in their life when they have done enough to be saved from eternal ****ation. This position is wrong, as God said "If a person that did good made an evil deed, his good deeds are not remembered", but God also said "If an evil-doing person will turn away from evil deeds and will do good, his evil deeds are not remembered". These mean that if a person will commit mortal sins and not confess in them, he'll not be saved - though there is still a chance of a contrition which we can't detect, that on the verge of death a sinner recalls his sins and prays for salvation within his soul. In short, no one is "saved" unless dead and passed through God's judgement. While we are here, we are subject for temptations that can lead to us committing sins. The concept of being "saved" while being mortal is one of the most severe cases of perverted Christian moral, which leads many souls to Hell. And while people live by this, they don't care much for God's commandments, happily thinking that they are already saved. This leads to searching for one's pleasure regardless of the action's ethical component, thus, they sin.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,255 posts
Regent

Therefore homosexual couples won't count as "married".

So for you, the only reason-to-be of a marriage is to reproduce? Isn't that sad?
Anyway homosexual couples can't naturally reproduce without external help. I say that with external help soon even those couples will be able to have their own children. And don't forget adoption.
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

As RationalWiki says:

Another argument espoused by homophobes is that the purpose of marriage is not to codify a commitment between lovers, but to provide a stable platform for raising children. This ignores the facts that same-sex couples adopt frequently, and are no worse parents than heterosexuals, and that opposite-sex couples often form long-term relationships without bothering to breed.

However, opponents frequently deny these facts; a good argument against such a train of thought is that under the strict logic of child-bearing-only infertile people and post-menopause women should be ineligible for marriage.


So, if people can't have children then they shouldn't be married, no matter their sexual orientation?
Showing 601-615 of 4668